Space Settlement: A Leap of Faith?

Image by Flickr user The Boatman

Apollo was insane... no, insane is pulling an all nighter to finish a 20 question long problem set each question having 8 to 10 parts...insane is drinking 5, 5 Hour Energy Drinks in a row...the Apollo program was deranged. To demonstrate how much faith in man's abilities was involved with dreams of landing on the moon in 10 years, I give you exhibit A, Tom's Astroblog post Machines: A Begining, Part 1...

When we were first developing the technology to go into space, I admit I had some serious doubts.  Remember, we’re talking about the very beginning of the 60′s.  If you suppose life then was much as it is now, you are sadly mistaken.  Let me think:  Okay, the telephones weighed five pounds and were permanently affixed to one spot.  There was no caller ID, no answering machines, no call waiting, no texting.  You had a black and white television (maybe) and three channels.  No cable, no satellites, no pocket calculators, no cell phones, and no home computers.  And we’re going to the moon.  Okey dokey.

The Question is: Will we ever have to, once again, take such a death-defying leap in space development to build our first space settlements? But if we wait to think about and plan out the lead; build a bridge over the gap, when does all the planning stop and we start the countdown clocks? To answer, I have commandeered the lens of Seth Godin and personal development blogger Danielle Laporte.


Plan 1: Go Forth with Confidence


There is a lot of discussion going on about space habitation, all sorts of papers and books are published in increasing numbers every year. There are serious discussions about legal issues surrounding property in space and if this dream could ever be profitable. One listen to the people calling in on the Space Show or the comments on popular blogs articles easily show we are in a conceptional design like stage of space settlement.


Seth Godin, rebel fighting against ineffective business world traditions, calls what the space community is doing now thrashing, and it is far from a bad thing:

"So how do you ship [or build a massive object]? Well, first you decide it’s important to ship.  If you decide it’s important to ship, you do things in the right order, you do them with rigor.  And what you say is the first week of this project is when we’re going to thrash. 

Lawyers, CEO come during the first week or don’t come at all.  We can thrash all we want at the beginning because we haven’t done, we haven’t laid the foundation, we haven’t ordered the parts, we haven’t built everything.  Come at the beginning and then you’re not allowed back in the room.  You will not see it again until it’s in the store. You will not see it again until it’s online.  You will not see it again until it’s shipped out the door, so you better come at the beginning and thrash a lot.

People say this is unrealistic.  Well, shipping is unrealistic.  It is unrealistic to imagine that three or five or fifty motivated people can make a dent in the universe, but they can.  And so the way they do it is by taking the unrealistic act of thrashing at the beginning...[because "the closer we get to shipping the louder the [fear based part of the] brain gets.  The more the reasons there are to worry"]". ~Seth Godin's Blog: Transcript of the first Linchpin session.

Basically, this path has us on Earth in labs and libraries refining the idea of space settlement until we have perfected every issue: technical, legal and financial. It is a path that has us launching smaller endeavors (by small I mean missions that are about the same size and scope as the International Space Station) every time we can prove a small undertaking will work. After those small attempts at space settlement fail or succeed, we go back to our labs and do more studies and plan out a smaller mission. If we can come to agreement on the path humanity should take in space, then we won't have another fizzle out in the same way Apollo lost steam. 

Image by Flickr user smithfischer

I really liked the way the blog White Hot Truth explains why a confidence based plan for anything is great, it is because "[y]ou need confidence to lead, to sustain, and to offer the kind of straight up compassion that transforms people" and society. We need to be able to look into the eyes of people, as the space community, and say "I am 100% sure a space settlement will work and will help the people you love". I'm not sure we are there yet...it might be years before we are that point. So, a leap of faith might be needed

 
Pros and Cons of Long Term Plan

Pros:

• High amount of long term public support; A solid plan will have tons of support behind it
• Increased Safety
• Easier to convince investors to invest since most of the risks are mitigated

Cons:

• Low amount of short term public support; “We are doing research” doesn't get a lot of people excited
• Requires dedication; Space Settlement could fizzle out or die after an accident or a long period of solely researching (For example, if we don't launch anything for 5 years, support might die) under this plan
• Requires time; requires a multi-generational plan
• Has to deal with political cycles

Plan 3: Take a Leap of Faith

Despite our level of activity space , starting a moon base tomorrow would still be a leap of faith. We won't have a successful model to base our moon base off of. Yes, we have the ISS, but I think it is only on the verge of becoming the epic assembly it was always meant to be. We are close, really, really painfully close. But we still have radiation and gravity issues to deal with. The legal issues aren't settled yet.


But Seth Godin once again points out the good in the confusion:

"...'This better work,' is the thinking of safety, of proven, of beyond blame.
'This might work,' on the other hand, is the thinking of art, innovation and insight...if you spend all your time on stuff that might work, you'll never need to dream up something that better work, because your art will have paid off long ago." ~Seth Godin's blog: This better work

 Basically, you need to take a risk to do something epic like space habitation. You need to do stuff the might not work. We might need to start companies that end up failing or use regulation that is too loose or too tight. But, these risks are justified because of what we could do.

Pros and Cons of a Leap of Faith

Pros

• Doesn't require a multi-generational plan; complete the project in a short burst.
• Easy to motivate public; they see benefits within their lifetimes
• Fast
• Has very few political cycles to deal with

Cons

• Riskier
• Less investors; raising capital for leaps of faith can be pulled off, but you at least need a detailed and solid business plan...but those usually have some time of foundation, a proven case on which the risk can be based on

Conclusion

White Hot Truth puts it bluntly, “you need blind faith to build confidence”. Apollo proved that we could visit other worlds, ISS proved we could live in space and both were leaps of faith. This is not a black and white choice - we need both confidence and leaps. However, we must make sure there is a transition between the leap of faith and a proven plan. For example, I feel Apollo would have been so much more successful if the program effectively moved from Kennedy's argument for space into continuing Apollo level funding as a part of a multi-generational plan; as a part of something bigger than beating the Russians based on arguments generated from what was learned in those first moon landings.

I feel, however, that the space community in general relies too much on leaps of faith. Do you think I am insane? Feel free to challenge me in the comments.  

SPC #14: The Cultural Imperative to Colonize Space: An Astrosociological Perspective

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. (Almost) every Sunday, this blog will offer 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 are 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 are from the paper unless otherwise noted. All papers I review are available for free online.

This week we are reviewing The Cultural Imperative to Colonize Space:An Astrosociological Perspective.

The paper’s first main point is how humans are drawn to space more then the bottom of the oceans. This is due mainly to the culture defining aspect of space. I urge you to look at table 1 on page 4. As you will see, the way we viewed, for example, Mars effected the way society operated.

The main point of the paper is to point out how space habitation is needed to sustain the way that humans live. But, while reading this paper, I was reminded of this quote in The Matrix

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.

The whole point of this paper is null and void if humans are able to change they way they live. A simple change in mind set, from a short term one to a long term one, could be enough to save humanity. It might even be so much that space habitation is not needed. The question is “can humans develop a natural equilibrium”? We also must learn how to not waste opportunities.

Manned space flight is like the wheel, it is game changing. It will completely redefine everything about human life. But “The Aztecs… had the wheel, but only used it in the construction of toys and in their calendars. There is
likely an assortment of mundane explanations for the failure of the wheel to diffuse across other sectors of Aztec
society”. The critical part of that quote is contained in two words “mundane explanations” (Read: the day-to-day actions of the members of Aztec society). It is nothing more then that. Nothing more prevented the Aztecs from saving themselves from collapse. They had a huge advantage.

Why does that sound so familiar…

I remember, humanity’s space activity is a mix between a recruitment ad for scientists and engineers and a power grab by the leaders of various nations.  Yes, we need more scientists and engineers, but that is an inherent quality about all space activity. We can move on to bigger, betting things and use the ground breaking technology to change the game.

Last, but not least, the paper suggests a vast increase in education funding. But, the only way we can get the money is if we over come the vast anti-intellectualism in the world.

Reactions

-Can humans become less virus like?

In Case You Skimmed

-If human society remains the same, then we need space habitation.

Engineers as Public Relations Officers

Engineers as inherently focused on details. In my last post I used Seth Godin’s work support the argument that the public is looking for detail in the plans it supports. If this is true, then engineers must take the role as the public relations officers of the 21st century. The public wants every step of a plan, they no longer want only visions of the future. You can not ask the public “do you want to go back to the moon” and expect support. You can expect increased support when you ask for support when you can show all the math, all the technology and all the money which you are basically your plan off of.

Reactions

-Does the public’s response and support of the 2012 doomsday theory could weaken this argument?

Resources

Godin, Seth. "Achievable Avalanche Opportunities”
     Seth Godin’s Blog. 8 September 2009.  Web. 8 September 2009.

     <http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/09/achievable
-avalanche-opportunities.html>.

In Case You Skimmed

-In short, the public wants well planned goals, not visions dripping with Kool Aid.

This is Why Space Habitation Isn't Getting Off the Ground

"Consumers want high tech industrial products first, then they demand "services." such as: health insurance, child care, education, pensions, stock funds, insurance, ect." ~ Social Problems in Global Perspective

This quote is bad for space habitation. First, it shows the short term nature of decisions the consumer makes. The people we have to convince for space habitation to get off the ground are mostly consumers. All the services listed above and be defined as long term investments. Basically, the consumer doesn't make long term investments. Space habitation would be the ultimate long term investment; the biggest long term investment humanity has ever made. Furthermore, if consumers don't see the value in basic insurance, then any argument for space habitation that using human extinction will be ineffective.

Second, it shows the lack of attention to education, which will be a very critical part of a spacefaring society. If people want to buy and iPhone before they want to buy a book, we can't possibly hope to generate enough skilled labor and Engineers to take on space habitation.

Reactions

-Is it good people are focused on high tech industrial products first? Can't that focus be used to get kids excited about science, technology, math and engineering?

Resources

Glassman, Ronald M., William H. Swatos and Barbara J. Denison. Social Problems in Global Perspective. Maryland: University Press of America, 2004.

In Case You Skimmed

-Consumers are focused on toys more then the future, thus it will be hard to convince them to support any long term or multigenerational plan.

Fear in Space Habitation Pt. 3

The space race has a very valuable lesson to teach us about fear in space programs.

The reason we still do not have a moon base is because the 1970's space programs where based on fear. I feel the only reason the nation cared about NASA during this time was to beat Russia. During the cold war, we wanted to wipe the communists all over the floor in every, single, possible area. I feel the nation didn't have a passion for space during that time, they had a fear of a communist controlled outerspace. I want to point something out to you, look at this, note the times the NASA budget was more then 1% of the federal budget, then come back.

 

1962 was the Cuban Missile Crisis, the height and beginning of the mass fear of the cold war. After this point, the arms build up and threat of a nuclear war only increased. 1977 was two years after the end of the Vietnam War, which, in my opinion, was the point where American citizens just got sick of the Cold War. After we we got sick of fear, the motivation for a space program was gone. Plus, we had already "defeated" Russia in the space race, so there was nothing to fear. We "owned" space. So, NASA got it's funding cut. Today, the thing America fears (terrorism) is not in space, yet. So there is even less reason to fund NASA if you used only fear to justify a space program.

 

Fear also has another problem. If you where to make a graph of public support of a program based on fear it will be similar to Y = (1/X), ignoring the negative X part. Basically, the program will start off with a ton of support, then it will wane off. This is an inefficient support system for a program with long term goals. This is why we can't use fear to support a space habitation program, it will have alot of support at first, but then it will wane off. I feel that a fear based space habitation program will only lead to a single space colony supporting just enough people to have genetic diversity in lower Earth orbit. That is enough to eliminate the fear of human extinction.

 

In order to move to other stars, the public support for space habitation should look like the graph of Y = 2^X. It should start with very little support, but then increase exponentially until the idea is engrained into the cultural of humanity. Fear does not do this, it only rides the wave of fear until it finds a new idea to power.