Monthly Archives: October 2004

Better All The Time #20



Dispatches from a rapidly changing, rapidly improving
world


#20
10/21/04

A question we’re often asked — how can the world possibly be "getting
better" when the bad news consistently outweighs the good? This is a
common misunderstanding. The reality is that good news so far outweighs bad
that the former isn’t considered noteworthy. A high school student robs a
convenience store. Meanwhile, at the school a few blocks away, 400 of his
peers are recognized for their academic achievements in an Honors Night ceremony.
Which of those two stories would be considered noteworthy? Which would be
picked up by the local media? Even if some enlightened media outlet treated
the stories equally (which would be a stretch), they aren’t equal. The good
news is 400 times greater than the bad.

That might not be a bad ratio to work with. Better All The Time isn’t
about donning rose-colored glasses and pretending that serious problems don’t
exist. It’s about remembering, if only for a moment, that the problems aren’t
the whole picture, and that — every day, for every problem that we are
forced to contemplate — hundreds of positive developments go unheralded.
Usually even unnoticed.

So here, for your edification and enjoyment, are ten news stories that
show how the future might be better. Each one reflects a development so positive
that even the mainstream media couldn’t pass it up.

Stillness Part V, Chapter 50

Sybil looked in the bag. Then she looked back at Todd.

“Holy shit,” she said. “Are you crazy? Where the hell did you get this kind of money?”

Todd took the bag back and rolled up the top.

“As I said, as acting executive of the Mackey Home, this money is mine to dispense as I see fit. And I see fit to offer it to you.”

She snorted.

“Acting executive? Give me a break. You’re only a kid!”

“Be that as it may,” said Todd. “Circumstances have left something of a void in the management of the home. We formed a committee to take care of things in this interim period. And the committee has empowered me to act.”

“You,” said Sybil. “A boy. What are you — nine, ten years old?”

Beam Us All Up

Randall Parker has the
details
on a proposed method of getting a spacecraft to Mars (and back)
in 90 days using magnetic beam plasma propulsion. (Also see Stephen’s
post
on the subject, below.) In the proposed design, the beam would be able
to push a spaceship along by means of a sail at a consistent rate of about 26,000
miles per hour. At that rate, it would take a little less than 80 days to get
to Mars. Not too shabby when you consider that, 125 years ago, 80 days was considered
a remarkable
speed
just for doing a single lap around the Earth. However, designer Robert
Winglee thinks he can do better even than that, with the 90-day round-trip as
his goal.

Of course, the real advantage here isn’t the speed. We have rockets
that push payloads to that kind of speed all the time. The advantage is that
the magnetic beam would be able to push the spacecraft in a straight line from
point A to point B. When we send a probe to Mars, it doesn’t travel in a straight
line. It would take way to much rocket fuel to do that. So we put the probe
into an orbit around the sun that eventually intersects with Mars’ own orbit
of the sun, as shown below. From a rocket fuel standpoint, this is an extremely
efficient and economic way to go. But from a time standpoint, it is costly.
The inner circle, the orbit of Earth, takes one year to complete. (In fact,
each one of those orbits is what a year is. But of course, we all knew
that.) The outer circle, the orbit of Mars, takes almost two years to complete.
As you can see, the trajectory followed by a probe launched from Earth is somewhere
between the two in duration. Call it 18 months.

Granted, this is a vast oversimplification. Estimates on how long a manned
flight to Mars would take using the conventional approach range from a few months
to a couple of years. But you get the idea. And contrast that approach to Mars
with the approach that the proposed technology will allow:

Quite a bit shorter of a trip, isn’t it?

Of course, Mars isn’t the only place to go in the solar system. Closer to home,
a magnetic beam projector in low Earth orbit could push a spaceship to the moon
in about ten hours. Interestingly, at that rate, if you took the space
elevator
up from Earth, the trip from Earth to orbit would take quite a
bit longer than the trip from Earth orbit to the moon. Over longer distances,
the advantages of the magnetic beam approach seem to dissipate. According to
my (admittedly highly suspect) calculations, the magnetic beam that gets us
to Mars in 80 days could get us to Neptune in about 12 years.

That is one big solar system we live in, folks.

Unless I’m mistaken, it also takes us about 12 years to get to Neptune using
the old orbital intersection approach. We will have to crank up the output of
the magnetic beam projector — which, as noted above, is exactly what Winglee
intends to do — before we see any real advantage over those kinds of distances.

In addition to making travel within the solar system much less expensive and
more practical, magnetic beam propulsion technology can serve as a precursor
to solar sail technology. Frank
Tipler
has proposed the idea of focusing the energy of the sun into a laser
beam which we could then use to launch a very small (you could hold it in your
hand) interstellar probe. According to Tipler, such a probe could be accelerated
to about .9c (90% of the speed of light) within about a month and a half. That
means that we could have it to Alpha Centauri in less than five years, with
information coming back in less than 10. Contrast that with 12 years to get
to Neptune on a magnetic beam. Now we’re talking speed.

(Not that AC that would necessarily be our first target; I think Kathy
would agree that Epsilon
Eridani
would make an excellent choice.)

But wait. How much interstellar exploration could we really get done using
such a tiny probe? Well, that’s where nanotechnology
comes in.

See how all this stuff fits together?

Sailing To Mars

peter_pan_s_ship.jpeg

The concept of solar sails has been around awhile. But the idea of providing our own “wind” is newer. This morning Wired reported that a University of Washington team is working on magnetized-beam plasma propulsion. This group just received $75,000 in funding from NASA’s Institute for Advanced Concepts.

[What's the matter guys? Feel the private sector breathing down your neck? – ed.]

The idea is to push a spaceship equipped with a sail with a mag-beam shot from a space station. This would, in theory, be able to propel the ship to incredible velocities – 26,000 miles per hour. At that speed a trip to Mars and back again would take about three months.

Once shot off into space, onboard propulsion units would provide a spacecraft some power for minor flight corrections, but not enough to decelerate, which would be handled by a plasma station orbiting the destination.

ship.jpegNot having to carry the mass of the fuel required for acceleration and deceleration within the craft is a big advantage here. Going to Mars by traditional rocketry would be very slow, 2.6 years for a round trip, and prohibitively costly.

Obviously there are a lot of questions to answer. Presumably the plasma stations will have to deal with Newtonian physics, and this gun would have quite a kick. In order to keep from having to compensate, it might be best if it was located on a large and, relatively, unmovable object such as the Moon.

Also, does a mag-beam have the range to accelerate and decelerate a craft at a sufficient distance? Nobody knows yet.

And a commentor at FuturePundit thought of another problem:

How accurate does the incoming craft’s trajectory have to be to balance perfectly on the decelerating beam? Think about it. You’re essentially pushing against a huge amount of inertia with a magnet – which is damn slippery. Unlesss I’m misunderstanding something it seems like the decelerator would have to be absolutely perfectly over the craft’s center of gravity to not push it off course. It would be like decelerating a bullet without deflecting the bullet.

My guess is that engineers will address these issues in time. And I’m glad that NASA is thinking beyond the Shuttle.

Farewell, Gordo

The death of one of America’s space pioneers got lost in the news of SpaceShipOne’s triumph.:

HOUSTON (Reuters) – The last of the seven Project Mercury astronauts who pioneered U.S. space exploration in the 1960s remembered one of their own as a fearless pilot with the “right stuff” in an emotional memorial ceremony on Friday for Gordon Cooper.

“Gordo has scrambled, he’s out there ahead of us with Gus and Al and Deke, and I’m sure we’ll all rendezvous out there someday,” [former astronaut and US Senator John Glenn] said, referring to late Mercury astronauts Gus Grissom, Alan Shephard and Deke Slayton.

Cooper was part of two important missions. As part of Project Mercury, his Faith 7 (launch shown above) capsule completed 22 orbits of the Earth. In 1965, he flew on Gemini 5, which orbited the Earth for eight days, setting a new record for space flight duration.

Thanks, Gordo. We’ll miss you.

Book Review: The Scientific Conquest of Death

sod7.jpg

When I heard this summer that the Immortality Institute was publishing its first book, The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, I asked for an advanced copy to review for the Speculist.

I was surprised and honored when Bruce Klein and Reason from FightAging emailed me a working draft. This was a valuable blog-lesson for me: ask and you shall (sometimes) receive.

I’m happy to report that the book is a complete success.

This book is a collection of essays divided into two parts: Science and Perspectives. The Science half of the book is written by scientists well-known to life extension enthusiasts: Aubrey de Grey, Michael West, Robert Freitas, Ray Kurzweil, and Marvin Minsky to name a few.

These authors work in different fields but share a vision of a future where degenerative aging is a choice – and a rather unpopular choice. For most of these scientists, it’s not so much a question of “if,” but “when:”

We can no longer pretend that we know so little about how to cure aging that the timing of this advance will be determined overwhelmingly by future serendipitous discoveries: we are in the home straight already.

-Aubrey de Grey

While I found the Perspectives half of the book a little slower going, ultimately it may prove to be more important than the first half.

While the authors of the Science section outline potential paths to the goal, the Perspective authors ask whether the goal is worthy. Will we be plagued by overpopulation or lethargy if death is removed from the picture?

The objections [to eternal youth] can be divided into two different categories: practical and philosophical. Practical worries might include: the population problem, the problem of scarce resources and environmental pollution, eternal youth that is only available to the wealthy, the accumulation of too much wealth and power by an elite group of immortals�

A philosophical objection to life extension is the worry that the longer we lived, the less we would value our time. After all, a basic economic principle is that the value of a resource tends to increase the more scarce it is. Would we somehow value each moment less if we lived longer? Another worry that people may have is that a desire for life extension is somehow selfish. Perhaps budding immortals would become really self-centered and narcissistic?

-Marc Geddes

To its credit the Immortality Institute allowed debate on these issues. Several of the Perspective essayists are quite critical of the goal of life extension.

But if the authors of the Science portion the book are correct that radical life extension is coming, any philosophical arguments against life extension will ring hollow when it arrives. The Perspectives section is of greater value when it debates how to adapt our society to life extension, rather than whether we should pursue it.

The publication of this book is certainly a landmark for the Immortality Institute. The Institute should be proud of this accomplishment. More importantly, this book is a milestone in the quest for life extension. The depth of the bench here, the willingness of respected scientists to contribute to such a book, is an important development.

These contributors and others that follow can now investigate the possibility of radical life extension without the fear of being thought unserious. This alone could make all the difference.

The Scientific Conquest of Death: Essays on Infinite Lifespans, will be available within the next couple of weeks at Amazon.com.

Click here for the Table of Contents, introductions for both the Science and Perspective portions of the book, biographical sketches of the authors, and additional resources.

Incredible? Maybe. Shrinking? No Way.

Wired Magazine ran a recent piece on K. Eric Drexler, whose relationship to
the field of nanotechnology is difficult to characterize — Dean? Founder?
— as The
Incredible Shrinking Man
. There is no question that Drexler’s work has been
misrepresented and misunderstood, that the term "nanotechnology" has
been co-opted by others who then have the audacity to paint Drexler as some
kind of outsider or Pariah in the field, or that there is a strong movement
within both the business community and the ever-seeking-funding research community
to eliminate what Glenn Reynolds has described as the spooky
side nanotechnology. Drexler’s opponent in the Great
Assembler Debate
, Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel laureate responsible for
the discovery of buckyballs, even went so far as to accuse Drexler of frightening
the children
with his predictions of nano-weapons and grey goo. Spooky,
indeed.

It was therefore all the more exciting to see the news
that Dr. Peter Diamandis, the Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, is going to
head up the Foresight Institute’s Feynman Grand Prize Steering Committee. The
Foresight Institute is an organization
founded by Drexler to help prepare the world for the coming age of molecular
manufacturing. The institute annually awards Feynman
Prizes
to major contributors in the field; the grand prize is a $250,000
cash award which will go to the first individual or team to construct a rudimentary
nano-scale computer and robotic arm. Diamandis’ presence on the committee for
the Feynman Grand Prize indicates that the goals of the Foresight Institute
are no more "fringe" than were those of the X Prize committee. While
the Nano Business Alliance continues
to insist that term "nanotechnology" applied only to stain
resistant pants
and other vital breakthroughs, some researcher or team of
researchers is one day soon going to provide Drexler the ulitmate vindication,
and open up a new world even more strange and wonderful than the one promised
by the triumph of SpaceShipOne.

They're Jamming Our Signals!

I
like those public service messages that Cingular runs in movie theatres featuring
Mr.
Inconsiderate Cellphone Man
. The guy is so obnxoious that there’s almost
something likeable about him. However, there is nothing admirable about his
mobile telephony habits. Well it looks as though nos amis in France have
done something
to end Mr Inconsiderate’s reign of terror, and the UK is thinking about doing
the same:

The infuriating ring of someone else’s mobile blights many a night out at
the cinema or theatre. France has decided to jam phone signals to allow audiences
to enjoy shows in silence – could the UK follow suit?

I doubt that we’ll see anything like this in the US. The Bill of Rights makes
it darn difficult to curb obnxoxious behavior. I’m not saying that jamming phone
signals in movie theatres is a free-speech issue. Beats me if it is. I’m saying
it would almost certainly be opposed on those grounds.

Plus, in my limited recent movie-going experience in suburban Denver, I haven’t
observed much of a cell-phone problem in the US. Now if they had had this technology
a few years ago in Malaysia…