Technological Stagnation

[publiusr]

I've gone over why flying cars are not the height of technological civilization
RAMA

This is an example of how--in some ways--science fiction has spoiled us.

Wingless flying cars in an atmosphere, and winged RLV spaceplanes orbiting in a vacuum.

But we find airplanes and capsules, and rockets boring.

But that is taking advantage of the local environment. Winged RLVs and flying craft with no wings bespeak freer energy and less restraint.

Worse, making spaceflight look eay makes people want to sepnd less on incremental improvements to curret architecture in terms of size. Increased capability gets a little tougher.

Star Wars is the biggest offender, as is the shuttlecraft in that the craft are all payload. It would take large rockets to put either into space, and then they would just be satellites stuck in orbital path circles. No atmosphere to bank against. Solar sailing will be as dynamic as it gets, short of NTRs, NSWRs and nuclear pulse detonation craft.

Once again--this will be more public works than a couple of folks bodging things together in a garage, a la Explorers.

For an example of how even modest advancements in aerospace are abandoned by venture capitalists--proving they really don't love risk--I give you the book FREE FLIGHT about the Air Taxi/Very Light Jet debacle.

 

[Irishman]

Let's be blunt here, technologically speaking we've stagnated.
We were supposed to have flying cars and hover boards in 2015 and looking at the movie they'd had them for a while before that. So where are they? we don't have anything remotely like anti-gravity.

Where are our moon colonies? Mars colonies?

Are we ever going to get anti-gravity? is it possible such technology does not and never will exist? What does that mean to our development as a species?
If all we will ever have to get off this planet is rockets then we're basically stuck here and that doesn't bode well with an ever increasing population and a planet with limited resources.

We should be mining Mars by now but we're not.

Why are we so far behind? we have all these fast paced industrialised economies, trillions of pounds world combined economy. Why is it so hard for every nation on Earth to throw some money into a planetary project to get off this rock?

Where are the floating sea cities?

All I ever see are people putting forward conceptual ideas and that's both where it begins and where it ends.

We're going nowhere at all. We'll still be in the same place a hundred years from now, probably even two hundred years from now.
We might aswell get used to the idea that as a species we're stagnant and a failure.

Well, I think what we're seeing is that the majority of those "predictions" about future tech from futurists back in the day were little more than shots in the dark.

We've certainly gotten better at offering contextual predictions of coming technological innovations. See here http://futuretimeline.net/index.htm .

One thing that makes it far more difficult to predict the future is the concept of the technological singularity. The site above is based on Kurzweil's ideas on artificial intelligence, and how quickly tech will develop possibly within the next 20-305 years.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Possibly true. Don't underestimate computers, though. They're getting pretty good at stuff like that.

i'd imagine accidents with driverless cars will happen when the car fails to anticipate how irrational us humans can be sometimes - especially while driving.

But if the other cars are controlled by computers as well, there will be no more irrational driving.

 

[JarodRussell]

Possibly true. Don't underestimate computers, though. They're getting pretty good at stuff like that.

i'd imagine accidents with driverless cars will happen when the car fails to anticipate how irrational us humans can be sometimes - especially while driving.

But if the other cars are controlled by computers as well, there will be no more irrational driving.

You have irrational pedestrians, animals and bikers.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Or perhaps you would like to compare the progress in transportation technology until the '70s to progress since the '70s.

Transportation technology DID stagnate since the '70s.

The 1970s is an odd cut off since we now have fuel injection instead of carburetors, computer-controlled systems to increase efficiency (incorporating by reference the massive advances in computer technology since the 1970s), etc. Automobile technology today is about as different from 1970 as 1970 was to 1930.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Or perhaps you would like to compare the progress in transportation technology until the '70s to progress since the '70s.

Transportation technology DID stagnate since the '70s.

The 1970s is an odd cut off since we now have fuel injection instead of carburetors, computer-controlled systems to increase efficiency (incorporating by reference the massive advances in computer technology since the 1970s), etc. Automobile technology today is about as different from 1970 as 1970 was to 1930.

"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

 

[DarthTom]

"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

Do you consider the move from prop planes to jet aircraft to be evolution or revolution in terms of a technological advancement.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Or perhaps you would like to compare the progress in transportation technology until the '70s to progress since the '70s.

Transportation technology DID stagnate since the '70s.

The 1970s is an odd cut off since we now have fuel injection instead of carburetors, computer-controlled systems to increase efficiency (incorporating by reference the massive advances in computer technology since the 1970s), etc. Automobile technology today is about as different from 1970 as 1970 was to 1930.

"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

Still not sure what you are expecting to have changed in that time. The basic workings of cars, boats, planes, and trains are perfectly adequate to their duties. You don't change everything about them for no good reason. What are you expecting to have changed?

 

[Edit_XYZ]

"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

Do you consider the move from prop planes to jet aircraft to be evolution or revolution in terms of a technological advancement.

You do know we had the Boeing 747 in 1970, yes?
Well - if not, you know now.

The 1970s is an odd cut off since we now have fuel injection instead of carburetors, computer-controlled systems to increase efficiency (incorporating by reference the massive advances in computer technology since the 1970s), etc. Automobile technology today is about as different from 1970 as 1970 was to 1930.

"Different". An interesting choice of words. Meant to obscure the fact that the incremental/limited changes you mentioned did not bring any substantial advancement:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

Still not sure what you are expecting to have changed in that time. The basic workings of cars, boats, planes, and trains are perfectly adequate to their duties. You don't change everything about them for no good reason. What are you expecting to have changed?

Haven't I even given you examples of potential non-incremental advancements?
Here it is:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

 

[DarthTom]

And yes, DO compare what cars/planes we had in the '30 and what cars/planes/rockets we had in the '70.
Compare what they could do.
And then do tell what can we do today that was beyond the 1970s transportation tech.

I was more talking about the Germans advancements during WWII in terms of jet technology and after the war importing their scientists to the then Soviet Union and US and quick and dramatic gains in aircraft speeds.

But generally speaking - yes advancements in transportation have been more incremental. I could argue that steam train technology in the 1900's however did represent dramatic advancements in travel and technology and transformed Europe iand the United States as much if not more than private car owernship.

How about medicine instead? Flemming's discovery of antibiotics, and Salk's cure for Polio where huge advancements in medicine, dramaticallyl extending people's lifespan.

In terms of technology - while the technology isn't necessarily revolutionary what Jobs did with the introduction of the the iphone/ipad has been in terms of consumer electronics and the way we consume iinformation.

Additionally, advacements in flat screen television technology has all but rid of of a tv picture tube in a relatively short period of time.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Yes, DarthTom, all scientific and technological areas have advanced greatly since ~200 years ago.

Transortation advanced rapidly in the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Since about 1970, its advancement curve plateaued.

Nowadays, microelectronics*, material science and biology advance relatively rapidly.

*Not due to the cosmetic approach used by Jobs, though. This was a marketing move - a very successful one. Technologically, it consisted of market-ready touch-screens and little else.

 

[DarthTom]

Transortation advanced rapidly in the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Since about 1970, its advancement curve plateaued.

The speed of sound and how it effects on how fast we can travel in our atmosphere is a physics limitation. Short of solving anti-gravity technology we aren't moving forward any faster - anytime soon - at least on planet Earth.

Additionally while the Concorde travelled faster society imposed limitations on where the plane could travel because of the noise and the sonic boom. So in terms of supersonic plane travel we are stagnating ourselves because of the noise. I think that's an understandable tradeoff. Also, fuel efficiency drops dramatically making supersonic travel not cost effective for the airlines en mass.

And as I understand it - antigravity technology is decades away if ever.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Transortation advanced rapidly in the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Since about 1970, its advancement curve plateaued.

The speed of sound and how it effects on how fast we can travel in our atmosphere is a physics limitation. Short of solving anti-gravity technology we aren't moving forward any faster - anytime soon - at least on planet Earth.

And as I understand it - antigravity technology is decades away if ever.

Your reasoning is vulnerable from several angles:
The speed of sound is less a limitation that you might think; indeed, it was long ago surpassed. The shock-wave actually gets smaller for the plane once it surpasses the speed of sound.
Decreasing the cost of transportation would constitute substantial advancement, despite no increase in speed.
Easy access to LEO does not need atmospheric speeds greater than currently available.
etc.

Ultimately, the reason advancement failed to materialise in transportation tech - zeitgeist, economic conditions, the difficulty of the problems to be solved - is irrelevant to my point, which stands regardless of it:
Transportation tech stagnated since ~1970.

 

[DarthTom]

Ultimately, the reason advancement failed to materialise in transportation tech - zeitgeist, economic conditions, the difficulty of the problems to be solved - is irrelevant to my point, which stands regardless of it:
Transportation tech stagnated since ~1970.

The Boeing, 777 Dreamliner is between 13% to 23% more fuel efficient than any Airbus in production, is made of 100% composite materials and travels nearly at supersonic speeds but is limited by socities desires to not have a sonic boom over population centers and the airline companies to maximize efficiency because jetfuel is their biggest cost exceeding even employee expenses.

Boeing 777

It as a passenger jetliner that was a substantial evolution in aircraft design and efficiency.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

13% to 23% more fuel efficient - due to new materials. That advancement, in 40 years (the cars did slightly better).

That is, for you, advancement on par with what came before 1970?
DarthTom, by comparison, these incremental improvements are snail-paced.

 

[DarthTom]

^^^ to move out of transportation and back into computing another example is 3-D printer technology that is currently dramatically enhancing the design and manufacture of new and existing products.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

But if the other cars are controlled by computers as well, there will be no more irrational driving.

You have irrational pedestrians, animals and bikers.[/QUOTE]

Good. Clean the dummies from earth, you're not listing a downside.

 

[R. Star]

So what happens when a 14 year old kid or a terrorist hack into the traffic control computer and play bumper cars? Seems a bit vulnerable to me.

 

[sojourner]

What traffic control computer? autodrive cars do not need a centralized control system. Each car will manage itself.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Haven't I even given you examples of potential non-incremental advancements?
Here it is:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=8633287&postcount=91

Those were so vague as to not really mean anything, but what the hell:

What about the cost of travelling 1 km by car/plane going down? In real dollars, it has gone down. However, those costs are at the mercy of fuel prices. Cars and planes have become more energy-efficient, though.

Cheap, easy access to LEO? What purpose does that serve for everyday life? The vast majority of the population has no reason to go to space.

Why not easy access to the solar system? See above.

You're basically asking why we don't have things no one is clamoring for. The answer to that is self-evident.