The Technological Stagnation of Human Culture

The Technological Stagnation of Human Culture


The below article is the synthesis of two articles on which I have
been writing simultaneously. I put them together in order to hint at
the recent historical context of the forthcoming retirement of the
Space Shuttle.

To begin with, I would like to make clear that when I talk about
technological stagnation, will be referring myself to what I define as
macroscopic engineering, or macroengineering for short.
Macroengineering is not electrical engineering. Nor is it nanoscopic
nor bioengineering, since the latter is based on genes.
Macroengineering can be defined as classical engineering, since it
exists at least since Roman times. And with a few exeptions like the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, today it clearly is aerospace
engineering which harbours the greatest developmental challenges of
all branches of macroengineering. And in aerospace technology, it
naturally is the transporation of people which places the highest
technological demands. As a consequence, this is also the potentially
most expensive of all branches of engineering.

And in terms of a philosophical sidenote, machines can well be
considered as the most astonishing product of terrestrial life.
Together with ideology and economy, machines are one of the three
major forces shaping cultural evolution.

Possibly only a few of you will be aware of what kind of twentieth
anniversary we have had yesterday: On the 15th of November 1988
ocurred the first and only orbital flight of the Soviet Space Shuttle
Buran.

The Buran was in some ways a more advanced spacecraft than the
American Shuttle. It could carry 20% more cargo than the American
shuttle, it´s orbital maneuvering system was much more potent and it´s
only flight of two orbits was unmanned, i.e. it was fully automated.

The most beautiful images of Buran which I found on the internet are
at http://englishrussia.com/?p=1362 . The last photo, or third image
from the bottom, of that page clearly shows that the main engines of
the shuttle did not participate in the launch.

The most tragical aspect about the history of Buran is the manner of
how it ended. After the Buran program was stopped by Boris Yeltsin in
1992, the orbiter was mounted - horizontally, as is usual in Russia
and was in the Soviet Union - on top of a fully assembled Energia
rocket inside building 112 at Baikonur, so that the whole launch
configuration could be seen by visitors. After the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, Kasachstan became the owner of the Baikonur cosmodrome
and all of its contents, including the Buran.

But Kasachstan had no interest at all in the shuttle, so there was no
money for the maintaineance of building 112. And on the 12th of May
2002 the roof of the building colapsed, completely crushing the
shuttle below it and killing the 8 workers, which had finally arrived
to work on its roof. So by then, it took no more than the weight of
these 8 workers to collapse the roof. And as you can see at 45º55´41"N
63º17´52"E on Google Earth, this roof has remained unrepaired up to
the present. The sad result of this incident can be seen on the page
http://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/bourane-fin.php . For me, the most
depressing among these images is "hangar11-grand".

The Buran project was stopped at a time when Russia was plagued by
financial problems.. I have not found any information which could
reveal whether it´s demise might have been due solely to the lack of
capital, or also due to the lack of appreciation and the resulting
will to somehow keep the project alive. At any rate, the Buran project
was as costly as was to be expected: Between 14.5 and 20 billion
Rubles, as estimated on page http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ft/q0153.shtml
.. The Soviet Union saw above all a military threat in the American
Space Shuttle, so the construction of Buran was primarily motivated by
trying to counter that threat. With the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, this primary motivation was also gone. Nonwithstanding, the
demise of this exellent piece of engineering was a sign for the times
to come.

As the next great technological loss after Buran I would consider the
Lockheed SR-71, which had its last flight on October 9th 1999. It was
a military aircraft, but it was unarmed. This is significant because
today - and in distinction to manned spaceflight - arms must be
considered as culturally counterproductive "achievements" of our
species. And even though, according to Wikipedia, the SR-71 had only
23% of the enormous range of 23,400km of the Global Hawk, it could
outrun rockets (Mach 3.2+ vs. 650km/h for the Global Hawk) and flew
30% higher than the Global Hawk (25,900m). And it had stealth
properties. As always, the price tag played a role in it´s demise. But
in this case personal motives and a lack of attitude were causes so
obvious, that I can hardly add anything to this subject here. Instead,
I invite you to read what is said on the page at
http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/sr71.shtml about this issue.

After that, the next great loss was surely that of the Concorde, which
had one fatal accident in its 27 years of service on the 25th of July
2000, and which had its last flight on the 22nd of October 2003. Due
to the sonic boom issue, the Concorde had ended up as a medium range
(max. 7,250km) trans-oceanic airplane, which is sort of a
contradiction in terms. It could not reach South America from London,
and thus became a single route airplane between London/Paris and New
York. Nevertheless, it was ludicrous that British Airways refused to
let Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airways buy a few planes with
the argument, that only British Airways and Air France could service
that plane. But the definitive knockout for the Concorde came, when
for yet unknown reasons Airbus started to demand exorbitant prices for
Concorde spare parts, and there are persistent rumors that this was
due to a secret arrangement between Air France and Airbus (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde).

Even though there were times when the Concorde, just like it happens
to any other passenger airplane, flew only half full, during its last
months it was completely booked out, and there were plenty of people
who were sad and angry about it´s demise (see
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...agewanted=all).
The Concorde offered the unique educational experience of letting its
passengers see the roundness of Earth and the blackness of space.

What I have searched but never found, is the reason of why charter
flights on the Concorde stopped after the July 2000 accident. Had
Richard Branson been able to make the deal with British Airways, who
knows: Pehaps there would have been Concorde flights between London
and Rio de Jainero or even Buenos Aires with a refuelling stop on
Santiago Island (Cape Verde archipelago), or perhaps even between Los
Angeles and Sidney with a refuelling stop on Kirimati Island (Line
Islands, Republic of Kiribati). These lonely and poor island republics
would quite likely have been happy to have the Concorde put them on
the map. But never mind - I´m just dreaming about what could have
been, because somebody ought to.

So should Richard Branson and his aerospace designer Burt Rutan be
able to pull off their project of the suborbital passenger vehicle
SpaceShip Two, they will deserve a monument simply for going against
the trend of our time. Supposedly, SpaceShip Two will fly next year
for the first time. But the unbelievable thing is that they say that
if SpaceShip Two will be a success, then they will plan on a SpaceShip
Three which would be orbital (see
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...succeeds.html).
I tend to doubt this. But if it should happen, then it will be a
tremendous slap in the face of NASA.

Because what I would consider as the greatest technological loss since
the fall of the Roman Empire is going to come soon, in 2010: The
retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttle.

The claim that the Shuttle is a principally flawed system, is
basically the same as claiming that the external tank (ET) can only be
built just the way it is, with just this length and just this foam
covering it outside. This claim is daring, to say the least, and I
have yet to see some argument which would prove it.

As far as the Challenger accident is concerned, I think it can be
blamed on the "space or bust" attitude of NASA, when it inicially
tried to change it´s image into some sort of space trucking company.
In distinction to the Columbia accident though (bubbles in foam), The
Challenger accident did not have a single cause, but came about
through a combination of causes (see http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...s/q0122.shtml).
Nonetheless, I wonder why NASA never put some electric heating collars
around the seams between the solid fuel rocket booster (SRB) segments,
which would fall off just before launch. Next to every idiot should be
able to design a simple, cheap and failproof system for that purpose.

The claim that an outer, tear resistant coating would introduce the
danger of even larger pieces coming off and damaging the Shuttle´s
heat shield, ignores the proposition that this coating is supposed to
be tear resistent in the first hand. This would of course add weight
to the Shuttle. But there is no reason to assume that a somewhat
longer tank containing somewhat more propellant to compensate for the
added weight would worsen the aerodynamic properties of the Shuttle´s
launch configuration. Intuitively speaking, a somewhat more stretched
launch configuration should rather have better aerodynamic properties
than a more stubby one. And a polished coating should improve laminar
airflow (less air resistance) on the outside of the tank in comparison
to the rougher foam surface. And since the ET tends to deform itself
slightly during flight, a more rigid outer shell might actually help
here.

And is the foam today employed really the only substance, which could
possibly serve the function of thermally isolating the liquid hydrogen
and oxygen tanks? As it turns out, during launch this foam is not
loosening itself from the tank, but it is internally desintegrating,
largely due to enclosed air bubbles expanding. The "solution" to this
problem which NASA and Norton Thiokol have come up with, is as usual
the cheapest one possible: They just spray on the foam more carefully,
hoping to avoid the formation of bubbles. I´d really like to get my
hands on a piece of this cursed foam, and I wouldn´t be surprised, if
I could sink my fingernail into it. Now if this foam is not replaced
by anything else, then the above mentioned tear resistant outer
coating of the ET would need to have venting holes of the appropriate
diameter and the appropriate spacing, so the air released by the foam
can escape.

And once one starts to contemplate the possibility of a longer ET, why
not also contemplate the possibility of non-cruogenic fuels, which
would have a lower specific impulse but don´t need to be isolated?
Never mind, I´m just wondering because somebody should.

Now, to say that the development and testing of such implements would
take too much time since the Shuttle is supposed to go out of service
in 2010, is nothing but saying that improving the Shuttle is
impossible because NASA has decided that so it is. Rather cynical, if
you ask me.

Another problem is, that nowadays there exist plenty of people who
believe that, regardless of its size, a manned space vehicle should be
built to be 100% safe. But first of all, exploration includes but is
not the same as investigation, and it *implies* putting one´s life at
risk. Amundsen and Scott would agree with this. And second, there is
not even a commercial airplane in which all passengers have ejection
seats.

Furthermore, the concept of cheap access to space (or CATS) was not
only based on the cheap and quick turnover of the Shuttles between
flights, but also on a hoped for synergy between the Shuttle and the
International Space Station (ISS). The idea was that lab research on
the ISS could develop valuable products like alloys, crystals, perfect
ball bearings, etc., which could only be produced in space in order to
then be sold on Earth. It was seen as a first step towards not just
CATS, but towards an at least in part economically self sustained
human presence in space. Or in other words, CATS or no CATS, it is
principally impossible to develop an economically sustained human
presence in space without a vehicle which can return freight to
Earth.

So if the Shuttle were too unsafe to transport people, then it would
be necessary to develop an unmanned vehicle which can transport a good
amount (more than a dozen tons, say) of freight from low earth orbit
(LOE) back to Earth. The Soviet Buran Shuttle could in fact fly fully
automatic from start to landing, and in the first missions it was
planned have a Soyuz dock with the Shuttle in orbit and the crew
entering and leaving it before the Shuttle returns to Earth. But this
procedure would of course require the maintaineance of two rather
sophisticated trans atmospheric transport systems which can both
return to Earth and which would often need to cooperate for the same
missions, one for freight and one for crew transport, which would
supposedly be even more expensive than a Shuttle which can transport
both freight and crew.

Unfortunately, the microgravity on the ISS turned out to be a major
obstacle for the straightforward development of plans to develop
valuable space products to be sold on Earth, such that there would
have been extensive research necessary to overcome these problems. But
due to the failure of ESA to develop the Hermes rescue vehicle, the
ISS could never be manned by more than three people, with two being
the minimum for the maintaineance of the station.

Considering the tremendous amounts of experiments that are mounted in
the ISS, it´s poor production of scientific papers, which you can see
at http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...lications.html
, can only be explained by the cronical lack of personell. Now NASA
will prepare the ISS for a crew of six, even though the first manned
Orion capsule is not scheduled to arrive before 2016. But by then it
will be far too late.

What appears to have been forgotten, is that the specialty of the
Shuttle is not to bring payloads into orbit, but to bring them back to
earth or servive them "at the roadside" in LOE, in fact converting LOE
into a roadside of sorts where you can leave, pick up and exchange
anything you like within the payload capacity of the vehicle. Without
the Shuttle, the Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules (MPLMs) on the ISS
will basically loose their intended function, since it will not be
possible any more to return them to earth, and thus there will be no
more exchange of experiment racks.

So once you get six people to work in the ISS, it would amount to a
fourfould increase of the personell available to do productive
research work - two being occupied with station maintaineace - at a
time when the exchange of experiment racks will be no more possible.
And anyone familiar with labwork will know, that in order to obtain a
desired result you often have to tinker around modifying your lab
setup. Especially if you want to obtain a new material. Due to the
unavailability of research supply outlets on the ISS, there is very
little margin for tinkering in orbit. This can only be done on Earth,
and this is one of the reasons why without the possibility of an
efficient exchange of experiment racks by means of MPLMs the ISS would
soon become overstaffed, rather then understaffed as it is right now.
And without the Shuttle there will be nothing which can exchange
MPLMs.

In summary, that hoped for synergy between the Shuttle and the ISS
mentioned above never had a chance to develop, and in all likelyhood
will never have a chance to develop in the future either.

I am certain that there exists at least one simple explanation of why
NASA has never managed to improve the ET: The ever present lack of
funds. I was already becoming suspicious that something was wrong,
when more and more time passed without the Challenger being replaced
or new versions of the Shuttle being built. So the fleet just started
to age. Supposedly seduced by the Apollo success, for a few years I
also believed in that delusion of instant CATS thanks to the Space
Shuttle, but I did finally recognize how naive I was then and that I
had just fallen for a propaganda trick of NASA. In fact, today I feel
that most of NASA´s claims are nothing but propaganda based on hot air
(NASA going to Mars? What a joke! I even have doubts that they´ll make
it back to the moon. Doesn´t matter if we´ve already been there or
not).

So now they are trying to build some sort of Apollo-on-steriods
(Orion), with a launch vehicle (Ares I) partially derived from the
Shuttle SRBs and apparently designed primarily for being cheap - with
the consequence that as of right now it threatens to be incapable of
carrying the capsule into orbit (see
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...0,561055.story
or http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/news/constellation). Due to their
relative simplicity, solid fuel rockets are much cheaper than liquid
fuel rockets. Basically, they mean "more bang for the buck".

And what am I to think about that idea of accelerating the Orion
capsule backwards when injecting the craft into its lunar transit
trajectory, so its crew gets pulled out of their seats? This sometimes
makes me wonder about whether in reality the lunar option of the
Constellation Program might not just be yet another promotional trick
of NASA.

It is ridiculous to believe that these small Orion capsules, -
designed as of right now for six people and next to nothing else -
which represent a radical reduction in technological complexity in
comparison to the Shuttle, will somehow be able to replace it.
Nonetheless, NASA keeps insisting on trying to sell dreams on a
shoestring budget, among other things because "defence" spending
always comes first on the government agenda. But a protesting NASA
director soon will be an ex NASA director, and thus he/she is obliged
to keep the mouth shut and just keep selling inspiring propaganda
lies.

The major question here to which I cannot find an answer, is: How can
the development of the Constellation Program, which does in fact
appear to be flawed already now, possibly be cheaper than the
development of a new ET for the Shuttle?

But besides that, I am moved by a really harrowing question: Quoting
from "An Analysis of NASA´s Plans for Continuing Human Spaceflight
After Retiring the Space Shuttle" published this month by Congress, it
says "In 2004, President Bush announced his “Vision for U.S. Space
Exploration",...” and " The President also directed NASA to develop
new vehicles for human spaceflight that would allow missions to the
moon, Mars, and beyond." (see http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/98xx/doc9...SA_Letter.pdf).
And I wonder: Did this "vision" really originate in the feeble mind of
that simpleton, or did he consult with NASA specialists before
trumpeting it out?

Because if he didn´t, then this would explain everything: If he did
not consult with NASA specialists before getting that idea, then NASA
has simply fallen victim to a patriotic knee jerk reflex in the simple
mind of a president - for whom national pride naturally counts far
more than lofty goals for humankind - when he heard about the Chinese
aiming at the Moon. If not, then the now almost forseeable failure of
our species to permanently establish itself in space would turn out to
be the most nefarious legacy of that quasi chimpanzee (human beings
are never born, but made by education). Because at NASA, the seat for
a chimpanzee better be in a test capsule, but not in the director´s
office.

Just like was the Apollo program, the Shenzhou program is basically
motivated by national pride, even though the future docking adapter on
top of the orbital module of Shenzhou will be identical to that of the
Soyuz, so that Shenzhou will be able to dock to the ISS. Can a NASA
director say "no", if the president comes up with a stupid idea? As
far as I can see, the Constellation Program is equivalent to giving up
on the vision of establishing terrestrial life beyond Earth´s
atmosphere, in exchange for doubtful promises of space adventures. And
there is nothing about the Constellation Program which bears direct
relation with a mission to Mars.

The financial restraints are for real, but so is a lack of attitude.
And not so much on the side of NASA, which is just a government agency
obliged by the circumstances to make false promises, but on the side
of the people who vote for that government. Most people don´t have the
slightest interest in that our species learns to establish itself in
space. In fact, there are plenty of people who for whatever reason
would be happy to see manned spaceflight be stopped altogether. And I
do believe that this could really happen to us, even though I hope
that I will not live to see it. It is naive to think that the spirit
of the explorer ("Go where nobody has gone before..." etc.) is somehow
innate to Homo Sapiens.

Some cultures explore, and others don´t. One only needs to recall the
enormous fleets of giant ships which the Chinese sent all the way to
Africa in the early 15th century, only to stop next to all maritime
travel just 50 years later. The cause seems to have been a major swing
in government philosophy (Conficianism) towards isolationism in the
late Ming period. I believe that a study of this episode of Chinese
history could teach us a lot about what could happen to ourselves in
the near future. Another illustrative example are the the aborigenes
of the Canary Islands (Spanish territory off the west coast of
Morocco). Among these seven islands and measured from La Gomera,
Tenerife is at a distance of only 28km, while La Palma is at a
distance of only 57km. All of these islands were habitated by
aborigenes and are full of timber, yet none of these aborigenes ever
built boats.

There exist other minor contemporary signs of a cultural trend towards
technological stagnation in macroengineerig, which are not as
spectacular as the cases mentioned above in this article. For example,
the FIA has now decided that in the future all Formula 1 cars shall
race with the same motor. And Ferrari has announced, that in this case
they will leave the F1 circuit (see http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin.../10/8595.html).
F1 cars are already now subject to severe technological
reglementation, and I applaude this decision by Ferrari. So if the FIA
sticks to its decision, then I hope that Ferrari will do so as well.
And they should do so with their head held up high and a parting
statement like:"May the proponents of technological degeneration
compete among themselves on the racetrack, Ferrari is not and will not
be among them". Anyhow, piston engines get me bored, and I guess I
would only watch car races if the cars were powered by turboshaft
engines.

I could give more examples of stagnation tendencies in
macroengineering, but what would interest me is if the reader could
provide me with counter examples of significant qualitative
contemporary advances in macroengineering exept for arms development,
like the LHC which I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

What this all boils down to, is that it most likely is not the concept
of a Space Shuttle, which is inherently flawed. But instead it´s our
species which, as a logical consequence of evolution, is inherently
flawed - and by far not only because of the technological issues
discussed above. But this is not an appropriate forum for a general
discussion of human cognition and postmodern attitudes.


Peter Holm