Black swans exist and will touch your life, regardless of your nature, nuture, history, or beliefs.
The Troubles With Thinking
Exploration of space and exploitation of space resources is costly in terms of material, time and human life. The value of activities to, through and in space must outweigh its attendant costs to be sustainable. I can find only one objective need for humans to become space-faring, one reason that clearly enunciates a need commensurate with the costs of the endeavor. The understanding itself of that need is faced with fundamental obstacles within human rationality that are rarely ever surmounted. The need itself can be called an "outside context problem" (coined by Iain M. Banks in his novel Excession) and is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to objectively consider, regardless of one's intelligence, education or experience. Cognitive bias and heuristics are so powerful and ingrained in people that an objective analysis of any "outside context problem" is very difficult and, in fact, intellectually dangerous.
The proposition is simply this: the development of human infrastructure in space is necessary and sufficient to avert the extinction of the human species. To do otherwise is sheer folly. Further, all other justifications for becoming a space-faring species pale in benefit when compared against this need. However, computing the monetary value of averting human extinction will be an extreme challenge. Unlike the more readily understood justifications, the value of averting human extinction cannot be objectively computed beforehand; it must simply be taken as "immense".
For some weeks now, I have been attempting to compile a set of first-order and second-order modal logical propositions as well as some easily understood syllogisms to yield compelling, objective arguments for space exploration and exploitation. As I worked to that end, I felt increasingly uneasy that I was introducing factors according to my own biases - unforgivable errors in the quest for objectivity. Turning back to principles learned in school, I began refreshing my understanding of logic itself.
In parallel, I took a closer look at what seemed to be the most powerful postulate, that being the eventual extinction of the human species. My experience in business management has grown to include some objective risk analysis, so I thought it only appropriate that I find from experts (smarter than I) the quantified probability of extinction, with its error margin and any caveats, and the modes considered. My education included some schooling in philosophical existentialism, which I find fun, but this is a little different - what might be called a "practical" existentialism, if you will. Over the years, I've retained disjointed bits of information relating to this practical existentialism but hadn't really delved into it.
Inescapably, I was drawn back into yet another field of personal interest that I haven't had the opportunity to explore as much as I have wanted - cognitive science. The result of this knowledge renewal and expansion has been enlightening, even if a bit troubling. I found an outstanding paper by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a member of the Singularity Institute of Artificial Intelligence, titled "Cognitive Biases Potentially Affecting Judgment of Global Risks" which provided me with some necessary clarity of thought.
Human extinction can be summed up rather economically as having a very high negative utility. Such an event doesn't just lower the utility present in one activity within those of a limited number of humans for some finite time - extinction is of all members and forever, so it states a total loss of all future endeavors by any and all humans. The cost is immense for those who desire that descendants get an opportunity to live, let alone better their station individually and collectively.
When asked the question, "why go to space?", there is very little agreement in answers except from within relatively small groups of people. For instance, members of The Planetary Society may tend to answer that the search for extraterrestrial life is sufficient. Adventurous sorts may tend to answer "because it's there!" or some such. While those keen on nationalistic interests may focus on the military advantage of the high ground. Each answer is sufficient unto the group answering, none are agreed to be sufficient for the human race as a whole. Because such a spectrum of answers exist, it is reasonable to infer that there seems to exist no solid, compelling, single reason to go to space - one that could be agreed on by all members of a nation's population, let alone all members of the human population.
Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind
But for that which no one is comfortable talking about or, perhaps closer to reality, no one is capable of considering without enormous perceptive bias - extinction of the entire human population. There is no shortage of possible scenarios by which this could come to pass, as Nick Bostrom of Oxford University has laid out in his article "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards". Burdened with appropriate caveats, but nonetheless telling, are the speculated probabilities of extinction values of 25% to 50% in the next 100 years. This number floored me, to be honest. When I began searching for a probability of extinction as a premise for space endeavors, I had already presumed that a number far less than 1% in 1,000 years would mean my arguments would have to be most persuasive and that a number closer to 1% would provide an argumentative "slam dunk".
Something that stands out, though, is that there are many powerful biases of human thinking that render the perceived threat of extinction nearly trivial. A convenient list that includes, among others, the trivializing biases can be found under "cognitive biases" on wikipedia. Even though these are well-studied and have been found emperically true, some readers may feel quite incorrectly that they are not subject to them.
A very obvious hinderance to objective consideration of extinction is the lack of precedent - dare I say, we've never gone extinct before. I trust the reader immediately senses the fallacy of using this reasoning. Another, perhaps more interesting cognitive factor, is the inverse relationship humans chronically apply to magnitude and incidence of a negative utility event. This is to say that as the magnitude of negative utility event increases, humans strongly tend to assign a lower probability of occurrence to that event. It's just human nature, an unfortunate obstruction for those of us concerned with existence. Yet another bias, maybe surprising to the reader, is that humans strongly tend to both overestimate the probability of a complex system successfully operating while, simultaneously, grossly underestimating the probability of a critical component failure. It might serve to recall the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster at this point.
About The Black Swan
No amount of emperical or historical evidence need exist for something to be true. Nassim Taleb, author of "Fooled by Randomness" and other irreverent epistemic pieces, presented a paper at a Pentagon conference titled "The Black Swan: Why Don't We Learn that We Don't Learn?" which was commented on by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Mr. Taleb makes the point that the most significant drivers in history are "outliers", disjunctive occurences . Like the discovery of black swans in Australia which immediately falsified the long-held law that all swans are white, a disjunctive "black swan" will appear as a complete surprise to all, shifting the course of history.
There is no sense in preparing for a future sure to be substantially altered by disjunctive events by utilizing hindsight, a method we all find extremely hard to abandon. As we continue to collect knowledge of our world and universe, it could be argued (at the last figurative minute, with the benefit of relatively hasty hindsight) that we "saw it coming", but chose an inappropriate path, or an insufficient amount, of remedy. Nonetheless, the deed will have been done while, for all intents and purposes, we were asleep at the wheel. While all linearly played events that precipitate the extinction event may not be disjunctive, the extinction outcome would still surely be such.
No person or entity on this planet, save perhaps some who suffer from a psychosis, wish the extinction of humans. Most, in fact, would unequivocably proclaim a duty to their descendents to try to provide a better world for them. Nonetheless, extinction will happen without proactive efforts to avert such an end to our species. When it does, it will be a disjunctive event. "I sure didn't see that coming!", we'll say indignantly. That'll be just a little while after the dolphins sing "So long, and thanks for all the fish."
Get To The Point!
The Black Swan will one day descend on humanity in the form of extinction - utterly total and unforgiving. As you may well have heard before, it is not a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when". The longer we find rationalizations against proactive risk mitigation, the more we assure our descendants no life whatsoever and the commensurate abandonment of all progress the species has accomplished before.
The non-trivial scenarios of extinction are spatially defined as encompassing the planet Earth, our solar system and our galaxy. For example, in the order just set forth, an impact of an asteroid tens of kilometers across, the engulfment of Earth by our own sun, and the collision of our galaxy with Saggitarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy or Andromeda Galaxy.
We have the technological know-how to begin developing a system to mitigate extinction risks spatially defined by our planet. We can get to work right now, with a sense of purpose, nobleness and intrinsic value, to enable large-scale space access and establishment of permanent occupation of another body in our solar system. The combination of factors presenting the lowest combined challenge to access, contruction, resource availability and human physiology seem to clearly indicate the planet Mars as being the logical first step.
Continuing developmental efforts could later lead us to an ability of mitigating extinction risks defined within our solar system, even within our galaxy. These risk-reducing endeavors are, quite simply, establishment of living environments not located in our present solar system, or in our present galaxy. While we must take the entire mitigation effort a step at a time, beginning with a second home for humanity within our solar system, the logical extension is intergalactic travel. We can't afford to wait until the "last minute" unless, of course, you agree with the unfortunate masses who would rather just wait and see.
I am not keen on unreasonable goals, but neither am I keen on supporting the extinction of humans through apathy. The technology for intergalactic travel is nearly unknown at this time, save for vague concepts of generational ships. We mustn't try to bite off more than can be chewed, lest our efforts become so diluted as to be ineffective. So, then, we need to organize efforts in a fashion that quickly results in the harvest of "low hanging fruit", combined with a concurrent, slowly growing body of research supporting the longest-term efforts. In particular, low-cost, high-volume space access is of immediate concern and worthy of the bulk of resource expenditure now. Intergalactic system technologies deserve, indeed require, continuous research efforts, although at proportionally lower funding levels.
As for the present, all activities that consciously work toward the realization of the goal of human infrastructure in space are commendable. That is true whether they are short-term or long, commercial or individual, or even technology transfers from a decidedly narrow-focused, short-sighted military effort. The key is to develop, innovate or experiment as each person or organization sees fit but, above all, not to stop. Effectiveness toward the necessary goal is assured if all participants in this grand and critical adventure remember where the finish lines are, specifically: first, one or more extraterrestrial homes, then extrasolar homes and, finally, extragalactic homes. If this understanding is the case, every suborbital joyride, vacation trip to an orbiting inflatable hotel, tinkering with autonomous vehicles and more can provide elements that the human species needs to assure ultimate survival, while satisfying short-term business and financial requirements that make such pursuits viable in today's economy.
There will never be a "better" time to consider the propositon spelled out in this essay - it is the nature of the problem that determines that fact. Similarly, there will never be a "better" time to get to work on averting extinction - no amount of data or debate can change the problem or the fundamental solutions indicated. While never forgetting why we must do it, we need to pursue development of new homes for humanity in a continuous, sustainably aggressive fashion, focused on creating a future wherein humans have consciously increased their chance for survival as a species - else we're making the statement that the whole of humanity is not worth the effort. Don't wait until your neighbors understand the problem, don't wait for your governmental representatives or business leaders to adopt the subject as a talking point. I wish you personal success in getting your mind around the problem, understanding the nature of the problem, as well as the amazingly powerful troubles we all have in thinking about the problem - the inevitable and inarguable extinction of the human species.
Monday, November 12, 2007
On the Usefulness of Space Endeavors
Sunday, October 14, 2007
For What Purpose Cheap Access to Space?
All things are done with purpose - great or small, trivial or profound.
Old Space
The national space program of the United States began in earnest in 1957. Its purpose was not to open space to civilization, rather, its purpose was to demonstrate without delay the nation's ability to gain an enviable military high ground, earth's moon.
Science research and technological spin-offs were very valuable and, arguably, sufficient reasons for the public to support continued spending on the program. Both, however, were incidental results of the driving effort. One clue to the fact it was an unsustainable effort was seen posted at contractor facilities at the time: "Waste anything but time".
The political goal was met in 1969, some 500 million people around the world were witness. It was, then, over. The nationally-funded efforts in space changed direction, away from ideological one-upmanship to pragmatic authority over a newly opened dominion. The tremendous mechanism that actualized men on the moon was scaled back, but not eliminated, focusing now on the strategic ground in between called earth orbit.
It is unfortunate that so many starry-eyed "space cadets" were allowed to believe that the national space program was gearing up for a "Spage Age" of civilization. In reality, no matter what scenarios have been published suggesting otherwise, it was and is predominantly about maintaining control of an area.
Statutes, regulations, treaties and cost create very high economic and political barriers to entry of the "space markets", thus assuring continued control. Since such control is enabled by political actions, and the United States is a republic, there is a continuous need to present a "public face" to the national space program. This "face" has taken the form of interplanetary probes, commercialization of space, earth resource management and astronauts. These are not sinister "fronts", nor are they the reason that a space program exists. In the social structure of the United States, they are necessary but secondary to the primary duty of the national space program - to maintain authoritative control over the high ground.
The "commercial space industry" exists and has existed since day one; representatives of Boeing/Northrup/Lockheed will not hesitate to remind anyone of that fact. The Air Force doesn't build planes and NASA doesn't build spacecraft. Non-governmental corporations are contracted to build launch vehicles, satellites and other systems for NASA and Space Command (Air Force). The distinction between old space and new space could be as simple as the transition away from contracting with the taxpayer for national interests to contracting with other private companies for commercial interests. If this is a reasonable statement, then some existing business has already been in "new space" - in particular, private corporations who enter contracts with other corporations to design and build satellites for commercial use. We need to see if an entirely private commercial infrastructure can be self-sufficient, without financial obligation to the nation, in its serving private-sector customers. If that is the case, then "new space" is viable.
New Space
The catch phrase is "cheap access to space", the new motto could be: "Waste anything but money." It is believed by many that the way to assure economic efficiency is to create a system using only private-sector, "free market", funding.
It is also believed that, having developed such an economically efficient means of accessing space, customers will immediately sign up in sufficient numbers to satisfy the payback required by investors.
However, the Commercial Space Transportation Study, a comprehensive assessment of space market elasticity by six major aerospace firms in 1993, concluded that they " ...have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic enough to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than the combined payback and operations costs per flight for a completely commercially developed system. To attract commercial investment it appears that some level of government participation will be necessary." If the reader accepts the models and assumptions on which the report is based, then it is sound but now somewhat dated. Dr. Bruce Dunn wrote commentary on the report in 1995, then updated his paper in 2001.
Further insight into hurdles facing those who would dramatically lower the cost of space access can be found in a workshop summary, "Big Dumb Boosters: A Low-Cost Space Transportation Option?" recorded by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1989. One of the attendees, Mr. Arthur Schnitt, published "must-read" commentary on the web about that report. Concluding his commentary, he states "It isn't clear from the CSTS study itself what is thought by the CSTS participants to be the development cost of the 'completely commercially developed system' - the Conclusion merely state that such a system isn't economically feasible." Mr. Jim Kingdon also provides us with a concise and relevant view of the space market in general on his website.
The supposition that "if you build it, they will come" won't hold true for low-cost space launch vehicles alone. Neither will it hold true for satellites or launch facilities alone. In fact, "new space" won't be created without a full, vertically integrated approach to creating a sustainable, private, commercial space market.
Question
Let's return now to the question at hand: for what purpose cheap access to space?
To be distruptive, by itself for whatever reason, is change for change's sake. Not likely to result in something viable but it has purpose. Knocking the status quo off-kilter could cause a healthy re-examination of some sort. It certainly does not create a market, sustainable or otherwise.
A currently popular reason is to enable a space tourism market. While it is being pursued by some, it can be only part of the equation of viability. Orbital launch services for hardware tests are being contracted from existing suppliers, though desire for low-cost options is expressed. The suborbital joy-ride has been demonstrated by purely private means, however. A Futron report, referenced in a Desert Exposure article, projects a tourism market of at least $1 billion in revenue by 2026. Markets of that magnitude appear regularly and are burdened by much less risk, including consumer video telephony, online ads in Korea, and information quality management.
Rapid commercialization of technology spin-offs are posited as a sufficient market. However, changing the mechanisms of space access to lower costs should be expected to lower the cutting-edge research and development that would render such potentially valuable spin-offs.
Some may say that space access allows betterment of mankind's condition on earth. But, one must ask, where's the economic return in altruism? With narrow focus, and a decidedly profit-oriented view, earth observing has enhanced the human condition, through natural resource management especially.
Others are convinced that humanity must escape from the biosphere we're crowding or destroying. Even furher from economic viability, this is an unhealthy view doomed to be owned only by fatalists who have chosen not to be part of a solution. To service this market would require substantial growth of a population of like-minded individuals.
Still others say that exploration is a necessary hallmark of humanity which must continue into space, the final frontier. Analogous to technology spin-offs, but not dependent on technological advancements, this reason has historical precedent as potentially viable. Satisfying the non-economic yearning to explore brought trade and exploitation of new reources here on earth. It is, unfortunately, very demanding of the long term view and carries an inherently high risk of uselessness.
What's Left?
The purpose, or purposes, of cheap access to space have yet to be defined. Fanciful projections of markets based on the lining of the hat from which they were pulled should be discouraged. The public has been suffering speculations in the guise of "plans" for decades; patience has surely grown thin.
Our first task is to own the understanding that no markets exist for cheap access to space.
No amount of complaining about unfairness will turn any competent investor into a sympathetic angel capitalist who, by the way, isn't a "market."
Groups of individuals who can create technical designs, graphics, animations and websites do not cause markets to appear.
The "military-industrial complex" of defense/aerospace contractors and the national government are not evil. They have their institutions, won to them over decades of investment and refinement, that have served, and will continue to serve, their and our appropriate purposes well.
Commercial entities exist to serve a market, that's their purpose. So the clarion call is this: An advocate for cheap access to space must define distinct and sufficient markets for commercially funded, developed and utilized cheap space access.
A "cheap" space launch vehicle is all well and good, but a private commercial system won't rely on national assets for launch or flight operations. Even if the launch facilities are part of the commercial system, economically efficient payloads for a "cheap" space launch vehicle are grossly different than those from "old space" suppliers. Must the new "cheap" suppliers attract customers completely new to space operations? Or might some "old space" payload owners be willing for an adventure in "new space"?
Exactly what will be sufficient to bring about utilization of cheap space access at levels required for profitable operation? Will it be necessary to court institutional investment for startup or might there be ways to privately fund? Any business plan offered should be a model of comprehensive and consistent pragmatism. Wishful thinking cannot support this effort, yet the territory of private space-based business is uncharted and, thus, presents unique challenges to reason through.
Personally, I have faith (yes, a belief not supported by facts) that private-sector, commercial cheap access to space could be achieved soon and that such access can serve a sufficient number of new markets to be economically feasible. Such capability, I believe, could serve some existing markets with efficiencies not possible by adapting existing systems. I am called to action as I hope you are too.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Sense of Responsibility
Isn't it interesting how groups can act with myopic irresponsibility?
A recent action by the Chinese has increased the risk to any property or lives on orbit around the earth for thousands of years to come. Yet these same people have stated their intent to establish a permanent space station as well as visit the moon quite soon.
According to an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology, published January 18, 2007, an aging weather satellite was the successful target of a "kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile." David Wright, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, as reported by MSNBC, stated that the target satellite could have created nearly 40,000 fragments between 1 and 10 centimeters in size. Mr. Wright also made a statement to New Scientist, in an article published January 20, 2007, that this action has doubled "the amount of debris of that size at similar altitudes". It should be no surprise to learn that, as reported by New Scientist, that this action "may also have created 2 million fragments wider than 1 millimetre across".
This debris-spewing folly occurred only one month before NASA pulled the plug on an experiment called LAD-C. To have been conducted onboard the International Space Station, LAD-C sought to "characterise the environment" in earth orbit with regard to micrometeorites (including man-made versions). As reported by New Scientist in an article published February 12, 2007, the Chinese "test" also created "more than 900 objects larger than 10 cm across", that the "debris spread throughout low-Earth orbit, from altitudes of 200 to nearly 4000 kilometres" and that (some of) the debris is "expected to stay in space for hundreds of thousands of years."
To those who may be unfamiliar with the threat of space debris, the size range from 1 millimeter to 1 centimeter is very dangerous. Impacting anything at velocities up to 7,500 meters per second is going to be a problem. A single 1 millimeter speck of aluminum could pack quite a wallop - equivalent to a round from an AK-47 assault rifle (around 1500 J). Space suits and (most) spacecraft are not designed to resist shots from an assault rifle.
To have over 2 million of these things suddenly let loose in a popular area is irresponsible. Typical of nations, China wanted to demonstrate their ability to command at least part of the military high ground. Jeez, couldn't you have just done something spectacular that didn't screw up the highway of the future?
On top of all that, a cloud of uncountable sub-millimeter particles were also created. Even they are nothing you would want to reckon with in space. J. C. Liou, a member of the LAD-C experiment team, pointed out that the Space Shuttle usually requires a couple of their quartz windows to be replaced after a flight - because of impacts with sub-millimeter particles. In the same article referenced earlier, Mr. Liou also pointed out that the now-dead LAD-C experiment was to create a base of knowledge that we could use to appropriately design the space hotels and lunar bases so many have said we're poised to do. Soon. Maybe.
So here we return to responsibility. Responsibility to yourself, your own people and to the world and all of its people. While this test was, no doubt, viewed as a magnificent success in the halls of Chinese government, it was a dismal failure on the world stage. A demonstration of proving technology didn't require such deadly pollution to be rendered, but it certainly was an expedient way to make a statement with emphasis. The short term, as so often is the case, outweighed the long term considerations.
What's In A Name?
he·li·o·space (ˈhē-lē-oˌ-spās), n. [neologism based on the ancient greek helios, mythological sun god, and outer space] 1. The volume populated with objects in orbit around our sun. 2. The space beyond earth's atmosphere and within the solar system. 3. All elements and systems that compose the volume influenced by the sun. -- SYN. "everything and everywhere under the sun".