Daily Archives: September 15, 2004

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Weightless

As the age of space tourism draws ever closer, some some would-be amateur astronauts are likely to prepare themselves by taking one or more zero G flights, which are about to be offered on a commercial basis:

The Zero Gravity Corporation has been given the thumbs up by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct “weightless flights” for the general public, providing the sensation of floating in space.

Tickets are on sale for around $3,000.

A specially modified Boeing 727-200 aircraft, called G-Force One, will be used during a nationwide tour Sept. 14-24.

Once they’re offered to the general public, zero-G flights will run passengers about $3000. According to the linked article, passengers will first experience reduced gravity, approximating the surfaces of Mars and the Moon, before experiencing absolute weightlessness. It’s hard not to wonder how long the flights will last (the article doesn’t say.) At $3000 a ride, I wonder how much the passengers will be paying for each second of weightlessness?

Raising Our Sights

After Kurzweil reported yesterday that we now have the first photograph of an exoplanet (a planet outside the solar system), Phil and I had an email conversation about the future of spotting planets visually.

The problem is that planets, particularly earth-sized planets, are very dim bulbs located on astronomical scales right next to a very bright star.

The planet that was photographed is very large and is in a wide orbit around a relatively dim star. Astronomer Gael Chauvin managed to take this picture with an earth-based telescope employing “adaptive optics” to compensate for the blurring of our atmosphere. The telescope that was used was part of the “Very Large Telescope array at the Paranal Observatory in Chile.”

Chauvin’s team now plan to make more detailed observations to confirm whether the object is indeed a planet in orbit around 2M1207. “Our discovery represents a first step towards opening a new field in astrophysics: the imaging and spectroscopic study of planetary systems,” says team member Anne-Marie Lagrange from the Grenoble Observatory in France. “Such studies will enable astronomers to characterise the physical structure and chemical composition of giant and, eventually, terrestrial-like planets.”

Instead of having to compensate for our atmosphere, wouldn’t it be great to have an array in space? What I suggested yesterday to Phil was an array in the configuration of a toy jack.

jacks.jpeg

Or, to be more scientific, in the xyz cartesian axes configuration. At the end of each leg would be a 3 axes movable “eye.” These 6 eyes could work separately or be coordinated together. This could give you monoscopic vision in up to 6 directions at once, stereoscopic vision in up to 3 directions at once, or, if a scientist needed to take a really good look at something, up to 6 eyes could be trained on an object.

Phil had a better idea. Instead of having these space telescopes physically connected together, why not separate them further? Much further.

The thing to do would be to launch one of these jack telescopes way, way out there. Say, 100 AU. The signals would take a long time to get back to Earth, but think of what we would see! Going with the stereoscope idea, what if we put two single lenses out in space on opposite sides of the sun, again each about 100 AU from the Sun or about 200 AU from each other. With that kind of distance between the two lenses, I wonder what kind of leverage you would get towards resolving distant objects? 200 AU seems huge to us, but it’s still pretty miniscule in interstellar terms. Maybe we should be thinking in terms af 1000 AUs.

We need some cool nanotech way to make the lenses realy enormous, too. Say 1/100th the diamter of the moon or so. Now that would be a pair of binoculars!

No rescue missions for those Hubbles. You would need nanotech not just to build them, but to maintain them.

Stillness Part V, Chapter 45

I have to begin this story where I can. It isn’t the beginning of the story; it’s the first day of my life that I really “remember”— in the common sense of the term. It’s the day I left the home. It was also the day the Phenomenon occurred, as well as being the day that any number of people that I knew (presumably along with some people I did not know) were removed.

That’s an unfortunate word, but it’s the best one I’ve ever been able to come up with to describe what happened. They were removed. Other terms used by those of us who discuss this subject (a small group) include undone, unmade, uncreated, destroyed, eliminated, and erased. Erased is probably the most popular. I don’t deny that it’s a good fit, but I prefer removed.

Todd says that removed is a euphemism. He suggests that there is something Orwellian in my selection of the term, that I’m trying to hide the awful reality of what occurred behind a word that obscures tragedy with its vagueness, like when an airline makes reference in its annual report to a mysterious mid-air explosion killing all 257 people on board one of its planes as a “conversion” or “replacement” of its aircraft. I believe Todd is mistaken on this point. The word removed is not vague, nor does it shy away from reality. If there was an explosion, I would say explosion. If we knew people were killed, I would say they were killed.

But we don’t know any of that. We don’t know that anyone has been erased, or eliminated or destroyed. There is this nagging sense, this appalling and overwhelming fear, that they might have been. But we don’t know that for sure. Far from obscuring the horrible reality, I think the word drives the horror home. They were here, they’re gone, and we have no idea what happened to them.