Fwd: RFI, Game Changing Technology Development
Paul D. Fernhout
My response to one of NASA's "Request for Information" bulletins in regard
to "Game Changing Technology Development". I suggest developing
self-replicating space habitats in an open manufacturing way. :-)
Anyway, back to more productive work. :-)
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of
abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RFI, Game Changing Technology Development
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:05:07 -0400
From: Paul D. Fernhout <pdfer...@kurtz-fernhout.com>
To: hq-gcdr...@mail.nasa.gov
Note: The initial half of the comments below were posted first here:
"Self-Replicating Space Habitats..."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1771470&cid=33432254
All of these comments should be considered as freely redistributable under a
CC-BY license.
My suggestion for a "Game Changing" project is that NASA could coordinate a
global effort towards designing and deploying self-replicating space
habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore.
Ideas towards that end here by me (and my wife, for the first):
"A Review of Licensing and Collaborative Development with Special
Attention to Design of Self-Replicating Space Habitat Systems"
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
"OSCOMAK: Open Source Community on Manufacturing Knowledge"
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
"Both CATS and DOGS are needed.."
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=62113&cid=5821178
and others who inspired me:
"NASA Study: Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
"James P. Hogan: The Two Faces of Tomorrow"
http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0671878484/0671878484.htm
"J.D. Bernal: The World, the Flesh, and the Devil"
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Bernal/world/
From the last, written in the 1920s by J.D. Bernal: "Imagine a spherical
shell ten miles or so in diameter, made of the lightest materials and mostly
hollow; for this purpose the new molecular materials would be admirably
suited. Owing to the absence of gravitation its construction would not be an
engineering feat of any magnitude. The source of the material out of which
this would be made would only be in small part drawn from the earth; for the
great bulk of the structure would be made out of the substance of one or
more smaller asteroids, rings of Saturn or other planetary detritus. The
initial stages of construction are the most difficult to imagine. They will
probably consist of attaching an asteroid of some hundred years or so
diameter to a space vessel, hollowing it out and using the removed material
to build the first protective shell. Afterwards the shell could be
re-worked, bit by bit, using elaborated and more suitable substances and at
the same time increasing its size by diminishing its thickness. The globe
would fulfil all the functions by which our earth manages to support life.
In default of a gravitational field it has, perforce, to keep its atmosphere
and the greater portion of its life inside; but as all its nourishment comes
in the form of energy through its outer surface it would be forced to
resemble on the whole an enormously complicated single-celled plant."
So, I can not claim these are new ideas...
Anyway, I work towards that dream on-and-off as I can...
===
To address your other questions,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/477495main_game_changing_rfi.pdf
NASA itself has determined the likely initial feasibility of these
self-replicating space habitat ideas in the 1970s and 1980s (like through
the NASA AASM study linked above as well as by involvement with Gerard K.
O'Neill -- a physics professor I took at course with at Princeton).
Nothing NASA is doing now compares with this at all in terms of gaining the
excitement and participation of the world's technologists and
technically-minded youth, given this project would have the scale of the
entire FOSS movement applied to manufacturing (and simulation). Achieving
this goal of a self-replicating space habitat could justify literally
trillions of dollars in effort to create a technological infrastructure that
could support quadrillions of human lives in space, making nonsense of
current worries of "Limits to Growth" or "Peak Oil" or "Overpopulation"
whatever else.
There are tons of risks in this project, from poor coders, to security
bloopers, to people posting terrible or hurtful information in any public
system, to personality clashes, to legal issues preventing public
contributions related to advanced rocketry, to lots of things I could
probably spend a day listing. :-) NASA should take some more informed risks,
as has been recently said, even as it spends time thinking of ways to
minimize them. Still, any risks involved in such a large investment could be
reduced by coordinating efforts on a free and open source intelligence tool
needed for such a system with DARPA and the intelligence community:
"The need for open source sensemaking tools (Score:5, Interesting)"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1746980&cid=33177866
while also coordinating with NIST's SLIM project for content:
"Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing"
http://www.nist.gov/mel/msid/dpg/slim.cfm
as well as already ongoing efforts, for example a mailing list I help moderate:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing
An earlier attempt that fizzled to be more space-specific:
http://groups.google.com/group/openvirgle
Of course, coordination creates other risks. :-)
As a whole, this project would help increase US security as a sort of public
outreach by helping the global security community transcend ironic and
outdated visions of what security means, given that so much abundance is
possible through modern technology and this NASA effort would demonstrate that:
"Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
So, in the overall big picture, even if this project flopped, it might still
achieve that goal, which would be worth more than all the money in the world
if it prevented global warfare.
Another aspects of such a project, simulating the societies of such
habitats, would help people come up with social strategies for creating
healthy and joyful balances of a gift economy, a basic income, democratic
resource-based planning, stronger local subsistence economies, and a free
market. As Manuel DeLanda wrote here:
http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
"Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains
and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly
turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and
hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory
alone but demand concrete experimentation."
This would help continue an ongoing "Phase Change" in our society that (the,
sadly, late) James P. Hogan talked about in "Voyage From Yesteryear".
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
As I wrote to NASA ten years ago (see the OSCOMAK link above: :-) "In a
long-term space mission or a space settlement, a self-sustaining economy
must be created and supported. Therefore, addressing the problem of
technological fragility on earth is an essential step in the development of
the development of human settlement in space."
A NASA-coordinated effort to organize manufacturing information and use it
to design such habitats (or seeds that would grow such habitats), as well as
improve the state-of-the-art in collaboration software, could help meet both
needs. Some of my own efforts towards the communications and archival side
of that, but they have been, admittedly, somewhat eclipsed by things like
RDF, NEPOMUK, and Google Wave, though I continue plugging away at them: :-)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pointrel/
So, this project can be done in such a way as to align with both near term
Earthly goals and long term space habitation goals.
So, this project could help reduce all sorts of other risks like pollution,
sickness, manufacturing chokepoints, and so on. So, while any project is
risky, this project's risk would be incurred towards reducing other global
risks.
There is IMHO no other project NASA could do at this point that would
compare with creating designs for a self-replicating space habitat and the
social and technical communications infrastructure that would make that
possible, done in a way that also prioritizes current global needs.
It was true in the 1970s. It was true in the 1990s. It remains true in the
2010s. :-) But is has gotten easier with cheaper computers...
If you want someone good to put in charge of such an effort, ask NASA
contractor Al Globus who has helped me refine some of these ideas. :-)
http://space.alglobus.net/
http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/
My endorsement of him should not be taken to imply his endorsement of me or
any of these suggestions. :-)
By the way, and to say something you can do today at next-to-no-cost, on
bioscience issues, and in terms of NASA implementing health recommendations
for space habitat dwellers, I hope NASA gets all its indoor-working
employees to get the right amount of vitamin D (vitamin D deficiency being
an occupational hazard of indoors work or those dwelling under glass or
underground on the Moon or Mars or Asteroids). Here is how to do that with
supplements and blood tests according do Dr. John Cannell:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
And others (with slightly lower recommendations for blood levels):
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/
Following that suggestion on vitamin D alone might give NASA staff and
contractors an increased health and vitality to do more amazing "Game
Changing" things. :-) And a "Nutrient Dense" Nutritarian diet like "Eat to
Live" pioneered by Dr. Joel Fuhrman, coupled with adequate vitamin D, might
help astronauts and contractors perform at their best, too, and avoid or
delay many illnesses, including arthritis, diabetes, obesity, heart disease,
dementia, autism, cancer, stroke, and even tooth decay:
http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html
The combination of a better diet and adequate vitamin D might literally save
the USA a trillion dollars a year, which is plenty of money to fund the
above program. :-)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
That is the kind of unexpected benefit that might come from engaging more
people in working through space habitat issues using a great free
intelligence system oriented around designing great space habitats, through
a system that helped people look at every issue and brought it to people's
attention.
BTW, other ideas on community redesign for health (from the AARP/BlueZones
project are here) which would also be applicable to space habitats:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
Unfortunately, it seems NASA can't even keep it's story straight on whether
UV-A or UV-B creates vitamin D (it's UV-B):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=nasa+vitamin+d+uv-b
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/DIAL.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=nasa+vitamin+d+uv-a
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=43186
That's just an example of how we need a better way to organize and
crosscheck information than publishing it in HTML and eyeballing it. :-)
(I notified the Earth Observatory the other day on this, by the way...)
Some more general comments by me on NASA:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/049a35fe4f774e90
including how NASA caved into Senator Proxmire "Golden Fleece" award in the
1970s, abandoned Gerry O'Neill, and thus ended this vision for a long time.
Anyway, I'll keep working towards designing great space settlements (even
for Spaceship Earth), as will others, all on a shoestring, while NASA spends
its relatively much larger budget on "nibbling at the edges" projects. And
both are needed. :-) But there is a big imbalance there, IMHO. Maybe it's
time to for NASA to (at least internally) consider for the above reasons
that Senator Proxmire was wrong on that space habitat issue? :-)
All the best, and I hope you find in here some ideas that may be useful both
now and in the future.
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of
abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.
Patrick Anderson
> self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate
> themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore.
Why are we unable to do this on Earth?
Paul D. Fernhout
We can do such things on Earth. I think the technology could be useful both
on Earth and in space. But when you use it in space, you don't have to worry
about as many environmental consequences, and also you can produce enough
room for thousands of Earth's worth of people, animals, plants, etc.. But,
as I outline there, we can develop technologies the both make better Earthly
communities and prepare the way for space habitats. For example, learning
how to make things so they are recyclable would help both on Earth and in
space. Learning how to make more energy efficient circuits would help both
on Earth and in space. Learning how to recycle water better would help in
both places. Learning how to make small items on an as-needed basis (like
with RepRap) would help in both. Creating easier to use design tools for
creating and sharing open designs would help both on Earth and to design
space settlements. Developing a better understanding of human nutrition
would help in both places. Improved ability to use solar power would help
both on Earth and in space. And so on.
Patrick Anderson
> We can do such things on Earth.
But we don't.
We choose scarcity instead.
Paul D. Fernhout
Well, that's an overly broad statement. For example, consider Albert Lea, MN:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
"The AARP/Blue Zones Vitality Project will focus on four areas that are
crucial to health and longevity: Community Environment, Social Networks,
Habitat and Individual Sense of Purpose."
But is there a lot of truth to your statement anyway? Yes, I'd have to
agree, all too often.
But space, and maybe in general science-fiction, has often been a way to
excite people's imagination to break out of their ruts. The best value to
going into space may be all the great ideas that come back to Earth, in the
same way that the greatest long-term value for Europe in sending people to
the New World (ignoring what happened to the Natives) may have been how the
US centuries later created all sorts of great technology that flowed back to
Europe.