If You Lived Here, You’d be Home Already:

A Brief Insight into Space Habitat Feasibility

The nature of humans as a species has always been to explore and conquer the unknown.  From colonizing faraway lands to researching abstract and complex scientific concepts, humans have developed knowledge, thereby adding to the quality of our existence.  When I think of space exploration, the previously defined epitome of human nature comes to mind.  Space exploration brings together the best of Earth’s offerings for the never-ending quest to explore and learn.  The purpose of the following blog is to explore the United States space program via my own curiosity, and to integrate science communication concepts into the issue.

In Roger D. Launius’ essay titled “An Historical Overview US Manned Space Exploration”, a brief overview of the space program in the United States is given.  I identified an underlying theme of a fear-driven country funding the space program for protection against competing countries, and political leaders striving for international superiority.  Launius presented the space program in a way I hadn’t seen before, and put realisms of the space program into question.  While reading Launius’ recap of the International Space Station project, and recalling classroom discussions, a curiosity developed about the permanent presence of humans in space; space colonization.  The questions I mentally queued for research were as follows:  What would the colonization of space mean for humans, and has the technological prerequisite been met?  Would society ever be convinced to willingly fund such an endeavor without the Cold War as motivation?

My research first focused on the technical feasibility of space settlements.  In the 1970’s, five years of research done mainly at Princeton University concluded that space habitats could be constructed with the current materials and technologies available (Curreri, 2007).  Although it may be technically possible to sustain life in space, the effects on humans are not completely understood.  Problems that must be addressed first are the leaching of certain minerals from bones, atrophy of muscles when not exercised, and space adaptation syndrome ("living in space:," 1999).  Regardless, living in space seems to be a realistic goal, but feasibility is quite a separate issue than economics in such an expensive and seemingly farfetched project.  In order for a project to move forward, the importance of the project first needs to be established.

Michael Griffin, NASA Administration

Looking into the importance of humans moving past mere Earth inhabitation, an interesting news article appeared.  NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was quoted in a 2005 Washington Post article while commenting on the importance space colonization:

 ... the goal isn't just scientific exploration ... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time ... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive ... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it. ... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids ... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond.

Above, Griffin delicately frames space colonization in terms of a catastrophe.  Framing, as defined in class, is taking a situation and shaping it into a certain perspective, such as an impending catastrophe.  Griffin does this by implying that humans may not survive beyond a hundred-thousand years without the capability of sustaining existence in space and on other planets.  Putting the space program in terms of species survival somewhat parallels the threat created by the Cold War, giving hope for a renewed public interest in the space program.  The difference between then and now, however, is a lack of urgency and a developing mistrust from the public.  Public mistrust results from the absence of astounding missions like the Apollo 11, apparent shortcomings of the space shuttle program, and because of disasters endured such as the Challenger launch explosion and the Columbia reentry accident (Launius, 2010; Logsdon 2009).

When Michael Griffin insinuates that humans must seek habitats on other planets to survive, he makes an indirect reference to the concept of Earth’s carrying capacity, the population below which humans can survive on Earth indefinitely.  As a population of solely hunter-gatherers, only 100 million humans could be supported by Earth; in contrast, if all humans were living in large cities, and the remainder of the Earth was farmed to maximum efficiency, Earth could support 30 billion humans ("Earth's carrying capacity" 2000).  All that is known with certainty is that a carrying capacity exists, and we are getting closer to it every day.

The funding of space habitation now becomes very similar to the issue of Climate Change.  Scientists agree that there is an impending danger to humans’ way of life, but the point at which action is necessary is unknown.  The cost of mitigation, whether by funding the space program or slowing the rate of warming activities, becomes less of a priority in the face of more immediate concerns such as poverty, global instability, etc. The subjective risk perceived by the stakeholders (the public) does not encompass the urgency that scientists perceive in light of current affairs.  Subjective risk, as opposed to an objective risk, is what an individual perceives as the possibility of an unwanted event.  In addition to lowered perceived risks, the cultural cognition thesis, which connects the different cultural values of an individual to the opinions they hold, would undoubtedly hold true in an issue of government funding, thereby hindering space program support in certain areas.

Returning to my original questions, what would the colonization of space mean for humans, and has the technological prerequisite been met?  According to NASA, the colonization of space would mean continued species survival.  In addition, it appears that the technology required is available, but it comes at great expense (International Space Station as an example).  Would society ever be convinced to willingly fund such an endeavor without the Cold War as motivation?  The answer to this question is not as clear.  Drawing a parallel to the Climate Change controversy, the societal implications of colonizing space is important, but it boils down to what individuals see as the subjective risks of withholding space program funds.

Moving forward, the solution to gaining public support requires three things.  First, a reason for the funding needs to be established and backed with a sense of urgency.  Scientists must convey potential consequences of a lacking space program through both quantification and qualification.  Second, a passion for the space program needs to be renewed.  The Apollo 11 mission captured the attention of the world, and truly inspired the public to believe in NASA and to support further space endeavors.  Landing on the moon once again would not invoke the same feelings it did in 1969, but other options include perhaps a small lunar power station, as a demonstration of sustained human presence in space.  Third, support from political leaders is the vital element to convincing the public to fund a space colonization program.  If political leaders saw space colonization as an opportunity to once again exhibit global superiority in terms of technology, it would be a logical political pursuit.  No matter what happens in the near future, I will be waiting with anticipation in hopes of another step towards space colonization.

References

Curreri, P. A. (2007). A Minimized Technological Approach Towards Human Self Sufficiency off Earth. Space Technology and Applications International Forum

NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System'. (2005, September 25). The Washington Post

Earth's Carrying Capacity. (2000). Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=terraform03

Living in Space: The Continuing Challenge of Microgravity. (1999). Retrieved From http://www.pbs.org/spacestation/station/living_microgravity.htm

Launius, R. D. (2008). An Historical Overview of US Manned Space Exploration. In D. Kleinman, K. Cloud-Hansen, C. Matta & J. Handelsman (Eds.), Controversies in Science & Technology (pp. 205-236). Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Logsdon, J. M. (2009). Fifty Years of Human Spaceflight. In NASA's First 50 Years: Historical Perspectives (pp. 275-285). Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Scientific Fool's Gold and the Shift to Scientific Overskepticism

Trevor Pinch delves into the scientific controversy of cold fusion in his essay “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge”.  What I found most interesting in this essay was the fact that two chemists in a physicist’s world were trying to conduct something that physical science had already deemed theoretically impossible, and the result was a scientific gold-rush.  This “test-tube fusion” was too good to be true, and the result was many tarnished reputations and red-faces.  It seems that emotion played a significant and unsatisfactory role in the preemptive reporting and hopeful interpretation of Fleischmann’s and Pons’ ground-breaking results.

My curiosity was driven by the quick shift from the overly-optimistic frenzy in the scientific community to the heated debate on the realities of cold fusion.  I believe that the initial emotion-driven response to the prospect of cold fusion led to excitement, proved by the quick attempts to replicate the cold fusion experiment and the equally quick reports of similarly false-positive results.  When the fallacies of the experimental techniques became evident, cold fusion turned out to be fool’s gold; once it was brought into the light of day, it could be seen for what it was.  Questions that were raised in my mind in response to this were as follows: How has skepticism within the scientific community increased since March of 1989?  Are there any other examples of scientific fool’s gold since the cold fusion controversy that proves skepticism has not increased to a productive level? 

Robert L. Park of What's New

Quickly after beginning my research, it was obvious that modern scientific skepticism had been influenced by the cold fusion controversy of 1989.  In Robert L. Park’s What’s New weekly column, reports of scientific happenings are discussed.  Being a professor of physics and former chair at the University of Maryland, his opinion undoubtedly holds weight in the scientific community.  When Science was preparing to release an article on sonofusion, Dr. Park heavily discredited the concept without reading the article, predicting it to become "a repeat of the cold fusion fiasco” (Boerner, 2003).  The immediate rejection of scientific results simply on the basis that it challenges a long-standing theory creates the concept of scientific overskepticism (new concept).  An increased skeptical stance on the part of Dr. Park caused an immediate dismissal of a new fusion technology prospect.

Dr. Taleyarkhan with his Sonofusion Reactor

Robert L. Park is truly a skeptic, evidenced by his many critiques in the weekly column What's New.  However, does his opinion reflect that of the scientific community?  In search of more evidence of scientific overskepticism, I came across a research paper presented at the 11th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics titled Sonofusion – fact or fiction?.  In this paper, it is concluded that “thermonuclear fusion occurs and is quite repeatable” (Lahey, 2005).  This report conflicts with Park’s view, but more importantly, contains a much more modest approach to investigating and reporting a scientific finding than what had occurred in 1989 with Fleischmann and Pons fusion experiments.  Park’s views appear to stand alone, and science moves forward.

So how has the skepticism within the scientific community increased since March of 1989?  I believe that the cold fusion controversy has created a sense of serious doubt among some.  A cycle of mistrust has been sewn between scientists researching abstract concepts and those who recall what happens when initial findings are found to be misleading or inaccurate.  The scientists who make conclusions from data are less likely to share results and implications because of the mistrust they have for the overly skeptical, and skeptics are less likely to credit results with legitimate findings.  This mistrust between the researchers leads to a biased assimilation of the results; the challenge to a theory alone prevents the interpreters of the data to see meaningful implications of the research.  So, is the overall scientific skepticism currently at a level that is facilitative of effective research?  Moving forward, I think that this in an important question to consider.

Returning to my second question, are there any other examples of scientific fool’s gold since the cold fusion controversy? Finding examples that were similar to the cold fusion controversy of 1989 proved to be difficult.  Although faulty experimental techniques and false hopes are sure to have occurred, the widespread gold-rush effect was absent.  Did the scientific community learn from its mistake?  I believe that in a sense, this is true.  Research has been approached with modesty and transparency and the results have been met with (mostly) moderate skepticism.  This has created an environment which facilitates healthy challenges to long-standing theories.

The scientific community was shaken-up by Fleischmann and Pons.  The result was a more modest approach to research data and more skepticism in interpreting results.  Scientists have taken a reactive stance; they have made a mistake, and developed as a result.  In some cases, overskepticism has resulted, disregarding any significant research.  Conclusively, I think that we have yet to see the end of faulty research and misinterpretation and the resulting disappointment, but as a whole, the scientific community has become more balanced and systematic in challenging theories.

References

Pinch, T. (1998). Essays in the study of scientific discourse. (pp. 73-87). London: Ablex Publishing Company.

Boerner, R. (2003). Seven warning signs of bogus skepticism. Retrieved from http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Skepticbogus/index.html

Lahey, R. T., Taleyarkhan, R. P., & Nigmatulin, R. I. (2005). Sonofusion – fact or fiction?. The 11 th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics, Retrieved from http://homepages.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion%20Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf

The Nanotechnology Wonderland – Ignorance is Bliss

Curiosity:
Jennifer Kuzma raises some very interesting points about the problems with assessing risk from the increasing use of nanotechnology. The problem I found with reading this essay is the lack proof that using nanotechnology would be any different than using a hazardous chemical (such as industrial floor cleaner). According to Kuzma, humans have been exposed to these nano-scale particles for a long period of time, so the lack of a solid example of negative impact on human health or environment would then be a powerful statement. This inspired me to research for actual negative effects that nanoparticles have had on humans, and societal perception of this technology.

• Are there any actual examples of nanotechnology adversely affecting health or environment?
• How does the public perceive risks of nanotechnology?

Findings and Discussion:
After searching for some legitimate examples of nanotechnology hazards, it became obvious that the risks from nanoparticle exposure are very real. The Daily Telegraph, a media group based in the United Kingdom, reported on two deaths in Beijing clearly tied to nanotechnology. Seven women were treated at a hospital for respiratory problems over the course of a few months. Scientists determined that a particular paint used at a factory contained nanoparticles that accumulated in the lungs of the ill workers. Even after removal from the hazard, the condition of the women worsened, and eventually two of them died. According to Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "This is the first clear case where there is an association between someone breathing in nanoparticles in the workplace and getting seriously ill. People should take this very seriously. The international research community should be galvanised by this.”

My first observation from Dr. Maynard’s comments was an apparent disconnect between people and the “international research community”. Dr. Maynard encourages researchers to act, and society to take the event seriously. The two distinct instructions seem to reflect Snow’s model of two cultures.  Dr. Maynard anticipates a knowledge deficit in society by eliminating the role the public should play in assessing this now realized risk. I believe that society should not just "take this event seriously", but should also be galvanized. The outcry and concerns of people and the societal implications of nanotechnology should facilitate future research in this area. The two distinct groups should not be separated, but should approach the serious implications of the deaths together.

The risks to health from nanotechnology has been established by the preceding example from 2009, but the potential for risks appears to have developed much sooner. Respectively, the United States Department of Defense has allocated significant funds for research in this area. According to a report to the United States congress, the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program was established in 2003, the goal of which is “to discover, control, and exploit unique phenomena of military importance”.  A military importance in any scientific breakthrough is suggestive of potential harm.

In an attempt to determine what the public perceives as the risk of nanotechnologies, I searched popular videos and news articles on the subject. As the YouTube video below explains, exciting and wondrous things such as faster computers and live saving nanobots await us in the future. The periodic table of elements has been expanded, and innovation in this technology is unlimited. As the 10 minute video continues, so does the excitement of scientists. Only in the last 90 seconds is the word “risk” even spoken, and it is then followed by comforting words from experts. The scientists whom specialize in this field have motivated reasoning to down-play any serious risk to protect their future careers, and the filter of the media has marginalized any perceived harm that nanotechnology may have by focusing only on the excitement of the wonders to come.



Conclusions:
Referring back to my initial questions, the death of factory workers two years ago raised some logical questions about risks of nano-sized science and provides an example of harmful nanotechnology. The involvement of the Department of Defense by funding research for military applications has implied that serious dangers may accompany innovation. The media has portrayed the field of nanotechnology as an exciting science fiction novel, and the excitement of new technology drowns out the fear of danger to health and environment. The societal implications of nanotechnology are substantial for society, but only the exciting and innovative parts of the field are truly exploited.

This research has undoubtedly raised more questions. These new questions are more difficult to answer, but the research that would follow would clarify more about perceived risk and public response. Will nanotechnology ever pose a serious large-scale threat?  Will the public perceive any risk once the excitement of nano-bots and new technology wears off?  Moving forward, I believe that future research should not be biased in that that only positive applications of the science are portrayed without any emphasis on risk. It is obvious that the inefficiency to portray the risk of nanotechnology creates a preconceived notion among individuals that nanotechnology could only create positive outcomes.


Works Consulted:

Kuzma, Jennifer. “Nanotechnology: Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk” Controversies in Science & Technology 2010.

Smith, Rebecca. "Nanoparticles used in Paint could Kill, Research Suggests."Telegraph 19 Aug 2009. Web. 5 Sep 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6016639/ Nanoparticles-used-in-paint-could-kill-research-suggests.html>.

United States. Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development: Report to Congress. 2009. Web. <http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/dod-report_to_congress_final_1mar10.pdf>.

Nora, Savage. United States. Arlington: , 2010. Web. <http://www.nseresearch.org/2010/ presentations/Day3_Nora_Savage%20NSF%2012-8-10%20FNL.pdf> 

Nanotechnology Takes Off. KQED Quest, 2007. Web. 8 Sep 2011. <http://youtu.be/S4CjZ-OkGDs>. <http://youtu.be/S4CjZ-OkGDs>.