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.