The U. S. Must be first with the space elevator in order to maintain superiority in space Kent 07
Download 0.57 Mb.
|
Colonization AdvantageSpace elevators decrease launch costs, opens up new exploration opportunities Edwards ‘05(president and founder of Carbon Designs Inc. Bradley C. Edwards “A Hoist to the Heavens” Future Tech Special: Space 8/2005 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1491225) It all boils down to dollars and cents, of course. It now costs about US $20 000 per kilogram to put objects into orbit. Contrast that rate with the results of a study I recently performed for NASA, which concluded that a single space elevator could reduce the cost of orbiting payloads to a remarkably low $200 a kilogram and that multiple elevators could ultimately push costs down below $10 a kilogram. With space elevators we could eventually make putting people and cargo into space as cheap, kilogram for kilogram, as airlifting them across the Pacific. The implications of such a dramatic reduction in the cost of getting to Earth orbit are startling. It’s a good bet that new industries would blossom as the resources of the solar system became accessible as never before. Take solar power: the idea of building giant collectors in orbit to soak up some of the sun’s vast power and beam it back to Earth via microwaves has been around for decades. But the huge size of the collectors has made the idea economically unfeasible with launch technologies based on chemical rockets. With a space elevator’s much cheaper launch costs, however, the economics of space-based solar power start looking good. A host of other long-standing space dreams would also become affordable, from asteroid mining to tourism. Some of these would depend on other space-transportation technologies for hauling people and cargo past the elevator’s last stop in high-Earth orbit. But physics dictates that the bulk of the cost is dominated by the price of getting into orbit in the first place. For example, 95 percent of the mass of each mighty Saturn V moon rocket was used up just getting into low-Earth orbit. As science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein reportedly said: “Once you get to Earth orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system.” With the huge cost penalty of traveling between Earth and orbit drastically reduced, it would actually be possible to quarry mineral-rich asteroids and return the materials to Earth for less than what it now costs, in some cases, to rip metal ores out of Earth’s crust and then refine them. Tourism, too, could finally arrive on the high frontier: a zero-gravity vacation in geostationary orbit, with the globe spread out in a ceaselessly changing panoply below, could finally become something that an average person could experience. And for the more adventurous, the moon and Mars could become the next frontier That’s key to solve extinction Ohlson’ ’08 (Kritsin Ohlson June 2008, “Orbital Express: here comes the space elevator” The Science of Everything: The Cosmos Issue 21 www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/2435/orbital-express?) "THE PATH TO SOLVING many of the Earth's problems is through space," enthuses David Livingston, host and producer of The Space Show, a U.S. radio program focussed on space commerce and tourism, which is heard in 50 countries. "Space is not only of great commercial value, but that's where mankind has always performed [at] its best." Space elevator advocates claim that there are likely to be many more benefits which we can't even imagine until we begin serious exploration of space. As the late Arthur C. Clarke once said, "The analogy I often use is this: if you had intelligent fish arguing about why they should go out on dry land, some bright young fish might have thought of many things, but they would never have thought of fire, and I think that in space we will find things as useful as fire." The space elevator would also make large-scale colonisation of space possible, something that can never be achieved by rockets or shuttles. Imagine the possibilities for developers dreaming of space resorts! And one television network has already called Edwards to ask about the feasibility of doing a Survivor-type show on Mars. Many scientists, including renowned British physicist Stephen Hawking, worry that Earth and much of what lives on it could be wiped out by a disaster such as a rogue virus or severe global warming. They believe the future of the human race depends on moving into space. "The Earth has been hit by a huge asteroid before," says Ted Semon, a retired software engineer who lives near Chicago, USA, and moderates the official Space Elevator Games blog. "If something big comes, there's nothing we can do about it. As the U.S. science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein said, "The Earth is too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.'" Fuel supplies are exhausted and the budget fights have already happened-only the plan can enable space exploration Greenfielboyce ‘11(Nell Greenfieldboyce NPR science correspondent “The plutonium problem: Who pays for space fuel” NPR 11/8/2011 http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/141931325/the-plutonium-problem-who-pays-for-space-fuel) When NASA's next Mars rover blasts off later this month, the car-sized robot will carry with it nearly eight pounds of a special kind of plutonium fuel that's in short supply. NASA has relied on that fuel, called plutonium-238, to power robotic missions for five decades. But with supplies running low, scientists who want the government to make more are finding that it sometimes seems easier to chart a course across the solar system than to navigate the budget process inside Washington, D.C. Plutonium-238 gives off heat that can be converted to electricity in the cold, dark depths of space. It's not the same plutonium used for bombs. But during the Cold War, the United States did produce this highly toxic stuff in facilities that supported the nuclear weapons program — although those facilities stopped making it in the late 1980s. "Because the United States has access to plutonium-238, we are the only country that has ever sent a science mission beyond Mars," says Len Dudzinski, the program executive for radioisotope power systems at NASA headquarters. Dudzinski says NASA has used these plutonium-powered systems for famous missions like the Voyager probes. "In fact, we've got Voyager now with over 30 years of successful operation," he says. "It is the farthest man-made object from Earth that NASA has ever sent out." Besides Voyager, plutonium fuels the Cassini probe, which is orbiting Saturn, as well as the New Horizons mission, which is headed to Pluto. The pounds of plutonium loaded onto the soon-to-be-launched Mars Science Laboratory represent a significant fraction of a dwindling inventory. "I can't tell you exactly what that fraction is," says Dudzinski. "The Department of Energy knows the exact amount of plutonium that we have, and they don't ordinarily share that number publicly." But the shortage is public knowledge and has been for years. For a while, Russia sold us some of the material, but that source has dried up, too. In 2009, a report from the National Research Council warned that the day of reckoning had arrived and that quick action was needed. Enlarge NASA NASA's Voyager spacecraft, seen in this artist's rendering, runs on plutonium-238. It's the farthest man-made object from Earth NASA has ever sent out. The Debate Over Cost-Sharing Space exploration advocates point out that it will take years to get the plutonium production process started, so delays now could have consequences later. Jim Adams, deputy director of planetary science at NASA, says that with budget pressure slowing the pace of exploration, there's enough of the fuel for NASA missions currently planned through the end of this decade, to around 2022. "Beyond that, we'll need more plutonium," he says. If NASA doesn't get it, he says, "then we won't go beyond Mars anymore. We won't be exploring the solar system beyond Mars and the asteroid belt." "It takes at least five years to get enough for one spacecraft," says Bethany Johns, a public policy expert with the American Astronomical Society who has been lobbying Congress on this issue. "So there's a long time between turning on the on switch at the facility and then actually producing enough that can be handled by humans to put into a spacecraft." NASA has made some progress in helping the Department of Energy develop plans to restart production, says Adams. "We have worked with the Department of Energy to supply up to $5 million this fiscal year," he says. But the agencies have run into trouble convincing Congress to accept their plan for how to deal with the costs. The price to restart production is expected to be $75 million to $90 million over five years. And NASA and the Department of Energy want to split the bill between them. That's how they've done this sort of thing in the past, because even though NASA will use the plutonium, only the Department of Energy can make and handle this nuclear material. Related NPR Stories Post-Shuttle, NASA To Keep Students Looking Up NASA is hoping to keep students engaged with its space programs, even after the final shuttle lands. Three New NASA Missions Will Tour The Solar System First up: the Juno spacecraft, which blasted off Friday for Jupiter. Next up: Mars and the moon. But some key decision-makers don't like that cost-sharing idea. Lawmakers in Congress have refused to give the Department of Energy the requested funds for this project for three years in a row. Earlier this year, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., pleaded with his colleagues to reconsider during an appropriations committee meeting. "Does anyone in this room think that we don't need the plutonium-238? Does anyone not want to continue to do deep space missions?" Schiff asked. "Well, the Russians won't give it to us, and we don't have enough of it." But others said if NASA wants the stuff, NASA should pick up the whole tab. They said putting half of it under Energy's budget would mean taking money away from other kinds of nuclear research. Schiff argued that $733 million was being allocated to nuclear energy research and that dedicating $10 million for the plutonium project shouldn't be a big deal. "This has got to get done," Schiff urged. "All we're quibbling about here is whether it's paid for by NASA completely or it's paid for by DOE completely, and both agencies have said what makes sense is to split it down the middle." But the majority of his colleagues were unconvinced. Given the opposition in Congress, officials say they need to rethink things and figure out how much NASA can legally pay for under the Atomic Energy Act. As things stand, experts don't expect production of new plutonium to be fully up and running before 2020. "Our perspective is, we don't really care where the money comes from, as long as we get the money," says Johns, "because we need to start immediately." Contention __ is Colonization Try or Die for Space---Extinction is Inevitable: A. Super volcanoes Britt 5 (Robert Roy Britt, Livescience Senior Writer, “Super volcanoes will chill the world someday”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7129908/, 3/8/2005)SV The eruption of a super volcano "sooner or later" will chill the planet and threaten human civilization, British scientists warned Tuesday. And now the bad news: There's not much anyone can do about it. Several volcanoes around the world are capable of gigantic eruptions unlike anything witnessed in recorded history, based on geologic evidence of past events, the scientists said. Such eruptions would dwarf those of Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo and anything else going back dozens of millennia. "Super eruptions are up to hundreds of times larger than these," said Stephen Self of Britain's Open University. "An area the size of North America can be devastated, and pronounced deterioration of global climate would be expected for a few years following the eruption," Self said. "They could result in the devastation of world agriculture, severe disruption of food supplies, and mass starvation. These effects could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilization." Self and his colleagues at the Geological Society of London presented their report to the British government's Natural Hazard Working Group. "Although very rare, these events are inevitable, and at some point in the future humans will be faced with dealing with and surviving a super eruption," Stephen Sparks of the University of Bristol told LiveScience in advance of Tuesday's announcement. Supporting evidence The warning is not new. Geologists in the United States detailed a similar scenario in 2001, when they found evidence suggesting volcanic activity in Yellowstone National Park will eventually lead to a colossal eruption. Half the United States will be covered in ash up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep, according to a study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Explosions of this magnitude "happen about every 600,000 years at Yellowstone," says Chuck Wicks of the U.S. Geological Survey, who has studied the possibilities in separate work. "And it's been about 620,000 years since the last super explosive eruption there." Past volcanic catastrophes at Yellowstone and elsewhere remain evident as giant collapsed basins called calderas. A super eruption is a scaled up version of a typical volcanic outburst, Sparks explained. Each is caused by a rising and growing chamber of hot molten rock known as magma. "In super eruptions the magma chamber is huge," Sparks said. The eruption is rapid, occurring in a matter of days. "When the magma erupts the overlying rocks collapse into the chamber, which has reduced its pressure due to the eruption. The collapse forms the huge crater." The eruption pumps dust and chemicals into the atmosphere for years, screening the Sun and cooling the planet. Earth is plunged into a perpetual winter, some models predict, causing many plant and animal species to disappear forever. "The whole of a continent might be covered by ash, which might take many years — possibly decades — to erode away and for vegetation to recover," Sparks said. Yellowstone may be winding down geologically, experts say. But they believe it harbors at least one final punch. Globally, there are still plenty of possibilities for super volcano eruptions, even as Earth quiets down over the long haul of its 4.5-billion-year existence. "The earth is of course losing energy, but at a very slow rate, and the effects are only really noticeable over billions rather than millions of years," Sparks said. Human impact The odds of a globally destructive volcano explosion in any given century are extremely low, and no scientist can say when the next one will occur. But the chances are five to 10 times greater than a globally destructive asteroid impact, according to the new British report. The next super eruption, whenever it occurs, might not be the first one humans have dealt with. About 74,000 years ago, in what is now Sumatra, a volcano called Toba blew with a force estimated at 10,000 times that of Mount St. Helens. Ash darkened the sky all around the planet. Temperatures plummeted by up to 21 degrees at higher latitudes, according to research by Michael Rampino, a biologist and geologist at New York University. Rampino has estimated three-quarters of the plant species in the Northern Hemisphere perished. Stanley Ambrose, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, suggested in 1998 that Rampino's work might explain a curious bottleneck in human evolution: The blueprints of life for all humans — DNA — are remarkably similar, given that our species branched off from the rest of the primate family tree a few million years ago. Ambrose has said early humans were perhaps pushed to the edge of extinction after the Toba eruption — around the same time folks got serious about art and tool making. Perhaps only a few thousand survived. Humans today would all be descended from these few, and in terms of the genetic code, not a whole lot would change in 74,000 years. Sitting ducks Based on the latest evidence, eruptions the size of the giant Yellowstone and Toba events occur at least every 100,000 years, Sparks said, "and it could be as high as every 50,000 years. There are smaller but nevertheless huge eruptions which would have continental to global consequences every 5,000 years or so." Unlike other threats to humanity — asteroids, nuclear attacks and global warming, to name a few — there's little to be done about a super volcano. "While it may in future be possible to deflect asteroids or somehow avoid their impact, even science fiction cannot produce a credible mechanism for averting a super eruption," the new report states. "No strategies can be envisaged for reducing the power of major volcanic eruptions." The Geological Society of London has issued similar warnings going back to 2000. The scientists this week called for more funding to investigate further the history of super eruptions and their likely effects on the planet and on modern society. "Sooner or later a super eruption will happen on Earth, and this issue also demands serious attention," the report concludes. B. Overpopulation Mcdougall et al 7 (Rosamund Mcdougall, Co-Chair of the Optimum Population Trust and Joint Policy Director, “Too many people: Earth’s population problem”, Optimum Population Trust, http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html, 6/7/2007)SV The Earth faces a future of rising populations and growing strains on the planet. Whatever else the future holds, significant population increase is inevitable and the current UN forecast of 9.2 billion by 2050 – itself a 40 per cent increase on the 6.7 billion in 2007 – may turn out to be an underestimate. The environmental damage resulting from population increase is already widespread and serious, ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food and water. By 2050, humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering. C. Asteroid Strikes Lt. Col. Kunich - Staff Judge Advocate, 50th Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base – 1997 (John C., “Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival,” The Air Force Law Review, Volume 41 [41 A.F.L. rev. 119). [Online] LexisNexis) jfs It is true that destructive impacts of gigantic asteroids and comets are extremely rare and infrequent when compared with most other dangers humans face, with the [*126] intervals between even the smallest of such events amounting to many human generations... No one alive today, therefore, has ever witnessed such an event, and indeed there are no credible historical records of human casualties from impacts in the past millennium. Consequently, it is easy to dismiss the hazard as negligible or to ridicule those who suggest that it be treated seriously. n32 On the other hand, as has been explained, when such impacts do occur, they are capable of producing destruction and casualties on a scale that far exceeds any other natural disasters; the results of impact by an object the size of a small mountain exceed the imagined holocaust of a full-scale nuclear war... Even the worst storms or floods or earthquakes inflict only local damage, while a large enough impact could have global consequences and place all of society at risk... Impacts are, at once, the least likely but the most dreadful of known natural catastrophes. n33 What is the most prudent course of action when one is confronted with an extremely rare yet enormously destructive risk? Some may be tempted to do nothing, in essence gambling on the odds. But because the consequences of guessing wrong may be so severe as to mean the end of virtually all life on planet Earth, the wiser course of action would be to take reasonable steps to confront the problem. Ultimately, rare though these space strikes are, there is no doubt that they will happen again, sooner or later. To do nothing is to abdicate our duty to defend the United States, and indeed the entire world, and place our very survival in the uncertain hands of the false god of probabilities. Thus, the mission of planetary defense might be considered by the United States at some point in time, perhaps with a role played by the military, including the United States Air Force. Space colonization solves extinction from asteroids impacts and miscalculation- deflection, early warning and defensive action W. H. Siegfried" 2003 The Boeing Company, Integrated Defense Systems “Space Colonization—Benefits for the World” http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf Over the last decade a large mass of evidence has been accumulated indicating that near-Earth-object (NEO) impact events constitute a real hazard to Earth. Congress held hearings on the phenomenon in 1998, and NASA created a small NEO program. Since 1988, a total (as of 7 August 2002) of some many thousand near-Earth objects (of which about 1,000 are larger that 1 km in diameter) have been catalogued that are potentially hazardous to Earth. New discoveries are accelerating. In just the last few months, a 2-mile-wide crater was discovered in Iraq dating from around 2000 to 3000 B.C. This impact was potentially responsible for the decline of several early civilizations. A similar crater was recently discovered in the North Sea. Major events have occurred twice in the last hundred years in remote areas where an object exploded near the Earth’s surface bur did not impact (such as in Russia). If either of these events had occurred over a populated area the death toll would have been enormous. Our armed forces are concerned that an asteroid strike could be interpreted as a nuclear attack, thus triggering retaliation. What higher goals could Space Colonization have than in helping to prevent the destruction of human life and to ensure the future of civilization? The odds of an object 1 km in diameter impacting Earth in this century range between 1 in 1,500 and 1 in 5,000 depending on the assumptions made. A 1-km-diameter meteoroid impact would create a crater 5 miles wide. The death toll would depend on the impact point. A hit at Ground Zero in New York would kill millions of people and Manhattan Island (and much of the surrounding area) would disappear. The resulting disruption to the Earth’s environment would be immeasurable by today’s standards. A concerted Space Colonization impetus could TABLE 2. Critical CELSS Development Areas. Plant growth in controlled environment ■ Select crop plants for nutritional value and productivity ■ Optimize and control plant growth response ■ Develop support systems to allow growth in closed chambers Waste processing and nutrient recovery ■ Develop energy-efficient waste processor to convert plant and human waste into plant nutrients and water ■ Develop biomass processor to convert some portion of inedible plant materials into dietary supplements Atmosphere revitalization ■ Develop technology for makeup nitrogen generation ■ Remove CO2 reduction by-products ■ Improve trace contaminant control and monitor Plant growth in reduced or microgravity ■ Study crop plant productivity with microgravity as worst case ■ Determine ability of support systems to function in microgravity ■ Perform multiple-generation studies in space radiation flow-g environment Plant growth in controlled environment ■ Develop laboratory system to investigate microbial interactions and toxicology ■ Determine control strategies to provide stable life support system Water management ■ Eliminate urine pretest chemicals ■ Regenerate or eliminate post-treatment filter and sorbent beds ■ Improve quality monitoring 003342.1 provide platforms for early warning and could, potentially, aid in deflection of threatening objects. NEO detection and deflection is a goal that furthers international cooperation in space and Space Colonization. Many nations can contribute and the multiple dimensions of the challenge would allow participation in many ways—from telescopes for conducting surveys, to studies of lunar and other planet impacts, to journeys to the comets. The Moon is a natural laboratory for the study of impact events. A lunar colony would facilitate such study and could provide a base for defensive action. Lunar and Mars cyclers could be a part of Space Colonization that would provide survey sites and become bases for mining the NEOs as a resource base for space construction. The infrastructure of Space Colonization would serve a similar purpose to the solar system as did that of the United States Interstate Highway system or the flood control and land reclamation in the American West did for the United States development. In short, it would allow civilization to expand into the high frontier. Extinction from asteroids inevitable without space colonization- consensus Oberg 99 (James, Space Writer and former Space Flight Engineer. Space Power Theory, http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf) We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country. A2: No Planets For Colonization Space power reactors, terraforming, and closed loop environments make space colonization possible Young ’03 [John W. Young, former astronaut and associate technical director of NASA Johnson Space Center, "The BIG Picture: Ways to Mitigate or Prevent Very Bad Planet Earth Events," http:llspace.balettie.comNoung.htrnl] What Are We Doing? We know that to live and work on the Moon or Mars, we will require the following: Reliable, Uninterruptable Power: We can readily achieve this with the Space Power Reactor which for 5 Curries of launch radiation will supply 750 kWh reliably on the Moon or Mars. Why does not the United States require that our electric power to be reliable and uninterruptible as a matter of national security and national survival? Lives are lost every year when electric power fails. On a high priority, Space Power Reactor development must be supported and accelerated with upgraded power capabilities. Terraforming: To survive on the Moon and Mars we must grow our own food in totally closed-loop systems. We continue to demonstrate how to do this. A National Geographic article recently reported that 80 bushels of wheat an acre is a great crop. Under IR light emitting diodes to avoid heat, our wheat produces 600 bushels an acre in 75 days. And, Dr. Bugbee has proposed a new higher production wheat with shorter growing times. Our engineering development demonstrations of our Terraforming ability sshould be supported and accelerated on a high priority basis. Closed Loop Environments: Humans on other places in the solar system will recycle everything they eat, drink and breathe. The recent 90-day tests at JSC and the future Bioplex are demonstrating these capabilities. These closed-loop systems will be controlled by sophisticated computer software with provisions for manual maintenance and repair. The Bioplex facility should be accelerated on a high priority basis. Humans can colonize space – planetary warming would release gases to make Mars livable for humans Haynes ’93 [Robert H Haynes, Distinguished Research Professor of Biology, NY University, “HOW MIGHT MARS BECOME A HOME FOR HUMANS?”, http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/haynes.htm] On other planets, high and low extremes of atmospheric temperatures and pressures, lack of free oxygen and liquid water, high concentrations of toxic gases, and deadly radiation levels variously preclude the existence of life. Though presently barren, Mars, nonetheless, is a biocompatible planet. Its unalterable physical characteristics (e.g. size, density, gravity, orbit, rotation rate, incident sunlight) and its possible chemical resources are remarkably consistent with life. Indeed, it was the hope that organisms might be found on Mars that made life-detection the top priority for NASA’s Viking missions in 1976. However, all of the ingenious biological experiments carried out by the two robotic landers gave negative results. The Viking data did reveal that environmental conditions on Mars are more severe than ever had been imagined. At the two ‘temperate zone’ landing sites, local temperatures exhibited wide daily variation averaging 60 degrees below zero celsius. The atmospheric pressure was found to be very low, just over six millibars, which is less than one hundredth of that at Earth’s surface. This thin atmosphere consists of 95% carbon dioxide and 3% nitrogen, with only trace amounts of water vapour, oxygen and other gases. There is no protective ozone layer to shield the planet from the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun. Most surprising was the absence from the soil of any detectable organic molecules, the building blocks of life. Even though such materials arrive on Mars in meteorites, they are subsequently destroyed, at least on the surface of the planet. Thus, any organisms which might arrive there unprotected today would be freeze-dried, chemically degraded, and soon reduced to dust. It would not be possible to ‘seed’ Mars just by sprinkling bacteria over its surface. Despite its presently hostile environment, Mars did once possess a great northern ocean and substantial quantities of flowing water, together with a thick, mostly carbon dioxide, atmosphere. These conditions may have persisted long enough for early stages of chemical and cellular evolution to have occurred. It is largely for these reasons that some scientists have begun to consider whether Mars might ultimately be returned, by human intervention, to a habitable state. A major uncertainty in these discussions is whether there remains on Mars today adequate amounts of carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen to allow such a planetary-scale transformation. If most of Mars’ original endowment of these materials has been lost to space, then the regeneration of a habitable state would be impossible. Preliminary studies have shown that if the surface crust and polar caps of Mars still possess sufficient and accessible quantities of carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen, and if acceptable planetary engineering techniques can be devised to initiate planetary warming and release these volatile materials from their geological reservoirs, then Mars could support a stable and much thicker carbon dioxide/nitrogen atmosphere than it does at present. This atmosphere would be warm and moist, and water would flow again in the dried up river beds. The average temperature at the surface would rise to about 15 degrees celsius and the atmospheric pressure would be roughly twice that on Earth. Appropriately selected, or genetically engineered, anaerobic microorganisms, and eventually some plants, could grow under these conditions. If future exploration reveals that the necessary volatiles are indeed available then a new home for life might someday be created on our sister planet. Colonization solves AIDs- immune system advancements W. H. Siegfried" 2003 The Boeing Company, Integrated Defense Systems “Space Colonization—Benefits for the World” http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf Many current human problems are the result of failures of the body’s natural immune system. We can diagnose many of these problems and have made great strides in ameliorating the symptoms, but to date, understanding immune system function and enhancement is seminal. Both United States and Russian long-term space missions have induced similar red blood cell and immune system changes. Hematological and immunological changes observed during, or after, space missions have been quite consistent. Decreases in red cell mass were reported in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Soyuz, and Mir programs—probably due to diminished rates of erythrocyte production. Space flight at microgravity levels may produce changes in white blood cell morphology and a compromise of the immune system. Skylab studies indicated a decrease in the number of T lymphocytes and some impairment in their function. Certain United States and Russian findings suggest that space flight induces a transient impairment in immune system function at the cellular level. Space flight offers a clinical laboratory unlike any place on Earth that may lead to an improved understanding of the function of the human immune system. Perhaps cures of aging, HIV, and other immune function-related illnesses can result from a comprehensive approach to Space Colonization. AIDS causes extinction Souden, 2000 (David, Research Fellow of Emmanuel College, Autumn, Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd. Project, http://darrendixon.supanet.com/killerdiseases.htm) AIDS is the number one killer virus and has the potential to cripple the human race. Its effects are at their starkest in many of the poorest parts of Africa, where poverty means that drugs to control infection are not available and a lack of effective sex education hastens its spread. The UN conference on AIDS in Africa, held in July 2000, highlighted the bleak future for many African countries, with extremely low life expectancies, the varying degrees of success in dealing with the problem, and the potential loss of a whole generation. Few were hopeful, and some predicted chaos and war in the wake of AIDS. Nature's ability to adapt is amazing - but the consequences of that adaptation are that mutations of old diseases, we thought were long gone, may come back to haunt us. But of all these new and old diseases, AIDS poses the greatest threat. It has the capacity to mutate and evolve into new forms, and the treatments that are being developed have to take account of that. Yet the recent history of life-threatening and lethal diseases suggests that even if we conquer this disease, and all the others described here, there may be yet another dangerous micro-organism waiting in the wings. The golden age of conquering disease may be drawing to an end. Modern life, particularly increased mobility, is facilitating the spread of viruses. In fact, some experts believe it will be a virus that leads to the eventual extinction of the human race. Colonization is key-it’s time to leave Earth or face extinction Fox News 10 (Fox News, “Abandon Earth or Face Extinction, Stephen Hawking Warns – Again”, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/09/abandon-earth-face-extinction-warns-stephen-hawking/, 6/9/10) SV It's time to abandon Earth, warned the world's most famous theoretical physicist. In an interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the planet is in outer space. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said. "I see great dangers for the human race," Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future." "But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said. Defer to our impact calculus - In framing the debate, you should embrace your professional responsibility to act as if the disaster will happen. Chapman, Durda & Schweickart 06 (Southwest Research Institute), (SRI) and (B612 Foundation) (Clark R., Daniel D. and Russell L., “Mitigation: Interfaces between NASA, Risk Managers, and the Public,” White Paper submitted to NASA Workshop on Near-Earth Object Detection, Characterization, and Threat Mitigation, 26 June 2006 (Vail, CO). [PDF Online @] http://www.aero.org/conferences/planetarydefense/resources.html) Accessed 06.07.11 jfs Since NASA astronomers and officials are first in the line of defense against a potential impact disaster, they must act throughout in ways that would seem proper from the perspective of survivors of the catastrophe if it were actually to happen. While NASA must caution the public not to worry about very small impact probabilities, its professional responsibility is to otherwise behave counter intuitively as if a possible impact is going to happen...until it becomes known that it will not happen. As hurricane Katrina was approaching Florida, the chances that it would directly strike New Orleans were low. But officials are now smarting from criticism that they did not act as they should have during the days when the threat was growing until Katrina actually struck. This maxim of acting as if the disaster will happen goes without saying for professional risk managers, but it is a lesson that New Orleans officials needed to know beforehand and that NASA needs to learn now. Trillions of lives are lost for every second we delay. Bostrom 04 Nick, philosophy professor at Yale & Oxford,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.htm "As I write these words, suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms, unused energy is being flushed down black holes, and our great common endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale. These are resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization.[1] This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically unconservative assumption is undesirable. We can, however, get a lower bound more straightforwardly by simply counting the number or stars in our galactic supercluster and multiplying this number with the amount of computing power that the resources of each star could be used to generate using technologies for whose feasibility a strong case has already been made. We can then divide this total with the estimated amount of computing power needed to simulate one human life. As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate of the human brain's processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second. While this estimate is conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at least outlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that does not assume a non-biological instantiation of the potential persons. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to [is] about 10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster.[6]" Colonization’s the only way to ensure human survival---we won’t be able to predict what causes extinction which means all counter-measures will fail Gott 9 – J. Richard Gott, Professor of Astrophysics at Princeton University, July 17, 2009, “A GOAL FOR THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM,” online: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368985main_GottSpaceflightGoal.pdf The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase the survival prospects of the human race by colonizing space. Self-sustaining colonies in space, which could later plant still other colonies, would provide us with a life insurance policy against any catastrophes which might occur on Earth. Fossils of extinct species offer ample testimony that such catastrophes do occur. Our species is 200,000 years old; the Neanderthals went extinct after 300,000 years. Of our genus (Homo) and the entire Hominidae family, we are the only species left. Most species leave no descendant species. Improving our survival prospects is something we should be willing to spend large sums of money on— governments make large expenditures on defense for the survival of their citizens. The Greeks put all their books in the great Alexandrian library. I’m sure they guarded it very well. But eventually it burnt down taking all the books with it. It’s fortunate that some copies of Sophocles’ plays were stored elsewhere, for these are the only ones that we have now (7 out of 120 plays). We should be planting colonies off the Earth now as a life insurance policy against whatever unexpected catastrophes may await us on the Earth. Of course, we should still be doing everything possible to protect our environment and safeguard our prospects on the Earth. But chaos theory tells us that we may well be unable to predict the specific cause of our demise as a species. By definition, whatever causes us to go extinct will be something the likes of which we have not experienced so far. We simply may not be smart enough to know how best to spend our money on Earth to insure the greatest chance of survival here. Spending money planting colonies in space simply gives us more chances--like storing some of Sophocles’ plays away from the Alexandrian library. If we made colonization our goal, we might formulate a strategy designed to increase the likelihood of achieving it. Having such a goal makes us ask the right questions. Where is the easiest place in space to plant a colony—the place to start? Overall, Mars offers the most habitable location for Homo sapiens in the solar system outside of Earth, as Bruce Murray has noted. Mars has water, reasonable gravity (1/3rd that of the Earth), an atmosphere, and all the chemicals necessary for life. Living underground (like some of our cave dwelling ancestors) would lower radiation risks to acceptable levels. The Moon has no atmosphere, less protection against solar flares and galactic cosmic rays, harsher temperature ranges, lower gravity (1/6th that of the Earth), and no appreciable water. Asteroids are similar. The icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn offer water but are much colder and more distant. Mercury and Venus are too hot, and Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are inhospitable gas giants. Free floating colonies in space, as proposed by Gerard O’Neill, would need material brought up from planetary or asteroid surfaces. If we want to plant a first permanent colony in space, Mars would seem the logical place to start. It’s now or never---political will to fund the space program is eroding quickly and won’t be restored later Gott 9 – J. Richard Gott, Professor of Astrophysics at Princeton University, July 17, 2009, “A GOAL FOR THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM,” online: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368985main_GottSpaceflightGoal.pdf The real space race is whether we colonize off the planet before the funds for the human spaceflight program end. Now that the Cold War is over, the driving force that got us to the Moon has ended and the human spaceflight program is in danger of extinction. Expensive technological projects are often abandoned after awhile. The Egyptians built bigger and bigger pyramids for about 50 years and then built smaller and less well made ones before finally quitting entirely. Admiral Cheng Ho sailed a great Chinese fleet all the way to Africa and brought back giraffes to the Chinese court. But then the Chinese government decided to cancel the program. Once lost, opportunities may not come again. The human spaceflight program is only 48 years old. The Copernican Principle tells us that our location is not likely to be special. If our location within the history of human space travel is not special, there is a 50% chance that we are in the last half now and that its future duration is less than 48 years (cf. Gott, 2007). If the human spaceflight program has a much longer future duration than this, then we would be lucky to be living in the first tiny bit of it. Bayesian statistics warn us against accepting hypotheses that imply our observations are lucky. It would be prudent to take the above Copernican estimate seriously since it assumes that we are not particularly lucky or unlucky in our location in time, and a wise policy should aim to protect us even against some bad luck. With such a short past track record of funding, it would be a mistake to count on much longer and better funding in the future. Instead, assuming funding levels in the next 48 years like those we have had in the past 48 years, we should ask ourselves what project we could undertake in the next 48 years that would be of most benefit to our species. Planting a selfsupporting colony on Mars would make us a two-planet species. It would change the course of world history. You couldn’t even call it world history any more. It might as much as double our long term survival prospects by giving our species two chances instead of one. Colonies are a great bargain. You just send a few astronauts and they multiply there using indigenous materials. It’s the Martian colonists that would do all the work. They would increase their numbers by having children and grandchildren on Mars while increasing their habitable facilities and biosphere using indigenous materials--with no further help needed from us. If couples had four children, on average, the colony, on its own, might multiply its initial population by a factor of as much as a million in 600 years. And colonies can plant other colonies. The first words spoken on the Moon were in English, not because England sent astronauts to the Moon but because it planted a colony in North America that did. People on Mars might one day plant colonies elsewhere themselves. If people on Earth were extinguished by some catastrophe, Martian colonists might at some later date send an expedition to repopulate it. Since the funding window for colonization may be short, we should concentrate on establishing the first self-supporting colony in space as soon as possible. That it be self-supporting is important since this would allow it to continue even if funding for space launches from Earth were discontinued. Delaying the beginning of colonization means we won’t be successful later---we’ll be trapped on earth even after spending the same amount of resources on attempted colonization Gott 9 – J. Richard Gott, Professor of Astrophysics at Princeton University, July 17, 2009, “A GOAL FOR THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM,” online: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/368985main_GottSpaceflightGoal.pdf If we fail to establish a self-supporting colony on Mars while we have the chance, it would be a tragedy. The dimensions of that tragedy might not become apparent to us until such time, perhaps many thousands of years from now, when we would find ourselves trapped on Earth with no viable space program, a low population, and our extinction as a species looming near. Moreover, we might end up spending as much money in real terms on the human spaceflight program in the future as we have in the past and still never get to Mars. If that happens, it would be a double tragedy. But if we just continue as we are now, without a clear or urgent purpose, this may well be our future. Space colonization prevents every future extinction scenario. Huang 5 (Michael Huang, editor of Spaceflight or Extinction, April 11, 2005, “The top three reasons for humans in space,” online:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/352/1) Humankind made it through the 20th century relatively well, but there were close calls: the Cuban Missile Crisis almost began a total war between nuclear-armed superpowers. The 21st century has presented its own distinct challenges. Nuclear and biological weapon technologies are spreading to many nations and groups. Progress in science and technology, while advancing humankind, will also lead to the development of more destructive weapons and possibly other unintended consequences. In addition to these manmade threats, natural threats such as epidemics and impacts from space will continue to be with us. The most valuable part of the universe is life: not only because life is important, but because life appears to be extremely rare. The old saying, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”, advises that valuable things should be kept in separate places, in case something bad happens at one of the places. This advice is more familiar to investors in the guise of “diversify your portfolio” and “spread your risk”: one should invest in many different areas in case one area declines disastrously. The same principle applies to the big picture. The most valuable part of the universe is life: not only because life is important, but because life appears to be extremely rare. Life and humankind are presently confined to the Earth (although we have built habitats in Earth orbit and ventured as far as the moon). If we were throughout the solar system, at multiple locations, a disaster at one location would not end everything. If we had the technologies to live in the extreme environments beyond Earth, we would be able to live through the extreme environments of disaster areas and other regions of hardship. Space colonization leads to solutions for terrorism, hunger, disease, warming, pollution, water scarcity, and poverty W. H. Siegfried" 2003 The Boeing Company, Integrated Defense Systems “Space Colonization—Benefits for the World” http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf We have begun to colonize space, even to the extent of early space tourism. Our early Vostok, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Spacehab, Mir and now ISS are humankind’s first ventures toward colonization. Efforts are underway to provide short space tours, and endeavors such as the X-Prize are encouraging entrepreneurs to provide new systems. Many believe that extended space travel (colonization) will do for the 21st century what aviation did for the 20th. Our current concerns including terrorism, hunger, disease, and problems of air quality, safe abundant water, poverty, andweather vagaries tend to overshadow long-term activities such as Space Colonization in the minds of many. Our leading “think tanks” such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Brookings Institute do not rate space travel high on lists of future beneficial undertakings even though many of the concerns listed above are prominently featured. It is the contention of this paper that Space Colonization will lead toward solutions to many of the emerging problems of our Earth, both technological and sociological. The breadth of the enterprise far exceeds the scope of our normal single-purpose missions and, therefore, its benefits will be greater. Space Colonization Good- Extinction Space colonization is essential to the future of the human race Foust, 2006 (Jeff, aerospace analyst, editor and publisher of The Space Review, Ph.D in planetary science, The Space Review, “New Strategies for Exploration and Settlement,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1860/1, June 6) Spudis took issue with those who he believes have conflated exploration with science. “I think we’ve come in the last century to misunderstand the original meaning of exploration,” he said. Exploration enables science, he said, by making discoveries scientists then attempt to explain, but exploration is more than just science. “Fundamentally exploration is more important than science because it is broader and richer than science,” he said. “It includes both asset protection and wealth generation.” That approach to exploration, he argued, should be applied to future human space exploration. The “ultimate rationale” for human spaceflight is the survival of the species, he said, noting the record of asteroid and comet impacts and the likelihood that eventually another large body will collide with the Earth, with devastating consequences for life on the planet. “If you want humanity to survive, you’re going to have to create multiple reservoirs of human culture,” he said, “and the way to do that is to expand human civilization off the planet.” Not surprisingly, Spudis believes the place to begin to do that is the Moon. “We’re going to the Moon to learn the skills to live and work productively on another world,” he said. Those skills, he added, can be grouped into three categories: development of a transportation system, the ability to safely live on another world, and developing resources that can be exported for profit—or, as Spudis put it, “arrive, survive, and thrive.” Colonization is the only way for humans to survive Baum 10 (Seth D., Ph.D in Geography from Pennsylvania State University and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Northeastern University and scholar at Columbia University's Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, “Cost–Benefit Analysis Of Space Exploration: Some Ethical Considerations”, Space Policy Volume 25, Issue 2, May, pg 75-80, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964609000198) Another non-market benefit of space exploration is reduction in the risk of the extinction of humanity and other Earth-originating life. Without space colonization, the survival of humanity and other Earth-originating life will become extremely difficult – perhaps impossible – over the very long term. This is because the Sun, like all stars, changes in its composition and radiative output over time. The Sun is gradually converting hydrogen into helium, thereby getting warmer. In some 500 million to one billion years, this warming is projected to render Earth uninhabitable to life as we know it [25] and [26]. Humanity, if it still exists on Earth then, could conceivably have developed technology to survive on Earth despite these radical conditions. Such technology may descend from present proposals to “geoengineer” the planet in response to anthropogenic climate change [27] and [28].2 However, later – around seven billion years later – the Sun will lose mass that spreads into Earth's orbit, causing Earth to slow, be pulled into the Sun, and evaporate. The only way life could survive on Earth would be if, by sheer coincidence (the odds are on the order of one in 105 to one in 106 [29]), the planet happened to be pulled out of the Solar System by a star system that was passing by. This process might enable life to survive on Earth much longer, although the chances of this are quite remote. While space colonization would provide a hedge against these very long-term astronomical threats, it would also provide a hedge against the more immediate threats that face humanity and other species. Such threats include nuclear warfare, pandemics, anthropogenic climate change, and disruptive technology [30]. Because these threats would generally only affect life on Earth and not life elsewhere, self-sufficient space colonies would survive these catastrophes, enabling life to persist in the universe. For this reason, space colonization has been advocated as a means of ensuring long-term human survival [32] and [33]. Space exploration projects can help increase the probability of long-term human survival in other ways as well: technology developed for space exploration is central to proposals to avoid threats from large comet and asteroid impacts [34] and [35]. However, given the goal of increasing the probability of long-term human survival by a certain amount, there may be more cost-effective options than space colonization (with costs defined in terms of money, effort, or related measures). More cost-effective options may include isolated refuges on Earth to help humans survive a catastrophe [36] and materials to assist survivors, such as a how-to manual for civilization [37] or a seed bank [38]. Further analysis is necessary to determine the most cost-effective means of increasing the probability of long-term human survival. Extinction is inevitable without space colonization Associated Press 6 (“Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space”, 6-14, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13293390/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/hawking-says-humans-must-go-space) The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday. The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years. "We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Thursday were sold out. He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth. "It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of." Directory: Seminar-Reports Seminar-Reports -> Field-programmable Gate Array Seminar-Reports -> Fpga redirects here. It is not to be confused with Flip-chip pin grid array. An Altera Seminar-Reports -> Autonomous Swarming Robots Seminar-Reports -> Abstract cell jammer Seminar-Reports -> Abstract II table of contents Seminar-Reports -> Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Galaxy Nexus, running Android 0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" Company /developer Seminar-Reports -> Motivation name : Rinoy Rajan regno : 09450114022 title : Android os date : 07-10-11 synopsis Seminar-Reports -> Open-source software stack Seminar-Reports -> Android allows to access core mobile device functionality through standard api calls. All applications are equal Download 0.57 Mb. Share with your friends:
|