Category Archives: Technology

What Would Reliable Fusion Power Do?

Posted on by
Reply

The joke goes that reliable fusion power is about 50 years away, and has been for about 60 years.  This may be the case, but it is also a simplistic dismissal of a scientific process that has been going on for decades.  There has been a lot of progress on fusion power, and we are now approaching some new developments that could bootstrap us into a fusion energy future.

Extremetech has a good piece on current and pending developments in fusion power, and what might happen next.

Hopefully, though, a new discovery made by Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL) — the home of Project Matterhorn in the ’50s and ’60s — could result in magnetic confinement fusion that breaks even, or even produces electricity.

Hear that?  A process that produces more energy than it consumes.  This is big, because it could be self-perpetuating.  The fuel is essentially free, being the most common element in the universe (Hydrogen).

What would this mean for our current energy hungry society?  Good question.  I suspect it would take a lot of building to get up to meeting existing demand, and demand is sure to continue rising.  Nevertheless, this could be really big.  In about 30 years.

Meanwhile, at ITER, a vast fusion chamber that’s three stories high is due to begin fusing deuterium-tritium fuel in 2026. ITER is hoping to produce 500 megawatts over 1,000 seconds from just 50 megawatts of input power and 0.5 grams of hydrogen fuel. If it’s a success, an actual fusion power plant, called DEMO, will be built.

This could be one of those things that changes everything.  Pure unallowed grist for the SF mills.  First of all, fusion power as currently envisioned would be the domain of large utilities – highly centralized and structured.  We couldn’t have little fusion plants all over the place, too expensive and too dangerous.

Cheap energy has been the fuel of most of the rapid development of the 20th century.  It is hard to imagine a future that includes transportation, lights and the internet without cheap energy.  The big challenge will be to figure out ways to distribute it and store it.  Of course, battery technology is also improving at dramatic rates.

Politically, I don’t see cheap fusion power eliminating a demand for oil.  Global hotspots would remain so, but it is unlikely there would be any conflict over hydrogen.  Attention might shift away from places like the Middle East, though humans love to fight irrationally so that is by no means certain.

Space exploration could be impacted.  Currently the biggest cost of spaceflight is the energy required to escape Earth’s gravity.  There may be ways to reduce that cost (though I personally hope someone will build a space elevator), and there will certainly be impact on space activities outside the gravity well, if fusion power becomes available off-planet.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

SpaceX Falcon Launch & the Implications of Private Space Exploration

Posted on by
Reply

 

So SpaceX is going ahead with launching their Falcon Rocket on a mission to the ISS tomorrow.  Good on them, and I wish them the best of luck.  Not because I wish ill on NASA or any of the other government agencies who currently or formerly launch vehicles into space, but because I think the next stage of space exploration is necessarily going to be private.

Governments should be subject to the needs and perspectives of their citizens. Governments also have a huge array of responsibilities. In most cases, it is hard to make a convincing argument that it is prudent to colonize Mars while children starve or any significant portion of a population experiences poverty.  On the other hand, private interests operate on different rules and with different incentives.

When the ‘Space Race’ was between two competing superpowers, an incentive existed for both governments to prioritize space exploration – if only to prevent the other side having a monopoly.  Since the end of the Cold War there hasn’t been any such competitive incentive, and space exploration has predictably fallen down the list.  I doubt any sane individual would prefer a return to Mutual Assured Destruction and the looming fear of mid-20th century, but the loss of space is a cloud in that silver lining.

In the last 20 years we have seen the rise of distributed computing and an exponential growth in technology, with a rate of change that makes five years ago seem like a technological Dark Age (as Charles Stross has pointed out, five years ago Androids and iPhones did not exist, yet now they are ubiquitous).  The practical matter of moving stuff into space has become merely very difficult and expensive, rather than monstrously so.

In this context we see the rise of private space exploration as a necessary next step.  Governments are cash strapped and risk-averse, particularly with long-term concepts such as space exploration.  Space exploration will be the realm of private individuals and groups (which include corporations, but could as easily be co-operatives, families, or other affiliate structures).  Private interests can define their goals and risk tolerance much differently, and are less obliged to solve the problems of the world at the same time.  Few people criticize Apple for focusing on its customers while children go hungry in Florida, but many would (and should) criticize a government for doing the same.

I propose that the next major phase of space exploration will be driven by private interests, mostly with a profit motive.  Asteroid mining is a start, as well as simple ferrying of goods like the planned launch tomorrow.  Other possible private goals could be lunar mining, lunar construction as a low-gravity launch site for Asteroid Mining interests, and solar power harvesting.  Spinoff private projects will likely include tourism, especially if someone finally manages to build a working Space Elevator.

At some point in the future, likely when space-based industry becomes large enough to be interesting or threatening to governments, states will again take the forefront of space exploration (assuming that the nation-state is still a viable concept).  A tourist flight to Low-Earth-Orbit is one thing, but a rapidly expanding asteroid mining industry that is impacting commodity prices will be another thing entirely.  One state benefiting significantly from such exploration will likely be an incentive for the rest to get involved.  I have no idea what profits might be gained in the Asteroid Belt, but you can bet nobody will want to be left out.

Privately driven space exploration won’t be without its flaws, of course.  Just as on Earth, private interests do not always coincide with the best interests of all.  A sudden market glut of a particular resource could displace thousands of jobs, as an example.  High risk-tolerance could also mean high losses or damage done.  In fact, losses and damage are almost a certainty no matter who does it.  Private interests without government oversight are not known for treating people particularly well.  Many things can and will go wrong, and it will be a long time before space travel becomes as commonplace as your regular commute.

All of that is (informed) conjecture, but tomorrow is a launch that will mark the beginning of the private space venture.  I am excited.

Image from Wikipedia.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

Drones versus Humans: The End of Navies

Posted on by
Reply

Image from Future Atlas.

Over at Future Atlas, a very real question is raised about the viability of hugely expensive nuclear submarines in a future environment that includes autonomous underwater drones like the one above.

I would go one step further and ask about the viability of any military vehicle larger than a drone or occupied by a human.  My country seems hellbent on purchasing a bunch of the F-35 ’5th generation’ fighters at great expense, but I can’t help but wonder how many drones could be bought for the same price. Future Atlas makes the point:

After all, with Moore’s Law in the drones’ corner, a submarine becomes a larger and larger piece of information to hide.

How many $5000 lightweight drones would it take to find and destroy a multi-billion dollar submarine?  How about an aircraft carrier?

In the air, how many autonomous drones, with maneuverability far beyond anything holding a fragile human, would it take to make a particular volume of airspace non-survivable for a fighter plane or a bomber?  What is the relative cost of each?

In WWII, the Americans actually had weaker tanks than the Germans.  Ditto the airplanes, at least most of the time.  We just had so very many more than they did.  Even then, the soldiers operating the tanks and airplanes had an interest in surviving an engagement.  Drones would have no such concern, and combat would be a simple cost-benefit analysis.  And a drone is much, much cheaper than anything carrying a human (not to mention the obvious interest of the human in question).

Militaries are known for their tendency to prepare to win the last war instead of the next one.  They are also prone to become over-committed to their existing strategies and hardware.  I suspect the dominant military of the future will have most of its humans safely hidden away while the robots and drones do most of the damage.  But that won’t stop current military efforts to continue operating on the same assumptions.

Navies as we currently think of them are essentially doomed, or at least going to change a lot as technology surpasses their ability to control the air and water around them.  I suspect air forces are similarly doomed in their current form.  That said, most current conflict is not between technology rich forces, but between a dominant military and a resistance of some kind.  Drones are already playing a large role in these conflicts, and I suspect that will expand exponentially.

Of course, Stanislaw Lem predicted this decades ago in his book One Human Minute, (The second story, The Upside Down Evolution) but that was his way.

 

Post to Twitter

Twitt

It Won’t be Like in Star Trek

Posted on by
Reply

George Divorsky has an article over at IO9 talking about how the Star Trek vision of the future has been overtaken by events and become another quaint SF anachronism.

Instead, the future will be far different — and much weirder — than Roddenberry and other ST writers could have ever imagined. The challenge now is to admit that humanity is headed into a very different kind of future. It’s time to set aside Star Trek‘s outdated vision of the future and focus on real possibilities.


He lists a number of salient points, not the least of which are that any space-faring humans will be dramatically different from us, if they are physical at all.  Spaceships as a concept are unlikely, and any interstellar travel is likely to be in digital form with capacity to build from scratch on arrival.

The article is well worth a read, and (as with many good SF discussions) the comments are as interesting as the original piece.  In recent years I have come to agree with the author’s conclusions, particularly as they relate to interstellar travel.  We won’t be going anywhere in colony ships with multi-generational crew.  Instead, we are likely to be sending digital replicas of ourselves.  Spaceships will look like small rocks with a light sail.

The harsh reality of distance and time barriers to long distance space travel is lessened somewhat by the idea, present in some excellent SF, that we might send multiple copies of ourselves to different places.  I might not see the whole universe, or even a tiny pathetic fraction of it, but perhaps my digital copies might see millions of stars.  I can live with that.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

Self Driving Cars, SF and Reality Overlap Again

Posted on by
Reply

BBC reports that Science Fiction is overlapping with reality again, this time in the form of self-driving cars.  Nevada has just issued a license to the first self-driven vehicle, a Google car.

The practical, safety oriented part of me thinks that computers will make much better drivers than most humans.  Computers will never be distracted by a phone call, changing radio stations, tired, drunk, impatient or any of the other failings we flesh-based machines possess.  I have no doubt that there will be software glitches somewhere along the way, but the risks posed by those glitches will be minor compared to the current level of hazard that exists on most roadways.  California is also moving towards allowing self-driven cars.

“The vast majority of vehicle accidents are due to human error,” said California state Senator Alex Padilla, when he introduced the legislation.

“Through the use of computers, sensors and other systems, an autonomous vehicle is capable of analysing the driving environment more quickly and operating the vehicle more safely.”

In a near future scenario, what does this mean?

  1. The transport trucking industry is likely going to change dramatically.  Sufficiently sophisticated software will be able to replace most, and eventually all, freight drivers.  Exceptions will likely be in remote and/or extreme locations (such as ice roads in the North).
  2. Vehicle fatalities will likely go down dramatically.  Human error is the single largest cause of almost all fatal accidents.  Accidents will still happen, but not as often.  On the other hand, when things do happen they will likely be more dramatic and get more attention in the media.  Currently, accidents happen all the time and rarely make the news.  A fatal accident that includes a digital driver will be a cause for a media frenzy, which will likely create a perception of hazard that is opposite of the truth (like the fallacies about seat belts that persist in the face of evidence).
  3. Anyone who has read Robopocalypse will look on their cars with suspicion.  Anyone who has read SF in general will have their doubts.  All software is vulnerable to hacking, and that becomes a more significant issue when the software is moving massive pieces of metal and steel around in public places.
  4. Fuel efficiency will likely go up dramatically as self-driving cars become commonplace.  With reduced risk, much of the current (perceived need) for heavy components and frames will become unnecessary.  Light, fast and efficient vehicles will become the norm.  Additionally, one assumes that robots will operate at maximum efficiency, unlike we humans who irrationally squander our fuel in lunatic accelerations and decelerations (i.e. in a single block between two stop signs).
  5. There will likely be a transitional period where we all insist on having the ability to take control of the vehicle at any moment.  Before long we might not even have seats facing forward.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

Robot Surgeons

Posted on by
Reply

IO9 has an article about robot assisted surgery showing better outcomes that straightforward human-only surgery (specifically on the prostate).  While our natural inclination might be to prefer a human surgeon, I think that surgery (like car driving) is something that will likely be done better by a machine with an unlimited attention span.

Read the IO9 article here.  Read the original research here.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

Surveillance System Scans 36 Million Faces/Second

Posted on by
Reply

I can think of lots of reasons not to like this technology. I can also think of plenty of reasons it will come to pass.

So from an SF point of view, what does the almost inevitable creation of ubiquitous, alert surveillance mean for society?  Currently we see the practice of dissent happening in a ‘hiding in plain sight’ use of social media (Facebook, Twitter etc.)  Part of the ability to organize this way lies in the sheer volume of media, which limits a potential oppressor’s ability to parse the data stream.  That is largely a function of processing power and software, both of which are getting better all the time.

So what will it mean when vast data engines parse everything we do, write or say for more than just advertising?  So far much of the ubiquitous surveillance happens online, and what we do ‘in reality’ is still somewhat private.  Technology like the above suggests that will change, and soon.

via ITworld and Geekosystem.

Post to Twitter

Twitt

Multimodal Hexapod Robot

Posted on by
Reply

This hexapod robot is somewhat alarming while also being very cool and exciting.  There are so many interesting developments in robotics these days that I suspect our lives are on the brink of being changed (even more) dramatically.  Hopefully in a good way.

via Geekologie

Post to Twitter

Twitt