

Space Stasis (Neal Stephenson) - chwolfe
http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/pagenum/all/

======
sophacles
This is a pretty thought provoking article. I've always really enjoyed Neal
Stephenson's odd perspective on things -- in fact, I always want to smack
people who complain about his stories' content and ending situations, and tell
them "That's not the point, read the descriptions of things dammit.". The
thing I really enjoyed was the bit about "the catch is it has to be the size
and shape of a hydrogen bomb".

Anyway that aside, it really brings up the old infrastructure problem -- Large
investment in infrastructure is a two-edged sword, bringing both benefit and
lock in, and when it comes time to change there is lots of debate. I think
Neal either misses or avoids a big part of the argument here -- infrastructure
is turned into the bad-guy and the good guy. People don't see the benefits it
has brought for a myriad of reasons - they have internalized it, they are not
in the class of society that directly gets money for it (and the general
improved life isn't apparent because their neighbors are in the same boat),
they are afraid of tax increases (or lack of tax cuts), they don't understand
the current tech, and figure that "it has problems so anything else we do
won't fix it either", it has broken society in the following ways...

Really all of this though is just setup. The way I see it, large scale tech
and infrastructure projects are hard to get at and harder to revamp because
they are just too easy to target with populist attacks from all sides. The
issue is usually complex, but easy to attack with a simple disingenuous quip.
Doubly so when the alternative is something that sort-of works, because then
the quip doesn't even need the effort of disingenuety, just a mean spirited
"they are trying to change the perfectly good stuff we have just to take it
away from us, and ignoring everything else to fix"

I have no idea of the solutions we could offer to these types of scenarios,
but I do think that somehow we need to find a way to look at these piles of
infrastructure we have an find ways to make them better. To do that we need to
get around the "infrastructure problem".

~~~
jacoblyles
People tend to be most skeptical of infrastructure projects funded with tax
dollars coercively taken from them. It takes a lot of bad publicity to begin a
populist movement against private transactions.

I tend to oppose many government infrastructure efforts because the government
has no incentive to do a realistic cost/benefit analysis of new projects. It
is always in the legislator's and lobbyist's interest to start a new project,
whether it be massive high speed rail lines, expensive green power
installations, or large subsidies for classes of fuel and transportation that
are uneconomical in the free market (hydrogen cars, corn ethanol). The only
people paying a cost for new projects don't have a direct voice in the
planning meetings.

The interstate highway system of the United States has long been the shining
example of a "good" infrastructure project. But it has certainly subsidized
the development of sprawling suburbs and a car-centric culture. Nowadays many
expensive government infrastructure proposals (such as passenger rail) are
aimed at mitigating the externalities from the earlier infrastructure
projects. I wish we took a little more care at spending money wisely.

~~~
iuygtfrgth
Remember the interstate was justified as a military program

~~~
cma
Plus spreading us into suburbs made us less susceptible to nuclear
annihilation.

------
hartror
I am sure many people are wondering about the alternative to giant explosive
tin cans:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch>

~~~
iwwr
The light-gas gun launch + rocket hybrid is a very interesting concept. It
consists of a large, but conventional light-gas gun propelling a g-hardened
payload 2/3 of the way to orbital velocity, then the payload uses its own
engines to accelerate the rest of the way. The scheme is advertised to cost
around $400M, but we should consider that within an order of magnitude. Even
at that, the opportinity to significantly lower launch costs should be
embraced.

~~~
bioh42_2
_Even at that, the opportinity to significantly lower launch costs should be
embraced._

But didn't you read the article? It explains clearly why even _halving_ launch
costs would not make much of a difference.

~~~
iwwr
Halving launch costs would be significant, it would save the satellite
industry many billions. Note that half orbital speed discount is much more
than 50% in launch energy savings.

------
mncolinlee
This article reflects a constant theme in American innovation. Capitalism by
itself does not demand innovation, but its militant thirst for resources does.
What Stephenson calls lock-in is a product of a system that demands maximal
efficiency of resources within an organization, but huge waste across the
culture. Think of the empty flatbeds driven across Iraq to inflate cost plus
contracts, drug companies competing to produce chemical analog drugs, or three
drug stores selling identical products on a single corner.

The modern Capitalist attitude among modern business schools is that research
and development is a cost center which must be minimized. This was a major
element of Carly Fiorina's plan to cut HP to profitability. However,
tremendous resources are thrown into marginal technologies in order to
redundantly market and protect them.

Most great innovations in American culture seemed to occur due to a great
existential need by our military. The Internet was designed as a
communications network to survive nuclear attack. Rockets, as Stephenson
pointed out, were improved for ICBMs. Most alternative fuel research is funded
by the DoD to provide alternatives for tanks and jets in case our nation gets
cut-off from its oil supply.

As someone who has run for office twice, I deeply understand that lobbyists
exist largely to make money flow regardless of the suitability of a given
contractor or product. I doubt our current military-industrial-congressional
complex is independent enough to provide groundbreaking developments when
incremental improvements suffice. Military lobbyists have become too powerful
and too monetarily influential to the candidate that wins.

~~~
arethuza
"The Internet was designed as a communications network to survive nuclear
attack."

Isn't that a bit of a myth? See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_desig...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_design_goals)

~~~
mncolinlee
Your Wikipedia-based contention does not appear to be relevant. Paul Baran's
original research does not match what the Internet actually became. On that
point, we agree. I based my contention strictly on the primary source-- Paul
Baran's RAND research note. The DARPA research and the RAND note were an
investigation into the idea of having a network which would meet military
objectives, possibly including communications after a nuclear strike. Much of
the note focused on that. Example after example exists of commissioned
military research which gets applied to a purpose other than the original
subject of the research-- that's exactly the point I was intending to get
across with my example. The structure of the Internet was designed to be
decentralized in part because Baran envisioned this military need. Whether the
RAND team and the DARPA team agreed on the direction of the research seems
besides the point.

------
quickpost
I'm surprised Stephenson didn't touch on SpaceX's potential as a game changer.
The biggest "next" step to increased space access, is a vastly cheaper, more
efficient, and potentially more reliable orbital rocket. And, SpaceX is doing
exactly that!

As Musk is so fond of saying, the existing options are the Lamborghini's of
launch vehicles, whereas he's trying to build the Honda. Safe, reliable, and
cheap!

I have a lot of hope that we will have a new Space Renaissance in our
lifetimes and I think the work that SpaceX, and other companies is doing will
be instrumental in getting us to Mars and beyond.

~~~
ansible
I agree with you and disagree with Stephenson. From TFA: "Sixty years and a
couple of trillion dollars later, we have reached a place that is
infinitesimally close to the top of that hill. Rockets are as close to perfect
as they're ever going to get."

From what I understand of the rocket business, this is completely wrong.

Current rockets designed by the established players (LockMart, etc.) are
optimised for performance, not overall cost. This comes from a variety of
factors, starting with the basic philosophy of the designers, to the rocket
fuels chosen, all the way up the design hierarchy.

I estimate that it is possible to reduce launch costs by at least 10x, and
that is using 1960's rocket technology with modern computers and sensors. The
key is looking at what is going to reduce overall operational cost. I don't
have room to explain everything, but suffice it to say I'm a fan of big dumb
boosters.

There are many, many political factors at work that have slowed down the cost
reductions which we would see if this was some other industry. One of the
biggest factors is that the major governments don't really want launchers to
become cheaper. Again, it gets back to the space race, and the governments
don't want just anyone to have ICBM capability. The big companies also don't
want competition for their cash cows, so they lobby hard to make sure space
access remains as expensive as possible.

~~~
quickpost
> I estimate that it is possible to reduce launch costs by at least 10x, and
> that is using 1960's rocket technology with modern computers and sensors.

I couldn't agree more. They are already at least 3x cheaper based on my very
rough calculations and wikipedia:

\- Falcon 9: $56million

\- Delta IV: $150million

\- Atlas V: $187million

And they are just at the very beginning of recovering their research costs and
systematizing the process of rocket building. I am amazed at what they have
been able to accomplish thus far.

~~~
jacoblyles
Did you correct for inflation?

<http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/>

~~~
quickpost
I'm not sure what you mean. Those are all active launch vehicles and current
prices.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V>

They're 1960's technology, not 1960's prices... ;)

------
mbrubeck
It's not mentioned in the article, but in addition to his work as a writer,
Neal Stephenson once worked as an advisor to Blue Origin, the spaceflight
company founded by Jeff Bezos.

Blue Origin is focused on suborbital space flight using rockets. But I
remember Stephenson making some vague statements about his work there (at a
reading of _Quicksilver_ at the University of Washington) that included
research into space elevators and other less-proven technologies.

------
bkudria
If you enjoyed this piece, be sure to read "Mother Earth Mother Board",
written by Stephenson and published in Wired in December 1996. It's a long and
fascinating look at the world of undersea cabling, and it's chock-full of
super-interesting facts.

Full giant extremely-long and interesting article here:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/ffglass_pr.html>

~~~
alanfalcon
Excellent, I was hoping that this article serves as a kind of precursor or
preview of material that Neal is working on. Given that undersea cabling is
discussed in some detail in Cryptonomicon (published three years later in
1999) then that means we can probably look forward to interesting space travel
discussed in Neal's next tale. Anathem touched on a Project Orion type
spacecraft, but this article is definitely covering a different slant.

~~~
defen
I'm not sure what his next book is, but he's currently working on
<http://mongoliad.com/>

------
Vivtek
Ha: "[After all,] _the modern petroleum industry is a direct outgrowth of the
practice of going out in wooden, wind-driven ships to hunt sperm whales with
hand-hurled spears and then boiling their heads to make lamp fuel._ "

God, that guy has a way with words.

------
uvdiv
> _The above circumstances provide a remarkable example of path dependency.
> Had these contingencies not obtained, rockets with orbital capability would
> not have been developed so soon, and when modern societies became interested
> in launching things into space they might have looked for completely
> different ways of doing so._

> _Before dismissing the above story as an aberration, consider that the
> modern petroleum industry is a direct outgrowth of the practice of going out
> in wooden, wind-driven ships to hunt sperm whales with hand-hurled spears
> and then boiling their heads to make lamp fuel._

Is he seriously citing the adoption of petroleum fuels as an example of path
dependency?

~~~
iuygtfrgth
It is, we had whale oil which needs handling in barrels and could be burnt in
lamps, so we switched to crude oil which was then refined to the same grade as
whale oil and could be handled in the same barrels and burnt in the same
lamps. Then we switched to tankers but the oil could still be burnt in the
same lamps so no consumer change, then the consumer changed to using it in
their cars but we shipped it in the same tankers.

Now we have a system where we can only use a fuel that is delivered in a
certain quantity to a local gas station as a liquid that can be burned.

Compare this with the electricity grid where we can switch from coal to
nuclear to wind to gas without anyone noticing.

~~~
uvdiv
Maybe I'm just ignorant, or blinded by cognitive biases, but I always imagine
the combination of gas/diesel and internal combustion engines as an
engineering optimum, reached iteratively after decades of wandering through
parameter space. At least wikipedia's version [1] of the history of cars seems
consistent with this, showing a history of dozens of engine designs and fuel
choices (solids, liquids, gases, and electric batteries) long before the ICE
came to dominate. (Maybe I'm unreasonably optimistic, but I'm unsurprised
we've succeed in breaking free of our original "path", steam engines). Perhaps
it's my lack of imagination, but I'm not aware of any practical fuel (chemical
or otherwise) superior, in energy density and convenience, to liquid
hydrocarbons. Nor am I aware that there was a historically superior way of
obtaining liquid hydrocarbons to letting them gush out of the ground, which I
understood was the least expensive source for them throughout modern history.

Am I simply rationalizing the history of modern transportation, and if so can
you enlighten me as to the "paths not taken" that I'm blind to?

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile>

~~~
iuygtfrgth
If oil hadn't been available do you think Karl Benz would have sat down and
invented the entire drilling, refining and transport system before he started
on the car?

The ICE was possible because oil infrastructure was there - the first gas
stations were the pharmacists who already sold the oil

~~~
lincolnq
Nobody is claiming anything about the internal combustion engine. Uvdiv is
claiming that oil is not an example of path dependence because it is actually
optimal. That there exists a path to get to the ICE does not refute the
argument.

------
l3amm
TL;DR version (though you should just read it): The space industry is a great
example of path dependency and lock-in in innovation. The reasons why we use
rockets to launch satellites are historical dating back to the days of Hitler
and the H-Bomb. After trillions spent on developing ICBMs capable of crossing
the world, our governments are 'locked-in' to using rockets to get things into
space. Using rockets for this purpose is not nearly as efficient as other
methods, but we have perfected that practice to the point of perfection. In
order to increase space accessibility we need to "cross-the-valley" to another
technology, but since it has taken so much money (path-dependent) we are
locked-in, and it will be very hard to innovate in this space.

~~~
crikli
TL;DR version of this TL;DR version:

We use rockets to get to space because getting as good at other methods is too
expensive.

~~~
iuygtfrgth
Not quite - we use very large expensive rockets to launch very large expensive
payloads. The rockets are large and expensive because the payloads are large
and expensive - which they need to be because launches are large and
expensive.

Imagine if Nasa had been in charge of developing aviation in the US - you
certainly wouldn't have Cessnas and 737s.

There is a brilliant parody about Nasa being in charge of the old wagon trains
going into the weat and their plans to make one giant wagon that would be able
to make the journey and return safely.

------
crikli
Reading this article raises a question that I ask as devil's advocate
(mostly): why do we need to get into space?

I can think of three reasons: 1) We need to put up comsats. 2) Military
superiority 3) Because we can and it's cool.

To the first, as the article stated the sky's already getting a bit full as
there are only so many comsat "slots"

To the second, SDI never really worked and that threat doesn't exist anymore.

To the third, well...is it worth the brajillions? I personally think it is
because we don't know what's out there, but that's a really poor sales pitch.
:)

Perhaps it's my limited imagination and understanding, but I'm unable to
conjure the reward that offsets the risks/costs.

~~~
slackerIII
"For example, there are millions of asteroids of different sizes and
composition flying throughout space. One category, known as S-type, is
composed of iron, magnesium silicates and a variety of other metals, including
cobalt and platinum. An average half-kilometer S-type asteroid is worth more
than $20 trillion."

[http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/featured-
article/spac...](http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/featured-
article/space-the-final-frontier-of-profit)

~~~
gaius
No it is not - because if that much were available it would drive down the
price...

~~~
arethuza
In one asteroid is worth $20 trillion, how much are 5000 asteroids worth?

~~~
gaius
I expect if you had 5000 asteroids worth of iron, you'd have to pay people to
take it off your hands.

~~~
arethuza
An 800m iron asteroid would make a rather nasty weapon.... (about 75000Mt,
probably considerably more than all of the nuclear weapons that have ever
existed).

------
tsotha
>But we are not making any serious effort as a society to cross those valleys.
It is not clear why.

Because what we have works well enough for the task at hand. The problem,
which Stephenson alludes do earlier in the article, is space just isn't
proving to be as useful as we had anticipated. We're already doing pretty much
everything that you can justify from an economic perspective. Activities like
asteroid mining and space solar power aren't going to make sense for centuries
even if we dramatically cut the cost of $/kg to orbit.

So sure, we could do the same things more cheaply after a huge investment in,
say, tethers. But so what? How does it make sense to spend trillions on a new
launch technology when you could use that money to buy all the conventional
rockets you'll need for the next 50 years.

------
neutronicus
His points translate more or less directly to nuclear fission - Uranium-fueled
light water reactors are the result of another "hill-climbing process" and
other reactor designs (HTGR, LFTR, etc.) receive almost no commercial
attention, in large part due to the regulatory, accounting, and insurance
burden of proof that any new design has to meet.

------
ZeroGravitas
It's worth noting that the article that always gets cited every time the
Dvorak keyboard gets mentioned, ("Fable of the Keys", claiming that it's a
myth that it is more efficient than Qwerty) is based on the near religious
belief amongst certain groups of economists that path-dependency of this sort
doesn't exist.

They believe we use rockets/Qwerty/Windows because they are the best and the
all seeing market has chosen wisely, not because of a series of effectively
random decisions and coincidences that occured in the past.

------
bioh42_2
Great article but the modern oil industry did not grow out of whale hunting.
In fact it bankrupted whale hunters because it provided cheaper oil.

Also we would only end up as "the Ottoman empire of the 21st century" if
someone else creates a radically superior technology which we spectacularly
fail to copy, reproduce, or simply license form them.

I think the sad truth is, there just isn't much to do in space if all you have
is a cheap and easy way to escape earth's gravity.

Sure space tourism would be fun for a while. But at some point we need to
either terraform something or decide to live in city sized spaceships, THEN
you'd have a real incentive to innovate launch vehicles.

