The Truth
It is generally agreed by every scientific mind on this planet that humanity will never achieve any meaningful or significant exploration of space through the use of chemical propulsion as a primary form of locomotion for even local much less deep space travel. And yet we are awarding millions of dollars to billionaires in the form of prize money to achieve something our own government space agency (as-well-as at least a half-dozen or more other government space agencies across the globe) already has the capability of doing, and has done repeatedly for decades.
The truth is Space-X hadn't actually achieved anything of any real significance with regard to advancing humanity's abilities to explore space when they were awarded the X-Prize. Let's be honest, there was absolutely no new technology that resulted from the competition, especially propulsion related technology, which should have been a primary condition of the award. If the X-Prize board had wanted to make their competition have any meaning at all or have it stand for something or even have it make a significant impact on the human exploration of space - this particular condition should have been first and foremost in their protocols for awarding the prize. But it wasn't. I keep asking myself, Why? And the only reasonable answer I can come up with is either sheer incompetence or a complete lack of understanding of the situation regarding space travel. Either way, the value and the significance of the X-Prize is essentially meaningless, sadly. There was an apparent & serious lack of thought put into this endeavor, without question, and because of this, humanity missed a golden opportunity to advance our scientific knowledge and technology. Don't get me wrong, I take my hat off to Space-X for what they have recently done. It is truly remarkable, but again it is far from being out of the reach of any of the half-dozen or so governmental space agencies of this world? And I doubt that it is even beyond the capabilities of any other well funded private company on the planet either. So let's not put too much stock into it at this point. Granted, it is possible, though I seriously doubt it, that in the future this could lead to something significant by Space-X with regard to advancing the ability of humans to explore space, but for that, we will have to just wait and see, won't we?
And that being said, it leads this discussion to another profound question, should we be celebrating and praising something so insignificant and unremarkable as the current Space-X mission in which they merely launched two men into low Earth orbit to dock with the International Space Station and then two months later return them to Earth? In the whole scheme of things, is this really such a big deal? HARDLY! I mean really? What have they actually accomplished? As I have already pointed out, they have not accomplished anything meaningful or significant, or anything that a hand full of government agencies from a number of different countries around the world couldn't, and haven't already done. So where's the “historical significance” in that? Just because they're a private company doesn't mean a thing. That just means a different source of money, nothing more. And the truth be told, the US space program has always been in the hands of private companies, the only difference is the funding source – NASA is funded by tax dollars and Space-X is funded by corporate profits, Frankly, I see nothing of any real value to any of this. There has been no new technology from this endeavor that will, in the long run – or in the short term for that matter, that will ever lead to any significant and/or meaningful exploration of space my humankind. No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to this: this is a continuation of the use of chemical rocket technology for space propulsion. Which = a dead-end strategy.
The only way this will ever turn out to have any historical significance at all is if someday soon, while mining or surveying some asteroid or comet or other planetary body such as Mars, Space-X astronauts discover a new element or compound or something of the like, which ultimately shifts the paradigm of human space exploration so profoundly that it allows for the human race to finally evolve into a spacefaring civilization. Then, and only then, could humanity possibly look back at this moment in time and say “that's where it all began, that's what made all this possible”. However, if it doesn't happen in that way then history will regard these events as nothing short of meaningless, a complete and total waste of time, energy, and resources.
A Historical Perspective
In July 1969 (the first time we sent human beings to explore the Lunar surface) it took 3 days in the Apollo 11 space capsule to get there, and by December 1972 (the last time we sent human beings to land on the Moon) it still took Apollo 17 that same 3 day period to get there, and today it again will still take that same 3 day period for our astronauts to traverse the roughly 250,000 miles it takes to travel from Earth to the Moon. Nothing has changed in all this time. In just slightly over 50 years nothing has changed. There was no new propulsion technology developed during that period of time (the Apollo missions) or since, there were not even any improvements made in the propulsion systems we were using at the time to increase their velocity or shorten the time required to make the trip to the moon.
The meaningful exploration of space involves technology capable of transporting massive vessels populated with large numbers of people over vast distances in extremely brief periods of time. I'm talking about technology on the order of star-system to star-system distances in a matter of hours or days, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And that kind of technology doesn't come in the form of chemical rockets and it never will.
The science is quite simple, it's a matter of energy density. In layman's terms energy density determines how much power an atom or molecule of an element or compound possesses through its atomic and/or molecular bonds that can be made available (by whatever means possible) to efficiently perform work.
Chemical bonds just happen to be some of the simplest and weakest reactions known to our science. It should also be understood that there are several different kinds of possible reactions involving these bonds and this is because of the forces involved that maintain the structural integrity of these atoms and molecules.
The greater the bond energy and the denser the number of bonds determines the total energy available to do work, however, there is a limit to the size and number of these bonds - a physical limitation to its simple, and unassuming structure, that can't be overcome by science. These are dictated by immutable universal physical laws, governed and set by the very framework of the universe itself.
There are also limitations set by the very structure of these elements and compounds. Limitations regarding the complexity and stability of these objects dictate their ability to efficiently release their stored energy. This means that in most instances it requires more energy input than you get energy output. In other words, the amount of effort and resources required to release that stored energy is greater than the amount of usable energy you can get out of the reaction, a net energy loss (usually in the form of heat we are unable to capture, store, or use). In order for these reactions to be of any benefit to us we need them to be of a net energy gain, make sense? Sure.
Our current understanding of those physical laws (that have been discovered and explained over the last few centuries through rigorous scientific research) that determine the way these forces operate, clearly indicate that the bonding energies are much lower in molecular than in atomic configurations and therefore won't release as much energy in those molecular configurations. Explaining and/or defining these forces may make this point more clear.
The forces involved in maintaining the molecular structure of compounds are:
Covalent bonding – the sharing of valence electrons between atoms.
Ionic bonding – the acceptance or donation of valence electrons between atoms.
As opposed to the forces (known collectively as the “4 Fundamental Forces of Nature”) involved in maintaining the atomic structure of elements (from weakest to strongest) which are:
Gravity – the weakest of all the atomic forces, it is most clearly defined as that intrinsic property of matter relative to its quantity of mass.
Weak Nuclear – is the force/property exhibited through radioactive decay of elements.
Electromagnetism – is the force/property responsible for maintaining the nucleus/electron structure of the atom.
Strong Nuclear – is the force/property responsible for holding the atomic nucleus together (Proton-to-Proton & Proton-to-Neutron bonding).
These differences can best be seen through processes we are very familiar with these days. The first example is a standard everyday automobile or airplane or any other petroleum-based internal combustion engine. This is an example of a chemical molecular reaction related to covalent bonding. The next example would be that of rust, or the oxidation of metals (particularly iron and iron compounds) displayed by the orange discoloration and pitting of these iron-based metals after exposure to air. This is a simple example of a chemical molecular reaction related to ionic bonding.
As is abundantly clear from the definitions above, these chemical reactions hold much lower amounts of available energy in their bonds (that are able to be released through this type of reaction) because of their inherent properties.
Another way to see the inherent stored energy capacity of these molecular configurations are from the following examples: The ionic form of molecular bonding discussed here and characterized in the form of the rusting of metallic components and the energy density (or more specifically - the release of that energy) related to this process can best be seen or understood by considering the process itself. The formation of the rust (the chemical reaction we are talking about here) is a very slow and almost immeasurable process, taking a relatively long time to occur and proceed. This clearly shows just how little stored energy that can be derived from such a reaction.
In regard to the covalent bonding instance there is a much more relevant and clear example we can look at, notably - TNT (TriNitro Toluene AKA - Nitroglycerin– the active ingredient in dynamite). The quantitative measure of the inherent explosive energy (through a comparison of measured and calculated bond energy values) of this chemical is used as a standard against all other chemical & nuclear explosive reactions. And even though these reactions appear to us to be very powerful (mainly based on their relative destructive capabilities), they are characterized merely by a rapid expansion of heated gases that cause high temperatures and pressures substantive enough to consume and/or disfigure humans and most constructs of our civilization in a very small and localized area, these reactions are very weak related to the next level of reactions we will explore in the following paragraphs.
The next level of reactions takes the form of an entirely different and unique nature. This example would of course be an atomic/nuclear type of reaction, which is of a totally different type of reaction altogether and involves the forces defined above for elements.
Looking at those definitions, again we can clearly see why so much energy is released from this type of reaction. And we are all abundantly aware of the destructive capability of atomic/nuclear reactions. The most notable examples of this being the explosions over Hiroshima Japan on August 6th, 1945 (“Little Boy” an estimated 12 to 18 kiloton atomic explosion that killed approximately 180,000 people) & Nagasaki Japan on August 9th, 1945 (“Fat Man” an estimated 18 to 23 kiloton atomic explosion that killed upwards of 100,000 people) by the United States to finally bring an end to World War II, as-well-as the dozens of test explosion that have continued to this day and time (most recently by North Korea), along with the massive stockpiles of these weapons of mass destruction inventoried by about a dozen or so governments around the globe – even to this day. The explosive energy of the most destructive of these weapons is absolutely incredible by any standard, reaching into the mega-tonnage (of TNT) range. Able to completely level and destroy an entire city with a single weapon.
Yet, even these reactions are not capable of producing the kind of energies necessary for humanity to achieve any meaningful or significant exploration of space.
The Need for New Science
What will be required is a NEW science. A clearly different approach will have to be taken in order for there to be any real improvements in our propulsion technology. Simply regurgitating the same old tired and outdated technology will get humanity nowhere fast (if you will pardon the pun) with regard to the exploration of space.
This is a very important endeavor that humanity can ill-afford to ignore or be lackadaisical in our approach or attitude. It is literally, a matter of life or death for our civilization, for if humanity delays too long or fails altogether in this, we will become extinct just as so many other species on this planet have already. Even the dinosaurs, with all their strengths and marvelous evolutionary adaptations that allowed them to dominate this Earth for an amazing 160 million years couldn't stave off or change what was for them the inevitability of extinction. Biologist estimate that 99% of all species that have ever lived on this world have become extinct. That is a stark consideration that humanity should take very serious.
Extinction appears to be the nature of life for non-intelligent, non-self aware species, species who are incapable of evolving and developing technology, changing and controlling their environment, or even being aware of such possibilities, at least on this planet (because its the only example of life we have to make a comparison so far). But this inevitability doesn't have to be in humanity's future, or more accurately, the end of humanity's future. We have the tools, and the knowledge to use them, to prevent this from being our fate.
Granted we don't have any confirmed examples to substantiate either side of this circumstance. There are no known intelligent species that have gone extinct from lack of action any more than there are any examples of known intelligent species who avoided extinction by taking action. Yet, we can certainly use history as our basis for determining the possibilities and/or probabilities of such an outcome, and as stated above, history is replete with all the data we need showing what our future survival will be if we limit our existence of living only on this planet. Whether it takes the form of an asteroid or comet strike that levels the surface of the planet rendering it uninhabitable or the form of an incurable global pandemic resembling the viral scourge experienced by humanity in the year 2020, or be it in the form of one of a hundred other possible catastrophes that could befall the human race and extinguish humanity it seems a certainty judged by the evidence presented that if humanity fails in this endeavor it will surely spell the end of human existence forever.
Regardless of whether you believe that humanity is the sole, superior, divinely ordained, or the chosen representative of life on this planet or in the whole of the universe, or if you believe the universe is teeming with life of varying forms and species from multiple, uncountable worlds, the point is that life (all life) is very precious and sentient life may be even more unique and valuable and should be preserved at all costs.
And to that end, if humanity expects to continue on as a viable living species then we MUST extend our influence and presence beyond this world. And that can't and won't possibly ever happen if we persist with this dead-end trajectory we are on now with regard to our space exploration strategy (i.e. the use of chemical rockets in any form for propulsion into and through space). This is simply a losing strategy, no question.
The strategy we must adopt is very clear, simple, and straight forward, FASTER THAN LIGHT propulsion technology and/or wormholes (open singularities) or some other forms of yet unheard of technology capable of allowing humans to traverse huge distances of space instantaneously or at least in terms of hours or days. This technology could come in the form of single-point-energy, or riding gravitational waves or some other means or technology as-of-yet unknown to humanity. But regardless of what form this technology takes, it is imperative that we seize upon it as quickly as possible to ensure the continued survival of the human species and human civilization. We can not let ourselves be blinded by complacency or delusions of grandeur such as is the case that's occurring right now with this Space-X business. We should hold our celebrations and such for occasions and accomplishments worthy of our collective admiration and events that have strong significance to the purpose of fulfilling humanities dreams of the meaningful exploration of space and worlds beyond because that leads to the ultimate goal of the continued evolution of human society, hopefully to a higher level of existence, but also will lead us to the answers to many of our questions, and to the opening of many more questions, which is what gives humanity, and any sentient life in general, a purpose.
If Elon Musk is serious about making a historical footprint with regard to the meaningful & significant human exploration of space than perhaps he should use his vast resources to establish another 10, 50, or 100 million dollar phase of the X-Prize, this time with this expressed purpose of developing new science and technology (specifically propulsion technology) that will lead humanity to that end. By being the engine of advancement and innovation he would certainly, cement his legacy in human history as the man who made it all possible, but then again maybe not. Perhaps he isn't such a forward-thinking visionary after all, maybe this idea is just too far fetched, too pie-in-the-sky ish to even be of consideration, I don't know. But I can tell you what I know for certain – if Space-X continues doing what everybody else is doing (especially considering its common knowledge that its a failed strategy) then they will never do anything of importance, they will never be remembered for being that agent of innovation and they will never reach the level of historical significance that they could have achieved doing just this one simple thing, because without this new science and radical new propulsion technology as-well-as a number of other necessary advances (listed in a paper titled “13 Technologies an emerging species would need, to become an intergalactic space-faring race.” by Christopher K. Gibson) humanity will never reach its full potential as an advanced intellectual space-faring species/civilization.
No comments:
Post a Comment