Leave? How?

I recently read one of the best Space Review essays on Human Space Flight (HSF) I've ever read. The essay was titled Making the Path for Human Spaceflight Less Rocky and it was by Dan Lester; astronomer at University of Texas, participant in NASA strategic planning activities and space essayist. By focusing on creating a path for humanity to leave the planet, Dan Lester manages to create a compelling argument for manned activity in space. The author asks us to measure growth in human spaceflight by steps on this path rather by landings on Near Earth Objects(NEOs) or other planets.

But something bugged me after reading it. The author wrote this as a call to action, asking the space community to answer the question “how do we leave?”. The more I thought about it, the bigger the question seemed to be...

Let's ignore the gravity issues, the life support issues and the cosmic radiation. We have a society, a way of life that can not come close to supporting a spacefaring society. We have key terms to this field like astronomy, space, NASA and ISS either going down in popularity on Google or staying relatively the same, leading more support to Oscar Wilde's famous quote “we're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars”. But this is a problem, we need more people to look at the stars. If people are too tired to look up, if they have their sense of wonder blow out by working on the treadmills, the space cadets all look insane because so many of our arguments for space rely on the wonder of space. For any of those arguments to work, people have to feel the emotion of looking at a star.

But, that emotion is truly lost. I remember watching a shuttle launch on SpaceVidCast, the only reporter in the NASA press room was the SpaceVidCast crew. Developing a space faring society where rocket launches reported on with as much passion as Paris Hilton getting drunk will take time. It will take time to improve our education enough so that we can support a space based-economy. It will take time to increase the world's safety and strength the world's economy enough so that every human has the time to think about and the money to invest in leaving. But that is what answering how brings us, a path to fix all the societal and technical issues that are preventing space habitation.

This is what makes each shuttle mission, each and every rocket launch is significant. Each launch brings us closer to having the ability to leave, each action we take on the path toward becoming spacefaring slowly dissolves the obstacles the stand on that path.  The shuttle mission that the press basically ignored, for example, built up the International Space Station (ISS). This build up allows us to answer the questions we need to answer in order to make a bigger space station which will lead to a moon base then a Mars base and so on. Each launch to the ISS builds up the international trust and cooperation we will need to succeed in space and avoid blowing this planet up into itty bitty, radioactive pieces. So, if we get the public to realize which parts of the answer to “how do we leave the planet” each rocket launch provides, then it will be easy to engage the public.

Answering how is where the Apollo program failed. In my limited knowledge of space history, (I really need to read a book about the Apollo program. My only experience with the history of Apollo is Wikipedia and the impressions I get from other blogs. So be warned and be critical.) Apollo was geared to be a short-term project. This nation went from investing almost nothing into space to pouring money into NASA like there was no tomorrow. After we planted the US flag on the moon, interest drifted and NASA's funding got slashed even though people at NASA where trying to do really cool, neat things (like settling space). But NASA, at the time, was focused on where to go. When they got to that place, the moon, it was mission complete. However, I feel that if Apollo was focused on how do we leave the Earth, it would have never ended, it would have just evolved. 

Asking the question Mr. Lester asks prepares us for the long-term dedication becoming a spacefaring society will take. We need to speed of the Apollo program, yes. But what we need more is a slow build up to that speed that will make the Apollo level investment and activity sustainable. Focusing on leaving the planet Earth, always keeping that mission in mind, will inject a long-term viewpoint into the space community. A viewpoint which is key to achieving our dream.

Space Settlement, American Exceptionalism and the Fear Behind the ITAR

This is another essay I wrote during University Writing, enjoy!

Space Colonization is an attempt to solve the problems humanity now faces. Garard K. O'Neill, space settlement expert and founder of the Space Studies Institute based his book, which now stands as the flagship argument for space habitation, in the previous idea. While considering the past violations and plunders by highly developed countries, O'Neill claimed that “[i]t is unlikely...that a large segment of the population in the advanced countries is going to reduce its standard of living by a substantial amount, voluntarily, in order to share the wealth of Earth with emerging nations. [But, there is] a way in which inexpensive, inexhaustible energy sources can be made available to the developing nations without [requiring] self-denial” (O'Neill, 16). O'Neill was troubled at thought that there where “areas of our world where the problems are most severe, almost no one can spare the effort to think beyond the next meal” (O'Neill, 24). He worried that “most people lived out their lives in heavy labor, many as slaves” (O'Neill, 15). He realized, after reading the work of Professor Robert Heilbroner who “studied the consequences...for human political and social development” when resources are dwindling, that on a draining Earth “even in the decades immediately ahead we will be forced to turn to increasingly authoritarian governments” (O'Neill,20-21). The static state that humanity would need to continue with Earth as it only home would be “forced[,] in self-defense[,] to suppress new ideas” and would eliminate “the freedom to order one's life as one pleases” (O'Neill, 22). At its heart, that's what space settlement, as with any scientific challenge, is, an attempt to further and protect the four freedoms. If we stay on Earth, our resources will dwindle. The chaos generated by lack of water will be orders of magnitude greater then the struggle over oil. We will increasingly live in fear as nations seek to invade each other for the necessities of life, not even what is required for human comfort, we will go to war over survival. The freedom to speech and religion will be threatened as dictators rise in a draining Earth.

However, we can't blast off into space, not as a united species. Very few countries have space programs or even the technical expertise to begin one. Still more nations do not have the resources to feed their people. As O'Neill pointed out, the United States has an obligation to ensure that 3^rd world countries can enjoy the freedom granted by becoming a space faring nation. However, since the poorer nations do not have the capacity to utilize space, the age of space colonization will bring with it the same challenges and dilemmas, in regards to foreign policy, that faced the United States before it's involvement with World War Two.

When president Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his pre-Pearl Harbor address The Four Freedoms, he was seeking support for the Lend-Lease Act. He wanted the Unites States congress to aid other democratic nations in the protection of the Four Freedoms, which Roosevelt proclaimed were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The US congress needed to be convinced because they were still holding onto the ideas of isolationism. Because of this ideology, the US would not participate or give arms to nations struggling to deal with the Nazi threat. However, just like how nations were not prepared to deal with the Nazi threat, many nations of today are not prepared to compete in a space faring economy.

It would seem the US would aid in the technological advancement of these nations since the address by Roosevelt has been incorporated into our myths; his speech informs our decisions and should inform our actions as a nation active in space. It would seem that Roosevelt, whose word's are now incorporated in the culture of the United States, would ask us to remember “that the safety of our country and of democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders” (Roosevelt, 2). It was these freedoms which O'Neill and his supporters sought to protect and secure for ourselves and other nations through the multinational settlement of space. However, this idea is not fully reflected in this nation's laws, especially those regarding space.

The International Trade Arms Regulations or ITAR is a Cold War era export control law which limits the sharing of technical information to foreign countries. The major effect of this law in the space community is that no one, even our allies, can discuss technical specifications with US space technology producers. Imagine buying a car without knowing whether or not it had power steering, just knowing that the car turned. It is designed to ensure that our technology is the best by making sure our technological advancements remain in the country. From this nation's perspective, the law is great, but a more global perspective gives a different idea.

Scientist and advisor to the French space program, Jacques Blamont, commenting on the ITAR in his paper International Space Exploration: Cooperative or Competitive said “it is difficult to believe that a large-scale endeavor, which would require technical exchanges on many subjects where American superiority is overwhelming, could be successfully carried out on a day-to-day basis” in the current political environment (Blamont, 91). In effect, our isolation has frozen any possibilities for a large scale space project, such as space habitation. This freeze of international cooperation is demonstrated when we read about Blamont's horror to hear NASA employees exclaim “[i]t is unthinkable that equipment developed in a Federal Center might be used by a foreign agency” (Blamont, 91). Because of experiences like this, he felt that, because of the ITAR and the culture it promotes, there was a “suspicious atmosphere in the USA towards foreign relations” (Blamont, 91). Thus, ITAR is isolationism in space and this isolation has a negative effect.

This self serving isolation is not conductive to a peaceful future nor is it realistic in the vastness of space. Blamont pointed out that “[m]any in Europe believe that it is not a wise choice for [Europeans] to place any long-term strategic trust in the USA” (Blamont, 91).The US has, in the perspective of Blamont and many other Europeans, “shown...a disregard for anyone's interests but its own” , alienating all other nations (Blamont, 91). We are attempting to go forth into infinite nothing by ourselves and we are making enemies in the process.

Is this the correct direction for the United States? Maybe in the past, but the president of the American Historical Association and champion of the idea that American freedom was changed through its interactions with different types of freedoms, oppression and slavery, Eric Foner, would disagree. Foner claimed that the idea of freedom was challenged and modified because “the world we inhabit is getting smaller and more integrated and that formally autonomous nations are bound ever more by a complex web of economic and cultural connections” (Foner, 51). Our international activities have “helped to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). We are an international culture already, we have been effected already and we have modified our self image based on observations of other countries. We are, in effect, a product of globalization; what informs our ideals now is not internal.

But this web does not only challenge freedom, it creates a highway where every event or development interacts with other occurrences. Some would argue that a technical edge will ensure our rank on the world power ladder, but the truth is, our technological development is felt everywhere and we feel other countries technical development. We improve Japanese technology by having our developments, in the form of components, create a foundation for new developments. The United States bases our developments on foreign components too. Space activity is further complicated by the International Space Station. We bring up the equipment for Russian experiments and supplies, they bring up food and other parts. The question is are we willing to give up this peaceful cooperation with countries we dropped or threatened to drop nuclear bombs on for a technological edge? Are we willing subordinate other countries, like “Russia [who is not in fact] a cooperative partner, but a subcontractor” for the so called International Space Station (Blamont, 91).

Nussbaum is an American philosopher who wrote a paper exploring the ethical problems encountered when dealing with the problems of globalization. Her paper is of interest when studying the ITAR because of her discussion on American exceptionalism and the fear the drives us to isolate ourselves. She is frank when she points out that “compassion for our fellow Americans can all too easily slip over into a desire to make America out on top and to subordinate other nations” (Nussbaum, 13). In short, she struggles with how to control our compassion for international good.

The isolation imposed by the ITAR and the fear of technical disadvantage brings to mind the ideas discussed in Nussbaum's Compassion & Terror. The blind terror that made American spines tingle after hearing the radio transmission from the Sputnik spawned the ITAR. America was fearful because the Sputnik proved the USSR had the ability to drop a nuclear bomb anywhere when Americas did not have this ability. The USSR had a huge bargaining chip because the USSR managed to upset the balance that was the stalemate between the US and the USSR. The terror of being at a technical disadvantage and having one's military rendered obsolete with one development “could be a stimulus for blind rage and aggression against all the opposi[ng]” nations (Nussbaum, 26). In this environment of fear, the sharing of technical data becomes traitorous, on par with handing over a nation's fleet to its enemy. However, this is blind rage against all nations, an attempt to limit the scientific development of the targeted nation, just to eliminate all possibilities of technical disadvantage. It isolates nations from the scientific community whose insights who be enhanced with other perspectives.

To avoid permanent tension and stress, instead of joy, at every technical advance “we [need to do what Nussbaum suggests and] cultivate a culture of critical compassion...awaken a larger sense of the humanity of suffering, a patriotism constrained by respect for human dignity and by a vivid sense of the real losses and needs of other people” (Nussbaum, 26). Space is a common dream for not only this nation, but for all nations in the world. Everyday we are not space faring is a tragedy for all humans because it is a day we are not utilizing the resources of space. It is one more day we fail to find a permanent and reasonable solution to our energy needs. Not to mention the delaying of cancer treatments, the cure for AIDS, the solution to world hunger and other problems that could be tackled by a united, global scientific community even without the use of space.

Simply worded by President Roosevelt, there are “basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems”. The lack of these basic needs, jobs, food, opportunity, increasing standards of living and freedom is “the root cause of... social revolution” good or bad. In a world where people are dying of lack, there will be, as predicted by Roosevelt in his speech, “[t]hose who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety”. Thus, the long term goal of the acquisition and use of the resources in space is an attempt to protect freedom because it is an attempt to ensure these basic needs are met. Anything that slows down progress towards the goal of becoming a space faring species is a threat to freedom. American selfishness is one of those roadblocks.

However, international, globalized efforts bring their own problems which we must deal with before moving as species into space. Currently, we are dealing with the death of cultures, sweatshops, increased economic disparity and other social ills brought on by globalization. But why does this matter? Are we not heading into an age of infinite resources, a rebirth of humanity where all our problems will melt with each rocket launch?

The paper The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space by Dr. David M. Livingston explains why the current state of the world will indicate the how the first stages, and all subsequent stages, of space habitation will look. The paper continues to show the rhetoric and ethic-less thought surrounding the colonial period that is mirrored in the space community with quotes from leaders in the space field. After reviewing the troubling state of the space community, Livingston considers the following quote from “Paul L. Csonka['s]... 'Space Colonization—Yes, But Not Now':

'If space colonization were to be undertaken today at the maximum rate permitted by technology, it is likely that instead of increasing the chances of human survival, it would drastically reduce it. Preliminary studies ought to be undertaken, but large scale colonization should be postponed until such a time when (and if) social and political conditions reach the prerequisite state of sophistication'”(Livingston, 3).

This paints the obstacles to space settlement not as engineering problems, but as social and ethical problems. The social and ethic problems are of increased concern when we release that “initially our voyage to space and the first phases of our expanded space commerce will resemble the business and management models that are exported from Earth”(Livingston, 2). That statement should strike fear in the hearts of humans because it means we will end up fighting over the nearly infinite energy produced by the sun, we will kill despite the plenty that exists in space. The fight will start because we will ignore the plenty and quibble over our share, always ensuring that we have some type of edge, just like we do now as demonstrated by the ITAR.

Csonka's idea is also highlighted by our history as presented in Foner's work, American Freedom in A Global Age. To Americans, as Foner explains when exploring the myths around freedom, “territorial growth meant 'extending the area of freedom...' [.] Those who stood in the way...were by definition obstacles to the progress of liberty. In the outlook of most white Americans, the West was not a battleground of peoples and governments but an 'empty' space ready to be occupied as part of the divine mission of the United States” (Foner, 61). This idea is now part of our myths. When, not if, we look at these myths to inform our choices on how to go forth into this vast nothingness, these stories will be with us. There are also other nations with their own stores of the glory of planting a flag or stories of how it is useless to plant a flag. Their myths of conquering other lands or the founding of their nation will inform their decisions on the use of space. These myths could easily lead to war.

Even attempting to discuss our international efforts in space will bring chaos since each participant's self view will conflict. This is best understood by Devdutt Pattanaik, the Chief Belief Officer at Future Group in Mumbai, whose job is to help companies interact with customers in foreign environments. Through his work, he has concluded that most nations think that “[their] world [view] is always better than [the foreign view], because [their] world [view]...is[, in their minds,] rational and [foreign views are] superstition...”(Pattanaik, 1) . “This is the root of the clash of civilizations” (Pattanaik, 1). This will cause war once we are able to access space because each nation's myths are going to conflict.

At first glance it seems that war will always be it the cards for us, however, it is possible that space it self eliminates the problems of our modern world. People who travel to space experience something called the overview effect. Saudi-Arabian Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud described this as “an opportunity to prove that there is no conflict...Looking at it from here, the troubles all over the world, and not just the Middle East, look very strange as you see the boundaries and border lines disappearing” (Livingston, 7). Once the borders are gone, our compassion for our homeland bleeds into compassion for a land on the other side of the globe. Without boarders, our narcissism becomes silly and we will no longer look for some form of an edge because of the overview effect.

Narcissism will dissolve because the overview effect may be the answer to the problem of death within life presented in Nussbaum's work. This particular problem came up in her paper when she attempted to solve the social issue of the sweatshop by asking “all [people] to care equally for all other [people]”. This doesn't work in the modern day because the only reason that makes people “care for something [is] the though that it is all theirs...and the thought that it is the only one they have”. This is why it is very hard to have people care for others jointly. However, the thought that we live on a fragile planet will instill the idea that the Earth and all life on it is all ours and it is the only place we have. Astronomer and science advocate Carl Segan explains...

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot....Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light...[thus, t]here is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. ...[The pale blue dot] underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another...(Segan, 7-8)

This is furthered by Dr. Livingston's point “the heavens are already taken and they are not our home” (Livingston, 9). This is the only place where we can live without millions of dollars of delicate, sensitive equipment and we can only visit space with our current technology. Our astronauts, over time, lose muscle function and bone mass and must retreat to this rare paradise we live on. We have yet to master the problems of cosmic radiation, forcing us to stand behind the magnetic shield formed by the Earth. Yet, we are concerned about a technical edge on something so insignificant. Something whose light is made obscure by the light from the billions of stars in our galaxy which is indistinguishable from the billions of galaxy. Something that doesn't matter in the pure, infinity nothingness that separates each planet, each star and each galaxy. It seems we are willing to destroy this life giving pale blue dot in lust for the none substantive things such as financial, technological and social power.

Furthermore, space may interact with the American myths in the same way that Foner thought freedom interacted with outside events. “American's relationship to the outside world... help[ed] to establish how freedom is understood within the United States” (Foner, 58). Just as the “struggle against Nazi tyranny and its theory of a master race discredited ideas of inborn ethnic”, experiencing the limits of our technology and our bodies may humble this nation (Foner, 66-67). If we realize what Prince Sultan Bin Salman al-Saud realized, will we end up pledging allegiance not to the American flag, but to a flag of humanity. Will we change vastly when American exceptionalism, “the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, [is] challenged by [a] point of pale light” (Segan, 8).

Works Cited

The Ethical Commercialization of Outer Space. David M. Livingston, ASCE Conf. Proc. 204, 16 (2000), DOI:10.1061/40479(204)16

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26. (On UWP list: 06-07; 07-08)

Foner, Eric. “American Freedom in a Global Age.” Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World. New York: Hill and Want, 2002. 49-74

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "The Four Freedoms." American Rhetoric. N.p., n.d.. Web. 9 Apr 2010. <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm>.

Segan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. New York: Random House, 1997. Print.

Pattanaik, Devdutt. "East vs. West -- the myths that mystify" November 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on 12 March 2010.

Jacques Blamont, International space exploration: Cooperative or competitive?, Space Policy, Volume 21, Issue 2, May 2005, Pages 89-92, ISSN 0265-9646, DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2005.03.003

ITAR photo by http://www.pennwellblogs.com/

TED Friday: The Last Mile

From my study of space habitation, most, if not all the problems, are solved. There are detailed plans for space settlements, business arguments proving that it will be profitable and engineering analysis of obstacles surrounding space habitation.

Even so, there is no moon base or mars base and Sendhil Mullinathan’s TED talk explains why. We have done most of the work and I will claim we are traveling the last mile of the journey towards space habitation. I claim that the same reason why insulin isn’t used as much as it should by patients is why space habitation hasn’t occurred. Space habitation will need a behavioral change in humanity to gain support. I don’t know much about human behavior, but my understanding is that humans hard wired to not leave a resource until it is depleted. This was a core survival technique that is the base of our society (major cities cluster around resources needed for survival, mainly water, were as dessert settlements are rarer). Space habitation supporters are telling humanity that we need to go acquire more resources before we run out of resources on Earth.

In Case You Skimmed

-Human behavior may prevent space habitation

Reactions

-Do you think we will be able to change this behavior, even though we are already suffering because of dwindling resources.

Resources

Mullinathan, Sendhil. "Solving Social Problems with a Nudge" February 2010. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on February 6 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/sendhil_mullainathan.html>

10 Commandments of Space Habitation

This commandments are complete idealism. However, I feel that breaking these rules will lead humanity down a path to because a species that commits atrocities to other life forms and a species at never ending war. I’m just tossing some ideas out on the table, feel free to debate and challenge these commandments. Remember, I’m not a god.

Photo by tommrkr

1: Thou shall not inhabit another planetary body that has macroscopic life.

This commandment is meant to stop all the atrocities of the colonial period. I excluded microscopic life because it is too hard to detect from orbit, but microscopic life should be handled cautiously because of the health risks. However, microscopic life can be considered macroscopic if they are visible in clusters. Basically, if we can see a life form from orbit, we can’t inhabit that planet.

Then there is the whole ethics thing, but I could write a book about that.

This commandment only applies to macroscopic life we did not put on the surface.

2: Thou shall not send out a spaceship with enough arms for over 1% of the occupants.

This commandment is included to prevent interstellar warfare. An interplanetary war would be far more costly in lives then any other war we have fought, plus, we risk losing both warring biospheres. However, weapons will be needed for security forces on a space habitation, mainly because amoral people will smuggle weapons to a space settlement. So, those at customs stations will have to be armed and police will have to be armed to protect themselves and others.

3: Thou shall not leave anything that isn’t working in space.

We messed up Earth’s orbit, let’s not do it again. Please. And please don’t create interplanetary space junk. That would be a nightmare to deal with.

4: Thou shall not take more then 5% of the freshwater on any planetary body into space.

Crews will need water to get from one body to another, however, I fear that a huge fleets of spaceships will extract too much water from Earth and other planets for supplies while in transit. I think water should be “on loan” from the main planet. For example, if we had a commuter level of traffic between Earth and Mars, ships would pickup water for the voyage at an orbital station and drop off the water at another station at the end of the voyage, where another ship could use that water. This will take intense water recycling system, but it will protect the water resources we do find and allow of communities to flourish where ever we find water.

Now, water can be made into fuel, but I think this fuel should only be made from undrinkable water. For example, salt water on Earth and water that is contaminated on the moon. In other words, if all that is needed to make the water drinkable is a simple filter and an anti-bacterial agent, then it should be valued to not taken in excess from a planetary body.

5: Thou shall not bar people from joining the space settlement  mission because of race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

When I read about the Neo-Nazi Mars base initiative, shivers went down my spine. The racial tension between such a colony and the rest of humanity is enough to spark war.

Of course, religious organizations will want their own settlements, but I do not think people will necessary skills should be barred from a mission. To do that would endanger the mission. I think becoming a spacefaring species will allow us to be a more companionate species and be tolerant of each other.

6: Thou shall not populate another life supporting system or system that is capable of supporting life at the expense of another.

This commandment prevents us from becoming an interstellar fire, consuming everything in our path. I do not feel that hoping from planet to planet, exploiting the resources on each planet is a sustainable way from a species to operate. Following this commandment will also ensure we are creating biosphere backups.

However, Near Earth Objects(NEOs) and other places that can not be terraformed are fair game, so long as those resources are used responsibly (As explained in the next few commandments). However, we can not strip mine Mars because it can support life with a few modifications. Thus, an planetary object that should be respected is an object with enough mass to have an atmosphere.

7: Thou shall not use more than .01% of the resources in a solar system per year with respect to 2010.

This commandment assumes we will not achieve faster the light travel. If this assumption is true, then this solar system will be the only one we inhabit for a while. This commandment ensures a sustainable lifestyle, one that guarantees we can live in a solar system for a minimum of 10,000 years. Long enough to prepare for a mass migration or replenishment of resources. I’ve also noticed that in an age a plenty, we will toss things away, but when we do not have much, we will recycle. This commandment will force use to recycle resources we find to prevent us from reaching the maximum because the abundance of resources while be put into perspective.

8: Thou shall not use more than .01% of the resources on a planetary body per year with respect to 2010

This rule budgets the use of Each planet’s, object’s and moon’s resources so that a civilization using those resources will be able to tap into those resources for 10,000 years. Long enough to make the investment worth while.

9: Thou shall not make or accept an unbalanced trade with another space settlement.

The goal of this is to prevent a space settlement from just being a mining outpost, one that is abandoned as soon as the resources are gone. In other words, the best way to use space is to inhabit it, not strip it. Balanced trade is that best way to do this. Trading one resource for another will allow communities to fix its weakens by using its strengths. If done correctly, when the resources that attracted people to the site in the first place are gone, a vibrant community the can support its self will still remain. 

10: Thou shall not equip a spaceship with weapons that can penetrate the hull of a standard spaceship

Spaceships are basically tin cans with 1 atmosphere is pressure pushing out. A hole in the ship will cause a significant loss of air. Yes, we can build bulk heads for seal off damaged areas, but the crew has to react within seconds, while under fire, to prevent the whole spaceship from depressurizing. In this light, I consider any weapon that can penetrate the hull of a spacecraft a weapon of mass destruction because one shot has the potential to kill 1000s of people if fired at a larger spacecraft.

However, non-penetrating weapons are the non-lethal weaponry of interstellar combat. One can target weapon ports, communications arrays, solar panels and engines to get an aggressor to stop. I would suggest EMP weaponry, but it would destroy life support systems and most circuitry in space is hardened, so that they of weaponry is ineffective.

Note: this commandment assumes people will install some type of armor to protect against the many fast moving rocks and junk floating in space.

Reactions

-Do I cover everything?

-Will these rules be useful in the real world, remember, these rules are complete idealism?

-Will following these rules place humanity in harm’s way?

-Would you rewrite this rules if you where director of space habitation?

In Case You Skimmed

• We should settle space in a sustainable way
• We should learn from our mistakes on Earth

Things to Infuse

In my last post, I asked “What other intentions should we add to our hope for a day when humanity inhabits space?”? These are some of the ideas I had.

• With space habitation, we should become less prone to warfare
• With space habitation, we should become a more sustainable species
• With space habitation, we should become a species that considers to long term
• With space habitation, we should become a species where education is engrained into our human nature. It becomes something that is sought after with the same intensity that food and water is sought after.
• With space habitation, we should because less animal like
• With space habitation, we should become a species that is excellent. We should not settle for species mediocrity (our current state) ever again.

Reactions

-Do you have anything to add?

Resources

Fronsdal, Gil. “Intention” Zencast. 30 August 2009. Audio Dharma. 29 September 2009. <http://amberstar.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=520583>

Wasting an Intention

What about the big picture of the day? As you get up in the morning, what is the intention for this day? What is the intention? So, for example, your intention… one of the intentions for the day might be to go to the market to buy food. You could follow through on that and go home. But, if the intention was to go to the market and buy food and come home. It’s a fine intention if you need food. But, I would suggest it is a missed opportunity. Because, if before you go shopping you think “what intention do I want to infuse this activity with”, you can infuse it with other intentions as well. You can, for example, infuse it with the intention that when you go shopping you are going to try to be around people in the store, with the clerks and whoever, in a way that is kind. The way the somehow expresses friendliness. So you are still following through with the intention to get food, but then you are infusing it with more. You are multitasking, which is very popular. So, you multitask with your intention. And it doesn’t take a lot more out of you. To decide to go to the store and be friendly, but in the big picture of your life and what get developed and supported and what fuels this wonderful, reciprocal in which our actions can feed back and support our intentions. The intention you choose to act on and live your life by are very consequential. And if you stop and think about it “what do I really want to do with this life, what do I really want to do today? What’s really important this day that I am lucky enough to be alive for? Is the most important thing I can think of doing is going to the store and buying food? I have to buy food, but is there something more meaningful that I could be doing in this moment?”. I would suggest that there is.

~ Zencast 8:55 – 11:25

Is the best thing humanity can think of doing with space only space habitation? Can we not modify society with space? Can we not modify our very human nature with space which has been rigid for too many year? Can we not strip ourselves of all our traits that have caused others far too much suffering for too long? Can we not become less violent and virus-like with space? What are we developing and supporting by banning weapons in space? What are we developing and supporting if we weaponize space? Can we inhabit space in a way that conveys friendliness? Can we do something with this opportunity?

Reactions

-What other intentions should we add to our hope for a day when humanity inhabits space?

Resources

Fronsdal, Gil. “Intention” Zencast. 30 August 2009. Audio Dharma. 29 September 2009. <http://amberstar.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=520583>

In Case You Skimmed

-To become space faring only to become space faring is a waste.

-The species can improve so much if we infuse other intentions with the habitation intention.

A Species’ Momentum

Any species or society will have a momentum in terms of its development. A stone age species will want to go to the end of stone age technology unless it is acted on by an outside force. An industrial society will want to hit the wall of industrial age technology unless it is acted on by an outside force. Think about it, if an outside force didn’t act, a steam punk society could have been a reality. In this light, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that humanity only seriously attempts to become a space faring species when we are forced off Earth by disasters and over population. I won’t be surprised to see humanity only seriously fund space out of greed.

Reactions

-Can we become space faring without an outside force?

Reactions

-An industrial society will continue to be an industrial society until an outside for acts upon it

Our Deepest Fear Prevents Space Habitation

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.' We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we're liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." ~Marianne Williamson via Morning Coach

If the traits of a group’s members reflects the groups traits, then this quote can be applied to all of mankind. Because of this, I think humanity is too scared to move onto the space age. As our technology become more advanced, we become godlike. We ask ourselves, who are we to have even 1% of God’s power? I ask will dare to ask humanity “who are we not to become masters of this world”? Who are we not to become godlike. Who are we not to conquer everything that has caused suffering for far too long? We could easily accept that humanity is a virus, a disease, something that is doomed to death and misfortune. We can easily accept that humans can only cause suffering, but we must not roll over and accept what we see as fate. We can not accept a negative image of our species. We must escape from that thought as a species. That thought is preventing us from becoming space faring.

Of course, this means that all supporters of space must accept that they are powerful. That is the best way to advocate for space, make other feel that this species is powerful beyond measure.

Thanks Morning Coach for the great idea. They take all credit for this one.

Reactions

-What negative consequences can species wide confidence bring?

Sources

Williamson, Marianna. A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of "A Course in Miracles". Harper Paperbacks, 1992.

Glossinger, J.B. "Episode 714 What is Evolution.” Morning Coach. Sept. 16 2009. Morningcoach.com. Sept. 17 2009 <http://www.learnoutloud.com/podcaststream/listen.php?url=http://jbgloss.hipcast.com/rss/morningcoach.xml&all=1&title=23991 >.

In Case You Skimmed

-Our fear of our power prevents us from becoming space faring.

-A space advocate must be confident in order to make others feel like humanity is powerful.

A Caution on Japan’s Investment

A few posts ago, I said that Japan was investing $21 Billion in Space Solar Power (SSP). I was very excited, until I read a blog post from the Land Art Generator Initiative called Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar. SSP should be a long term goal. We only need about 500,000 kilometer squared of solar panels to power the world until 2030. I think $21 billion is a great investment for a multi-generational project, be we must have a stable sources of power now. If we have this it will lead to a space faring society faster. If we have that we can stabilize human society for 20 years. If we can ensure everyone has plenty for 20 years, then we will be able to focus more on education and species development and less on survival.

We need energy now, every major economy is based on the assumption of cheap energy. Look around in the room you are in, there are thousands of joules of energy represented in the items you see before you. Consider the internet. 

 We think about information that goes across the Internet. And we never think about the hidden connection. But I brought along here a lump of coal -- right here, one lump of coal. And what does a lump of coal have to do with the Internet? You see, it takes the energy in one lump of coal to move one megabyte of information across the net. So every time you download a file, each megabyte is a lump of coal. What that means is, a 200-megabyte file looks like this, ladies and gentlemen. OK? [He pulls out a bag of charcoal] So the next time you download a gigabyte, or two gigabytes, it’s not for free, OK? The connection is the energy it takes to run the web and to make everything we think possible, possible.

Energy is critical in a creating a space faring. Computer Aided Engineering will be the tool of the design of space habitation, the same process that brought the Boeing 777 to life will bring space habitation into reality. We need energy to do this, we need to keep the internet alive to allow humanity to work collectively on a project all at the same time. We need to keep lights on for the students who study into the night. I will gamble and say we can not achieve space habitation or SSP without the internet and without computers.

Thus, we should push Earth based solar power to it’s limit will working on SSP to replace it when Earth based solar power can not provide all of the energy. To get access to space, a stable energy supply must be secured. It will not happen without this. We can not lake a risk on SSP when we will have trouble powering the future.

Reactions

-Is there such a thing as a stable energy source?

Sources

Walker, Jay. "Jay Walker's library of human imagination” Feb 2008. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on September 16, 2009. <http://www.ted.com/talks/jay_walker_s_library_of_human_imagination.html#> 6:06 – 7:06

Ferry, Robert. Elizabeth Monoian, “Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar.” Weblog Entry. Land Art Generator Initiative. August 13, 2009. September 16, 2009.

In Case You Skimmed

-We need energy to develop space assets

-SSP is a long term goal that must be developed to replace any short term solutions we have

-But, we needed alternative, short term energy solutions yesterday and SSP can’t get developed in a short time frame.

4 Reasons Humanity Fails to Achieve its Goals

This post is heavily based on the Dump Little Man post 4 Reasons You Fail to Achieve Your Goals.

Are we the type of species that makes big plans but just never finishes the plan? Do we make resolutions during one generation that are dropped like a failed Hail Mary pass by the next? Perhaps, as a species, you can't stay on track. Every species contains a goal seeking mechanism, yet we do not achieve our goals. The following list are things that will not only prevent space habitation, but will prevent other multi-generation goals and macro-engineering projects.

1. Limited Beliefs

Look, if a species thinks it will go extinct, it will. If its religious text predict an armageddon, people will feel helpless to stop an armageddon event. They will feel as if they are doomed to die as a species. There are some who see humanity as a disease that should be eliminated, how can such a species aspire to greatness? There is a major belief that we have reached the end of out species' technological and social development, how can such beliefs inspire greatness and self improvement? Humanity has unlimited potential, but if we start to doubt that potential we will never be great, we will never be spacefaring and we won't produce a new generation of humans who have hope for a better tomorrow.

2. Picking the Wrong Goal

This reason should not be used as an easy to quit a goal of a species. But, we, as a species, can aspire to the wrong objectives. Wrong goals for a species would include:

• Any goal that splits apart this species and any goal that kills off vast numbers of members of the species. (e.g. wars and genocides).
• Any goal that was developed in an echo chamber; any goal that is an attempt to homogenize humanity.
• Any goal that is focused on proving one group's superiority as opposed to improving the species. (e.g. going to space to prove your nation is better, not to improve humanity)

Not, if we want to pick the right goal, we need to have a species wide dialog and talk about all the things we value as a species and our dreams as a species. We need to keep talking until an idea; a goal is produce that resonates with every human soul. We need to keep talking until we have a goal "that just stands out, something that just feels right" (Dumb Little Man).

3. You Lack Consistency / Patience

So far, humanity has been doing well in space after stumbling at the end of Apollo. We have been making consistent investments in our space programs. But, I fear humanity will get bored with space again and cut all its funding. I fear education programs in place today that will benefit a spacefaring species will get slashed. Space will be vary frustrating, but we must keep at it. We can not start a pattern of short bursts in space activity because bursts will demotivate not only the public, but the hard-cord space cadets too.

4. There is No Multi-generational Plan

Transitioning an idea or a movement between generations could weaken it. I'm young, I do not understand the feelings humanity had during the first moon landings. I have not experienced the struggles that opened up the space field. I was born after the first moments of the space age. This might be a problem. Without this experience, I value the Apollo program less; I only read about Apollo, I can NEVER experience the emotions it carried. The leaders of the space movement know what space means because they all worked their butts off to get a space program up an running, but they are all old. I did not experience all the pain that the older generation went through to set up a space program. Because if this, I will never understand space as well as my seniors. This is why we need a multi-generational plan. We need something that conveys why the generation before mine struggled so much and worked so much to open up space. I need a document that conveys the feelings that Apollo generated in humanity. I need to know what the generation before me wanted to do with space; I don't know that yet. Yes, there are documents that conveys this message, but they are scattered and they are really history lessons, not a mission plan that I can follow. What my generation needs is the next step. In any goal this species takes on, the next step must be CLEARLY conveyed to the next generation.

Reactions

-Is there any other reasons humanity can fail one of its goals?

-Do we need a multi-generational plan?

-Can bursts in space activity work?

-Can we still be great if we believe we are worthless?

Resources

Photo by fireflythegreat

In Case You Skimmed

The following reasons prevents any species wide goals from being achieved:

• Being an unconfident species
• Picking the wrong goal as a species
• Not working consistently towards that goal
• Not having a multi-generational plan