Friend and colleague Jack Uldrich is making waves again in the “nanopool.” His new book, titled Jump the Curve: 50 Essential Strategies for Dealing with Emerging Technologies, brings to bear his all-encompassing insight into advanced technologies, including those enabled by nanoscale materials.
From an October 1, 2007 Nanotechnology Now posting:
Noted Author Unveils New Website Dedicated to Exponential Advances in Technology
The amount of technological progress that is afoot is nothing short of revolutionary. To help leaders in all fields understand the accelerating pace of this change as well as provide them with the unique insights and innovative ideas necessary to better prepare their organizations for this radical advance, noted author and well-respected global futurist, Jack Uldrich has unveiled a new website: http://jumpthecurve.net
The new website compliments Uldrich's forthcoming book…and will be written in the same user-friendly way as his best-selling book The Next Big is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Business.
Read the rest of the story at http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=25313
Here are a few of my favorite quotes from JTC:
It is still difficult to obtain money, but for bright, motivated people with good ideas there is plenty of money to be found. To this end, many of the exponential advances … are now being funded by large corporations with deep pockets.
…it is important to understand that today’s accelerating pace of technological change implies, among other things, that society will likely experience the equivalent of 50 years of progress (at the old 20th century rate of change) in the next 10 to 15 years. And everywhere I look today—in the fields of nanotechnology, robotics, synthetic biology, information technology and the cognitive sciences—I see the modern day equivalent of the Sputnik launch. … just as Sputnik led to advances in communications and, in the process, the creation of entirely new industries, today’s technological advances are going to do the same thing—only they will do so in a timeframe that is exponentially faster than what we have experienced in the past half century.
Look for JTC early 2008.
In closing: Jack has an amazing ability to distill the best bits from the noise, and convert the insights gained into language fit for most levels of understanding, from CEO to person-on-the-street. Pay attention to what he says, if not for the fact that “Jack does know Jack about advanced technologies” then for the way he makes it accessible to diverse groups of stakeholders.
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The Space Elevator – An Interview with LiftPort's Michael J. Laine
Yes, I’m a believer. I believe in the promise of the Space Elevator (SE). I also believe that we are well on our way to perfecting the technologies that will enable the SE. Further, I believe that the SE itself will enable humankind to “go where no one has gone before” in ways that our 1960’s era space technology cannot.
Another believer is Michael J. Laine, President and Chief Strategic Officer of the LiftPort Group "The Space Elevator Companies." My favorite quote: “We are building a tool for future generations of the earth.”
The following is an excerpt of the interview I did with Michael on the SE.
RR: What advantages does having a SE bring to the country or business that builds the first one?
It means limitless, safe, simple, affordable access to space, with a predictable cargo schedule. It means the cargo can become an enormous increase in energy resources (huge solar energy satellites supplying clean - endlessly renewable - power back to earth); expanded, permanent settlements on the moon and mars and asteroids, and a stepping stone beyond, into the 'wild black yonder.' It means expanded communications to everyone on the planet - phone, video, internet, because of a greatly increased commsat infrastructure. It means bio-science advances that may allow us to live longer and in greater comfort in our old age, and better, higher purity medicines that we will use in our goal of a full and healthy life. So these advantages would go to the whole planet, really.
RR: Who's for it, and why?
The day we open for business, we will have 10x the current global launch capacity... that means that basic supply and demand forces will apply, and the cost per pound will drop dramatically. We are anticipating $400/lb ranges, and some people are predicting it could go lower than that, once the 2nd and 3rd elevators are built.
So, who will it benefit? Anyone that wants low-cost, high-volume access to space. This would mean, for instance, that smaller schools could do space-based research. Instead of a huge budget allocation, smaller schools could open up new branches of research, because the costs of access have dropped so much. What this means is that we could see significant advances in biosciences, pharmaceuticals, electronics and material sciences.
RR: In your opinion, if a full-scale effort was launched today, how long before the first SE could be built?
Look at our countdown clock. we are serious about it. Lots of big projects, space, factories, tunnels, bridges say something like "in 20 years we'll..." and that gives them a lot of room to fudge the numbers and let deadlines slip. We don't want to be that kind of project.
We've set a date (October 27, 2031), and that is what we are working toward.
Many people have laughed at us about this. That's fine, my team knows how many days are left and our internal motto is 'Every Day Is Precious.' We know people are counting on us to make this happen, and we don't intend to let them down.
Read the entire interview: http://www.nanotech-now.com/Michael-Laine-Oct2004.htm
Another believer is Michael J. Laine, President and Chief Strategic Officer of the LiftPort Group "The Space Elevator Companies." My favorite quote: “We are building a tool for future generations of the earth.”
The following is an excerpt of the interview I did with Michael on the SE.
RR: What advantages does having a SE bring to the country or business that builds the first one?
It means limitless, safe, simple, affordable access to space, with a predictable cargo schedule. It means the cargo can become an enormous increase in energy resources (huge solar energy satellites supplying clean - endlessly renewable - power back to earth); expanded, permanent settlements on the moon and mars and asteroids, and a stepping stone beyond, into the 'wild black yonder.' It means expanded communications to everyone on the planet - phone, video, internet, because of a greatly increased commsat infrastructure. It means bio-science advances that may allow us to live longer and in greater comfort in our old age, and better, higher purity medicines that we will use in our goal of a full and healthy life. So these advantages would go to the whole planet, really.
RR: Who's for it, and why?
The day we open for business, we will have 10x the current global launch capacity... that means that basic supply and demand forces will apply, and the cost per pound will drop dramatically. We are anticipating $400/lb ranges, and some people are predicting it could go lower than that, once the 2nd and 3rd elevators are built.
So, who will it benefit? Anyone that wants low-cost, high-volume access to space. This would mean, for instance, that smaller schools could do space-based research. Instead of a huge budget allocation, smaller schools could open up new branches of research, because the costs of access have dropped so much. What this means is that we could see significant advances in biosciences, pharmaceuticals, electronics and material sciences.
RR: In your opinion, if a full-scale effort was launched today, how long before the first SE could be built?
Look at our countdown clock. we are serious about it. Lots of big projects, space, factories, tunnels, bridges say something like "in 20 years we'll..." and that gives them a lot of room to fudge the numbers and let deadlines slip. We don't want to be that kind of project.
We've set a date (October 27, 2031), and that is what we are working toward.
Many people have laughed at us about this. That's fine, my team knows how many days are left and our internal motto is 'Every Day Is Precious.' We know people are counting on us to make this happen, and we don't intend to let them down.
Read the entire interview: http://www.nanotech-now.com/Michael-Laine-Oct2004.htm
Monday, February 5, 2007
2057 – A Review
Why I liked the series, or “What they got right”
First and foremost, LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT! Nearly everything we do, nearly every experience we have, will be shaped by paradigm-shifting new technologies. Materials will be lighter, stronger, and functionalized. The way we work with information will be exponentially enhanced. Many things will be automated, including health monitoring and tracking. Should you choose, it will be an always-on interconnected society.
They also got right that privacy will be an issue. With the ever-decreasing size (and cost) and increasing functionality of sensors, it is absolutely believable that in 2057 we’ll be constantly surveiled, at home, at work, and in public. Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know, although I tend to think it is something we should spend time considering, starting now. (1)
Screening, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment of disease, and emergency care will undergo a radical change in the next 50 years. Given the very rapid advances in the use of nanoparticles for medicine, I would be very surprised if by 2057 if cancers were not simple-to-treat short-term illnesses, like the common cold is today. In fact, I’d be surprised if this were not the case by 2020, given the pace of advances being made. (2)
What they got wrong
There was no mention of molecular manufacturing. My guess is they left it out because there is controversy surrounding the idea that we will soon be able to construct common objects using individual molecules (controversy which seems unreasonable given advances in nanoscale science). Omitting the likelihood that in 50 years we won’t have molecular manufacturing seems to suggest that they were avoiding the topic; there is ample science to support the idea that among the other advances depicted, molecular manufacturing should have been included.
Holographic pets: My friend (and futurist) Brian Wang says it this way: “I thought the holographic sharks would be visual pollution. They should have those only visible to the user. Feed the image to the retina or via some non-invasive communication feed to the brain. I also failed to see the economic benefits.” I agree. Can you imagine walking through a packed mall (will we still have them?) and everyone around you has a holographic projection following them?
Conspicuous by its absence was quantum computing (QC). As Brian Wang goes to great lengths to point out (in his blog) QC is happening now. When I asked him to speculate on near-future advances, he said “I think on the low end they should have thousands of qubits able to simulate thousands of quantum molecules (in the 3 to 5 year timeframe) against simulations of 50-100 molecules with similar precision.”
Hyper-efficient solar panels: This one seems pretty obvious to anyone tracking advances in this area. There are several technologies currently on the drawing board (or more precisely, in university and business labs) that look very promising. By promising I mean likely to achieve huge improvements in their sunlight-to-energy conversion rate. Today’s technologies allow for conversion rates that are almost good enough to compete toe to toe with coal, nuclear, and other traditional energy generation technologies. Were I a betting man, I’d place a large percentage of my dollars on photovoltaics (PV). In fact, of all the nanotechnologies, solar/PV is one of the areas where I will be placing my bets.
What I hope to see, or “wouldn’t it be nice, if?”
(And just as important, I also believe that these are likely, many of them earlier than 2057)
The Hand-comp (the 2057-version of the personal computer/cell phone/PDA)
Self-guided, networked cars
Custom-built organs from scratch
Space Elevator and tethered research stations
Smart Houses
Information transfer at predictable increases
Artificial blood
Things I am leery of, or “can’t we have all the rest, without this?”
An oil shortage that brings the US and China to the brink of war (and possibly beyond). How about, instead, we start funding alternate energy technologies at a rate equal to or exceeding that which goes towards supporting oil? As I said in my last post, can you imagine being free from the idiocy surrounding the use of petroleum?
In Closing
The last sentence on the 2057 “About the Show” page states: “This series is all about opening the window of our future based on science fact, not science fiction.”
Mostly I’d agree.
My bottom line in regards to this series: it was well worth the 3-hour watch. At worst, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted; stimulating the debate by adding more stakeholders is a good idea. At best, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted…
To learn more about possible futures, visit:
2005 BT Technology Timeline
And a nice collection at DMOZ http://dmoz.org/Society/Future/Predictions/
(1) David Brin presents an interesting and compelling argument with
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom (I highly recommend this book.)
Synopsis: David Brin, in The Transparent Society, acknowledges that privacy, as we know it, is being slowly eaten away day by day. Entire cities are falling under the watch of surveillance cameras; "nanny monitors" that allow parents to keep an eye on the people who are watching their children are becoming more common in households with children. However, instead of calling for restrictions on this surveillance, he argues for a more open society from both sides -- one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.
(2) According to the National Vital Statistics Report (Vol. 53, No. 15, February 28, 2005), 13 of the top 15 killers in the US are medical related. I would be very surprised to see any of the 13 medical reasons in the top 10 in 2057 as anything other than a minor contributing factor. See http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf
First and foremost, LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT! Nearly everything we do, nearly every experience we have, will be shaped by paradigm-shifting new technologies. Materials will be lighter, stronger, and functionalized. The way we work with information will be exponentially enhanced. Many things will be automated, including health monitoring and tracking. Should you choose, it will be an always-on interconnected society.
They also got right that privacy will be an issue. With the ever-decreasing size (and cost) and increasing functionality of sensors, it is absolutely believable that in 2057 we’ll be constantly surveiled, at home, at work, and in public. Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know, although I tend to think it is something we should spend time considering, starting now. (1)
Screening, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment of disease, and emergency care will undergo a radical change in the next 50 years. Given the very rapid advances in the use of nanoparticles for medicine, I would be very surprised if by 2057 if cancers were not simple-to-treat short-term illnesses, like the common cold is today. In fact, I’d be surprised if this were not the case by 2020, given the pace of advances being made. (2)
What they got wrong
There was no mention of molecular manufacturing. My guess is they left it out because there is controversy surrounding the idea that we will soon be able to construct common objects using individual molecules (controversy which seems unreasonable given advances in nanoscale science). Omitting the likelihood that in 50 years we won’t have molecular manufacturing seems to suggest that they were avoiding the topic; there is ample science to support the idea that among the other advances depicted, molecular manufacturing should have been included.
Holographic pets: My friend (and futurist) Brian Wang says it this way: “I thought the holographic sharks would be visual pollution. They should have those only visible to the user. Feed the image to the retina or via some non-invasive communication feed to the brain. I also failed to see the economic benefits.” I agree. Can you imagine walking through a packed mall (will we still have them?) and everyone around you has a holographic projection following them?
Conspicuous by its absence was quantum computing (QC). As Brian Wang goes to great lengths to point out (in his blog) QC is happening now. When I asked him to speculate on near-future advances, he said “I think on the low end they should have thousands of qubits able to simulate thousands of quantum molecules (in the 3 to 5 year timeframe) against simulations of 50-100 molecules with similar precision.”
Hyper-efficient solar panels: This one seems pretty obvious to anyone tracking advances in this area. There are several technologies currently on the drawing board (or more precisely, in university and business labs) that look very promising. By promising I mean likely to achieve huge improvements in their sunlight-to-energy conversion rate. Today’s technologies allow for conversion rates that are almost good enough to compete toe to toe with coal, nuclear, and other traditional energy generation technologies. Were I a betting man, I’d place a large percentage of my dollars on photovoltaics (PV). In fact, of all the nanotechnologies, solar/PV is one of the areas where I will be placing my bets.
What I hope to see, or “wouldn’t it be nice, if?”
(And just as important, I also believe that these are likely, many of them earlier than 2057)
The Hand-comp (the 2057-version of the personal computer/cell phone/PDA)
Self-guided, networked cars
Custom-built organs from scratch
Space Elevator and tethered research stations
Smart Houses
Information transfer at predictable increases
Artificial blood
Things I am leery of, or “can’t we have all the rest, without this?”
An oil shortage that brings the US and China to the brink of war (and possibly beyond). How about, instead, we start funding alternate energy technologies at a rate equal to or exceeding that which goes towards supporting oil? As I said in my last post, can you imagine being free from the idiocy surrounding the use of petroleum?
In Closing
The last sentence on the 2057 “About the Show” page states: “This series is all about opening the window of our future based on science fact, not science fiction.”
Mostly I’d agree.
My bottom line in regards to this series: it was well worth the 3-hour watch. At worst, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted; stimulating the debate by adding more stakeholders is a good idea. At best, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted…
To learn more about possible futures, visit:
2005 BT Technology Timeline
And a nice collection at DMOZ http://dmoz.org/Society/Future/Predictions/
(1) David Brin presents an interesting and compelling argument with
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom (I highly recommend this book.)
Synopsis: David Brin, in The Transparent Society, acknowledges that privacy, as we know it, is being slowly eaten away day by day. Entire cities are falling under the watch of surveillance cameras; "nanny monitors" that allow parents to keep an eye on the people who are watching their children are becoming more common in households with children. However, instead of calling for restrictions on this surveillance, he argues for a more open society from both sides -- one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.
(2) According to the National Vital Statistics Report (Vol. 53, No. 15, February 28, 2005), 13 of the top 15 killers in the US are medical related. I would be very surprised to see any of the 13 medical reasons in the top 10 in 2057 as anything other than a minor contributing factor. See http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
2057
Last night I watched 2057 – The World. 2057 is a Discovery Channel production, featuring Michio Kaku as "guide."
The theme for the 2057 programs is technologies that will most change the world in the next 50 years. Included among those technologies are those that we talk a lot about on this blog: nanoscale materials, solar energy, nanotubes for space applications, and others.
In The World, the primary theme is the development of super efficient solar cells (being done in a lab 250 miles above the Earth’s surface, tethered like a space elevator), and a growing conflict between the US and China over oil. Not wanting to spoil the plot for you, I’ll stop there, and say that this is a great production, with excellent CGI, descriptive narration, and real world examples of today’s technologies.
I highly recommend that you add this one to your list to watch.
In a future blog note I’ll review the other two programs in the series: The City, and The Body.
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
The theme for the 2057 programs is technologies that will most change the world in the next 50 years. Included among those technologies are those that we talk a lot about on this blog: nanoscale materials, solar energy, nanotubes for space applications, and others.
In The World, the primary theme is the development of super efficient solar cells (being done in a lab 250 miles above the Earth’s surface, tethered like a space elevator), and a growing conflict between the US and China over oil. Not wanting to spoil the plot for you, I’ll stop there, and say that this is a great production, with excellent CGI, descriptive narration, and real world examples of today’s technologies.
I highly recommend that you add this one to your list to watch.
In a future blog note I’ll review the other two programs in the series: The City, and The Body.
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Space Elevator
Dr. Tyson, in conjunction with NOVA Science Now, presents an excellent short program on the Space Elevator.
Minus the hype of other bits I’ve seen, Dr. Tyson articulates a simple to understand overview of a grandiose vision.
Regardless of your opinion on the feasibility of the SE, I highly recommend this program, first presented on January 9th, 2007.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/02.html
Also visit Dr. Tyson’s personal website, at http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/
Minus the hype of other bits I’ve seen, Dr. Tyson articulates a simple to understand overview of a grandiose vision.
Regardless of your opinion on the feasibility of the SE, I highly recommend this program, first presented on January 9th, 2007.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/02.html
Also visit Dr. Tyson’s personal website, at http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
