Oil Spills and Space Solar Power

This oil spill is a visual representation of all the nasty stuff we have been doing to this planet. A picture of a struggling fish or pelican is no different from a graph of CO2 levels. Oil is the short term in two ways: First, it is extremely easy to stay on the path we are on, constantly assuming there will be more oil as we work in more dangerous and extreme environments to gain pints of a liquid which has replaced our blood. Choosing oil and coal is turning our back the future. It is giving into what Seth Godin calls the Lizard Brain, the thing that is scared at any thought of moving past the status quo. Second, humanity will not have a long term with oil.

I'm not sure if SSP (Space Solar Power) or even space settlement are the right answers (Especially after learning about the environment impacts of rocket launches), but I know after looking at this and this, we need to do something extreme, something effective, something now. That something needs to be unspillable, in both invisible and visible ways. Truth is we have been spilling oil for years, since the start of industrial activity, however that oil is now CO2 and other chemicals from our tailpipes and our smokestacks.

Just look at the Earth behind the SSP satellite. Isn't it beautiful, isn't that the way we want to keep it?

Quantum Energy Teleportation and Space Habitation

Big thanks to @Astroengine for explaining this theory to me and linking to a post about it. You should follow him, he’s great.

Quantum Energy Teleportation could change the way we conduct space habitation. This game changing possibility works by copying the traits of on particle to another. Imagine two word documents, one call ParticalA.doc and another, blank one called ParticleB.doc, Quantum Energy Teleportation would be like cutting the contents of ParticleA.doc and then pasting that information into ParticleB.doc. Thus, you will move the file without moving the actual document. Only, Quantum Energy Teleportation destroys the source particle. 

First, there are a ton of really cool ideas for applications in space settlement in the first comment, written by MrT, to the Discovery News article Teleporting Energy. I think there are some really interesting ideas in that comment that should be explored. 

But I would like to explore another aspect of this technology. The search for energy is the driving force of space habitation. But, without the lost energy due to traditional means of transmissions, there would be no reason for humans to leave Earth. But, the critic may say “but there are rare resources and minerals that are abundant in space”.

I reject the criticism, with energy teleported to us directly from the sun and power planets on other planets would make artificial transmutation child’s play. The ability to transmit information faster then the speed of light would mean that telepresence can be established on any planet.

But, this might not all be bad for space habitation. This method of using space might be cheaper and safer then sending people, thus it would allow humanity to use space faster and maybe using those supplies will keep comfortable on Earth until we are ready to settle space.

In Case You Skimmed

-The ability to teleport energy reduces the market force of space settlement

Reactions

-Without energy demands driving us, what other reasons could we have for space settlement?

Resources

Photo credit: Flickr user Kliefi

arXiv:1002.0200v1 [quant-ph]

Ouellette,Jennifer , “Teleporting Energy” Weblog entry. Discovery News. February 4, 2010. February 8, 2010 <http://news.discovery.com/space/teleporting-energy.html>

SPC #19: Fermi Paradox

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 A Comparative Analysis of Space Colonization Enterprises. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.

Article Information

Title: A Comparative Analysis of Space Colonization Enterprises

Author: Frank D. Drake

Date: 1985

Book: The search for extraterrestrial life: Recent developments; Proceedings of the Symposium, Boston, MA, June 18-21, 1984

Article Overview

The SETI program has been scanning the skies since the early 60’s and we still haven't found any intelligent life outside this solar system. We haven't noticed interstellar conveys moving across space. This lack of an observation casts a shadow of doubt on both extraterrestrial life and interstellar space habitation. This paper explains how the Fermi Paradox disproves the possibility for interplanetary space habitation by presenting the huge leap in energy consumption between an interplanetary civilization and an interstellar civilization.

Key/Interesting Quotes

Space habitation supports have always assumed “that interstellar colonization would be an imperative for technical civilization of out level of achievement.” Page 1

“Typical time scales to [inhabit] a galaxy are of the order of 100 million years or less.” Page 1

“The conflict between the hypothesis that there should be many technical civilizations older than ours and the hypothesis of the inevitability of interstellar colonization is known as the ‘Fermi Paradox’.” Page 1

“Calculations by Newman and Sagan have show that the time required to colonize the entire galaxy in these circumstances is of the order of the age of the galaxy” Page 2

Intelligent species may be “afraid to support a colonization enterprise because they fear that some of their colonies… may turn on them with military force.” Page 2

Regarding using space habitation to relieve overpopulation: “The costs of [interstellar space habitation], compared to the costs of simpler options, are so much greater that even the most technically sophisticated civilization would eschew such an endeavor.” Page 2

“The total amount of solar energy available from the sun is adequate to support something like 10^22 individuals” Page 3

“The ration of energies required for the two types of colonization [(Interplanetary and Interstellar) is] 10^8.” Page 3-4

“The mass per colonist which must be lifted from a deep potential well will be much less for the interplanetary colonies which follow the first to be built, and perhaps for all the colonies.” Page 4

“Colonization of the home planetary system is rational, colonization of the stars is irrational.” Page 5

Personal Response to the Paper

This paper is a well crafted, effective argument against interstellar space habitation. It is all based on energy and I can’t think of any way to get around the energy requirements of interstellar actives. I have suggested Faster Then Light (FTL) travel to counter time based arguments. But FTL travel increases the energy demands, further defeating interstellar travel, since this paper assumed that humanity’s max speed is 1/10th of the speed of light. I could suggest solar sails, but even then, we need to shine a laser at the ship in between suns. I could argue with the Tri-Space Model of the Universe (which allows for FTL travel by suggesting a realm where the speed is light is the minimum speed. A world where it would take enormous amounts of energy to slow down but it would be energetically favorable to speed up) , but this is unproven and still requires energy.

Of course, this paper assumes humans will inhabit other solar systems. I have read an interesting idea of using robots to reproduce organic life on another planets atom by atom. This could be down with ease by having a short burst of energy to leave this solar system and letting the craft drift. It would take 1000’s of years, but it would get done. Of course, this idea has no benefit to us, so it even more invalid then the original idea. We could also use generation ships that are able to carry out trips that are 10,000 years long, but that is a mind numbing slow speed.

Questions Raised by the Paper

This paper assumed energy storage is a problem, has there been significant advances in energy storage since 1985?

This paper assumes that interstellar trips would take at least 100 years, could a generation ship that takes a thousand years solve the energy problem?

Could the energy consumed by interstellar habitation create an energy crisis or increase the costs of energy back on Earth?

SPC #18: Open Worlds

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 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 and ideas are from the paper unless otherwise noted.

This week we are reviewing the paper Lunar Industries and Their Value for the Human Environment on Earth. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.

Article Information

Title: Lunar Industries and Their Value for the Human Environment on Earth

Author: Krafft A. Ehrick

Date: August 1973

Journal: Acta Astronautica

Volume: 1

Issue: 5-6

Article Overview

Currently, humanity operates in a closed world system. We only extract resource from earth; we do not interact with another planetary body in a measurable way. However, an open world existence will give humanity to opportunity to grow endlessly, without damage to the biosphere. This is accomplished through the industrialization of space. Thus, the moon becomes critical because it sets the tone on how we use space. This paper shows use how we can exploit the moon in a profitable way and a path way to becoming a truly space faring species. 

Key/Interesting Quotes

“the information oriented and information controlled interaction with the lunar environment on the basis of synergistically integrating three aspects: extraction of lunar materials for local autonomy, cycling, and utilization of the "waste products" for industrial "export products", in order to supply orbiting installations and lay the foundations for the gradual evolution of a functionally integrated lunar and orbital industrial complex whose ultimate purpose is to reduce the ecological burden on the terrestrial environment, thus improving the human environment without reducing the level of productivity required by modern civilization.” Page 1

“We will never be able to develop or reach another inhabitable world unless we solve first the present crisis [population growth] on this one.” Page 1

“Open space is in many respects a more benign environment than the Earth's surface, to say nothing of the underwater environment”, in industrial applications Page 2

“…we do not live in a closed, isolated world—a ‘spaceship Earth’--but in an open world, on a planet that can be the future cockpit of the solar system.” Page 2

“…long-range thinking in the industrial world should raise its sights to an open-world development program whose central premise is the operative indivisibility of Earth and space” Page 3

“Openworld development means the upgrading of low living standards without destroying existing high living standards.” Page 3

“The central aspect of the extraterrestrial industrial expansion is the acquisition of new environments…” Page 7

“…the industrialization of the Moon will be crucial for the extraterrestrial industrial expansion” Page 7

“The open-world development concept places lunar operations into a new perspective by recognizing the lunar industrial potential and its value for the human environment on Earth. This philosophy adds the spirit of the industrialist to that of the explorer and scientist.” Page 8

“We must further think in terms of lunar production figures of thousands to hundred thousands of tons annually and of cislunar transporter capacities of several thousand tons, if we want to even begin making sense economically and being relevant to the needs of open-world development.” Page 8

A separate study “found that an investment of $150 billion over 30 years would provide a lunar industrial production and transportation capacity (within geolunar space) of at least one million tons annually of raw materials, semi-finished and finished products.” Page 9

“At the center of the lunar disc at high noon, the subsolar horizontal surface is offered 1.35 kw/m^2” Page 10

“The mare basalts are dark, iron-rich and relatively heavy. The anorthosite is a lightly colored, aluminum-rich, less dense material, a major rock-type of the lunar highlands. The lunar anorthosites are more depleted of potassium, uranium and thorium than the mare basalts.” Page 11

“…the Moon seems to be depleted in volatile elements and enriched in refractory elements [metals with high melting points]” Page 13

“even a shallow underground facility, or one covered with regolith, would be well insulated from the variations in solar heat input.” Page 14

“In the lunar environment we can apply strip mining techniques and expend vast amounts of cheap energy without ‘polluting’ the environment. Because this environment is "dead" there are no cyclic processes to consider.” Page 18

The moon’s purpose in space habitation is “the gradual reduction of the industrial burden on the terrestrial environment, thereby improving the human environment while the human industrial capacity continues to grow.” Page 19

“mining on the Moon does not mean going after a particular metal but rather extracting a large number of metals in proportion to their abundance and partly in proportion to the energy expended.” Page 25

Personal Response to the Paper

A while ago, I read the Hard SF article Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation? and I completely abandoned the argument that space habitation can help overpopulation. However, this paper may have proved that space habitation will aid over population indirectly. Population is limited by the resources available which in turn is limited by the amount of energy available. The moon provides an answer to both of these problems, industries can collect resources needed on Earth with abundant energy though solar and nuclear power.

However, I am not comfortable with one of the assumptions the paper makes. The paper assumes there is a seamless transition between the Earth and the moon. Due to the Earth’s gravity well and atmosphere , I feel this is not true. Lunar goods will need to be protected when they are brought down to Earth. Items from Earth while need powerful rockets. So, this paper is leaning towards a reusable system, which is extremely expensive to implement.

Questions Raised by the Paper

This paper assumes the moon is bone dry, now since NASA has confirmed water on the moon, how does the author’s argument change?

Can we be as carefree as the paper suggests when using resources in space?

Nuclear charges are used as the primary mining explosive in this paper, how do we over come the political obstacles to using nuclear explosives in space?

When do we see the return on the investment on the moon?

An Energy Based Argument for Space Habitation

In his Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) lecture, Rob Hopkins reminds us the oil is limited and that we must transition to a world without it so we can wean ourselves off oil now. During the lecture, there was a graph that stunned me...

 

This is a graph of time verses energy availability.

 

While the audience too all of this in, Rob said, while holding a jar full of oil…

 

“This bottle of oil, distilled over a hundred million years of geological time, ancient sunlight, contains the energy equivalent of about five weeks hard human manual labor -- equivalent to about 35 strong people coming round and working for you. We can turn it into a dazzling array of materials, medicine, modern clothing, laptops, a whole range of different things. It gives us an energy return that's unimaginable, historically.  We've based the design of our settlements, our business models, our transport plans, even the idea of economic growth, some would argue, on the assumption that we will have this in perpetuity.

Yet, when we take a step back, and look over the span of history, at what we might call the petroleum interval, it's a short period in history where we've discovered this extraordinary material, and then based a whole way of life around it. But as we straddle the top of this energy mountain, at this stage, we move from a time where our economic success, our sense of individual prowess and well-being is directly linked to how much [oil] we consume, to a time when actually our degree of oil dependency is our degree of vulnerability.”

In order to be safe, we must assume this energy model is right and we must seek out a equally powerful source of energy. This source of energy can be found in space. Solar power is more efficient in space and He-3 is available in space. However, this promised land of energy requires energy to reach.

This is why the petroleum interval must be the time where humanity executes space habituation. We must use are abundance of energy now to secure energy for the future. The shuttle uses over 20 terajoules of energy in its launch. That is 4.78011472 × 10^9 Kilocalories. That’s the energy stored in 153847 gallons of gasoline (1). Plus, you have to combine the energy to move the shuttle to the launch pad, the energy required to push all the data NASA generates during every launch, the energy NASA workers use in commenting, the energy costs to create the special fuel for the shuttle, and so on and so on. This is multiplied when we increase the number of rockets launched when space habitation occurs. These are mind boggling amounts of energy that are trivial this age of abundant energy, near infinite energy. In other words, NASA does not have to worry about the energy it needs to launch rockets not being available.

However, once we leave this planet’s gravity well, we once again have access to near an abundant source of energy. Thus, we must inhabit space now.

 

Source:

1: “Page Untitled.” Syracuse University. Web. Accessed on 27 December 2009. <http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html>

Hopkins, Rob. "Rob Hopkins: Transition to a world without oil" Nov. 2009. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on 27 December 2009. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rob_hopkins_transition_to_a_world_without_oil.html>

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.

We Should Not Be Catered To

Evangelical space cadets, like me, should not be catered to. I had this idea after reading two of Seth Godin's blog posts: The paradox of the middle of the market and Fast in, fast out. Basically, people like me are not the market we have to convince to get space habitation off the ground. It is easy to get people like me excited about any idea in space. Yet, we need to average Joe to be excited about commercial space. But, there is also a bigger problem. I fear people like me will not be in the movement when the idea is less new.

Gone After The First Settlement

For this movement to live off evangelical space cadets, we will need about 10 generations of evangelical space cadets. This generation of evangelical space cadets is locked in for life, but that may be because we will not live to see humanity bask in the light of another star. I fear people like me will not exist when interstellar space flight is common and rocket launches are unimpressive. When the space field falls away from the cutting edge; when space stops being a symbol of the future; when this dream is achieved, then the space movement will loss it's current supporters if the evangelical space cadet supports the space movement because it's a dream and it's a new idea.

After reading Seth Godin's posts, I thought about why I'm in the field; why I have a passion for space. I watched a rocket launch on TV and was forever inspired by it. But, I don't think I would be in this field if I saw a rocket launch everyday. I was impressed by NASA and other space agencies. I think they are legendary. But, I don't think I would be found in the space field in the world of Star Trek, were space flight is average. In the world of Star Trek, I think I would be blogging about another, far off, dream.

Replacing The Cadets

This is a graph of percent of each group active in the space movement, verses number of generations. I think such a graph will look like this. Right now, generation number two is taking over the space movement. The type of people who could be evangelical space cadets will not become a space cadet in the space movement as we accomplish this dream. We can not assume the evangelical space cadet will be active through out this multi-generational plan. So, we must convince the average Joe. I'm sure the core of the space movement can archive this dream, but they will not have the strength to colonize every star in the universe. Today, we have an army of supports, convince the meat of the market, and we have an unstoppable force.

The Meat Of The Market

The solution, if there is one, is to enter a market to the enthusiastic cheers of those in search of the new, but to build a product/service that appeals to those in the middle. After the initial wave of enthusiasm, you hunker down and ignore those that first embraced you, obsessing instead on the needs and networks of the middle. It's a difficult balancing act, but it's the only one that works. ~ Seth's Blog

A message to the leaders of the space movement: Ignore us, but use our enthusiasm. Make a space vision that will meet the needs for the average Joe. Do not make a future that will only appeal to people like me because that future will never happen if it only appeals to me.

Reactions

I need to polish this idea. What do think? Should the evangelical space cadet be ignored?

Updated: July 7, 2009

Sunday Paper Club #3: The End of Easy Energy and What to Do About It

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. 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 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.


The End of Easy Energy and What to Do About It, by James Michael Snead, is the very through analysis of today's energy situation that pleads for the and proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that space solar power is the best way to solve the energy crisis considering our current technologies.


The problem that space solar power is best equipped to solve is this: most alternative fuels require energy to produce them, for example, one needs to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and biofuels requires energy to run farms. Furthermore, space solar power allows for the on-demand generation of energy (dispatchable energy), whereas wind power and earth based solar power does not. Not only that, but, because of logisical and safety problems, nuclear power would require a ton of political will to implimate on the massive scale ("350 1-GWe (gigawatt-electric) nuclear power plants" built every four years) that the paper calculates. Hydropower would require an equilly massive project with geopolitical tensions increased because of water blackage.


All of these future energy projects are massive, but they must be undertaken. Even if you don't believe in global warming: "With an annual average of about 155 billion BOE [,Barrels of oil equivalent,] through the end of the century, the world would need about 14,100 billion BOE of oil, coal, and natural gas to reach the end of the century. Current proved recoverable reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas total only about 6,000 billion BOE. Expert estimates of additional recoverable reserves optimistically add another 6,000 billion BOE—for example, including nearly 3,000 billion BOE from all oil from oil shale—for a combined total of around 12,000 billion BOE.[Not including methan hydrates] With increasing world energy consumption and if oil, coal, and natural gas continue to provide most of the world’s energy, known and new reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas will be exhausted by the end of the century, if not much earlier". The fact is, we will run out of nonrenewable fuels by the end of the century. If America or any other nation takes the leap and builds Space Solar Power, they will be the leaders in 2100, free from the struggle of the last drop of oil.


But, make no mistake, space solar power would be a massive project, requiring 224 platforms each weighting atleast 20,000 to be built; each would be about 5 miles long. A problem because we won't have the space shuttle in less then a year; space solar power would require a huge investment, not only in the platforms, but in space infastucture. But, the energy output could be multplied by using the ground based rectenna as a site to grow algae to make into biodiesel.


But, just to underscore the massive amount of rescources we will need to survive when oil runs out, "In the United States, 375,000 sq. mi.—about 12% of the continental United States—would be directly placed into use for renewable energy generation to meet this paper’s projection of 2100 energy needs". This is huge, but space solar power is the best use of land because it only takes up 0.6% of the United States' land, yet it will provide 70% of the nation's dispatchable energy needs in 2100.


But, this paper is not a soapbox for space solar power alone, it suggests the aggresive search for more oil to ease the transition into these new energy systems, conservation of energy, the premptive switch to renewable energy sources before the oil runs out and reaserch into renewable energy. But we must do this, "The total U.S. 2100 need for about 28 billion BOE per year equates to 162 Q-BTU per year, or 10% of the world’s total... in the form of oil, the world would need about 140,000 super tankers each year by 2100 while the U.S. would need about 14,000 super tankers each year" to keep to lights on.


Furthermore, the power trasmittion back down to earth is safe, at around the same frequency as cell phone, the skin would only warm if one where to step into the beam. So, this is not a really big laser, nor could it be an effective weapon (Sir, the enemy seems to be tanning in the death ray). Yes, cell phone signals are not the best thing for your body, but a human will not burn in the ray. Plus, the radiation is non-ionizing.

This paper is a must read for the space community. Please check out the author's website, http://mikesnead.net/, and read the paper, it is over 120 pages and has so much information that can not be placed in a blog post. Once again, I'm sorry for this post being late.