Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology Science

The Century's Top Engineering Challenges 290

coondoggie writes "The National Science Foundation announced today 14 grand engineering challenges for the 21st century that, if met, would greatly improve how we live. The final choices fall into four themes that are essential for humanity to flourish — sustainability, health, reducing vulnerability, and joy of living. The committee did not attempt to include every important challenge, nor did it endorse particular approaches to meeting those selected. Rather than focusing on predictions or gee-whiz gadgets, the goal was to identify what needs to be done to help people and the planet thrive, the group said. A diverse committee of engineers and scientists — including Larry Page, Robert Langer, and Robert Socolow — came up with the list but did not rank the challenges. Rather, the National Academy of Engineering is offering the public an opportunity to vote on which one they think is most important."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Century's Top Engineering Challenges

Comments Filter:
  • I'm confused (Score:2, Interesting)

    by MadUndergrad ( 950779 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @12:20AM (#22498550)
    How many months in Iraq does "preventing nuclear terror" cost?
  • by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @12:35AM (#22498660) Homepage
    How is that an engineering feat? Seems more like a people feat.

    Ever heard of social engineering?

    Seriously, what is securing cyberspace if not a people problem? The machines don't cause the problems, people do.

    Securing cyberspace is easy, building systems to secure cyberspace that users can actually use is the hard part. People have been telling me to get a Mac as the solution to all my usability problems for years. So today I bought one.

    OK so the Mac is nicer in many respects, but mostly as far as I am concerned on the hardware package side than the software. But the security usability is no better. None of the assistants in the shop were able to solve the simple security tasks I proposed. Which is good for me I suppose since there would be no point in trying to solve an already solved problem.

    Now securing the fifty year old banking IT system, now that is much harder than securing the Internet, and that is the system the criminals are attacking because that is where the money is.

  • Larry Page? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21, 2008 @12:37AM (#22498668)
    The same Larry Page that was quibbling about how to outfit his party plane?

    I would rather see a panel made up of real engineers and scientists. Yes, he helped found Google. But he is not a luminary figure that should be talking about how to save the world. He really does not belong in that group. There should be some circles you cannot buy your way into.

    Wanna know my big engineering hurdle? We should first and foremost be thinking about population controls. Nail that one (figuratively, we want less kids) and we are well on our way to solving some real-world issues.
  • by w3woody ( 44457 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @12:40AM (#22498688) Homepage
    I'm with Scott Adams: Holes. [typepad.com]

    To summarize, what we need is a better way to dig cheap holes.

    Think of it: with a cheap way to drill a hole we can drill down close to the mantle of the earth for cheap geothermal. With a cheap way to dig a tunnel we can expand our freeway infrastructure by placing new roads below ground. Infrastructure can be run underground more cheaply--if we have a cheap hole to run them through.

    Holes are the future.
  • by qw0ntum ( 831414 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @12:40AM (#22498690) Journal
    Can someone please explain what it means to "manage the nitrogen cycle?" I've seen that twice in the past two weeks and I'm not entirely sure what they are referring to, and why we need to manage it. Yes, I've tried Google and Wikipedia.
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @01:15AM (#22498954) Journal
    It's not drilling the hole that's the problem. It's holding back the walls against hydrostatic pressure, while still having a usefully open space to pipe water down to be turned to steam. The places where we already have geothermal aren't drilling all the way down to the mantel. They're drilling down to a convenient pocket of magma close to the surface. There are many places with magma-resources that are yet to be tapped, but it is by no means practical for any arbitrary point on the earth's surface to simply keep drilling until they reach magma.

    The necessary advance isn't a "hole drilling robot." It's incredibly strong, heat-resistant pipes, and some kind of trick for installing them while drilling without affecting the bore diameter or preventing bit replacement.
  • NSF and my list (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21, 2008 @01:35AM (#22499066)
    Remember this list appears to come from the NSF. I'm sure this list includes the footnote of challenges they should focus on. Remember that energy (doe), health (hhs), military (dod) and space (nasa) are funded elsewhere. Here is my list from the top of my head, for no other better reason. Engineering challenges:

    1) Human space travel to planetary bodies outside of earth
    2) Widespread therapeutic use of engineered tissue, gene therapy and RNAi (gene knockdown)
    3) Therapeutic approaches to overcome antibiotic resistance
    4) Complete reduction of dependence on fossil fuels
    5) Artificial intelligence
    6) Reduction of the human costs of war through military technologies (as much as I hate to say it, world leaders seem to be too arrogant or too shortsighted to eliminate it)
    7) Pervasive cyberinfrastructure
    8) Elimination of obesity and related diseases
    9) Engineering of useful artificial biotics (and control of the dangerous ones)
    10) Health informatics and truely personalized medicine in the age of postgenomics

    I'm sure there are others maybe some environmental issues (global warming, overpopulation, etc)...
  • by Brother Seamus ( 937658 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @01:40AM (#22499102)
    Like I always say, every problem has an engineering solution [google.com].
  • False problems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @01:59AM (#22499204) Journal
    Many of those issues are not really problems, in that they can be cured by other issues that make them redundant/meaningless.

    * Make solar energy affordable

    As noted elsewhere: affordable is relative. Let oil hit some arbitrarily high price, and solar power suddenly looks cheap.

    * Provide energy from fusion

    Also, as noted elsewhere, the sun is a stable fusion reactor, and it is safely located millions of miles away.

    * Develop carbon sequestration methods

    Only if we intend to continue gulping oil. Assuming it goes off the charts in expense, carbon sources (oil or coal) will cease to be economically viable and will cease being used except for Important things like medicine and materials, both of which are small carbon burners compared to the local SUV.

    * Manage the nitrogen cycle

    Corn, Beans, Squash.

    * Provide access to clean water

    Nice idea, but first you have to have enough to go around. This problem (as would many others) be solved with FEWER people shitting the place up.

    * Restore and improve urban infrastructure

    Mostly, TRAINS. Lots of electric TRAINS. Remember: Peak OIl == Peak Asphalt.

    * Advance health informatics

    Nice idea - how you will do it with out petroleum is another issue.

    * Engineer better medicines

    See above.

    * Reverse-engineer the brain

    Why? I would think reverse engineering the liver might be more useful.

    * Prevent nuclear terror

    Sure: Ban nuclear weapons or drive civilisation back to the 18th century. We can do the first, and the oil crash will do the second, over time.

    * Secure cyberspace

    Against WHAT? Phishing?

    * Enhance virtual reality

    Eeew- that is like SO five minutes ago.

    * Advance personalized learning

    Sure, so I can leverage my human resources, right? fuck off.

    * Engineer the tools for scientific discovery

    Like WHAT - INSIGHT? Good luck with that Butch, lemme know how it works out for ya. Moron.

    RS

  • by mdsolar ( 1045926 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @02:21AM (#22499304) Homepage Journal
    Mineralization is often thought of a taking silicate rock and turing it into silica and calcium or magnesuim carbonate. Often serpentine [wikipedia.org] is cited, though the associated heavy metals make me think this is a poor choice. Wollastonite [wikipedia.org] might be better. If you want to produce elemental carbon, you need to add in energy. The conversion of silicates is exothermic, but removing oxygen from carbon dioxide to make pure carbon requires just as much energy as you got from making the carbon dioxide in the first place. Forming terra preta from biomass can get you to elemental carbon (bio-char) and produce some energy along the way, but the biomass has solar energy input to convert carbon dioxide. One can form methane pretty easily from hydrogen and carbon dioxide using the Sabatier reaction [wikipedia.org] especially if you have a use for the excess heat from this exothermic reaction. The methane might be turned into polymers that have useful microstructures when the hydrogen is removed leaving a carbon residue similar to bio-char. Forming graphite or diamond would probably be limited to uses that are too small scale to accept much carbon.
  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @02:43AM (#22499426)
    In which case you need something with a very high compressive strength and capable of handling temperatures of hundreds of degrees celcius - like rock. Geothermal projects are not actually playing with lava or even really huge temperature differences.
  • Re:My top challenges (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @02:51AM (#22499480) Journal
    1. See my reply to other poster.
    2. No way. She rocks even if our taste in TV differs.
    3. Got one. Doesn't change the wife from wanting to watch stuff. See 2.
    4. Where???
    5. A script that can answer as well as I can? Where?
    6. where?
    8. It's called a traffic jam.
  • by amirulbahr ( 1216502 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @02:51AM (#22499486)
    I take "nuclear terror" to include anyone exploding a nuclear device anywhere with the aim of killing.
  • Re:I would add: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cgraves ( 1213828 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @03:25AM (#22499666)

    I would add: An electric battery with an energy density comparable to gasoline.
    The problem is that gasoline combustion gets about 80% by weight of its reactants from the air (O2). Though the energy stored in batteries can be much more efficiently used, they store their oxidizer inside, so even if we could gasoline itself in a battery, it cannot be as dense. Unless it is an air battery, at which point you are looking more and more like a fuel cell.

    But, yes hopefully we can approach "comparable".
  • by btgreat ( 895041 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @04:01AM (#22499808)
    When I read it, I was thinking engineering ways of containing nuclear terror - limiting its effects or making ways of preventing nuclear bombs from being detonated (who knows). I think there might be more to it than social engineering.
  • by eh2o ( 471262 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @04:06AM (#22499822)
    This list is carefully crafted to stay roughly within the scope of what the NSF currently funds. e.g., it omits almost everything having to do with medicine (the domain of the NIH).

    They also tread carefully around current events, cover the asses of various government and corporate interests, and ensure future funding (at least for the next year or so) by including "security" topics that everyone knows are bogus ways of diverting funds (except for the rotton apples at the top of the barrel).

    If we have learned anything it is that the future of engineering is interdisciplinary (e.g. bio-engineering, regenerative therapy/stem cells, genetic engineering, etc). This just shows how horribly shriveled and unimaginative the NSF research vision really is.
  • by polar red ( 215081 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @04:25AM (#22499888)
    >Make perpetual motion device
    Well, that shouldn't be a target, it should read : Make available a cheap energy source; You can't do anything with a perpetual motion device, if you can't make (cheap)energy with it.
    and what about passive housing? [wikipedia.org]
  • Re:I would add: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Thursday February 21, 2008 @08:00AM (#22500790) Homepage
    Why comparable ?

    Ever since I learned about antimatter I've been dreaming of a battery powered of a small amount of the stuff. Yeah, I know about the problems with avoiding uhm, "spectacular" failure-modes. But the energy-density is gargantuan.

    Cars that need to swap a tiny battery once-a-year ? Check ! Passenger-jets that emit zero pollution, and that replace tons and tons of jet-fuel with a small, easily swappable battery ? Check !

    Okay, so I know this is totally unrealistic. It would however be very cool.

    e = mc^2

    0.5 gram of antimatter in a battery, reacts with 0.5g of normal matter, releases 0.001 * 300000000 * 300000000 J = gargantuan number. More energy than you could spend in a lifetime. All in a handy AA-cell.

    Building a safe antimatter confinement-cell that size is left an engineering-challenge for the reader.
  • by tsotha ( 720379 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @08:36AM (#22500946)

    Declared nuclear states (and states like Israel that are unofficially declared) are just fine. If the Israelis lob a nuke at the Russians, they know they have only twenty minutes or so to make peace with whomever they worship. India and Pakistan, both nuclear armed countries that have, what, seven wars under their collective belt haven't nuked each other. Fear is a wonderful demotivator.

    But terrorism is different. Let's say Al Queda gets ahold of a nuclear bomb. What, exactly, is their downside to actually using it? Who would we retaliate against if they used it to blow up New York? Hell, they might not care if we went on a big bombing spree, since all the dead Muslims are gonna get their virgins.

    And why are you so sanguine about their chances of actually acquiring one? The technology is over sixty years old - you can get plans off the internet. People have been caught selling stolen Russian fissionables now on more than one occasion. And terrorist groups don't seem to have a big problem attracting engineers. Sure, they probably couldn't build a fusion bomb, and a crude fission bomb might be large and have a yield of "only" 50kt or so. That would be enough to kill millions.

    Personally, I don't think nuclear terrorism is an "if" question. It's a "when" question. But short of a verifyable, complete international ban on all nuclear devices, including power stations, I don't see how it can be prevented.

  • social engineering? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hackingbear ( 988354 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @04:25PM (#22507256)
    The proper name for "social engineering" is "politics". The proper name for "social engineer" is "politician. "Social engineering" is just a marketing name.
  • by Sandbags ( 964742 ) on Thursday February 21, 2008 @04:35PM (#22507372) Journal
    Many of these are not so much engineering feats as they are research feats. Although social engineering certainly is in this category, some of these don't belong on the list.

    Some of these shuold also not be on a 21st centurt list, but a 10 year list. We'll be, for example, making solar power affordable by then with little doubt.

    Here are a few engineering feats I'd like to see:
    - Install a superconducting electrical grid across each major continent
    - BUILD enough solar/wind/etc clean power plants to supply all homes and businesses with 100% renewable clean power
    - engineer retroviruses to target and correct or simply prevent disease/cancer/deformity/etc.
    - build fully automated mass transit for every city in the world and eliminate 80% or more of commuting in personal vehicles in major cities.
    - design and build self driving vehicles that operate as a mesh network, cars talking to other cars as well as GPS positioning, and eliminate the need for traffic lights entirely (Minority Report style autonomous driving, just with vehicles we'll actually drive) No more traffic, no more accidents, no more insurance.
    - develop localized terraforming (convert desert into forrest, wasteland into cropland)
    - Develop planetary terraforming (not just CO2 sequestration, but other things as well). Reverse global warming. control rainfall.
    - pass laws to make cash illegal (no cash = no drug trade, no black market, no tax evasion, no criminals on the run, no reason to mug someone, no politicians getting paid under tables, utopia...)
    - crack quantum mechanics and build optical quantum CPUs.
    - not just improve VR, but make it nearly as real as RL.
    - eliminate stupidity from gevernment. If you both figure out how to do it and then actually get it implemented, we can considder it the most astounding single achievment of the human histroy.

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...