I find the political discussion about science to be rather ridiculous (as a science fiction writer, I would hope I would not need to explain my position on science). I hear arguments that science isn't exact, they keep changing their minds.... WTF. You think religion doesn't do this? Then explain to me how we have more than 10 major denomination of Christianity, at least 3 of Judaism, 3 of Islam, and at least 2 of Buddhism. And those are just the major division and don't even count the differences of opinion within each of those.
Yeah, science isn't exact. Why? Quite simple, it is the attempt by the collective of humanity to describe the world around them and an attempt to understand it and be able to predict future events. In some areas, it is so well understood that we can rely on it. The science behind space flight is accurate enough for us to send probes to the other planets (or dwarf planets in the case of Pluto) and have them reach their target. With the vast distances involved, that is nothing short of miraculous unless we truly do have it right.
What is hilarious is that so many who seem to oppose science rely so much on the products of science. Before they were common, every day items, cars, phones, computers, and a host of other items had to be developed. A great many of our modern conveniences came from the US Space program and were created by scientists using their understanding of the way things work.
This argument really comes down to ignorance vs. education. What many don't understand is that the education I speak of is not dependent on how many years you have spent in school. It is totally dependent on how willing you are to learn new things, to strive to understand, to explore, to delve into the mysteries of the world with an open mind. You can be in this world with five doctorates and be ignorant. You can have dropped out of school, barely be able to read, and be highly educated. It's not how much you have done, but how well you have done it. Education never stops and is not confined to one area. Even if we dedicate our lives to specializing in one very narrow field, we must be willing to expand our horizons when challenged.
Another aspect is questioning vs. accepting. Education involves questioning everything. Accepting involves questioning nothing. There is a time for each, such as you should never question why someone loves you. But you should question everything you are told. As children we asked why incessantly and we should never let that go. Asking why is at the heart of science and education. When we cease to ask why, we cease to learn and ignorance sets in. The world is an every changing place and science is ever changing to go with it. Just when we understand one thing the universe does, it raises questions about others. By continuing to question and find the answers, we continue to understand more and more.
So the next time someone tells you something, ask why. Better yet, check into it from other sources and other political viewpoints. No piece of information in a vacuum is a fact. Facts have provenance and sources and data to back them up. Everything else is rumor and supposition and believing them without checking is the number one source of ignorance in the world.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
A Shining Example Of What Not To Do
For years I have heard the story of what happened to Harlan Ellison when he worked on Star Trek back in the 60's. He is the writer credited with what very well may be the best episode of the original Star Trek. Definitely the most critically acclaimed one. The final episode won a Hugo Award and Ellison's first draft script won Best Original Teleplay from the Writers Guild of America. And to this day, Ellison rails against what he claimed was done to his script.
Let's start with Ellison's claim (and I use that word because I will show later how he has been in error) about what was done to his script. He claims that the first draft was prefect and didn't need to be changed. A look at the summary of his treatments and drafts of the script show that there were indeed a lot of changes. So that part is true. It also isn't very unusual in television. So Ellison's basic claim cannot be argued against. He also claims that several in the production staff, particularly Gene Roddenberry, treated him badly. Ellison's claims are backed up by others making similar claims. Roddenberry was not easy to work with. Okay, so his basic claims are correct - his script was changed and there is little doubt he wasn't treated very well.
Yet his claim, probably bolstered by his WGA award for best screenplay, that there was no need to change his script is where his argument starts to break down. It further breaks down with how he has behaved on the entire subject. Forty-plus years of ranting is quite enough, Probably too much.
What brought this really to light was the release of Robert Justman's notes on the revised second draft. These were internal comments on just how the script fit with Star Trek, their budget, and the characters. You can view the first five pages here. When you stop and consider what the demands of writing for television are, these documents reveal that Ellison had a compelling story, but he failed in execution to deliver a script that they could use. His script contains many elements that are out of character for the Star Trek characters and for Starfleet in general. It also failed in delivering a script that could be filmed on Star Trek's limited budget. Even so, they felt it was worth spending more on that episode than they usually did.
It all boils down to a couple of questions. Was the treatment Ellison received from the Star Trek staff unusual or uncalled for? And has all the energy and vitriol that Ellison has spent over the years really worth it? The answer to both questions is no. Ellison is mostly miffed that they would dare rewrite his script, not realizing that is a normal procedure, especially in cases where they like the story idea and want to make it work. Being treated ill by a producer seems pretty typical in Holllywood. And to make matters worse, Ellison has never seemed to realize that he wasn't working for Star Trek, he was working for Desilu Studios, NBC, NBC's sponsors and the viewing audience. Ultimately Robert Justman and Gene Roddenberry had to answer all these higher forces themselves and had to deliver the promised product. That is absolutely normal for a TV series. And they did something right because all you have to do is look at the enduring legacy of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had already compromised his vision to get the show on the air. I don't see where Ellison has any right to expect to be held to a different standard than any other writer or the creator of the series.
When you objectively look at the situation, the things that pissed off Ellison the most, the things that he still goes off about, are all a normal part of television production for a writer. Movie production as well. The writer has no say in the finished product. The director, actors, editor, producers, and studio all have a say and it is quite normal for any one of them to ignore the writer's words and do something else. Ellison would have had a field day working with Robert Altman.
What this boils down to is not Ellison's ability to write. That is well established. But from Justman's comments about the second draft of the script, while Ellison delivered a good story, it failed to fit into Star Trek, it failed to be shootable on their budget, and it failed to deliver suitable drama. Basically it failed to meet the requirements that Star Trek needed it to. So they rewrote it because they liked the heart of the story. What came out retains the core of Ellison's story. The changes that were made brought the story in line with the established characters, message, and nature of the series. The changes heightened the drama and made incredible television from what started out as an incredible story.
So what Harlan Ellison has presented us with the last forty-plus years is the perfect example of how NOT to behave. He gets credit for a WGA award and a Hugo award. So what that they rewrote the script. He wasn't the first writer that it happened to and he wasn't the last. What he has done is to set a bad example and unrealistic expectations for those who want to write in Hollywood. They can't expect to write a screenplay or teleplay and expect it to remain unchanged. The norm is a string of edits to make everyone happy and the final product invariably differs from the script. The script is just the starting point. Rather than Ellison making a valiant stand or a valid point, he comes off as whining and childish about the entire matter.
Is he wrong to be mad? No. Has he said anything that wasn't true. Yes. He claims his script didn't need any work when clearly it did. The rest is true, but that is not. Yes, his original script won an award, but so did the final product. It is a fan favorite. Of all the writers who worked on Star Trek, only Ellison has made such vocal complaints and he was not the only writer to have been rewritten. Most were. All he is doing at this point is showing a level of immaturity that is unbecoming to a professional writer. What is funny is that he thinks that as a professional he shouldn't be subject to rewrites. That runs contrary to what the true professionals say. George R.R. Martin, better known today for Game of Thrones, was one of the main writers on Beauty and the Beast and has stated how much they had to compromise on every episode. The network wanted action without violence and they got what they wanted. Compromise is the name of the game and Ellison won't admit that. You have to kill your darlings as a writer and Ellison has never let go of this darling, even though it was killed and buried more than forty years ago. Mad can be good, but never letting it go is poison.
It is hard to say a great writer such as Harlan Ellison is wrong, but it is quite clear that in this he is very wrong. He was not wronged and should be proud that the episode bears his name. The final product is magnificent because of his ideas. But as an example of how a writer should behave, he is a miserable failure. Yes, writers should expect a certain level of respect, but you have to be cognizant of your industry. Things are not the same for short stories, novels, teleplays, screenplays, stage plays, or musicals. You have to be aware of your role as writer and what the requirements are. In 1966, Harlan Ellison was doing a one off script for a science fiction television series. That brings with it a certain expectation. One of the things to expect is that the script will have to be rewritten, either by the writer, or by staff writers. To ignore that expectation for over forty years and pretend that you are so great a writer that it shouldn't have applied to you is lunacy. Get over yourself Harlan. Grow up and be professional.
Let's start with Ellison's claim (and I use that word because I will show later how he has been in error) about what was done to his script. He claims that the first draft was prefect and didn't need to be changed. A look at the summary of his treatments and drafts of the script show that there were indeed a lot of changes. So that part is true. It also isn't very unusual in television. So Ellison's basic claim cannot be argued against. He also claims that several in the production staff, particularly Gene Roddenberry, treated him badly. Ellison's claims are backed up by others making similar claims. Roddenberry was not easy to work with. Okay, so his basic claims are correct - his script was changed and there is little doubt he wasn't treated very well.
Yet his claim, probably bolstered by his WGA award for best screenplay, that there was no need to change his script is where his argument starts to break down. It further breaks down with how he has behaved on the entire subject. Forty-plus years of ranting is quite enough, Probably too much.
What brought this really to light was the release of Robert Justman's notes on the revised second draft. These were internal comments on just how the script fit with Star Trek, their budget, and the characters. You can view the first five pages here. When you stop and consider what the demands of writing for television are, these documents reveal that Ellison had a compelling story, but he failed in execution to deliver a script that they could use. His script contains many elements that are out of character for the Star Trek characters and for Starfleet in general. It also failed in delivering a script that could be filmed on Star Trek's limited budget. Even so, they felt it was worth spending more on that episode than they usually did.
It all boils down to a couple of questions. Was the treatment Ellison received from the Star Trek staff unusual or uncalled for? And has all the energy and vitriol that Ellison has spent over the years really worth it? The answer to both questions is no. Ellison is mostly miffed that they would dare rewrite his script, not realizing that is a normal procedure, especially in cases where they like the story idea and want to make it work. Being treated ill by a producer seems pretty typical in Holllywood. And to make matters worse, Ellison has never seemed to realize that he wasn't working for Star Trek, he was working for Desilu Studios, NBC, NBC's sponsors and the viewing audience. Ultimately Robert Justman and Gene Roddenberry had to answer all these higher forces themselves and had to deliver the promised product. That is absolutely normal for a TV series. And they did something right because all you have to do is look at the enduring legacy of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had already compromised his vision to get the show on the air. I don't see where Ellison has any right to expect to be held to a different standard than any other writer or the creator of the series.
When you objectively look at the situation, the things that pissed off Ellison the most, the things that he still goes off about, are all a normal part of television production for a writer. Movie production as well. The writer has no say in the finished product. The director, actors, editor, producers, and studio all have a say and it is quite normal for any one of them to ignore the writer's words and do something else. Ellison would have had a field day working with Robert Altman.
What this boils down to is not Ellison's ability to write. That is well established. But from Justman's comments about the second draft of the script, while Ellison delivered a good story, it failed to fit into Star Trek, it failed to be shootable on their budget, and it failed to deliver suitable drama. Basically it failed to meet the requirements that Star Trek needed it to. So they rewrote it because they liked the heart of the story. What came out retains the core of Ellison's story. The changes that were made brought the story in line with the established characters, message, and nature of the series. The changes heightened the drama and made incredible television from what started out as an incredible story.
So what Harlan Ellison has presented us with the last forty-plus years is the perfect example of how NOT to behave. He gets credit for a WGA award and a Hugo award. So what that they rewrote the script. He wasn't the first writer that it happened to and he wasn't the last. What he has done is to set a bad example and unrealistic expectations for those who want to write in Hollywood. They can't expect to write a screenplay or teleplay and expect it to remain unchanged. The norm is a string of edits to make everyone happy and the final product invariably differs from the script. The script is just the starting point. Rather than Ellison making a valiant stand or a valid point, he comes off as whining and childish about the entire matter.
Is he wrong to be mad? No. Has he said anything that wasn't true. Yes. He claims his script didn't need any work when clearly it did. The rest is true, but that is not. Yes, his original script won an award, but so did the final product. It is a fan favorite. Of all the writers who worked on Star Trek, only Ellison has made such vocal complaints and he was not the only writer to have been rewritten. Most were. All he is doing at this point is showing a level of immaturity that is unbecoming to a professional writer. What is funny is that he thinks that as a professional he shouldn't be subject to rewrites. That runs contrary to what the true professionals say. George R.R. Martin, better known today for Game of Thrones, was one of the main writers on Beauty and the Beast and has stated how much they had to compromise on every episode. The network wanted action without violence and they got what they wanted. Compromise is the name of the game and Ellison won't admit that. You have to kill your darlings as a writer and Ellison has never let go of this darling, even though it was killed and buried more than forty years ago. Mad can be good, but never letting it go is poison.
It is hard to say a great writer such as Harlan Ellison is wrong, but it is quite clear that in this he is very wrong. He was not wronged and should be proud that the episode bears his name. The final product is magnificent because of his ideas. But as an example of how a writer should behave, he is a miserable failure. Yes, writers should expect a certain level of respect, but you have to be cognizant of your industry. Things are not the same for short stories, novels, teleplays, screenplays, stage plays, or musicals. You have to be aware of your role as writer and what the requirements are. In 1966, Harlan Ellison was doing a one off script for a science fiction television series. That brings with it a certain expectation. One of the things to expect is that the script will have to be rewritten, either by the writer, or by staff writers. To ignore that expectation for over forty years and pretend that you are so great a writer that it shouldn't have applied to you is lunacy. Get over yourself Harlan. Grow up and be professional.
Friday, February 1, 2013
The Direction I'd Like to See Computers Go
What we use computers for is in flux. In many ways the rise of the smartphone and tablet are a step in what I think is the right direction. In the short run they are changing the nature of computers. Gone are the days of being tied to the desk with keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Now you can do virtually everything on the go, either with a laptop, tablet, or smartphone.
But we still are tied to a device driven technology. Each device does something different. We have no freedom to mix hardware and software to our own liking. I've had this argument with a friend for years. He is an avid Linux user and hates Microsoft. I hate Microsoft myself, but I am an avid Windows user because it has the software I want. I know what to get, where to get it, and how to use it. Through a bit of trickery, I've figured out how to use my windows software just about wherever I want. I remote in to my Windows computer. I get none of the advantages of the local hardware. What I would like to see is something more.
There are many pieces to a computer. They do not have to be linked as they are now. There are ways to reform the setup so that we can gain true independence. First there is the interface. Be it large or small, it has to do the same things. We have to be able to see, type, and navigate. And hear, but that component is the easiest of all and is already universal. Then we have the computational power of the computer. This is what processes the numbers, renders the images, processed encoding and decoding of files, and really does the grunt work. For the highest quality results, these things have to be done locally, but for the day to day uses that most people force their computers to do, it can be done remotely. That leaves data storage. Data is what we live for. Our pictures, documents, messages, movies, and all our personal settings. This is what makes the computer ours. Try moving from a Windows PC to a Mac. A lot of data will transfer, but some won't. We're getting better about this, but the entire process is still time consuming.
What we need to do is separate these things. The interface will be varied, from desktop, to tablet, to smartphone, to home entertainment system, to hotel, to plane, to car. The processing power for some things can be with the interface, it could be in the cloud, or it can be portable. We are getting to the point where a smartphone, in a tiny package, has more computing power than a not so old desktop. Data can be in the cloud, portable, or local. What we need to do now is take the idea of a computer and disconnect it from all of these and make it something new. Rather than have a Windows computer for your desktop, an iPhone on the go, and an Android interface in your car, what we need is something that let's the user choose what they find most effective for how they interface with the computer, and make it compatible with all data and hardware interfaces.
The smartphone is a good place to start. It has limited amounts of data storage and a limited physical interface. Most commonly it is connected to the internet as part of the phone service, with wi-fi as a backup (and maybe even to function as a wi-fi hotspot). You can access the cloud, you can use Facebook, Google Docs, access your blog, stream music and movies. You can even remote to your desktop. Now imagine an interface where local storage, cloud storage, even distant desktop storage, are all merged together. Imagine remotely accessing your desktop is not necessary because both your desktop and your smartphone use the same interface, either stored on the phone or in the cloud. Imagine the phone is more like a key. You have a default user profile, with all your internet shortcuts, favorite programs, and important files, right there at your fingertips and there is no difference when you move from device to device.
I see computers becoming more and more disconnected with a great need arising to have a system to unify the disparate pieces. Either through something we carry with us, like a phone, or though an internet log in, we connect and access all our data from any interface point in the world. No longer does the underlying operating system matter, no longer can we forget a document at home or at work. It will all be at our fingertips 24/7 form anyplace we can use our device or log in over the internet. Now that is a computer I'd like to see in the future. We could be there in a decade. In fact we are already heading in that direction.
But we still are tied to a device driven technology. Each device does something different. We have no freedom to mix hardware and software to our own liking. I've had this argument with a friend for years. He is an avid Linux user and hates Microsoft. I hate Microsoft myself, but I am an avid Windows user because it has the software I want. I know what to get, where to get it, and how to use it. Through a bit of trickery, I've figured out how to use my windows software just about wherever I want. I remote in to my Windows computer. I get none of the advantages of the local hardware. What I would like to see is something more.
There are many pieces to a computer. They do not have to be linked as they are now. There are ways to reform the setup so that we can gain true independence. First there is the interface. Be it large or small, it has to do the same things. We have to be able to see, type, and navigate. And hear, but that component is the easiest of all and is already universal. Then we have the computational power of the computer. This is what processes the numbers, renders the images, processed encoding and decoding of files, and really does the grunt work. For the highest quality results, these things have to be done locally, but for the day to day uses that most people force their computers to do, it can be done remotely. That leaves data storage. Data is what we live for. Our pictures, documents, messages, movies, and all our personal settings. This is what makes the computer ours. Try moving from a Windows PC to a Mac. A lot of data will transfer, but some won't. We're getting better about this, but the entire process is still time consuming.
What we need to do is separate these things. The interface will be varied, from desktop, to tablet, to smartphone, to home entertainment system, to hotel, to plane, to car. The processing power for some things can be with the interface, it could be in the cloud, or it can be portable. We are getting to the point where a smartphone, in a tiny package, has more computing power than a not so old desktop. Data can be in the cloud, portable, or local. What we need to do now is take the idea of a computer and disconnect it from all of these and make it something new. Rather than have a Windows computer for your desktop, an iPhone on the go, and an Android interface in your car, what we need is something that let's the user choose what they find most effective for how they interface with the computer, and make it compatible with all data and hardware interfaces.
The smartphone is a good place to start. It has limited amounts of data storage and a limited physical interface. Most commonly it is connected to the internet as part of the phone service, with wi-fi as a backup (and maybe even to function as a wi-fi hotspot). You can access the cloud, you can use Facebook, Google Docs, access your blog, stream music and movies. You can even remote to your desktop. Now imagine an interface where local storage, cloud storage, even distant desktop storage, are all merged together. Imagine remotely accessing your desktop is not necessary because both your desktop and your smartphone use the same interface, either stored on the phone or in the cloud. Imagine the phone is more like a key. You have a default user profile, with all your internet shortcuts, favorite programs, and important files, right there at your fingertips and there is no difference when you move from device to device.
I see computers becoming more and more disconnected with a great need arising to have a system to unify the disparate pieces. Either through something we carry with us, like a phone, or though an internet log in, we connect and access all our data from any interface point in the world. No longer does the underlying operating system matter, no longer can we forget a document at home or at work. It will all be at our fingertips 24/7 form anyplace we can use our device or log in over the internet. Now that is a computer I'd like to see in the future. We could be there in a decade. In fact we are already heading in that direction.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Where Is The Spaceplane?
I started this blog with writing in mind, but I have so much more to say than that, especially on technology and modern space travel. So, today begins the series with my favorite subject, the spaceplane.
The Space Shuttle was great, but it wasn't a spaceplane. The X-37 is neat, but again, more rocket than plane. Ah, but what about Spaceship One and Spaceship Two. They are a nice hybrid, but they can't make it to orbit. What I'm talking about is a real, surface to orbit, spaceplane. Where is it? Why don't we have one and is it even possible to build one? I've spend a lot of time looking into this and doing the research and here is what I have come up with.
There are a lot of proposals out there, but they all are flawed in some way. Plus a lot of people say it can't be done. One of the things I learned a long time ago about aircraft design is that you can't just make it bigger and expect it to fly. So size of the airframe is as of as much concern as weight. One of the fatal flaws so many design have is the reliance on both rocket to orbit and using hydrogen as the primary fuel. Rockets are inefficient and take more fuel and hydrogen, even in liquid form, takes several times the volume as liquid oxygen. Both of these are found in most spaceplane concepts and both increase the needed size of the airframe. For a design to work, these two ideas need to come off the table. Hydrogen may be light and the most powerful fuel, but for a spaceplane the sheer volume it takes becomes an issue. Not to mention the increased strength and engineering the fuel tank requires.
But if it isn't hydrogen, what do you use? Quite simple, if you are ditching the idea of rocket to orbit, and replacing it with a staged vehicle, the first stage is a specially designed jet engine. You use a petroleum based fuel that will work for the jet and the later rocket stage. Same fuel, one main fuel tank, plus the liquid oxygen tank for the rocket stage. We have used it before. The Saturn V first stage used petroleum based rocket fuel with liquid oxygen to get off the ground. So the most powerful rocket ever used did not use hydrogen. Using hydrogen for a spaceplane is a mistake and it's all in the volume.
I have toyed with several configurations that would work for a jet/rocket staged ascent. Unlike the previously mentioned Saturn V or the Space Shuttle, my concept does not involve dropping away any piece of the vehicle. One intact vehicle, surface to orbit and back. The specifics of how the engines would be placed and designed I leave to the engineers, but I've taken my concepts from proven technology. To start with, I based my concept on the SR-71. It is the fastest and highest flying jet aircraft ever built and it is likely that its true operational parameters are still classified and exceed the officially released data. Still, I'm just going off of the official data. It has two very powerful jet engines in a unique and duplicateable configuration. Add to the a well placed rocket or two and you have sufficient thrust from surface to orbit.
To make a workable payload, I have expanded the design by 1 meter in width, which should have negligible impact on the aerodynamics while still giving a passenger cabin approximately the size of a large SUV. It also enlarges the fuel tanks to hold the volume of fuel needed. The additional weight should be offset by improvements in materials, aerodynamics, and engine performance to yield a vehicle with much the same operating parameters, at least as a jet. From the fuel consumption rates of the SR-71, and from the known formulas for rocket launches, using jet power up to a minimum of 80,000 feet at mach 3.5 leaves more than sufficient fuel to reach most any normal orbit, such as the International Space Station.
What is also important to any efficient spaceplane design is to make sure it a hardy vehicle with a very short (as in minutes or hours) turn around after each mission before it flies again. It needs to be built on commercial and military aviation principles and efficiency. Only a vehicle like this is going to make space tourism practical and affordable.
So, back to the answer I originally posed, where is the spaceplane? It is lost in misguided efforts that have not made substantial progress because the engineering needed to achieve them is too great. We need to be looking at what works. Fuel efficiency does not mean you are using the right fuel. There are other considerations. Size is also an issue. The reason I'm proposing this idea to start with is because the size is manageable and it can be used to perfect the technology and gradually scale up the concept into something that can hold as much cargo as the Space Shuttle. But you have to start somewhere. We could have had this design flying more than a decade ago. Instead we have design after design using hydrogen, often concepts for larger vehicles, that run into the issue with fuel volume.
I see this time and again in all manner of engineering projects, though sometimes they eventually hit on what works. But all too often the concept starts with a flaw and never goes anywhere because of the flaw in the concept, not because of any later problem during development. An ideal case was the Venture Star and its X-33 scaled test bed. The program was scrapped because of a failure to meet the design requirements for its hydrogen tank. The design was sound but when the strict goals were not met, it was cancelled. Even that design could benefit from replacing hydrogen with a petroleum based rocket fuel. It would either allow a sleeker design or more cargo/passenger volume.
Engineers need to keep their minds open to all possibilities. Sometimes taking a look at alternate avenues can provide a solution. Sometimes an abandoned technology may be the solution to a modern problem. In this case, I have highlighted a couple of areas where a 21st century spaceplane can be built using virtually abandoned mid 20th century technology.
The Space Shuttle was great, but it wasn't a spaceplane. The X-37 is neat, but again, more rocket than plane. Ah, but what about Spaceship One and Spaceship Two. They are a nice hybrid, but they can't make it to orbit. What I'm talking about is a real, surface to orbit, spaceplane. Where is it? Why don't we have one and is it even possible to build one? I've spend a lot of time looking into this and doing the research and here is what I have come up with.
There are a lot of proposals out there, but they all are flawed in some way. Plus a lot of people say it can't be done. One of the things I learned a long time ago about aircraft design is that you can't just make it bigger and expect it to fly. So size of the airframe is as of as much concern as weight. One of the fatal flaws so many design have is the reliance on both rocket to orbit and using hydrogen as the primary fuel. Rockets are inefficient and take more fuel and hydrogen, even in liquid form, takes several times the volume as liquid oxygen. Both of these are found in most spaceplane concepts and both increase the needed size of the airframe. For a design to work, these two ideas need to come off the table. Hydrogen may be light and the most powerful fuel, but for a spaceplane the sheer volume it takes becomes an issue. Not to mention the increased strength and engineering the fuel tank requires.
But if it isn't hydrogen, what do you use? Quite simple, if you are ditching the idea of rocket to orbit, and replacing it with a staged vehicle, the first stage is a specially designed jet engine. You use a petroleum based fuel that will work for the jet and the later rocket stage. Same fuel, one main fuel tank, plus the liquid oxygen tank for the rocket stage. We have used it before. The Saturn V first stage used petroleum based rocket fuel with liquid oxygen to get off the ground. So the most powerful rocket ever used did not use hydrogen. Using hydrogen for a spaceplane is a mistake and it's all in the volume.
I have toyed with several configurations that would work for a jet/rocket staged ascent. Unlike the previously mentioned Saturn V or the Space Shuttle, my concept does not involve dropping away any piece of the vehicle. One intact vehicle, surface to orbit and back. The specifics of how the engines would be placed and designed I leave to the engineers, but I've taken my concepts from proven technology. To start with, I based my concept on the SR-71. It is the fastest and highest flying jet aircraft ever built and it is likely that its true operational parameters are still classified and exceed the officially released data. Still, I'm just going off of the official data. It has two very powerful jet engines in a unique and duplicateable configuration. Add to the a well placed rocket or two and you have sufficient thrust from surface to orbit.
To make a workable payload, I have expanded the design by 1 meter in width, which should have negligible impact on the aerodynamics while still giving a passenger cabin approximately the size of a large SUV. It also enlarges the fuel tanks to hold the volume of fuel needed. The additional weight should be offset by improvements in materials, aerodynamics, and engine performance to yield a vehicle with much the same operating parameters, at least as a jet. From the fuel consumption rates of the SR-71, and from the known formulas for rocket launches, using jet power up to a minimum of 80,000 feet at mach 3.5 leaves more than sufficient fuel to reach most any normal orbit, such as the International Space Station.
What is also important to any efficient spaceplane design is to make sure it a hardy vehicle with a very short (as in minutes or hours) turn around after each mission before it flies again. It needs to be built on commercial and military aviation principles and efficiency. Only a vehicle like this is going to make space tourism practical and affordable.
So, back to the answer I originally posed, where is the spaceplane? It is lost in misguided efforts that have not made substantial progress because the engineering needed to achieve them is too great. We need to be looking at what works. Fuel efficiency does not mean you are using the right fuel. There are other considerations. Size is also an issue. The reason I'm proposing this idea to start with is because the size is manageable and it can be used to perfect the technology and gradually scale up the concept into something that can hold as much cargo as the Space Shuttle. But you have to start somewhere. We could have had this design flying more than a decade ago. Instead we have design after design using hydrogen, often concepts for larger vehicles, that run into the issue with fuel volume.
I see this time and again in all manner of engineering projects, though sometimes they eventually hit on what works. But all too often the concept starts with a flaw and never goes anywhere because of the flaw in the concept, not because of any later problem during development. An ideal case was the Venture Star and its X-33 scaled test bed. The program was scrapped because of a failure to meet the design requirements for its hydrogen tank. The design was sound but when the strict goals were not met, it was cancelled. Even that design could benefit from replacing hydrogen with a petroleum based rocket fuel. It would either allow a sleeker design or more cargo/passenger volume.
Engineers need to keep their minds open to all possibilities. Sometimes taking a look at alternate avenues can provide a solution. Sometimes an abandoned technology may be the solution to a modern problem. In this case, I have highlighted a couple of areas where a 21st century spaceplane can be built using virtually abandoned mid 20th century technology.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
2013's SF Movie Offerings
Not every year brings with it SF movies that I want to see, but 2013 looks to be different. What long-time Star Trek fan wouldn't been looking closely at J.J. Abrams second film in the franchise. Right down to Robot & Frank, which is far more earthbound, all the offerings this year seem interesting and many of them are not as simple as they first appear.
Oblivion is a good example. The more I watch the trailer the more depth I think the story may have. Pacific Rim is interesting if you are into Mechas. Cloud Atlas is the one I am most looking forward to. Don't know if I'll get to the book or not, but the film looks incredible. And lets not forget Ender's Game. Having read the book and loving to see Harrison Ford in SF roles, it is at the top of my list. I think it may be more topical now than when it was written. We didn't have remote controlled military drone back in 1985, but they are common today and this story is an extension of that.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just a sample of things I'll be watching for and looking forward to. I'll report back on any I see. Stay tuned for the reviews.
Oblivion is a good example. The more I watch the trailer the more depth I think the story may have. Pacific Rim is interesting if you are into Mechas. Cloud Atlas is the one I am most looking forward to. Don't know if I'll get to the book or not, but the film looks incredible. And lets not forget Ender's Game. Having read the book and loving to see Harrison Ford in SF roles, it is at the top of my list. I think it may be more topical now than when it was written. We didn't have remote controlled military drone back in 1985, but they are common today and this story is an extension of that.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just a sample of things I'll be watching for and looking forward to. I'll report back on any I see. Stay tuned for the reviews.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
When Things Don't Work...
Sometimes you just have to put an end to things that don't work. I found myself in that position today with Sony. Of all the retailers that Smashwords distributes to, they have been the most flakey. They seemingly ignored several updates, then they had two accounts for me. The latest was that they removed 4 of my 5 books. All the problems with the others retailers have been quickly and easily fixed with an email to Smashwords, but Sony hasn't been easy in any respect. Baker-Taylor's Blio is snails pace slow, but they have yet to mess anything up. Kobo lost two covers, but that was quickly fixed. Sony has just had far to many issues and it hasn't been a money maker so there is no reason to continue.
As a company, Sony makes some good products. I'm on my third Sony TV (because I've upgraded, not because I have had any problems). I've had good luck with most everything of theirs I've tried, but distributing to them as a retailer has been rough and I don't need to be worrying about what will happen next. So, it is time to part ways. If anyone reading this has a Sony ereader, please use Smashwords from now on. If you ask nicely, I may even give you a coupon for a free ebook.
Best of luck to the rest of you using Sony.
As a company, Sony makes some good products. I'm on my third Sony TV (because I've upgraded, not because I have had any problems). I've had good luck with most everything of theirs I've tried, but distributing to them as a retailer has been rough and I don't need to be worrying about what will happen next. So, it is time to part ways. If anyone reading this has a Sony ereader, please use Smashwords from now on. If you ask nicely, I may even give you a coupon for a free ebook.
Best of luck to the rest of you using Sony.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Dreams of Asimov
Today I stumbled upon the text of Paul Krugman's introduction to a new collectors edition of Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. He has remarkable insight on the inner workings of these stories. Asimov's own view was rather simplistic - that they were a galactic retelling of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. It's also a far cry from what we SF fan boys/girls love about the series. The best thing of all is how well Krugman nailed it. I read what he had to say and lights went on. Not only do I now understand Asimov just a bit better, but I understand my own writing better as well.
All writers can point to things they did in their formative years that shaped how they write. Asimov did that himself. He was a pulp fiction and science junkie. I have to admit that my SF addiction started at the age of 7 (or was it 8... hard to say when it caught me) with Star Wars. I have the Brian Daley Han Solo books that I bought at school from one of those book catalogs. I have a stash of the Marvel comics, yellowed with age and dogeared and torn from frequent reading. But I really have to point to that Science Fiction Book Club hard cover compilation of the trilogy (back when it was just those three books) as when my world exploded. Star Wars was great, but Foundation, Dune, and so many other worlds opened to me from that one well read, now water damaged, volume.
Asimov was sparse. He stuck to the story and didn't get distracted by too many descriptions or too much back story. He was a scientist with a fertile imagination and it shows. But he did concentrate on the characters, however flat they may seem to some. His stories are all about people. Even the Foundation Trilogy, with it's epic saga of a dying galactic empire and the two foundations that will save civilization, is told in vignettes of what people do to make it happen. I'd like to think I have come away from reading his stories with that same urge, to tell stories about people. I hope I learned from him better then I did from some of my classes in school.
One of the wonderful things about Asimov and modern technology was finding a treasure trove of old interviews with him on YouTube. I compiled a playlist of 17 of those videos that I would urge everyone to watch. They explain a lot about his characters. He was warm and personable and funny - most of which comes through in his characters. I've never seen them as flat, but his writing is sparse in character details, he only told just enough for what the story needed. His characters certainly came alive in my mind as I read, and evidently for Krugman as well. The man was a genius and it shows, both in his writings and in interviews with him. I don't consider Asimov one of the greats, I consider him THE Greatest, the Master of the genre.
All writers can point to things they did in their formative years that shaped how they write. Asimov did that himself. He was a pulp fiction and science junkie. I have to admit that my SF addiction started at the age of 7 (or was it 8... hard to say when it caught me) with Star Wars. I have the Brian Daley Han Solo books that I bought at school from one of those book catalogs. I have a stash of the Marvel comics, yellowed with age and dogeared and torn from frequent reading. But I really have to point to that Science Fiction Book Club hard cover compilation of the trilogy (back when it was just those three books) as when my world exploded. Star Wars was great, but Foundation, Dune, and so many other worlds opened to me from that one well read, now water damaged, volume.
Asimov was sparse. He stuck to the story and didn't get distracted by too many descriptions or too much back story. He was a scientist with a fertile imagination and it shows. But he did concentrate on the characters, however flat they may seem to some. His stories are all about people. Even the Foundation Trilogy, with it's epic saga of a dying galactic empire and the two foundations that will save civilization, is told in vignettes of what people do to make it happen. I'd like to think I have come away from reading his stories with that same urge, to tell stories about people. I hope I learned from him better then I did from some of my classes in school.
One of the wonderful things about Asimov and modern technology was finding a treasure trove of old interviews with him on YouTube. I compiled a playlist of 17 of those videos that I would urge everyone to watch. They explain a lot about his characters. He was warm and personable and funny - most of which comes through in his characters. I've never seen them as flat, but his writing is sparse in character details, he only told just enough for what the story needed. His characters certainly came alive in my mind as I read, and evidently for Krugman as well. The man was a genius and it shows, both in his writings and in interviews with him. I don't consider Asimov one of the greats, I consider him THE Greatest, the Master of the genre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)