• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

why has mechanical/propulsion/energy technology stagnated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OS
  • Start date Start date
OS

OS

Lifer
Airplanes and spacecraft aren't any faster now than they were 30 years ago, nor do they have any more range. Those monorails/maglevs/bullet trains that were promised 15-20 years ago are no where to be seen. Electric cars flopped, hovercars are a laughable idea.

I have a feeling when I die, people will still be driving around gasoline powered cars, commercial air travel will still be subsonic and space flight will still just be an expensive toy for government. Oh yeah and this thing about nuclear fusion reactors, why is it every ten years, commercial application is still 50 years away?

I want a jetson's kind of future dammit!
 
Its all a matter of cost. Look at the Concorde, too expensive for what it does. People aren't willing to pay the extra $$$ to save an hour or two of travel time.

As for cars, I think the fuel cell will dominate at the end of this century.
 
Originally posted by: OS
Airplanes and spacecraft aren't any faster now than they were 30 years ago, nor do they have any more range. Those monorails/maglevs/bullet trains that were promised 15-20 years ago are no where to be seen. Electric cars flopped, hovercars are a laughable idea.

I have a feeling when I die, people will still be driving around gasoline powered cars, commercial air travel will still be subsonic and space flight will still just be an expensive toy for government. Oh yeah and this thing about nuclear fusion reactors, why is it every ten years, commercial application is still 50 years away?

I want a jetson's kind of future dammit!
Click to expand...

1) This surprises you? Look how long we used the horse and buggy? The car has only been around 100 years. The commercial airliner is really a post WWII thing (before it was more a very very expensive fad). And its not as if those two haven't improved dramatically in terms of safety and efficiency. Give it time. PHYSICAL technology has LOTS of barriers.... the biggest one being cost. The Concorde was expensive. The electric cars were horribly expensive (not to mention, its kind of silly just to push off the 'pollution production' to the power plants when we're still using fossil fuels instead of nuclear or alternative sources... <grrr>). If you suddenly gave a someone a pressing reason to make something (involving an "economic opportunity"), it would probably happen very quickly. That's microelectronics for you--the individual parts are relatively inexpensive, once the techniques are developed (which isn't cheap). So bringing it to the masses makes it viable.

2) Just for your information: the maglevs do exist--there are several in Japan and Europe that travel 200+ mph. America's dislike for the rail has prevented it here.
 
About planes : Well the amount of energy needed to propel a plane faster than sound and beyond is way disproportionate to the speed gain thus economically not feasble (see Concorde)

Maglevs : Germany has got one that is operational, proven, already for at least a decade - yet it will not be build because of political issues and we already have a working Highspeed train system the gain of the Transrapid would be marginal (due to the relatively short distances in Germany) and our HStrains (ICE) use existing infrastructure - so basically it is a billions of $ technological wonder for the bin.... like so many technologies made in Germany - we are decent in inventing but fail to market (LCDs, VCR...)
 
Because Gasoline and Crude Oil is stil cheap. Other enegry solutions are too expensive and/or dangerous and are not widely available.
 
but the energy argument doesnt apply to the maglevs:

Transrapid uses the same amount of energy at 400km/h as the Rail HighSpeedtrain ICE at 250km/h
 
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Its all a matter of cost. Look at the Concorde, too expensive for what it does. People aren't willing to pay the extra $$$ to save an hour or two of travel time.

As for cars, I think the fuel cell will dominate at the end of this century.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pure economics. Once fossil fuels become more expensive than other energy sources, you'll see a huge paradigm shift.

*More expensive= When gas hits $5 per gallon (in today's dollars)
 
Originally posted by: B00ne
but the energy argument doesnt apply to the maglevs:

Transrapid uses the same amount of energy at 400km/h as the Rail HighSpeedtrain ICE at 250km/h
Click to expand...




Yes, and airplanes are indeed faster and have greater range than 30 years ago. Not to mention the reduction in fuel consumption.


 
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: OS
Airplanes and spacecraft aren't any faster now than they were 30 years ago, nor do they have any more range. Those monorails/maglevs/bullet trains that were promised 15-20 years ago are no where to be seen. Electric cars flopped, hovercars are a laughable idea.

I have a feeling when I die, people will still be driving around gasoline powered cars, commercial air travel will still be subsonic and space flight will still just be an expensive toy for government. Oh yeah and this thing about nuclear fusion reactors, why is it every ten years, commercial application is still 50 years away?

I want a jetson's kind of future dammit!
Click to expand...

1) This surprises you? Look how long we used the horse and buggy? The car has only been around 100 years. The commercial airliner is really a post WWII thing (before it was more a very very expensive fad). And its not as if those two haven't improved dramatically in terms of safety and efficiency. Give it time. PHYSICAL technology has LOTS of barriers.... the biggest one being cost. The Concorde was expensive. The electric cars were horribly expensive (not to mention, its kind of silly just to push off the 'pollution production' to the power plants when we're still using fossil fuels instead of nuclear or alternative sources... <grrr>). If you suddenly gave a someone a pressing reason to make something (involving an "economic opportunity"), it would probably happen very quickly. That's microelectronics for you--the individual parts are relatively inexpensive, once the techniques are developed (which isn't cheap). So bringing it to the masses makes it viable.

2) Just for your information: the maglevs do exist--there are several in Japan and Europe that travel 200+ mph. America's dislike for the rail has prevented it here.
Click to expand...

Heh...that "economic opportunity" is where the government comes in. They're one of the few willing to take the loss and go ahead and spend more money on E85 and Biodiesel vehicles...but, hey, if it helps you in the long run, and the environment a little, too, who's complaining?
 
dont worry OS, i'll be working on it in few hours just after i finish showering, breakfast and inquire about my H1-B visa.
Fear not my friend, your Jetson future is nearer than you can imagine. Will PM you when i'm finish.
 
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: Eli
One word: Energy.

Or rather, the lack of.
Click to expand...

You used the wrong word. The right word is "money."
Click to expand...
Well, I guess. But energy has a lot to do with it too.

Currently, our energy sources suck. Nuclear is the best we have.

We aren't really as advanced as we would like to think. A couple of hundred years is nothing.
 
Originally posted by: AvesPKS


Heh...that "economic opportunity" is where the government comes in. They're one of the few willing to take the loss and go ahead and spend more money on E85 and Biodiesel vehicles...but, hey, if it helps you in the long run, and the environment a little, too, who's complaining?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Aves. They're also the one, usually through defense contracts, who "lose" a lot of money for technological development and/or scientific understanding. I'm personally going to graduate school on a DoD-funded project that broadly looks at high strain-rate deformations of metals--the military is thinking armor-penetration... but it has applications in crash-worthiness and metal-forming (which are much more mundane, but much more often used).

Actually, I've heard (i'm not in the industry, but i have friends who are) that if we were to start construction of nuclear power plants again (no one in the US has built a power-genearation nuclear reactor in quite awhile because of regulations), we could easily make 6000 MW power plants (still fission based) that have essentially NO air pollution (and most of our air pollution in the US is power plants and commercial vehicles, not private ones). And our "storage" technology for spent fuel is getting better as well. Most of this is because of the research that goes into our ship-going reactors and, believe it or not, space-propulsion research. But, we need to "jump start" this nuclear project.... because right now, the NRC makes building one completely unfeasible for a power company trying to make money.


 
Originally posted by: HokieESM
Originally posted by: AvesPKS


Heh...that "economic opportunity" is where the government comes in. They're one of the few willing to take the loss and go ahead and spend more money on E85 and Biodiesel vehicles...but, hey, if it helps you in the long run, and the environment a little, too, who's complaining?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Aves. They're also the one, usually through defense contracts, who "lose" a lot of money for technological development and/or scientific understanding. I'm personally going to graduate school on a DoD-funded project that broadly looks at high strain-rate deformations of metals--the military is thinking armor-penetration... but it has applications in crash-worthiness and metal-forming (which are much more mundane, but much more often used).

Actually, I've heard (i'm not in the industry, but i have friends who are) that if we were to start construction of nuclear power plants again (no one in the US has built a power-genearation nuclear reactor in quite awhile because of regulations), we could easily make 6000 MW power plants (still fission based) that have essentially NO air pollution (and most of our air pollution in the US is power plants and commercial vehicles, not private ones). And our "storage" technology for spent fuel is getting better as well. Most of this is because of the research that goes into our ship-going reactors and, believe it or not, space-propulsion research. But, we need to "jump start" this nuclear project.... because right now, the NRC makes building one completely unfeasible for a power company trying to make money.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about the improvement in reactor technology, but I was under the impression that one of the limitations reactors face is that we are running out of places to put the nuclear waste.

But I definitely agree with you that the government is indirectly responsible for a lot more advancement that people give us credit for; and I'm not just talking about Tang and Tempurpedic pillows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top