How Are We Going to Leave our Home Planet?

brellis · Mar 11, 2007

Inspired by our resident Areologist, Jon Clarke, I pose this purposefully general question to invite freethinking comments about ethical issues surrounding our approaching era of human space travel. This is the start of a new chapter in the human endeavour, so it's a good time to look back as well as forward. Consider the many positives about space exploration: The moon and Mars respresent clean slates in terms of the human footprint. Here on earth, our engineers wear funny-looking spacesuits in 'clean rooms' so we don't contaminate another world with earthborne bacteria. This is high-minded, conscientious forethought to the possibility of life existing in the past, present or future at our off-earth destination. How are we going to leave earth ecologically as we expand into space? Can we clean up our first slate as we advance? Conservation of energy is job 1 in space travel. The lessons we have already been learning in space translate to better stewardship of our home planet. On the 'negative' side: We've already littered space and the surfaces of many orbs in the solar system with -- albeit 'clean' -- pieces of junk. Can we even dodge our way around the thousands of pieces of debris left in LEO? At least we autographed our extrasolar space junk. Pioneers 10 & 11 are the first lifeless chunks of human litter to exit the solar system. In another 25-30 years, the Voyagers will stop ticking, adding to that group. Another big ethical question: who should set the rules for human space travel in the brave new world of lower taxes and increased privatization? Would you consider a one-way trip to Mars? Where does one draw the line between adventure and suicide? Imagine embarking on a journey to the Red Planet with enough food, water and oxygen for 2 years, at which point a spacebus sweeps by with <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

nyarlathotep · Mar 11, 2007

How do we leave? Capitalism. What specific technology we will use to leave our planet is uncertain, and ultimately irrelevant. What is certain is that without making space economic we'll merely be out there misallocating capital to plant national flags. Another big ethical question: who should set the rules for human space travel in the brave new world of lower taxes and increased privatization? Consumers. Governments should control negative externalities (orbital debris, air and groundwater pollution at launch site, damage to private property from reentry debris, etc.) and _nothing_ else.

vogon13 · Mar 11, 2007

Orion nuclear impulse propulsion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

brellis · Mar 11, 2007

hi Nyarlathotep brellis: who should set the rules for human space travel in the brave new world of lower taxes and increased privatization? Nyarlathotep: Consumers. Governments should control negative externalities (orbital debris, air and groundwater pollution at launch site, damage to private property from reentry debris, etc.) and _nothing_ else. The seafaring adventurers who voyaged to the "New World" bankrolled by royalty weren't consumers. There were no "rules of the road" set by some kind of Old World "Committe for safe ocean voyages". Today, consumers create billionaires who can one day bankroll a manned mission to the moon, mars and beyond. Should we discard the "Rules of Space" as set forth by the International Space Agency? If China sends a contaminated vessel to Mars, would there be significant political fallout from the world at large? Would it be cause for war on earth? I'm answering your post from "When Will We Go to Mars?" about ethical questions over here as well. brellis: What are the ethical boundaries interacting with a planet that may, in the past, present or future, be home to life of its own? Nyarlathotep: Earth is full of life, we put it on burgers. I don't really see why there should be an ethical distinction between terran and martian life. Either it's ok for you to kill microbes and anything larger (and vegitarians kill billions per day) or you should commit seppuku and stop wasting the space and resources that the rest of our species need. When NASA came out with their ALH480001 "Life on Mars" meteor in 1996, I reacted very much in the direction you describe. All of a sudden, Life on Mars, if it exist <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

frankrott · Mar 14, 2007

Nyarlathotep: "How do we leave? Capitalism. " Communist countries (like the Soviet Union) have accomplished far more in space exploration than capitalist countries (like USA) The problem with space travel today is cost and we would not have that kind of problem if we lived in a communist world.

rocketman5000 · Mar 14, 2007

Think again. The Soviet Union never got to the moon. To my knowledge they have yet to have a successful Mars prob. If you want to stay in LEO maybe then they are your go to guy.

brellis · May 2, 2007

They won't even talk about sex -- "that's for another panel" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> At least they're beginning to talk about ethical issues related to longterm manned space missions. NASA rethinking death in mission to mars CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- How do you get rid of the body of a dead astronaut on a three-year mission to Mars and back? When should the plug be pulled on a critically ill astronaut who is using up precious oxygen and endangering the rest of the crew? Should NASA employ DNA testing to weed out astronauts who might get a disease on a long flight? With NASA planning to land on Mars 30 years from now, and with the recent discovery of the most "Earth-like" planet ever seen outside the solar system, the space agency has begun to ponder some of the t&%$#@! practical and ethical questions posed by deep space exploration. Some of these who-gets-thrown-from-the-lifeboat questions are outlined in a NASA document on crew health obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request. NASA doctors and scientists, with help from outside bioethicists and medical experts, hope to answer many of these questions over the next several years. "As you can imagine, it's a thing that people aren't really comfortable talking about," said Dr. Richard Williams, NASA's chief health and medical officer. "We're trying to develop the ethical framework to equip commanders and mission managers to make some of those difficult decisions should they arrive in the future." Could China have an advantage in manned space exploration by "virtue" of a willingness to send humans on one-way missions? Watching Hawking float in zero-G, I wondered why invitations shouldn't be extended to willing, intelligent, capable people of sound m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

PistolPete · May 2, 2007

From the article: <ul type="square"><hr />When should the plug be pulled on a critically ill astronaut who is using up precious oxygen and endangering the rest of the crew?<hr /></ul> You've got to love it when non-scientifically minded people try to write scientific articles. A Mars-bound mission would be planned with the knowledge that X number of people would be on the mission with the appropriate amount of consumables (ie food, oxygen) loaded onto the spaceship. An astronaut in a coma would not be consuming more oxygen than before, in fact, because of his lower metabolic rate, he would be consuming less. This goes for food as well because all nourishment the comatose astronaut would receive would be taken intravenously, leaving an excess amount of food. So, it would seem that if supplies somehow ran low, the best option would be to sneak up on an unsuspecting astronaut, knock him on the head with a club, and hook him up to a life support machine for the rest of the mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

spacelifejunkie · May 2, 2007

It's not a perfect analogy by any means but I like to think of the current expansion of space travel/entrepeneurship like the computer industry in the early seventies. When the personal computer was invented, many said,"Who needs it?" Lots of naysayers in those days. The internet equivalent of the "killer ap" in space may or may not happen as quickly but rest assured it will happen. It takes such a combination of near future technologies. Advanced/strong AI, molecular manufacturing and ultra strong and lightweight materials to name just a few. I believe it will start with a little bit of tourism mixed with a need for doing cheap micro/low gravity experiments. Bigelow Aerospace is making this a reality. Corporarations, governments and universities will line up to lease those inflatables. Round two for BA is lunar outposts with a similar business plan. Chemical rockets are just barely capable of making this business work at profit. Profit on Mars with chemical rockets, maybe. The final, radical expansion will take place with new propulsion technology. Fission most likely, fusion maybe. I'm pulling for Dr. Bussard and his IEC fusion device. If his plan for practical, radiation free, compact nuclear fusion works, look out. It will be THE invention of the 21st Century. The future might be closer than we think. We'll see. SLJ

brellis · May 2, 2007

hi SLJ When the personal computer was invented, many said,"Who needs it?" Lots of naysayers in those days.- I've been using computers for more decades than I'd like to admit, and I still ask that question <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I like the analogy, though. There will come a day when all of a sudden we've got lots of permanent bases and outposts, cyclers, and space travelers. Then, we'll be wondering what event or 'killer ap' tipped the scale in favor of expanded human presence beyond our home planet. I'm sure it will be just as mysterious looking back as it does now to try to pinpoint the moment when computers crossed over from being a tool of the elite to being common items in the ordinary household. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

oker59 · May 2, 2007

Yes, how are we going to settle space without as all the anti-space space expansion guys have been saying for decades now dragging our trash out with us? Especially, when guys like the center for responsible nanotechnology plans on not allowing anybody out in space because molecular nanotechnology is such a powerfull technology. Even when they post about brain reading technology and somebody(not me this time) says that's a direct arguement against their global united government to prevent anybody from ever thinking again, their responce is zilch. As Jacob Bronowski says, "everyone is so anxious to make everybody act right, but that we should not question." Sure, they question, but they only question what they want, they only take the facts that suit them. I don't totally dislike their 'system of three ethics', but there's no reason why their can't be more than one; in fact, billions all reaching throughout the galaxy and cosmos to secure humanities future(to secure humanities future, you need to reach at least the width of this galaxy to prevent supernova and gamma-ray bursters from taking out a whole side of a galaxy). With their Bill Joy love afair, they've denied what is special and important for our human survival - science and technology. The anti-dynamic spirituality of the evolution of science and humanity is playing vagueness games over at the center for responsible nanotechnology for the static spirituality of irrationalism as evidence from their use of language to kill thought. They've demonized and threatened to attack anybody who develops their own molecular nanotechnology as the bad people while embracing Bill Joy's irrationality mongering to save his ass like people looking around them when asked a question to know what the socially correct resonce is instead of the truth . . . hence evil prospers in this world.

deapfreeze · May 2, 2007

"...The problem with space travel today is cost...." This would not be a problem if all the countries with a space program would pool money together and then no more cost issue and we can get more done. But since we all can't get along cost will always be an issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> William ( deapfreeze ) Hooperhttp://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/ </div>

brellis · May 2, 2007

how are we going to settle space without (as all the anti-space expansion guys have been saying for decades now) dragging our trash out with us? Space provides a clean slate. In fact it necessitates it for any human explorer. I don't understand the rest of your post -- it sounds like a personal thing with Bill Joy, whoever that is. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

qso1 · May 3, 2007

deapfreeze: This would not be a problem if all the countries with a space program would pool money together and then no more cost issue and we can get more done. But since we all can't get along cost will always be an issue. Me: 16 countries got together to develop ISS under the belief that spreading the cost would lower it for individual countries. Instead, ISS became one of the costliest ways we could ever have done a space station. Cost will always be an issue until we can lower the cost of getting to low orbit allowing space to be accessed by many more entities on their own or in groups if they so choose. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

oker59 · May 3, 2007

Let me try this again; Never mind that all human children are born explorers. Observation 1), the distinguishing/defining characteristic from all other earth life is its use of science and technology for survival. To survive in a science and technological civilization requires that people do science and be scientific. As some intellectuals noted in the 1900's(i'd say from Bertrand Russel on mostly, but I think Jacob Bronowski notes mathematician Clifford in his "Science and Human Values."), you can't prove any mathematical/scientific result whether experimental or theoretical by killing someone(unless all you wanted to prove was that you can kill someone). If humanity wants to survive, then you can't have your society playing dumb. I'd like to think on science/mathematics messageboards, I don't need to point out the amount of humanity playing dumb - space exploration/colonization, stem cells, evolution, saying "God did it" to everything, and yes, and yes, intellectuals like Bill Joy who irrationality monger to save his own ass and anybody who blindly follows/quotes him(anybody on a science/mathematics messageboards should know Bill Joy by now). There's only one way to overcome cancer groups(social groups that 'group up' to play dumb) in our science/technologically dependent society; or, there's only one moral/rational way to overcome the coming dark ages; that is to leave them. But, guess what? Our main molecular nanotechnological leaders have all been absorbed and given into a real world "Invastion of the Body Snatchers." Just believe, and everybody will be happy - right? No problems if everybody just gives in to irrationality! Once again, I don't mind Crn's main creative idea of "The System of Three Ethics." But, to make one world government that prevents humanity from expanding as far as it can out in space? Once again, the only way your going to operate all that technology is if you have science and technological peopl

rocketman5000 · May 3, 2007

Take your ritalin and remove the tin foil hat. The world is not about to end. There has always been a resistance to science. It will remain that way forever and ever.

nyarlathotep · May 3, 2007

This would not be a problem if all the countries with a space program would pool money together and then no more cost issue and we can get more done. But since we all can't get along cost will always be an issue. That's a great idea. What would be even better is if we have an international organisation to centrally plan and distribute the pot, because that always works brilliantly. How about the United Nations?

bdewoody · May 3, 2007

"Watching Hawking float in zero-G, I wondered why invitations shouldn't be extended to willing, intelligent, capable people of sound minds, who for one reason or another suffer in full earth gravity, to work the rest of their lives in space, never to return to earth. " I'm one of those physically challenged people who would gladly volunteer for a permanent job either in orbit or on the moon (Mars is too far in the future). I have tried on a couple of occasions to bring this possibility up on these forums only to get totally ignored. For this reason I am extremely glad Stephen Hawkings got his ride (and very jealous) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

brellis · May 3, 2007

I'm one of those physically challenged people who would gladly volunteer for a permanent job either in orbit or on the moon (Mars is too far in the future). I have tried on a couple of occasions to bring this possibility up on these forums only to get totally ignored. For this reason I am extremely glad Stephen Hawkings got his ride (and very jealous) hi bdewoody btw, ty for starting the Hawking thread. Maybe some noise can be made in the afterglow of Hawking's flight to draw Branson's attn to the desire of deserving people like yourself to "get on the bus"! I think the time is right for one of the science writers at space.com to do an article in your support. Anyone listening? *ping*/b> Or, try sending Emily Lakdawalla an email at blog.planetary.org, she or someone else at the Planetary Society might be willing to do an article on the willingness of people challenged by gravity to contribute to longterm human space missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

bdewoody · May 3, 2007

I'm ready to serve in an advisory role to any congressman, senator or government agency regarding the employment of physically challenged persons in space. Heck I'll even provide my own transportation to Cape Canaveral since I only live 40 miles away in Orlando. The biggest plus in our favor is that most of us are already familiar with most of the challenges associated with being in space. 0-G levels the playing field. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Bob DeWoody </div>

oker59 · May 3, 2007

we are clearly married to evil . . . people clearly are to scared &%$#@!less to talk and look through the telescope; Quite honestly, that's the best responce I can hope for! I was ready for something really bad and going to rip some ass tonight!

spacester · May 4, 2007

Hi oker59, Anybody who mentions Jacob Bronowski here gets my respect. Oh, how I wish the people here on these forums would read his work! The Carl Sagan of his day, yet lost to the sands of time and of little use to the practitioners of Scientism in our day. The opening paragraphs of the work you cited, Science and Human Values copyright 1956, Harper & Row, 06-080269-3 reads as follows: On a fine November day in 1945, late in the afternoon, I was landed on an airstrip in southern Japan. From there a jeep was to take me over the mountains to join a ship which lay in Nagasaki Harbor. I knew nothing of the country or the distance before us. We drove off; dusk fell; the road rose and fell away, the pine woods came down to the road, straggled on and opened again. I did not know that we had left the open country until unexpectedly I heard the ship's loudspeakers broadcasting dance music. Then suddenly I was aware that we were already at the center of the damage in Nagasaki. The shadows behind me were the skeletons of the Mitsubishi factory buildings, pushed backwards and sideways as if by a giant hand, What I had thought to be broken rocks was a concrete power house with its roof punched in. I could now make out the outline of two crumpled gasometers; there was a cold furnace festooned with service pipes; otherwise there was nothing but cockeye telephone poles and loops of wire in a bare waste of ashes. I had blundered into this desolate landscape as instantly as one might wake among the craters of the moon. The moment of recognition when I realized I was already in Nagasaki is present to me as I write, as vividly as when I lived it. I see the warm night and the meaningless shapes; I can even remember the tune that was coming from the ship. It was a dance tune which had been popular in 1945, and it was called 'Is You Or Is You Ain't Ma Baby?' These essays, which I have called Science and Human Values, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

How Are We Going to Leave our Home Planet?

brellis

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

vogon13

Guest

brellis

Guest

frankrott

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

brellis

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

brellis

Guest

oker59

Guest

deapfreeze

Guest

brellis

Guest

qso1

Guest

oker59

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

brellis

Guest

bdewoody

Guest

oker59

Guest

spacester

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page