Author: w.steve.wilson

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to an NPR article about NASA looking for volunteers to live in a test habitat for a year. (NASA Wants You To Spend A Year Simulating Life On Mars, For Science). I had planned to write about that this week. But I think I’ll leave it for next week. Go ahead and read the article, and I’ll cover the topic in my next post.

Why not this week? Because—Boston Dynamics has released another robot video and Twitter lit up a bit about using these robots on the Moon. And it got me thinking about how we might use robots to prepare for human exploration and ultimately colonization of the solar system, and dare I say—the galaxy.

You may remember a few months ago when the Dancing Robots entertained us (Tripping the Light Fantastic? Take a Robot as Your Wingman). The dance moves were impressive, and the routine was, of course, a joy to watch, particularly if you like ‘80s music.

The latest video, Atlas | Partners in Parkour, highlights some equally impressive acrobatics. The question bantered about Twitter was whether we should take one of these on the Artemis missions to the Moon. We could speculate about their use. Reconnaissance was mentioned. But you could also imagine moving supplies and equipment, assembling machinery, constructing habitats, maybe even search and rescue!

And that brings me back to the topic of who will be first to explore and settle extraterrestrial planets—humans or robots? In his three robot mystery novels (The Caves of Steel, The Naked Sun, and The Robots of Dawn), Isaac Asimov addresses how we colonize other planets. The Spacer camp wants us to send robots to build a human-ready environment and then move in—comfortable, low risk, easy. The Settler camp wants new colonization to be conducted by humans—uncomfortable, dangerous, challenging. I won’t reveal the answer—no spoilers—you’ll need to read The Robots of Dawn.

But we’re already asking a similar question—why do we need to send people on the dangerous mission to explore other planets? Can’t we use robots to do it? And now that we’ve seen what the Boston Dynamics robots can do why not send them (or a version of them)?

In some respects, we’re already using robots to explore. Curiosity and Perseverance are robots conducting activities and completing tasks millions of miles away on Mars in an unbelievably hostile environment. Yes, they’re following instructions, but with no real-time human intervention. But that can’t be all we do. We need to explore and learn, and, yes, we need to understand the challenges before we go—but go, we must. Will we ever really know what another planet is like (or the Moon for that matter) until someone stands there and looks to the distant horizon and wonders what’s over there?

So, what do you say? Ready to head out to the planets and do some exploring? Should we risk people’s lives or just let the machines do it? Leave a comment and let me know what you think.

In future posts, we’ll explore the next step: Colonization.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

Much has been made of Sir Richard’s trip to the edge of space. Even with all the testing, the practice runs, the safety protocols, etc., it must have been a heart in the throat, white knuckle trip. The video from the cabin looked like they were having a great time, though. Of course, we didn’t see what the pilots were doing, but passengers looked like they were glad they made the trip. (In Cabin Video, about a minute in is the weightlessness part).

Thinking about that trip, I did some reading on what’s next. Mostly what I found was what’s next for Virgin Galactic and the expected comparisons to Blue Origin. Discussions of space tourism, lowering the costs of tickets, more frequent flights, and, of course, the safety of it all was the predominant material.

But there were a few that branched into sub-orbital transportation. We’re no stranger on this site to discussing suborbital transportation as we addressed this topic back in May (Breakfast in New York – Lunch in Singapore – Dinner in London). To the novice (me), it seems that the Virgin Galactic might have a workable model for small groups of passengers (or those that are reluctant to strap into a rocket).

What I learned was we’re a long way from hypersonic or suborbital transportation. Wired’s interesting article from 2018 summarizes the challenges and where we are relative to past advances in aeronautics and passenger air travel.  Check it out. (Forget supersonic, the future of super-fast flight is sub-orbital)

But what about this concept of a business that takes passengers to space, if even for a short time. Some commentators have objected to billionaires using their wealth to take other wealthy people on a joy ride. One article estimated that Jeff Bezos liquidates $1 Billion in Amazon stock per year to fund Blue Origin (Blue Origin Auctions Seat on Bezos Rocket for $28 Million). Another way of thinking about that is that $1 Billion goes to pay for materials, services, salaries, benefits, etc., for Blue Origin as an enterprise. Further, if Virgin Galactic delivers all its 700 booked flights at $250,000 each, they’ll earn $175 Million. If there’s a profit margin there, isn’t that what commerce is about, finding a product that people will buy. I know it’s not as simple as that, but it’s a conversation to have.

And as far as the joy ride part, consider how much is spent on amusement parks. One estimate has the cost of building Disney World at $6 to $7 Billion in today’s dollars. But I’ve got to tell you, that was money well spent—Disney World is a great trip.

So we can’t all go to space, but some can, and that endeavor employs people in well-paying high-tech jobs. But many of us can go to Disney World, which also supports many well-paying, high-tech jobs.

What do you think? Are the space tourism efforts ill-advised? Does your thinking change if you consider the economic benefits? Are they just souped-up (albeit expensive) amusement park rides?

Leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Thanks for stopping by.

Blue Origin Update July 26 – A quick update was in order with the launch of Blue Origin’s first passenger-carrying rocket. Certainly, a different way to get to space than Virgin Galactic’s and others can debate if both or either of these trips got the passengers to space or not. Regardless, the Blue Origin launch puts one more private firm in the business of reusable boosters. Say what you will about taking wealthy passengers on joy rides to space (see my comments above). Still, his endeavor should be expected to add to the industry’s abilities in developing hardware, software, and processes needed to make reusable boosters safe and cost-effective.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

A Note about the blog posts from the future [CE 2224]: In January of 2021, with Perseverance due to land on Mars the next month, NASA activated their experimental Quantum Transmitter. The transmitter was designed to communicate with Perseverance, without regard to location and at faster than light speeds—near real-time. Unfortunately, they lost the connection after the initialization routine was completed. However, as an unintended consequence, NASA connected with a specific locus in the space-time continuum located on the Moon in 2224. That locus was the storage device of the quantum computer of a popular blog site. It is from that blog site that these blog entries are extracted. I hope you enjoy a peek into our future, and hopefully, I’m not violating some temporal directive. So far, no visit from the time cops.

Guest Author: Yosef Slor, Director of Crop Development, Luna Agricultural Research Cooperative

Originally Posted: Monday, June 28, 2224 (Earth Standard Calendar)

It is my great pleasure to introduce the latest new fruit developed by the Luna Agricultural Research Cooperative: The StrawBanany.

The StrawBanany is a vine-grown fruit the size of a large apple, approximately eight centimeters in diameter, with the flavor of strawberries and bananas. The geneticist preserved the strawberry form, and we hope restaurants and customers will appreciate the dark red color and large fruit size that will enhance their displays and dishes.

The Cooperative developed the new fruit using engineered strawberry cuttings imported from the Volcani Institute-Agricultural Research Organization in Israel. The Volcani Institute has a centuries-long history of introducing new fruits and vegetables to the commercial and retail markets, and the Cooperative is grateful for its participation in bringing this new fruit to market.

The Cooperative has been carefully engineering the new fruit in Sector 5B of the Plinius hydroponic farming chamber. Over several years, genetic engineers have increased the fruit size, developed a fruiting protocol that does not require pollinators, and enhanced the root structure to optimize the efficient uptake of nutrients from the hydroponic fluids.

One of the harder inscriptions on the base fruit’s genome was coding for the metabolic processes that produce the distinct banana aroma generated by isoamyl acetate. This organic compound has the propensity of masking other flavors and aromas and making everything taste like bananas. The engineers were able to modulate the new fruit’s production of isoamyl acetate and retain the distinct taste of the strawberry. It’s a popular combination we hope our customers find enjoyable in a single fruit.

As an unexpected byproduct of engineering the flavor, the engineers found they could significantly increase the nutritional value of the fruit. For those who look for healthy nutrition and great taste, each StrawBanany fruit is a complete breakfast. All in all, a single fruit for breakfast comes in at 500 calories and provides 25 grams of healthy fat, a healthy dose of omega-3 fatty acids, 56 grams of total carbohydrates, 10 grams of fiber, 6 grams of sugar, and 24 grams of protein. Eat it right off the vine, or throw it in a blender—you don’t even need to add water.

We hope the public will enjoy our new fruit. It should begin appearing at public dining halls, restaurants and available for purchase in the next several weeks. We expect year-round production depending on demand.

Enjoy and stay healthy. For more information, please visit LunaAgricultural.ag.luna/StrawBanany.

[Disclaimer: This is a work of fiction. Unless otherwise indicated, all the names, characters, businesses, places, events, and incidents in this story are either the product of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, actual institutions or actual events is purely coincidental.]

First, I’ll confess I am not an expert in orbital mechanics by any stretch of the imagination—not even close. I don’t purport to be one, nor have I ever played one on television.  So what follows is an amateur’s attempt to consider what it might take to get to Mars quickly.

I do, though, appreciate the simplicity of some of the equations that describe the mechanics of motion in our typical, everyday, non-relativistic (i.e., no Einstein in today’s post) universe. For example, in high school physics, I remember that the distance traveled from a standing stop is one-half the acceleration times the time squared (d = ½ a t2), where d equals the distance traveled, which equals the distance traveled acceleration and t equals the time.

So, what does this have to do with getting to Mars? Well, I thought I’d share a simplistic view of how to get there in a hurry. The equation tells us that even for vast distances, we can get there in a hurry if we can constantly accelerate. Imagine 0 to 60 in 4 seconds in a car—what if you kept going? You can get a sense of just how fast you’d be going in a relatively short period.

But before we go there, we might pause to consider that current plans to get to Mars involve journeys of seven to nine months or longer. This trip uses a tremendous amount of thrust to accelerate a space vehicle and get it started on its way. Then the spacecraft coasts for months. When it arrives at the Red Planet, it again expends fuel to slow down and either enter orbit or land. This is how Perseverance traveled to Mars, as did the array of landers and orbiters that are currently operating on and around Mars.

The question becomes, how would the journey to Mars change if we could continually accelerate for the whole trip. Those of you who are science fiction fans are likely familiar with The Expanse series. In that universe, the Epstein Drive provided constant acceleration. (Here’s some fan fiction: https://expanse.fandom.com/wiki/Epstein Drive.) If you watch the series, it appears to be 1 g (one Earth-normal gravity) since they walk around the ships normally.

That technology doesn’t exist—yet. Are we getting close, though, to constant acceleration at a lower level? That’s hard to say. But what if we could accelerate a ship at just 1/1000 of the force of gravity?

In that instance, and assuming we traveled to Mars when it was at its closest, the trip could be on the order of a couple of months. If we could accelerate at 1/100, it would be weeks. (Rocket scientists are very welcome to correct my math and assumptions.) Imagine a trip to Mars in a month. Colonization might seem more realistic. Return trips to Earth for a visit by Martians might be feasible. Maybe—a vacation at Olympus Mons or Utopia Planitia.

Regardless, as space technologies advance and we find new and different ways to build and move spacecraft, getting to and from Mars quickly might not stay a science fiction fantasy. In our lifetime, we just might see quick trips to our neighbor.

Let me know what you think? Would you go on a cruise to Phobos and Deimos with a stop at Jezero Crater to visit where NASA searches for past life on Mars? It might be fun.

Thanks for stopping by.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

With the possibly inexorable move away from fossil fuels, we’ve been looking at various methods of transportation that will need to be different when they go electric. In April, we looked at high-speed rail and hyperloop, both electric-powered, as possible replacements to air travel (Riding High-Speed Rail or Shooting through a Hyperloop Tube). During June, we’ve looked at Formula I Racing (Drivers – Start Your Motors…) and electric airplanes (Electric Planes – the Future of Air Travel? …).

But what about rockets? The immense power of modern rockets is a thing to behold (Saturn V). I’ve watched any number of launches by SpaceX, Rocket Labs, ULA, etc., and am constantly amazed that science and engineering have harnessed such forces. I can’t wait for the first launch of the Space Launch System vehicle being assembled in Florida for the Artemis 1 mission.

Smaller rockets and thrusters using different technologies, but operating on the same Newtonian principles, move spacecraft once they are in orbit. And rockets propel probes, landers, and now a helicopter, millions, if not billions, of miles across the solar system to orbit planets and asteroids and land on Mars and the Moon, for example.

How much of this could be and will be replaced by electric rockets?

As it stands now, no electric-based technology exists that would lift heavy payloads off the Earth and into orbit. However, hundreds of probes and satellites are currently using electric thrusters to maintain positions and maneuver. Electric thrusters have been in operation since the 1970s, and NASA is looking at options for using nuclear electric engines to send astronauts to Mars (Nuclear Propulsion Could Help Get Humans to Mars Faster).

One advantage of nuclear electrical propulsion is the ability to propel the spaceship under constant thrust. Chemical rockets like the videos above use all their fuel in a relatively short time but get the spacecraft moving at the high speeds needed to escape the Earth’s gravity and get to where they’re going. Electric propulsion puts out less thrust but can run for a longer time. This could shorten the travel times by quite a bit.

Imagine getting to Mars in a few months or even days. Think of an immense spaceliner, like an ocean liner, which stays in space and travels back and forth between Earth, the Moon, Mars.

Would you go for a visit?

Next week we’ll look at some of the transit times and do a little retrospective on how these questions have been addressed in fiction. Stay tuned.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

Back in April, we talked about the advantages (and some challenges) of High-Speed Rail. How to compete with driving on short trips? How to not take forever to get to the West Coast from Chicago? (Riding High-Speed Rail or Shooting through a Hyperloop Tube). Hyperloop may be the answer.

High-Speed Rail and Hyperloop both have a distinct advantage over the competing travel modes—they can be continually connected to a power source for electricity. Cars need to carry batteries and airplanes—well, we’re coming to that.

We followed that up in May with a bit on sub-orbital rocket transportation (Breakfast in New York – Lunch in Singapore – Dinner in London). You get there fast, but electric? I don’t think anybody’s looking at an electric rocket—they’d never get off the ground. They might work in space, and I’ll look at that topic in the future (Mars in six weeks? Maybe.), but not for high-speed rocket travel on Earth.

Finally, even with hyperloop speeding us along at 750 mph, what happens when we have to cross an ocean? When I checked, there was scant information on intercontinental hyperloops. So it looks like for now, airliners will still need to get us there.

And that brings us to the question of electric airplanes. Believe it or not, they are being worked on, and a few prototypes and early models are flying. Airbus has flown a testbed where one engine was replaced with an electric turbofan. The experimental craft is known as the E Fan-X. Not a bad name for an experimental aircraft.

NASA is also working on experimental electric aircraft with the X-57 Maxwell. They’re conducting a series of phase tests that will look at the various systems required for electric flight – power, motors, airframe, and avionics.

For now, electric intercontinental airliners are not likely to be showing up at your local airport. But, one thing I’m betting on, though, is somebody, somewhere, is going to build one. Imagine no pollution, quiet engine noises, and probably very cool designs.

So keep your eyes on the skies. They’re coming.

A Note about the blog posts from the future [CE 2224]: In January of 2021, with Perseverance due to land on Mars the next month, NASA activated their experimental Quantum Transmitter. The transmitter was designed to communicate with Perseverance, without regard to location and at faster than light speeds—near real-time. Unfortunately, they lost the connection after the initialization routine was completed. However, as an unintended consequence, NASA connected with a specific locus in the space-time continuum located on the Moon in 2224. That locus was the storage device of the quantum computer of a popular blog site. It is from that blog site that these blog entries are extracted. I hope you enjoy a peek into our future, and hopefully, I’m not violating some temporal directive. So far, no visit from the time cops.

[Our apologies to our readers, the picture of the rose mentioned by the author degraded during the transfer through the transmission link.]

Guest Author: Antoinette Meilland, Chair of the Agriculture and Horticulture Department, University of Luna, Picard Campus

Posted: Monday, June 14, 2224 (Earth Standard Calendar)

I am delighted to announce the introduction of the first rose variety designed exclusively for cultivation on Luna. In anticipation of our impending independence, the U of L at Picard has developed a unique cultivar of a hybrid tea rose from the collection in the Picard rose gardens.

There was a boisterous discussion around which rose we should start with and which colors we should consider for our new rose. The committee believed we should honor the men and women that first braved space and set foot on the Moon in the latter half of the 20^th Century and the early 21^st Century. So we selected the Peace Rose.

The original Peace Rose became popular in the 20^th Century. Collectors and gardeners alike celebrated the rose for its beautiful cream and crimson coloration. That rose formed the basis for our new variety.

Harkening back to the symbolism of rose colors at the time, we considered the meaning of the blue rose—mystery, the impossible, or the unattainable.

Others suggested black, which can stand for the beginning of new things and significant change, inspiring confidence, signaling the birth of a new era. Black had the added benefit of adding shades of grey, symbolizing our stark but beautiful lunar home.

Respecting our origins on Earth, we choose blue and white for our new rose. Using modern genetic inscription techniques adapted from agriculture, we modified the original Peace Rose genome to generate blue petals on the outside and at the tips, with bright white petals in the center.

In the end, we felt we would honor Earth and the peaceful transition to independence. The blue and white of that lovely planet, perched high overhead, won the day.

So it is my distinct honor to present The Luna Peace Rose.

Having been back in a theater for the first time in over a year, I thought I’d mix it up and talk about movies.

Discussions, arguments, blog posts, “Top Ten Lists,” etc., are replete with opinions and points of view about what counts as science fiction—both in movies and books. I would say Star Trek is science fiction but is Star Wars? Do we relegate that canon to Space Opera, and is that different from Science Fiction?

Is it science fiction if the science is real, but the story it drives is not? For example, is Outbreak (1995) about the race to find the source of the infection, Science Fiction? Lots of science and lots of fiction. (My guess is most people would say no, but you never know.)

What about the distinction between Science Fiction and Hard Science Fiction, such as The Martian (2015)? Lots of actual science, some fictional science, some future science, and no aliens.

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions, and I’d hazard a guess that there isn’t one. We can share some broad definitions and categories, but in the end, does it matter? Does knowing its genre help you select a movie? Or a book?

That brings me to Monster Movies. Are monster movies science fiction? Does it matter where the monster came from? I would say Frankenstein (1931) is a science fiction/monster movie since it was fictional science that created the monster. But is Dracula (1931)?

Likewise, I would suggest War of the Worlds (1953) is a science fiction/monster movie. The Martians are monsters, but they have an intelligence and reason for coming to Earth. What about The Blob (1958), though? The Blob is an alien life form that comes to Earth and, as a monster, terrorizes a small town. Yes, it’s a monster movie, but is it science fiction? There is no reason for the Blob other than to consume humans and grow, and through that, spread terror. And like many aliens that arrive on Earth, something about our home eventually overcomes the monster. In the case of The Blob—cold. A cautionary note—maybe with the melting of the ice caps, that final “?” at the movie’s end does not bode well for us.

Finally, then, what about A Quiet Place (2018)? The monsters (no spoilers!) come from somewhere, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason for them to be here. They just kill humans and spread terror. They’re not mindless like the Blob, but they don’t seem intentional like the Martians.

[The movie I saw last week was A Quiet Place Part II (2020), but I don’t want to reveal a spoiler inadvertently. If you liked A Quiet Place, see it. You’ll love it.]

So there we are—Science Fiction or Monster Movie, or both? And yes, I love the classics.

I hope you’ll try them both and not worry too much about the category—they’re all fun.

Enjoy the show.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]

[Note: BLOG 2021 published on Tuesday due to the Memorial Day Holiday.]

Sunday was another exciting day in Indianapolis as 135,000 fans watched the 105th running of the Indianapolis 500. Quite a few records came out of the race: the fastest time at 2:39:50, Helio Castroneves only the 4^th driver to win four times (A.J. Foyt, Al Unser Sr. and Rick Mears were the others) and at 46, Castroneves was one of the oldest drivers to win. An exciting day for racing.

Here’s a short video of the Top Five Finishes to get a taste of the race (just in case you didn’t watch.

Now – watch it again with the sound off. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Was it as exciting? Did you get that sense of the speeds these cars travel? I’ve been to live races, and the screaming sound of an open-wheel or sports car heading down the straightaway, hard breaking into a turn and then accelerating, is exhilarating.  How much of that exhilaration is the sound of the engines?

What happens when Indy Car racing goes electric? There is a circuit that tests that question, the Formula E. These cars look like Indy Cars but don’t make quite the same sound as you might imagine. And they race differently—slower speeds, switching cars mid-race, standard cars—only the power train and software can be modified (although that is changing this year). Here’s a short video of some race scenes and information about the sport: Formula E Racing.

I would say this could be exciting. I’ll look forward to when the circuit comes to a track near me. It seems the schedule (as noted in the video) focuses on existing city street courses. Since none of these are near me—I guess I’ll just need to go to them—the sacrifices we make. It’s time to plan a trip to Monaco.

The key here, though, is that they’re racing electric cars. When you consider the primary purposes of fielding a racing team, electric vehicles will benefit just as internal combustion cars have. When asked why they race, many team managers certainly talk about the brand. But also, they race to train engineers and for the technology transfer. Many of the innovations that were developed for racing found their way into passenger vehicles in some form. You can see how the technology for squeezing an extra few laps out of a gallon of fuel in a race might help improve the mileage in your family sedan.

It’s reasonable to expect these same benefits to accrue to the general market from promoting electric racing—brand awareness, engineer training ground, technology transfer. I can’t wait for the electric car racing to come to a track near me.

So—drivers “Start your engines”—quietly.

[Disclaimer: Please accept my apologies for any ads that pop up before the linked videos. They do not reflect my position, nor do I endorse any of the products – it’s just a YouTube thing I can’t get around.]