Jason’s Random Thoughts

Along with the unrelenting summer heat, news stories are often replete with strange tales and even stranger people. This summer is no different as former NASA astronaut and 6th human on the moon, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, claims that extra-terrestrial beings have visited the Earth on several occasions and there is a global cover-up of the situation in progress. Naturally, representatives at NASA were quick to play down the comments saying that they neither track nor communicate with non-human on this planet or anywhere in the universe. However, who are we to believe? A man who holds the (human) record for longest-ever moon walk, or a huge government funded organization that seems to be so cash strapped they can hardly afford to keep their vending machines stocked?

It really depends on whether you believe God stopped making intelligent creatures after Adam and Eve disappointed Him by eating from the Tree of Knowledge or not.

I wrote about this topic back in February when an abnormal number of UFO’s were reported in Japan, so I won’t discuss the same topics as I did then. Instead, it would be much more interesting to look at the types of comments people are leaving on News.com’s Australian website. Of the 104 responses that were recorded at the time, only four types of responses seem to exist for the subject: aliens don’t exist because it’s not in my preferred religious text, aliens have a strong probability of existing, aliens should help us clean up the mess we’ve created in the name of progress and, aliens are here and have been here for quite some time.

Aliens Don’t Exist, Dammit!

Of all the people that wrote comments adamantly refusing to believe that aliens exist, I think I could sit down and have a conversation with only one of them. This isn’t because I strongly believe that alien life exists in some form somewhere in the universe, but because I have a really hard time carrying on a conversation with someone who can believe something so passionately while backing it up with zero information … refutable or not. Don’t get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for people that can take the words contained in a religious text and keep them close to their heart. However, for someone who has “learned” how to read a Bible, Qur’an, Torah or another text in a very particular fashion to glean meaning and insight into how we should treat ourselves and each other, I’m surprised that they cannot see the potential for something a little more fantastic.

Nowhere does it explicitly say in any (respected) religious text that I’ve read that extra-terrestrial life does not exist anywhere. Nowhere does it say that we are the sole intelligent beings in the universe, either. We were given domain over the Earth and all the creatures that swim, crawl, slither, walk or fly on it … but that’s about it. It says nothing (specifically) about other planets, star systems or galaxies. So to think that God was so impressed with His work that he stopped after the “colonization” of Earth would be a little egotistical.

If anyone knows of a religious text that explicitly states otherwise, please enlighten me. I’ve studied religions for years and not found direct evidence against the possibility of extra-terrestrial beings.

Aliens Should Help Us

The next group of people are the ones that I respect the least. They claim that aliens should help us with global warming, wars, famines, disease and just about everything else that has caused a headache or two for the human race. While some non-human entities may be capable of something approaching empathy and performing ideological acts for the betterment of a given species, why should it be the responsibility of another intelligence to correct our own mistakes? Unless they’re responsible for creating disease, floating islands of trash, or depleting the ozone layer, we should not be interfered with. How the heck can we expect to be taken seriously on an inter-planetary level if we’re just seeking bailouts?

The last thing Earth would want to do is become the Zimbabwe of the Milky Way. It’s bad enough we haven’t learned from our own recent past, so why complicate things by inviting non-humans to “guide us towards a higher degree of enlightenment.” While there could be some immediate benefits for the human race, the long term effects of such dependence would be our undoing.

Aliens Have Been Here All Along

Since before the written word, civilizations have claimed to have been visited by strange people who claimed to be from the stars, or would leave behind intriguing items. The Mayans mentioned the Popol Vuh. The Chinese met the Dropa. Other cultures met beings they referred to as giants who would often mate with the locals in exchange for agricultural tools, mathematics or other bits of knowledge. Are aliens truly responsible for the development and advancement of human kind?

Let me bust out my trusty Delorean and find out.

Seriously, though. To think that human advancement is completely dependent on the table scraps of another species would be an insult to every inventor and deep-thinker that has ever lived. While it’s true that some of our discoveries seem to have cropped up all over the world at roughly the same time (within 500 years of each other in most cases), to think that we’d still be living in caves and hunting animals with sharpened sticks without the aid of sexually promiscuous visitors who continue to steal us away to probe the asses of our species’ verbally challenged population is little more than fantasy.

Ah, but that’s just what “they” want us to believe, right?

Aliens Exist, But They’re Not On Earth

This is the camp that I fall into. I strongly believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, but I don’t think there’s a foreign entity on this planet right now. This isn’t because of the technical challenges involved with sending a crewed vehicle through the void of space, or even the logistical challenges involved in dealing with an unfortunate death or discovery. Instead it’s because it wouldn’t make logical sense for any species that has come this far to stay put on our planet. We can be observed from the moon. We can be observed from somewhere beyond that point, too.

There’s plenty of information leaking from our satellite transmissions that, unless they needed a living and breathing sample of our species, they would not need to risk being spotted by our sensitive and oh-so-paranoid detection systems. We have countless examples of what happens when we interfere with another culture … even if it’s with good intentions or in the name of science. Anyone from a species that has conquered interstellar will, hopefully, not want to pollute their research with such a dangerous interaction between the observer and the observed.

The Secret’s In The Pudding, But I’ll Never Tell…

The conversations that often ensue as a result of mentioning UFOs or alien life are often all the same. In each case, you have someone from one of the four categories stating their opinion, followed by very little (if any) fact. The proof is in the pudding. While I believe that aliens exist, not once did I state a fact that proves such a thing. Which leaves us right back at square one.

When we don’t know something, we make something up that fits into our viewpoint of the universe around us. When we do find intelligent life in the depths of space one day, perhaps they can shed some light on our paranoia. Until then, we should focus on fixing our own problems rather than talking down to those who have a different opinion.

What’s your stance on the existence of E.T.s? Do they exist? Have they visited us?

In a world full of colour it’s sometimes amazing to meet people who have an incredibly black-and-white view of the world. Over the last few weeks I’ve had the opportunity to speak with some of the most obtuse environmentalists, via email, who attended the recent summit in Thailand about their solutions to the emissions problem that we, as an ‘intelligent species’, are facing.

Several of the participating nations sent highly qualified representatives with more education than you can shake a stick at, but I don’t want to discuss their environmentally sensible and economically viable solutions. Instead, I want to share two of the most infuriating positions I encountered, with two flavours of one.

The Elimination of All Non-Biologically Fuelled Technology

This proposed solution was originally given a deceptively catchy politically scientific name designed to attract readers and broad support from the international community but, after the meet was all said and done, the concept was all but ignored for its stupidity.

The sponsoring nation, who shall remain nameless for the time being, was essentially proposing that every nation essentially give up on almost every technological advancement created since the advent of the horse and buggy.

For any nation to expect a species that has developed the tools necessary to explore the universe to suddenly walk away from centuries of advances in science, medicine, metallurgy and just about everything else that separates humans from squirrels is not just unrealistic, it’s absurd. If people truly want to live an Amish life, they’re more than welcome to make their way to the technologically stagnant communities and assimilate themselves into the culture. Pushing it on the world would be no different than trying to push a religion onto an unwilling population. The riots and outright disobedience for any legislation forcing people to give up the comforts they’ve become accustomed to would be far more than most police and military forces could realistically handle.

And there’s the other problem: which nation would reduce itself to infantry armed with muskets and cavalry armed with swords first? What punishment would be inflicted onto a nation that refuses to give up their automatic weapons, ballistic missiles, stealth technologies and spy satellites?

How about the incredibly wealthy? Will they shut down their multi-billion dollar, multi-national mega corporations and start up new, less profitable, ventures with their massive assets? Some might, but they wouldn’t go down without a fight.

Now, in defense of the presenting nation, they’ve lived off whatever technological scraps France left behind after giving up on their colonial ambitions in the 1970’s. Air conditioning is still something owned by the wealthiest 0.3% of people there, but very few people go hungry at night. However, to think that an entire planet would give up the very things that cause so many of our problems shows just how much some have to learn about the world.

The next solution is one that most of the planet could almost agree on, and it has the potential to fundamentally transform our terraforming capabilities to such an extent that entire planets could be “prepared” for our arrival years or decades in advance.

Solving Our Problems With Technology

Technology is a wonderful thing. Over the last few thousand years it has helped us make difficult tasks a thing of the past. Hunting went from a dangerous endeavor requiring dozens of men with enough combined strength and cunning to catch a wild animal, to something any child could do with a rifle and steady aim. Farming was once a labour intensive activity, requiring thousands of hours of labour to something that, while still difficult, can be accomplished by a single family and the proper machinery. Travel has gone from being something done only by the most intrepid, to something enjoyed by many as leisure.

So rather than make our lives more difficult by taking away the conveniences of our time, why not find technological solutions that will not only keep a capitalist system afloat, but stands to make our future colonization efforts far more automated?

Several of the industrialized nations are pushing to secure funds to promote technological solutions to our emissions problems. From orbital solar platforms to massive floating atmospheric scrubbers to geosequestration; no concept is being turned away. The advantages to such ideas are numerous but, at the end of the day, the main drivers for such measures are two groups of people: the incredibly wealthy and the incredibly lazy.

The incredibly wealthy earned much of their money by selling us things promoted to make our lives easier. Lazy people are lazy because they’ve become accustomed to those things that make our lives easier and don’t want to give them up. Gasoline is a prime example of this.

Looking again at our history, we’re not likely to change our habits or expectations any time soon. So this is a great reason for corporations and scientists to explore all possible technological solutions to the mess we’ve made here on Earth. However, given the enormous costs involved with researching and developing the new or advanced technologies required, some non-industrialized or so-called “third world” nations are demanding that the nations who made the mess also clean the mess, then make the cleaner technologies cheap and freely available to everyone in their nation.

Which brings us to the third extreme measure ….

Having Industrialized Nations Clean the Planet, While Everyone Else Plays Catch-Up

The farcical Group of 77 have, in no uncertain terms, expressed their objections to allowing any carbon emission caps to be placed on their nations. Some feel that since regions such as Europe and North America have had over 200 years of freedom to rape the Earth of resources on an industrial scale while blackening the skies with billions of tons of crap, they should have the same luxury while European and North American researchers devise cleaner industry technologies. Once these new devices and techniques are created, the G77 nations expect to reap the benefits of cutting edge 21st century power generators and personal devices at a fraction of their actual market value.

Somehow, I don’t see companies like Toyota making state-of-the-art vehicles available for €500 just because some countries do not have the need or desire to constantly improve their tools, techniques, or standard of living like many Western nations. But rather than get bogged down with the nuances between the cultural, regional, and political reasons for the disconnect between the wealthy and poorer nations, let’s stick with this unrealistic expectation.

Like everything else on the planet, technological advancement requires stability, education and resources. Almost every nation on Earth has resources of one type or another, it’s just the other two requirements that are often lacking in some of the less popular countries. Rather than bitch and moan about how Western greed and short-sightedness has caused some ecologically devastating consequences while, at the same time, screaming for the very same privilege of using cheap and dirty energy production, poor waste management practices, and horribly eco-unfriendly gas guzzling SUV’s, why not provide economic or social benefits for citizens that devise clever and easily maintained technologies?

Lord knows that most of the G77 nations have been taken advantage of for hundreds or thousands of years, but the sooner they stand on their own two feet and educate themselves, the better it will be for the environment and the global community at large. Perhaps then these nations will be in a better position to demand proper reparations for whatever atrocities they were forced to endure in the past.

The Only Logical Way Forward

We have proven time and again that the human race is both dynamic and quickly adaptable. We’ve overcome diseases, incredible geographical distances, insanely complex scientific problems and just about every major “Why?” question we’ve had in the last 5,000 years. There’s still a billion questions we need answers for but, at the end of the day, the quest for answers will keep us going until the end of time. To that end, one of the only ways we can solve our current emissions problems will be a combination of these opposing views.

Yes, it’s important for the already industrialized nations to curb their carbon emissions, just as it’s important for developing nations to choose ecologically sensible solutions for their development problems. However, implementing extreme measures such as technological abandonment or the careless use of less-efficient but cheaper solutions will do nothing for the long-term viability of the planet.

These measures were likely drawn up as a means of generating discussion and, if that was their intention, mission accomplished. My concern, though, is with the people who feel our looming global catastrophe can only be solved with black-and-white solutions.

What’s your take on these measures?

Scientists at Kobe University believe there is another planet lurking in the depths of the solar system, possibly two-thirds the size of Earth. While the idea of another “Planet X” lurking around our solar system is hardly new, I’m surprised that it’s coming from scientists in Japan.

Using computer simulations and wonderfully complex calculations the study, led by Kobe University professor Tadashi Mukai, says that it’s only a matter of time before this elusive planet is found.

What’s interesting, though, is the fact that the scientists made an assumption for a planet to be somewhere at the edge of our solar system and programmed that into their simulations. From there, they examined the effect such a body would have on the millions of objects contained within the Kuiper Belt, a region that’s full of “spare parts” that did not survive the planet building process, as well as Pluto and a few other dwarf-planets. After running the simulations threw a few billion years of orbital patterns, they’ve found that their hypothesis matched what we can see with existing debris movements. They go on to say that this ninth planet would have an elliptical solar orbit and make it’s way around the sun every 1,100 years.

What’s really interesting about this is that it shows how little we know about our own solar system. If an entire planet can be hidden from our most sensitive equipment for so long, and completely escape the notice of our world’s tireless astronomers, just imagine what else we could find in our cosmic backyard.

Not The First Planet X

This is not the first time that people have argued about the existence of a Planet X, either. Some scientists have argued that there is a very large planet somewhere beyond Neptune, and was first postulated to explain some of the discrepancies in the orbits of the gas giants, Uranus and Neptune. That said, most of these discrepancies were resolved in the 1980’s when scientists had better access to more sensitive research equipment and was confirmed when Voyagers 1 and 2 made their fly-by in the 90’s.

Interestingly enough, Pluto was initially discovered during the hunt for Planet X, but was not dubbed the missing planet. Eris was also determined not to be this absent world even though it was almost dubbed a planet until the IAU (International Astronomical Union) reclassified the requirements for an object to be considered a planet.

The Planet X debate was thought to have ended in 1991 when researcher Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2 to recalculate Neptune’s effect on Uranus. When Neptune’s proper mass was used, the discrepancies in the outer planets’ orbits vanished. On top of this, there are no discrepancies in the current trajectories of the Pioneer 10 and 11, or Voyager 1 and 2 space probes that can be attributed to the gravitational pull of an, as of yet, unknown object past the Kuiper Belt.

So Where Is It?

The Kuiper Belt seems to end abruptly at about 55 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance of the Earth from the Sun). Due to the abrupt termination, there is quite a bit of speculation that this is caused by the presence of an object between the size of Earth and Mars somewhere beyond the edge of the belt. The computer simulation conducted at Kobe University put the planet’s orbit somewhere between 80 and 170 AU, which would make it a solid block of ammonia, ethane and a few other trace elements.

Regardless of whether there is another planet beyond our visibility, I’m glad to see that people are still investing so much time to track all of the objects in our solar system. The most we know about our local corner of the universe, the more we can accomplish in the future.

Thirteen months ago, China launched a missile into orbit and successfully destroyed a decommissioned satellite. This simple act of mathematical execution drew rascious international condemnation as the amount of tiny debris orbiting our world suddently increased by tens of thousands of fragments, each travelling at 34,000 kph.

The U.S. government was the most vocal opponent of this act, claiming that such careless displays of power posed a threat to American satellites as well as other orbiting devices such as the International Space Station. Considering how much damage a stray nut or bolt can cause when smashing into an ill-equipped machine, you can’t fault anyone for their reaction. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to hear that Duh-byah (George W. Bush) has ordered the Department of Defense to use a naval missile in an attempt to destroy a malfunctioning satellite before it enters the atmosphere.

The disabled spy satellite apparently contains a high quantity of hydrazine which, should it return to Earth, could pose a serious health risk to local residents, human or otherwise. To mitigate this possibility, and to ensure the high-level technology does not fall into the wrong hands, the U.S. wants to do what they do best … blow stuff up.

Trawling for Satellites

I can certainly appreciate the need to protect the inhabitants of this world from poisonous fuels, and it makes perfect sense to destroy something that could later be used against a nation, but is it really necessary to add more debris to our already dangerously littered Low Earth Orbit zone? Space shuttles, Soyuz capsules, the ISS and hundreds of satellites already take a beating with the uncharted debris field surrounding us. Have we learned nothing from our past mistakes?

Guess not.

The United States is home to some of the most brilliant rocket scientists and aerospace engineers in the world. Why aren’t we using their skills to tackle this problem like a rational race of space-faring people?

Time constraints? Budget limitations? Who knows. But it would be a perfect time for someone to say “Hey! We can capture it and take it somewhere else!”

The Blank Check

How much will a ballistic missile capable of destroying an orbiting satellite cost? $10-million? $50-million? Can we redirect an object for the same price tag?

We have the skills to precisely determine flight paths for orbiting objects. We have the skills to successfully rendezvous with orbiting machines. We can capture huge schools of fish in the oceans with well placed nets, too. Why can’t we combine these abilities?

I’d like to see the DoD look into outsourcing this task to NASA, who could then outsource it to a domestic aerospace firm with the desire to make a name for themselves in orbital junk removal. The goal would be to create a very simple space-faring vehicle for minimal cost that could be launched within a days notice and effectively capture an errant or otherwise retired orbital object. From there, the vehicle would need to pull it’s cargo into a higher orbit or, preferrably, set sail for the Sun and incinerate the space junk.

It doesn’t need to be fancy, either. Heck, it could probably be controlled from the ground.

I realize that there is a very short window of opportunity to deal with this problem before it’s too late, but there must be a company out there that has worked on a project like this. Whether it became a reality or was shoved into the back of a closet isn’t really important. What is important is our ability to take something out of the skies without having them plumet through our atmosphere or leaving lots of debris in orbit to wreak havoc on our other sensitive and important equipment.

If the U.S. wants to use this as an opportunity to prove that they can shoot satellites down too, they should really stop worrying so much about their ego. But just think of how much more useful it would be for a government to move an enemy’s working satellite to another location in the event of war. Not only would it disrupt the opponent, but it could give someone a leg-up on their intelligence technologies.

Then again, perhaps I’m falling prey to the idea that we should use technology to solve the problems we introduced with technology. I’m sure Rob Neville said something about that in a previous post … using technology for the sake of using technology is rarely a good thing

This past Tuesday, Iran launched a ‘research rocket’ towards the heavens in their pursuit of building a viable domestic satellite launch program.  Congratulations to them for the attempt, and kudos to the Iranian PR machine for having Ahmadinejad issue the launch order.

If only Japan were half as organized.

Delays have pushed back Japan’s GX Launch Vehicle program from 2005 to 2011.  The mid-size rocket is a two-stage vehicle being jointly developed by public and private sectors.  But there are some serious issues in the way as neither party really knows who should be responsible for what.

Status Quo Maintained

Development of the GX began in 2003 with the private sector taking charge of producing the rocket’s first stage and designing the whole system.  IHI Corp., one of the major players in the project, is now saying the government should also become part of the private end of the project.  The proposal was tabled at a performance evaluation subcommittee meeting of the Education, Science and Technology Ministry’s Space Activities Commission and, oddly enough, was not outright rejected.

The project has faced substantial delays over the years, resulting in the six year first-launch setback.  Although the group claims “engine trouble in the second-stage” as the reason, the amount of infighting and responsibility-shuffling going on has slowly built to fever pitch.

During the meeting it was discovered that Japan’s space agency, JAXA, had hidden some of their problems from the Space Activities Commission.  The explanation, as it turns out, is that JAXA didn’t deem it necessary to report their issues because they were not yet in the production stage.  However, problems arose later linked to design flaws, causing several project delays and increased costs.

How any management system can believe these setbacks can occur without regular progress updates to the rest of the team is beyond me.

A Comedy of Errors

Due to the gross lapses on both sides of the public and private fences, the SAC launched a review of the GX rocket project.  Confusion about role-sharing in the development of Japan’s first mid-sized space rockets seemed to top the list of things gone wrong.

At the first meeting of the subcommittee this past week, officials from the private sector are said to have strongly urged that project role sharing be reviewed.  Citing increased burdens, the private companies all but said they wanted the government to pay for the incompetence of their management styles and inexperience with said technologies.

Yay for Japanese ingenuity.

The companies also asked that JAXA take charge of parts of the project that are seen as the responsibility of the private sector.  An example of this would be the coordination of the rocket system, which is currently scheduled for launch sometime in 2011.

What I find interesting is the fact that the 2011 launch is only intended to demonstrate the actual performance of the applied technologies in space, rather than act as the ‘go-live’ date.  For a country tat markets itself as being forward thinking, this January molasses-like progression of rocket development is disheartening.

But then, I guess we shouldn’t expect too much from a country where Celeron processors are the norm in 90% of all computers.

One of the company officials is on record as saying that “initially, the demonstration rocket was to be developed by the government, but the job was passed on our side because the project is being led by the private sector.  We are asking for this responsibility to be returned to the government.”

However, a JAXA official responded by saying their role was only to deliver the second stage of the GX.  A role they have so far failed to live up to.

No Better Than A Divorce Negotiation

Other members continued to bicker amongst each other for the duration of the meeting with one of the commission members comparing the private-public rift to a divorce negotiation.  Considering the lack of trust that is found on both sides, one is forced to wonder if the project should continue at all.  With the lack of public support in any kind of space technologies, it might be time to pull the plug on this failed attempt to build the domestic technology profile and outsource the launching of television and communications satellites.

The companies’ reasons for these complaints are two-fold:  They don’t have the cash, and they don’t have the brains.

Because engine development by JAXA was delayed, the private end had to continue paying the American firms that provides the first-stage engines.  One of the company officials said that they needed between ten and fifteen billion Yen just for securing engineering staff at the firm, which gives them the right to demand government compensation for the expense.  While I can certainly feel for the private firms that went ahead and put American rocket scientists on retainer for the development of the new engine, I can’t help but wonder why they even trusted JAXA to follow through with their end of the bargain in the first place.  Japan’s space agency hasn’t been on time for a single project in the entire history of the organization.  What made these other companies even hold JAXA to their word?

Of course, there are other problems now, as the first stage of the rocket was going to be little more than a modified Atlas-3 rocket strapped onto the JAXA-designed apparatus.  The company that made the Atlas-3 has halted production of the engines in favour of the Atlas-5’s.  One of the main differences between the Atlas-3 and 5 models is the size of the fuel tanks, as the 5-series are much larger.  This means the rockets would have unnecessarily large launch capabilities.

A review of the entire system would also be needed, should an alternative to the Atlas-3 be chosen, which is expected to cost upwards of 45-billion Yen.

Kill It

The GX project is a joint venture with two federal ministries, JAXA and a few private companies led by IHI Corp.  Each were initially required to shoulder about 15-billion Yen in costs, but this amount has already been long spent and there’s nothing to show for the waste.

The private firms have also established a new organization called Galaxy Express Corp., a joint venture firm for entering the global satellite launching business using the GX-series rockets.  Unfortunately, the delay in JAXA’s development of the second-stage engine has already postponed the project by six years, and other emerging nations will like have their domestic satellite programs complete long before the local firms stop fighting with each other over responsibilities and expectations.

While the idea of uniting the private and public sectors for this grand project was a great idea on paper, it’s clearly not a sustainable project going forward.  For the sake of the private companies, as well as JAXA, I hope the program is taken offline and put on hold indefinately.