Lifeboat Foundation

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823150403.htm

In a recent comment John Hunt mentioned the most probable solution to the Fermi Paradox and as more and more planets are discovered this solution becomes ever more troubling.

Whether civilizations are rare due to comet and asteroid impacts- as Ed Lu recently stated was a possibility- or they self-destruct due to technology, the greater danger is found in human complacency and greed. We have the ability right now, perhaps as hundreds or even thousands of other civilizations had, to defend ourselves from the external and internal threats to our survival. Somewhat like salmon swimming upstream, it may not be life itself that is rare- it may be intelligent life that survives for any length of time that is almost non-existent.

The answer is in space. The resources necessary to leave Earth and establish off world colonies are available- but there is no cheap. Space travel is inherently expensive. Yet we spend billions on geopolitical power games threatening other human beings with supersonic fighters and robot missile assassins. The technology to defend civilization as a whole from the plausible threat represented by this “Great Silence” will cost us no more than what we spend on expensive projects like vertical take-off stealth fighters and hyper-velocity naval rail guns. But it is not the easy money of weapons; it is the hard money of vehicles and systems that must work far from Earth that is unattractive to the corporate profit motive.

Atomic spaceships capable of transporting colonists and intercepting impact threats are the prerequisites to safeguarding our species.

I know I am not authorized for doing that since you do not know me. But one third of all fundamental scientists in the world (those that deal with chaos and nonlinearity) are on my side. Two thirds (those that deal with quanta and gravitation) do not believe that a chaos theorist has the right to teach them anything. Much as in economics where nonlinearity was a taboo for many decades, in fundamental physics it still is.

So I beg the planet’s general population for mercy: please, forgive the linear community in physics for their not allowing the proof of danger that lies on the table for 4 years to be discussed: such a thing does not occur for the first time in history.

Also, everyone understands that CERN “cannot” update its safety report if doing this would involve discussing a danger that would not permit their experiment to be continued before a counterproof has been found.

All I ever requested is such a counterproof ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf ); http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/07/2012759585764599.html ). “Might is might.” Politicians have to rely on might, that is, majority opinion, and Western opinion at that. Scientists’ opinions unfortunately change all the time since new discoveries arise in a point-like fashion and spread slowly.

Continue reading “Humanity’s Invention in the Cosmos is Kindness: I request Permission to Save your Lives” »

The recent Skeptical Enquirer article linked to this site proclaiming antimatter propulsion as “pseudoscience” was.….wrong.

Antimatter will have to be produced in quantity to be used for propulsion but very small quantities may be all that is required for an interim system using antimatter to ignite fusion reactions.

It may be that some people pushing their own miracle solutions do not like other more practical possibilities.

Unlike any type of gravity manipulation, anti-matter is a fact. Anti-matter catalyzed fusion is a possible method of interstellar propulsion; far more in the realm of possibility than anti-gravity.

Andrew Skolnick drew my attention to this great article by John Eades, a CERN senior scientist, about antimatter engines and weapons.

Antimatter Pseudoscience by John Eades in the Skeptical Inquirer http://www.csicop.org/si/show/antimatter_pseudoscience/

We, Andrew Skolnick and I, did the calculations and showed that it would cost 42,876x our 2011 World GDP to use antimatter as a propulsion fuel to get to Alpha Centauri!!

John Eades goes one better and shows that it is not technologically feasible, ever. His article is facinating reading, and shows that we cannot base our hopes to leave Earth on antimatter drives.

Continue reading “New Findings on the Antimatter Drive” »

The precursor to manned space exploration of new worlds is typically unmanned exploration, and NASA has made phenomenal progress with remote controlled rovers on the Martian surface in recent years with MER-A Spirit, MER-B Opportunity and now MSL Curiosity. However, for all our success in reliance on AI in such rovers — similar if not more advanced to AI technology we see around us in the automotive and aviation industries — such as operational real-time clear-air turbulence prediction in aviation — such AI is typically to aid control systems and not mission-level decision making. NASA still controls via detailed commands transmitted to the rover directly from Earth, typically 225 kbit/day of commands are transmitted to the rover, at a data rate of 1–2 kbit/s, during a 15 minute transmit window, with larger volumes of data collected by the rover returned via satellite relay — a one-way communication that incorporates a delay of on average 12 or so light minutes. This becomes less and less practical the further away the rover is.

If for example we landed a similar rover on Titan in the future, I would expect the current method of step-by-step remote control would render the mission impractical — Saturn being typically at least 16 times more distant — dependent on time of year.

With the tasks of the science labs well determined in advance, it should be practical to develop AI engines to react to hazards, change course of analysis dependent on data processed — and so on — the perfect playground for advanced AI programmes. The current Curiosity mission incorporates tasks such as 1. Determine the mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials. 2. Attempt to detect chemical building blocks of life (bio-signatures). 3. Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils. 4. Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) Martian atmospheric evolution processes. 5. Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide. 6. Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic radiation, cosmic radiation, solar proton events and secondary neutrons. All of these are very deterministic processes in terms of mapping results to action points, which could be the foundation for shaping such into an AI learning engine, so that such rovers can be entrusted with making their own mission-level decisions on next phases of exploration based on such AI analyses.

Whilst the current explorations on Mars works quite well with the remote control strategy, it would show great foresight for NASA to engineer such unmanned rovers to operate in a more independent fashion with AI operating the mission-level control — learning to adapt to its environment as it explores the terrain, with only the return-link in use in the main — to relay back the analyzed data — and the low-bandwidth control-link reserved for maintenance and corrective action only. NASA has taken great strides in the last decade with unmanned missions. One can expect the next generation to be even more fascinating — and perhaps a trailblazer for advanced AI based technology.

Whether via spintronics or some quantum breakthrough, artificial intelligence and the bizarre idea of intellects far greater than ours will soon have to be faced.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120819153743.htm

MIT developed microthrusters is a good example.

JD Williams of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, was doing work on this technology as far back as 2005, and I met him 2009 at the SPESIF 2009 conference, and was impressed by what he was doing. Search Colorado State University, Fort Collins, for ‘ceramic thrusters’ to get more information.

My question, how come he did not get media attention then and now when MIT says the same thing 3 to 7 years later they get media attention?

Is the science writers’ community biased? Or is this an editorial problem?

Continue reading “Is science reporting biased towards big well funded organizations?” »

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/ni…tinue.html

Cover the deserts in solar energy plants and use electric trains for our transportation infrastructure; the best future I can imagine. A favorite Einstein quote is “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” Perhaps the number we are counting that counts is the amount of energy it would require for a future population of 10 billion people to live like we do in the west.

I was surprised to find a statement to the effect that only one method of generating this energy is practical; solar energy beamed to Earth from the Moon; from wiki–

Continue reading “Ivanpah as the future” »

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre87f15x-us-california-gmo/

Filthy Lucre will certainly destroy us all if we cannot even pass a law that makes food companies tell us what they are feeding us.