A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
Mark Whittington links to this article at SpaceDaily.com: Can Mars Be Made Into An Oasis For Goldilocks?. The article covers the notion of “terraforming” Mars in piecewise fashion, under large bubbles, rather than the whole planet at the same time.
The minimum size of the oasis extends to the diameter of a dome-shaped plastic cover, much like a greenhouse with a space heater. In this way, microterraforming is the smaller alternative for a planet that otherwise is an open system leaking to space. Diaz contrasts the way a physicist might change Mars with industrial tools to the hothouse methods of a biologist.
Reading this story set me to ruminating on the “social experimentation” argument for Mars settlement and space migration generally: the idea that settling the space frontier would allow for experimentation with old and new forms of social organization (particularly governance) along the lines of the North American colonies of the 17th and 18th Centuries, with the surviving forms feeding back to and improving existing societies on Earth.
With terraforming as typically conceived, the effort is intended to affect the planet as a whole, steering the entire planetary environment to some preconceived desirable state. In the social experimentation metaphor, this might be reflected as a social system imposed on the whole planet from the beginning, intended to guide the development of the new branch of civilization towards some desirable form.
A properly-structured “social terraforming” approach could yield positive results. By prescribing the outlines and generic common features of the planet-wide social system(s), such an approach could allow for a bounded but still wide range of experimentation among settlements.
On the other hand, it may be unrealistic to expect any a priori arrangement to be flexible enough. The limitations within which settlements would be expected to organize and conduct themselves may be too restrictive to permit settlements sufficient latitude to experiment with truly novel forms (or new variants or combinations) of social organization. By proscribing certain arrangements (e.g.: hereditary rule, direct democracy, certain specific activities, etc.) or mandating others (e.g.: proportional representation in legislatures, legislatures themselves, recognition of certain specific rights, etc.), settlers may be deprived of the opportunity to discover new arrangements which work under Martian conditions despite having failed on Earth.
The answer to this, in ideal terms, might be the social microterraforming approach, where each settlement would be free to organize and conduct itself as it saw fit, absent any direction from a higher-level political authority. In practical terms, it is unlikely that the settlements could actually achieve such isolation, as interaction between them (trade in goods, information, and skills, for example) would motivate at least some harmonization, for moral and economic reasons (a settlement founded on chattel slavery might have some trouble trading with free settlements, for example). But rather than a flaw, this seeming retreat from the ideal would be a feature of the approach: some desirable form of civilization, suited to the circumstances on Mars and not possible to conceive of beforehand, could emerge from the experimentation within and interaction among these independent settlements.
Rather than a well-intentioned imposed order that may not fit the circumstances of living and working on another planet, and which may thereby restrict the ability of settlers to adapt and/or create institutions to fit those new circumstances, “social microterraforming” might permit a stable and desirable order to evolve organically.
Several industry and academic experts gave testimony this week before the House Committee on Science.
Norm Augustine’s testimony was circulated at work yesterday, and this little bit stuck out for me:
This consideration argues for a major space undertaking that could be accomplished in step-wise milestones, each contributing to a uniting long-term goal…It is this consideration which justifies a mission to Mars with an initial step to the moon – as philosophically opposed to a return to the moon with a potential visit to Mars.” [emphasis added]
A subtle but important distinction, one I hope doesn’t get lost as the details of the plan are fleshed out.
Armstrong endorses Bush’s Mars, moon plan
“Our economy can certainly afford an effort of this magnitude, but the public must believe the benefits to society deserve the investment,” said Armstrong. “We know the advancement of knowledge and the rate of progress is proportional to the risk encountered. The public at large may well be more risk adverse than the individuals in our business, but to limit the program in the name of elminating the risk is no virtue.”
Zubrin, O’Keefe, Beckwith to Debate Hubble on CNN Tonight
March 9, 2004
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
www.marssociety.org.
Mars Society President Dr. Robert Zubrin, Space Telescope Science
Institute Director Dr. Steve Beckwith, and NASA Administrator Mr. Sean
O’Keefe will discuss the Hubble Space Telescope on CNN tonight. At
issue is Mr. O’Keefe’s controversial decision to desert the
space telescope. Both Dr. Zubrin and Dr. Beckwith oppose Hubble abandonment.
The show will air twice, first within the Anderson Cooper newshour
beginning at 7 PM EST, and then again during the Aaron Brown newshour
which starts at 10 PM EST.
Since there doesn’t appear to be any streaming video of this, I’ll have to wait for others who have cable to tell me how it went.
Rand reviews Greg Klerkx’ new book, Lost in Space: The Fall of NASA and the Dream of a New Space Age.
It was definitely worth reading for a recap of recent space history, but overall I agree with Rand’s agreement with Jeff Foust:
Overall, I agree with Jeff’s assessment of the book. It’s an interesting read, and will provide a lot of background in terms of NASA versus the private sector, but as Jeff says, it’s a little schizophrenic, in that he can’t quite decide whether the agency is an evil monolith, or a bunch of warring fiefdoms. Ultimately, while descriptive, it’s not very prescriptive, or well organized. It’s more a compendium of interesting stories than a coherent narrative, and it seems to peter out at the end, with no clear conclusion.
I came away with the sense that Klerkx had an axe to grind…which is not a bad thing, given the Drudge-like dirt-dishing theme of the book, but he just didn’t seem to take it far enough to make the book a powerful critique of NASA. On the other hand, it’s much better than the institutional hagiographies one typically finds on the subject — Klerkx clearly hasn’t eaten the NASA pudding.
House Votes to Reward Asteroid Chasers.
The bill, which still needs Senate action, directs the NASA administrator to make the awards, based on recommendations by the Smithsonian Minor Planet Center.
One award is to be issued annually to the amateur astronomer or group of amateurs who in the previous year discovered the intrinsically brightest, near-Earth asteroid. Another award would go to the amateur who makes the greatest contribution to the Minor Planet Center’s mission of cataloguing near-Earth asteroids.
John Glenn weighs in on the Moon-Mars plan. Not surprisingly, he doesn’t like it — ostensibly because it is a departure from science-über-alles.
The octogenarian space pioneer’s most cutting comments were reserved for NASA’s plans to gut the International Space Station of a once-ambitious research agenda, limiting science only to studies applicable to the moon and Mars program.
“We have projects that are planned or in the queue now, projects that people — academics and laboratories and companies — have spent millions of dollars to get ready,” Glenn said. “That pulls the rug out from under our scientists who placed their faith in NASA, and our scientists within NASA who devoted years and years to their work.”
Those wouldn’t be the same scientists whose own rides to space and experiments on-orbit you yourself displaced with your Shuttle joyride a few years back, would they, Senator Glenn?
I wonder if he’d come around if the President promised him a ride on a Constellation…?
Leon Jaroff at Time asks “Who Needs Manned Spaceflight?” — and James Van Allen (of all people) responds with criticisms of manned missions to Mars that reveal a startling lack of knowledge on (or willful blindness to) the means for making them happen:
Like many scientists, James Van Allen, best known for the discovery of the radiation belts that bear his name, is aghast at the Mars proposal. He points to “the difficulty and the danger and the cost, all of them monstrous problems” and notes that the budget the President proposed for the project “is far too anemic to anywhere meet the need.”
Right, because the administration has not yet proposed the expenditures for the actual missions to the Moon, and the missions to Mars are even further in the future. The plans are still being worked out. Don’t get impatient: there’s still plenty of time for sticker shock.
This is where it gets good…
A manned mission to Mars, Van Allen notes, would require a minimum of a year and a half — six months to reach the Red Planet, six months of research on the surface and six months to return.
An opposition class mission would indeed take about a year and a half — but only but around thirty days of that time would actually be spent on Mars, not six months.
Each astronaut would require about five pounds of food and water daily. “They talk about growing broccoli and other vegetables on the spacecraft,” he says dismissively,
Who is “they”? There’s plenty of talk of growing food in greenhouses on the surface, yes, but en-route?
“and recycling water.” Still, for a five-man crew, a mission of that length would require carrying along some 20,000 pounds of food and water.
You say “recycling” like it’s a bad thing. ISS does it. Mir did it. Recycling is workable as long as you don’t expect to close the loop…but if we’re going from one water-rich planet to another, closed-loop isn’t required.
“Then, too, you have to bring along a good supply of oxygen and reconvert exhaled carbon dioxide to replenish it.”
Unless you can tap the atmosphere for additional oxygen (which, yes, would have to be separated from CO2 just the same, but you wouldn’t have to bring a huge additional supply of oxygen along. CO2 is CO2.).
And it wouldn’t be a robots-über-alles piece if it didn’t throw out the obligatory megabuck pricetag:
But what about the total cost of the mission, which would include establishing a Moon base from which the spacecraft would be launched? Experts calculate that it would be in the neighborhood of a cool $400 billion, unwelcome news at a time when the national debt stands at $500 billion and is rising.
UPDATE: Mark Whittington gives Van Allen’s comments a thorough wire-brushing.
GovExec discusses the NASA exploration office’s new procurement strategy:
To a crowd of about 300 [industry representatives], representing companies large and small, Steidle and several key managers explained the organizational framework and operating principles of enterprise. Everything is to focus on developing technology for human and robotic exploration and the transportation systems needed to carry out those missions. The officials did not offer specifics on contemplated contract actions and business opportunities. “We do not have a lot of products yet,” said Steidle, “but we have an idea of where we want to go and what we want to do.”
The office has taken over about 140 technology programs from across the agency and is reviewing them for realignment. Without giving specifics, Steidle said technology programs that do not fit the new vision will be refocused to fit, transferred to other NASA offices, or eliminated. He also said he expects to restart some old programs and start some new ones…
…Using a similar [i.e.: prize] approach, Sponberg said, NASA can find novel or low-cost solutions to its engineering problems. The contests would give the space agency access to innovators it may not reach otherwise as it strives to fill White House orders for a sustainable and affordable program of robotic and human missions throughout the solar system.
Instead of soliciting proposals for a grant or contract award, NASA will state its technical goals without prescriptions for achieving them. In each challenge, multiple teams will integrate, test and fly various approaches to a certain goal. “As multiple teams succeed or fail in going after a challenge, the competitive process will distinguish between those technologies that can be imagined and those that can be practically developed,” Sponberg said.
|
|