Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space review – does Elon Musk really need the free PR?

Netflix’s new documentary series sells the first all-civilian flight to space as an exercise in philanthropy, but it’s little more than a privilege-fuelled puff piece for the billionaire’s adventures

Space oddities … Jared Isaacman, Hayley Arceneaux, 

Sian Proctor and Christopher Sembroski in the Netflix show. 

Photograph: John Kraus/Courtesy of Netflix


Lucy Mangan
@LucyMangan
Mon 6 Sep 2021 

While I’m still able – “allowed” is possibly the verb I want – I would like to register my objection to adverts masquerading as legitimate streaming content on a subscription service for which I pay good money. This is not how that particular model is supposed to work. I realise, of course, that I am Cnut howling at the digital waves. But proving our powerlessness before them is about the only thing left to us.

Netflix’s new documentary series, or “documentary series”, Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space, is the offender in this case. It is designed to track the recruitment process, preparation for and then – in as close to real time as possible – the launch of the first all-civilian flight into space, by Elon Musk’s company SpaceX.

The first two episodes introduce us to the crew in Musk’s Inspiration4 project, but only after we have been thoroughly informed of the greatness of what we are about to witness. Space is “humanity’s great taunting”, and non-astronauts circling the earth in the reusable Dragon rocket is “a hinge moment”. “It is a certainty that we will become a multi-planetary species”, you see, “and this the next significant step.” I hope you are feeling suitably awed and portended upon. If not, there’s plenty more where that came from.

We meet Jared Isaacman, a high school dropout who founded his first company, Shift4Payments – a PayPal type operation that now processes $200bn (£145bn) a year for US restaurants and hotels – from his parents’ basement when he was a teenager. Isaacman is that rarest of beasts – a genuinely personable billionaire – and, when he bought all four seats on the flight, one imagines Musk must have been elated with his charming frontman.

Not that the fact that Isaacman bought the seats is made explicit in the programme. Possibly this is because it is thought so self-evident that it does not need to be. Or possibly not. Much is made of the fundraising side of the endeavour (Inspiration4 aims to raise $200m for St Jude’s children’s hospital in Memphis and Isaacman has already donated half the sum) and the shift from the spirit of national, collective endeavour and investment in space exploration to private individual and commercial businesses is not touched on. The closest we come to any kind of ethical consideration or probing is a single question to Musk about whether we should be looking to solve some of the manifold problems on Earth before looking to the stars, which he is allowed to bat away. “We should spend 99.9% of our resources on solving [them],” he says, which is an intriguing use of “we” and “our”. “The rest can be spent on an exciting and inspiring future … If life is all about problems, what’s the point in living?” So – that’s all sorted, then.

Isaacson acknowledges his privilege more overtly, but the $200m for St Jude’s is clearly considered to cover a multitude of what some might categorise as moral sins.

Never mind. This is all “a profound breakthrough” and everything’s OK because the other seats are going to ordinary people, albeit ones who fit the “Mission Pillars” of Hope, Generosity, Prosperity and Leadership. The inclusion of this emetic element is not the programme’s fault, at least. It is America’s.

Isaacman, who offers the most nous, has masses of flight experience under his belt and serves as flight commander, representing Leadership. Doctor’s assistant and childhood cancer survivor Hayley Arceneaux, who was treated at and now works at St Jude’s, is in the Hope seat. Christopher Sembroski, who donated as part of the fundraising raffle, is Generosity (though perhaps this should also be in recognition of the friend who actually won and gave Sembroski his seat. This is not mentioned in the programme, which – as mentioned – is in search of a simple, streamlined narrative at all times. The seat transfer may be inconsequential but you wonder how many more awkward facts might have been left out). The final seat, Prosperity, went to Sian Proctor, geology professor and major in the Civil Air Patrol (another fact that’s glossed over, lest it seem, perhaps, that these ordinary Americans on the first civilian mission do not seem to the public quite as ordinary or civilian as they might).

I’m sure the puff nature of the piece will become less obvious as the launch approaches and genuine drama and tensions start to fill the hours. But that doesn’t alter what it is. Everyone’s time and money, all those billions of it, could be better spent.

Phoenix teacher just days away from going to space with historic Space X 'Inspiration4'

BRIANA WHITNEY
POSTED 8 HRS AGO

Dr. Sian Proctor was chosen to be one of the astronauts on board the historic launch.

PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5 ) - We are now just days away from the first ever all-civilian mission to space, and part of that four-person crew is a Phoenix teacher who has waited her whole life to go to space.

Space X's Inspiration4 will make history launching into space next week. The countdown to their flight is now the focus of a new docuseries on Netflix, including how Phoenix's own Dr. Sian Proctor was chosen to be one of the astronauts. Proctor can do it all - she's a teacher, she's been in space simulation experiments, and what won her the "prosperity" seat in the Inspiration4 was her poetry and art.

Arizona’s Family caught up with her right after she learned she was selected. “It was very emotional when I found out. I kind of reference it to when Harry Potter finds out he’s a wizard and he’s like wait, I can’t be a wizard! You picked me!” Proctor said.

Proctor has been working up to this for decades. “My only fear was that this moment was never going to come or happen for me,” she told us after she was selected.

Arizona’s Family first met Proctor and her friend Erin Bonilla before the pandemic, when they were heading to Hawaii to live in a Mars simulator to study effects on the body. Proctor was already making history then.

“Seven years ago, going from the very first crew to now being a crew that’s all female is very exciting,” she told us then.

Sian Proctor and Erin Bonilla are analog astronauts

Proctor barely missed the cut to be a NASA astronaut in 2009. Space is in her blood. She was born in Guam because her dad worked with a NASA contractor on the Apollo mission.

Now just days before the Space X launch, we’re seeing those behind-the-scenes moments in the Netflix documentary 'Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space' that Bonilla was a part of.

“Once she found out she was selected she was able to tell somebody about it. And I was the person she could tell during that time,” Bonilla said. “It was a really emotional moment as you can tell in the documentary, but it’s been years coming for her.” Bonilla is heading to Florida on Wednesday to be with Proctor and the crew and will be there in person for the historic launch. “It’ll be pretty awesome to be there with everybody to see it launch, and to know that there’s somebody we all know and love on that rocket is going to be pretty amazing,” Bonilla said.

Sian Proctor will be the 4th African American woman to ever be in space. This mission is also raising hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research for St. Jude. The launch is set for Wednesday September 15.

Meet Jared Isaacman, the billionaire pilot funding 1st all-civilian mission to space

The billionaire is financing the four seats on the mission to raise awareness for a children's hospital.

India Today Web Desk 

New Delhi

September 7, 2021

Jared Issacman is the founder and chief executive officer of Shift4 Payments. (Photo: Inspiration 4 Mission)


When SpaceX's Inspiration-4 mission lifts off from the launch pad that once saw Neil Armstrong soar to the heavens on Apollo-11, the crew onboard will go down in the history books as the first all-civilian crew to leap into low Earth orbit. The September 15 launch will seal SpaceX as a leader in not just successfully launching and returning trained astronauts and cargo from space but also an amateur crew that has no experience in space travel and astrophysics.

While the trip will bring brownie points for Elon Musk amid his brawl with Jeff Bezos, the mission will lock Jared Isaacman into glory not just for commanding the all-civilian crew but also for philanthropy. Why? Because the billionaire is financing the four seats on the mission to raise awareness for a children's hospital.

The four-member crew strapped into SpaceX's Dragon capsule will orbit the Earth for three days before returning.

Who is Jared Isaacman?

Jared Issacman is the founder and chief executive officer of Shift4 Payments, which provides integrated payment processing and technology solutions “powering over 350 software providers across industries.” However, Issacman is more than a corporate guy in a suit.

Starting from prop planes, Isaacman jumped to fighter planes within a few years. (Photo: Inspiration 4)

At 38 years, the billionaire is an accomplished jet pilot, who is rated to fly commercial and military aircraft and holds several world records including two Speed-Around-The-World flights in 2008 and 2009 that raised money and awareness for the Make-a-Wish Foundation.

A high school dropout, Isaacman began his entrepreneurial ventures when he was just 15 years old. According to Forbes, at the age of 28, he started what would become the world’s largest 'private air force', Draken International, and then sold it to the defence contractor Blackstone. A decade later he is a billionaire who has taken his compaspny public. Shift4 Payments today handles more than $200 billion in payments every year for a third of the US's restaurants and hotels, including giants like Hilton, Four Seasons, KFC, Forbes reported.

An aviation enthusiast

The billionaire has financed the four seats, paying SpaceX an undisclosed amount for the three-day trip at an altitude that is above the Hubble Space Telescope’s orbit.

Isaacman has been part of several air shows flying around the world displaying his air superiority while sitting in a jet cruising at Mach speed. The billionaire boasts of an impressive lineup of nine planes in his garage including a MiG.


The billionaire is an accomplished jet pilot, who is rated to fly

 commercial and military aircraft. (Photo: Inspiration 4 Mission)

Starting from prop planes, Isaacman jumped to fighter planes and at the age of 26 years, he completed the fastest around-the-world flight in a light jet. He flew for 61 hours and 51 minutes, breaking the previous record by 21 hours. During that flight in 2009, he raised $100,000 for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. He then joined hands with Sean Gustafson, a member of US Air Force Thunderbirds (air display team) and formed an air-show squadron called the Black Diamond Jet Team.

He not only flies jets at speeds faster than the speed of sound but has been known to scale Mt. Vinson in Antarctica. While he failed to scale it due to dehydration, he has said he will try again.
Isaacman’s trip to space is different from Jeff Bezos & Richard Branson

The hype around space tourism began with Richard Branson's flight to the edge of space onboard the Virgin Galactic flight earlier this year. Jeff Bezos followed him on Blue Origin’s maiden trip to space. Isaacman’s trip to space will be different from his predecessors, who had not more than 10 minutes to experience the flight, weightlessness and landing. His all-civilian trip will last three days.


Jared Isaacman sitting in the Cupola on top of the Crew Dragon capsule. 

(Photo: Inspiration 4 Mission)

SpaceX has already displayed the Cupola, designed on top of the crew Dragon, that will offer a unique view of the planet in its full glory.

During the three-day flight, the four-member crew will raise awareness and charity for St Jude Research Hospital while flying at 17,500 metres per hour around the planet.

“The crew of Inspiration4 is eager to use our mission to help make a better future for those who will launch in the years and decades to come. We are proud that our flight will help influence all those who will travel after us and look forward to seeing how this mission will help shape the beginning of a new era for space exploration," Isaacman said.

‘The point is ambition’: are we ready to follow Netflix into space?

The ambitious new look at SpaceX’s first all-civilian flight, the streaming platform’s first real-time docuseries, takes reality television to space

If all goes according to plan, the final episode, turned around on a snap production timeline, will capture the Inspiration4’s crew successful return to Earth. 

Photograph: John Kraus/Netflix

Adrian Horton
@adrian_horton
Tue 7 Sep 2021 

The rise of commercial space travel is here, and for the vast majority who cannot afford its millions-plus price tag, streaming platforms are here to capture it. Starting this week, Netflix will air the first two installments of Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space, its first docuseries to cover an event – SpaceX’s launch of its first all-civilian crew on a three-day trip circling Earth – in “near real time.” Subsequent episodes will document the four astronauts’ preparation for the 15 September launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Episodes three and four will air just two days prior; a feature-length finale film of the mission itself will air in late September.


How the billionaire space race could be one giant leap for pollution

The series, directed by veteran sports documentarian Jason Hehir, best known for The Last Dance, promises to take audiences behind the scenes of the Inspiration4 mission, from the astronaut selection to the training and eventual takeoff. Netflix, as well as the passengers and SpaceX figures introduced in the first two episodes, are billing the trip as a paradigm shift in space exploration: an aperture in commercial space travel, a small but significant advancement toward the proliferation of rocket transportation, and new frontier for reality television.

“Inspiration4 is just a really small step along that journey toward a Jetsons world where everyone’s going to jump in their spacecraft and journey in the worlds beyond ours,” Jared Isaacman, the 38-year-old billionaire chief executive of Shift4 Payments and long-time flight enthusiast who will be the mission’s commander, told the Guardian. “I don’t think it’s just going to be a few people for a long time,” he added, comparing space travel now, executed by private companies such as Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic with exorbitant price tags, to the early days of experimental aviation. “This is starting with a few, for sure, but this going to open up to the many.”

Until then, commercial space travel remains an ultra-expensive, ultra-exclusive club predominantly spurred by the mega-rich, with live-streams for everyone else. In July, Blue Origin live-streamed its launch of Jeff Bezos on a 11-minute suborbital space journey on its YouTube channel and on Amazon Prime; Virgin Galactic also streamed founder Richard Branson’s 59-minute space flight on YouTube, and recruited a popular science TikTok star for a future trip. It’s a given, as the environmentally questionable business of space tourism continues to expand, that reality TV will ride along – in April, Nasa signed a Space Act Agreement with the production company “Space Hero” to “[facilitate] initial cooperation and information sharing” for a competition show that would send the winner on an expensive trip to the International Space Station as early as 2023.

There’s a game show undercurrent to Countdown, the Netflix series, whose first two episodes predominantly serve to introduce viewers to the civilian astronauts, selected by a Willy Wonka-like arbitrary process tied to four core mission values.

Besides Isaacman (“Leadership”), who declined to specify the amount paid to participate in the mission (but did say proceeds raised for the pediatric cancer specialists at St Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee would exceed the cost of the mission), the group includes Hayley Arceneaux, a 29-year-old pediatric cancer survivor and physician assistant at St Jude’s, which nominated her to symbolize the value of “Hope”; Sian Proctor, 51, of Phoenix, Arizona, a geology professor who won a spot on Inspiration4 through an competition assessing entrepreneurial spirit and the ability to go semi-viral (“Prosperity”); and Chris Sembrowski, 42, a data engineer and air force veteran from Everett, Washington, selected off a list of donors to St Jude’s as part of Inspiration4’s Superbowl campaign (“Generosity”).

All are new to astrodynamics, ordinary figures unused to cameras and spotlight. It’s a far cry from Hehir’s mission on The Last Dance, in which his team endeavored to “de-iconize” a celebrity as ubiquitous and iconic as Michael Jordan. Though Countdown will build, in real time, the iconography of Inspiration4, Hehir assures that the project is not acting as gauzy PR for the company – “I didn’t see it as our role to aggrandize SpaceX,” he told the Guardian. “I thought it was necessary to outline what their mission is, why are we doing this – because one of the first questions is always that it’s another billionaire going to space, what’s the point? The point is ambition, seeing what else is out there, and the point in a charitable sense is raising $200m for St Jude’s.”

This is the most common criticism levied at SpaceX, and private space travel in general, one Hehir floats midway through the first episode – why send, or care about, billionaires going to space when there’s an abundance of earthbound issues that need addressing, most pressingly the climate emergency. Asked his response to such backlash, Isaacman echoed his answer in the first episode of the series: “We absolutely believe in balance here,” he said. “It’s been right from the start, from the creation of Inspiration4, that we’ve said: ‘we have to address some of the problems of today to earn the right to make progress for tomorrow,’” pointing to the fundraising effort for St Jude’s.
 

Photograph: John Kraus/2021 Inspiration4 2021/Netflix/AFP/Getty Images

SpaceX’s billionaire founder, Elon Musk, appears in the first episode for brief overviews on the mission of Inspiration4 (civilian orbital space flight) and the company at large (colonization of Mars). It was “necessary to have [Musk] in it,” Hehir said, “because he is the face of that company and I felt that we owe it to our viewers for him to do two things. One, to articulate what the company’s mission is, and then two, to address the criticism that is so pervasive these days, of billionaires going into space and the privilege of wealth.” (Musk’s answer to the billionaire-critique is that “99%-plus of our economy should be dedicated to solving problems on Earth” but a multi-planet, space-bearing civilization is an “exciting, inspiring future.”)

“I had no interest in mythologizing that company or making it out that they’re saviors of the world,” Hehir said. “But I do think it’s important if you’re going to understand the ambition of the mission, to understand the ambition of the company itself.”

If all goes according to plan, the final episode, turned around on a snap days-long production timeline, will capture the Inspiration4’s crew successful return to Earth. The first two episodes find each weighing the inherent risk of space travel; Proctor, in particular, remembers watching the Challenger disaster exploded on live television in 1986, killing all seven crew on board (captured on camera: the shock and grief of Grace and Edward Corrigan, whose daughter Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher from New Hampshire, was to be the first American civilian in space).

“I understand what calculated risk is and what the reward is,” she told the Guardian, “and the reward of human space flight far exceeds the risk.”

Proctor, who was born in Guam, where her father worked for Nasa at an Apollo tracking station, will be only the fourth black American women ever to travel to space (to date, only about 600 people have made the journey). Bubbling with a Ms Frizzle-esque enthusiasm for space exploration, Proctor is using to her spot aboard Inspiration4 to highlight black women’s long-overlooked role in American space travel. “We’re opening up the door for people who normally would have thought of being an astronaut or going to space, giving them the insight into how we’re doing it, and how times are changing,” she said of participating in the first all-civilian space flight.

“Old space was exclusive and you had to be the best of the best, you had to fit certain criteria. This is new space that’s emerging, that enables us to open up who gets to go and participate and write the narrative of human space flight,” she added, mapping out what she called a “Jedi” space — Just, Equitable, Diverse, and Inclusive.

It remains to be seen if that narrative of a more democratic space will come to pass – and if Inspiration4 will push past skepticism of ultra-expensive, privately funded space flight. Regardless, the mission, and the messaging attached to it, will be televised, bringing the vast frontier to your personal screen.

Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space starts 7 September on Netflix

Netflix Strokes Elon Musk’s Otherworldly Ego With ‘Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space’

The new docuseries, chronicling the Sept. 15 launch of SpaceX’s Inspiration4—the first all-civilian flight to orbit Earth—feels like “prepackaged corporate publicity.”

Nick Schager
Updated Sep. 07, 2021 

John Kraus/Netflix

Any current review of Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space is inherently incomplete, since the five-part Netflix docuseries is aiming to debut in real time alongside the event it’s depicting: the Sept. 15 launch of SpaceX’s Inspiration4, which will be the first all-civilian flight to orbit the Earth—a feat it’ll accomplish multiple times during its three-day journey, at speeds of 17,500 mph and at a height greater than that of the International Space Station. Consequently, the only episodes available to press at the moment are its first two prologue installments (premiering Sept. 6); chapters three and four will hit the streaming service on Sept. 13, and a feature-length finale—detailing the actual mission—is set to land in late September, shortly after the Inspiration4 touches back down on Earth.

Those concluding segments will no doubt deliver up-close-and-personal footage from inside the Inspiration4 Crew Dragon capsule that will house its four amateur astronauts, who will be launched into space via a previously used Falcon 9 rocket. In its maiden passages, however, Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space is basically a long-winded promotional video crafted to stoke excitement—and offer justifications—for the endeavor, which just about everyone here touts as a history-making project that will help us get closer to answering the most profound questions about existence and serve as the first step in mankind’s quest to become a multi-planetary species. It’s an aggressive sales pitch masquerading as a typical Netflix non-fiction venture, helmed by The Last Dance’s Jason Hehir with all the dewy-eyed melodrama, swelling music, and rousing headshots that a 45-minute episode can contain.

Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space insistently pushes its message from the get-go. According to Time’s chief science editor Jeffrey Kluger, Inspiration4 is “a hinge point in history, and will kick the doors open to space for the rest of us.” That’s because, by sending non-professional astronauts into space, the undertaking will pave the way for more commercial flights, as well as further the goal of reaching deeper into the cosmos, where we might someday colonize distant worlds. This is a goal of dubious worth, but it’s one that Hehir’s docuseries champions with a chin-held-high sort of confidence. At the same time, it also has SpaceX founder Elon Musk address the main criticism of the Inspiration4 flight, and similar ones recently spearheaded by Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos—namely, that these are joy-ride stunts designed to feed the egos of billionaires.

“I think we should spend the vast majority of our resources solving problems on Earth. Like, 99 percent-plus of our economy should be dedicated to solving problems on Earth,” says Musk in one of his few obligatory on-screen appearances. “But I think maybe something like 1 percent, or less than 1 percent, could be applied to extending life beyond Earth.” His motivation is colonizing Mars, and the “exciting, inspiring future” of multi-planetary habitation. After all, he proclaims, “If life is just about problems, what’s the point of living?” In this context, Inspiration4 isn’t just an expensive lark; it’s the next big pioneering phase in mankind’s evolution, and thus deserving of the private investment required to make its Jetsons-style dreams a reality.

Musk’s brief comments aside, however, Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space does very little to take a critical look at this enterprise. At least in its initial pair of installments, the docuseries plays like a PR product, casting everything in glowing terms, including its portraits of the mission’s four astronauts. That group is led by Jared Isaacman, a billionaire whose history of entrepreneurship, risk-taking and fighter jet-piloting made him the ideal driving force behind Inspiration4. Isaacman is an amiable and eloquent guy whose every comment is tailor-made to hit on a particular talking point and, as he explains, a guiding motivation behind his SpaceX relationship was an initiative he developed with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital to raise $200 million for cancer research. Putting his money where his mouth is, he’s already given his own, separate $100 million donation to the organization.

St. Jude also provided Inspiration4 with two of its passengers: Hayley Arceneaux, a pediatric cancer survivor and current St. Jude physician’s assistant, and Christopher Sembroski, who won his ride by entering into a raffle promoted by SpaceX’s Super Bowl commercial. The fourth crew member is Sian Proctor, a 51-year-old entrepreneur (who’d previously trained for space flight) who earned her spot through a viral-video competition. Together, as Isaacman explains, they represent the “four pillars” of the Inspiration4 mission: Leadership (Isaacman), Hope (Arceneaux), Generosity (Sembroski), and Prosperity (Proctor). This is as cheesy as it sounds, like something produced for a marketing brochure and a press release. And though all four of these individuals seem genuinely thrilled about their opportunity, the docuseries’ vignettes on their backstories are as cornily handled as the scenes in which they announce to friends (in person, and via Zoom) that they’re going to space—moments that awkwardly strain for astonishment and euphoria.

“This is as cheesy as it sounds, like something produced for a marketing brochure and a press release.”

One can imagine Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space’s more timely later episodes supplying greater suspense. Yet in its early going—which involves repeatedly underlining SpaceX’s connection to the history and ethos of the American space program—the entire affair mostly comes across as prepackaged corporate publicity. Some authentic emotion does occasionally sneak in, as with a brief snapshot of Sembroski’s wife breaking down in nervous tears while visiting SpaceX’s Cape Canaveral HQ to watch the Crew-2 flight take off in April 2021. Yet even the show’s discussion about the dangers of space travel—replete with recaps of the 1986 and 2003 space shuttle disasters—seem less interested in grappling with the cost/benefit of these missions than in raising the proceedings’ suspenseful dramatic stakes.

Those hazards are, of course, real, and they’ll certainly be front-and-center as Inspiration4 makes its way from the planning stages to the launchpad. The notion that Netflix viewers will get a front-row seat for this journey—be it a triumph or a failure—remains an intriguing prospect. Yet one hopes that, as its subjects enter orbit, Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space quiets down about its own importance, and lets its action speak for itself.

Theoretical Physicist Says Scientists Must Be Open to Possibility of UFOs

"I think it is a legitimate scientific question to ask where these UFO sightings come from."

By Brad Bergan

Sep 06, 2021

A 3D illustration of a UFO at sunset.ktsimage / iStock

If alien civilizations exist, our technology may be primitive in comparison.

Since the U.S. government officially released documents affirming the existence of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), the world has felt closer than ever to confirming alien intelligence in the universe. But while we're not there yet, scientists are beginning to take them more seriously, and one physicist thinks we've no other choice.

"I think it is a legitimate scientific question to ask where these UFO sightings are from," tweeted the renowned Theoretical Physicist Professor Michio Kaku of theoretical physics at the City College of New York. But he was quick to caution how we qualify the phenomenon, since that "does not mean that these UFOs are necessarily from another planet."

But he thinks it's a possibility we can't ignore.

Michio Kaku says UFO technology could be millennia ahead of us

To Professor Kaku, while we don't know what's behind the UFO phenomenon, we shouldn't rule out the possibility that alien intelligence is driving the mysterious objects, and that they might come from alien worlds. A common objection suggests that, even if an alien civilization exists on distant planets, the fact of the unimaginably long journey from there to here lowers the likelihood of alien visitors to nearly zero, statistically. But, to Kaku, this is short-sighted. The universe is incredibly old, and we've only possessed the means for space travel for a few decades. If we consider the possibility that alien races have had millions of years to develop propulsion technology, who knows how quickly they might skip from planet to planet.

"Many physicists are skeptical because the stars are so far away, but that assumes (extraterrestrials are) only a century ahead of us," tweeted Kaku again, referring to the level of technology a hypothetical alien intelligence may possess. "Imagine if the aliens are millions of years more advanced than us; new laws of physics open up, so keep an open mind." Kaku, who is also the co-founder of string field theory, has repeatedly entered the fray of charged debates in the scientific community about whether or not we should communicate with an alien intelligence, if it exists.

Communication with alien intelligence could be 'extremely dangerous'

Kaku has spoken with great anticipation about the capabilities of the forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope, which is due to launch later this year. Once it's reached orbit, it will provide us with thousands of planets to examine at unprecedented precision. But when it comes to reaching out to an alien civilization, should we spot one, Kaku is cautious.

"There are some colleagues of mine that believe we should reach out to (an alien civilization)," said Kaku in an interview with The Guardian. "I think that's a terrible idea. We all know what happened to Montezuma when he met Cortés in Mexico so many hundreds of years ago. Now, personally, I think that aliens out there would be friendly but we can't gamble on it. So I think we will make contact but we should do it very carefully." And he's not wrong to be worried. In June of this year, Nature Editor Mark Buchanan issued a warning that there is an inherent danger in contacting an alien civilization, which is what a UFO driven by an alien intelligence would imply. "Chances are we should all be grateful that we don't yet have any evidence of contact with alien civilizations," he began in an Op-Ed at The Washington Post. "Attempting to communicate with extraterrestrials, if they do exist, could be extremely dangerous for us." But unless scientists and the general populace keep an open mind about the origin of UFOs, we lower our chances of mitigating the potential fallout from a hypothetical first contact with alien intelligence.

Why We Need to Keep Going to Space and Shouldn't 'Fix Earth First'

There are many reasons why we need to keep going to space, not the least of which have to do with saving Earth

By Matthew S. Williams

Sep 05, 2021

NASA

LONG READ

“Shouldn’t we fix Earth first?” This question is like a modified version of Godwin’s Law. One need only raise the subject of space exploration and humanity becoming a multiplanetary species in the near future, and someone is sure to ask it before long. In fact, it’s about as popular as “how come we can send astronauts to the Moon, but we can’t [insert problem here]?”

It’s not an unfair argument, and it certainly does seem well-intentioned. After all, why spend billions on various enterprises when poverty, hunger, homelessness, war, refugees crises, social injustice, and climate change are all around us? Wouldn't that money be better spent addressing these problems here at home?


But therein lies the problem. Whether it’s a matter of resources, priorities, or where we should focus our efforts, the assumption is that space-related activities take away from life here on Earth. But in truth, the advent of spaceflight and space-related research and development has benefitted humanity in innumerable ways.

In terms of technological applications, in terms of scientific advancement, in terms of medicine and health care, in terms of knowledge and inspiration, going to space has allowed us to grow as a species. It has taught us to appreciate what we have, and what we could become, and has allowed us to do things previous generations could only dream of.

A time-honored issue

The argument that going to space and dealing with problems at home is mutually exclusive is an enduring one. In fact, one can find examples of this criticism going all the way back to the dawn of the Space Age. For those who grew up during the "Space Race," the speech delivered by President John F. Kennedy at Rice University in 1962 is sure to be familiar:

"We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win..."

These rousing words were fondly remembered when, just seven years later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to ever set foot on another celestial body. There too, famous words were spoken that become an instant source of inspiration:

"That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

And let's not forget the words that appear on the Lunar Plaque, which was mounted on the ladders of every Apollo Lunar Module. "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind." These words still reside at the Apollo Landing site in the Sea of Tranquility.

But would it surprise you to know that there was actually considerable opposition to the Apollo Program, despite these accomplishments? According to Roger D. Launius, who served as NASA's Chief Historian between 1990 to 2002 and was the Associate Director of the National Air and Space Museum until 2017, the majority of Americans did not support going to the Moon.

As he wrote in a 2003 essay titled "Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight":

"[M]any people believe that Project Apollo was popular, probably because it garnered significant media attention, but the polls do not support a contention that Americans embraced the lunar landing mission. Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45-60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much on space, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceflight agenda."


Much of the opposition was motivated by the social upheaval taking place in the US during the 1960s. At a time when the Civil Rights Movement was fighting against segregation, and many African-Americans were struggling at the margins of society, many saw the Apollo Program as a glaring example of the federal government's misplaced priorities.

For example, in an editorial in the Los Angeles Sentinel, Brooker Griffin wrote:

"It would appear that the fathers of our nation would allow a few thousand hungry people to die for the lack of a few thousand dollars while they would contaminate the moon and its sterility for the sake of 'progress' and spend billions of dollars in the process, while people are hungry, ill-clothed, poorly educated (if at all)."

In 1971, 200 African-Americans marched on Cape Canaveral to protest during the Apollo 14 launch. Hosea Williams, a leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), spoke with a reporter from the Rome News-Tribune, saying: "We are not protesting America's achievements in outer space, we are protesting our country's inability to choose humane priorities."

Musician Gil Scott-Heron also voiced opposition to America's space program with his song, "Whitey on the Moon." The song ironically lauds the accomplishments of the Apollo astronauts while juxtaposing them with the realities of being a Black person living in 1960s America and struggling to get by.

For others, the issue of high spending was the main point of opposition. Somehow, the thought of sending astronauts to the Moon to "collect rocks" didn't justify spending billions in taxpayer dollars. While public perception of the Apollo program has improved with time, opposition to committing public funds to spaceflight has not.

In 2019, to mark the 50th anniversary of the Moon Landing, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research conducted an opinion poll. When asked if sending astronauts back to the moon was important, only 23% said yes, while 40% said it was not. Of sending crewed missions to Mars, 27% supported the idea, while 38% did not.

On its face, the opposition seems well-founded and well-intentioned. But one must wonder why space exploration is the focal point of anger over high spending and problematic priorities? Is it simply because spaceflight is high profile, is it because the benefits of space exploration are undervalued and/or misunderstood, or a little from Column A and a little from Column B?

Regardless, it is clear that spaceflight suffers from an image problem. As famed science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein once expressed, "[I]n one respect, NASA has fallen flat on its face. Its publicity is terrible, and has been right along." With that in mind, a careful review of the arguments against going to space appears to be in order.

"Shouldn't we fix Earth first?"

That's certainly a fair question, and it makes a good point. We have to do more to address the myriad of problems we face here on Earth. But why is it assumed that going to space steals focus from them, or that it's an either/or situation? It’s not unlike saying, “We should fix the economy first, then worry about the environment.” Where is it written that we can't do both?

More importantly, there is the inherent (and rather obvious) assumption that space exploration doesn't benefit people here on Earth. This assumption is pervasive, which is why in 1976 NASA decided to create a publication that shared with the public all of the commercial and industrial applications resulting from their research.

This publication is known as NASA Spinoff, which is responsible for highlighting all of the technologies the administration has made available to the public through the NASA Technology Transfer Program (TTP).

In 1979, in a bid to raise awareness about the spinoffs, Heinlein delivered a speech during a series of joint hearings before Congress. In this speech, he explained why the name "spinoff" was chosen and how NASA-funded research has benefited countless people who just didn't know it:

"'Spinoffs' is a fancy way of saying serendipitous results, which simply means look for one thing and find something else. This happens all the time in science, particularly in pure research... A thing that [NASA has] failed to do with this matter of the spinoffs, the serendipitous results, is to make the hookup so that people know about it.

"In fact, the most ironical thing I know of about our space program is that there are thousands of people alive today who would be dead if it were not for spinoffs from the space program and who have not the slightest idea that such is the case, and they complain about all that money being spent on silly stunts, and often they make that complaint by long distance with a satellite bounce."

Heinlein went on to outline four important technologies that were made possible thanks to NASA-funded research - computer-assisted tomography (CAT), image-enhancement technology, catheters, and the Doppler ultrasound stethoscope. These technologies, Heinlein explained, were what allowed him to undergo the vascular bypass operation a year before that saved his life.

In fact, NASA-funded research has led to more than 2,000 spinoffs since 1976 that have had applications for medicine, biotechnology, communications, home appliances, consumer products, robotics, clean energy, heat-resistant materials, and industrial processes.

Some of the better-known examples include solar panels, communication satellites, Earth observation satellites, microwaves, memory foam, freeze-dried food, firefighting equipment, thermal blankets, DustBusters, cochlear implants, active-pixel image sensors, air filtration systems, water filtration systems, and many, many more!

For a full run-down on how NASA research has led to tangible benefits (possibly in your area), check out the Spinoff website here.

"It steals focus."

Another common argument is that space exploration diverts not just resources but expertise and attention away from problems here at home. For some reason, it is assumed that going to space makes us appreciate Earth less, when in truth, there are numerous examples of how it encourages us to appreciate Earth more.

This is perfectly illustrated by the Overview Effect, which refers to the shift in consciousness that comes with seeing the Earth from space. Noted author and philosopher Frank White coined this term to describe the experience every astronaut in the history of spaceflight has reported during their time in space and/or upon their return to Earth.

Astronaut Michael Collins described this experience when talking about piloting the Apollo 11 Command Module: "The thing that really surprised me was that it [Earth] projected an air of fragility. And why, I don’t know. I don’t know to this day. I had a feeling it’s tiny, it’s shiny, it’s beautiful, it’s home, and it’s fragile."

This same feeling has been described by noted astronauts and cosmonauts from all over the world, including Sally Ride, Scott Kelly, Chris Hadfield, Anne McClain, Mike Massimino, Tom Jones, and Yuri Gagarin, the first man to ever go to space. Upon returning to Earth, Gagarin related how the most profound part of the mission was not looking into the depths of space, but upon planet Earth:

"Circling the Earth in my orbital spaceship, I marveled at the beauty of our planet," he said. "People of the world, let us safeguard and enhance this beauty, and not destroy it."

Also, consider the Gaia Hypothesis, the scientific theory that posits that the Earth is a single, interdependent system, where every organism, feedback-loop, and chemical cycle work together to maintain the conditions that are favorable to life. The hypothesis owes its existence to NASA scientist Dr. James E. Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis.

Lovelock's inspiration came from his work with NASA, which consisted of developing scientific instruments that could model the atmospheres and climates of Mars and other planets. In comparing the environments of other planets to Earth, they realized how complex and precious Earth's environment is.

In addition, the climatological research conducted by NASA since the 1960s is what led scientists to conclude that humanity is having a severe impact on the environment. For instance, Earth observations satellites (using the very instruments Lovelock designed) were responsible for the discovery of ozone depletion caused by CFCs.

These same satellites and climate models led scientists to realize that the growing consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting carbon emissions led to a Greenhouse Effect. Since then, the NASA Earth Science Division (ESD) and its Earth science initiatives have provided regular updates on the effects of climate change and helped support calls for action.

"Money better spent on..."

Here is a rather popular variant, where it's argued that the billions spent on spaceflight would be better spent alleviating poverty and other problems here at home. On its face, it certainly seems like a valid point. We could always use more money combatting want, scarcity, poverty, and misery. It's outrageous how common and persistent these things are!

But it begins to show cracks the moment you dig into it or examine it from other angles. Once again, why is it assumed that money not directed towards spaceflight would otherwise be spent on economic, social, and environmental problems? And if all space programs today were shelved, are we really to believe that money saved would be put towards humanitarian causes?

Second, you’d be hard-pressed to find an investment with the same amount of returns as space exploration. According to one estimate, every dollar spent during the Apollo Era resulted in a $7−$8 return on investment (ROI) thanks to the spinoffs and commercial applications that resulted. Today, that ROI has climbed to $40 for every dollar spent. Shop around. You can’t beat that!

Third, if we’re going to talk about “money better spent elsewhere,” why are we singling out space exploration, which costs less and comes with far more payoffs than other expenditures? In truth, there's plenty of examples of wasteful spending that yield comparatively little (or nothing) by comparison.

For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the healthcare costs and loss of productivity caused by cigarettes account for $300 billion a year. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2015 the world's richest nations spent $21 billion on health care and lost 1.2 billion workdays due to illnesses caused by air pollution.

By 2060, that's projected to increase to 3.7 billion lost workdays, which will result in a global loss of $2.6 trillion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually. Even worse than that is the fact that an estimated 6-9 million people are likely to die annually between now and then because of worsening air quality associated with urban growth.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that the world spends roughly $5 trillion USD a year subsidizing the oil and coal industries, which constitutes about 85% of all annual global subsidies. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources like solar and wind have become price-competitive with oil and coal without the same level of financial assistance!

There are two ways to look at this. At best, we are spending trillions of dollars to ensure that gas prices remain within a certain threshold for the good of the consumer. At worst, we are financing the very industries driving climate change, and when we need to be transitioning to clean energies, that will actually cost less!

All told, the US government spent a total of around $25.4 billion on the Apollo Program over the course of 11 years. Adjusted for inflation, that works out to around $175 billion today and an average of around $16 billion adjusted dollars a year. Add to that the costs of the Mercury (1958-1963) and Gemini Program (1961-1966), and you get an adjusted total of around $179 billion.

In terms of the national budget, these expenditures constituted about 0.1% of the nation's GDP in 1958, 4.5% in 1966 (at its peak), and less than 1% again by 1975. Now compare that to military spending during the same period, especially between 1955-1975 when the US became embroiled in the Vietnam War.

The expense of deploying American forces in Vietnam cost a total of $168 billion, or $1 trillion today. In addition to that, the draft fell disproportionately on the poor and working-class, who could not afford school deferments. In total, military expenditures during this entire period accounted for 10-13% of GDP from 1955 to 1966 and 11%-17% of GDP from 1967 to 1975.

In 2018, the US government allocated a total of $890.8 billion for the sake of defense spending, which represented a 9 to 21% increase over the previous ten years. In that same year, the entire world spent an estimated $72.34 billion USD on space. What did that get us?

NASA’s InSight lander reached Mars
NASA’s Parker Solar Probe was launched to study the Sun
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy launched for the first time
NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) began looking for exoplanets

China’s Chang’e-4 mission landed on the far side of the Moon
Japan’s Hayabusa2 mission arrived on the asteroid Ryugu
NASA’s OSIRIS-REx arrived at asteroid Bennu
The Voyager 2 probe reached interstellar space
The ESA-JAXA BepiColombo mission launched towards Mercury.

In summary, if we are going to discuss where money should be spent, perhaps we should a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted first. Because once that is complete, we're likely to notice that as a species, we spend far more money on far less noble endeavors.
“Nothing but billionaires playing in space!”

This appears to be a common sentiment these days, which is generally raised in response to big names in the commercial space industry (aka. NewSpace) making headlines - e.g., Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, et al. Much like saying that space exploration takes away from Earth, there are many who doubt that New Space ventures are anything other than a billionaires ego trip.

At best, the criticisms tend to assert that commercial space is something that will only ever benefit the super-rich. At worst, there are those who actually accuse Musk, Bezos, and others of plotting to leave Earth before climate change or some other cataclysm causes civilization to collapse - abandoning anyone who can't afford to go with them in the process.

Granted, space tourism is an industry that only people with a lot of disposable income will be able to afford in the coming years. But the ultimate purpose is to bring the associated costs of going to space down so that more and more people can enjoy it. In addition, it would be foolish to conflate all commercial space ventures with this one aspect of it.

Since 2001, Elon Musk has spearheaded the development of reusable rockets and space systems through his company SpaceX, with impressive results. Between 1970 and 2000, the average cost of sending payloads to space was about ~$8,400 per lbs ($18,500 per kilogram). Thanks in part to the development of rockets like the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, that cost is now $1,235 and $640 per lbs ($2,719 and $1,410 per kg), respectively.

Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos has also indicated that his long-term aim is to use paid flights with the New Shepard launch vehicle to fund the development of heavy rockets - like the New Glenn and the New Armstrong - and the necessary infrastructure for regular trips to space. The ultimate goal, he said, is to ensure humanity's future in space and ensure that Earth is safeguarded:

"We’re going to build a road to space so that our kids and their kids can build the future. We need to do that. We need to do that to solve the problems here on earth. This is not about escaping Earth... The whole point is this is the only good planet in this solar system. We’ve sent robotic probes to all of them. This is the only good one. I promise you, and we have to take care of it"

Critics of Branson’s space-related venture, Virgin Galactic, claim that suborbital commercial flights will benefit no one but the super-rich. With an advertised price tag of $450,000, this is certainly understandable. But as spaceflights become a common occurrence, prices will drop, and accessibility will increase (what guys like Branson have been saying all along).

In the meantime, Branson has created Space for Humanity to allow people other than the super-rich to fly. Through their Sponsored Citizen Astronaut Program, this nonprofit will train citizens and leaders to become “citizen astronauts,” a program that culminates with a ride to space aboard a Virgin Galactic spaceplane.

The company has also partnered with Omaze, a fundraising company that partners with charities, to launch a giveaway where those who pledge support for Space For Humanity can win free trips with Virgin Galactic.

In addition, NASA and other space agencies have a very long history of partnering with commercial entities to develop the tools and equipment they need. At its peak, the Apollo Program employed over 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms. Today, that tradition continues, albeit to a lesser extent.

In the past few decades, multiple commercial space companies have partnered with NASA and other space agencies to provide technological, logistical, and launch services to the International Space Station (ISS). Many of these same companies are Artemis Partners and are currently building the necessary elements that will take astronauts back to the Moon for the first time since 1972.
Space Race 2.0

Given the way humanity is poised to make the next great leap into space, it is good to ask questions about budgets, priorities, and what our goals for the future should be. But once a full and fair assessment of spaceflight is considered, it seems pretty clear that the kind of future we want for our children cannot happen without space exploration.

During the last Space Age, the desire to go to space and put a "man on the Moon" resulted in hundreds of technological spinoffs that have benefited countless people here on Earth. It also led to widespread job creation, particularly in skilled trades. And let's not forget how decades later, the Moon Landing still manages to inspire and remind us of what we can accomplish.

In the age of renewed space exploration that we now find ourselves in, the focus has shifted dramatically. Rather than simply getting there or "getting there first," the purpose is to create what we need to conduct long-duration missions to locations in deep space. In other words, our goal now is to "go back to the Moon to stay" and then use our presence there to reach beyond.

For this, space agencies and the commercial space industry are researching spacecraft that can sustain crews for long-duration flights, but also the technology for habitats and life support systems that can ensure astronaut survival in a hostile environment for extended periods of time.

This means creating closed-loop systems that can provide steady supplies of food, water, and air while producing zero waste. This technology is based entirely on the study of Earth's natural systems, which are themselves part of a massive closed-loop system that is regenerative, waste-free, and has maintained Earth's habitability for billions of years.

The technologies and spinoffs that this research will lead to include facilities that can grow plants in hostile environments, water reclamators, air filtration, carbon capture systems, and environmental engineering. Each and every one of these technologies will have endless applications here on Earth, where solutions for sustainable living will also be a matter of survival.

As Dr. Sian Proctor, a geology professor, commercial astronaut, and famous science communicator would say: “Solving for space solves for Earth.” Dr. Proctor will be the mission pilot on the upcoming three-day Inspiration4 flight, where the first all-civilian flight in history will fly to space aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule.
Looking to the future...

Like the Olympic Games, space exploration has always been a great unifier, bringing people and nations together in the spirit of exploitation and discovery. Even during the height of the Cold War, people all around the world were united in celebration as cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova became the first man and first woman to go to space.

On July 20th, 1969, people on both sides of the "Iron Curtain" celebrated as humans took their first steps on the Moon. Decades later, we still remember what was accomplished during those heady days and draw inspiration from it. We're also reaping the benefits of all the commercial, medical, industrial, and scientific breakthroughs it produced (whether we realize it or not).

Today, space exploration is no longer a competition between two superpowers but has broadened to become a much more cooperative enterprise between many state and private actors. If we hope to tackle the growing problems caused by climate change, as well as the enduring problems of poverty, injustice, war, and petty rivalries, we will need to come together like never before.

The benefits and knowledge that we stand to reap from going to space to stay will help ensure that by promoting sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and resource utilization. Having access to the abundant resources of space could also help usher in an age where scarcity (the very basis of wealth and poverty) has been eliminated.

As Kennedy intimated in his famous speech at Rice University, going to space is and always will be hard. But the payoffs for doing so are monumental, and the sense of accomplishment that comes with it lasts for generations. By putting humans on the Moon before the decade was out, a generation of people showed themselves what they were capable of.

Since the Apollo Era, we've gone even further, establishing space stations in orbit like the Salyuts, Mir, Skylab, and the ISS. We've developed reusable rockets and spaceplanes that have reduced launch costs substantially. We've also sent robotic probes to every corner of the Solar System, and a few have even made it into interstellar space.

But more important than the rockets, spacecraft, and various technological spinoffs, the greatest thing to come from the Space Age was arguably the inspiration it still provides decades later. After all, there's a reason why sayings like "shoot for the Moon," "Moonshot," and "reach for the stars" endure.

TO SEE THE REST OF THE VIDEOS THAT GO WITH THIS ARTICLE GO HERE

Why We Need to Keep Going to Space and Shouldn't 'Fix Earth First' (interestingengineering.com)

IMPERIALISM IN SPACE 

NO NOT MING THE MERCILESS

Can we (legally) colonize space?

As the space race heats up, many legal issues are up for debate.

By Hope Reese
September 5, 2021

Credit: Destina / Adobe Stock


In 1967, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union came together to draft the Outer Space Treaty — now signed by more than 100 countries — intended to facilitate the peaceful exploration of space. Written in the Cold War era, in a climate of fear, “it was really about not putting nukes in space,” Jim Dunstan, founder of Mobius Legal Group and General Counsel at TechFreedom, told Freethink.

But in our new era of hyper-exploration, where billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are talking about establishing Martian constitutions and zipping up into space on private flights —the agreement is proving to be insufficient. Many new issues, such as what to do with orbital debris, what could happen if (some of us) decide to colonize Mars, and developing ethical standards for space exploration, are still open to debate.

To learn more about these issues, I spoke to Dunstan, who has practiced law for nearly four decades, with a focus in space law. We talked about establishing a Martian economy and whether the rich should have first access to space, among other topics. Here is our conversation, edited and condensed for clarity.

Why is the removal of orbital debris such a big problem? And how could it be resolved?

There’s all of this flotsam and jetsam floating around in space that nobody can go touch. Under the Outer Space Treaty, once you own it, once you launch it, you own it forever and nobody else can, nobody else can go and take it out — even if it’s a hazard.

We’ve got to get into the mindset of maritime law, which says that if you are impeding the free access to orbits, I can go take your derelict vehicle out. For national security reasons, the US won’t push that issue, nor will any foreign country. Because one, we don’t want the world to know exactly what we’ve got up there, and two, we don’t want to have anybody coming in and taking our stuff out.

The problem is: who’s going to shoulder the liability? Under the treaty regime, countries remain responsible for their objects. The flip side of that is they’re only responsible for damage that occurs in outer space, if it can be demonstrated that they were negligent. So if they lose control of a satellite, it’s “an act of God” —nobody is responsible. We’ve turned a blind eye on this. So it’s much safer to leave this very dangerous junk up than to resolve it by figuring out how to get around that liability issue so that somebody could bring the [debris] down.

The problem is: who’s going to shoulder the liability? Countries are only responsible for damage that occurs in outer space, if it can be demonstrated that they were negligent.

Congress needs to declare a policy that once an American company has lost control of a satellite and it’s therefore dead, it should be treated like maritime flotsam and jetsam — anybody can come take it out. The second way we need to do this is with a bilateral agreement with another country. The real candidate is Russia. If you look at the most dangerous objects that are floating around up there, they happen to be the very large, upper-stage Zenit, second stages of Russian launches. These things are floating in really bad places in terms of congestion. Completely uncontrolled, they’re all tumbling. I suggest a US company buys one of these and takes it down, to establish a policy that this could be done.

Should countries with greater resources, technological capabilities, or access have more privileges when it comes to what happens in space?

Well, that’s the big issue which has essentially derailed any further establishment of additional treaties.

So, in the four established treaties [1967 Outer Space Treaty, 1968 Rescue Agreement, 1972 Liability Convention, 1975 Registration Convention], the undergirding principle is that activities in space should be done for the benefit of all mankind — that space should be free and open to explore and use. Things like GPS, which is a public good, should not be not denied to the world. If you’ve got a GPS chip in your phone, even if your phone doesn’t work around the world, GPS will still tell you where you are. And weather satellites—we may have our issues in Cuba, right? But we still tell them when a hurricane is about to hit them.

If mankind owns outer space, where would that ownership end? Do humans own the entire universe?

The 1979 Moon Treaty introduced this new concept, which is that outer space is the common heritage of mankind and belongs to all mankind. Okay, well, if it’s owned by all mankind, where would that ownership end?

Do human beings own the entire universe? That’s a little bit homosapien-centric is it, isn’t it? So that’s what’s derailed us going forward —this notion that humans own space. The spacefaring nations who take all the risks, put up all the money and, yes, get the direct benefits of space activities are unwilling to say, “well, wait a second, why do I now essentially lose control of my objects, lose control of the benefit, lose control of the economics, when I’m taking all the risk and everything now belongs to mankind at large?”

We’ve never really functioned well in an economic system where everybody knows everything. It doesn’t tend to work very well because there’s no reward for the risk taking. And that’s why we’re at loggerheads.

The rejection in the ’79 Moon Treaty rejected the provisions that would have established a UN regime to tax any of the mining activity in space. That’s really why the moon treaty went down in flames — nobody wanted to sign up to allow somebody else to tax all the benefits. This concept that developed nations are willing to just hand it all over to the UN to both administer and tax and then distribute the benefits of those activities has been rejected by the developed countries.

Developing countries, obviously not so happy about that, but what are you going to do at that point?

What about uber-wealthy figures like Jeff Bezos — who recently went on an 11-minute trip to space — and Elon Musk, who wants to colonize Mars? What influence do they have on space exploration and laws?

Look, Elon is prone to hyperbole. Here’s the problem with what Elon wants to do. There have been efforts over the past 50 years to establish these free-floating sea colonies. People saying, “I’m sick and tired of world governments. I’m just going to build this gigantic boat, and I’m going to populate it with a whole bunch of rich people, and we’re just going to float off into the high seas and declare ourselves to be independent.”

Great concept, functionally can’t happen, because of the taxing authority of individual nations. I just can’t walk up, walk into the IRS in the United States and say, “I hereby abdicate my US citizenship and residency. Don’t ever come see me for taxes again.” What the IRS will say is, “Okay, whose citizen are you going to become, and do we have a reciprocal tax treaty with them?” “Well, no. I’m going to go live on a boat.” “Well, great. You can go live on a boat, and then you’ll file your taxes with the United States every year.”

We are all citizens of some country, and with that citizenship comes a responsibility to pay the local taxes. And that’s why these floating sea colonies have never shoved off into the seas because they can’t figure out how to get around that taxing problem. The same is going to happen on Mars.

Elon is saying that he’s going to sell everything he owns, and he is going to pack up himself and his family and head off to Mars and, therefore, claim that he is now a citizen of Mars. Well, good luck. He’s going to have to leave behind a nice big chunk of cash to pay lawyers when the IRS comes after him .

What could a space marketplace look like?

So long as a Mars colony is not self-sufficient, it will never be able to break free. If you’re importing your food, if you’re importing your oxygen, even if you’re importing the Silicon chips that make the computers go, mother Earth is going to have something that you need so desperately that you can’t just say, “Screw off.” So it’s going to have to be a colony that’s so well-developed that it doesn’t need anything back from earth.

The flip side is maybe there is something on Mars that is so valuable to earth that you can trade for your freedom.

As long as you are reliant on the earth for something, Earth is always going to be able to call the shots.

You could conceive of something on Mars, or maybe even the moon when you come down to it because one of the things that the moon has is a fair amount of helium-3. So I could conceive of a situation where a lunar colony is set up and, sure, it gets a lot of stuff from Earth, but it exports helium-3 down to fusion nuclear reactors back on earth. Now you’ve got an economic parity or even an economic upper hand on the lunar colony, and now you can negotiate the terms and negotiate your freedom.

But short of that, as long as you are reliant on the earth for something, Earth is always going to be able to call the shots.

What about those who say, “Hey, we need to fix problems on earth before we head to Mars?” What does it mean if Elon Musk takes his family to Mars while other people are left behind?

I’ll give a couple of examples from history. I was in the team that won the very first cellular telephone license for a company called MCI way back when. When MCI rolled out cellular telephone service, the most optimistic projections would be that in the United States, there will be 10 million cell phones. That was based on the anticipated price of the cell phone and the anticipated cost of providing the service. Only the 10 million wealthiest people in the United States would be able to afford it––that’s 3%. Well, what happened? Obviously, there are 330 million people in the United States and I think there are something akin to 500 million active cell phones.

It was possible because the 10 million all signed up and it all paid the price at the high prices that cell phone service was at the beginning.The very first mobile telephone cell phone cost $10,000, and weighed 10 pounds. And with that high price, then companies could begin to bring down the price of doing that. Now cell phones are almost weightless and basically free. The privileged were their early adopters and they drove the price down. Same thing with personal computers, which were expensive at first.

Yes, the ‘privileged’ will be the early adopters in space. And you better pray that they do, because otherwise we’re never going to get anywhere.

Let’s go back to airplanes. Only less than 1% could afford to get into a Ford Trimotor, or a DC-2 or DC-3, in the 1930s and travel from place to place. Airlines were incredibly expensive. Well, more people started buying tickets and by the time in the late sixties, early seventies, that basically anybody who could afford to take an airplane flight.

So, yes, the ‘privileged’ will be the early adopters in space. And you better pray that they do, because otherwise we’re never going to get anywhere.

How are the privileged bringing down the cost of going to space?

It’s expensive to launch things and it’s expensive to build things in space. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the rich guys, are driving down the cost to launch. A study called the Fast Space towards fast paced studies done by Air University showed that Musk brought down the cost of orbit by almost an order of magnitude in terms of the price per pound per order. And here’s the second part of that equation that’s so vital: the price of actual hardware to go into space.

So, yes, the privileged are always the early drivers. And oh, by the way, an awful lot of rich people died on the Titanic. So, these people are taking risks for their own lives, as well as their own fortunes. You can call them privileged or you can call them pioneers. I choose the latter.

It’s expensive to launch things and it’s expensive to build things in space. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the rich guys, are driving down the cost to launch.

Building stuff that goes into space is very expensive. But if you look at the Starlink satellites on a price per kilogram of the actual satellite itself, all right, so the Starlink satellites are half a million dollars a piece. On a price per kilogram basis, that is a 99% reduction in the price of your average telecommunication satellite. Why is that possible? Because he’s mass producing these things.

But what if we think about it less as a technological advance and more as imperialism — that the most powerful nations will take the biggest piece of the pie?

Well, you can think of it in one of two ways. One is you have a finite pie of resources and you get to choose how you divide that up.That’s what we’ve done since we climbed down out of the trees. And when somebody else’s pasture looked better than ours, we went and killed them. So, if we wish to continue as a species to do that, great. We continue to do that and I challenge anybody to say that they can find a way to perfectly divide that limited pie. Hasn’t worked yet in the known history of mankind.

But there’s a trillion times more resources in the near solar system than there is on earth. You get free energy from the sun once you’re out above the atmosphere of the earth. You have asteroids floating around that contain the equal of the entire mass amount of precious metals that are on earth. Almost all the precious metals that are on earth came from asteroids. If you look at how the earth was formed, we didn’t end up with any of the heavy, precious metals, because they all bubbled off into space and are flying around in chunks above our heads.

So I may be the first one out to do it and I’m taking the risks —I may lose my life, and other people may lose their lives doing this. But there’s plenty more for everybody because the pie is nearly infinite.

 

CAPITALI$M IN SPACE

NASA pays space startup $.10 for moon mining mission

It's the first payment on a contract that could have major implications for human space exploration.

By Kristin Houser
September 5, 2021

Credit: Lunar Outpost

NASA just paid Colorado startup Lunar Outpost $.10 for meeting the first part of its moon mining contract. But don’t let the low dollar amount fool you — this payment could have major implications for human space exploration.

The challenge: Every extra ounce of payload increases the cost of a space mission. By figuring out how to mine and use any soil, water, and other resources that may already be on the moon, Mars, and beyond, NASA could cut the cost of sending people beyond Earth.

“Space resources will play a key role in NASA’s Artemis program and the future of space exploration,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said at the recent Space Symposium in Colorado.

“The ability to extract and use extra terrestrial resources will ensure Artemis operations can be conducted safely and sustainably in support of human exploration,” he continued.

Moon mining partnerships: Rather than relying on its own missions — which can move slowly due to government red tape — NASA wants to partner with the private sector to explore the potential of moon mining.

In December 2020, it signed contracts with four companies, agreeing to pay them between $1 and $15,000 to collect samples of moon dust — Lunar Outpost was the company that submitted the lowest bid.

“Space resources will play a key role in NASA’s Artemis program and the future of space exploration.”BILL NELSON

Obviously, the contract amounts won’t be enough to actually fund the moon mining missions, but the idea behind them is to set a precedent for how NASA pays for space resources collected by the private sector.

“This sets a legal and procedural framework that will be utilized for generations and decades to come for companies like ours and many others to go out and collect resources from the lunar surface from other planetary bodies and make them basically useful for humanity,” Cyrus said.

Fulfilling the contract: NASA agreed to pay Lunar Outpost 10% of the contract once its moon mining plan passed a review milestone, and the agency stuck to its word, presenting CEO Justin Cyrus with a check for $.10 at the Space Symposium.


In late 2022, Lunar Outpost’s Mobile Autonomous Prospecting Platform (MAPP) rover will land on the moon as part of a mission with Nokia to establish a lunar mobile network. MAPP will make its attempt at moon mining for NASA then, collecting about 100 grams of lunar dust.

The contract will be considered complete once Lunar Outpost provides NASA with images of the sample and the collection process and transfers ownership of the moon rocks to the agency — it’ll be NASA’s responsibility to retrieve the sample (if it wants to).

Glasgow Uni engineers 'channel Star Trek' by developing world's first touchable holograms

Previously the realm of science fiction technology, the team at Glasgow Uni have developed a new way to create the sensation of physically interacting with holographic projections.

By Craig Williams
5 SEP 2021

The idea of touchable holograms is familiar to millions from its appearance in sci-fi favourites like Star Trek’s holodeck. (Image: Reach PLC)

Don't miss any of Glasgow Live's biggest stories - sign up to our daily email newsletterSign me up now
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time.More info

A piece of science fiction technology could be one step closer to reality after engineers at Glasgow University developed the world's first haptic - or touchable - holograms.

The idea of touchable holograms is familiar to millions from its appearance in sci-fi favourites like Star Trek’s holodeck, where characters can interact with solid-seeming computer simulations of people, objects and places.

Now, a crack team of engineers from the uni have developed a new way to create the sensation of physically interacting with holographic projections.

In a new paper published in the journal Advanced Intelligent Systems , the team describe how they have developed a new technique they call ‘aerohaptics’. The system pairs volumetric display technology with precisely controlled jets of air to create the sensation of touch on users’ hands, fingers and wrists.

The technique could form the basis of new ways to interact with virtual objects, advanced forms of teleconferencing, and even empower surgeons to perform procedures remotely.

The system, developed by the University’s Bendable Electronics and Sensing Technologies (BEST) research group, is based around a pseudo-holographic display which uses glass and mirrors to make a two-dimensional image appear to hover in space – a modern variation on a 19th-century illusion technique known as Pepper’s Ghost.

It pairs a Leap Motion sensor to track users’ hand movements with a moveable air nozzle to direct airflow to their palms and fingertips.

In the paper, the team offer an example of how they used the system to create a realistic sensation of bouncing a basketball. With a computer-generated 3D image of a basketball displayed in space, and the Leap Motion sensor tracking the movement and location of the user’s hands, the system varies the direction and force of the airflow to create aerohaptic feedback.

A piece of science fiction technology could be one step closer to reality with a new development in haptic holograms. (Image: University of Glasgow)

The feedback is also modulated based on the virtual surface of the basketball, allowing users to ‘feel’ the rounded shape of the ball as it rolls from their fingertips when they bounce it and the slap in their palm when it returns. Users can even ‘push’ the virtual ball with varying force and sense the resulting change in how a hard bounce or a soft bounce feels in their palm.

Professor Ravinder Dahiya of the University of Glasgow’s James Watt School of Engineering leads the Bendable Electronics and Sensing Technologies (BEST) group, which developed the system.

Professor Dahiya said: “Haptic feedback and volumetric display technology has come a long way in recent years, bringing us closer to being able to convincingly interact with virtual objects.

“However, current haptic tech often still involves wearable or handheld peripherals, which add cost and complication and could be holding back widespread adoption of the technology.

“Aerohaptics creates a convincing sensation of physical interaction on users’ hands at a relatively low cost. We are already looking in to adding additional functionality to the system, such as adding temperature control to their airflow to deepen the sensation of interacting with hot or cool objects.