Architecture is perhaps the most
beautiful form of engineering.When done
properly, it’s a sublime art form that can last for thousands of years.When it isn’t, it can be disastrous.It was interesting to read an article about a
building in London that has a bit of a problem.
The building has a rather innocuous
name of 20 Fenchurch Street.The locals
refer to it at the Walkie Talkie because its shape resembles an old handheld two-way
transceiver.The problem is the building’s
south facing exterior.Like most modern
buildings, it’s mostly a highly reflective glass.That highly reflective surface has caused
problems on the street below.
This isn’t the first time a
building has had problems with the physics of light.The Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los
Angeles had a similar problem.The
swooping, highly polished exterior looked good on paper, but they hadn’t
considered the effect sunlight has on the surrounding buildings when it is
magnified by the stainless steel exterior.The solution was to dull the finish on the building, so it wasn’t as
reflective.
courtesy Wikipedia
Obviously, at this stage in
construction, it’s far too late to alter the exterior to correct the
problem.It would be prohibitively
expensive to correct the curve, so they will have to change the reflective
properties of the windows.It will
change the overall intended look of the building, but I imagine that solving
this problem could make the building more attractive.
This is the big problem of aesthetics
over function.There is a huge drive to
make skyscrapers a distinctive monument.Even though most are privately owned, they are seen as a source of
national pride.With all the emphasis
placed on design, it’s tough to make a functional building that stands out from
the crowd.You hope that this type of
death-ray building won’t happen again, and this will be an example to future
architects of what not to do.
Currently there are over a hundred-thousand applicants vying for four one-way tickets to Mars.The vetting process for getting to this point
will be arduous, and only a select few will seriously be considered.This is for a privately funded, and possible
(but far from certain) mission to Mars.NASA is hoping to go there, but won’t be opening the mission to just
anyone.There are very good reasons for
this.
Space travel is extremely
hazardous, and not for the faint of heart.It is extraordinarily difficult to launch a rocket into orbit, let alone
send it to another planet.Certainly the
fundamentals are rudimentary (which is why they are called fundamentals), but
the devil is in the details.Successfully sending a manned spacecraft into orbit, and returning it
safely is extremely difficult.NASA
makes it look easy, and almost routine, but I can assure you that is an
illusion.
You only have to look at NASA’s
failures to see how difficult it is to succeed, and NASA’s history is littered
with failure.There have been three
catastrophic events that cost lives.
Apollo 1(AS-204)
SS Challenger (STS-51)
SS Columbia (STS-107)
That’s just NASA.Every other nation that has put astronauts
and spacecraft orbit has suffered training accidents and loss of men and
equipment.There is a reason why “Rocket
Scientist” is a synonym for an extremely intelligent person.It takes a lot of math, science, and
engineering to perfect a vehicle for launch, and even then, failure is possible.Even the slightest defect can have serious
repercussions.
There is a very good reason why
NASA takes only the best, brightest, and healthiest people into space.I know there are some exceptions to that
statement (John Glen flew on STS-95 when he was 77), but there are always
exceptions.However, for a deep space
mission there can be no exceptions.
When an explosion crippled the
Apollo 13 mission, the three men onboard were NOT ordinary men.Lovell, Haise, and Swigert were ALL test
pilots.Fred Haise graduated with honors
in Aerospace Engineering. John Swigert had a BS in Mechanical Engineering, an
MS in Aerospace Engineering, and an MBA.James Lovell had graduated from the Naval Academy.These men were intelligent, resourceful, and
highly trained.They were supported by
the smartest and most talented ground crew that the United States could muster.None of the people involved accepted failure
as an option (probably a reason why it’s a brilliantly delivered line in the
movie).
Serious space exploration is not
for people who dream of being Captain Kirk.It’s for people who ARE Lovell, Haise, Swigert, Armstrong, Glenn,
Aldrin, and the others that have come and gone since.You don’t need someone who is simply better
than average, you require someone exceptional.A
successful pioneering astronaut requires ingenuity, perseverance, intelligence,
competence, and an overwhelming desire to survive against all odds.These qualities are NOT possessed by ordinary.The average person is satisfied with
mediocrity, predictability, freezes when critical situations arise, and fail to
act.This type of person is unacceptable
in deep space.
As I’ve pointed out, it is
extremely expensive to send people to space.People are worth more than their weight in gold when in space.You can only afford to send the most
experienced, the most dedicated, the most committed, the most stable, the most
resourceful, the best trained, and the most intelligent on missions to other
planets.Anything less is a waste of
money.
A successful astronaut is the kind
of person that has a family, a job they are dedicated to, a yearning to learn,
and a desire to return home.The kind of
person attracted to a one-way trip does not have the desire to return to a
family, doesn’t have the skills or knowledge needed, and doesn’t have the drive
to survive at all costs.That person has
already given up on the earth, and everything associated with it.They have a desire to leave everything behind
in the hopes of adventure.It is shortsighted,
vain, and ultimately doomed to failure.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t
believe I am.The past is the best
predictor of the future.If we have
learned anything from our past successes and failures is that eventually something
will go wrong, and when things go wrong you need the best people working on a
solution.It isn’t a matter of if, but
when something will go wrong.If a
mission is to have any chance of success, it must have the best tools
available.The best tool on a manned
mission is the crew.That is why only
the elite are eligible, and the rest of us must live vicariously through them.
I’ve touched on this subject
before, but since this article came out yesterday, I felt I needed to vent a
little more.It flabbergasts me that
people really don’t consider the consequences before they commit to the dangers
of space travel.It is understood that I’m
not thrilled with the Mars-One experiment.The more I learn, the less there is to like.
I have mentioned that there are
significant barriers to living on Mars.The greatest danger is the radiation.The Curiosity Rover has given us data that shows that the trip to Mars
ALONE will expose astronauts to 100 times the exposure on Earth.Without significant shielding, the exposure
could exceed the lifetime limit allowed by space agencies worldwide.This wouldn’t even take into account the
exposure experienced on the surface.
What is the upshot of all this
exposure?There is significant cancer risk
and possible severe central nervous system damage.I cannot think of a more horrible way to die,
than radiation poisoning in a hostile environment.
More shielding is, of course, mandatory,
but that would significantly increase the cost, and limit the storage
available.Water and fuel would provide
some shielding, but any consumable wouldn’t be ideal shielding for long-term travel.
The real problem happens when you
arrive on the planet.The kind of person
this project seems to have attracted is not the kind of person I would send on
this type of mission.The novelty would
quickly wear off, and constant survival would kick in.Even under the best of circumstances, people
exposed to prolonged survival situations suffer severe emotional distress.This mission would degenerate into a
nightmare scenario that, until now, has fed hypothetical horror tales like
“Event Horizon”, “Sunshine”, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and the upcoming “Europa Report” (even “The Colony” looks like it has the elements I’m discussing).
It would only take one individual,
suffering a psychotic break, to wipe out the entire settlement.I’m certain that the people in charge of
Mars-One will do their level best to screen out the people most likely to
suffer mental illness under these conditions, but even the most careful
screening can’t determine what will happen with absolute certainty.We simply don’t fully understand all the
variables of deep-space mental health.There is a very good reason why NASA takes only the best, and even then,
sometimes mental illness goes undiagnosed until something terrible happens.
Everything we have learned up to
now, points to a serious issue that we won’t be able to adequately study within
the Mars-One timeline.I know I sound
like a naysayer, but I’m not convinced that leaping into this venture without
considerable study (at least an orbital flyby) would doom the explorers to a
fate I wouldn’t wish on anyone.A
catastrophe of this magnitude could doom future missions, and potentially
setback deep-space exploration for decades.
Sure, the idea of planetary
exploration is exciting, but we can’t let that cloud our judgment.We have to look at things carefully, and not
rush in because it sounds exciting.This
is human exploration, and contrary to popular belief, a life isn’t something
that can’t be replaced by simply throwing money or platitudes at them.
Censorship can come in many forms that can range from governments
to individuals.It is usually a
derogative term to describe the action of a person, either voluntarily or by
force, to act, think, or create based on the dictates of another.The most common form of this is self-censorship.We behave, and alter our behavior to fit into
a situation or set of circumstances that are within the learned social norms of
the society where we live.
An example of this would be if we disagree
with politician X, or their platform.We
may privately say, “If I ever meet politician X, I’m going to give them what for.He/she is a jerk, and deserves a punch in the
nose!”This may be your feeling, and certainly,
you are entitled to it. However when you
are confronted with the situation of being in the same room as politician X,
you will probably not behave in a manner that would be contrary to your
upbringing, or the situation at hand, and you certainly aren't justified in assault or battery.
I encountered this situation
once.I was once asked to work a
political protection detail as part of my job as an EMT.The politician in question was the Vice-President
of the United States.For about a day, I
would follow his every move, and stand quietly behind the scenes in the event
that I was needed.I wasn’t.My personal feelings toward this man were not
positive.I didn’t much care for this individual,
or his politics, but that wasn’t my job.My job was to insure that I would do my very best if he needed me.When it came time for him to leave, we all
stood in a line next to the plane to shake his hand.When he got to me, I politely shook his hand,
and told him it was an honor to meet him.I had my picture taken with him (still haven’t ever seen it), and he
left.I didn’t tell him I thought he was
a jerk, or what I thought of his politics.I did what every decent person should do, and treated the situation
appropriately.It wasn’t the time for a
political discussion, or debate.It was
a photo-op for my benefit, because I’m certain he neither knew or cared who I
was.
This was my own self-censor to keep
my attitude, and behavior in line with acceptable norms.Unfortunately, the line between what is and
isn’t acceptable seems to be forgotten in today’s society.People (including myself) seem to have become
so polarized that we have forgotten the art of tact, and decency.We have become polarized to a degree that I’ve
never seen.It is commonplace to see
people willing to go on offensive rants, use obscene language, belittle, behave
outrageously, use caustic and hate filled words, personal attacks, demand
retribution, servitude, and intolerance for opposing views.People don’t seem to be interested in
debating topics; they simply attempt to be louder and more obnoxious than their
opponents are.This attitude is detrimental
to the continuation of a civil society, and leads only to one place...tyranny.
You don’t have to be Kim Jong Un,
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, or Fidel Castro to be a dictator.Tyranny can come from mobs or small groups,
just as easily as a single man can.Tyrants, in all forms, seek to silence dissent by any means
necessary.Soon you live in a place
where you no longer have the freedom to object, or debate.You live the way the tyrants want you to
live, think the way they want you to think, talk the way they want you to talk,
and act only as they wish you to.
This type of closed-minded system
is inherently counterproductive.It is
as caustic to society and politics as it is to science.This is not saying that people can’t have differing
opinions, or that facts aren’t possible in a discussion.I am saying that when people use censorship
to silence all objections, bad things happen.
In January, my uncle passed
away.He was a soil physicist specializing
in nuclear waste interactions with soil and groundwater.Until his funeral, most of his relatives knew
virtually nothing about his life’s work.Based on what I’ve learned, every person in the world should be eternally
grateful for this unsung hero.The
reason — he was confronted with withering censorship, and won.
My uncle worked at a large facility
in Washington State that stored high-level radioactive waste left over from the
production of nuclear weapons.It is the
most contaminated nuclear site in the nation.That’s pretty stiff competition considering they detonated over a
thousand warheads in various sites in the US, with most occurring on the Nevada
Nuclear Test Range.He was concerned
that the radioactive material could leach into the soil and contaminate the
groundwater, and eventually contaminate the Columbia River.
The reason for his concern was the
policy of the US Department of Energy of burying the waste in the deserts of
Washington State, just in the ground.This would be seen as an obvious DUH to us now, but back in the 40’s
through to the 70’s it was no big deal.Discussing it was taboo, and anyone questioning the policy was fired and
blacklisted...until my uncle showed up.
Using his tact and knowledge, he
was able to convince his superiors that dumping highly radioactive waste into
the ground and hoping it would just disappear wasn’t going to work, and would
actually make things worse.He was able
to help mitigate the issue, and begin to solve the problem; unfortunately, it probably came too late.
This attitude isn’t limited to science and
politics.Recently, Entertainment Weekly
devoted TWO articles to the controversy surrounding the author Orson Scott
Card; specifically the book and movie “Ender’s Game”.BEFORE you all start jumping on the comments
with hate filled trolling, I AM NOT taking a side on anything.I don’t think my political view, or lack
thereof, is anyone’s business but my own.I don’t advocate, or publicize my feelings on issues.What I take issue with is: the mob centric censorship
being used to silence his personal view is just as ignorant and
counterproductive as the censorship used to silence early nuclear scientists.
In Mr. Card’s case, he has deeply held
religious beliefs that conflict with the prevailing sectarian belief.This has caused people to compare him to
Hitler.Somehow, I don’t think a mass-murderer
has ANY comparison to an award-winning author who hasn’t killed a single
person.The idea of censoring someone
for advocating religious convictions in a peaceful legal way cannot compare to
genocide. I could see an argument made
for chastising an author for advocating his beliefs as part of his literary
work, but Ender’s Game doesn’t have anything to do with the politics in
question.Even with that situation, he
still has a right to write, and produce material related to that opinion.
That said, those who have a
differing opinion from Mr. Card are certainly within their right to not watch
the movie, or purchase his work.No one
is forcing them to. They even have the right to offer opposing points of view in public forums, but stooping to personal attacks and blacklisting is counterproductive. Personally, I’m not
planning to watch the movie, because I think it will be a terrible adaptation,
and it’s made by the same people who made the Twilight trash series.
I could care less about a person’s
personal beliefs, or if they mirror my own. I know that there are people who disagree with
me on many topics.There are people who
insist the pyramids were built by aliens, the world is flat, little green men
crashed at Roswell, the Earth is the center of the Universe, God doesn’t exist,
black/white/brown/yellow/pink/purple people are better than black/white/brown/yellow/pink/purple
people, and that they are always right and I’m always wrong.What should be respectful, calm, and reasoned
discussions have turned into shouting matches that need to have an absolute
winner.
What we need to remember is that
civil discussion, and a respect for the freedom for the thought you hate are
more important than seeing who can shout the loudest, and have the most polar
opposite opinion.Considering that, your
beliefs could cause considerable unintended harm (i.e. dumping toxic waste in
the desert), it is more profitable to discuss and learn than to think you’re
right without changing anyone’s mind.