Skipper chosen for starship effort

[IDemo]

By Alan Boyle

The Pentagon's think tank has selected the group that will manage its "100 Year Starship" project to explore what it would take for a multigenerational mission beyond the solar system, and sources say the leader will be Mae Jemison, who became the first black woman in space in 1992.

In the 20 years since then, Jemison has founded several ventures — including The Jemison Group, a technology design and consulting company; and the Houston-based Dorothy Jemison Foundation for Excellence, which takes on educational projects. Jemison, a 55-year-old Alabama native who has experience as a physician and a Peace Corps worker as well as an astronaut, played a prominent role in facilitating the 100 Year Starship symposium organized by NASA and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in Florida last fall.

One of the follow-ups from that seminar was to be the award of a $500,000 contract from DARPA to continue study of the technological, political and social requirements for ultra-long-term projects such as interstellar space missions. Several ventures put in proposals, and one of the groups that didn't win the contract, the Tau Zero Foundation, said in this week's email update that the contract was going to a team "led by an ex-astronaut."

The BBC identified the ex-astronaut as Jemison, based on the text of an unreleased letter from DARPA. It also reported that Jemison's foundation was teaming up with two other groups, Icarus Interstellar and the Foundation for Enterprise Development.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/07/10035158-skipper-chosen-for-starship-effort

[The Doctor.]

1. I lost all hope between the subject line and

"The Pentagon's think tank..."

But I'll read it anyway.

[Blue_Tires]

34. +1

[grantcart]

41. for the record Ellsberg was at a 'Pentagon think tank' when he assembled the PP

[hunter]

2. That's sorta worrisome...

... are we building lifeboats?

How does the world end?

With a big bang, a plague, or a slow cooked whimper?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_death



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide

[Gore1FL]

3. I can think of four ways the earth can end.

I think these are more or less in order of time of doom.

1> As the Sun expands in its death throes, it will consume Mercury, Venus on the way to consuming Earth.

2> The earth's core will cool. The magnetic fields that protect the earth from the solar winds will disappear, and it will be stripped.

3> The Milky Way collides with Andromeda, and the earth is tugged out of it's orbit by a passing star. (allowing for numerous possibilities)

4> The universe cools and the stars run out of fuel.


If you are talking the Human Race then that is different. There are many more things able to end us. I think if we are around in 150 years, we're probably going to survive as a species.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. The EARTH will end in fire, when our sun swells up to a red giant in 2bn years.

The Human Species, who knows.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. Fire and Ice:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

~ Robert Frost

[AlecBGreen]

14. I think the Earth has more than 2bn years

More time to party!

[Submariner]

29. What is amazing is that the hominid life span on your scale

has existed from about the far left side of that Now arrow (between the 4 & 5), and there is a good chance the human species may not make it past the far right side of that same arrow (about a 7-8 million tear human existence), so we may only have another couple of million years of trashing planet earth, if were lucky....so stay thirsty my friend.

A very short life span in astronomical terms.

[AlecBGreen]

30. you are correct

we are just blips on the evolutionary radar. I think this upcoming century will make or break us. Time will tell.

[Occulus]

37. That's one reason for projects like in the OP, though

We will almost have to leave Earth eventually if we want our species to survive in the long run.

[LongTomH]

5. Great news!

In the late 90s, I got a chance to sit in on a session at an International Space Development Conference led by Marc Millis; this is the person mentioned in the article as the founder of the Tau Zero Foundation. At the time, Mr. Millis headed up NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion program at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

The session was titled: "Warp Drive When?," which is also the title of the Breakthrough Propulsion page written for the general public. The breakthrough propulsion program was directed mostly at really long-term prospects for interstellar propulsion, including the possibility of faster-than-light spacecraft.

Since the breakthrough propulsion program was terminated in Oct, 2008, Marc Millis has been working with The Tau Zero Foundation and the Icarus Interstellar project, which is looking at the possibility of a slower-than-light interstellar probe using known physics - specifically helium-3 fusion.

All of this is dependent on:

1. A continuation of civilization into the next century, and
   
2. Continued scientific and technological progress, and
   
3. An extension of human civilization into the solar system (starships will need to be constructed in space), and
   
4. A society with enough spare capital to support such ventures.

Believe it or not, I'm actually optimistic about all these possibilities, if we can get through the next few decades.

[DRoseDARs]

7. It's more than just possibilities, it is quite literally do or die...

We *cannot* remain here if we want to continue existing as a species. Threats from within, threats from without... far too many ways for higher lifeforms to go extinct in a relatively short time (lower lifeforms generally survive and have started anew several times now) while trapped inside Earth's biosphere and there's very little we can do to prevent or even avoid most of those ways. All we really can do is spread ourselves out in the cosmos, and we can't even do that yet. That's why such programs are vitally important and why idiots questioning the need for such science depress me. Everything else is just so much rearranging of the deckchairs.

[BadtotheboneBob]

47. Kudos! I like an optimist...

Thanks for the links...

[stevenleser]

6. I originally read this as "Skinner chosen for starship effort"

I was going to congratulate him!

[kentauros]

8. Whereas I'm wondering

who will be chosen for the "Gilligan" role

[IDemo]

13. Forget Gilligan

Bring on Mary Ann!

[tpsbmam]

23. And I pictured a geriatric Captain Kirk.....

Massive phallic symbol will propel him into the great unknown beyond.....

[eppur_se_muova]

9. LOL! You are not alone in that. nt

[MisterP]

11. John Titor?

[jerseyjack]

12. The operant clause in another post is, "....if we want to continue existing as a species,...."

Why is this necessary except for ego?

[nebenaube]

15. have you ever grown bacteria in a petri dish?

next dumb question...

[Posteritatis]

18. Pissing off human extinctionists is a good enough reason for me. (nt)

[theAntiRand]

21. Because we're special and glorious and perfect we'll never ever die out

Really, all this talk of space colonization is nothing but delaying fate. The ultimate fate of all species is extinction. Humans will not be an exception, as the universe won't last forever. Even if we do colonize other worlds, we'll have to leave them eventually too. If, in all our time on Earth, we haven't learned to take care of it, what makes people think we'd treat other worlds any different? For all we know, we could've came from another planet that we made inhospitable.

[boppers]

27. We are, as a species, kind of dorky.

We are short lived, violent, and dumb as hammers.

[MilesColtrane]

16. I think they should call the ship the U.E.S.* Grace Slick.

*United Earth Ship

She was the only good thing about the last starship effort.

[IDemo]

19. Not the "USS Hot Tuna"? n/t

[stlsaxman]

17. "Ze vimmen vill haf to be selected for zerr sexual caracteristics

vich will haf to be of a highly stimulating nature... "

&t=3m28s

[txlibdem]

20. It would have to be a multi-national effort

That is the good news. This project will force us to strengthen our ties to each other. The bad news? It'll cost a boat load if we still rely on a monetary system to govern our society and the bean counters will make it a stripped down, lowest bidder POS that will either explode the second we flip the switch or it'll fall to pieces somewhere along the way. Cost cannot be a factor in this critical mission.

The posters who bring up the many ways we could easily be wiped out as a species are right (and are probably playing down the dangerous situation we currently are in). From epidemics, meteor strikes, global climate breakdown, war of course, loss of mating ability, etc., there are a thousand ways we could be erased from the planet. We are playing for all the chips in this game and we aren't even sitting down at the table yet.

We first need to establish large colonies on the Moon, Mars and any other planets/moons where we can survive. And, probably simultaneously, we need to start mining the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud for the materials to build and maintain these colonies and, ultimately, the 100 Year Starship.

[malthaussen]

22. The operative word is "should."

The optimists like to say things like "when we need the technology, we'll have it," and like to point to our unlimited adaptability, grit, and All American know-how to sidestep the Malthusian model. That's just whistling past the graveyard. We've known about global warming and the energy crisis since the 1970s, and haven't done squat about them. Foresight isn't lacking, but the willingness to act on foresight is. Hell, a third of the people in this country don't even believe in evolution, and you want to sell them a starship?

-- Mal

[txlibdem]

24. Interesting

In your post you wrote, "We've known about global warming and the energy crisis since the 1970s, and haven't done squat about them." That is incorrect. In 1979, President Carter put into law a series of energy initiatives, tax incentives for solar and wind, assistance programs to help weatherize their homes, research into energy efficiency, the Energy Star program, etc. We would have been 100% energy independent by the year 2000 had Pres. Carter's energy plan been followed.

Ronald Reagan worked night and day to erase all of President Carter's programs. If there is one person of whom we can say "this man killed the world" it would be President Ronald Reagan (R).

[Shankapotomus]

31. I think he means

we've gotten nowhere in the end. GW is still a threat.

As for a starship or, better, a fleet of starships, I'm in favor of them. They should be built as much as possible as floating self contained biospheres that orbit around stars for solar energy at just the right distance and collect sunlight through massive windows for their on board gardens. Food could not only be grown on them but cloned as a second food production option to increase output. A fleet of these ships not only increases our survival chances but if a ship in the fleet fails people can be shuffled onto other ships.

[txlibdem]

32. Agreed. Having only one "generation ship" is just as bad as living on only one planet... dangerous

Dangerous to our species' survival that is. There are all kinds of things that could happen in space: impact by an asteroid, getting hit by the beam of radiation that jets out from some galaxies and all suns going supernova, the list is endless.

I agree that a fleet of several ships should be launched at each target solar system, meaning we should send out several waves of colonists to several different stars. And that's only the first round... to be repeated again and again in my view. I read somewhere that 10,000 is the minimum breeding population for humans to avoid inbreeding or genetic problems... so I'd say that each ship should be a habitat for at least 15,000 people to have a margin of safety and to have extra people should a tragedy befall a significant percentage of one of the ships.

The way you describe it, there need not be a habitable planet in the destination star system at all, just enough raw materials to allow for repairs and expansion of the population (you know that's going to happen).

[Shankapotomus]

44. Yes, biosphere starships are important

Habitable planets would definitely be few and far between so the ships themselves will have to be self-sufficient biospheres. As for no less than 15,000 people a ship, you could get away with 15,000 a fleet because there would be smaller transports shuttling crew members from ship to ship.

Also the great advantage of starships over inhabiting actual planets are starships can adjust their obits around stars with the seasons and control the amount of sunlight their solar panels and bio farms receive. Of course, planets are fixed in their orbit patterns. Starships can also move to avoid incoming dangers like asteroids.

The best thing about building starships is we can test them around our sun and park them around the earth for as long as the earth is still livable. So we can experiment and perfect these ships close to home and in relative safety of earth orbit.

[txlibdem]

45. Biosphere 2 in the Arizona desert is a prime example of that learning process

They discovered that the concrete that formed the foundation and "backbone" of Biosphere 2 was absorbing the oxygen and the people inside would have died without pumping in additional oxygen. So your advice is very good: let the systems stabilize, test out all the systems, shake out the bugs before we send them off into empty space.

Except space really isn't empty. Asteroids and comets are ejected from the solar system all the time. If every star has been doing this for a certain percentage of the 14 billion year history of the Universe then one could encounter one of these without any warning (unless you send out a continuous 360 degree radar or equivalent). There could be clouds of rocks too small to be detected but traveling at speeds sufficient to cause perhaps catastrophic damage. That's why I settled on a 50% excess population on each starship.

I just thought it would be best to cover all bases so to speak and give each habitat ship a "cushion" against significant population loss on any or all the other ships.

[Shankapotomus]

46. That's a sensible precaution

and it should of course be taken.

Space is enormous however and I imagine it's a rare event when something hits something else.

One thing I'm concerned with which relates to the size of space is the distance between the stars.

Specifically, how is a fleet of ships going to get to the next nearest star before its stored onboard power is exhausted? Even travelling at the fastest recorded speed of a manmade spacecraft - 240,000 km/hr - it would still take 19,000 years or 600 generations to get to the next nearest star, Proxima Centauri. If the ships use solar energy from stars for power and for plant growth, how are those resources going to be maintained over a 19,000 year journey between stars where there will be no available natural light? That's 600 generations between stars. Even using nuclear power, I don't think we'd make it before resources would run dry and hardware would breakdown with no planets around to help fix and replenish.

There needs to be a extremely simple and reusable power source on the ships.

[txlibdem]

49. Not sure which manmade spacecraft you are talking about

Did it use gravity assist to get to that speed?

"I imagine it's a rare event when something hits something else." We really have no data on this. I would take a SWAG and surmise that the greatest danger of collision would be within 1000 AU of the starting and destination suns but I also caution never to underestimate Murphy's Law. Thus the backups suggested in my earlier posts.

PS, the fuel would only be expended during the acceleration and deceleration phases of the journey. Much study is still to be done as to how long each of those should/would be.

[Shankapotomus]

50. Yes. Gravity Assist, it was.

So i was being very liberal with the speed for a spacecraft between stars. It would most probably be much slower. I don't know how people and plants could survive without natural light. Obviously, there is artificial light but that consumes power. I think it would be too much of a stress on resources to ever make it to the next star without either vastly increasing ship speeds or coming up with an onboard power source that won't ever fail.

[txlibdem]

51. Your point is well taken

I wouldn't want to think that my next 600 generations would be cooped up in a cramped space bucket, nor a ship with nothing but hallways and quarters/work areas. There needs to be a larger craft that would incorporate large open spaces and a natural environment in at least one level. I envision something like the habitats proposed by Gerard K. O'Neill.

[hatrack]

40. A total of 24 human beings have left low earth orbit . . .

The last three (Apollo 17) did so 40 years ago this December.

Fewer than 500 people have reached low earth orbit, and the United States no longer has a vehicle capable of reaching that distance from the planet.

The drive to (at least in our imaginations) colonize the moon and nearby planets is understandable, but it strikes me as little more than a relic of 19th-Century pioneer thinking trying to maneuver through the unimaginably hostile environments of space and other planets.

It's also trying to do so without so much as a functioning Conestoga capable of carrying us to this new frontier of vacuum, cold and radiation, and without any indication that we share the ability to cooperate long enough to even begin undertaking such a project.

[txlibdem]

42. We both understand it's a very forward-looking project

But when President Kennedy said we'd land a man on The Moon and return him safely to Earth within a decade, airplanes (airlines) of the day had an upper limit of 20,000 feet. It was just so much science fiction at that time.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Hm. Why does this strike me as suspicious?

I'm not even sure what I'm suspicious of--but the little alarm bells are ringing.

I would like to applaud this effort, because I SO BELIEVE that humans are destined to leave Earth, that humans cannot appreciate Earth or learn to live sustainably until we do leave Earth (and look back) (Note: The environmental movement really BEGAN--or at least took flight--from the Moon!--i.e., looking back.), that it's IN OUR GENES to explore, and that we evolved as we did, with senses and brains that reach outward and with a feeling of sheer wonder at the center of our consciousness, somehow as an expression of the Universe itself and that there are others like us, with whom we NEED to make contact, perhaps for some reason that we don't yet understand (for instance, that the large portions of our brains that we don't use are not just redundant, backup systems but contain capabilities that will only become evident when we meet other sentient species).

I would like to see the entire world committed to space exploration. And I would like to see all military budgets, in particular, ended, and all those vast resources committed to exploring and understanding the Universe. It just seems so obvious to me that this SHOULD happen, that I find it difficult to articulate the reasons why, but let me sum it up this way: Hope and inspiration. It has been heartbreaking to see the U.S. turn away from space and toward war. We had such a chance to do otherwise and our Corporate Rulers and War Profiteers wouldn't let it happen. They would rather mire us in bankruptcy, pollution, resource wars and an oil economy, on a dying planet, than having us looking upward and outward in a society committed to human progress, fairness and the development of everyone's highest capabilities.

Ergo, the "'100 Year Starship' project," being a product of that same Corporate/War Profiteer establishment, quite naturally comes under suspicion. What are they up to now? I want to applaud it, but I can't quite. I need to know more. For instance, phrases like "sources say the leader will be...," from MSNBC, give me the willies. How does democracy operate in this insular Pentagon society, or is it laughable to think that it should or could? WHO is funding these Jemison foundations? What say do "we the people" have in $500,000 contracts and other massive amounts of our money being spent on projects that we know virtually nothing about?

Maybe I shouldn't quibble. $500,000 is a pittance to the Pentagon, which wastes TRILLIONS of our tax dollars every year on things we never vote on (unless you consider the votes of the Diebold Congress "our" votes). I'm all for funding NASA and almost everything it does or wants to do (that I know about). And if I'm going to yell about transparency, the Pentagon's wars and weapons (not to mention CIA and other black budgets) are the place to start, not NASA. But I also can't ignore the fact that they are connected, and that there could be some devious aspects to this space exploration project.

So I will wait until there is more information before I applaud it. Let the citizen investigations begin!

[Posteritatis]

28. Precisely what devious aspects are there to this?

I haven't seen any such aspects in the last year of following the fairly transparent and documented study, though I understand that something like this getting posted on DU will encourage people to emote like hell over it.

It's just a DARPA study (and even that process isn't terribly difficult to read up on), if a more ambitious one than usual, not some conspiracy to I-dunno-but-there's-gotta-be-a-conspiracy.

[Peace Patriot]

35. True, known NASA projects have not only been benign...

...they have been laudable, indeed, awesome, and have expressed the very best qualities of our society.

Unfortunately, that cannot be said about the Pentagon in general and the two (the Pentagon and NASA) are closely tied together in ways that we can see and very likely in ways that we cannot see. So what is this project really about? Space exploration a hundred years from now or something else--for instance, the development of yet more technology, say, USAF drone aircraft, for remotely spying on and murdering-without-trial the "enemies" of fatcat capitalists, banksters and war profiteers, or say, developing/monopolizing power sources that should be free but won't be--will, instead, be used to dominate and further enslave the human race to a few rich shitheads?

I was careful to say that I merely have suspicions about it, and I'm sorry, but the Pentagon interesting itself in a space project a hundred years from now strikes me as...laughable. They have, shall we say, more immediate concerns--for instance, draining trillions of dollars out of our schools and other social programs for corporate resource wars, run by corrupt private contractors whose only interest is PROFIT.

This project may well be as laudable as repairing the Hubble telescope, putting remote scientific vehicles on Mars or sending Viking out of the solar system. It may end up hugely benefiting humanity--in knowledge, glorious new tech widgets or a new, free power source. It has that potential. But this intricate tangle of private/corporate/public interests bothers me, and the Pentagon and the whole national security state of which it is the lead agency bothers the hell out of me. That is all that I am saying. We should be aware that this project could be other than what it seems or could have hidden aspects that are NOT beneficial. And if our democracy was in working order--a real democracy--that would not be possible, but it, very unfortunately, IS possible.

We are now looking "out" into the remotest regions of the Universe with the staggeringly awesome Hubble telescope. At the same time, those who wish to control us, rob us and deny us our rights are looking at what we had for dinner and with whom--and at the tiniest details of our whereabouts, associations, opinions, habits, meetings and potential for rebellion or manipulation. We look out, at the macrocosm, in all its glory, while those with the money and technology to do so, look inward, here, at the microcosm of our lives, seeking yet more control over our lives and resources.

We need to be aware of this--of both the upsides and the downsides of private corporate/government development of technology. With those USAF/private corporate-developed "drones" now on the open market, WHAT Pandora's box has been opened? Bad enough that the USAF can wantonly kill whomever it wishes, anywhere in the world, without risking their million dollar pilots. Soon everybody and anybody with the money will be able to do the same. WHEN did we make a DEMOCRATIC decision to unleash this dreadful technology upon the world?

One other thing: There are entire buildings in Washington DC devoted to writing phony "transparent" documents that disguise purposes as well as disguising the wholesale looting of the federal treasury by war profiteers. I heard an analysis, for instance, of private contractors for the USAID in Afghanistan. FIFTY PERCENT of the money (our tax money) was used for maintaining offices in DC for writing MORE proposals for federal money. 50%! Twenty-five percent went to creating luxurious and secure offices in Afghanistan for the private contractors, and, at best, the final twenty-five percent went into the local mafia to be doled out to local farmers but nobody knows if they ever benefited. On paper, this contract was to ween local farmers away from poppy plants to other crops. In reality, it made a bunch of lobbyists in Washington DC very rich--with not even a dent in the heroine trade.

The lesson is that we cannot rely on such fronting documents to know where our money is going and to what purpose--or, for instance, with regard to technology, who will end up with the patents. "Our" government "paper trail" is now basically designed, by lobbyists, to cover up real purposes, not to reveal them. And it is not just reasonable, it is extremely important to ask, "what are the hidden aspects of a government project?"

I DON'T KNOW if this one is benign. That is ALL that I am saying. In theory, it is something that I would support enthusiastically. But the folks in all those office buildings in Washington DC are real good at writing up great-sounding "theories" while stuffing their pockets today and laying the ground work to stuff their pockets tomorrow--by hand-over-fist theft, or by gaining control of information, technology or other resources.

BE suspicious. That is our job as citizens and one that is even more important in a very damaged democracy, with a government devoted to secrecy and private gain.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IDemo.

[Marrah_G]

33. This is my son's dream

He wants to build the first warp drive I told him he he does I want a job on board as a cook! Hey who knows, maybe he will. He is in the AF and is planning a masters in aerospace engineering

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

36. Cook? It probably won't be the same as cooking on Terra Firma

"Noooo, don't push the Brussel Sprouts button on the particle replicator again!"

"Look, just push the Chili Dog button"

"What is this slop that came out of the particle replicator?"

"So what if I had Chili Dogs for lunch? I want Chili Dogs for dinner! Yes, THAT button!"

"This dinner's cold! Stand back, I'll put my Phaser on Medium High"

"The chefs on Seti Alpha Six are way better than you!"

As for aerospace engineering:

"Hey, Engineering, this beer tastes skunky! You been modulatiing the Lager Replicator ePROM again?"

Warp drive? Too late. My 74 Pontiac had warp drive. A front-end alignment fixed it.

Fly safe

[Marrah_G]

39. LOL !!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

38. Did the interview in the OP link mention a 100-year mission?

I heard Jemison talk about the moon, Mars, and asteroid fly-bys. I didn't hear her talk about any multigenerational mission beyond the solar system.

Mostly she talked about funding, and the desire and commitment that will drive funding.

It will be hard to find proper funding for long manned space missions when we have pressing needs here and now.

[Posteritatis]

43. One could always look at the source itself rather than respond to claims that weren't made.

http://www.100yss.org/faq.html

[LongTomH]

48. Thanks for the link!

I'll bookmark it.