1) Reusable launch vehicles for access to low Earth orbit.
2) Water mined from the Moon or asteroids pulled into low Earth orbit, made into rocket fuel.
3) Robotic construction of life's orbital infrastructure.
4) Populate by launching people and other life forms.
A lot of science fiction is set in a universe where people easily travel around the Galaxy, hopping star to star with the same level of effort that we today move from country to country. This is not realistic — the truth is that it would take a couple thousand years traveling at a couple thousand kilometers per second to reach even the nearest stars.
That would require a city plus artificial countryside, as well as artificial farms, forests, lakes, swamps, etc., together with thick cosmic-ray shielding and 2000+ years of nuclear fuel, all accelerated to a speed 100 times faster than the fastest man-made object so far built. This could only be a Stage 2 project, for a successor civilization with thousands of years of experience in orbital life.
But how do we get there? How do we get life into orbit?
Rule number one is to reduce the access costs. The two big ways to accomplish this are quick-turnaround reusable launch vehicles, and fuel depots in low-earth orbit. Then, once these technologies make it cheaper to launch, send robotic mining and construction machines to construct life's orbital infrastructure. Once that is done, populate with people and other life forms. Then repeat.
A small handful of companies are making good progress on reducing the costs of access to space, but the launch window is short. The efforts need to be increased by a factor of 10,000 or more. We need to start moving mass on a MUCH larger scale, and we need to start now.
The question is, how?
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Why launch now? What does outer space have that Earth doesn't?
First of all, the idea that going to space will solve our problems here on Earth, that we need to diversify our real estate as insurance against social dysfunction, is nonsense. Outer space settlements will not solve greenhouse gas emission or other pollution problems. None of our current issues will be solved, or even mitigated, by vigorous and immediate entry into the unknown - the payoff will come way too late for that. We need to fix our problems here by finding solutions here. Settling in outer space will only solve issues in the very distant future. So if we are stuck now with the consequences of our choices now, why launch? And especially, why launch right now?
The first question, "Why launch?", is obvious. If we achieve self-sufficient space settlements that can grow on their own, then we will have achieved the magic bullet that will be needed for life to survive over the next few hundred million years. If we don't, we die.
So why the rush? If we eventually make it into space, isn't that good enough? Well first of all, life on Earth is only going to get one pass at the fossil fuels - these are likely the decades of maximum wealth. Second, whether it be the Yellowstone caldera, or the next ice age, or the next large meteor, we need to try to get to the point that outer-space settlements are self-sufficient before the next global catastrophe. If for example the Yellowstone caldera were to have a major eruption within the next few thousand years, it would bring us to a place where launching is impossible. These decades right now, while the oil lasts, could be life's only chance to reach a point where it can continue after the Earth dies out in the more distant future.
Now suppose we don't build this ark in time for the next global catastrophe, whatever the next black swan may turn out to be. And suppose that, hundreds or thousands of years later, we were able to find a way to reconstruct ourselves and reach a point where we reacquire the capacity to launch. In this scenario, it would almost certainly be the case that it would have been much easier to have taken care of things now. In this light, then, not launching now becomes a tremendously selfish act.
So we need to start moving now as rapidly as we can. Nothing else matters. Space is HARD. It *is* rocket science. It's a harsh and nasty place, of extremes, far from home. We need to start now because it is hard, and will take a lot of effort and a lot of time to get it right. We have the wealth and stability now to get started, we might not have it later. We need to launch now and launch vigorously to get a fighting chance of self-sufficient settlements that can grow. If we don't launch now, and we miss our current wealth window, then we face the strong possibility that DNA will go extinct in less than a billion years. The long term payoff, in future centuries, will be assured survival of life past the death of the Sun. How long past the death of the Sun? What about the end of the Universe? The big rip? The last proton decays? The last black hole evaporates? Life probably does not have an infinite span in this Universe, which is winding down at every scale.
Yet, who knows what billions of years of ever-grander physics might uncover . . .
The first question, "Why launch?", is obvious. If we achieve self-sufficient space settlements that can grow on their own, then we will have achieved the magic bullet that will be needed for life to survive over the next few hundred million years. If we don't, we die.
So why the rush? If we eventually make it into space, isn't that good enough? Well first of all, life on Earth is only going to get one pass at the fossil fuels - these are likely the decades of maximum wealth. Second, whether it be the Yellowstone caldera, or the next ice age, or the next large meteor, we need to try to get to the point that outer-space settlements are self-sufficient before the next global catastrophe. If for example the Yellowstone caldera were to have a major eruption within the next few thousand years, it would bring us to a place where launching is impossible. These decades right now, while the oil lasts, could be life's only chance to reach a point where it can continue after the Earth dies out in the more distant future.
Now suppose we don't build this ark in time for the next global catastrophe, whatever the next black swan may turn out to be. And suppose that, hundreds or thousands of years later, we were able to find a way to reconstruct ourselves and reach a point where we reacquire the capacity to launch. In this scenario, it would almost certainly be the case that it would have been much easier to have taken care of things now. In this light, then, not launching now becomes a tremendously selfish act.
So we need to start moving now as rapidly as we can. Nothing else matters. Space is HARD. It *is* rocket science. It's a harsh and nasty place, of extremes, far from home. We need to start now because it is hard, and will take a lot of effort and a lot of time to get it right. We have the wealth and stability now to get started, we might not have it later. We need to launch now and launch vigorously to get a fighting chance of self-sufficient settlements that can grow. If we don't launch now, and we miss our current wealth window, then we face the strong possibility that DNA will go extinct in less than a billion years. The long term payoff, in future centuries, will be assured survival of life past the death of the Sun. How long past the death of the Sun? What about the end of the Universe? The big rip? The last proton decays? The last black hole evaporates? Life probably does not have an infinite span in this Universe, which is winding down at every scale.
Yet, who knows what billions of years of ever-grander physics might uncover . . .
Monday, January 30, 2012
I posted this on Slashdot today
(Read here the very interesting discussion that took place.)
Earth is not a sustainable system. The Sun is getting brighter; in less than a billion years it will be too intense for Earth's oceans to continue to exist. Like Mars did in ages past, Earth is going to lose its water. On the other side of the balance, Earth's interior is cooling, geological activity is diminishing, and so volcanic replenishment of the atmosphere is slowly winding down. *These* are the long term environmental trends; at such time scales it is clear that no amount of "recycling for a better world" will make a difference.
It is also clear, at such time scales, that the entirety of life on Earth will go extinct if life does not branch out off the planet. That means launching equipment and people to build massive, robust infrastructure. Crops. Botanical gardens. Zoos.
Except that space is HARD. It's really expensive to get there and it is a high-vacuum radiation hell. It would take a long time and an expensive, sustained effort to construct off-planet habitats - a *tremendous* amount of effort and money before there is any payoff at all.
On the other hand, for example the asteroid 16 Psyche contains enough metal to construct a solid cylinder three miles in diameter stretching from here to the Moon. Or cover North America in a layer 900 feet thick. The resources available to an outer space civilization are great enough to insure that if outer space habitats do reach the point where they can expand and grow, the payoff would be big enough to sustain life past the death of the Sun.
We are half-way through the era of animals on Earth. There have been at least a half dozen mass extinctions since animals first started evolving a half-billion years ago; there will be more. The glaciers have grown and retreated dozens of times over the last two million years; they will return. Yellowstone is going to explode again. And again. And again. Time is not unlimited.
But we have time. Abundant fossil fuels, and the internet - we are right now living in the decades of maximum wealth. At some point, within a few decades, we will either run out of fuel or we will run out of the capacity to sink carbon emissions. When this happens, it will mean the end of a way of life. Maximum wealth *right now* means that *right now* is the best and possibly the only time to lift off. Life on Earth only gets one pass at the fossil fuel heritage; if the next extinction event brings us to a place where launching is not possible, life will have missed its chance.
I am a realist. I'm certain that outer space settlements will not solve our current growth vs. environment problems - the payoff will come way too late for that. None of our current issues will be solved, or even mitigated, by vigorous and immediate launches into the great expanse. Nonetheless, if DNA is to avoid extinction we need to start moving now as rapidly as we can. Nothing else matters.
The cocoon we call Earth is going to wither; whether or not she gives birth before she dies is entirely in the hands of human civilization. Our civilization, right now, we're the only chance. Sure, leaving Eden is a horrible burden. Suck it up. We have to go. Now.
Or, we can continue toasting marshmallows at the planet's one-time-only oil burning party.
Earth is not a sustainable system. The Sun is getting brighter; in less than a billion years it will be too intense for Earth's oceans to continue to exist. Like Mars did in ages past, Earth is going to lose its water. On the other side of the balance, Earth's interior is cooling, geological activity is diminishing, and so volcanic replenishment of the atmosphere is slowly winding down. *These* are the long term environmental trends; at such time scales it is clear that no amount of "recycling for a better world" will make a difference.
It is also clear, at such time scales, that the entirety of life on Earth will go extinct if life does not branch out off the planet. That means launching equipment and people to build massive, robust infrastructure. Crops. Botanical gardens. Zoos.
Except that space is HARD. It's really expensive to get there and it is a high-vacuum radiation hell. It would take a long time and an expensive, sustained effort to construct off-planet habitats - a *tremendous* amount of effort and money before there is any payoff at all.
On the other hand, for example the asteroid 16 Psyche contains enough metal to construct a solid cylinder three miles in diameter stretching from here to the Moon. Or cover North America in a layer 900 feet thick. The resources available to an outer space civilization are great enough to insure that if outer space habitats do reach the point where they can expand and grow, the payoff would be big enough to sustain life past the death of the Sun.
We are half-way through the era of animals on Earth. There have been at least a half dozen mass extinctions since animals first started evolving a half-billion years ago; there will be more. The glaciers have grown and retreated dozens of times over the last two million years; they will return. Yellowstone is going to explode again. And again. And again. Time is not unlimited.
But we have time. Abundant fossil fuels, and the internet - we are right now living in the decades of maximum wealth. At some point, within a few decades, we will either run out of fuel or we will run out of the capacity to sink carbon emissions. When this happens, it will mean the end of a way of life. Maximum wealth *right now* means that *right now* is the best and possibly the only time to lift off. Life on Earth only gets one pass at the fossil fuel heritage; if the next extinction event brings us to a place where launching is not possible, life will have missed its chance.
I am a realist. I'm certain that outer space settlements will not solve our current growth vs. environment problems - the payoff will come way too late for that. None of our current issues will be solved, or even mitigated, by vigorous and immediate launches into the great expanse. Nonetheless, if DNA is to avoid extinction we need to start moving now as rapidly as we can. Nothing else matters.
The cocoon we call Earth is going to wither; whether or not she gives birth before she dies is entirely in the hands of human civilization. Our civilization, right now, we're the only chance. Sure, leaving Eden is a horrible burden. Suck it up. We have to go. Now.
Or, we can continue toasting marshmallows at the planet's one-time-only oil burning party.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Sustainability
Earth is not a sustainable system.
The Sun is getting brighter; in less than a billion years it will be too intense for Earth's oceans to continue to exist. Like Mars did in ages past, Earth is going to lose it's water.
On the other side of the balance, Earth's interior is cooling, geological activity is diminishing, and so volcanic replenishment of the atmosphere is slowly winding down.
We have less than a billion years. We are half-way through the era of animals on Earth.
Anthropogenic Global Warming exists. It's a tragedy, but it's only a blip in the larger span of the ages. Humans are going to set fire to all the fossil fuels we can possibly get our hands on and we'll do so as fast as we possibly can. Nothing anyone says or believes will change this fact.
We only get one pass at this fossil fuel heritage.
Which means we are right now living in the decades of maximum wealth. If life is to continue, life must branch out off the planet. If this is going to happen, we have to be the ones to do it, and we have to do it now.
Earth is not sustainable. We have to go right now.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Save The Planet
The Earth as we know it, over the entire history of our species, is but an extremely short snapshot in time. Human culture is even younger; the oldest of writing, the most ancient of oral traditions, all of what we are, it all amounts to – a blink. A marvelously stable run of years, with a stable climate and a stable supply of the necessities of life: Land, Air, Water, Energy, other life forms, it's all here, in abundance, in this system we call “The Planet”. This system, this blink in time.
What does it mean, “Save the Planet”? What is “Sustainability?” Does sustainability mean: help The Planet continue to exist in a condition similar to the condition it has been in for the last 10,000 years? Is the goal to make the blink last as long as possible? 100 years? One would hope that's doable. Preserve and conserve for 1000 years? That might even be possible. What about another 10,000 years? Things start to look less certain. Extend that to 1 billion years, and Earth becomes a dry ball orbiting a sun grown much hotter than the one it orbits today.
Save the Planet? The Earth is an evolving system that has always evolved and will continue to evolve. It has gone through at least a half dozen mass extinctions over the last half-billion years. There are more to follow. The glaciers have grown and retreated dozens of times over the last two million years. They will return. The Planet is not stable. The Planet is on a wild ride.
Does the destructive nature of the accelerating Human presence mean that Humans are currently the cause of the next, currently occurring mass extinction? Possibly. But what can can be done, really? Reduce the footprint of each individual, there are going to be many more individuals in a very short amount of time. Further, even if some miraculous way is found to end environmental destruction everywhere . . . there will still be more ice ages, and more mass extinctions to follow. This much is out of our hands, the wild ride continues. In which case, if the miracle environmental cure is found, what really have we saved? Our conscience, maybe, but we're certainly not saving the Planet - we're just passing the buck.
The hard fact is, the Planet is not sustainable. With or without Human intervention, with or without Human indifference, with or without Human intention, the Planet is not sustainable. Like Death and Taxes, there is nothing we can do about it. The blink will end.
What does it mean, “Save the Planet”? What is “Sustainability?” Does sustainability mean: help The Planet continue to exist in a condition similar to the condition it has been in for the last 10,000 years? Is the goal to make the blink last as long as possible? 100 years? One would hope that's doable. Preserve and conserve for 1000 years? That might even be possible. What about another 10,000 years? Things start to look less certain. Extend that to 1 billion years, and Earth becomes a dry ball orbiting a sun grown much hotter than the one it orbits today.
Save the Planet? The Earth is an evolving system that has always evolved and will continue to evolve. It has gone through at least a half dozen mass extinctions over the last half-billion years. There are more to follow. The glaciers have grown and retreated dozens of times over the last two million years. They will return. The Planet is not stable. The Planet is on a wild ride.
Does the destructive nature of the accelerating Human presence mean that Humans are currently the cause of the next, currently occurring mass extinction? Possibly. But what can can be done, really? Reduce the footprint of each individual, there are going to be many more individuals in a very short amount of time. Further, even if some miraculous way is found to end environmental destruction everywhere . . . there will still be more ice ages, and more mass extinctions to follow. This much is out of our hands, the wild ride continues. In which case, if the miracle environmental cure is found, what really have we saved? Our conscience, maybe, but we're certainly not saving the Planet - we're just passing the buck.
The hard fact is, the Planet is not sustainable. With or without Human intervention, with or without Human indifference, with or without Human intention, the Planet is not sustainable. Like Death and Taxes, there is nothing we can do about it. The blink will end.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Some thoughts on the scales of time and space
Who paid for World War II?
Plastics are entering the geological record. In a few hundred million years, some future geologists will probably be able to read the fossil remains of the odd cd or two, incorporated into the rock.
Most petroleum reserves started 300 - 400 million years ago, when our ancestors were just gaining the ability to lay their eggs on land instead of in the water. The oldest reserves, however, date back to a time when our ancestors, tiny little ocean creatures, were diverging from the ancestors of the insects.
It is probably the case that some of the petroleum and natural gas we burn today consists, in part, of the direct remains of our ancestors.
Cheap oil, and the internet: these are the decades of maximum wealth.
The earth is in between ice ages. The next one will be in a few tens of thousands of years. In the midst of the last one, we won the great Cro Magnon/Neanderthal smackdown.
The sun will steadily increase in brightness over the next few billion years. A billion years from now, the oceans will have evaporated away and the whole planet will become a desert, completely sterilized of life. Life has existed on earth for 3.5 billion years, and it has no more than 1 billion more years to go.
Plastics are entering the geological record. In a few hundred million years, some future geologists will probably be able to read the fossil remains of the odd cd or two, incorporated into the rock.
Most petroleum reserves started 300 - 400 million years ago, when our ancestors were just gaining the ability to lay their eggs on land instead of in the water. The oldest reserves, however, date back to a time when our ancestors, tiny little ocean creatures, were diverging from the ancestors of the insects.
It is probably the case that some of the petroleum and natural gas we burn today consists, in part, of the direct remains of our ancestors.
Cheap oil, and the internet: these are the decades of maximum wealth.
The earth is in between ice ages. The next one will be in a few tens of thousands of years. In the midst of the last one, we won the great Cro Magnon/Neanderthal smackdown.
The sun will steadily increase in brightness over the next few billion years. A billion years from now, the oceans will have evaporated away and the whole planet will become a desert, completely sterilized of life. Life has existed on earth for 3.5 billion years, and it has no more than 1 billion more years to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)