RE: Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
The truth seems to be between these two arguments. I think that's valid. Rockets were a technology who's time had come. I think the fact that delivering 1000 bombs could destroy a nation had something to do with how quickly they were developed at first, but in a world that had a jet starting to be tested by Germany in WWII, and the X-15, the technology was there for rockets, especially if they could be designed and built on a cost plus basis. But, they are based on fast, but not too fast, power output from available chemical energy. Everything indicates that building rockets up to the Saturn V was simply applying known physics and chemistry. But, I haven't heard of a propellant with, say, 10x the energy density of the propellants used in the '60s. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but since that time, we've been able to increase the density of semiconductor chips by more than a factor of a million in less than 40 years. In a real sense, the economy has been dependant on this, and knock offs of this during that time. That might seem strange, since Microsoft isn't in the top 10 companies and PC manufacturers come and go. But, a lot of it has to do with how the rest of us can do our jobs. Wall-Mart's big gamble in the late 80s and early 90s was to spend its money, not on stores, but on computer based inventory management. My buddies who created geosteering could not have done it if the cost of computing was as high as it was only 10 years earlier. 4-D seismic wouldn't have existedand these are just a few things off the top of my head. The real driver for new technology is the physics/chemistry/biology which form the landscape that inventors explore. It's true that an ill prepared explorer will probably find nothing. But, I think rockets worked because the technology and science of the 30s and 40s were enough to form a basis. We haven't progressed much since the '60s because the basic question of propulsion doesn't have a clear way to increase bang for the buck. Without that, we have to work hard for modest improvements. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
Although I normally like Stirling Newberry this deconstruction is not one of his better blog posts. The truth seems to be between these two arguments. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Wayne Eddy darkenf...@gmail.com wrote: The deconstruction seems more reasonable than the article to me. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:44 AM, KZK evil.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Ronn! Blankenship Space stasis: What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation. - By Neal Stephenson - Slate Magazine - http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/ I just read an article that completely deconstructed that article: http://www.correntewire.com/shape_social_progress_i Which basically says the Stephenson article is Fractally Wrong: Wrong at at every level of resolution. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com -- Gary Denton Increase your vocabulary game - feed the poor: http://www.freerice.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
Ronn! Blankenship Space stasis: What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation. - By Neal Stephenson - Slate Magazine - http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/ I just read an article that completely deconstructed that article: http://www.correntewire.com/shape_social_progress_i Which basically says the Stephenson article is Fractally Wrong: Wrong at at every level of resolution. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
The deconstruction seems more reasonable than the article to me. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:44 AM, KZK evil.ke...@gmail.com wrote: Ronn! Blankenship Space stasis: What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation. - By Neal Stephenson - Slate Magazine - http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/ I just read an article that completely deconstructed that article: http://www.correntewire.com/shape_social_progress_i Which basically says the Stephenson article is Fractally Wrong: Wrong at at every level of resolution. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
Space stasis: What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation. - By Neal Stephenson - Slate Magazine - http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/ ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
