A Reverse Doomsday Clock

I remember watching a discovery special about the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock and this clock has stayed in my mind for a while. Don't freak out, they aren't mad scientists, they are making a political statement with this clock. They respond to events that threaten the species as a whole by moving the clock forward or back. They manage to put the little steps, taken over a long period of time, that lead to nuclear war or extinction into perspective. To think that our decisions managed to accelerated us 11 minutes closer to midnight, the symbolic time of doom, over the last 15 years is stunning. I'm sure this stunning image had some effect on the decisions world leaders made.

I feel the space community could use its own clock; we need a reverse doomsday clock. 

Imagine what the impact would be if a panel of the most respected people in the space community collectively decided that we are 2 seconds further away from the take off of a space faring society. We would have an icon to show how pleased or displeased the space community is with the development of space. This icon would include the non-space cadets in our highly technical, acronym filled discussions; it would be an icon best suited for the sound bites that media craves. 

Another benefit is that the space community will be forced to have debates every time we have to move the clock. While this could involve sticky issues, like Obama's plan for space, a detailed exploration of issues that split the community could help to bring us all to the same page and help to discover all the consequences (both good and bad) of making a certain choice on the path towards space development and space settlement.

So, that's why I think we need the clock. Feel free to challenge me or add more benefits in the comments

Image by Matthew Simantov

Support for Space Falling, Space Habitation Looks More Impossible

Two articles have come out that have disturbed me. First, and article titled 50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration dropped a bomb shell on the space community. It can be expected because of NASA’s growing pains with Ares. However, the number has grown 6%. That’s ok, but what is troubling is that “Women and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults.”

So, basically, NASA is losing youth support. But, wait, this week has only begun.

There is a bill called Control Spending Now Act that would delay the constellation program for 5 years.

This week has been a deadly blow. According to the 21st Century Waves article Young People, Long Waves, and a Glimpse of Their Coming Space Age

Using this model [Maslow Window Theory], and assuming the 2015 Maslow Window will culminate near 2025, the Apollo astronaut analogs — possibly the first Mars explorers — were born near 1985; they’re called “Millennials.” They graduated from high school near 2002 and college near 2006; some will get PhDs soon.

So, right now, the people going to Mars are about 25, but, that group is losing support of space exploration…

Well, at least the people at NASA have good health insurance because we need to keep them around for a really long time. (What is this “retirement” you speak of.) Now, we can’t even get people excited because NASA lacks a flag ship rocket. Yes, I know, NASA will keep launching stuff, but people barely cared about shuttle launches, now one is going to care about the other stuff they send up. So, in my completely unresearch opinion, very few people will care about NASA until they get Ares online.

So, this means that fewer kids are going into STEM undergrad programs with the hope of going into the space field and NASA can’t put on a light show to inspire more kids.

In Case You Skimmed

-We are ************************************ like a ************************************** on a *************************************************

Reactions

-Do you think the space industry will have enough workers in its next generation?

-Will Ares launches really fix this problem?

Resources

Cordell, Bruce, “Young People, Long Waves, and a Glimpse of Their Coming Space Age” Weblog entry. 21st Century Waves. July 11, 2009. January 18, 2010 <http://21stcenturywaves.com/2009/07/11/young-people-long-waves-and-a-glimpse-of-their-coming-space-age/>.

Foust, Jeff, “Feingold bill would delay Constellation” Weblog entry. Space Politics. January 18, 2010. January 18, 2010 <http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/18/feingold-bill-would-delay-constellation/>

Rasmussen Reports, “50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration” Weblog entry. Rasmussen Reports. January 15, 2010. January 18, 2010 <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/

january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration>

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.

Waiting and Space

The problem is that the public will not get excited and sacrifice for space that is not well defined; solid timeline defined.

Seth Godin, in his blog post titled Achievable Avalanche Opportunities, points out how people are willing to work on massive projects if they will bring a avalanche of rewards, but this reward and the path to that reward must be certain. This is where space programs and a space habitation project will run into a massive brick wall (of pain, death and humiliation). Right now, we are waiting until lightning strikes. For too often our arguments take the form of “when X happens we will have a space based economy”. The two critical points of the argument that provides the financial feasibility of manned space flight are lowering of the cost to access space and opening of a Maslow Windows. Yes, there is active work on launch costs and the Maslow Window opens soon, but, to the public, it is a waiting game.

Personally, a waiting game has never really gotten me to jump up and down with excitement. I think I’m safe in generalizing this.

Reactions

-Is space really a waiting game?

-If it is true that the people working on space activity can deal with the wait because of their passion, how can we make the public passionate about space?

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

-There is a lot of waiting involved with space habitation, thus the public will loss interest in space habitation.

SPC #13: Space Colonization—Benefits for the World

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 Space Colonization—Benefits for the World.

The paper opens by considering space habitation’s place in a world full of horrible problems. It presents space habitation as an answer to the world’s biggest problems and highest priorities, not a priority in its self. This is good from a public relations perspective because, if space habitation prevents the solving of world hunger or any other major problems, the public will wage war against the idea of space habitation. But, presented this this paper’s light, space habitation will encounter less resistance.

There is also an increasing graph of world energy use, nonnuclear clean energy and nuclear energy. Based on the graph on page 2 on the PDF, we see that renewable energy sources are not increasing production enough to meet the growing energy demand. So, the paper suggests Space Solar Power, Helium 3 and Lunar Power Systems  to prevent a huge increase in polluting energy sources.

The idea of a self contained life support system is being applied to towns and cities on Earth. “For example, [the] Shimizu Corporation is most interested in bio-regenerative systems as a path toward solution of Tokyo’s waste management problems”. The standards of space colonization can help improve life on Earth. 

The paper also goes over the standard arguments for space habitation, mainly planetary defense and economic incentives from spin offs. But, it find it interesting that only 17% of the jobs generated by space habitation will be in engineering and science, the rest will be in other fields.

Reactions

-Will the need for more renewable energy force the development of non-space renewable energy?

In Case You Skimmed

-Space habitation should be presented as a answer to the world’s priorities.

-Production of renewable energy is not increasing fast enough to meet increasing energy demands.

-Closed loop systems are being used in urban planning because of space habitation.

-Only 17% of the jobs generated by space habitation will be in engineering and science.

Public Relations, Herculean Efforts and Space Habitation

Seth Godin posted a thought on how enormity (something that is really horrible) is a bad marketing tool because people stay away from huge problems which are have horrible consequences. Mr. Godin pointed out how infomercials asking for donations starving and sick kids are ineffective because the problem is huge. If the problem was small, people would rush to help, but ending world hunger is a massive task.

So would space habitation. Based on Seth's post, I think the size of space habitation is pushing people away from the idea of space habitation. "If [we've] got a small, fixable problem, people will rush to help, because people like to be on the winning side, take credit and do something that worked." 1. There is no away we can make space habitation easier, it is going to be a macro-engineering project regardless of the planning. But, in order to increase public support, we can make the public fell like the pro-space habitation side is the winning side. We have to give our supporters credit and parade them as supports and we MUST prove that this will work. That's hard for us because space habitation is a multi-generational plan. Current supports can't stand on the finish line. Maybe we can give each generation a goal in the path to space habitation to reach, but we must give people the 3 things Seth Godin points out to get them to help to build space habitation.

Reactions

-Can people who will not be alive when the team wins still fell like they are working on something valuable?

Resources

Godin, Seth, “Enormity" Weblog entry. Title of Weblog. September 02, 2009. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/09/enormity.html

In Case You Skimmed

• The amount of work needed for space habitation to work is scaring people away from space habitation.