The facts of fiction

Author Christopher Eldridge — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:02:11 GMT

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!

The facts of fiction

Jason Isaacs, Oceanside, CA — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:18:37 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:51:08 GMT

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

The facts of fiction

Monte Davis — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:54:31 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Adam, Brisbane, Australia — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:03:57 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Alan Boyle — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:19:22 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Alan Boyle — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:23:27 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Chris Eldridge — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:18:16 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Paul Weimer, Circle Pines, MN — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:34:05 GMT

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?

The facts of fiction

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:34:13 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Frank Glover — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:17:59 GMT

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.)

The facts of fiction

Chris Eldridge — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:17:00 GMT

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 facts of fiction

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:47:22 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Loren, SF Bay Area, California — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:17:29 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

Tina — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:52:21 GMT

I want a flying car.

The facts of fiction

Frank G — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:10:12 GMT

Interesting Stuff

The facts of fiction

Phil in Manhattan Beach, CA — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:59:49 GMT

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.

The facts of fiction

J.R. Redding, CA — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:38:46 GMT

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.