I stumbled upon a wonderful article today (www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/16/f-1-moon-rocket). A must read.
In the late 1960's, as the US strove to be first to the moon, Werner von Braun and his team, and the many different contractors who did the grunt work, created the Saturn V launch vehicle. It was truly the pinnacle of Rocket technology. We can learn many lessons from what they did. The above article describes how a team is currently at work to reverse engineer two of the remaining mighty F-1 engines that lay at the heart of the Saturn V. These are the engines that carried us to the moon. 24 men went, 12 walked on the surface. And we have never been back and the Saturn V has passed into history. 3 complete launch vehicles remain, stored outside and corroded past usability. But two of the main engines were in storage. One with NASA, the other with the Smithsonian.
The engine at NASA has been completely disassembled and is being scanned to create a hyper accurate computer model for virtual testing. The Engine from the Smithsonian is being put back into working order for testing with hopes that they can fire up the F-1 for the first time in nearly 40 years.
While this may seem like a history lesson and not much more important than restoring your Dad's 57 Chevy, it is very relevant and pertinent to our future. There were a number of designers who achieved great things in the days before computers and their achievements have not been matched. The Saturn V and the SR-71 stand at the top of their respective fields and are unmatched in performance by anything created since. We can learn a few things from these incredible feats of engineering.
It may be that the next step that was missed 40 years ago is at hand. The Saturn V's F-1 engines may lead to a new generation, a merger of 1960's ingenuity with 21st century production and refinements, and create something even better. It just goes to show that sometimes we need to dip into the past to go forward into the future.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The Breaking of Barsoom
Many years ago I copied the 1970's Martian surface survey maps and assembled them and copied them into a single Mercator projection that I then proceeded to color for elevation. I was imagining a terraformed Mars, but the result was an interesting observation that not many people have repeated. I was reminded of it again this week while watching the Science Channel.
The Mars we know today is a dead world. We have yet to find a trace of life on it. Everything we have found, except for dust storms and some freezing and thawing cycles, has been lifeless, but shows that once there was more activity than there is now. And while I use Burroughs name for the planet in the title of this post, perhaps evoking thoughts of the alien species he envisioned, the use is more poetic. I don't think they was every life on Mars. Calling it Barsoom before the event I am about to describe is more about the chance of life cut short.
Mars features many of the Sol System's most extreme cases: the largest crater, the largest volcanoes, and the largest canyon. These features do not fall at random locations and are interconnected to the same ancient event roughly 4 billion years ago.
The crater is called the Hellas Crater. It is 8 km deep and ringed by highlands. It is 2100 km in diameter and it has been estimated that the asteroid that created the crater was over 200 km in diameter. It is larger than anything known to have hit Earth since the Moon was formed.
Which brings me to Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris. I keep hearing them cited for their size, but their size brings into question of how and why they formed. There is no good answer for that. Between them lies the Tharsis Plateau, an area as elevated as the Hallas Crater is deep. And there is the link. The impact that caused the Hellas Crater also caused the Tharsis Plateau. The force of such an impact was almost enough to break the planet. For practical considerations, it did. We will never know what the planet might have looked like had the impact not occurred. Much of what we take for granted on Mars may not be the case. Many theories exist on why Mars has so little atmosphere and water and such an enormous impact provides a much more likely reason that most others.
The impact not only raised the Tharsis Plateau, but led to the extreme vulcanism that dominates that region. The Valles Marineris is the remains of a crack that did not spew forth lava and it probably much filled in from what it once was. Time and erosion have turned a deep crack into a wide valley. The force of the impact would have sent material flying off, possibly at sufficient velocity to escape Mars orbit. What might have once been on it's way to becoming a cold but almost habitable world is now dead and lifeless.
These are just my observations and suppositions, but I have found I am not alone in my analysis. Others have come to the same conclusion that these features are all related. What erases any doubt in my mind are how extreme and unusual for the Martian surface they are. Some may point out a smaller grouping of volcanoes north of the Hellas Crater, but I would also point out that directly opposite on the surface of Mars is another sizable crater. Proportionally, they match the Hellas Crater and the Tharsis Plateau with its volcanoes. Both incidents indicate that the early Mars (or euphemistically, Barsoom) had a crust and molten mantle just like Earth still does. It accounts for the traces of running water that now seems to be absent and the lack of a viable atmosphere. It's a plausible explanation that fits the pieces of the puzzle.
Burroughs dreamed of a Mars that might have been before we fully understood it. His Barsoom is closer to what Mars might have been without the impact that produced the Hellas Crater. Barsoom was broken and leaves us with a challenge; can we bring it back?
The Mars we know today is a dead world. We have yet to find a trace of life on it. Everything we have found, except for dust storms and some freezing and thawing cycles, has been lifeless, but shows that once there was more activity than there is now. And while I use Burroughs name for the planet in the title of this post, perhaps evoking thoughts of the alien species he envisioned, the use is more poetic. I don't think they was every life on Mars. Calling it Barsoom before the event I am about to describe is more about the chance of life cut short.
Mars features many of the Sol System's most extreme cases: the largest crater, the largest volcanoes, and the largest canyon. These features do not fall at random locations and are interconnected to the same ancient event roughly 4 billion years ago.
The crater is called the Hellas Crater. It is 8 km deep and ringed by highlands. It is 2100 km in diameter and it has been estimated that the asteroid that created the crater was over 200 km in diameter. It is larger than anything known to have hit Earth since the Moon was formed.
Which brings me to Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris. I keep hearing them cited for their size, but their size brings into question of how and why they formed. There is no good answer for that. Between them lies the Tharsis Plateau, an area as elevated as the Hallas Crater is deep. And there is the link. The impact that caused the Hellas Crater also caused the Tharsis Plateau. The force of such an impact was almost enough to break the planet. For practical considerations, it did. We will never know what the planet might have looked like had the impact not occurred. Much of what we take for granted on Mars may not be the case. Many theories exist on why Mars has so little atmosphere and water and such an enormous impact provides a much more likely reason that most others.
The impact not only raised the Tharsis Plateau, but led to the extreme vulcanism that dominates that region. The Valles Marineris is the remains of a crack that did not spew forth lava and it probably much filled in from what it once was. Time and erosion have turned a deep crack into a wide valley. The force of the impact would have sent material flying off, possibly at sufficient velocity to escape Mars orbit. What might have once been on it's way to becoming a cold but almost habitable world is now dead and lifeless.
These are just my observations and suppositions, but I have found I am not alone in my analysis. Others have come to the same conclusion that these features are all related. What erases any doubt in my mind are how extreme and unusual for the Martian surface they are. Some may point out a smaller grouping of volcanoes north of the Hellas Crater, but I would also point out that directly opposite on the surface of Mars is another sizable crater. Proportionally, they match the Hellas Crater and the Tharsis Plateau with its volcanoes. Both incidents indicate that the early Mars (or euphemistically, Barsoom) had a crust and molten mantle just like Earth still does. It accounts for the traces of running water that now seems to be absent and the lack of a viable atmosphere. It's a plausible explanation that fits the pieces of the puzzle.
Burroughs dreamed of a Mars that might have been before we fully understood it. His Barsoom is closer to what Mars might have been without the impact that produced the Hellas Crater. Barsoom was broken and leaves us with a challenge; can we bring it back?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
A Conversation On Black Holes
Sometimes it is good to be an outsider. I consider myself to be an armchair physicist and cosmologist, but not an expert by any means. I just know enough to write science fiction. I definitely am not adept at the higher mathematics needed to work the calculations, but fortunately there is more to these sciences that just math. Most of it is quite easy to grasp and understand even without the math.
One area that has come to my attention is the ruckus over black holes. On one hand you have Stephen Hawking who at first said matter is destroyed in a black hole. Then you have his detractors who said that violates the principle of conservation of information (meaning that if you could reverse the process you could recreate anything that appeared to be changed or destroyed). On top of that you have the larger work of all of physics. Hawking has since come out and said that because of something he thought of that matter is both destroyed and not destroyed. Another physicist postulated that the when a black hole takes in matter that it's size changes and because of that an image of anything destroyed is preserved thereby allow the retrieval of the information.
I find it all a bit ridiculous. These people are so focused on studying black holes that they are ignoring other areas of physics that already have the answer. The secret to the answer came to me when I read Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. In there he revealed that the mathematics of both black holes and the singularity behind the big bang resulted in the same unsolvable mathematical riddle. I haven't looked it up lately, but I believe it was the square root of infinity.
So the answer of what happens to matter that enters a black hole is that it returns to whatever state it was in before the big bang (or the early stages of the big bang). Therefor no information is lost, but the matter ceases to be matter. String theory has some good answers to what the sequence of events was that led to the creation of matter so it would just be reversed in a black hole. Rather than a string cooling and resonating in our space and creating a particle. The particle warms up so much that the string can no longer maintain the particle and the particle disappears leaving the string to do what it did before it created the particle in the first place. From simple 4 dimension physics, the big bang created matter and black holes destroy matter. When you add the proposed additional dimensions of String Theory, there is a source for matter in the big bang in a black hole it just returns to that source. No need for crazy theories or to grasp for straws. It all makes sense and there is no need for controversy.
I've noticed that this focused (a polite way of saying narrow minded) approach is pretty typical in higher academic circles. I've seen it in history, Egyptology, physics, and a few other subjects. Solutions that seem so plain to an outsider are missed by the pros. I think that is why it is the younger generation who always make the leaps. Einstein made the leap to consider time a variable dimension. Hawking made great leaps in understanding black holes. Both men have failed later in their careers to make the same kinds of leaps of logic that they did when they were younger. They built on their initial success, but were never able to expand on it. I look forward to seeing what the next generation of physicists and cosmologists come up with. I'm sure it will be amazing.
One area that has come to my attention is the ruckus over black holes. On one hand you have Stephen Hawking who at first said matter is destroyed in a black hole. Then you have his detractors who said that violates the principle of conservation of information (meaning that if you could reverse the process you could recreate anything that appeared to be changed or destroyed). On top of that you have the larger work of all of physics. Hawking has since come out and said that because of something he thought of that matter is both destroyed and not destroyed. Another physicist postulated that the when a black hole takes in matter that it's size changes and because of that an image of anything destroyed is preserved thereby allow the retrieval of the information.
I find it all a bit ridiculous. These people are so focused on studying black holes that they are ignoring other areas of physics that already have the answer. The secret to the answer came to me when I read Michio Kaku's Hyperspace. In there he revealed that the mathematics of both black holes and the singularity behind the big bang resulted in the same unsolvable mathematical riddle. I haven't looked it up lately, but I believe it was the square root of infinity.
So the answer of what happens to matter that enters a black hole is that it returns to whatever state it was in before the big bang (or the early stages of the big bang). Therefor no information is lost, but the matter ceases to be matter. String theory has some good answers to what the sequence of events was that led to the creation of matter so it would just be reversed in a black hole. Rather than a string cooling and resonating in our space and creating a particle. The particle warms up so much that the string can no longer maintain the particle and the particle disappears leaving the string to do what it did before it created the particle in the first place. From simple 4 dimension physics, the big bang created matter and black holes destroy matter. When you add the proposed additional dimensions of String Theory, there is a source for matter in the big bang in a black hole it just returns to that source. No need for crazy theories or to grasp for straws. It all makes sense and there is no need for controversy.
I've noticed that this focused (a polite way of saying narrow minded) approach is pretty typical in higher academic circles. I've seen it in history, Egyptology, physics, and a few other subjects. Solutions that seem so plain to an outsider are missed by the pros. I think that is why it is the younger generation who always make the leaps. Einstein made the leap to consider time a variable dimension. Hawking made great leaps in understanding black holes. Both men have failed later in their careers to make the same kinds of leaps of logic that they did when they were younger. They built on their initial success, but were never able to expand on it. I look forward to seeing what the next generation of physicists and cosmologists come up with. I'm sure it will be amazing.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Misfit Science
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)