Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Colonizing space will require gear that doesn't exist yet. But they're in the works.
What will it take to conquer our immemorial space dream?
- Our best bet for frolicking among the stars will come from building O'Neill space colonies.
- Landing on and terraforming distant worlds such as Mars is fraught with greater technical and biological difficulties.
- Advances in radiation shielding, space construction and propulsion are needed for any sort of space colonization effort.
Humanity has been openly flirting with cosmic destiny for centuries. From the early reaches of our science fiction literature to the astounding feats of manned space exploration. We're getting anxious still wading on the earthen shores. The vast expanse of space is calling.
It's time we finally left the planetary womb and started strutting our stuff permanently amongst the stars.
But, in order to do that, we are going to need some serious new inventions for space colonization. The likes of which will allow us to reach our most ascendent of aspirations — the conquering of the stars.
Whether it's getting to the moon first, crafting new terraformed sands of Mars, or spinning through self-sustaining colonies — the end result will be the same.
We're leaving the sandbox and these are some of the tools we'll use to do it.
O'Neill space colonies
In the 1970s, Princeton physicist Gerard K. O'Neill, was tasked with designing a free floating space colony with existing technology, materials and construction techniques. Suffice to say, we're no closer to having space colonies now then we were then. O'Neill wrote a number of fascinating books on the topic and claimed that the concept was feasible at the time. He was interested in building alternative human habitats that were both beyond Earth and beyond a planetary body. Out of this was conceived the idea of a giant rotating spaceship, which could support a biosphere and house up to 10 million people.
After its founder's namesake, this space colonization concept has come to be known as the O'Neill Cylinder. The basis of the structure would be crafted out of steel and aluminum and formed into a hollow cylinder.
This kind of space settlement is arguably the most important of inventions we'd need to give us a permanent place in space.
O'Neill's plans for the colonies originally appeared in the journal Physics Today. He went on to expand on the idea in a number of books, most notably in The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.
A closed ecosystem inside would create the biosphere. Sunlight and solar power would be utilized by giant glass windows in space. All together the goal would be to create a climate controlled living space. There would be no limit to what kind of climate or ecosystem it is that you wanted to create.
Rather than living on top of a sphere as we do now, future cylinder colonists would settle from the inside. Artificial gravity would be created by the cylinder's walls rotating. These colonies would be situated at Lagrange points in order to stay in a consistent and stable gravitational environment. It would take weeks to fly to these colonies from Earth.
It's mind-boggling to think of the number of inventions we'd need to create to get a project of this magnitude started. But humanity has never shied away from inventing insane and impossible things.
An entire space mining industry would be needed to transport rocky material from the moon and asteroids to serve as the bedrock to these colonies. Space construction crews would assemble the colonies in space, backed by the thoughtful minds of engineers, master ecologists and so on.
Our American Gilded Age would look pathetically poor in comparison to such an expedition.
This type of space colonization technology was recently referenced by none other than Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon. A student of science fiction and fact, Bezos's goal is to help build the future of our space industry to one day make something like this possible.
Now, if Musk would have read up a little on his literature, he'd have realized he's an unwitting planetary chauvinist — a term coined by legendary fiction writer Isaac Asimov.
During an interview, Asimov was questioned about whether or not he'd ever written about space colonies. His response:
". . . We've all been planet chauvinists. We've all believed people should live on the surface of a planet, of a world. I've had colonies on the moon — so have a hundred other science fiction writers. The closest I came to a manufactured world in free space was to suggest that we go out to the asteroid belt and hollow out the asteroids, and make ships out of them [in the novelette The Martian Way]. It never occurred to me to bring the material from the asteroids in towards the earth, where conditions are pleasanter, and build the worlds there."
Yet, there is still some validity in wanting to both colonize planets such as Mars and create free floating space colonies. So why not aim for both?
Inventions for traveling through space
Getting ourselves to Mars requires an entire new class of things that don't exist yet. NASA has tasked themselves with leading the charge on an incredible amount of new technologies that will assist them in both the voyage and landing on Mars. These inventions would also of course spill over to other space colonization efforts.
NASA is working on creating satellite propellant transfer, which means that a robot would be able to refuel a spacecraft while in space, thus eliminating the need for a vehicle to return to the ground and fill up. This would allow for greater range in deep space and be a great boon for transporting space materials without expending more energy than needed.
Another problem that astronauts and future colonists will face is radiation. While scientists are working on better modes of propulsion such as advanced solar sails and lightweight heavy-lift rocket systems, they still face the ever present problem of radiation.
NASA needs to create something that can shield their spaceships if, for example, astronauts are looking to take a six-month trip to Mars. They'll need to be able to balance creating a radiation shield that's not too massive, but still protects the ship's inhabitants.
We're barely scratching the surface when it comes to just traveling to Mars. Until we can figure this out, actually landing and terraforming the planet is a pipe dream.But that hasn't stopped NASA from investing in some truly new revolutionary space technology.
Forward, space colonization!
There is an innumerable amount of problems that our space inventions will need to solve. The crafting of O'Neill colonies would bring on an absolute deluge of scientific discovery and creation.
Even the maddening planetary chauvinistic rush to Mars will be beneficial to our space colonist aspirations as well.
All in all, our most important inventions need to solve our most basic and eternal problems, but this time in space. Shelter, safety, sustenance and a place to grow and one day thrive.
We'll leave it up to our future inventors to decide how we get there.
- Why Human Innovation Depends on Exploring the Universe - Big ... ›
- Futuristic inventions and emerging technologies that will change the ... ›
- Mars colony: Humanity's greatest quest - Big Think ›
- Will Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos get to space first? - Big Think ›
- Space capitalism: Is asteroid mining and space colonization legal? - Big Think ›
A Harvard professor's study discovers the worst year to be alive.
- Harvard professor Michael McCormick argues the worst year to be alive was 536 AD.
- The year was terrible due to cataclysmic eruptions that blocked out the sun and the spread of the plague.
- 536 ushered in the coldest decade in thousands of years and started a century of economic devastation.
The past year has been nothing but the worst in the lives of many people around the globe. A rampaging pandemic, dangerous political instability, weather catastrophes, and a profound change in lifestyle that most have never experienced or imagined.
But was it the worst year ever?
Nope. Not even close. In the eyes of the historian and archaeologist Michael McCormick, the absolute "worst year to be alive" was 536.
Why was 536 so bad? You could certainly argue that 1918, the last year of World War I when the Spanish Flu killed up to 100 million people around the world, was a terrible year by all accounts. 1349 could also be considered on this morbid list as the year when the Black Death wiped out half of Europe, with up to 20 million dead from the plague. Most of the years of World War II could probably lay claim to the "worst year" title as well. But 536 was in a category of its own, argues the historian.
It all began with an eruption...
According to McCormick, Professor of Medieval History at Harvard University, 536 was the precursor year to one of the worst periods of human history. It featured a volcanic eruption early in the year that took place in Iceland, as established by a study of a Swiss glacier carried out by McCormick and the glaciologist Paul Mayewski from the Climate Change Institute of The University of Maine (UM) in Orono.
The ash spewed out by the volcano likely led to a fog that brought an 18-month-long stretch of daytime darkness across Europe, the Middle East, and portions of Asia. As wrote the Byzantine historian Procopius, "For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year." He also recounted that it looked like the sun was always in eclipse.
Cassiodorus, a Roman politician of that time, wrote that the sun had a "bluish" color, the moon had no luster, and "seasons seem to be all jumbled up together." What's even creepier, he described, "We marvel to see no shadows of our bodies at noon."
...that led to famine...
The dark days also brought a period of coldness, with summer temperatures falling by 1.5° C. to 2.5° C. This started the coldest decade in the past 2300 years, reports Science, leading to the devastation of crops and worldwide hunger.
...and the fall of an empire
In 541, the bubonic plague added considerably to the world's misery. Spreading from the Roman port of Pelusium in Egypt, the so-called Plague of Justinian caused the deaths of up to one half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire. This, in turn, sped up its eventual collapse, writes McCormick.
Between the environmental cataclysms, with massive volcanic eruptions also in 540 and 547, and the devastation brought on by the plague, Europe was in for an economic downturn for nearly all of the next century, until 640 when silver mining gave it a boost.
Was that the worst time in history?
Of course, the absolute worst time in history depends on who you were and where you lived.
Native Americans can easily point to 1520, when smallpox, brought over by the Spanish, killed millions of indigenous people. By 1600, up to 90 percent of the population of the Americas (about 55 million people) was wiped out by various European pathogens.
Like all things, the grisly title of "worst year ever" comes down to historical perspective.
A machine learning system lets visitors at a Kandinsky exhibition hear the artwork.
Have you ever heard colors?
As part of a new exhibition, the worlds of culture and technology collide, bringing sound to the colors of abstract art pioneer Wassily Kandinsky.
Kandinsky had synesthesia, where looking at colors and shapes causes some with the condition to hear associated sounds. With the help of machine learning, virtual visitors to the Sounds Like Kandinsky exhibition, a partnership project by Centre Pompidou in Paris and Google Arts & Culture, can have an aural experience of his art.
An eye for music
Kandinsky's synesthesia is thought to have heavily influenced his painting. Seeing yellow summoned up trumpets, evoking emotions like cheekiness; reds produced violins portraying restlessness; while organs representing heavenliness he associated with blues, according to the exhibition notes.
Virtual visitors are invited to take part in an experiment called Play a Kandinsky, which allows them to see and hear the world through the artist's eyes.
Kandinsky's synesthesia is thought to have heavily influenced his 1925 painting Yellow, Red, Blue.Image: Guillaume Piolle/Wikimedia Commons
In 1925, the artist's masterpiece, "Yellow, Red, Blue", broke new ground in the world of abstract art, guiding the viewer from left to right with shifting shapes and shades. Almost a century after it was painted, Google's interactive tool lets visitors click different parts of the artwork to journey through the artist's description of the colors, associated sounds and moods that inspired the work.
But Google's new toy is not the only tool developed to enhance the artistic experience.
Artist Neil Harbisson has developed an artificial way to emulate Kandinsky by turning colors into sounds. He has a rare form of color blindness and sees the world in greyscale. But a smart antenna attached to his head translates dominant colors into musical notes, creating a real-world soundtrack of what's in front of him. The invention could open up a new world for people who are color blind.
A new study suggests that private prisons hold prisoners for a longer period of time, wasting the cost savings that private prisons are supposed to provide over public ones.
- Private prisons in Mississippi tend to hold prisoners 90 days longer than public ones.
- The extra days eat up half of the expected cost savings of a private prison.
- The study leaves several open questions, such as what affect these extra days have on recidivism rates.
The United States of America, land of the free, is home to 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its prisoners. The cost of having so many people in the penal system adds up to $80 billion per year, more than three times the budget for NASA. This massive system exploded in size relatively recently, with the prison population increasing by six-fold in the last four decades.
Ten percent of these prisoners are kept in private prisons, which are owned and operated for the sake of profit by contractors. In theory, these operations cost less than public prisons and jails, and states can save money by contracting them to incarcerate people. They have a long history in the United States and are used in many other countries as well.
However, despite the pervasiveness of private contractors in the American prison system, there is not much research into how well they live up to their promise to provide similar services at a lower cost to the state. The little research that is available often encounters difficulties in trying to compare the costs and benefits of facilities with vastly different operations and occasionally produces results suggesting there are few benefits to privatization.
A new study by Dr. Anita Mukherjee and published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy joins the debate with a robust consideration of the costs and benefits of private prisons. Its findings suggest that some private prisons keep people incarcerated longer and save less money than advertised.
The study focuses on prisons in Mississippi. Despite its comparatively high rate of incarceration, Mississippi's prison system is very similar to that of other states that also use private prisons. Demographically, its system is representative of the rest of the U.S. prison system, and its inmates are sentenced for similar amounts of time.
The state attempts to get the most out of its privatization efforts, as a 1994 law requires all contracts for private prisons in Mississippi to provide at least a 10 percent cost savings over public prisons while providing similar services. As a result, the state seeks to maximize its savings by sending prisoners to private institutions first if space if available.
While public and private prisons in Mississippi are quite similar, there are a few differences that allow for the possibility of cost savings by private operators — not the least of which is that the guards are paid 30 percent less and have fewer benefits than their publicly employed counterparts.
The results of privatization
The graph depicts the likelihood of release for public (dotted line) vs. private (solid line) prison inmates. At every level of time served, public prisoners were more likely to be released than private prisoners.Dr. Anita Mukherjee
The study relied on administrative records of the Mississippi prison system between 1996 and 2013. The data included information on prisoner demographics, the crimes committed, sentence lengths, time served, infractions while incarcerated, and prisoner relocation while in the system, including between public and private jails. For this study, the sample examined was limited to those serving between one and six years and those who served at least a quarter of their sentence. This created a primary sample of 26,563 bookings.
Analysis revealed that prisoners in private prisons were behind bars for four to seven percent longer than those in public prisons, which translates to roughly 85 to 90 extra days per prisoner. This is, in part, because those in private prison serve a greater portion of their sentences (73 percent) than those in public institutions (70 percent).
This in turn might be due to the much higher infraction rate in private prisons compared to public ones. While only 18 percent of prisoners in a public prison commit an infraction, such as disobeying a guard or possessing contraband, the number jumps to 46 percent in a private prison. Infractions can reduce the probability of early release or cause time to be added to a sentence.
It's unclear why there are so many more infractions in private prisons. Dr. Mukherjee suggests it could be the result of "harsher prison conditions in private prisons," better monitoring techniques, incentives to report more of them to the state before contract renewals, or even a lackadaisical attitude on the part of public prison employees.
What does all this cost Mississippi?
The extra time served eats 48 percent of the cost savings of keeping prisoners in a private facility. For example, it costs about $135,000 to house a prisoner in a private prison for three years and $150,000 in the public system. But longer stays in private prisons reduce the savings from $15,000 to only $7,800.
As Dr. Mukherjee remarks, this cost is also just the finance. Some things are a little harder to measure:
"There are, of course, other costs that are difficult to quantify — e.g., the cost of injustice to society (if private prison inmates systematically serve more time), the inmate's individual value of freedom, and impacts of the additional incarceration on future employment. Abrams and Rohlfs (2011) estimates a prisoner's value of freedom for 90 days at about $1,100 using experimental variation in bail setting. Mueller-Smith (2017) estimates that 90 days of marginal incarceration costs about $15,000 in reduced wages and increased reliance on welfare. If these social costs were to exceed $7,800 in the example stated, private prisons would no longer offer a bargain in terms of welfare-adjusted cost savings."
It is possible that the extra time in jail provides benefits that counter these costs, such as a reduced recidivism rate, but this proved difficult to determine. Though it was not statistically significant, there was some evidence that the added time actually increased the rate of recidivism. If that's true, then private prisons could be counterproductive.