SPC #27: Irrational Dreams?

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer an analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically, I read the paper and write down my thoughts while I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes and ideas are from the paper, unless otherwise noted.

This week we are reviewing the paper Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization. I am using a format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.
 
Article Information

Title: Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization
Author: Lynda Williams
Date: January 2010
Volume: 22
Issue: 1
Page: 4-8

Image by Flickr user Temari 09 (traveling)

Article Overview
While the knee jerk reaction would be to attack this piece, this article offers a refreshing and an overview of all the most effective counter-arguments to space habitation. These counter-arguments should be understood and carefully considered by all space cadets; this paper asks the space community to seek Earth based solutions, instead of space based solutions, for many of the problems humanity faces.


Key Quotes and My Comments
"...we have five billion years, plus or minus a few hundred million, to plan our extraterrestrial escape. The need to colonize the moon or Mars to guarantee our survival is not pressing" Page 4.

My comment: I agree, it might not be pressing if we only consider the sun as out primary threat, but I still think we need to maintain an active space program and slowly work our way to leaving this solar system. 

"There are many Earth-based technological strategies that can be developed in time to mediate [deadly asteroids and comets], such as gravitational tugboats that drag the objects out of range" Page 5. 

"This is the core of the ethical dilemma posed by space colonization: should we put our resources into developing human colonies on other worlds to survive natural and manmade catastrophes, or should we focus all of our energies on solving and mitigating the problems that create these threats on Earth?" Page 5

My comment: This is a point that must be researched more by the space community. I feel there is a way to gain resources from NEOs to create a planetary defence against astroids...but the environmental issues are harder to solve with space. We need to find the set of world problems which space is the only solution, then we can have a real discussion.


"Currently, there are no means for generating the energy on the moon needed to extract the helium-3 to produce the promised endless source of energy. Similar energy problems exist for the proposed use of solar power on the moon, which has the additional problem of being sunlit two weeks a month and dark for the other two weeks" Page 6.

My Comment: This is a valid point that could kill a lot of plans for space habits on the moon and it also kills the helium-3 hype. 

"To date, no space-faring nation has ratified [The Moon Treaty], meaning the moon, and all celestial bodies including Mars and asteroids, may be up for the taking" Page 6.

" Every year, since the mid-1980s, a treaty has been introduced into the UN for a Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), with all parties, including Russia and China, voting for it, except for the United States and Israel" Page 5.


My Comment: The two above quotes are really eye opening..despite all the talk of world peace through space settlements, there is still a high potential for a nation to go plant a flag in the moon and declare the whole moon their own...this would start WW3, easily. It's frustrating that we have to deal with all this political drama...not supporting these bills is short sighted...everone wins when we work together.

I think getting these treaties ratified should be the next major step of the space movement.

"Many young scientists are perhaps fueling the prophesy of our planetary destruction by dreaming of lunar and/or Martian bases to save humanity, rather than working on the serious environmental challenges that we face on Earth" Page 8.

My Comment: From my experience, many of the young space cadets are also environmentalists, but I need to prove that statement. That being said, more environmental action would be nice. However, I feel the space community is so small that we are not having a huge impact by working on space instead of the environmental movement. Personally, I support environmentalism because I know how rare this planet is...how lucky we are. I know how hard it would be to live else where. I do what I can to support green activies on campus...I think it's telling that we have no space club but a few environmental groups...but the author is right, I could be running a blog about saving the Earth instead of blogging about space habitation. 


Questions Raised by the Paper
Can humanity pull off massive ecological action, space settlement and world peace at the same time?

Does the book Paradise Regained: The Regreening of Earth offer an effective counter-argument to the paper?


Can the Earth sustain future populations? (there is a ton of conflicting data out there, I may need a few posts to sort to all out)

Is it possible for one person to activily support and contribute to saving the Earth and space habitation?

Does the paper Space Colonization--Yes, But Not Now counter these arguments or further support them?

CAT: Lag

Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday (CAT). This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post or I feel that the problem presented can be overcome, but it is an argument I need to address.

One of the arguments for space habitation that I've read over and over is that the communication delay would make any unmanned mining efforts impossible. However, it seems this is not the case because of developments in bilateral control. Bilateral control overcomes transmission delay by simulating the robot and the object being manipulated next the the user and copying the motions to the distant robot.

If we are able to overcome communication delay, we will be able to send mining drones faster then manned mining ships, simply because they will be lighter.

They will also be cheaper because these missions won’t need pressurized cabins and other things for human survival. Humans would need not only life support, but the mining colony would need to generate food and extract water while mining.

So, from a pure profitability perspective, unmanned is the way to go. Justifying space habitation in the light of this will be hard. 

 

 

 

In Case You Skimmed

-Since transmission delay isn’t a factor, there is no reason not to use unmanned systems for mining in space.

Reactions

-Would businesses be willing to give us some profit to have a manned space colony?

Photo Credit

ElDave

Counter Argument Thursday: Planetary Defense

Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday. This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post, but it is an argument I need to address.

When compared to planetary defense, space habitation is a less effective investment. In this hard times, we need to choose the effective plan. Space habitation supports argue from a position of protecting the humanity with their plans. But, I doubt space habitations can support more then 1% of the population of humanity in the universe. In an emergency situation, space habitations can not support a 1000% or more increase in population. Maybe they will have the supplies, but the jobs and living space might not exist to support a massive migration to space.

The Hard SF article Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation? also disproves the use of space habitats as refugee camps

“Assuming that by 2058 we are able to build and use colony ships that will hold 1000 people each, that means 108,000 such colony ships every year.  That comes out to about 295 each and every day of the year - more than 12 every hour.

This is a mind-bogglingly large project by itself.  However, it is only part of what would be required.  Every ten years you would need some habitable place for another billion people.  We simply don't have any planets or moons in this solar system where you can just drop people off with tents and have them live like Daniel Boone.  You have to either terraform a world, manufacture artificial habitats for all those people or find habitable worlds in other star systems.  Any of those are going to require significant time and resources…

In theory, mining and manufacturing could be carried out off-planet - but first it would be necessary to invest time and resources to build off-planet mining and manufacturing.  And while large amounts of resources are being used to bring large-scale off-planet mining and manufacturing into being, there will be less resources to be spent on transporting people to other places.”

Even with a massive space economy, reusable ships (Assuming reusable,1000 passenger ships exists) would not exist in massive quantities. So, space can not be used as a destination in an emergency.

Alas, there is another problem. space habitations are not guaranteed to survival for a long period. They are depended on technology to operate. Space also has ample radiation and we do not understand the effects of this radiation in the long term.

Planetary defense offers a less risky investment. We know that Earth can support life and has self restoring processes. If natural disasters worthy of a blockbuster movie can be defended against, we can ensure the safety of a larger number of humans.

Reactions

-Can humanity pull off planetary defense and space habitation at the same time?

-Should planetary defense take priority over space habitation?

Resources

Author unnamed. “Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation.” Weblog entry. Hard SF. No date. January 14, 2010 <http://hardsf.org/IssuPopu.htm>.

In Case You Skimmed

• Planetary defense can save more lives then space habitation

Top 15 Reasons Against Space Habitation

1. Space habitation may be a utilitarian idea
2. If we become a spacefaring species, we will forever be dependent on machine, not only for our comfort, but for the necessities of life.
3. A space habitat may be a breeding ground for mental diseases
4. A space habitation will mess with the current power structure in the world
5. Obtaining resources in space will be much, more difficult
6. As stated in the bible, we only have been given rein over Earth; we do not have the right to live elsewhere
7. A space habitation will only directly benefit a few people (those who live there)
8. This would be a very long term investment, one which the investor would not see a return on in his or her investment within his life time
9. It may divert resources from the exploration of the human consciousness
10. Space habitation will require a massive amount of resources
11. The rocket launches involved with a major space economy may be the death blow to with Earth's environment
12. When we move to another planet, we loss that area as a sterile area. We will not have a clean space environment so that if life were detected, we could be sure it's not from Earth
13. Look at what we did to this planet and it's orbits, we will do the same thing to the entirety of space
14. If we have a space habitation, we may lose our humanity (thanks to @BekahLouTaylor for the idea)
15. The risk of finding, another intelligent, hostile specious (thanks to @BekahLouTaylor for the idea)
16. Do you have any ideas for reasons against space habitation?