Forty years ago today, three American men—Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins—were floating in a tiny spacecraft above the surface of the Moon getting ready for two of them to make history: tomorrow will be the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.
If Neil, Buzz, and Mike could have looked ahead 40 years from that point, where would they have thought we'd be right now? The reality is that we haven't been back to the moon in decades, and our space program has languished by trying to do too much (space shuttles, space stations, earth science, planetary science, astronomy, robotic exploration, etc.) with too little funding. And here we are, finally talking about going back to the moon. But we're going to be doing so with basically the same level of technology that those three brave explorers had at their disposal.
That's not to say that we haven't learned anything in that time. We know far, far more about the effects of weightlessness on the body, about how the radiation of space will affect the next wave of explorers we send beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and the avionics that control the spacecraft will be vastly more advanced than the mostly analog and mechanical components that powered Apollo 11 and the Eagle landing craft to the Moon.
But we have numerous challenges to overcome before routine flights to space stations and beyond are within the grasp of mere mortals like you and me: the cost of just getting to LEO are unimaginably high (they say that once you've gotten to LEO, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System); we still don't have a good way to protect the intrepid explorers aboard the space craft in the event of a solar radiation storm; we still don't have the ability to survive once we get where we're going without sending replacement supplied from Earth at great expense.
Decades before the U.S. space program was even conceived, science fiction writers painted a picture of a future with flying cars, asteroid mining, people travelling the stars in highly advanced spacecraft, extrasolar colonies, and more. And for the most part, they thought we'd be there by now. What went wrong?
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
Things are changing. That's no surprise; our universe is not a static place. Just in the course of my life, we've seen the creation of the commercial Internet, Space Shuttles, Mars rovers, the sequencing of the human genome, personal genomes on-demand, a vaccine that can prevent some forms of cancer, and much, much more. The future holds even greater promise.
Not only that, but people are living longer (that's one more thing science has done). I will likely live longer than my parents (though not by much). My son, though, his generation will likely live to be 120-150 years old, and they'll live most of their lives healthy, if groups like the Methuselah Foundation have anything to say about it.
So what changes might I see in my lifetime? What changes will you see in yours? What changes will my son see in his?
That's the question that the Edge's World Question Center wants to know: What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?
They asked that question of a sizeable number of eminent thinkers in a variety of fields and, naturally, they got a variety of answers. Interestingly, in addition to such luminaries as Gregory Benford, Robert Shapiro, Laurence Krauss, and Aubrey de Grey, they also have input from the likes of Alan Alda and Brian Eno.
Some of the posts are really insightful; some less so. But it got me wondering. What if more than one of their suggestions are correct? It's one thing to talk about advanced artificial general intelligences, or molecular-scale manufacturing, or synthetic biology. But what if we're talking about all of those things, at roughly the same time? It seems unlikely (barring the AI causing a Singularity and creating the other advances). But what kind of world might we live in if advanced AIs could create anything they wanted, including living organisms, at the molecular level?
There's a lot of promise, but also a lot of risk and questions. Read the answers on the Edge's site, but while you're doing so, keep in mind the risks of some of these predictions coming true. And, if it scares you a little bit, take a trip over to the Lifeboat Foundation website.
Not only that, but people are living longer (that's one more thing science has done). I will likely live longer than my parents (though not by much). My son, though, his generation will likely live to be 120-150 years old, and they'll live most of their lives healthy, if groups like the Methuselah Foundation have anything to say about it.
So what changes might I see in my lifetime? What changes will you see in yours? What changes will my son see in his?
That's the question that the Edge's World Question Center wants to know: What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?
They asked that question of a sizeable number of eminent thinkers in a variety of fields and, naturally, they got a variety of answers. Interestingly, in addition to such luminaries as Gregory Benford, Robert Shapiro, Laurence Krauss, and Aubrey de Grey, they also have input from the likes of Alan Alda and Brian Eno.
Some of the posts are really insightful; some less so. But it got me wondering. What if more than one of their suggestions are correct? It's one thing to talk about advanced artificial general intelligences, or molecular-scale manufacturing, or synthetic biology. But what if we're talking about all of those things, at roughly the same time? It seems unlikely (barring the AI causing a Singularity and creating the other advances). But what kind of world might we live in if advanced AIs could create anything they wanted, including living organisms, at the molecular level?
There's a lot of promise, but also a lot of risk and questions. Read the answers on the Edge's site, but while you're doing so, keep in mind the risks of some of these predictions coming true. And, if it scares you a little bit, take a trip over to the Lifeboat Foundation website.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
U.S. Falling Behind STEM Education Goals
CNN is reporting that the U.S. is lagging behind goals set three years ago by a consortium of business groups to increase college graduations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by 2015. Apparently, the number of bachelor's destrees awarded in the U.S. each year in those fields has stalled at about 225,000, well short of the groups' goal of 400,000.
However, it's only been three years. The people graduating this year were already in college when these goals were set. So unless part of their strategy has been to get people to switch majors, we'd be unlikely to see much in the way of results by now. As Susan Traiman, director of education and workforce policy for the Business Roundtable, points out in the article, "It still takes a minimum of 17 years to produce an engineer if you consider K-12 plus four years of colleges."
Which begs the question of how these business groups thought that they'd be able to double the number of graduates in only 10 years. Now, I agree that we need to increase graduates in these fields in order to remain competitive on the world stage—and let's not forget that many of the 225,000 graduates we're producing now in these fields are actually foreign students—but I don't think we can expect a network of business groups to say that it needs to happen and have it magically happen overnight. It's going to take time and hard work, and both of those are going on right now.
The future is coming, and the U.S., I suspect, will continue to lead the way in these fields for quite a while yet.
However, it's only been three years. The people graduating this year were already in college when these goals were set. So unless part of their strategy has been to get people to switch majors, we'd be unlikely to see much in the way of results by now. As Susan Traiman, director of education and workforce policy for the Business Roundtable, points out in the article, "It still takes a minimum of 17 years to produce an engineer if you consider K-12 plus four years of colleges."
Which begs the question of how these business groups thought that they'd be able to double the number of graduates in only 10 years. Now, I agree that we need to increase graduates in these fields in order to remain competitive on the world stage—and let's not forget that many of the 225,000 graduates we're producing now in these fields are actually foreign students—but I don't think we can expect a network of business groups to say that it needs to happen and have it magically happen overnight. It's going to take time and hard work, and both of those are going on right now.
The future is coming, and the U.S., I suspect, will continue to lead the way in these fields for quite a while yet.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Top 10 Futuristic Materials
Michael Anissimov of the Lifeboat Foundation has posted a special report on the top 10 Futuristic Materials. For the most part, there aren't very many surprises. I was hoping to see information about a bunch of stuff I'm not familiar with, but he covers aerogels, carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, metamaterials, and more.
The only things on Michael's list that I had read only a little about were amorphous metals and metal foams. Those are interesting materilas that definitely warrant further study. Also, since for the most part the items highlighted are actually available now, I'm not sure how "futuristic" they really are, but I get his point that we'll be seeing more of these in the future.
He also highlighted e-textiles, but I'm not sure those should be classified as materials so much as devices woven into clothing. The idea of wearable computers and electronics has been around for a while, but our technology is only now reaching the point where the electronics and power sources are small enough to actually embed in clothing.
Still, reading the report could give you some ideas of how the future is shaping up, and of what materials it will be built.
The only things on Michael's list that I had read only a little about were amorphous metals and metal foams. Those are interesting materilas that definitely warrant further study. Also, since for the most part the items highlighted are actually available now, I'm not sure how "futuristic" they really are, but I get his point that we'll be seeing more of these in the future.
He also highlighted e-textiles, but I'm not sure those should be classified as materials so much as devices woven into clothing. The idea of wearable computers and electronics has been around for a while, but our technology is only now reaching the point where the electronics and power sources are small enough to actually embed in clothing.
Still, reading the report could give you some ideas of how the future is shaping up, and of what materials it will be built.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
MIT Offers Hope
Nuclear fusion power. Rapid spread of robots. Technology for longer, healthier lives. Better energy storage systems. Harnessing plant-based photosynthesis for solar energy. Cars that drive themselves. Computers embedded in your clothing.
No, this isn't a list of topics from science-fiction novels. It's a subset of a list that researchers at MIT think will help usher in a new era of prosperity.
The MIT News Office asked a collection of MIT faculty and researchers for their thoughts on the potentially life-altering technologies that are on the near horizon. C|Net has more, including photos.
Given that this information comes from MIT, I'm a little surprised there weren't more suggestions about nanotechnology or artificial intelligence.
No, this isn't a list of topics from science-fiction novels. It's a subset of a list that researchers at MIT think will help usher in a new era of prosperity.
The MIT News Office asked a collection of MIT faculty and researchers for their thoughts on the potentially life-altering technologies that are on the near horizon. C|Net has more, including photos.
Given that this information comes from MIT, I'm a little surprised there weren't more suggestions about nanotechnology or artificial intelligence.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
The Next Fifty Years
New Scientist Magazine, to celebrate their 50th anniversary in publication, has surveyed fifty of the most brilliant and influential scientists alive, asking them to forecast what their field of interest will be like in the year 2056.
The predictions include some that are revolutionary in scale and scope, and some that are merely evolutionary. Some I agree with, and some I don't, but you should read it and make your own determinations.
They interviewed scientists in a wide variety of areas, including mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, medicine, paleontology, psychology, and others, so the opinions are pretty diverse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
