Peter Thiel has an interesting discussion with Francis Fukuyama. There are lots of nuggets, but the following encapsulated my thinking on the lack of innovation...
"[The Space Shuttle Program] was an extraordinary program. It cost more and did less and was probably less safe than the original Apollo program. In 2011, when it finally ended, there was a sense of the space age being over. Not quite, but it’s very far off from what we had decades ago. You could argue that we had more or better-targeted funding in the 1950s and 1960s, but the other place where the regulatory situation is radically different is that technology is much more heavily regulated than it used to be. It’s much harder to get a new drug through the FDA process. It takes a billion dollars. I don’t even know if you could get the polio vaccine approved today.
"One regulatory perspective is that environmentalism has played a much greater role than people think. It induced a deep skepticism about anything involving the manipulation of nature or material objects in the real world. The response to environmentalism was to prohibit scientists from experimenting with stuff and only allow them to do so with bits. So computer science and finance were legal, and what they have in common is that they involve the manipulation of bits rather than stuff. They both did well in those forty years, but all the other engineering disciplines were stymied. Electric engineering, civil engineering, aeronautical, nuclear, petroleum—these were all held back, and attracted fewer talented students at university as the years went on. When people wonder why all the rocket scientists went to work on Wall Street, well, they were no longer able to build rockets. It’s some combination of an ossified, Weberian bureaucracy and the increasingly hostile regulation of technology. That’s very different from the 1950s and 1960s. There’s a powerful libertarian argument that government used to be far less intrusive, but found targeted ways to advance science and technology."
I am planning a late-March Las Vegas vacation and have a few extra days to spare. For several years now, I have been following SpaceX, so I thought it might be fun and educational to take a side trip to tour the SpaceX factory in Hawthorne.
Does anybody know if SpaceX gives tours of its facilities and how I might go about getting an invite?
Solarbuzz is reporting that in 2008, solar panel installations increased by 110% over 2007, well ahead of even the most aggressive forecasts. 5.9 gigawatts (peak capacity) of panels were installed, 2.4 gigawatts (41%) of which were installed in Spain and 1.86 gigawatts (32%) in Germany. The US was the third largest market with installations of 0.36 gigawatts (6%). Retail nominal prices for solar panels were steady and the industry appears to have worked out of the shortage in 2007 of polysilicon.
Global solar market breakdown from Marketbuzz 2009
In 2008, thin-film solar panel production -- which does not use polysilicon in its manufacturing process -- increased 123% to 0.89 gigawatts (peak capacity). Many companies are drastically ramping thin-film solar production this year. First Solar -- the leader in thin-film solar -- now has manufacturing capacity of over 1 gigawatt. By my count, Applied Materials' thin film customers alone have announced up to 3/4 gigawatt of new capacity for 2009. Oerlikon's thin film customers are expanding aggressively as well. Lastly, Sharp is opening a very large format (8.7 square meter glass panel) thin film solar plant at the end of this year.
It seems evident that demand this year will not match the rapidly increasing supply, which will result in falling prices and a shakeout in the industry. On Tuesday, Applied Materials announced that a $1.9 billion order from Best Solar in China for thin film solar panel manufacturing equipment was reduced to $250 million. We can expect similar shocking news from others that they too are reducing the amount of capacity that they are planning to add this year.
Unfortunately, the solar panel demand now is driven by subsidies. In 2007, Germany added the most solar generation capacity worldwide, even though the country is not blessed with an advantage in photons. However, German sales have been sustained by very generous subsidies. It is hoped that subsidies will bridge the industry until the ramp of industrial-scale thin film production is well underway. With this ramp, some think that the price of solar panels will decline enough in the next several year such that solar generation competes with other electicity sources without subsidies. It seems possible, but we will have to see how the industry weathers this bubble bursting.
Congratulations to SpaceX on reaching orbit with the Falcon 1 some months ago!
Since then, my elation about the success has passed and a more earthly assessment of the implications has started to take shape. As long as it continues to launch satellites successfully, SpaceX will start driving down the price of launch overall. However, the fall in prices may be slower than we hope because SpaceX probably will have more failures. Perhaps soon. Perhaps on the next launch of the Falcon 1. In a more perfect world, we would hope that the failures happen sooner rather than later so that any problems in the design, fabrication, and launch of these rockets can be hammered out.
It has come as something of a revelation to me that trial-and-error cures most ills. Even bad designs sometimes can be made to fly, given enough trial-and-error. The trick is to have enough bankroll to survive the process. You take a look at your bankroll and pick your process such that you don't run out of money doing the repetitions. The US Government has almost an unlimited bankroll and therefore uses a spectacularly expensive process. Elon Musk had several hundred million dollars in the bank and picked a focused group of a couple hundred employees. John Carmack had maybe ten million dollars in the bank and picked a focused group of ten volunteers. Korolev had his bankroll and process too.
Likewise, even great rockets will have failures in testing. I think that the Falcon 1 & 9 are beautiful and relatively simple designs. The company is using the latest in manufacturing technology. And launch operations are lean and professional. But even so, the company had three failures before a success. The Falcon 9 probably will have at least one failure early on. Hopefully, Musk has a bankroll equal to the task. It seems likely that he is almost out of ready cash, what with Tesla Motors needing more equity investment than originally planned and Musk's recent divorce announcement.
Lately, I have been following Armadillo Aerospace and feel the most comfortable with its approach to design and testing. The number of flight reps that Armadillo performs on its hardware is impressive. Failures don't lead to existential questions for the company, unlike with SpaceX. Carmack's bankroll appears more than up to the relatively modest task of sustaining development and failure. The approach is not without its pitfalls, of course. Some followers or supporters of the company may become impatient. Carmack may lose interest or -- God forbid -- he may otherwise become unable or unwilling to push the company forward.
At the end of the day, the reward in systems that are sustainable favors Armadillo hugely. An Armadillo manned orbital system definitely would be cheap enough to serve average people like me. This is what I keep my eye on. Further, I wonder if the risk of project failure is equal or lower for Armadillo versus the NASA programs or even SpaceX's programs. After all, if Carmack runs out of money, at least there are many more people available with the capability to fund the project in the breach. If Musk runs out of money, only billionaires will be able to help him. If NASA runs out of money, the project is shut down.
SpaceX's third attempt appears to have had an anomaly at around 2:10 into flight.
SpaceX will post any information to its web site when it becomes available.