America's space strategy

NASA has now committed itself to the development of a heavy-lifting rocket system able to deliver a hundred tons or so into orbit, using a rocket more powerful than the Saturn V which sent astronauts to the Moon in 1969 and the ear;y 1970s. The new system will allow heavy structures to be built in orbit and enable manned expeditions to asteroids to be launched. Later, interplanetary missions to Mars and other planets could be mounted from bases in orbit around the Earth.

Initially I was disappointed by this approach to space exploration. It seemed rather unimaginative, a mere upgrade the long abandoned ballistic-missile-type Apollo programme. In the long term what we need is a low-cost spaceplane able to take men into orbit and able to both take off from and land on an ordinary runway. See the post on the Skylon, a revolutionary concept being developed in the UK.

However, an article in Spaceflight (Nov 2011), a monthly journal of the British Interplanetary Society (which I belong to) has given me pause for thought.

One aspect of the low cost spaceplane approach is the frequency of flights, since this determines the cost per mission of launching one ton into orbit, and the flight frequency depends on the demand, which depends on the quantity and size of structures in orbit which need servicing. The heavy lifting ballistic rocket approach will allow a rapid growth in such orbital hardware and this will create a market for independently operated earth-to-orbit vehicles like the Skylon.

As the author, Mike Armitage, points out, transport on the surface of our planet is not restricted to just one type – it ranges from bicycles to jumbo jets. So it would seem likely that space exploration will become similarly diverse.

Nevertheless I am perplexed as to why the Skylon project is not getting much media attention. Maybe if Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic took an interest the journalists would flock to it.

  

John

Author, 2077 AD

cosmik.jo@gmail.com

.

Scientists do not have to be nerds

In a recent issue of the New Scientist (23 July 2011, p.22) Laurence Krauss, director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, complains that science is under attack from a shortage of funding. It has been estimated that the cumulative cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is something approaching $4 trillion while, Krauss maintains, warlords thrive, political freedom ranks low and ethnic and gender segregation continue.

At the same time, he observes, the US economy is in trouble. Both practical and purely academic projects are in danger and both categories contribute to the quality of life.

He adds that ‘we need to ask what the next generation of bright minds will lose. The remarkable images captured by Hubble have inspired a generation of people to dream about the universe and its myriad possibilities.’

Whether the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, with all the errors of strategy imposed on the military, achieved nothing is an open question (my own answer would be that overall they did achieve something and that they had little choice if civilisation, including  Islamic societies, was to be protected against a destructive minority). However, Krauss is right about the funding threat. For this reason scientists need to make sure that the population as a whole value and respect them, rather than consider them as clever nerds filled with hubris and asserting that all human beings are brought into being by the chance juggling of chemicals produced by a universe which was created by a universe-generating system which spontaneously came into being out of existential nothingness and, just in case you didn’t get the message, that life is totally pointless and meaningless.

People outside of science hear the most inane theories being talked about by those who purport to be logical and it must turn young thinking people away in droves. Fortunately, there are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe to such philosophical materialism, but, less fortunately, they are rarely given prominence in the media.

For instance, there is a theory that ‘our’ universe is one of an infinitely large number of ‘universes’ in which all things are possible and which happens to look miraculous. This is not only unprovable metaphysical speculation but totally outside the realm of logic. A professional philosopher could not possibly take it seriously.  

Why? Because if there were an infinite ensemble of universes there would have to be one in which there were no other ‘universes’. Why spend time and money even talking about such a paradoxical hypothesis? How much effort would you be willing to devote to a book purporting to prove that black is white? And would the writer of such a book be worthy of a research grant?

Hopefully, such inanities will gradually fade into oblivion so that real science can get the recognition and resources it deserves and needs if the West is not to fall to the forces of disorder that Krauss rightly recognises.

So rise up,you non-nerdish scientists, and make yourself heard!

John

Author, 2077 AD

China's economy may be faltering

Europe and America, operating largely on free market principles, are trying to cancel their huge debts. The only way they can do this safely, i.e. without hyperinflation (which could mean creditors getting back less money in real terms than they lent) is by real economic growth. This would generate profits, capital growth and tax revenue.

So far this is not happening and the hope was that China, with its state capitalism, would manage to keep growing fast and so buy exports from other countries, thereby stimulating their economies. It was also hoped that Chinese foreign currency reserves might be used to buy European and American government bonds. The money from this would help western governments (not only Greece but larger indebted economies) to avoid huge public spending cuts and to stimulate economic growth.

Doubts that either of these lifelines will materialise are beginning to surface.

The rate of GDP (i.e. economic activity) growth in China looks likely to fall considerably. An article in the New York Times section of the UK’s Observer (Oct 9) quotes an estimate of only 5% p.a. for the coming year. Over the last decade China has been expanding at close to 10% p.a., although recently it has been closer to 8% p.a.

So China is slowing down.

 Its stock market’s Hang Seng index has declined by 30% over the last year and property prices have stopped rising in 54 out of 70 cities. Chinese savers had been investing in property because of fears about inflation eroding their savings as it reached double the interest rates. But the bubble is deflating.  Government restrictions on lending by banks are causing a shortfall in loans to small businesses and there is rising unemployment.

The foreign currency reserves of China are large but this is not spare money free of obligation. It belongs to the Chinese savers and they are not likely to be happy about using it to rescue prolific spending governments and western banks burdened with gambling debts.

If there is widespread unemployment in China, a country where economic success means everything and where hopes have been raised unrealistically, and if savers find their money disappearing, it could cause social unrest and undesirable consequences for us all as the world economy contracted, although it would slow down greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps the world would be forced to find a way of growing in knowledge and spiritual fulfilment, while ensuring that everyone has enough food, water, shelter and medical help.

John

Author, 2077 AD

cosmik.jo@gmail.com