RBJeffersonian

A Heritage of Risk

2007-01-02T20:30:00.000-08:00

As others, such as Zubrin, have pointed out elsewhere, we are the descendants of those who hazarded the unknown, who pioneered in the wilderness, who dared the risk to reap the reward - or, more often, to let their children reap the reward. By facing risk today, we can likewise hope to provide benefit to our descendants, including the benefit of a willingness to overcome fear. If we will not take risks, the fears that rule us will likely rule our children.

We have a heritage of risk, and profit from it, whether we dare to share in it or not, but by sharing in it, by the continuation of it, we stand to gain even greater profit, for us and for future generations.

Risk and Reward

2006-12-02T19:57:00.000-08:00

Modern society is often described as being risk-averse, and although that is in many ways true, there are also significant counter examples. Tens of thousands of Americans die in vehicular accidents each year; much more could certainly be done to curtail such risks, but the society at large considers the risks adequate given the rewards of convenience that the current scheme affords.

The risks involved in colonizing Mars (or other locations in the solar system) are certainly much greater than driving a car, but the rewards, for those who would seek them, would be correspondingly greater, too.

Great men become so by overcoming the risk to get the reward.

Aspiration

2006-11-03T21:15:00.000-08:00

It is not appropriate to the modern mind to esteem "great men". The term itself is exclusive and sexist, is it not? Jefferson had slaves, Columbus kicked off a continental genocide. Individuals do not do great things; there are no great individuals.

This, like so much of modern culture, is dehumanizing. If there were not greats in the past, then you can not be great. Merely ok, as we are all ok; not one separated above his fellows, for that would demean his fellows.

None of the great men (or women) were perfect, and the esteem of them, for what they did, does not imply otherwise. To see, though, that one can do something of significance, in a day or in a life, is aspirational. It is humanizing, and uplifting, for people, even for those who will fall far short of their aspirations, to see that they can do that which is important, valuable, notable.

A closed society would have an interest in leveling the playing field, meaning not equal opportunity but equal achievement, because to have a person stand out could be a destabilizing influence. In an open society, where a frontier offers limitless opportunity, there is room for people to look at the greats who came before and to become greats themselves.

Cultural Stability

2006-10-13T14:19:00.000-07:00

"The only constant is change."

This axiom seems especially appropriate in regard to modern society, with so many aspects changing more quickly and more radically than ever before in history. Some, even many, might hail this as a sign of cultural success, that the society is not static or stagnant, but rather moving forward toward ever greater progress.

One might argue, however, that cultural stability is an expression of a successful society. An unstable society is inherently limited, and prone to collapse, if it does not evolve out of its instability. For a society to remain largely unchanged over a long time period (say, a century or more) would indicate a system that works.

Days of Discovery

2006-10-10T16:58:00.000-07:00

While many observed Columbus Day yesterday, which is traditionally on the 12th, probably far fewer recognized that October 9th is Leif Erikson Day. Simply being the first (though LE might not have even been that) is not necessarily as notable as being the one who opens the door to a permanent presence. The first man on Mars will be important, but not so important as the one who opens the world to inhabitation... perhaps the two firsts will be one and the same.

Geographical Freedom

2006-10-08T17:58:00.000-07:00

Different cultures coexisting in one society can lead to a variety of fundamental conflicts, one of which is that the expression of freedom for one group may be the impairment of freedom for another. The government, then, might side with one or the another, but in most cases will probably intervene with a compromise solution that doesn't quite work for either.

This might be fine for many minor points of contention, but when the conflict cuts to the heart of one or both groups, a compromise solution is not a solution. What has often been an option in the past, moving into a frontier so as to be able to live in the manner the group desires, is no longer much of an option. With the opening of the solar system, though, such an opportunity for geographical freedom would again arise.

The Myth of the Golden Age

2006-10-03T16:43:00.000-07:00

It is common, if not universal, to hold a view that "things were better back then"... with differences between people as to the "things" and the "then". One may hold this view in regard to one's own past, or to some particular historical period, or to a general, sweeping, undefined past.

This is, of course, nothing new. The term "Golden Age" comes from classical Greece, as certain persons from that society lamented the difficulties of modern life and yearned for a better, simpler, and purer life that (surely) came before.

Of course, the cynic notes, there never was a Golden Age, and the realist chimes in that the esteemed past might not be held up so high if we knew (or remembered) what it was truly like.

The history of civilization is a history of change, with some pushing forward, some pulling backward, others struggling to resist any movement, and many more just along for the ride. All of these groups might be contained in one society, setting their conflicting interests against one another, or, if there is a frontier, these different groups can pursue their divergent goals in a space big enough for all. Life will be hard, in any case, and it will not be a Golden Age, but of the two options, many would much rather see the latter.

Governmentalism

2006-09-30T15:40:00.000-07:00

"Governmentalism" is the belief and practice of an increasingly strong and active government as the solution to problems of the individual and society. Certain situations seem to more readily call for a governmentalist approach, such as high population densities in an urban environment. This is not a uniquely American phenomenon; rather, the US is behind the curve of some other Western nations.

Many people, however, see the current level of government, whether in a specific aspect or in general, as excessive, and growing ever more so. Certainly, democratic societies could reverse the growth of governments, but this does not appear to be likely to happen, for two main reasons. One, some people, particularly of the political left, are outright governmentalists, believing that more government services are a positive goal. Two, even though others may have negative views of an oversized government, they are more concerned with the continuation and increase of their particular interests (which are supported, either in whole or in part, by government) than they are concerned with the control or decrease in the overall reach of government.

Out of Touch

2006-09-27T20:46:00.000-07:00

I've not posted much, since the start of the new school term. Hopefully, I'll be picking up the pace in these next few weeks...

The Evolution of Language

2006-09-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

There is an old "Calvin & Hobbes" cartoon wherein the characters discuss the verbing of words; in Calvin's words, "verbing really weirds a language".

Language is not static; some changes we may accept, and others reject. While catching up on Selenian Boondocks this evening, I noticed the author's use of a term (whether of his invention or not, I do not know) that is a creative extension of an old metaphor for describing that which is outdated. So, if the big aerospace firms are dinosaurs, then the new upstarts are, naturally, mammals.

The nit-picky region of my brain, however, recalls that mammals have actually been around as long as dinosaurs; they were simply the underdogs (underrats?) for some tens of millions of years.

But I digress.

Instability

2006-09-17T15:45:00.000-07:00

This modern world is unstable. Being an advanced, integrated economy, strongly tied to a speculative stockmarket system and greatly distanced from an agricultural base, makes it prone to collapse, and collapse of a most devastating kind.

The worldwide economic depression that began in 1929 came out of a simpler economy that had a much larger agricultural base. Were a similar depression to begin today, the results could be very much worse, for most companies today are far more interdependent (and could therefore not function at all, if the complex of supplier and customer companies were not in place)and most people are further removed from being able to grow or gather food (and the majority of food producers in the industrialized world are as interdependent as other companies).

Such a collapse might happen a year, a decade, or even a century from now; one of the dangers of a system with such inherent instability is that the collapse does not need to follow years of decline; the collapse may happen suddenly, but with the damages lasting for years, even decades.

The vitality and stability of human society would be vastly strengthened through the opening and development of a grand frontier, where growth and diversity replace the stagnation and homogenization of our current world.

Paper Habs

2006-09-10T18:16:00.000-07:00

Many people and groups are interested in the development of technologies to allow for off-world operations and settlement, but a significant limitation is that much of the effort only goes as far as a paper study.

The devil, of course, is in the details, and as good as a paper study might be, there may be a few or many devils yet lurking in the shadows, which will not be revealed without building and testing hardware.

Beyond testing individual components, systems testing is important; pieces that all work in isolation need to be tested in conjunction with all of the other pieces.

Some have moved beyond paper studies, but yet short of hardware. The Mars Society analogs, for example, have shown some value in testing various "human factors", but little in the way of technology has been so fielded.

Others are constructing useable hardware. A team in North Dakota has built and tested a Mars suit.

In advancing the cause of opening the new frontier, successfully tested hardware is of far, far greater value than many well-written paper studies. In the frontier, one can't live in a paper hab.

Intentional Community and Culture

2006-09-04T11:29:00.000-07:00

Everyone is a part of a community and a culture, even of several communities and cultures. How many people, though, think about the foundations and processes of their communities and cultures? For the most part, we tend to view community and culture as circumstance, the way the world is about us, and our role is to navigate through this given environment.

A person can influence his or her community and culture, especially that which is most immediate. One can think differently, act differently, and live differently. The two greatest requirements for this are purpose and determination. Again referencing Gattaca (see yesterday's post), Vincent had a purpose and the determination to see through to his goal.

A quote from the 4Frontiers website: "Your dream can consume your life, or your life can consume your dream."

Gattaca

2006-09-03T17:31:00.000-07:00

I recently received "Gattaca" as a birthday gift, and watched it for the first time in years. A well-done movie, with a number of points of interest related to the opening of the new frontier:
*a conformist society that restricts personal opportunity;
*regular launches as the backbone of a robust program in space;
*the best & the brightest as candidates for leaving Earth;
*individuals with sufficient motivation willing to go to great lengths to be one of those candidates;
*and the wonderful image of the astronauts suited-up for launch... space doesn't need to be spacey.

A good movie to be viewed along with "The Right Stuff" and "October Sky", all of which show the essential nature of drive in human endevors.

When a Planet Isn't

2006-08-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

The IAU threw a monkey-wrench into their otherwise smooth definition. Now, to be a proper planet, a body must have cleared its neighborhood of other bodies; a qualification based not upon what the body is, but upon what's about it.

What then, does clearing the neighborhood mean? Neptune has Pluto crossing its orbit, Jupiter has many trojan asteroids, and Earth has NEA's all about.

"Dwarf planet" is fine for describing a subset of planets, but to say they aren't planets at all defies semantic sense. Isn't a dwarf pear tree still a pear tree?

Mini-post 3: A Frozen Map

2006-08-19T22:16:00.000-07:00

The political powers that be, on a international scale, accept that the world map is basically frozen, with the exception that dissolutions (hopefully peaceful and democratic) can redraw pieces of it.

For stateless nations or any other minority groups, then, there's nowhere on Earth to build a country of one's own. Without a frontier, the current scheme means that to be a minority is a permanent condition, unless the minority can demographically outcompete the majority.

Mini-post 2: Jefferson and Lincoln

2006-08-19T21:57:00.000-07:00

In two separate pieces of reading this past week, I came across rather similar descriptions of the importance of independent farmers as vital to a democratic society. The first was Lincoln's December 1861 address to Congress, and the second was an excerpt about Jefferson.

Independence is a basis for freedom. The majority of people in Jefferson's day, and in Lincoln's, had a far greater independence than almost any Americans do today. If the economy collapsed, how many of us would feel confident that we could feed and clothe our families? Or that we could hold onto our property?

A complex, integrated society can have many benefits, but greater independence, stability, and freedom are probably not among them.

Mini-post 1: Defining Planets

2006-08-19T21:40:00.000-07:00

It looks like the "official" definition of a planet will become what it is in the conventional wisdom: a round body orbiting a star, in short.

So, once again, Ceres will be a planet (for a number of years after its discovery, Ceres was considered a planet, until it was demoted based on the realizations that it was rather small and that there were other bit players floating about).

Past Jupiter, not only does Pluto keep and Xena gain planetary status, but Charon and several other worlds will also be members of the club (which was once an elite group of five that did not even include Earth).

1+ System / 10 Years

2006-08-15T10:44:00.000-07:00

Assume that a manned, interstellar ship can travel between stars at an average speed of .01c, one percent of lightspeed. The nearest star system to our own could then be reached in roughly 450 years.

Traveling at .01c, then, results in the inhabitation of one additional system within 500 years of when such operations begin.

Assume that voyages of 10 lightyears are the longest that would be attempted. At approximately the same time as the first ship leaves for the Alpha Centauri system, six others might head out to the other stars within 10LY.

All traveling at .01c, then, results in the inhabitation of seven extra-solar systems within 1000 years of the beginning.

Assume that development of a human civilization in a new system to the point of sending out more colonizing ships would take about the same amount of time that it took for the original ship to arrive. With subsequent ships also traveling at .01c, and an equal amount of time in between arrival in a new system and further launches, the effective speed becomes .005c.

Humanity expanding outward at .005c, then, results in the inhabitation of 80 extra-solar systems within 4000 years.

And about 1200 systems within 10,000 years.

The number of systems reachable is related to the cube of the distance, and so while the beginnings may seem painfully slow (one new system colonized in five centuries), the returns exponentially increase (1200 new systems in 100 centuries). Is 10,000 years a ridiculously long period of time to consider? It is greater than the span of recorded human history, but despite the rise and fall of many different cultures and civilizations over the past 10 millenia, humanity at large has spread, increased, and developed. Some branches may be dead ends, but that won't stop growing shoots from spreading through the stars.

This model does not account for advances in technology, of course, which should certainly occur in thousands of years of expansion. Also left unsaid in the above is a prediction about when such a venture might be undertaken; it seems reasonable that it could occur within a century of humanity establishing its first permanent presence beyond Earth. If mankind does not colonize the rest of its home system, though, it will surely not colonize other systems.

One final thought: almost all star systems are probably targets for colonization, because any group with the ability to traverse interstellar space could surely prosper with the energy and material resources of a star system.

Exponential Growth Opportunities

2006-08-11T16:13:00.000-07:00

One of the suggested rationales for off-world settlements is to reduce population pressure on Earth. This idea doesn't seem to account for the typical nature of biological populations, which is to grow until countervailing pressures stop that growth. Areas that have seen mass emigrations in their histories are yet well populated today.

As an exception to this rule, however, in some industrialized (or, rather, post-industrial) societies this behavior is modified by culture, and some of these are facing neutral (or even negative) growth as a result of smaller families, rather than emigration. The best answer to population pressure, therefore, may be in the developing world becoming developed. This may even lead to a population crisis of declining growth rates, as fewer young people are in a labor force that is faced with supporting a large number of retirees.

If the settlement of the new world won't help to alleviate the effects of population growth, then what will it do? Promote increased poulation growth. The energy and material resources of the solar system are far greater than that of the Earth. While initial settlement may be a slow and limited process, as the techniques develope for living in extraterrestrial environments, humanity will have a new opportunity for exponential growth, even though that opportunity may no longer exist on Earth (as it currently does). Beyond the solar system lies even greater resources and opportunities.

The vision of opening the new frontier should be one of great hope for opportunity, freedom, and growth.

Slippery When Wet

2006-08-09T20:38:00.000-07:00

At the IMSC, the Australian astronaut Andy Thomas shared an anecdote that doesn't bode well for NASA leading the way into a brave new world: while walking through a corridor in the astronaut corps building, he was told by a manager there that he shouldn't be carrying a cup of coffee around... too dangerous.

There are risks in life, of varying probability and severity. Some risks are easily faced, others are best avoided, and many lie somewhere in between. In modern American society, however, there are several factors leading to an increasingly risk-averse culture. Such a culture would be unlikely to open a frontier, but the culture is not homogenous, and elements within it yet exist that would risk much to gain much.

Back from the IMSC

2006-08-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

The internet connection at the hotel was expensive, and didn't work in any of the rooms hosting the conference... hence the gap in posting.

The conference went well, with a number of interesting plenary and track speakers. There was also a screening of the film, "The Mars Underground" (which is not yet available in the US, unfortunately).

One criticism of the conference, though, is that it included a few speakers of the "damaged-ceramics" variety. There were not many of these (certainly not as many as at ISDC), but to have such speakers is still a poor reflection on an organization. Were the abstracts not screened? Were they screened and these still got through? Neither answer makes the Mars Society look too good.

The attendees of the conference were, of course, a more like-minded bunch than at ISDC, but there was still a variety of views as to the feasibility of near-term missions to, and settlement of, Mars. Perhaps there is a role for a pro-settlement organization out there...

Back from the Edge

2006-08-01T12:09:00.000-07:00

Standing at the far end of a continent and peering out into the great ocean is an apt parallel to being Earthbound and gazing across a greater ocean. I can't see Hawaii or Japan, however, from my side of the water, whereas the interstellar sea temptingly affords views of Luna and Mars.

***

There's an interesting post at The Space Review about a one-way mission to Mars. I'd quibble with a number of the author's points, but the main idea is far closer to the mark than others (say, NASA).

***

Tomorrow I leave for DC & the IMSC. I'll hopefully be able to continue posting from there.

To the End of the World

2006-07-26T11:31:00.001-07:00

There won't be posts here for a few days, as I'm heading over the hills to the end of the world.

"Wait" is a Four-Letter Word

2006-07-26T11:31:00.000-07:00

After meeting the author, I bought and read a copy of "Shadows of Medusa". I'll admit that when I had previously picked up the book, I lost interest in reading its back cover description as a mystery-type book; not one of my favorite genres. I did enjoy the book, though, especially as things are unveiled in Chapter 35. The title alludes to a discussion thereabouts in the book.

There is no waiting necessary in the pursuit of colonizing the solar system. It is expensive, dangerous work, but if we wait for 10, 20, 50 years of further study, it will still be expensive, dangerous work. More expensive and more dangerous, perhaps.

Imagine waiting until 2040 rather than 2020 for an initial manned mission to Mars; waiting for '40 might (might) lead to better success in the initial mission than proceeding in '20, but if the first mission goes in '20, than a mission in '40 would have 20 years of experience to lean on, rather than zero.

Furthermore, if we say wait today because tomorrow we'll know more, then we can never go by that logic. Never, because tomorrow, we'd say the same thing again. We'll never have perfect knowledge, and we'll only have sufficient knowledge through experience.

Ad Ex Terra.

A Quantum Leap for Mankind

2006-07-25T11:30:00.000-07:00

The establishment of self-supporting settlements beyond the Earth would be the most significant development in all of human history, dwarfing the Agricultural Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, or any other major milestone. This opportunity is new, and likely limited. Failure to seize the moment may allow for a change in culture that would bar the door for many genrations to come. Collapse and a dark age is one possibility; Western civilization spent a millenium getting back to the level of development seen in the Roman Empire. A dim age is another possibility; we may yet retain high levels of technologic and economic ability, but turn against the challenge and rewards of reaching outward. The opening of the new frontier is by no means a given. If it is to happen, it will be an act of will.

Not a Space Settlement

2006-07-23T20:03:00.000-07:00

As I wrote yesterday's post, I momentarily paused at my use of the term "space settlement". How can I object to a phrase that is central to the theme of this blog? Semantics.

For many people, it seems, the main attraction of the idea of people living beyond Earth is the "coolness" of living in space. Issues about why to go or what to do there are often diminished; being there is enough.

I would think, however, that pioneers on Mars (or elsewhere) might object to the notion of them living in space, as space is elsewhere, as much beyond their world as it is beyond ours. The world they would inhabit would be harsher (physically speaking) but no less a real world than ours.

Is there any importance to such semantic arguments? I think that there is, because it is akin to the paradigm shift that has accompanied the opening of other frontiers. For example, early Americans were well aware of the lands that lay to their west, but migrations waited upon such a shift in view from the wilderness being something out there to it being a real place to go.

So, perhaps I need to adjust my tagline...

A Tough Sell

2006-07-22T18:06:00.000-07:00

The idea of settlements beyond the Earth is often a tough sell, which is reasonable, because the lion's share of the benefit is for the settlers. Many arguments have been proffered as to potential benefits for society at large (cheap power, mineral resources, extinction mitigation, etc.), with variable degrees of merit.

Rather than trying to devise better arguments to sway the unswayed, perhaps advocates of space settlements would do better to concentrate on reaching out to those would stand to receive the greatest good: potential settlers. Tell young people that there could be more to life than just go to college, work at a job, and get cheated out of a pension. Young people could go to a new world, could go as far as their intellect and strength allows, and could leave a legacy of even greater potential to their children after them.

Speaking at International Mars Society Conference

2006-07-21T15:41:00.000-07:00

I've been wondering, for awhile now, whether the abstract I submitted for the IMSC was accepted; I finally emailed in search of an answer, which promptly arrived. So, I will be speaking at the IMSC in DC, on August 5th. This will be my second presentation at a space-related conference, the first being at ISDC in LA, back in May.

Hopefully, some of y'all will be at IMSC...

Intentional Community and Space Settlement

2006-07-20T10:48:00.000-07:00

A brief explanation, in case the stated foci are not obviously related in the mind of the reader.

The world, of course, is globalizing; to phrase it differently, world culture is homogenizing. There are some positive aspects to this, but many people also see more negatives, and a common reaction is therefore tribalization. These movements are in opposition, at least in terms of philosophy, but also in terms of politics and action.

To some degree, this conflict is as old as human culture; the dominant group tries to maintain the status quo (which may include change, but only change according to its principles), while sub-groups desire significant, even fundamental, changes. An age-old method of relieving this societal pressure is through the movement of dissatisfied minorities to a frontier (preferably, the minority group would choose to move, rather than be forced to move).

In our modern world, however, we are rather short on frontiers. Where on Earth can a person (or a group of people) go to claim a piece of empty, unregulated ground in order to live in a truly different manner?

Technologically, there is a frontier available, beyond Earth. The biggest hurdles to colonizing space aren't so much technological as financial and political, and therefore Earthly. But the day may soon come when the door will crack open, giving hope to people who want to live according to their own principles, rather than by the biege compromise of Pax Mundana.

Avoiding the Stale and the Septic

2006-07-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

So, based on my experience as a reader, it seems the two most common problems with a subject-thematic blog are it being stale (too long between posts) and it being septic (too many off topics). Now, an author may certainly do whatsoever he will with his blog, but long silences and random variances make it less rewarding for me, the reader, to follow his track. One of the best examples of a blog that stays fresh (avoids staleness and septicness) is Centauri Dreams, an excellent review of research related to deep-space exploration. Kudos to the author.

Initial Post

2006-07-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

I've been a reader for a while now, but there's something missing in a one sided conversation. Well, there are actually many, many sides to the conversation, just not mine. A post on Selenian Boondocks elicited a response from me, and further prompted my thinking about starting to write. So here it is.

As for the name, "RB" is where I live and "Jeffersonian" refers to some of my philosophy. I do not claim to be an historian, so my ideas of jeffersonian philosophy may not all hold up under rigorous academic scrutiny, but since he's dead, he probably doesn't care, and if he doesn't, then you can pry relax.