Shanghai Yummy

If you were alive in the 1950's and 1960's, you may remember the introduction of the deHavilland Comet, the first commercial jet-powered airliner, or the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8, the first US-made commercial jetliners and, arguably, the two aircraft that truly ushered in the jet age. Those must have been heady times indeed. Think that in 50 years the trans-Atlantic crossing had been reduced from 4 days to about seven hours. The talk of the industry would have you believing that you would be flying a supersonic commercial jet on a regular basis within 20 years. Humankind was on their way to the Moon, and with any bit of imagination commercial space travel and maybe even a moon colony would be reality by 2001...

So as I sit here on a cold, rainy evening, I find myself wondering why today's airliners are in fact slower than the airliners of the 1960's, why after we got to the Moon we, for all intents and purposes, abandoned it, and why our only manned outpost in space is called the "International Space Station" but as yet only Americans and Russians have ever called it home?

The answeres to those questions, of course, lay in a myriad of interconnecting reasons and reasons for reasons. The simple answer is, "everything." The reason things are the way they are is because of everything that has happened up until now. I can't pretend to be able to touch on them all, but I want to talk about my feelings on some of them.

The major reason why I believe our advancement in aerospace seems to have stalled is because the human desire to explore and improve has been tempered by a force greater than any person or small groups of persons can overcome. The establishment -- scientific, political, and otherwise -- has become so entrenched in our modern world that it is nearly impossible to develop any ideas outside of it. Not since the days of Galileo and the Church have we stood at a more stifling environment for innovation.

A hundred years ago a couple of bicycle mechanics would pour their savings and life's work into the development of an idea that they believed in. Regardless of whether you think the Wright Brothers were truly great inventors or just a couple of blokes who happened to be at the right place at the right time, the point is that two regular people were able to develop their idea independently.

Developing an idea into an innovation today requires an incredible amount of money. You might argue that this would have been true at any point in history, and you would be correct. However, the relative cost of developing ideas to the average income of individuals has never been greater than it is today. How this came to pass is another topic altogether, and I may write on that some other time. In any case, unless you are extremely wealthy, developing an idea today requires you to find outside money. Investors.

The problem with this approach is that ideas are evaluated not on their scientific merit, but now they are evaluated on their investment value. How much money can I expect to make from this, and how quickly?

Almost as a matter of course, meritorious ideas which have a long incubation time are tossed out. Same with ideas that may further the state of science, but do not provide a clear channel to a marketable application, and thus a return on the investment.

By requiring idea holders to have money in order to pursue their idea, this creates a cycle in which the tools to innovate are granted to only those within the establishment. By accepting money in order to gain access to those tools, the idea holders all too often compromise the original idea in order to adapt it to suit the market. It is truly a Catch-22 situation. Without money, the idea cannot be developed. With money, the idea becomes batardized into a form which is suited to the establishment. In both cases, innovation suffers.

Gone are the days when one person or a small group of people are able to make a significant impact on innovation. Today's environment requires the backing of huge corporations, universities, and government laboratories. Is it possible that the ability for a human being to advance the state of science by themselves is over? Is it that we have reached some apex of evolution wherein the human brain is capable only of developing new ideas if it is given a million dollars of financial backing? I highly doubt it.

The situation is artificial. It is a construct of corporate, political, and yes, even religious, making. For that reason, it can be overcome. Not by one. Not by a group. It will take the power of the entire market to effect change. The market that feeds the establishment, of which you and I are members, is the key to change. We, as a collective market, have allowed this situation to come to pass by accepting mediocrity and the status quo. After all, who cares about the future, right? Just give me an RF remote control for my 55" big screen TV and I'm happy, right?

That brings me to the root of another situation. We as a society have become engrossed in the desire to only make our own lives easier and our pursuits have been focused solely on the acquisition of some material happiness whether that be in the form of a remote control or getting blasted with our friends on Friday night or getting your kids through school. We have lost sight of the state of humankind in our quest for personal satisfaction, and in doing so, we have allowed the establishment to dictate our acceptance of the status quo.

Wake up to the world, my friends, and ask for something better. It is only through the work of individuals that we can effect change in the market and in the world. I will write more on these subjects in the future when I have time, but for now let me return to the reason I started this.

The Boeing Company is slated to make a go/no-go decision on the Sonic Cruiser concept in the next year or so. Similarly, the Airbus consortium has already announced the A380 superjumbo aircraft. Both of these efforts, in my opinion, are incredible disappointments from an innovation standpoint. The Sonic Cruiser promises to fly you at Mach 0.98 a distance of 9,000 nautical miles no earlier than 2008. The A380 will take 550 passengers a distance of 8,000 nautical miles by 2006.

Compared to what they were saying 40 years ago what we would have 20 years ago, this is a let-down of the greatest magnitude. Yes, we had an oil crisis. Yes, people wanted more comfort over speed. Yes, people are more worried about the in-flight meal than the engines. We've allowed the industry to get us excited about things which really should be complete disappointments through our complacency.

At this rate we will never colonize other worlds. We won't even finish exploring our own. Break the walls that are stifling innovation with your vote... your dollar. And your self. Ask yourself how you are contributing to innovation. I know I'm not proud of where I stand, but I aim to renew my efforts. Think things over a bit. We'll talk again soon.

PGP Signed Entry