Spaced Out – What is the point of Homo Sapiens in space?


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/?p=1016

When I was young I was much enthused by spaceflight. Anything seemed possible after the Moon landings. The immense technological and psychological challenges which the incredibly hostile environment of space and all the other planets and moons of the Solar System present to humans seemed merely waiting to be swept aside by human ingenuity. Now I am old I can see that space travel and settlement is of very restricted utility or possibility unless startling scientific and technological discoveries are made, and if it ever became possible to move beyond our own system to other Suns such expeditions would contain great risks for humanity.

The nearest star to Earth Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. Even if one could travel at 90% of the speed of light with little time needed to accelerate or decelerate, from the point of view of those on Earth it would take around five years to travel to the nearest star (the perception of time passing would be less for those on the ship because of Special Relativity). In practice the trip would almost certainly take much longer because it would take considerable time to accelerate and decelerate to and from such speeds, not least because of the problems arising from the human body not being able to withstand prolonged rapid acceleration because of the G-forces involved (http://quest.nasa.gov/saturn/qa/new/Effects_of_speed_and_acceleration_on_the_body.txt).

Most stars are much further flung Proxima Centauri . Assuming neither a means of exceeding the speed of light is discovered nor a way of circumventing distance by some method such as jumping through wormholes via dark holes, all we can realistically do with manned flight is explore our own solar system.

In terms of human settlement or exploitation, exploring the solar system is not an attractive prospect because the only objects which have any chance of allowing human occupation of any kind are Mars or Pluto or some of the bigger moons such as Ganymede and Titan. All the other planets would destroy human beings through excessive (for the human form) gravity, atmospheric pressure or heat . Even those bodies humans could land on would present a most hostile environment, for not one has an atmosphere which humans could breath . Moreover, all, even Mars, would have a gravity which is only a fraction of that of Earth and this would have serious physiological effects on humans. The same problem with knobs on applies to any other planetary system. Man is made for Earth. Anything else will be foreign to his biology. Earth sustains life because it has an intrinsic magnetosphere which both protects the planet from highly charged particles carried by the solar wind which are harmful to life and the retention of the atmosphere which can be eroded by the solar wind. Nowhere else in the Solar System are these conditions found and we would be unlikely to come across them even if the vast distances between the stars and Earth could be travelled. More of that later.

I can hear devotees of sci-fi shouting “what about terraforming”, the idea that planets or moons could be engineered to become places habitable to homo sapiens. Apart from the obvious barrier of no one having the slightest idea of how this might be done, there are also inconvenient facts which restrict our choices. The gas giants – Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus – are ruled out because they are , er, largely composed of gas.

The planets beyond Mars are also vast distances away from not only Earth but also the Sun. One astronomical unit (AU) is 92,955,807 miles ( 149,597,870 km), which is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. Jupiter is 5.2 AU from the Sun; Saturn 9.54 AU; Unranus 19.22 AU; Neptune 30.06 AU and Pluto 39.5 AU( http://nineplanets.org/).

Hence, the nearest planet to Earth beyond Mars, Neptune, is a distance of 4.2 AU from Earth and Pluto is 38.5 AU away or to put in another way, 76 times the distance of Mars from the Earth which is around half an AU off. Apart from presenting immense challenges to build a spacecraft capable of sustaining humans for long periods – for many years at a time at current rocket speeds – the distance of the outer planets from the Sun means that the useable energy which could be captured from the Sun would be tiny compared with that which reaches a planet at Earth’s distance from the Sun. Distance from the Sun would also make settlement on the larger moons such a Titan (Saturn) and Ganymede (Jupiter) very problematic even assuming it is possible to land men on them.

That leaves Mercury, Venus and Mars. Mercury would simply fry or freeze us, its surface temperature varying from 90-700 degrees Kelvin. It does rotate but very slowly – once every 59 Earth days and possesses a very thin atmosphere consisting of atoms blasted off its surface by the solar wind. This atmosphere constantly needs replenishing because the heat sends the atoms into space. Venus is sometimes called Earth’s “sister planet”, because of all the Solar System ‘s planets it most resembles Earth in size, gravity, bulk composition and distance from the Sun. Sadly, it has next to no magnetic field to protect it from cosmic radiation, an atmospheric pressure that is 93 times that of earth, an atmosphere largely composed of carbon dioxide, clouds formed of sulphuric acid several miles thick with winds of several hundred miles an hour and a surface temperature of 400-700 degrees Kelvin. If terraforming of Venus were to happen, it would be the sort of job guaranteed to keep a builder giving an estimate sucking his cheeks in and whistling for years. So we are left with Mars. Mars also lacks a decent magnetic field and is considerably smaller than the Earth so gravity would become a problem for long term habitation. We could however actually land on Mars as it is presently constituted.

Leaving behind the dream of terraforming, what are we left with? Assuming that the problems of shielding people from cosmic radiation and the physiological difficulties arising for an environment radically different from the Earth could be overcome, Mars and various moons such as our own might be lived on in physically enclosed habitations with their own breathable atmosphere . However, there would be the further problem of supplying the means of life, a difficulty which would be massively amplified if Mars or a moon had no water. If there is water in large quantities, it is possible to envisage settlements of a reasonable size living in closed settlements and growing their own food. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that an
attempt to replicate such an environment on Earth called Biosphere2, was less than a raging success from both a technical and psychological standpoint, with the oxygen content of the atmosphere falling rapidly, food production inadequate and the inhabitants splitting into two groups hostile to one another. (http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/biosphere/biosph.htm)

Our present scope for colonising other parts of the solar system being distinctly limited , the big question is this, why we should be doing anything in space beyond placing manned satellites around the Earth and unmanned probes further afield? The idea of mining the solar system for minerals is dubious in the extreme, because of the still fantastic cost of putting and maintaining anything into and in space. It is difficult to see how this will change. How about space tourism? Perhaps we shall see a market grow for Richard Branson-style short trips to the edge of space, although even that is it is difficult to see that as anything other than a very limited market for reasons of cost. Longer term trips into space, whether orbital or eventually to destinations such as the moon or even Mars are distinctly unlikely because of the cost and physical and psychological training and qualities required to undertake long space flights.

A research laboratory on the Moon or Mars perhaps? Perhaps, but the cost would be frightening. More to the point, what would be the purpose of such a thing? The fate of the Moon programme is instructive. Men walked on the Moon and where then left psychologically dangling in the air. They had achieved their goal and had nowhere else to go. If a manned settlement is created on the Moon or Mars the danger would be that the creation of the settlement would be an end in itself and once achieved become a white elephant. Apart from studying the geology of the Moon or Mars, it is difficult to think of any research which could be done on the Moon or Mars which could not be done on Earth or from a station in space.

But even assuming that it was thought worthwhile and affordable to explore the Solar system or even go further afield there would be many horrendous practical problems to be overcome. Take the psychological aspect. I suspect that humans would find leaving Earth an immense distance behind would be tremendously difficult. Parallels are often drawn with those who set out on voyages to parts unknown such as those from Europe to the New World, but there are considerable differences. To begin with the exploring sailors were not constrained by an environment inherently fatal to them; those in a spaceship are. Astronauts have to carry their air around with them; sailors do not. Then there is the question of time. A voyage across the Atlantic would take weeks: with current technology a flight to Mars would last six months or more, one to Pluto nine or ten years.

Sailors in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were restricted to small vessels but these would be larger than the living quarters of modern spacecraft and the crew would not have the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped within the ship, a feeling which would almost be a danger for astronauts on long missions. Those in a spaceship would be very aware that they had to carry all their fuel and provisions them; sixteenth century sailors had no need of fuel and were able to gather water and food even while they sailed and always had the hope of landfall. A spaceship is reliant on very complex equipment which could not be replaced and probably not repaired during a flight; a wooden ailing ship had a considerable capacity to absorb damage and remain operational, not least because a ship of any size would have a hip’s carpenter and wood to make repairs could be acquired if landfall was made in a wooded area. The fears of space travellers and exploring sailors would be different. Those in space would go with the knowledge of the perils they were facing; the fear of fifteenth and sixteenth century sailors would arise from not knowing what they would face. I suspect the former state i harder to face because it is more real. The loneliness and sense of vulnerability of
the space traveller and settler – even within the solar system – might be impossible to bear.

Ten there are the physical difficulties. Even assuming we could come near to approaching the speed of light it is difficult to see how a spacecraft could travel safely. For example, how would they miss objects large enough to destroy the ship at such speeds – and the objects would not need to be very large. As for strategies such as going through wormholes, how would spaceships avoid materialising in the centre of a star or planet?

Many of the problems might in time be overcome. Completely effective radiation shields might be made; spaceships of great size constructed, most probably in space itself; the physical deterioration of humans caused by weightless halted; the speed of spacecraft increased to the point where a trip to Mars or even the outer planets was reduced to a few weeks to mention just a few. But the question would still remain, to what end would the travel be undertaken? For the trivial reason of tourism? Hardly a persuasive reason. For the exploitation of of the physical resources of other planets, moons and asteroids? Intelligent machines could do that job much better. To put research stations on the Moon or Mars? Again intelligent machines could do the work more safely and cheaply. Take the matter further. Suppose a means to travel to the stars was found, either by new scientific and technological discoveries or by the Noah’s Ark solution beloved of Sci-Fi writers where a giant spaceship spends generations travelling at a cosmically modest speed to a nearby star. Would that be a useful or sensible course to follow?

To begin with the chances of finding planets suitable for human habitation are most probably small. There is only body in the Solar System which supports life as far as we know. Certainly none supports advanced life. Life of any type may be a rarity throughout the Universe. Even if there are millions of planets in our galaxy which support life of some type it would still be a very long shot for humans in spaceships to encounter them because there are many tens of billions of suns in the Milky Way. Even if “Goldilocks” planets within what is considered the “habitable zone” by astronomers – the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface – the chances of finding planets with life are small as the Solar System shows – Mars and Venus are within the habitable zone of the Sun.

It is also a mistake to imagine that an Earth-like planet which contained water would evolve physically as Earth has evolved. For example, the existence of a large moon causes much more tidal action than would otherwise be the case and this has effects on the Earth’s crust which may include the tectonic action of her crust. This is unique amongst the planets of the Solar System. Such singularities may have laid the grounds for life to begin on Earth (http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507).

If a planet with life was found the chances of it being suitable for human beings to live on would be remote. There would the problems of gravity and temperature which was too high or too low. The atmosphere would be unlikely to be breathable by humans. There would be diseases against which humans would have no defence. Even if humans did not find hostile intelligent aliens, they would have to contend with aggressive non-intelligent aliens and probably more devastating If intelligent aliens were met, it is very improbable that friendly civilisations would be encountered because if there is intelligent life on other worlds, it will presumably have evolved . That will mean in all probability that such creatures would be hostile to humans just as we would be hostile to any alien who entered our solar system. The unknown is a great dissolver of liberal fantasies about humans being one big happy family. How much more powerful would the fear of those who were utterly unlike ourselves?

The most likely way for humans to explore and even exploit the Solar System or other celestial systems is through intelligent machines. They would not be subject to the considerable physical limitations of humans and most probably not to the psychological problems humans would display in in space and on other worlds. I say probably because as artificial intelligence improves – and it is increasing by leaps and bounds at present – it is a fair bet that a form of consciousness will come along with the increased intellectual capacity and that may lead the machines to suffer what would be in effect emotional/psychological problems.

Sadly, the most likely purpose space will be put to is war, as the major powers set up missiles systems and other weaponry in space.

About these ads

13 responses to “Spaced Out – What is the point of Homo Sapiens in space?

  1. A good article. Like you and many others of my generation (I was born in 66) I grew up enthused by space, but as time has gone on I too have realised that there is really no point to manned space travel, not at this time anyway, for the reasons you give above.

    One further point that sunk in to me a few years ago was this one justification of “space tourism”. It seems to me that that only seems appealing right now because hardly anyone can go into space, it is thus desirable to do so because it is exotic. But if we develop means for easy space tourism, that premium will rapidly disappear, and it is hard to see why the Moon or Mars would be appealing tourist destinations beyond the “I’ve been there” angle. You could say the same now for Antarctica, but very few people want to go there for a holiday, because it is such a hostile environment.

    I was particularly struck by the ground level photographs of Mars by the Rovers. Things that look exotic from space are revealed as rather boring; majestic craters just look like a hole in the ground. I was amazed by how mundane Mars looks. But then, how else would it look? It’s just desert, and we have those on Earth. And ours at least have air; yet few people would holiday there, trapped in a hotel looking out at this bleak landscape. The same applies to the moon; what we thought were dramatic crags are incredibly dull rounded hills that look like big piles of cement.

    Nobody knows what the future holds. But I think that for now, there is no merit to manned space exploration. There is just no reason to go there at all.

  2. Ian, we have to get off this planet or die. We have about 100 – 200 million years (trust me on this one, for I can and will explain later if you like) before it gets too hot (global warming Nazis eat your hearts out for what is coming) for multicellular life to be able to exist here.

    We cannot sit here, pretending like the “locavores” and the GreeNazis like to pretend that they pretend to pretend, that it’s possible to pretend that “man” can “do degrowth” and go back to eating only what he finds in walking or bicycling distance from his “house”. This is hunter-gathering-nonsense, and is pre-capitalist-barbabrism.

    Look at the situation that we find ourselves, which is to say: that Nazi socialism is fairly well entrenched especially in the Anglosphere (which is the enemy-class’s main target as you know). And we can’t and must not simply shoot and bury all socialists (which I’m afraid includes nearly all recent graduates of British “unis” and “teacher training colleges”) AND destroy (ALL) their libraries (which is even more important and also equally unachievable at this time).

    In this scenario in which we find ourselves, there is the probability that it may take not years (sadly) or tens or even dozens of years, to get permanent manned colonies of Homo sapiens off this planet onto other objects orbiting this local star or another one. It may take hundreds or even thousands of years.

    If the only agencies that want to do expensive space stuff are governments, for the time being, then let’s use their muscle, and money (it’s our money after all.) The knowledge they gain will be preserved: for even if the internet is “shut down” as the music-Nazis who “produce tracks” wanted (if “piracy” could not be “combatted” – google the fascist bastards), then lots of info will be still available to those who want it and can use it to do little rockets etc. It may take only hundreds of years for men to Get Off, but get off they will and might.

    All this is a signal tragedy to me, born in 1952 and thinking I’d see the first permanent colonies on the Moon and on Mars at the very least – for that is what we all thought as boys in the Bright Morning Of Optimism, after WW2 had just finished a day or so before – but if it takes 500 years, then that is still a bonus. I am sorry and sad not to Be On The First Ship To Mars, for being nearly 60, and having had my children and being also a scientist, I would have been proud to go.

    I would have liked to go. Even if I had died, and not returned, if the rocket had failed, say, whe nwe tried to leave the Martian surface, then it would not matter. Space exploration ought to be the preserve of Old Men whose lives have been otherwise fulfilled. If we were to return, it would be a bonus, but we would not ask it. I would have left a letter for my wife and sons, to be read if our failed rocket was later found.

    There is no problem with space.

  3. The Moon would be a good place for nasty industrial stuff. The Asteroid Belt is filled with easy-to-reach minerals. Most of this, though, requires robots.

    The big argument against is that, the moment it becomes technically possible to build colonies in space or on the Moon, or wherever, there will be a demand for utopian communes.

  4. Ian, old man, believe me please: I would really, really have liked to go. I wanted to go to these strange places, and pick up rocks, and stare at the stragne Sun, rather further away and colder than here, oddly. I don’t know why: perhaps it’s because they were there? You know, Mars and stuff.

  5. Sorry people: I get carried away sometimes.

  6. Possibily the worst article ever on LA blog. Luddite garbage.

    Back in the 80′s Gerard kK O’Neil worked out the dynamics of space colonies.
    Imagine a giant tin can rotating around its long axis to provide centrifugal force in lieu of gravity. Sunlight floods the internal space by use of mirrors. An earth-normal controlled atmosphere and biosphere enables inhabitants to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. A cylinder of diameter less than 3000 ft would have the other side visible hanging above (such a space habitat was the fictional setting of the SF series Babylon 5). A diameter larger than 3000 ft would have a blue sky due to the light-scattering effects of dust and oxygen molecules.
    The first such enviroments would be small. With experience they can be built on a much larger scale. There is enough matter/energy in the solar system to build millions and millions of such enviroments.
    Read “Colonies in Space” by Gerard K O’Neil and look up the excellent blog “A Place to Stand” which will explain this and more besides.

  7. Mr Ecks, I do hope you are right. But I also think there is much chance of Total Recall style colonies on Mars – especially once those pyramids get identified….

  8. Total Recall contains several of my favourite movie fight scenes–the one where Arnold (he should have kept out of politics) is dragged around a corner by four large security thugs, all the while shouting “Whard the furrk deed I do wrong?”. How many millions of human beings have suffered that fate for real?. Fortunatly, being in a movie, Arnold stops looking for excuses and rapidly disposes ( in fine style) of those attempting to belabour him.. Some good hand to hand combat techniques there.Excellent film
    “See you at the party, Richter!”.

  9. Mr Ecks ….. I’m afraid that real life is rather less accommodating than Science Fiction.

  10. Meaning what?

    If you are talking about the movie I agree.

    Your article however is also “science fiction” of a short-sighted, gloomy style. My reply to it is (at this point in time) science fiction too, except in that the mathematics and science required to do it have been worked out. We know how to, step by step,bring about the realities I speak of. Things will need more work as we go along but there is NO fundamental, real obstacle to a solar system teeming with comfortable, rich, humanity.

    No thought is needed for your dismissal of the vast-beyond-comprehension potential that is in front of us. It amounts to : “It isn’t going to be easy so lets not bother”
    Colin Wilson often quotes a line from (I think) Auden–”Put the car away/ When life fails/Whats the use of going to Wales” Or Mars for that matter.

  11. Science Fiction is the mythology of the 21st Century

    As Oscar Wilde said: “We may all be in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars.”

    Tony

  12. Why are we talking about mars? When this is a computer class. Not science class.

  13. It’s actually a class where we talk about whatever we please.