Pessimism in Science and Industry

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Well prepared exploration and colonization of earth was trivial. Most died to disease, not deprivation. In the 1800s half the Europeans going to the Caribbean died of disease (say French troops during the Haitian revolution). 

The whole post is a huge contradiction, but this one takes the cake Apparently, it was not hard, they were just dying in droves due to the lack of medical knowledge and support. But that only had to do with the time they were living in.

 

Quote

Its not even remotely comparable. Heck death rates in general were higher so a few more dead was no big deal. 

You are right. Hundreds of thousands of people died during exploration. Only three died in space, and they were really close to fully being in the atmosphere. It is indeed not even remotely comparable.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Camacha

[todofwar]

So, what I guess the take away is we should just be ok with half the astronauts we send somewhere dying from radiation related illnesses until we figure out better treatments and shielding? Being serious now, back then it seems the value of human life was lower in general, we don't accept anyone dying on the way to Mars.

[Camacha]

5 minutes ago, todofwar said:

So, what I guess the take away is we should just be ok with half the astronauts we send somewhere dying from radiation related illnesses until we figure out better treatments and shielding? Being serious now, back then it seems the value of human life was lower in general, we don't accept anyone dying on the way to Mars.

It almost sounds like people think interplanetary radiation is at Chernobyl reactor hall levels. It seems to be much less, even less than we thought not long ago. Wikipedia has some great information. Do note that the scale of the chart is logarithmic. Even so, the problem seems within reasonable engineering reach.

One solution that comes to mind is that water seems to be a very decent shield. We will need to take quite a lot of that with us anyway. Also note that most of the theoretical health effects would manifest themselves many years later. For most intents and purposes, those will not hamper even a long term mission. Wikipedia mentions that, even without shielding, the dosage of a full Mars mission should be less than an astronaut is advised to endure in its career.

Is interplanetary radiation a hassle? Sure. Is it an insurmountable problem? It seems not.

[todofwar]

17 minutes ago, Camacha said:

It almost sounds like people think interplanetary radiation is at Chernobyl reactor hall levels. It seems to be much less, even less than we thought not long ago. Wikipedia has some great information. Do note that the scale of the chart is logarithmic. Even so, the problem seems within reasonable engineering reach.

One solution that comes to mind is that water seems to be a very decent shield. We will need to take quite a lot of that with us anyway. Also note that most of the theoretical health effects would manifest themselves many years later. For most intents and purposes, those will not hamper even a long term mission. Wikipedia mentions that, even without shielding, the dosage of a full Mars mission should be less than an astronaut is advised to endure in its career.

Is interplanetary radiation a hassle? Sure. Is it an insurmountable problem? It seems not.

Log scales have a habit of diminishing differences. It's not insurmountable, but it is a big problem that needs to be adressed. And the type of radiation is different too, it's very high energy radiation that penetrates allot of conventional shielding. 

[Camacha]

5 minutes ago, todofwar said:

Log scales have a habit of diminishing differences. It's not insurmountable, but it is a big problem that needs to be adressed. And the type of radiation is different too, it's very high energy radiation that penetrates allot of conventional shielding. 

That is why I specifically mentioned the logarithmic scale: to prevent anyone from thinking or suggesting it is used to trivialize the dosage. The total exposure seems to be below the recommended maximum dose for a full mission and that is with conventional solutions and technology and without additional shielding or living underground. We can fly a mission today without radiation being a problem, and improvements in technology should help the situation further.

As you can read in the article, it being high energy radiation is beneficial. It turns out high energy particles do less damage, probably because they have less time to interact with the environment.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Camacha

[tater]

1 hour ago, Camacha said:

The whole post is a huge contradiction, but this one takes the cake Apparently, it was not hard, they were just dying in droves due to the lack of medical knowledge and support. But that only had to do with the time they were living in.

Not lack of support, lack of immunity to diseases of the new world (and the converse for the natives of the new world who died in droves due to contact).

You seem to forget that the "age of exploration" was in fact the age of EUROPEAN exploration. People were surviving quite well in that areas explored, just not the Europeans. No one survives on Mars (as the current, popular example of wishful thinking). 

 

Quote

You are right. Hundreds of thousands of people died during exploration. Only three died in space, and they were really close to fully being in the atmosphere. It is indeed not even remotely comparable.

The "explorers" died in places where the locals were just fine, and far less "prepared" technologically.

Europeans died next to locals with stone age cultures.

That is why it is utterly incomparable. Where did "explorers" visit and colonize that was not already occupied by people who did the same with stone age technology? We're exploring Antartica, and that's the closest analog, but still far easier than Mars (or deep space). Some isolated islands? Sure, maybe, but none remarkably different than other isolated islands colonized by stone aged peoples before.

So with humans who are "prepared" it is indeed trivial---in the case of Europeans the proper preparation was impossible (immunity to tropical diseases for the most part), but peoples who had such immunities did just fine with no support whatsoever, they just lived off the land.

There is no plausible economy of trade. I'm not saying it's impossible to colonize, it's not, it's just an engineering issue. But it's not cost-effective, so it will only be done by people willing to do it just because they feel like spending their own billions on the project. The entry level cost for self-colonization will be grossly higher than the colonization of the Americas was per person (and it only dropped in cost over time, starting at ~500,000X cheaper that wishful ITS numbers).

Edited December 19, 2016 by tater

[Jonfliesgoats]

I think some miss the point with the colonial comparisons.  No comparison has one for one validity. Comparisons drive at general concepts.  Generally, we face similar challenges in engineering and risk as the colonial Europeans.  True enough there were people living in the Americas, but that doesnt reduce the  risks posed to the European actors.  Imagine if the Americas had Smallpox rather than the Old World, for example.  The technological challenges are comparable too.  Wealth through trade with the Americas was a strange proposal at the time which was conceptually possible, but far from a sure bet.  Determined resistance by Stone Age people's could have driven Europeans from the continent and ruined any investment in commerce.  It happened when American peoples out-competed struggling Norse.  I spent a good part of my life watching something similar occur in Afghanistan. Human expansion into space is difficult but no more so than other big leaps we have made.  

Regarding risk, people will die.  That's part of exploration and expansion.  Some will raise their eyebrows at my seemingly perfunctory acceptance that people will die.  This doesn't make their loss palatable or less tragic.  In fact, before we succeed entire projects will fail.  If we decide only to move forward with zero risk, we effectively decide to do nothing.  The missing factor here is that all risk is relative.  The relative risk from inaction in the short term may be acceptable, but, in the long term our species' survival depends on expansion skyward.  This is why guys like Elon Musk are so passionate about landing people elsewhere.  

Finally, I am not advocating an immediate, unprepared departure to colonize Mars or Europa.  I am trying to point out that self-defeating ideology is harmful, but appealing.  If we are convinced that these challenges are beyond us and will remain so, we can feel better about keeping our goals low.  Ambitous goals are uncomfortable because they come with implied, unforgiving, high standards of performance.  Making humanity an enduring presence in the solar system is not beyond us.  If we choose not to do so, it's because of a failure in our collective vision. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[kerbiloid]

Googling, say, "rate of fatal injury". or "mortality rate per coal nuclear" one can find nice charts/tables like these:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/osar0012.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf

Or especially this one

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

There you can see how many victims takes every human activity.

Say, currently, using coal energy requires ~100 sacrificed persons per 1 TWh, wind - about 0.15 deaths/TWh, nuclear energy ~0.04 deaths/TWh.
Using any energy or any goods you accept the contract with death.
Rejecting it you wouldn't stay innocent, you would just increase the total mortality rate due to the risks of primitive lifestyle. (Cold, hunger, diseases, etc)

 

And the same with absolutely every aspect of human life.

Say, you like  watching sport by TV.
This means that they keep a sport industry with following mortality rates:
http://www.tetongravity.com/story/adventure/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity

So, if you like to watch boxing, you are ready to sacrifice 1 person of 2200, fans of Grand Prix Racing are ready for 1 of 100 and so on.
(Without a watcher there would be no such activities. Without, say, football, also nobody would die building a stadium.)
Even chess have their own rate of mortality (heart attacks and so on).

So, there is no such thing as "space is dangerous", there is an "acceptable mortality rate".
Currently, since 1961 space flights have mortality rate about 1/70, i.e. 1.5 times greater than in Grand Prix.

For colonization purposes one should decide how many deaths are appropriate per year and what they would gain instead.

Edited December 19, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

6 hours ago, Camacha said:

*snip*

>300millisievert just for the 3 months transfer to mars corresponds with an increased cancer risk of alomost 4/1000, according to popular data and assuming a linear relationship between radiation and cancer risk. Somewhere i have read that 3 sieverts lead to acute radiation sickness, lesseons learnt from the nuclear accidents ... ok, this is all pop science data, but it doesn't sound that inviting to me.

I stay here. I love fresh vegetables :-)

[Jonfliesgoats]

Agreed regarding veggies.  Martian carrots or Europan tomatoes may be delicious, however.  One of the things I enjoy about ridiculous challenges (capturing a hostile satellite or placing pigs in Lunar orbit) is that given sufficient time, people start proposing real ideas.  Serious projects are definitely doable, considering the collective brains on earth.

Just a few decades ago, we thought mapping the human genome would take a century.  Sequencing technology improved so we didn't have ro run countless gels.  

[Green Baron]

Yep, sooner or later, as new insights and tech become available, i'll be corrupted too :-)

 

[Nibb31]

31 minutes ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Agreed regarding veggies.  Martian carrots or Europan tomatoes may be delicious, however.

They will be hydroponic, so they won't be any different from hydroponic tomatoes on Earth.

Martial regolith is not only sterile, but it's also highly toxic. You might be able to use it as a building material, as long as it de-perchlorated (which requires massive amounts of water) and it's isolated from the actual pressure vessel, but turning it into something that food can grow on is not going to happen unless you import massive amounts of fertilizer and nutrients.

Anyone who thinks that Mars would be a pleasant place to relocate your family is dead wrong. You would be stuck inside a hab module for the rest of your life, breathing an A/C airflow, drinking recycled urine, and eating low variety hydroponic tofu. Your children will never feel the wind on their face, swim in the ocean or run around in the sun ever again. If the ECLSS fails, you die. If your ISRU equipment fails, you die, only a bit later. The radiation, the dust, the atmosphere, the cold, are all deadly. There will be no places to visit on vacation, no variety of cultures or landscapes. And your internet connection will suck.

As I explained above, settlers are attracted by a better life, more confortable and/or safer. That's why migrants are often from persecuted communities or extremely poor. You won't get middle/upper class westerners to sell their homes en masse to live on Mars (or anywhere else in space).

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

You would be stuck inside a hab module for the rest of your life

with parents-in-law

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

drinking recycled urine

At least, nobody will 3.14ss into a river near the place where their camp takes water for tea.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

and eating low variety hydroponic tofu

Rather than fresh instant noodles in a terran office.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Your children will never feel the wind on their face, swim in the ocean or run around in the sun ever again.

No worries about their sun burns or swimming!

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

The radiation, the dust, the atmosphere, the cold, are all deadly.

Above the 3 meter thick concrete layer protecting your family crypt vault from the top.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

If the ECLSS fails, you die

Because your wife's mom will kill you. As she likes her geranium growing in the greenhouse.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

If your ISRU equipment fails, you die, only a bit later.

Her dad will.  He likes his distiller even more, but runs slower.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

There will be no places to visit on vacation

But that's not a problem as all your money will be spent on fresh regenerated air.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

And your internet connection will suck.

So, some things wouldn't change.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

As I explained above, settlers are attracted by a better life, more confortable and/or safer. That's why migrants are often from persecuted communities or extremely poor. You won't get middle/upper class westerners to sell their homes en masse to live on Mars (or anywhere else in space).

So, dark cultists are the ideal candidates.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Nibb speaks truth.  The first settlements will suck.  Then again, settling has always been a business of hardship, toil and risk.  Death will be around every system failure and something as simple as a drug resistant microbe in a hydroponics farm could make starvation or scurvy a real hazard.  Humankind will persevere, though.

A joke regarding dark cultists may not be that far off from the truth.  I suspect the prospect of living on a planet, removed from terrestrial law enforcement, with 10 to 100 of your dearest followers would appeal to a number of charismatic leaders.

[wumpus]

21 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Nibb speaks truth.  The first settlements will suck.  Then again, settling has always been a business of hardship, toil and risk.  Death will be around every system failure and something as simple as a drug resistant microbe in a hydroponics farm could make starvation or scurvy a real hazard.  Humankind will persevere, though.

A joke regarding dark cultists may not be that far off from the truth.  I suspect the prospect of living on a planet, removed from terrestrial law enforcement, with 10 to 100 of your dearest followers would appeal to a number of charismatic leaders.

Where do you think the early Americans came from?  The pilgrims were "fleeing" from the Netherlands, probably the place on Earth with the most religious freedom possible (especially for Protestants).  They fled to New England so their kids and neighbors wouldn't have the freedom to think differently.  Even more common were "transported" criminals (or equally likely running from the law), it is no coincidence that Botany Bay was founded the same year the UK accepted American independence.

Sure, the first batch had a ton of "gentlemen" who were only willing to get their hands dirty digging for gold.  But once it became clear that gold wasn't stacked up in heaps like the Incan Empire, that source of bodies dried up.

“I never, never want to be a pioneer… It’s always best to come in second, when you can look at all the mistakes the pioneers made — and then take advantage of them.”— Seymour Cray [for those who missed him, Cray designed the worlds fastest computers from roughly the 1960s-1980s.  Typically the time it takes to design the next machine meant somebody else will leapfrog you*, not Cray.  His machines were the fastest until he designed their replacement.

* This might not appear to be so true now, but Moore's law was in full force then.]

Edited December 20, 2016 by wumpus
plurality check

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

A joke regarding dark cultists

Joke? Ok.

1 hour ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Death will be around every system failure and something as simple as a drug resistant microbe in a hydroponics farm could make starvation or scurvy a real hazard.

As I have just read in wiki, in Jamestown colony survived 60 of 500 after the first year. And that's with unlimited air, water and soil.

P.S.
Btw another problem. 1-2 generations later (i.e. just 50 years) all of them become cousins.

Edited December 19, 2016 by kerbiloid

[kunok]

20 hours ago, Camacha said:

People always feel their current time and challenges are much harder and more challenging than those humans faces historically. It is probably a combination of being the subject (even by proxy) of the strife, being more informed about the current issues and less informed about historic ones and knowing the problem to historic problems, but obviously not having any for the current ones.

I can sure you that the only people that I know that defend that proposition are from the US, and you can't accept that maybe is that you have a biased cultural view (and yes I know mine is a biased view because I only know so many people) No offense pretended. Is just that to the rest of the world (at least in my biased view) is plain weird and tiring when comes again and again.

[PB666]

On 12/17/2016 at 8:40 AM, kunok said:

Unrealistic science fiction has given to us a total unrealistic approach to space flight that obviously we can't get, and people think that the real one is disappointing compared with the science fiction ones. In soft science fiction, traveling across the solar system or the galaxy is like traveling in your car, taking a flight between two airports or crossing the ocean in a boat, that gives totally unrealistic expectations. Space travel will take months or years not a couple of days like is presented in most fiction, we currently don't have life support or radiation protection for that long periods. And "real" proposals like Mars one or the ITS of Musk doesn't help, because they don't look to the real problems.

And we don't really have idea if we can live in different gravity of 1g in long term, don't forget that . _{Venus flying outpost supporter here}

I ve never heard the moon landing conspiracy from a trained scientist communicated as something that was credible. So thats pretty much one I only hear from people of a certain political persuasion and socio-economic status.

Ive heard the occasional political conspiracy theory from scientist but that is generally ethnically based bias, not really broad-scale appeal. I think that scientist distrust the government because of the perceived ignorance of science that flows out of the government. For example, a major presidential candidate denying CO2 effect on climate change. Or the golden fleece award given to some of the most productive science humans have produced. These types of things create skepticism.  Another fair reason is the government has greatly escalated the cost of doing science (the so-called unfunded mandates that the r............. were supposed to fix) is actually worse now than ever. The regulations that the government has added either directly or via a draconian NIH funding process has greatly increased cost and hassle of doing business. Don't mind the regulations, but where's the funding. Here's and example if a institute that has a grant from NIH has to follow the NIH guideline, not just for the grant recipient, but the entire organization even if the grant is only 5% of the funds the organization receives.

I can give you examples of unfunded or inadequately funded mandates, Patriot Act, Animal Welfare Act, DEA regulations for dealing with Class II and III agents, etc. If you don't see these things, then I have to say frankly, you don't know science.

So why are scientist skeptical about the government . . . . . .EXPERIENCE.

When people argue the US funding to science has increased, they should know that this is not the case, because the overhead collected by the institution has increased faster, the actual amount of funding the labs receive has declined (cumulatively). This is because the institute either has to deal with the issues when the researchers are there (search and $$$$document$$$$ missions) or after they leave (lab cleanup).  The reason that the overhead has increased because of the external demands placed on the institute by the government and regulatory agencies instructed by the government.

 

 

[kunok]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

I ve never heard the moon landing conspiracy from a trained scientist communicated as something that was credible. So thats pretty much one I only hear from people of a certain political persuasion and socio-economic status.

Ive heard the occasional political conspiracy theory from scientist but that is generally ethnically based bias, not really broad-scale appeal. I think that scientist distrust the government because of the perceived ignorance of science that flows out of the government. For example, a major presidential candidate denying CO2 effect on climate change. Or the golden fleece award given to some of the most productive science humans have produced. These types of things create skepticism.  Another fair reason is the government has greatly escalated the cost of doing science (the so-called unfunded mandates that the r............. were supposed to fix) is actually worse now than ever. The regulations that the government has added either directly or via a draconian NIH funding process has greatly increased cost and hassle of doing business. Don't mind the regulations, but where's the funding. Here's and example if a institute that has a grant from NIH has to follow the NIH guideline, not just for the grant recipient, but the entire organization even if the grant is only 5% of the funds the organization receives.

I can give you examples of unfunded or inadequately funded mandates, Patriot Act, Animal Welfare Act, DEA regulations for dealing with Class II and III agents, etc. If you don't see these things, then I have to say frankly, you don't know science.

So why are scientist skeptical about the government . . . . . .EXPERIENCE.

When people argue the US funding to science has increased, they should know that this is not the case, because the overhead collected by the institution has increased faster, the actual amount of funding the labs receive has declined (cumulatively). This is because the institute either has to deal with the issues when the researchers are there (search and $$$$document$$$$ missions) or after they leave (lab cleanup).  The reason that the overhead has increased because of the external demands placed on the institute by the government and regulatory agencies instructed by the government.

I totally lose myself, what has that to do with what I said?

[Jonfliesgoats]

I am constantly impressed with the thought that people put into these posts regardless of the position they take.  This is one of the reasons I like ruminating on these things before I have to finish my coffee and do adult things.  I generally come out with a few more snippets of knowledge and/or perspective than I started with.  

 

7 hours ago, kunok said:

I can sure you that the only people that I know that defend that proposition are from the US, and you can't accept that maybe is that you have a biased cultural view (and yes I know mine is a biased view because I only know so many people) No offense pretended. Is just that to the rest of the world (at least in my biased view) is plain weird and tiring when comes again and again.

A note about referencing the Untied Stares and cultural effects of people from my homeland:

We Americans sometimes harm ourselves with the idea that we are so advanced that we can't learn from the Russians, Indians, Chinese, etc.  Cultural effects in academia, engineering and even in the cockpit have to be appreciated to get the most out of them while minimizing their costs.  I'd say we Americans bring about as many good things as bad with us, when it comes to technical applications.  Fundamentally all fields of study and application are interrelated in some way.  This includes relationships between social factors and natural sciences.  Like it or not, we have to accept that people have gut, emotional reactions.  Separating science from social dynamics and politics is a noble but very difficult goal.  This is something we have to work with rather than ignore, like the terrain and weather around a given location.  

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats
Brevity

[kerbiloid]

Pessimisim can into space.

 

Mars.

Early 1950s.
Mars is covered with canals, its surface changes its color from season to season.
Obviously, remains of an ancient powerful civilization live there. 
Millenia before they had irrigated the whole planet, but now we haven't seen them because they are in trouble.
Their patriarchs wait us to share their enormous wisdom. 
Gorgeous and splendid Martian maidens are waiting for a brave savior from the Earth, meanwhile performing mysterious rituals (just from boredom and frustration).

Present days.
Hurrah! What a luck! 
We have found traces of water and a layer of clay on Mars!
Obviously, this means that a billion or four years ago there was a lake of brine near this crater!

***

Venus.

Early 1950s.
Venus is covered with thick white clouds. 
It's normal, because Venus is closer to the Sun, and it's hot there.
Obviously, it's covered with an ocean and bogs (otherwise why that clouds?).
Wild and brave (but still charming) Venere Venusian maidens are waiting for brave conquerors from the Earth, meanwhile hunting monstrous primordial beasts under large leaves of primordial plants.

Present days.
Burnt desert with enormous pressure of unbreathable fluidosphere.

***

Moon.

Early 1900s.
Moon is a hostile piece of rock.
Covered with sea of dust waiting for an easy stranger to swallow. 
Inside its caverns strange lunar beasts do strange things. 
A valiant gentleman must be ready to shoot them by velo-dog, steal their strange artefact as a souvenir and scamper away before their reinforcement arrives.

Present days.
Moon is a hostile piece of rock.
No, wait, there are traces of water ice and mysterious Helium-3 in proportion 1 g of it : 100 t of lunar ground!

***

Pluto.

Early 1950s.
A huge mysterious planet, bigger than Earth.
Probably something like Moon, Mars and Venus at once - depends on imagination.

Present days.
Not a planet. 
Except in Illinois.

***

Milky Way (not chocolate).

Early 1900s.
The Galaxy is the Universe, and the Universe is the Galaxy. We can see it all.
There are thousands of stars. They have planets waiting to be colonized.
If While people will be breeding and colonizing them, and several thousand years later humans can occupy every planet of meaningful Universe.
In its center there's nothing special, just some more stars.

Present days.
Lovecraft was right. 
Earth is a quiet sanctuary inside hell. Just without Azatoth and Cthulhu (who knows, though). 
The galaxy center is a radioactive microwave oven.

Edited December 20, 2016 by kerbiloid

[mikegarrison]

On 12/17/2016 at 10:05 AM, GluttonyReaper said:

The big analogy that comes to mind is blended wing / open prop airliner designs. Combined, you would end up with a much more efficient aircraft that both uses less fuel and pollutes less, but some people in the field will just tell you that it's got too many problems to be feasible (e.g. passengers experience roll forces more) and so they can just never happen. So instead, we end up with the automobile way of doing things, where the same model is released year after year with just little tweaks for performance, rather than a big overhaul.

That highlights one of the major mistakes that many people make. When you are trying to develop something revolutionary, like a BWB airplane, it takes a long time. And in the meanwhile, those evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) designs continue to evolve. If you aren't quick enough, you find out that your BWB that was supposed to be 30% better than a conventional tube and wing is now only 5% better than the new, improved tube and wing planes. And so your advantages all disappear.

In commercial aviation especially, the manufacturers are very conservative because it costs billions of dollars to kick off a new program. If it's a major failure, your entire company can be ruined. And if there is even one fatality from a new airplane type, all of a sudden you can have the public completely rejecting it. Just as bad as if it didn't work at all.

[PB666]

6 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

That highlights one of the major mistakes that many people make. When you are trying to develop something revolutionary, like a BWB airplane, it takes a long time. And in the meanwhile, those evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) designs continue to evolve. If you aren't quick enough, you find out that your BWB that was supposed to be 30% better than a conventional tube and wing is now only 5% better than the new, improved tube and wing planes. And so your advantages all disappear.

In commercial aviation especially, the manufacturers are very conservative because it costs billions of dollars to kick off a new program. If it's a major failure, your entire company can be ruined. And if there is even one fatality from a new airplane type, all of a sudden you can have the public completely rejecting it. Just as bad as if it didn't work at all.

BW design may increase lift per weight, a good thing, but people want speed, adding open prop design generally means operating at 2/3 mach or below, it may also mean you can operate at a higher altitude (with jet engines redesigned for high altitude flight at lower face velocities) because its IAS for critical lift is lower. Where as the mundane 737 operates at 3/4ths Mach. Yes BW plane more efficient but slower. The 747 has one of the highest glide ratios of any aircraft shy of the carbon-fiber variants and it can also go 0.95M if need be.

Everything has its place. If you want to cycle over a target for 2 days an aircraft that can sustain altitude of 50,000ft for 2 days with an IAS of say 140 knts that would be a good thing . . . out of missile range, stealth design, at 15 km up its almost invisible from the ground. If you want to fly passengers from LA to NY who are already having to spend 2 hours waiting in line to TSA prior to getting on the CA (a task that people increasing hate) and adding an extra hour or 2 to the flight is not going to make you their best friend.

[Camacha]

On 19-12-2016 at 5:41 AM, tater said:

You seem to forget that the "age of exploration" was in fact the age of EUROPEAN exploration. People were surviving quite well in that areas explored, just not the Europeans. No one survives on Mars (as the current, popular example of wishful thinking).

Again, your scope is much too narrow. There were lots of explorers that ended up in places inhospitable to man and, consequently, they died agonizing deaths. These were often inhospitable for the same reasons Mars is, though Mars takes things a little further. No water, no food, no support within effective distance, communication hard or impossible, cold. The only relevant difference is oxygen, but with life support, we have that covered pretty well. Oh, and radiation, perhaps.

[Camacha]

8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

In commercial aviation especially, the manufacturers are very conservative because it costs billions of dollars to kick off a new program. If it's a major failure, your entire company can be ruined. And if there is even one fatality from a new airplane type, all of a sudden you can have the public completely rejecting it. Just as bad as if it didn't work at all.

Car development has the same issue. Cars have become impossibly expensive to develop from scratch, so platforms get extensively reused and shared between companies. Meanwhile, trying new things does not happen anymore, as the risk is huge and the reward uncertain. Unfortunately, it is not just platforms that are expensive to develop. Almost all cars look like versions of other cars, with all the brands aiming for middle-of-the-road-models that appeal to everyone, but are not special to anyone either.