ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The facts of fiction

Posted: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:20 PM by Alan Boyle

Jerry Pournelle has seen both sides of the divide between science fiction and science fact: On one side, he's a novelist who, along with his frequent collaborator Larry Niven, is getting a lifetime achievement award at tonight's Writers and Illustrators of the Future Awards ceremony. On the other side, he's been an aerospace researcher, an adviser to President Reagan's transition team on space policy and an outspoken advocate for private-sector spaceflight.

To hear Pournelle talk, the business of science fiction makes a lot more sense nowadays than the politics of science fact.

Niven and Pournelle are being honored with the L. Ron Hubbard Lifetime Achievement Award for Contribution to the Arts, which is funded from the estate of the late science-fiction author (OK, he also had something to do with Scientology, but I won't get into that here). The program provides $30,000 in prizes annually for writers and illustrators on the rise. This year, there are 24 honorees. Niven and Pournelle have been judges for the writing contest since 1985.

Pournelle told me he had no idea why the organizers of the award program decided to honor him and his writing partner. "They didn't consult me," he said. But he suspects it has something to do with their role in making science fiction, well, saleable.

"'Mote in God's Eye' was a New York Times best-seller, and then we did 'Lucifer's Hammer,' which got the biggest advance that any science-fiction book ever got," he recalled. "We had some effect on changing the perception by publishers about science fiction - that it was worth real money."

Today, science fiction is a huge genre - or even a spectrum of genres, ranging from the "hard science fiction" that Niven and Pournelle generally do, to fantasy tales covered with a thin patina of science fiction and space-opera lore.

"'Star Wars' is more fantasy than science," he observed. "We don't know of any mechanism by which someone could think his way into shooting lightning bolts out of his fingers."

The kind of routine space travel that Niven and Pournelle wrote about more than 30 years ago in "The Mote in God's Eye" is looking more and more like a fantasy nowadays, when NASA is struggling with the challenges of going back to the moon and on to Mars.

I asked Pournelle why real-life space travel was so far behind the time line laid out by science-fiction authors from H.G. Wells to Arthur C. Clarke. Why wasn't 2001 more like "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Pournelle refers to it as the "where's my flying car" question.

"The money was there," he said. "We have spent enough money on the space program that we should be halfway to Alpha Centauri by now."

Pournelle blames NASA and its need to sustain a permanent "standing army" of bureaucrats. He invoked his Iron Law of Bureaucracy (as he has many times before): Every bureaucracy has two types of people - those who are dedicated to the goals of the bureaucracy, such as educating children or building rocket ships, and those who are dedicated to the preservation of the bureaucracy itself.

"The second group always gets to be in charge," he said. "NASA is certainly no exception."

The way Pournelle sees it, that mind-set has kept human spaceflight frozen in place for a quarter-century. "Your flying car basically got eaten by NASA," he said.

Of course, some NASA officials are trying to change that. On the same day that we chatted, the space agency announced that two entrepreneurial-minded companies would get a shot at developing new types of supply ships for the international space station. Pournelle applauded such efforts - but he was still worried that the standing army would eventually grind down this latest wave of reform.

He had two recommendations for real change:

  • First, take a page from the X Prize playbook and offer private-sector prizes for outer-space innovation. But don't be skimpy with the purse. Recently, billionaire Robert Bigelow said that there weren't any serious contenders for his $50 million orbital space prize - and when I mentioned that to Pournelle, he said the problem was that the prize was too paltry. He recommended offering $5 billion to the first U.S. company that puts the same spaceship into orbit 24 times in the course of a year, and $10 billion tax-free to the first company that keeps a 31-person colony on the moon for three years and a day. "How long do you think it would take?" he asked rhetorically. "I'd give it five years."
  • Second, take a page from the X-plane program playbook from the 1950s and 1960s - experimental craft like the X-1, the X-3 and the X-15 (but not the X-33, which Pournelle called a "boondoggle"). If they're done right, experimental spacecraft can quickly translate on-paper technologies into true space vehicles, he said. "X programs do not invent new technologies," he said. "They build the best thing you can build with the technology that you have as of Aug. 31, 2006."

Pournelle is hopeful that the federal legislation laying out the ground rules for commercial spaceflight will, in a backhanded way, use Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy for good rather than evil.

"There's now a section of the FAA which won't exist unless it has something to regulate," he said. "That's always good."

For more of Pournelle's peppery perspective, you can always check out his Chaos Manor Musings on the Web. And for an introduction to the fictional writings of Niven and Pournelle, you can check out "The Mote in God's Eye," "Lucifer's Hammer" ... or a little number that I'll list as an official selection of the Cosmic Log Used Book Club. The CLUB Club highlights books with cosmic themes that have been out long enough to show up at your local library or used-book shop.

This month's selection, "Inferno," is a modern retelling of Dante's Inferno. "We wrote 'Inferno' from the point of view that people could actually escape from hell," Pournelle said.

The book is currently out of print, but you can still find it in the usual CLUB Club haunts. Moreover, Pournelle said that Tor Books is planning a reissue to coincide with the publication of a sequel, "Escape From Hell."

The second "Inferno" from Niven and Pournelle is due to come out in 2007, so that gives you plenty of time to page through the first book. By then, we may even find out if the science fiction of private-sector spaceflight is any closer to becoming science fact.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Got to love the flying car question!  It is very likely technologically but, if people don't start planning for it RIGHT NOW, it will never happen.  People don't seem to get it that any home built today is likely to last 85 to 130 years.  That's a long time to not prepare for what is likely to happen in that timeframe: disasters, economic problems, and flying cars alike.  Homes with flat usable rooftops and more sound-proof windows are needed and the former feature can be used for other things if flying cars never materialize.

I obviously don't suspect that everyone would own one - nor should they expect to.  A flying car is so fast that a simple taxi service could pick you up in five minutes and drop you off at work five minutes after that.  Thus, why let such a valuable asset sit parked for 23.5 hours a day on the ground?  Why make your co-workers scramble for cover as you come in to land in the morning?  

Has anyone seen the "Airbike?"  The only problem with that that I see is the big frontal fan that would suck up debris.  The WASP II was a Jetson's-like standup pod (by Williams international) that used a cruise missile engine and few in tests for the army back in the early '80s!

Newer jet engines are becoming incredibly quiet due to lower fan speeds, fewer SWEPT blades, and a higher bypass ratio.  They are also becoming much more efficient which (along with composites) makes VTOL flight all the more realistic!  Conformal, phased-array radar and single crystal gyros certainly don’t hurt.

As for why didn’t we get to the 2001 timeline goal?  Because we cancelled the Saturn V!
My Girl friend (who's a "pusher" for a major book store) just got home from the award ceremony and she had the time of her life meeting some of our favorite authors - she even got to talk to Larry Niven for a few minutes! I wish I had been able to go and meet some of the talented authors and illustrators who autographed the collection of stories by the "Writers of the Future" (volume XXII) that she brought home for me. If any of those people read this I'd just like to say "Thank You"!

On the Dude, "where's my flying car" front Vernor Vinge is an author who addresses what can be done when bureaucracy fails and individuals and/or the private sector take on the bulk of innovation very well. I suggest his "Peace War" and "Marooned in Real Time" novels as good selections for the CLUB club.
I'm thinking Pournelle might've meant the "X-2," rather than the "X-3." The former was a high-speed rocket plane with space flight relevance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-2

...the latter was a jet-powered research aircraft that *looked* utterly cool, but proved to be a major underperformer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-3_Stiletto
I've often wondered what would have happened if in 1970-72 NASA had said not “We’ll create an operational space truck in 7 years,” but

“We’ll start a series of tightly focused X-programs: one for propulsion, one for flyback boosters, one for TPS, one for lean fast turnaround, etc. None will deliver any orbital payload to speak of. We can’t say how long it will be before the results add up to a space truck, and we can’t say how much the total cost will be."

That would have been engineering honesty, and if implemented might well have had us farther along by now. But good luck selling it to Washington... not just Nixon-OMB-Congress in 1972, but any government ever.
Pournelle's own timeline of the future, as background to his CoDominium stories, from the 1970s is pretty optimistic too. I think the real reason for NASA's lacklustre performance since 1975 is that no Administration took space seriously as a goal in itself, and missed the point of the Space Shuttle - lots of launches per year. Instead it became a form of aerospace welfare. I'm not saying the people working in NASA, the true believers, weren't doing something important - they were just kept from doing anything that could grow.
Actually, Pournelle specifically mentioned the X-3 Stiletto, in reference to how it blazed the trail for the F-104 Starfighter. That is related in this entry:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/
factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=625


DOUGLAS X-3 STILETTO
 
"The twin-turbojet X-3, the only one built, was designed to test features of an aircraft suitable for sustained flights at supersonic speeds and high altitudes. A secondary mission was to investigate the use of new materials such as titanium and to explore new construction techniques.

"The X-3 made its first test flight at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on Oct. 20, 1952, and flew supersonically in June 1953. Unlike the X-1, X-2 and X-15, which were released in mid-air from a “mother plane,” the X-3 operated in a more conventional manner by taking off from the ground. Engine development difficulties forced the use of lower powered engines than originally planned, prohibiting the X-3 program from achieving its design potential; however, data gained from the X-3 program was of great benefit in the development of the F-104, X-15, SR-71 and other high performance aircraft."

.... which I suppose goes to show that even X-planes that aren't completely successful serve to move the ball forward.
By the way, I appreciate the nominations for future CLUB Club selections ... If I use your selection (and I think I will, Jason) I will send you a free book from the Cosmic Log shelves.
I don’t think I’m such a big fan of the X-Plane idea.  In the ‘40s and ‘50s such experimental aircraft were indeed necessary.  However, today we have very elaborate wind tunnel and computer driven testing that can simulate virtually any condition – right up to hypersonic speed.  As most, people only have to build a small model to test.  Computer aided drafting has even eliminated the need to build design mockups because everything fits together right from the start.  Eliminating the “experimental phase” has become a definite cost advantage!

The bureaucracy isn’t just NASA’s fault.  They’d probably do pretty well on their own with a fixed budget, but congressional subcommittees - et all - have a habit of canceling, scaling back, and redesigning projects after years of work: i.e. the heavy lift booster (based on the shuttle external tank) that was supposed to make the space station far more affordable than it is.  

We’d also be better off without the “once and done” gung ho glory missions to the moon.  I think it’s fine if tourist want to go there, but to pretend we need to do so for exploration is just bogus.  I’d buy the notion that colonization is ultimately important for our race, but this world is obviously ready to do that: either in its divided warlike state or in its proven track record on long-term project commitment.  

Much like the F-104 was a great high performer without much practical usage in real combat, we need mission hardware that are real workhorses, say, like the F-4 Phantom or the C-130 proved to be.
Technically, though, Alan, the two Vinge novels are ineligible for the club since both have been re-released in new TPB editions in the last year or so (with lovely Stephen Martiniere covers, no less). or can a book still be (or is again) in print and still be eligible as long as it shows up in UBSes?
I think the next frontier in Sci Fi should reflect the reality of where humanity is headed if it doesn't get it's collective head out of it's collective you know what! Forget the flying cars and immaculate flying machines and start focusing on disease and environmental/climate degradation.

For Alan Boyle:
Yes, you're quite right. The X-3 did teach us *not* to do certain things in aerodynamic design, and you want that from an experimental program, as much as you want your original expectations confirmed....

Which takes us to...

For Chris Eldridge:
While it's true that wind tunnels and numerical simulation are extremely useful, and do save signifigant effort, the real world still has this way of not quite scaling down to physical models, or behaving quite the same as computer simulations (which can only run on the assumptions you give them).

Sooner or later, you must actually *build and fly* something experimental, before committing to any sort of production vehicle using whatever new technologies are involved. (Espically if it requires multiple new technologies. Engineers are more comfortable with, and have more confidence in, the results of doing just one or two truly new things at once in a system. And the cost of failure tends to be less, as well. X-30/NASP was cancelled partly from trying to do too much at once. Hypersonic research continues, but in a less risky, but more incremental manner. If the time does come to try to build a manned vehicle that can cruise at very high Mach numbers, or possibly even go into orbit, we'll build it with data based on real-world experience. Same for advanced re-useable rocket systems.)
Thomas Ashby,
      Focusing on the environment and climate change instead of flying cars is indeed a good place to put your focus, but designers sort of have to do both.  Not to dwell on flying cars too much longer, but they can actually be beneficial to the environment as they are a point to point method of transit (reducing traffic - increasing free time) and even the initial ones are intended to get 20 mpg.      

Frank Glover,
   I think the point you make for the X-30 is correct!  Indeed, an experimental craft vs. a prototype of a production model was and probably still would be needed.  I still think that was a great project which helped show how hydrogen fuel could actually be stored as a slush to increase fuel mass...  That being said, Burt Rutan said that skipping the experimental stage was what allowed SpaceShipOne to get into the air so cost effectively!

Sci-Fi and real-life advancements go hand-in-hand all the way back to how H.G. Wells inspired Robert Goddard!  I personally like to study science fiction ship design (as well as military hardware) as a study of “theoretical models.”  This gives me insight into just how many factors there are to consider in the design process and it helps me to see how the process of “structuring” works.  Designing things to perfectly suite their intended purpose isn't easy.  It is therefore helpful to see for example how, say, the rebel alliance took on the empire so effectively as a gorilla force or how the military tailors its various weapon systems to work effectively and efficiently together as a combined force.  

This may sound childish, but their really aren't all that may areas where we can study about raw performance and functionality.  The understanding of proper design technique is sadly missing from many things I see in this world.
The operative words here are DEGRADATION and HUMANITY, not "change". You [...] minimize what I am really getting at and what is the last biggest challenge. Ask any astronaut that has orbited the earth and I am certain they'll tell you they don't reflect on what flying cars might be in the future. I bet they even realize the impact of not seeing any borders below too! And I'm sure they are more concerned with a new and improved space suit than with just better chemical rockets or even taking an elevator ride to space.

Without getting into the "flying car" debate ("the future isn't what it used to be"), I just want to say that Jerry and Larry definitely deserve this award. They have both put a lot of years and sweat into their craft, and they know their stuff.
I want a flying car.
Interesting Stuff
It's nice to see such intelligent and detailed posts in this comment section, rather than the usual idiocy.

I have high hopes that investigation into exotic particles, perhaps even the isolation or synthentic creation of anti-matter, dark matter, and dark energy, may result in propultion and energy technologies that suddenly accelerate space exploration and colonization.  The labs that will work on this research are only now being planned and built, so we are probably looking at 50 to 100 years in the future before anything commercially usable comes from it.
Jerry may well remember the day he was buttonholed in my lab at CompuPro being handed his first prototype DISK3 (you have to look pretty far back in the Chaos Manor archives to get that one).  I asked him, "Why oh why, in these days [pre-Challenger] nobody is even so much as working the paperwork to construct a fleet trans-lunar vehicle?"  In 1984 I asked this question.  In 2008 I ask this question.  Deja vu all over again.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2267

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google