The recent passing of Neil Armstrong – the first human to step foot on the moon – combined with recent Russian plans to build a base on the moon, provides a good opportunity to pause and consider the future of human spaceflight.
I am old enough, like many of my “baby boomer” counterparts, to remember where I was when that fateful “small step for [a] man/giant step for mankind” was taken.
I watched the scratchy image on a TV set in a common room at La Trobe University and recall thinking this really was a crowning moment for human ingenuity.
I also recall thinking: “But why?”
Apollo’s legacy
Like the rest of the world, I soon came to take manned (and it was decidedly male-dominated) spaceflight, to the moon at least, as a given – as just another milestone in human mastery of Earth’s environment. But looking back, what did the Apollo program actually achieve? What is its enduring legacy?
There are three points worth considering:
The Apollo program persuaded the superpowers (the US and the USSR at the time), and others with aspirations to join the exclusive club of space-faring nations, that space ventures were expensive and long-haul activities.
The program was portrayed as a significant victory for the ideology of democracy and the spirit of free enterprise. The moon landings scored important points for the US in its Cold War with the USSR. They also underscored the technical prowess of the US.
-
Most importantly, with the full impacts and implications yet to be realised, the Apollo program allowed humans to look back to Earth from a vantage point that challenged all of humanity to think of our planet as a complex but single entity.
Our blue planet, with the moon in the foreground and the darkness and vastness of space behind, really is alone. There is no lifeboat.
Beyond Apollo
Between 1969 and 1972 there were six Apollo missions to the moon and no human has returned to the moon since. Quickly the exceptional became routine and politicians and the broader public began to question the point of the exercise.
The Vietnam War was in full swing and the US was facing challenges closer to home as well – not least growing domestic opposition to the war and a civil rights movement that was increasingly confident in demanding a voice for Afro-Americans.
The Apollo program had been hailed as an achievement of science and engineering, the larger political and strategic purposes had been met and the national monument – the National Air and Space Museum – was built on the Mall in Washington next to the Capitol – a powerful and enduring symbol of American dominance of space.
A stake in the future
After Apollo came the International Space Station (ISS) and its primary support vehicle, the Space Shuttle.
Future historians may look back on these programs as twin white elephants. For huge outlays, little has been gained in the way of new science or technology and much of what has been achieved one suspects could have been done by unmanned and robotic missions at a fraction of the expense.
The conclusion is hard to avoid that the ISS, the rhetoric around the program notwithstanding, is really about a small number of countries maintaining a presence in space as a stake against the day those interests, some of which have become increasingly vital from a national security perspective – especially for the USA – may need to be defended.
The profoundly “dual use” nature of space – military and civilian – compels the spacefaring nations to “hide” their classified military ambitions and developments in open view by offering the global public an acceptable and legitimate reason for particular types of experiments and activities.
A good example of this idea concerns the management and mitigation of space debris which has proliferated in the Low Earth Orbits (LEO) typically between 300 and 1,000km above Earth.
Satellites in LEO, including the ISS, are under constant risk of colliding with space debris, with almost certain catastrophic consequences should such an event occur.
The civil community has recognised the problem and is beginning an international conversation to determine what might be done. The in-principle difficulty is that what one nation sees as a space garbage truck may very well be seen by another as a space weapon.
Expressed differently, legal norms and policies that build confidence and some minimum level of trust among nations will be just as important, if not more so, than the technologies developed to solve the problem.
While there are six souls hurtling around the Earth every 90 minutes or so on board the ISS, the interests of all spacefaring nations, and humanity more generally, are served by doing what we can to ensure their safe passage and safe return to Earth. The ISS’s mere presence in space serves as a brake on unilateral bad behaviour.
Rhethoric or reality?
In recent times, China and Russia have both announced ambitious plans to increase their commitment to human spaceflight. The preferred phrase is “space exploration” – a phrase that’s misleading, disingenuous and worthy of some discussion.
The word “exploration” links, by association, cosmonauts, astronauts and taikonauts with the likes of Vasco de Gama, James Cook La Perouse, Lewis and Clark and Dr Livingstone. Beyond being involved in inherently dangerous activities there are no similarities.
Those who explored Earth had considerable latitude in their travels and a great deal of discretion because they were out of touch and out of reach more or less as soon as they were out of sight. In marked contrast, all human activity in space is pre-planned, carefully scripted and monitored with great care in as near real-time as possible.
Little discretion rests with the on-scene commander and we are all familiar with the famous line from the Apollo 13 mission: “Houston, we have a problem”.
In space, as soon as something goes wrong, it’s the army of engineers and technicians back on Earth who are called on to figure out what to do. In system terms, Earth exploration is a loosely coupled and relatively uncomplicated activity. In space it is tightly coupled and highly complex.
Breaking free
Getting into space is difficult, expensive and dangerous. The fundamental limitation on human activity in space, especially any program involving placing humans in space, is the difficulty of breaking free of the Earth’s gravitational field.
Until the costs of gaining access to space are reduced by several orders of magnitude, no matter what method is used, the ambitions of nations and others who dream of colonies on the moon (and later Mars), are likely to remain unfulfilled.
In the case of human spaceflight, there is also a presumption that those who travel into space should be able to return to Earth. Return, using current technologies, is just as difficult and dangerous as launch as the crew module plunges through the upper atmosphere as a fiery ball until it slows sufficiently for parachutes to be deployed allowing for a safe landing.
Destination: Mars?
If humans venture to Mars, which is a stated ambition of Russia, there is every possibility those who make the trip may never return to Earth.
Leaving aside the travel hazards, Mars is a dangerous place for humans, not least because cosmic rays – which can kill – bombard the Martian surface. Any humans living on Mars will have to quickly move underground and live like moles or construct very solid structures on the surface.
Both options will require a lot of earth to me moved and structures to be built. Quite how this will be done and paid for nobody can say. I suspect nations will find more pressing demands on their treasuries closer to home: energy, water and food security, health and educational services, transport infrastructure, as well as defence forces come to mind.
Some people dream about an approaching golden age of human activity in space. For my money the laws of physics, the facts of life as we know it and the logic of money will work together to keep that golden age well beyond the life horizons of any person walking on Earth today.
Kevin Orrman-Rossiter
Senior Research Services Officer, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne
Brett I differ with the pessimism expressed in this article. You have expressed some fine distinctions between classic exploration of the Earth by humans and space exploration. You have succinctly pointed out the 'grand challenges' facing governments and people alike. I disagree that these are sufficient to be pessimistic about human exploration of space in our lifetime. The mere presence of commercial enterprises, such as Mars One and Space X, for example, and the rise of Chinese and Indian interests in space exploration I interpret positively - that we will witness a new and different era of space exploration - in our lifetime. Whether that is seen as a "golden age" I leave to future historians.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
In 1968 Apollo astronauts flow to the Moon and looked back to discover the Earth, leading to a new vision in our environmental conscience.
That same year Dr Peter Glaser proposed constructing solar power stations in space, to access the unlimited energy-well of our star directly.
We could have kept a safe Earth, by making an energy transition from carbon to stellar.
We would now be a much more advanced space-faring civilization and with direct access to unlimited energy, with infinite potential…
Read moreArthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
When I was a lad I remember the adults muttering that the Sputnik was interesting, but what use was it? I mean to say they could have given the money to me. Now that would have been a worthy project.
Do a little thought exercise. pretend that all satellites disappeared. What difference would it make to modern life?
For starters, this message would not ge
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Like your last line,. Arthur.
Of course this stuff usually goes by undersea fiber these days, but TV/movie distribution is vary satellite dependent!
If satellites were all gone, the daily weather forecasts would be a little worse, and we'd have less data to combat the never-ending climate-change deniers, but maybe we'd not have all the space crap floating around up there that makes any new launch a little tricky.
Read more;]
One point scifi junkies seem to miss about solar power from space is that…
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
My apologies Alex but I am going to have to administer a little Cognitive Dissonance. For your own good, you understand.
Forget everything you thought you knew about energy. There is a new kid on the block.
http://lenr-canr.org/
Space exploration is absolutely useless unless it solves the 35 year doubling time for humans.
There are some who persist in proclaiming loudly that because something has not been done before it is therefore impossible. How many times do they have to be proved wrong? In an idle moment leaf through the history books a see how many pontifications from the peanut gallery are left for our amusement by history.
And still they persist.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Eek! I misread your post Alex. Naughty me.
I take it you have read "Gaia" by James Lovelock from your musings.
We are a part of Gaia. The carbon sequestering technique to control the planet temperature is failing hence the recent wild fluctuations of Glacial and Interglacial conditions.
It is odd that an organism whose humble role was the re-distribution of nutrients across the biosphere was chosen for the role of steward, but here we are.
The conversion of hydrogen to helium by the sun is yet one more reason for us to spawn.
Like the neurons of the brain, there is a surplus of humans. I anticipate a severe pruning event before the spawning.
Did you read my sci-fi piece?
http://coldfusionnow.org/gallery/arthur-robey/the-breeding/
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
In the longer term Alex,
we could meet all Earth's energy needs with ground based solar power generation.
At the moment we have an emergency situation, which James Hansen warns could turn out planet into a second Venus (the Venus syndrome, p.223 'Storms of My Grandchildren' 2009).
This nightmare was created by burning too much fossil fuel for too long, when we could have begun the transition to stellar energy in the 1970s.
Gerard K. O'Neill suggested of solar power stations in space…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Hansen was decades behind and O'Neil somewhat less behind.
The solution to fossil emissions was well known in the 1950s and early '60s, well before solar power could be reasonably harvested on earth: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
One problem with futurists is that they have breathtakingly little respect for the past.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Arthur, as you say, what's not known nmay become known. Or, it may not.
I know some of the LENR folks. They have not demonstrated any form of nuclear fusion, cold or "low energy" nuclear reactions.
They have various chemical and thermal reactions, such as in nickel-metal hydride batteries, but they have demonstrated no fusion and not even a net energy gain from the gozintas to their comesoutas.
;]
Philo Farnsworth, the inventor of TV, demonstrated hydrogen fusion directly in the 1930s, in a spherical vacuum tube, using only about 4,000V to accelerate & fuse protons. His devices consumed far more energy than released.
LENR folks don't even have the nerve to say "cold fusion" anymore and haven't yet approached even Farnsworth's inadequate success.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Oops, I forgot, Art: "I am going to have to administer a little Cognitive Dissonance. For your own good," -- and here I thought Aussies weren't nearly as pompous & overbearing as their former Brit Lords.
;]
Is that why you need 4 names?
Sam Edwards
logged in via Twitter
Interesting article, though I would like to echo Kevin's comment. It would have been good to see the private space industry mentioned. Companies like SpaceX, Reaction Engines Ltd and Planetary Resources are creating the potential to kick off a second space age, with SpaceX alone launching more rockets next year than all the governments of the world combined.
While I'm sure most - if not all - the details in this article are spot on, it's not the whole picture.
The hope of the private space industry is incredibly exciting, and if we include it our appraisal of humans exploration of space it is impossible to remain completely pessimistic.
Michael Lardelli
logged in via Facebook
Space programmes consume enormous amounts of energy in terms of infrastructure, personnel and the spacecraft themselves. As world energy consumption plateaus and soon declines these programmes will be very difficult to maintain ("too expensive to fund") and other priorities will dominate such as feeding an overpopulated Earth. The hydrocarbon wealth that we based our current technological civilisation upon was a one-off inheritance now overspent. We will just have to get use to the idea of living within our planetary boundaries for the foreseeable future.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Could you assure the reader Michael that contraction, whether by choice of compulsion, will not lead to the collapse of our civilization, even send us tumbling toward extinction.
If we lose the space option, what will happen when the next monster asteroid arrives to kiss our planet.
I can agree with you that the hydrocarbon wealth is "a one-off inheritance", but what should we have been doing with this inheritance?
The logical action would be to make a transition to stellar energy harvested…
Read moreRobert Merkel
logged in via Facebook
The energy and money used in the world's space programs is noise.
NASA's annual budget is 17 billion dollars. That's 0.5% of the US federal budget, or roughly 0.1% of US GDP.
As for the energy usage, it's trivial in the greater scheme of things. A Saturn V first stage carried 770,000 litres of kerosene, or roughly 4,000 barrels. World oil production is around 85 million barrels per day.
Michael Lardelli
logged in via Facebook
0.1% of US GDP to put how many people into space? So 100% of US GDP to put, say 6 x 1000 x (generous 10 fold efficiency gain) = 60,000 people in space? But of course, they would not be living in a self-sustaining environment - they would require constant resupply from Earth. And what is 60,000 people in space in a world with 7 billion? Forget it. Unless you find a miraculous new source of energy it will never happen.
Michael Lardelli
logged in via Facebook
How can I possibly "assure the reader Michael that contraction, whether by choice of compulsion, will not lead to the collapse of our civilization"? And supervolcanoes are a bigger risk than asteroids. One blows every few centuries and then summer disappears for a few years. Under those circumstances billions of people would starve to death currently. When will the next one blow? It could be tomorrow or in hundreds/thousands of years but it WILL come as sure as night follows day. As for the Fermi Paradox, Ugo Bardi wrote an interesting article about it: http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/hubbert-hurdle-revisiting-fermi-paradox.html
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Would they qualify for the Romney offshore tax freedoms?
;]
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Thanks for the alert Michael
to the Ugo Bardi article about the Fermi Paradox.
In 1986 Robert L. Forward proposed using tiny stellar explorers driven to a high velocity with a laser beam powered by the Sun driving a solar sail.
In a short time we could send swarms of such explorers to each star and if they could make rockfall, we may in time be able to have our explorers build a local base and factory to make their own stellar probes to send onto other stars.
All at no further cost to…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
How about blogging about the important issues right here, Kim? That might actually be a contribution to the humanity you think the universe deserves to have propagated willy nilly all over itself.
;]
Yes, ask why alines haven't called. Imagine if someone had, what would they have been likely to find here?
;]
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Is there any more vital issue than survival?
Without survival, we are dust and as our star expands with age to the orbit of the Earth as a red giant, all final traces of our time on third rock will be dissolved.
When I see the way for us to assure our cosmic survival, as we approach the abyss with dangerous Earth changes, why be silent?
When I see that this way will also enable us to win back a safe Earth, do I have a responsibility to speak?
When I see that the celestial solution will lead to peace on Earth, to secure security in space, I see hope that can counter despair.
When I see that we can invest in an economy without poverty, should we hide this from the children?
When I see that this future depends on individuals waking up and demanding action, what should I do?
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Words are easy, Kim. But, some words simply waste everyone's time.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
It is a risky matter Alex,
to speak for "everyone."
If you do not like the comments of any individual, it is easy enough not to read them, nor reply.
It is a much tougher call to follow the trail of questions and seek answers to the problems that we face as a society, civilization and species.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Not speaking for "everyone", Kim. That's a weak defense.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
This article is quite right to broach the very different and very serious problems facing us in leaving Earth orbit and in even revisiting the Moon.
Ma Nature, outside our protective magnetic field and atmosphere, is vcery harsh. Our 17 Apollo missions just missed large solar storms, blasting gigatons of 500,000 mph protons at our tiny planet. Apollo 13 had a problem, and it was also lucky it didn't have a far bigger problem.
SpaceX is barely a "space program", and no Moon colony will be…
Read moreKim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Radiation in space may be managed in a similar way to the home planet, with an electromagnetic shield.
I have read of research in this direction.
Like Gerard K. O'Neill ('The High Frontier, 1977) and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky ('Beyond Planet Earth, 1920), I argue for Earth-gravity orbital space settlements to maintain human physiological health.
O'Neill pointed out that the Asteroid Belt alone had enough raw material to build orbital land equivalent to 3,000 Earths (p.16).
An Earth-gravity standard would allow access to any planet, Moon or asteroid, as well as being able to visit Earth.
A child raised on Mars might never survive in Earth's much heavier gravity.
Better the liberty of the Solar System than to be prisoners of Mars.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
KIm, yes, building an artificial magnetic field around a spacecraft could assist with charged-particle deflection, as earth;s does. But it doesn't stop cosmic rays.
There was a Scientific American article on alternative methods for shielding spacecraft a year or so ago.
The problem is, all take considerably more energy than we have available in a spacecraft to carry a few folks.
But, bottom line, why guess that another place would be better after we screw this one up? Why not simply try to combat what now appears to be about 10,000 years of highly uncomfortable planetary modifications here?
After all, scientists tried to get governments to listen decades ago. Maybe folks now have a better chance of getting actions that at least guarantee an unpleasant future for our offspring, rather than an unsurvivable one?
Folks who advocate space travel to get off a sinking planet aren't realistic or helpful.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
What is not helpful is people who make assertions that seem intuitively correct, but don't bother to read the literature.
Read moreGoing down with a sinking ship is suicidal. The Limits to Growth is quite clear on this aspect. The average lifespan will come down to the late twenties, and the birth rate will skyrocket. In which case those who advocate a return to some bucolic shangrila are promoting mass murder of babies.
Intuitive assertions are not good enough.
Dr Gerrard K O'Neill et al have completed…
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
To identify working solutions to problems Alex,
is only the beginning of finding the needed answers.
Humanities fate could be sealed by a simple economic slide that removes our cutting edge with space technology, leaving us trapped on Earth when the next catastrophe arrives, which could be as basic as the predicted collapse of a volcanic island in the Canaries sending monster tsunamis onto the Atlantic coastlines.
With all our eggs jammed into one nest, we take many risks with the survival…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
You don't get it, Kim. Likely you don't want to "get it". We are "trapped" here, in a very nice place -- a place you could help make better with less futurist fluff and more relevant action. Of course, we can all do more too.
Arthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
Dr Gerrard K O'Neil set out the business plan back in the 70's to colonise L4 and 5.
Read moreIt beats me why we have this obsession to go back down another gravity well once we have escaped this one. Have you seen the delta v needed to bring material from the asteroid belt to any of many Lagrange points that exist in our solar system?
The moon obliges us by having water at the south pole and is generally orientated conveniently so that a linear accelerator could launch material at the Lagrange points…
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
If President Kennedy had lived and been re-elected, his vision for space may have blossomed to deliver Glaser's solar power stations in space and O'Neill's orbital habitats.
The reality became the cutting of NASA's budget before the Moon landing, the promotion of Von Braun into a Washington oblivion, the canning of the Saturn V and the breaking up of that amazing rocket team.
If Bobby Kennedy had not been assassinated in 1968 and been elected president, would he have revived his brother's space…
Read moreArthur James Egleton Robey
Industrial Electrician
""The hollow horn plays waster words that prove to warn,
That he not busy being born, is busy dying" Bob Dylan.
Whoever colonizes L4 and L5 will be the gate-keeper to the cosmos. Everyone else will be trapped on the surface of the planet. But not for long. I ran the Limits to Growth model forward and with business as usual and in 2500 the population of the planet goes to Zero. To be on the planet at that time will be to experience a lonely extinction.
Who will be the Gatekeepers. My money is on the Chinese. See Bob dylan above. Learn to Kow Tow barbarian.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
China may well have learnt their lesson from history, when they abandoned their great naval fleets in the 15th century and left the gates open for Europe.
American power is not about to vanish and would meet any Chinese expansion, in the same way the Soviets were once matched.
The key to any progress beyond Earth is energy, which will be generated in solar power stations in space, allowing space industry and orbital habitats.
If conflict on Earth becomes conflict in space, then the gates…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
"Whoever colonizes L4 and L5 will be the gate-keeper to the cosmos"
Any idea how irrelevant this Popsci tidbit of scientific knowledge about gravity is for being "gate-keeper to the cosmos"?
Any idea how far the nearest star is, in relation to where the outer bounds of our solar system are?
Might as well erect a sign somewhere in the desert and write on it "Gatekeeper to Paris", or some other joke.
;]
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Bullfeathers. We don't need a "lifeboat" to go somewhere else & ruin that too.
We need serious people, like Kennedy, doing serious things, as he intended a year before his death: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
In his 2009 book ~ 'The Next 100 Year' ~ George Friedman predicts that the United States will be engaged in a war in space and will come out on top, as American power has not yet reached its height.
Coming out on top in space would mean holding the high ground and becoming the gate-keeper to the Solar System and the stars.
In another comment in this thread I wrote ~
In 1986 Robert L. Forward proposed using tiny stellar explorers driven to a high velocity with a laser beam powered by the…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
You need to study some science -- real science, Kim.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
"Bullfeathers" Alex?
Clearly a flight of genetic word engineering.
Unfortunately, the good old spaceship Mother Earth did not come provisioned with lifeboats, so if we decide that in the name of cosmic survival lifeboats are a good idea, then we will have to build them.
Hopefully we will not have lost our edge on space technology when the next monster asteroid, or other cosmic problem, arrives to connect with home planet.
With the document cited ~ http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa ~ being a…
Read moreKim Peart
Researcher & Writer
This is a blanket statement Alex,
but says nothing.
It would be helpful if you identified at least one point that you are referring to.
I am keen to discover facts revealed by science, such as how our star is now 35% hotter than at the birth of the Solar System and how our planet's life-support systems have kept life on a relatively even keel, despite the increasing heat.
If any information that I site is in error, I am very happy to be alerted to this, so I may check out the facts and gain a clearer insight into the workings of the cosmos.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Yes, Kim, the sun is hotter by ~40% since it stabilized after many millions of years, even before life appeared here. Aussies seem to have the record, with 3.3B year-old fossils in your sandstones.
The stability for life has been highly variable, however, since it began via sulfur chemistry and only evolved oxygen-breathing creatures after bacterial photosynthesis did its work, starting about 2B years ago.
Then, there were over a million volcanoes active on any day of the week, the Moon was closer and the tides higher...
The Carbon Cycle has helped stabilize things on the surface for hundreds of millions of years, though not preventing ice ages or worse. That's the cycle we've screwed up by a factor of about 100, so will pay dearly for thousands of years no matter how soon we stop burning stuff.
I gave the relevant journal links elsewhere here, but you can start with the July 2011 Scientific American.
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
We're in a "lifeboat", Kim. Wake up.
Kevin Orrman-Rossiter
Senior Research Services Officer, Faculty of Science at University of Melbourne
And just to bring home my earlier point - today Space-X launched the first commercial delivery to the ISS. The launch and details of this Falcon 9, Flight 4 CRS-1 are on livestream (and NASA and Space-X):
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/142499/events/1579124/videos/4582928
I would suggest that the evidence supports the proposition that America is into the 'second' phase of space exploration, where hard-nosed entrepreneurship takes flight (pun intended).
Still there is the added impetus of China and India, who social-challenges notwithstanding have their eyes set on Mars.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
In the larger scheme of humanities cosmic survival Kevin,
the Space-X success is a ray of inspiration and my hope flies with them.
If we can hammer an inspiring story into shape, could we hope to spark the Australia people with a space vision.
Investing our resource bonanza in solar power stations in space and industry beyond Earth would open a future for our youth that inspires.
If we can only climb out of our carbon security zone and discover the energy in starlight.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Kim, SpaceX is a business that may deliver wealthy passengers, or payloads for the Space station, 200 miles up.
That's not "space". That's SF to Reno. Any idea what it means that the nearest star is about 4 light years away?
;]
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
I just checked the definition Alex
and as I remembered, space is defined as being above the atmosphere, or 100 kilometres up.
This may have changed slightly now, as with global warming the atmosphere is expanding.
With a simple improvement on today's technology, we could send a stellar exploration craft to another star, using a solar sail accelerated by a laser beam powered by the Sun.
A human migration to the stars in a rather large caravan may take many generations ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0ZahSHKsQ&feature=related
It is not the distance or the time involved in any journey, but whether we want to bother.
At this stage, we can imagine the possible and work to ensure that it remains possible.
In the real world, we must also be prepared for the currently impossible to become possible, however surprising that turns out to be.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
YEs Kim, "space" is about 200 miles away. But solar saiils don't work well much beyond a sun, and laser beams do indeed diverge faster than such a sail could be powered to reach even the nearest star.
Being a "futurist" seems somewhat like being a magician's assistant -- the tricks look great, but the assistant has much to learn about their reality..
;]
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
I would be very surprised Alex,
to read any scientific reference that describes outer space as being "about 200 miles away."
I read 100 kilometres, which is less in miles.
Since a solar sail has now been successfully sailed in space ~
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Nanosail_D_Sails_Home_999.html
it is over to the imagination as to how far this technology will go.
As Forward proposed in 1986, velocity could be increased with a laser beam.
Why just one?
A series of laser…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
It's not a matter of whether you're surprised or not, Kim. It's about what you understand or avoid understanding.
Outer space means negligible atmospheric drag. Look up how many molecules collide with an object 100km up per second and what the decay of its orbit is. Then. of course there's our space junk that makes inner space very different from outer space.
Your "solar sail" thing is similarly myopic -- the sail's usefulness decays rapidly, even beyond our solar system, and it does not provide directional control similar to a boat's sail -- a boat has 2 sails, one in the water as well as one in the air. How's you mechanics?
Yes, "intelligence" is powerful. So are ignorance & bias.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
My primary concern Alex,
is with survival.
How often does the Earth get hit?
A recent report describes a monster hitting the Pacific only 2.5 million years ago, sending "a mega-tsunami hundreds of metres high" onto Australia ~
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/09/20/3594552.htm
How much of our civilization would survive another one of them?
Knowing that this stuff happens if you sit around waiting for it, would it be prudent to invest in a cosmic survival insurance policy, while we can?
We never know when the next monster will arrive, even from beyond Pluto, even from interstellar space, where many planets fly freely between the stars ~
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/lonely-planets-found-which-float-freely-through-the-milky-way-20110519-1etm3.html
At present we would be sitting ducks in the cosmic shooting gallery.
Some solid suggestions on assuring our survival would be welcome.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Km, there are far more immediate needs for billions of folks around the world. Try directing your thoughts & energy to that.
We have scientists watching the heavens for your "monster". Ocean acidification, however, is more immediate and pressing for the survival you claim to care about.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
You have not offered any ideas Alex.
Do you see a working solution for ocean acidification?
In the spirit of THE CONVERSATION, I am happy to consider good-hearted discussion.
As I have suggested, I see a very solid working solution to ocean acidification using space development.
I also see how this nightmare problem could have been entirely avoided if we had acted on space development in a timely fashion ~ making the transition from carbon to stellar energy.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/
Alex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
"You have not offered any ideas" -- read much, Kim?
I've expressed here very often the basic reality of 3 supports for a safe, stable future: a) local solar PV/hot-water, b) EVs & efficient storage, c) advanced nuclear power, like that we were supposed to have by 2000 to eliminate all combustion power: http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa
a few decades ago, the plan could have been met,, avoiding most global changes from emissions, by bringing 1GWe of emissions-free power on line each month. Political will to do that never materialized and so we're now guaranteeing billions of folks tough times for thousands of yeas, due to a screwed-up Carbon Cycle.
We can still address the problem via 1GWe emissions-free each Monday (or Tuesday...), and by delivering enough Calcium Oxide, etc.to the seas to forestall the worst of ocean acidification.
There you go, something to get behind for a near-term "futurist".
;]
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
When you throw stones Alex,
such as ~ "a near-term "futurist"." ~ it is difficult to maintain the spirit of good-hearted CONVERSATION.
I will leave you with this current article on ocean acidification ~
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-oceans-acidity-threat-shellfish-humans.html
I take on board what you suggest.
When I read how increasing ocean acidification and growing dead zones in the sea can lead to vast algal blooms that release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas that can kill life on land…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Kim, you referred to yourself as a "futurist" -- your "stone".
Glad you've read up on acidification and other threats. But leaving the planet with a few people you choose, solves nothing.
So, if you want respect, get to work now. Get to work here.
Others have been working for decades before you.
Otherwise, you just waste everyone's time and add to emissions via gabbing on blogs like these.
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Ocean acidification Alex,
and its potential deadly impact on life, is the direct consequence of burning fossil fuel.
Ocean acidification could have been entirely avoided if we had risen to the challenge of building solar power stations in space in the 1970s, when we had the chance to, instead of following the thump, thump, thump of marching to the drum of oil rigs pumping fossil fuel from the belly of the Earth.
Ocean acidification can be completely turned with the use of stellar energy…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Yes Kim -- "our choices". So, what are you doing to help folks make choices about the here and now?
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Yes Alex ~
"Yes Kim -- "our choices". So, what are you doing to help folks make choices about the here and now? "
Raising awareness about ocean acidification, its primary cause, how it could have been averted, what could be done now to avoid where it could lead, mobilising for action in a global context and initiating local strategies.
There are many other issues that similarly connect, such as the prospect of losing the koala due to changes in plant biology driven by elevated levels of…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via LinkedIn
Good, Kim.
And these may be of interest too...
www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Kim Peart
Researcher & Writer
Thanks Alex.
Kim Peart
http://www.islandearth.com.au/