Anyone here feel all optimistic about space technology suddenly taking off like a rocket?
Good reasons (apart from getting off on it):
1) Fundamental Science has hit a brick wall. We spent billions on the LHC and all it does is confirms the standard model and pops up a Higgs particle. This is typical of the trend. The cost of science has now exceeded benefits. Ironically science itself is constrained by thermodynamics and the complexity is constraining any further developments. Not that I expect this to be widely appreciated here in the land where cliches rule over reason, but the upshot is that there are no more "new fundamental sciences" to come. Hence no new space technology.
2017-05-28T13:30:42Z
In consideration of answers here, I now realise that my question belongs in the general science category, as I am trying to address the big picture of where space tech is going overall, and how it relates to physical science as a pursuit limited by the typical requirements of any complex system. People seem to be totally engaged by the details of individual projects as in how these are marketed to the public, which is fair enough for space enthusiasts. But it is the big picture that interests me
Brigalow Bloke2017-05-28T07:14:09Z
Favorite Answer
Not at all. "Big accelerator physics" isn't doing much though you never know what's around the corner. Astrophysics is where physics has plenty to discover. How about Tabby's star and of course gravity waves?
DNA, RNA and related research is the future for now and plain old chemistry isn't finished by far. There are huge areas of land that have barely been looked at by geologists, and then there are the oceans.
Definitely. Mars will be the watershed. The missions will not be stopped as quick as the Apollos. Too much to discover, compared with the Moon. Including making it a permanent Habitat.
No new fundamental basic sciences? Of course not. Astronomer Arthur Eddington once said, "All of Science is either Physics or stamp collecting." In other words, the only true science is Physics. And that will never change. When cavemen tamed fire, they were employing Physics. (Not stamp collecting.) Sir Isaac Newton worked out the Physics of space travel in the 1600s, but it was some 350 years later before the engineering to accomplish space travel even began to be a reality. I agree that advancements in Physics will be fewer and fewer as time progresses, due to the ever increasing complexity of achieving advances. But there are still plenty of advances possible, in my opinion. And we have centuries more of engineering to discover/invent in order for engineering to catch up with the fundamental knowledge base. Why is matter preferred over antimatter in our Universe? What is the deal with Quantum Entanglement? (It happens at least 10,000 times faster than light speed.) There is plenty left to discover and then put to good use, Physics and engineering wise.
What we need is another space race... Maybe limit it - no break-neck spending like we did in the 60's, but... the US only gets off it's butt to do anything when there's a challenge involved.... India and China are poised to be the next great explorers - cheap labor, lots of resources, and an will to advance their own technology. China, more than India, because of their dictatorial government - they don't need the will of the people; they just say, "do it", and it gets done.
What hubris to think that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. Science isn't constrained by anything. How do you know that there are no new fundamental sciences? What does that even mean? You assert a lot of things but offer nothing but opinion to back it up.