Asimov's Prediction for 2019

Like many prognosticators, he overestimated our accomplishments in manned spaceflight and totally missed the creation of the internet.

Yeah I was impressed with his expectations for the moon! Industrial exploitation of "infinite vacuum" iirc.... Not even to mention the energy tech. Wow.

All the utopians seem(ed) to envision a life of leisure. But the tenders of machines and code work as hard/long or longer hours than anyone IMO. (Except maybe for medicine, which is pretty much a 'cult brainwashing' level of deprivation of natural rest. )

All the gadgets that do less desired tasks also require that you give up a life 'rich in leisure' to earn the money to buy them (or their products).

I will say though, that the internet has given me a richness of leisure inconceivable without it, for the price of access.

Yes I have to agree, I would say the internet is the most significant thing that has happened in my lifetime....

" why do people believe the future will be easier?" Because people expect to get paid/rewarded for their work, and people believe they WILL get paid/rewarded. People don't like finding out the hard way that they were wrong.

Hyman Rickover (father of the Navy's Nuclear Power Program) had a sign put up over the Nuclear Power School building that said, "The Reward For Hard Work Is More Hard Work". Well, even if that is true (in the long run), I think that's a symptom of a big problem. Sometimes people confuse the difference between work and fun. One man's fun might be another man's work, or vice versa. But, that's for every man to decide for himself what it really is. And, nobody likes to be disappointed, whether or not it's really harder or easier. It's more about expectations and "unspoken rules". One man's "common sense" might be another man's "uncommon foolishness". It's better to clear it up early, before getting in too deep.

What exactly is the pay/reward for hard work?

Hard work is its' own reward... Hard work enhances the richness of life immensely, it builds structure where there was none, it increases vitality, it adds purpose to your existence, it makes life in general, possible, it allows you to seek to control your own destiny, which is a fundamental purpose of life, it makes you healthy, wealthy, and wise... All life fights against entropy, entropy is death...So you can say hard work is a way of life, or a religion, or a calling, or a cult... or you can say it's a prerequisite for existence....or you might say it's just a dogs' restless dream...

You say, "Hard work is its' own reward". But, "Hard work enhances the richness of life immensely,", implies life gets enriched. In who's eyes? You say, "It builds structure where there was none". Well, the Old West was settled long ago, and maybe the structure that's being built isn't the same one as the one desired by the builders. You say, "it increases vitality". That assumes your hard work pays off the way you want it to. You say, "it adds purpose to your existence". That assumes one needs/wants more purpose. You say, "it makes life in general, possible". That assumes life in general is worth living and one cares about making it possible. You say, "it allows you to seek to control your own destiny". The seeking cannot be forbidden: achieving it is the real pay-off (not hard work itself). You say, "... a fundamental purpose of life". The fundamental purpose of life, is the motivation toward which the hard work should bring you and thus be fulfilled (why would anyone keep working when the job is finished?). You say, "it makes you healthy, wealthy, and wise". Maybe it's the purpose behind the work that does that. Do you learn more from failure than success? I highly disagree. Some lessons don't need to be learned and are irrelevant to a good life. You say, "or you can say it's a prerequisite for existence". In that case, Existence is the pay-off, not more hard work itself. You say, "....or you might say it's just a dogs' restless dream". Well, I'd say that a dogs' restless dream might lead to hard work, but I don't think that's the goal.

There's a big difference between necessary work and artificial "fun" work. How it's valued is in the beholder's eyes (subjective). You can't make a rule/law/policy out of it.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying there's a lot more to it than that.

BTW, I do enjoy the work you do here on this forum(s). Thanks.

According to this, Asimov was definitely not a stranger to hard work.

https://mentalfloss.com/article/549054/isaac-asimov-facts

That is for sure! I have on my shelf "Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology". Second edition 1982. It contains short biographies (in chronological order) of 1510 scientists from ancient times to the time of publication. In the preface Asimov corrects all those who "take it for granted that I have headed a sizable team engaged in research and writing". He states that he did everything "without any assistance whatever". The book contains six biographies prior even to Pythagoras (560 - 480 B.C.), and ends with Stephen Hawking. A great reference. Wondering who invented the Vernier caliper? Well, there's a short biography of Pierre Vernier (1584-1638), the French engineer who made this contribution to precision in measuring.

"Helium-3" mining on Moon?

Every time I see balloons floating into the sky, I wonder if future generations will condemn us for wasting a precious resource.

https://www.thoughtco.com/will-we-run-out-of-helium-3975959

How are we wasting it? What should we be doing with it? It's my understanding that helium is naturally occurring in natural gas, and is basically a waste product from natural gas mining...

Why do you hate balloons?

https://askzephyr.com/make-your-own-helium-for-balloons/

https://www.universetoday.com/75719/where-is-helium-found/

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/1226/options-for-long-term-storage-of-helium

Why do you hate balloons?

Actually, I don't hate balloons, I rather enjoy them, but if you are just going to send them into the sky (not manned flight), why not fill them with hydrogen instead of helium, which is relatively rare on earth. Helium is a minor impurity in natural gas, but it takes many millions of years for natural radioactivity to produce that amount. We use it much more quickly than it accumulates.

Helium has uses where no other element will do, one of which is achieving very low temperatures for superconducting magnets for MRIs, etc.

We are quick to criticize previous generations for their attitudes and practices. Just sayin', we might someday be judged rather harshly by future generations for "wasting" it.

"https://askzephyr.com/make-your-own-helium-for-balloons/"

Really? You can't make helium chemically. Helium is an inert gas, it doesn't participate in chemistry!

"... it doesn't participate in chemistry!"? I never heard it put quite that way before. I never thought of inert gasses as being "anti-social". Amusing.

Interesting. But, one thing I don't get is why he said,"...And the waste would not even remain in Earth’s vicinity, but would be swept outward far beyond the asteroid belt by the solar wind.".

Seems to me that when it comes to waste, it would be better to send it TOWARDS the Sun, to use its gravity instead of the (weaker?) force of solar wind going against the sun's gravity. The sun itself could be a good "trash can".

What would be better would be not to send it at all.

Getting away from the idea of spewing in any direction what we currently consider waste has merrit. Bury it securely. It may be useful.

We are in orbit around the sun. To drop something into the sun would require negating the earth's orbital velocity. Actually, it takes less energy to go from orbital velocity to escape velocity than negating orbital velocity. (For example, orbital velocity near the earth is 18000 mph, escape velocity is 25000 mph, a difference of 7000 mph.)

Solar wind is free. In orbit, the sun's gravity is canceled out by centrifugal force, leaving just the solar wind force. Over time it will move non-dense objects in orbit away from the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

"escape velocity is 25000 mph"? There are TWO escape velocities you need to consider: escape from the Earth, and escape from the Sun. Even after you escape from Earth's gravity, you still need to escape/submit-to the Sun's gravity. The farther you go away from the Sun, the more potential energy you need to add to the object relative to the Sun. There is potential energy relative to BOTH the Earth and the Sun; Solar wind still has to overcome the sun's gravity (not just Earth's). It takes less energy to submit to the Sun's gravity than to overcome it, regardless of any planet's orbital speed/velocity..

I was just using the earth numbers as an example as they are commonly known.

Escape velocity = orbital velocity x sqrt(2). Escape velocity from earth is about 25000 mph, orbital speed + 7000 mph. Escape velocity from the sun at the earth's orbit is about 95000 mph.

If your probe has an earth orbital speed of 18000 mph, its speed with respect to the sun varies from 67000-18000 = 49000 mph to 67000+18000=85000 mph. So, to drop a probe into the sun would require accelerating it by about 49000 mph in the direction opposite the earth's motion. On the other hand, escaping from both the earth and sun would require accelerating it by 10000 mph. So, it's easier to reach escape velocity than to drop a probe into the sun.

Having said this, a more efficient way for solar system navigation is to play planet billiards, using planet flybys to change direction and speed. In this case, the trajectory has to be calculated each time depending on the current position of the planets.

This is where I must bring up (again) the issue of velocity as a vector with multiple components. Velocity has both a speed component and a directional component. A change in direction results in a change of velocity without any change in speed. An orbital velocity is like that (direction constantly changing that results in an orbit without a change in speed). If you change that direction away from an orbital path, you could change it either away from the Sun, or towards it, without any change in speed. You can direct an orbital object towards the Sun without any change in speed (only a change in direction; orbital equilibrium need not be maintained by slowing it down). The only change in speed would result from the change of distance from the Sun (or any other source of gravity). If that orbital object is directed away from the Sun, it would slow down as kinetic energy is converted to potential energy (unless external energy is added from a rocket or something). If that orbital object is directed towards the Sun, it will speed up as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy without any other energy required (why in blazes would you want to slow it down? Let it have a head-start towards the Sun.). No external energy at all is required to send any orbital object towards the Sun except the energy used to change its direction. The only real external requirement is to disrupt its orbital equilibrium away from an orbital direction to a towards-the-Sun direction. However, if that orbital object is directed away from the Sun, THEN additional energy is required. THAT energy will either come from the object's kinetic energy slowing it down, or external energy from a rocket or something to maintain/increase its speed.

When you go towards the source of gravity (from an orbit or not), that gravity will draw that object towards itself. If you go away from the source of gravity (from an orbit or not), that gravity will STILL draw that object towards itself. Any initial orbital equilibrium is irrelevant. Any initial energy contained by that object is also irrelevant (all it does is shift the reference point of "ground zero"). The only thing that IS relevant here, is the change of the vectoral component of the directions that are in-line with the Sun's gravity. The vectoral directional components perpendicular (orbital) to the Sun's gravity is irrelevant. No matter how you look at it, going towards the Sun, Potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. And, going away from the Sun requires additional energy to be converted into potential energy (which can come from any available source). Orbital energy/equilibrium is a separate vectoral quantity needing to be treated as such (and therefore irrelevant to this discussion).

Velocity is a vector and changing its magnitude or its direction requires an acceleration (also a vector) applied over a period of time. The sum of this change in velocity is termed delta v (Δv).

Space missions are planned to minimize the Δv. The minimum energy orbit from one point to another (for example, from Earth to Venus) is used, called the Hohmann transfer orbit.

If you wished to shoot a probe into the sun, you could launch it in a Hohmann transfer orbit from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the sun, which would in essence be bringing it to a stop with respect to the sun and letting it fall. This would require a Δv of 24 km/sec (see table below).

A better way would be to launch it outward at almost escape velocity from the solar system. When it is a far distance from the sun, a very small Δv would be needed to bring it to a stop (zero angular momentum) and let it fall into the sun. This would require a Δv of slightly more than 8.8 km/sec.

An even better way might be to use Venus to slingshot into the sun. (Δv=3.5 km/sec). So if Venus and the Earth are in favorable positions for a slingshot (launch window), putting a probe into the sun might be less expensive (Δv) than escape velocity from the solar system.

Delta v (Δv) for various Hohmann transfer orbits

"To get to the sun, it is actually not necessary to use a Δv of 24 km/s. One can use 8.8 km/s to go very far away from the sun, then use a negligible Δv to bring the angular momentum to zero, and then fall into the sun. This can be considered a sequence of two Hohmann transfers, one up and one down. Also, the table does not give the values that would apply when using the moon for a gravity assist. There are also possibilities of using one planet, like Venus which is the easiest to get to, to assist getting to other planets or the sun. The Galileo spacecraft used Venus once and Earth twice in order to reach Jupiter. The Ulysses solar probe used Jupiter to attain polar orbit around the sun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

I really appreciate your explanation. I did learn a lot from it. But, one thing you left out, is the change in potential energy required to change altitudes relative to both the Earth and the Sun. Those changes in potential energies is a lot more energy than any required for a change in orbital velocity.

In other words, the change in potential energy to get the object to a far distance from the Sun requires a lot more energy than that required for "stopping it" at a far distance from the Sun. That's like spending a dollar to save a penny. If the transit to the Sun is as straight as possible from Earth's orbit, you will save a lot more energy by not having to deal with the changes in potential energy.

IF you drew a straight line from the Earth to the Sun, there will be somewhere along that line, a point, where the EFFECTS of Earth's gravity and the Sun's gravity are equal. If you then drew a concentric circle around the Sun and another around the Earth that includes that point (both circles will touch at that one point), you will get an idea of where you no longer have to consider the effects/pull/potential-energy of Earth's gravity going towards the Sun, and just let the Sun's gravity take over. Any residual orbital velocity will not be enough to to miss the Sun, regardless of how many spirals around the Sun it makes along the way. In other words, you don't have to bring the object to perfect stand-still relative to the Sun to hit it.

One thing you do have to worry about though, is that since the Sun is mostly gas, will it provide enough "braking-power" to prevent the object's remains from blasting out the other side of the Sun. A perfectly straight hit might not be the best of ideas. But a very fast spiral down should be adequate.

If you started right from Earth going to the Sun, you would save a lot more energy, by not wasting the energy that goes into the potential energy needed to increase its distance from the Sun than what you would use to lower that orbital velocity at Earth's distance.

Going away from the Sun, you have to overcome both the Sun's and the Earth's gravity/potential energy. Going toward the Sun, all you have to do, is get far enough away from Earth so that Earth's gravity is less than the Sun's gravity. In other words, the dominant factor is the change(s) in potential energy(s). And, the change(s) in orbital velocity is mostly irrelevant.

I really appreciate your explanation. I did learn a lot from it. But, one thing you left out, is the change in potential energy required to change altitudes relative to both the Earth and the Sun. Those changes in potential energies is a lot more energy than any required for a change in orbital velocity.

Kinetic energy is 1/2 mv² (velocity with respect to the sun). Your rocket adds (or subtracts) kinetic energy to the probe and the non-circular transfer orbit exchanges kinetic and potential energy, (like a rollar coaster, faster at the bottom and slower at the top.) The Δv in the table in #31 takes into account the change in gravitational potential energy.

In other words, the change in potential energy to get the object to a far distance from the Sun requires a lot more energy than that required for "stopping it" at a far distance from the Sun. That's like spending a dollar to save a penny. If the transit to the Sun is as straight as possible from Earth's orbit, you will save a lot more energy by not having to deal with the changes in potential energy.

The earth's orbital velocity is 70.7 % of the escape velocity, and the farther you are from the sun, the lower the orbital velocity. So it's actually cheaper to go the long way, but it would take a lot longer.

IF you drew a straight line from the Earth to the Sun, there will be somewhere along that line, a point, where the EFFECTS of Earth's gravity and the Sun's gravity are equal. If you then drew a concentric circle around the Sun and another around the Earth that includes that point (both circles will touch at that one point), you will get an idea of where you no longer have to consider the effects/pull/potential-energy of Earth's gravity going towards the Sun, and just let the Sun's gravity take over. Any residual orbital velocity will not be enough to to miss the Sun, regardless of how many spirals around the Sun it makes along the way. In other words, you don't have to bring the object to perfect stand-still relative to the Sun to hit it.

There is actually a "L1 Lagrange" point where the earth's and sun's gravity cancel. It is unstable, anything parked there would wander off but would not fall into the sun. There's that pesky tangential velocity again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

One thing you do have to worry about though, is that since the Sun is mostly gas, will it provide enough "braking-power" to prevent the object's remains from blasting out the other side of the Sun. A perfectly straight hit might not be the best of ideas. But a very fast spiral down should be adequate.

Not to worry, the sun will vaporize anything you throw at it.

If you started right from Earth going to the Sun, you would save a lot more energy, by not wasting the energy that goes into the potential energy needed to increase its distance from the Sun than what you would use to lower that orbital velocity at Earth's distance.

Going away from the Sun, you have to overcome both the Sun's and the Earth's gravity/potential energy. Going toward the Sun, all you have to do, is get far enough away from Earth so that Earth's gravity is less than the Sun's gravity. In other words, the dominant factor is the change(s) in potential energy(s). And, the change(s) in orbital velocity is mostly irrelevant.

It really is cheaper in rocket fuel to go out and come back, less energy is needed. But if Venus is in the right place, you might be able to use Venus's gravity to remove some of that tangential velocity.

This guy can explain it better than I can...

I get what's trying to be said, but I just can't believe it. I don't have any numbers to back me up, but I would like present a couple of thought exercises. Let me set it up first.

1) Two objects of different masses dropped from rest at the same time, will land at the same time. But, if one is dropped from rest, and the other one is thrown down, the one thrown has a head-start and will land first.

2) Since the Earth is in orbit and is already in "free-fall", it has already been dropped. But its orbital velocity keeps it "up". Therefore, any other object dropped from the same distance from the Sun with the same orbital velocity, would also "stay up" in the same orbit.

3) If you "threw" the smaller object down towards the sun, its energy would no longer be in orbital equilibrium, and would eventually reach the sun without any change in orbital velocity.

4) A swinging frictionless pendulum will always reach the the same height on both sides of the swing, regardless of the horizontal speed (demonstrating the equality of the potential energy changes). Therefore, I don't believe the statement/assumption made at :55 -1:00 in the video. I posit that regardless of the orbital velocity, the object will behave like a pendulum and not depart from the sun's gravity beyond the distance of any previous path of the object. In other words, regardless of any orbital velocity, it will continue its spiral towards the sun and never get farther away than any previous distance ("sling-shot" around the sun and escape its gravity).

5) When the object was originally launched towards the sun, The energy required for that launch will always keep the object "out of orbital equilibrium" and will eventually reach the sun regardless of its orbital velocity. It will never again have the chance to escape the sun's gravity.

6) This video has it wrong. I don't believe it.

I agree that it's counterintuitive.

You need to look at it at a viewpoint stationary to the sun.

If you launch a rocket directly toward the sun, it's true velocity direction will be the vector sum of the earth's velocity and the rocket's velocity with respect to the earth.

Providing that the rocket is moving under the escape velocity, the object's trajectory will trace an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci. This ellipse will pass both inside and outside of the earth's (practically) circular orbit. (Hopefully, the earth will not be there at the same time!) It will definitely not intersect the sun.

I understand the mechanism/process of how if a planet/object looses a little orbital velocity energy, it will also loose a little orbital altitude, and then that change in potential energy gets converted back into orbital velocity to re-establish a lower orbital equilibrium.

But, I find it hard to believe that the force of a rocket on a smaller object is so inadequate so that ALL of its force towards the sun gets converted into orbital velocity, so that it never hits the sun. And, even if that's true, the failure to "intersect with the sun" would be due to its establishing a new (very) lower orbital equilibrium, not due to a projectile flyby as suggested in the video.

Am I wrong in THIS?

The picture shown in #37 is not very accurate. Here is a plot from a software simulation of a rocket aimed directly toward the sun at 30000 mph after escaping earth's gravity. The rocket is launched at point x in the Earth's orbit (blue circle). The rocket's velocity is added to the Earth's velocity (blue arrows) and the resultant (red arrow) is the orbital velocity of the rocket with respect to the sun, following the red ellipse with the sun at one of the foci.

A higher rocket velocity results in a larger ellipse extended downward. A velocity at or above the escape velocity results in a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit opening downwards that does not return.

Hmmm... I'll have to chew on that awhile. Thanks.

It would be nice to see this in motion. Those velocity arrows need to change in both magnitude and direction as the object travels its path. But, that's probably asking too much. I appreciate your efforts. Thanks.

I think I get it now. You made a believer out of me. This is so cool.

Okay. I just thought of something. Maybe only working it out mathematically will answer it, but...

Suppose you have a pendulum with a real long string and a real hefty swing. As you shorten the string and the swing gets faster, will the pendulum ever "orbit" the other end of the string?

If so, then the only way for that object to "miss the sun", would be for that object to fall into a lower orbital equilibrium (not because of any "sling-shot" effect).

Scratch that. This is a bad comparison. It will yield a worthless answer. I'm embarrassed to have brought it up. Maybe working it out with actual numbers will be the only way to understand it.

"Not to worry, the sun will vaporize anything you throw at it."

Come to think of it, since all the planets have craters from cosmic crap on them, I'd expect all the gas giants (including the sun) to get hit. Maybe solar flares are from cosmic crap coming out the "other side".

Those predictions are about as good as the weatherman's wild guesses, and if the weather man were paid for being accurate he would be forced to find work elsewhere.

Does anybody care to offer up predictions for 2019?

I predict there will be a plan to go back to the moon.

Another one?

019 predictions:

-President/Premier of a western 1st world country is removed from office by the legislative branch or resigns under looming threat of such.

- As Syria conflict lines become less dynamic, a new conflict in Eastern Europe/Middle East/North Africa gains the attention and ifluence of major world powers militaries.

-Oil prices are kept low by supply and effects of trade wars.

-China continues expansion and aggressove posturing in South China Sea, but conflict with US does not become hot.

-Kim Jung Un makes claim about a new superweapon and begins practicong the crazy smile of his forefathers.

-Russian and North Korean hacking continues and grows.

-At least one significant terror attack on a NATO country.

-Several new specoes of fish discovered.

-The Tasmanian Tiger is confirmed to not be extinct.

-Tesla divulges plans for the model Y.

-Musk drops acid on a podcast the same day aajor audit of Tesla financials is announced.

-One or more major natural disasters occurs, is claimed by media to be largest ever recorded and people become polarized about whether or not AGW is to blame.

-Now remains the only time that is real.

-My thumb typing continues to need improvement and my use of autocorrect continue to go wanting.

...soooo... ?

When would be a good time to run for the hills?

Now is the only time that is real.

Well... Today is. a holiday, so it'll have to be at another real time.

Tesla y. That's quite likely

Asimov was smart. I liked him as a scientist and an author. He nailed a couple of his guesses, but failed to give necessary critical thought to the rest.

Two things he forgot:

In order to have leisure, you need to generate a surplus.

We live in a world with scarce resources. Nature, by it's own nature, consumes every scrap of energy available and fills every niche. We compete for the resources and eventually are reduced by competition to working full time with no leisure to fulfill our basic needs. We work now with regulations to limit further supply growth and maintain a status quo where ,"I have mine, but now I must regulate to prevent you from taking any of mine so that you can have yours". Cynical at best, but accurate.

The guaranteed minimum wage is a starvation wage and is basically a pyramid scheme. It is a means by which to assure that inflation will rebalance to maintain poverty.

The pie grows only if we grow it.

Happy new year.

I disagree with the scarcity and competition model of nature. Abundance, diversity and mutualism is what I see in the larger scheme of nature (vs our own economic models). Remember that we all share DNA and are all (living) a part of one singular life adventure on this planet.

However I don't know that the concept of 'leisure' belongs to nature as such. You can look back to feudalism and find 'leisure classes' and then ffwd to industrial and a redefined leisure as "time off" from the factory... which has certainly stayed with us to this day. The industrial work-life regime was toxic in the first place and that choking, all-demanding quality has never really been quelled, it stayed strong as '9 to 5' and keeps surging back into private or 'leisure' hours at every opportunity.

I wonder what the economy will look like in 30 years.

My basis for competition and scarcity is based in part on a masters in environmental sciences.

Most are familiar with Malthus' population curve showing how a population grows to consume available resources and then collapses. Related is the predator/prey ratio studies that showed for similar life length species, the predator /prey ratio tends to be around 3% of the population as predator. Above this ratio, the prey population decreases and the predator population has a slightly lagging decline as well.

As far as consumption of all available energy, one example is nylon plastic. When originally developed, the estimate was that nylon could last forever, however within 30 years several varieties of microorganisms mutated enough to begin digesting nylon. As near as can be determined, if a source of energy is available, something will figure out a way to eat it (up to and including bacteria that eat nuclear waste).

The same applies to economics. As long as there is something available that can have a value assigned to it, someone will figure out a way to profit from it. Asimov assumed that strong population controls would be developed and enforced. China tried and is now second to India. WASP America and Japan achieved it by accident (have you had YOUR 2.1 children to maintain zero growth? (I've had 2 and have 3 grandkids, for a deflationary rate of 25% in two generations)), but most of the rest of the world didn't get the memo. Cooperation works if everyone plays the game nicely.