A big institution that does not object that what it is doing can evaporate the earth in a few years’ time cannot refuse answering much longer.
Space is a hard sell these days. Aside from the persistent small community of die-hard space advocates and New Space entrepreneurs, the relevance of space to the society at large has generally declined since the grand achievements of the Space Race and even such great feats as the building of the ISS have garnered rather modest public attention. In recent years we have had more active astronauts than ever in history, yet few among the general public can name a single one. An appreciation of space science seems to have improved in recent years by virtue of the impressive visuals offered by orbital telescopes, space probes, and rovers. But the general public commitment to space development still dwindles in the face of mounting domestic issues. Most recently we have seen a drastic contraction of national space agencies in response to the current global economic turmoil. Programs are reduced, cut, or under looming threat. We hear pronouncements of deemphasis of costly manned space activity by the major national players in space development. The world leader in space, NASA, now drifts aimlessly, its premier launch system–controversial from the start, often dismissed as a boondoggle, and dragged along for far too long–finally succumbing to obsolescence without a replacement at-hand, leaving the agency dependent upon foreign nations and struggling for a semblance of direction and purpose. In this past few years, finding itself abandoned on both right and left sides of the political fence, it faced the very real possibility of being shut down altogether and now its partner DARPA talks of century-long space programs with no government involvement at all because the very idea of the US government having the coherence to accomplish anything that takes more than one electoral cycle to do has become implausible.
Overconfident to the extreme after recent very significant, yet still modest in the broad perspective, successes, the newest faction of the commercial space community, the New Space entrepreneurs, boast their readiness to pick up the slack, not quite cluing into the fact that the rope isn’t just dropped, it may be cut! Space industry has never been a very big industry despite the seemingly gigantic sticker prices of its hardware. The global space industry accounts for around 160 billion dollars annually. Soft drinks account for 350 billion. Coca Cola is bigger than NASA. Meanwhile, the lion’s share of commercial space service has always been for governments and the remaining largely telecommunications applications –after 50 years still the only proven way to make money in space- face slow decline as latency becomes increasingly critical to mainstream communications. The ‘grand convergence’ long anticipated in computing has now focused on the Internet which is steadily assimilating all forms of mainstream communication and media distribution. Despite a few service providers of last resort, satellites simply don’t work as a host for conventional Internet and physics precludes any solution to that. We owe recent surges in launch service demand more to war than anything else. Ultimately, we’re not looking at a privatization of national space systems. We’re looking at their outright obsolescence and an overall decline in the relevance of space activity of any sort short of science applications, which have no more need of astronauts than for manned submersibles and for the same reasons. The need for space services will not disappear but, as it stands now, has little likelihood of growth either–except on the back of war. Logically, what commercial space desperately needs is a program for the systematic cultivation of new applications the space agencies have never seriously pursued–new ways to make money there, particularly in an industrial context. And what do the mavericks of New Space have on offer in that context? Space tourism for the rich, during a time of global recession…
There is a great misconception today that the challenges of commercial space are merely technological problems waiting to be solved by that one new breakthrough propulsion technology that never materializes. But commercial air travel did not become ubiquitous by virtue of flight technology becoming miraculously cheap and powerful like microprocessors. It became ubiquitous by realizing markets of scale that supported aircraft of enormous size needing very large minimum operation economies of scale, where populations of millions in communities with well-heeled comfortable middle-classes are necessary to generate sufficient traffic to justify the existence of a single airport. A single A380 airliner costs almost as much as the development of a typical unmanned launch system. Air travel was never particularly successful in an industrial sense. Most stuff still moves around the world at the 20mph speed of ships. The New Deal and the remnant air support infrastructure of WWII were together probably more responsible for the modern airline industry than any engine or aircraft design–because they created the market. If it takes a population of millions to justify the existence of a single conventional airport for conventional airliners, what then a Pan-Am Orion?
For those who look to space as an insurance policy for life and the human civilization, this situation should be of much concern. Whether it be for averting the potential disasters of asteroid strikes or as a redoubt for some fraction of civilization in the event of any terrestrial disaster, a vast space-based infrastructure must be continually at-hand for such capability. Yet these kinds of threats do not themselves seem to have ever inspired sufficient concern in the general public or political leaders to demand such capability be established and maintained for its own sake. You cannot talk in public about such space contingencies and be taken remotely seriously. One could say we have been a bit too lucky as a civilization. There have been no small asteroid impacts in historic memory and few global existentially threatening events beyond those we human beings have created –and we’re very good at systematic denial of those. So this contingency capability relies on being incidental to other space development. That development has been inadequate for that to date, counting on future expansion that has never materialized. What then as we watch that development fizzle-out altogether? The essential cultural relevance of space development can be seen as crucial to the long-term survival of our species, and that’s in marked decline.
“Why, then, would the Bundestag be disallowed to discuss CERN for the reason that the issue is already before the UN Security Council?”, I replied.
Nonetheless he has a point: I apparently have got to respond to Karl Hiltpolt’s and John Baez’s public assaults since at least one of them is endowed with a good name in science.
It is true that my often having an urgent undertone in my voice is at odds with all known journalistic rules. Such no-no behavior immediately costs you all public attention — it is obvious that I never took a media course. And even worse, 3 years ago I called on the International Court of Crimes Against Humanity (who would not reply). My excuse was the extinction of humankind risked by CERN’s not admitting the scientific safety conference logically required in the face of new evidence. Such an act is automatically perceived by the media as un-reportable.
So it is probably my fault that the incriminated LHC experiment could be switched on twice, the first time with a local disaster, the second time without fanfares two years after.
Continue reading “My Journalist Friend Thinks I Have No Chance Against Two Well-Funded Hate Blogs” »
Compiled on 24 Sep 2011
Human Rights Council
Eighteenth session
Agenda item 1
Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in all countries
High Assembly:
Every child’s life is being consciously attacked by a hilarious group of scientists at a Swiss town well known to many members of the United Nations – Geneva.
Continue reading “ReliefWeb Briefing Kit for UN General Assembly + Gender” »
but now you question Einstein’s whole theory while continuing to refuse a scientific safety conference that could save the planet if he was right.
Were it not for the latter dark cloud, everyone would find this childish behavior cute — an ingenious plot.
Time is ripe to admit the long requested Einstein conference before the LHC can go on.
Everyone feels so now.
From: Otto E. Rossler
To: “guido.westerwelle@bundestag.de“
Cc: “martinovica@UN.org“
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:18 PM local time
Subject: Call for help
Dear Mr. Secretary of State Westerwelle, Esq.:
No one on the planet in a high position in science or politics or the media believes me that I have given a proof which implies that the “safety conference” requested by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011 is necessary immediately.
My excuse is that not a single scientist on the planet openly contradicts the Telemach theorem on which the proof of danger is based. (Telemach was the son of Ulysses, but TeLeMaCh also means the essence of Einstein’s early main result on gravity.)
There is growing recognition that the Moon is the logical next step for sustainably opening space to human settlement. It is now confirmed that both lunar poles contain appreciable quantities of ice containing water and also carbon and nitrogen containing compounds. Since the Moon is always only a 3-day trip away, it easily beats low-gravity asteroids as the most economic place to mine water ice. Similarly, since the Moon has only a 3-second roundtrip communications delay, teleoperated robots could mine and process the lunar ice at a fraction of what human miners would cost. That ice, brought back to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) could establish a new space economy including on-orbit refueling, boosting large communications satellites to GEO, sending tourists around or even to the Moon, and facilitating NASAs Beyond Earth Orbit activities. So the Moon is a great place to develop economic in-space resources.
But, what does all of this do with survival?
Amongst those people who understand extinction risks to humanity, it is generally recognized that an off-Earth, self-sufficient colony would go a very long ways to ensuring the survival of humanity as a species. An orbiting colony would not be a good choice because, if the Earth’s biosphere were contaminated with an ecophage, the Earth itself would not anymore be a source of supplies, and Earth orbit contains no resources except for sunlight. Mars, an asteroid, or a distant moon could be a location for an off-Earth colony, but all of these would be considerably more expensive to establish than on the Moon. For those of us who think it prudent that we should purchase “insurance” against the extinction of humanity sooner rather than later, the least expensive location makes the most sense. So the Moon is a great place to establish a colony for the purpose of survival.
Interesting, so the Moon is the best place for both economics and survival. Perhaps the two could be combined into a single program. But, in the Age of Austerity, it is unlikely that our governments are going to fund a large new space program. So how can this be done economically?
Continue reading “Economics and Survival: An In-space 2-for-1 Bargain” »
Dear UNGA:
The Security Council may have informed you about the fact that a Cologne court asked the German government – and implicitly you – to immediately order a “safety conference” because there is scientific evidence that the LHC experiment at CERN is currently producing miniature black holes that it (1) cannot detect and which (b) can shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time.
Signed: Otto E. Rossler, Nobel prize candidate
Please, sacrifice a minute of your precious time to show your chaos colleague at Tubingen where the error lies in his generalization of Einstein’s seminal T-theorem (gravitational clock slow-down), the T-L-M-Ch theorem.
The latter says that besides the gravitational clock slowdown T, there is a proportional gravitational length increase L (invisible from above), a proportional gravitational rest-mass-energy decrease M, and a proportional gravitational charge decrease Ch. ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf )
The three corollaries to Einstein’s T radically change the properties of black holes. For example, black holes become undetectable to CERN’s detectors if successfully produced there – for instance, at this very moment.
The world public sees that no single scientist on the planet contradicts me but all scientists support CERN. This is a volatile situation. I think now is the time that the Nobel committee name a defender of CERN’s while the underground cannons in Geneva pause.
I just listened-in to the hymn “Amazing Grace” played in honor of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
I pledge to make this timeless melody the planet’s hymn in case it survives the present assault by CERN.
