Pessimism in Science and Industry

[Jonfliesgoats]

Why do people who know better latch onto unrealistically pessimistic ideas?  Also, is this becoming a significant problem?

In the cockpit and in the lab I notice(d) a lot of pessimism from educated and trained professionals that isn't supported by evidence.  Many pilots in all segments of aviation seem to latch onto conspiracy theories, especially apacalyptic ones.  Engineers from my previous lives seemed to do the same.  I had a gentleman who used to be in a development program with me insist that we need relativistic speeds just to send mankind to the gas giants.  

Despite having access to open-source data and existing technologies, people seem to resist the idea that a manned presence elsewhere in the solar system is or will be feasible.  (On a similar note, people are convinced we have to shelter for centuries rather than weeks should nuclear fallout become an issue.).

One of two things is occuring:

In the first case, perhaps I am noticing the pessimists and ignoring the optimists?  This is possible.  I notice the things that bother me while things that conform to my ideas don't immediately stand out.

In the second case, perhaps there is something in aerospace that attracts or changes people so they are more receptive to these notions?  There are certainly many examples of very eccentric aviation and space pioneers.

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Quote

Pessimist is a well-informed optimist.

Working in aviation most part of life, I'm sure that most of aviation professionals are sure that planes fly by magic.

Edited December 17, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

Ok, relativistic speeds are not necessary to reach the gas giants. Time in exchange suffices. Edit: That was unsciencey. If i got it right, concerning special relativity, any speed difference, and be it 1mph/kph, is relativistic concerning relative mass and time. The gentleman in your example is right.

 

But pls. elaborate on your opinion because i am eager to learn.

How can people be kept alive and healthy over years in a spaceship ? Where is the technology to do so ? Pls. show me that green house food is sufficient or that a large enough storage of dietary stuff can be carried along. And pls. try to keep it sciencey, no social media data.

How can a crew be shielded from radiation in space ? The latest i heard on the subject from medicine was that the problem is underestimated. NASA stated somewhere that the crew could hide between the stored stuff during flight. Musk said that a (yet unexistent) spaceship could turn the engines in the direction of the radiation. Does that sound like awareness and a sophisticated method ?

Your statement about radiation risk ignores data from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Fukushima. I kindly ask to research on the matter.

 

I offer a third solution:

Maybe some of the "pessimists" are at least partly right ? Might that be ? At least to me it happens from time to time that the other side is right ...

 

Cheers :-)

gb

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Green Baron

[Bill Phil]

@Jonfliesgoats

It probably is just you ignoring the optimistic ones. 

@Green Baron

We can spin the ship. Separate the engines with the habitation section and spin like a bola. A bit brute force, but doable. Even a little pseudo gravity would help, and if it's around Mars' then they could acclimate on the way. Food is no problem. A tonne per person per year is a good rule of thumb. Oxygen has even less of a problem. Water can be mostly recycled, but a good stockpile is needed to account for inefficiencies. Margins of error on each, and there you go.

Radiation can be prevented by just having lots of shielding. We may need a huge amount, but that still doesn't make it impossible.

Are you aware that Hiroshima is still populated? Nagasaki as well? That's right, even nuclear bombs don't stop people from living on a plot of land. And it took Hiroshima just a decade to recover. It would certainly take more in a worldwide apocalypse, but certainly not centuries. Fallout can be cleaned. 

[todofwar]

When you try to push the boundaries, they start to push back. It's easy to get warn down by discovery after discovery only moving the bar imperceptibly. I think it happens in all fields really. 

[kunok]

9 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Why do people who know better latch onto unrealistically pessimistic ideas?  Also, is this becoming a significant problem?

In the cockpit and in the lab I notice(d) a lot of pessimism from educated and trained professionals that isn't supported by evidence.  Many pilots in all segments of aviation seem to latch onto conspiracy theories, especially apacalyptic ones.  Engineers from my previous lives seemed to do the same.  I had a gentleman who used to be in a development program with me insist that we need relativistic speeds just to send mankind to the gas giants.  

Despite having access to open-source data and existing technologies, people seem to resist the idea that a manned presence elsewhere in the solar system is or will be feasible.  (On a similar note, people are convinced we have to shelter for centuries rather than weeks should nuclear fallout become an issue.).

One of two things is occuring:

In the first case, perhaps I am noticing the pessimists and ignoring the optimists?  This is possible.  I notice the things that bother me while things that conform to my ideas don't immediately stand out.

In the second case, perhaps there is something in aerospace that attracts or changes people so they are more receptive to these notions?  There are certainly many examples of very eccentric aviation and space pioneers.

Unrealistic science fiction has given to us a total unrealistic approach to space flight that obviously we can't get, and people think that the real one is disappointing compared with the science fiction ones. In soft science fiction, traveling across the solar system or the galaxy is like traveling in your car, taking a flight between two airports or crossing the ocean in a boat, that gives totally unrealistic expectations. Space travel will take months or years not a couple of days like is presented in most fiction, we currently don't have life support or radiation protection for that long periods. And "real" proposals like Mars one or the ITS of Musk doesn't help, because they don't look to the real problems.

And we don't really have idea if we can live in different gravity of 1g in long term, don't forget that . _{Venus flying outpost supporter here}

[Green Baron]

That's all science fiction. It is not pessi- or optimistic, just science fiction. Maybe in 50 or 100 years part of it is reality, nobody knows.

Edit: ninja'd

Yes, I am aware :-) And i am aware of higher cancer rates and mortality even after 60 years. I am aware of restricted zones on the former test ranges and around the sites of nuclear accidents. I see that there is a tendency among some to deny this but this ignores reality and is not helpfull in assessing the risks. Saying that it takes only weeks is wrong. The above link is just one example, search by yourselves.

If you take a look at the isotopes and their halflife you get a feeling of the time scales.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Green Baron

[kunok]

Add to that the radiation in space is not the same that the one from nuclear waste, and we don't really know how similar they are. We need lots of more research. I really think we need a space "biological" program, before we get a real human one.

[Green Baron]

Yeah, there were two different things in the op: the sloppy handling of the effects of a nuclear bombing one the one hand and the statement that a manned outpost in the solar system is possible on the other.

I'm totally with you @kunok, we need more research. That has nothing to do with conpsiracy or apocalypse, just missing data. Sending people out now means sending them to die. And not of old age.

 

[Jonfliesgoats]

I think most people are aware of the difference between solar radiation and various emissions from radio-isotope decay.  What I was trying to point out was the idea that Van Allen radiation belts are impenetrable to human spaceflight despite it being done before.  While there are many hazards for a prolonged flight through the solar system, solutions exist from water storeage to carrying "hardened" rooms.

The reference to radioisotope decay was a reference to another form of artificial severity in popular consciousness.

Will prolonged exposure to low g environments eventually kill us all, make our vision fail, etc?  Possibly.  Possibly not.  There are solutions within our grasp to these problems too.

It seems people, and I am not referring to anyone in these forums, see these relatively manageable challenges as impossible barriers.

[Jonfliesgoats]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Working in aviation most part of life, I'm sure that most of aviation professionals are sure that planes fly by magic.

Very true.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats
True.

[Green Baron]

Ah, i see. Yeah well, i would say that the picture about radiation will become clearer when the new generation spacecrafts go out to collect data. I don't know about the plans for the first flights of Orion etc. pp., i'm just following the officially released news, but i think that awareness grows with technological possibilities. I remember having read about a possible mission just beyond moon orbit, maybe you guys know more. Concerning low g and diet ... well too much speculation for my low level state of knowledge. So i'm probably on the side of your "pessimists", read non-knowers :-)

If i had to bet on a date for a first mars mission i would put it on one of the windows in the late 30s or even 40s, assuming that development goes well, not too much pops on the launchpad any more and funds aren't cut.

That doesn't belong in this thread, but i am very much looking forward to the new generation of instruments, toys for the astronomers and astrophysicists. Namely E-ELT (40m-Monster being built on Cerro Armacones), TMT (soon(tm) being built either on Hawaii or right here on La Palma), GMT (Giant Magellan Telescope), LSST and the first humongously large baseline interferometer with Euclid in earth-sun-L2 from 202x on ...

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Green Baron

[Jonfliesgoats]

Another point worth mentioning, optimism is not synonymous with stupidity.  Nobody is arguing for an unprepared launch.  That said, knowing how humans will handle long term  deep space will eventually require humans in long term deep space flight.   Between creative storeage of supplies, placing the axis of a vessel so that solar radiation has to traverse most of your vessel and other techniques we have required technology within our grasp.  Right now NASA expects a round trip to Mars crew to receive about 2/3 of their career career radiation limit (.66 Sieverts).  The risks are present but manageable.

To be sure, spaceflight is risky.  People will die at some point.  At some point we, as a species accept that risk and sail beyond sight of shore, fly across oceans and lift ourselves into the cosmos.  

If we accept no risk whatsoever we become collectively paralyzed. 

 

Right on, Green Baron.  Establishing preliminary unmanned flights makes good sense.  I am railing against an artificial sense of impossibility that exists.

Also, perhaps we need to orbit pigs and chickens around the moon for some time to evaluate prolonged exposure to deep space?  This would be less expensive than sending pigs and chickens on a more ambitious flight and it would give us a chance to work out longer term life support technologies.

 

[kunok]

2 minutes ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Another point worth mentioning, optimism is not synonymous with stupidity.  Nobody is arguing for an unprepared launch.  That said, knowing how humans will handle long term  deep space will eventually require humans in long term deep space flight.   Between creative storeage of supplies, placing the axis of a vessel so that solar radiation has to traverse most of your vessel and other techniques we have required technology within our grasp.  Right now NASA expects a round trip to Mars crew to receive about 2/3 of their career career radiation limit (.66 Sieverts).  The risks are present but manageable.

To be sure, spaceflight is risky.  People will die at some point.  At some point we, as a species accept that risk and sail beyond sight of shore, fly across oceans and lift ourselves into the cosmos.  

If we accept no risk whatsoever we become collectively paralyzed.

The thing is that the basic research can be done with lots of 20g laboratory mice instead of 70kg humans. I propose something in the lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bion_(satellite) but outside LEO. It would be cheaper, safer and I think because that will get us faster development of the required techs

[Jonfliesgoats]

Good points, guys.  Again, I am FOR preliminary research.  I am against an idea that these flights are outside our capabilities.  I dont actually think we have any disagreement here.  I just want to keep human spaceflight as a goal in our minds.

In some circles it seems there is a growing sense that man is and always will be incapable of flight beyond LEO.  That is what bothers me.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

I think most people are aware of the difference between solar radiation and various emissions from radio-isotope decay.  What I was trying to point out was the idea that Van Allen radiation belts are impenetrable to human spaceflight despite it being done before.  While there are many hazards for a prolonged flight through the solar system, solutions exist from water storeage to carrying "hardened" rooms.

The reference to radioisotope decay was a reference to another form of artificial severity in popular consciousness.

Will prolonged exposure to low g environments eventually kill us all, make our vision fail, etc?  Possibly.  Possibly not.  There are solutions within our grasp to these problems too.

It seems people, and I am not referring to anyone in these forums, see these relatively manageable challenges as impossible barriers.

The Apollo missions avoided lots of the radiation effects as the belt extend past Moon then its full. 
You can cross them but you need to do it pretty fast, this require an pretty high twr engine for most of the burn needed, you can then use an low trust high ISP engine to cut travel time.

We should have pretty good data for radiation in deep space something else would be weird after all the probes. 
You can solve the issue either by cutting travel time or shield. Both increase ship mass. 

0g for an year has been done, you would not be very fit for walking around on Mars in an heavy space suit afterward. 
An issue with spin gravity is that it don't mix as well with lots of shielding. 
 

[kunok]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

We should have pretty good data for radiation in deep space something else would be weird after all the probes. 

But the point is that we don't really know how to translate that radiation to biological damage, we can make a guess, but is still a guess. Space radiation is not the same that the nuclear radiation that we have biological data.

[GluttonyReaper]

The general mindset that very pessimistic people tend to take im these scenarios is "there's lots of problems, it's really hard, so it's never going to happen." Thing is, anything in design and engineering is like that - if it was easy, we wouldn't have engineers.

The big analogy that comes to mind is blended wing / open prop airliner designs. Combined, you would end up with a much more efficient aircraft that both uses less fuel and pollutes less, but some people in the field will just tell you that it's got too many problems to be feasible (e.g. passengers experience roll forces more) and so they can just never happen. So instead, we end up with the automobile way of doing things, where the same model is released year after year with just little tweaks for performance, rather than a big overhaul. Actually, electric cars are a good example too...

Anyway, point is that pessimistic mindsets can be just as destructive as optimistic mindsets in their own way. A realist mindset is probably the best compromise, where you're aware of the potential worst scenario and the potential best scenario, and can weigh up which is more probable in a practical sense.

[magnemoe]

Just now, kunok said:

But the point is that we don't really know how to translate that radiation to biological damage, we can make a guess, but is still a guess. Space radiation is not the same that the nuclear radiation that we have biological data.

Most of the radiation is fast particles, most of them should be protons? You also have some gamma radiation. 
An simple particle accelerator should emulate it well and yes it should be very ionizing. 
We are more concerned about gamma radiation and radioactive materials on earth as its the main issue here. 
 

[Green Baron]

Of course, not going beyond leo is something like the earth is in the center and jupiter spirals around.

@magnemoe said that there should be data from deep space probes. I once searched, but even the NASA site admitted that the radiation thing in interplanetary space is mainly unknown. So do the very few clinical papers i found. It seems to me that it's not only ionizing radiation, it's also particles that can do real damage to the vessels in the body. Furthermore, besides the decay in bones and muscles, the blood vessels are damaged/stiffen by low g, thus influencing blood pressure and circulation in the body. I'm on thin ice here, my personal knowledge about medicine is limited and that's boasting. But the guys returning from space after a longer stay are in a bad shape. And they where really fit when they left ... blabla, i bore you.

Well, we'll see. It seems like SpaceX played too fast forward with new materials and procedures and now need a little contemplative phase to get things running again and on a safe basis. Somehow i understand the guy if he thinks: "Ha, i'll show those bureaucrats what performance and progress is ! We're first on Mars !".

Many of us would do something like this if we had the means and the money, wouldn't we :-)

[Nuke]

i for one think the biggest hitch in space colonization is simply power. there was a line in apollo 13 (and i havent seen that movie for a very long time so i might be off) "power is everyting" concerning the fact that without electrical power to operate the ship's systems at the critical point in the trajectory that the mission to save the crew would fail. taking it a step further power allows you to really gimp the rocket equation with high isp engines and do more with less propellant. you need it to grow food in most places, if you are on mars and have to live underground to keep the radiation levels low, you are going to need artificial light for food production. if you want to do any industrial stuff there, like manufacture steel and other building materials, you need electrical power to run the furnaces. water comes into mind too, for drinking, growing, making oxygen, you need to move the water too, if its frozen you need to heat it and then you need to pump it around where its needed. if you want to do any mining or any major earthworks (and these you will likely need immediately for construction operations), you are going to need power to generate the needed horsepower. baring internal combustion engines that can run in absence of atmospheric oxygen, you are still going to need the power to make the fuel.

so if im going to focus my efforts on one thing to make space colonization a possibility, it would be space borne reactors and new solar technologies. fusion is a big one. if we can get our polywells or dpf reactors to work (not tokamaks, too much bulk), that alone will revolutionize space colonization. you got a reactor you can load into the back of a truck, on a space craft, or at a colony, you can handle most of the tasks needed to support life. we dont even need engines more advanced than current to get to mars, but staying there, making human presence self sufficient and thriving is going to take some kind of breakthrough in energy.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Nuke

[todofwar]

1 minute ago, Nuke said:

i for one think the biggest hitch in space colonization is simply power. there was a line in apollo 13 (and i havent seen that movie for a very long time so i might be off) "power is everyting" concerning the fact that without electrical power to operate the ship's systems at the critical point in the trajectory that the mission to save the crew would fail. taking it a step further power allows you to really gimp the rocket equation with high isp engines and do more with less propellant. you need it to grow food in most places, if you are on mars and have to live underground to keep the radiation levels low, you are going to need artificial light for food production. if you want to do any industrial stuff there, like manufacture steel and other building materials, you need electrical power to run the furnaces. water comes into mind too, for drinking, growing, making oxygen, you need to move the water too, if its frozen you need to heat it and then you need to pump it around where its needed. if you want to do any mining or any major earthworks (and these you will likely need immediately for construction operations), you are going to need power to generate the needed horsepower. baring internal combustion engines that can run in absence of atmospheric oxygen, you are still going to need the power to make the fuel.

so if im going to focus my efforts on one thing to make space colonization a possibility, it would be space borne reactors and new solar technologies. fusion is a big one. if we can get our polywells or dpf reactors to work (not tokamaks, too much bulk), that alone will revolutionize space colonization. you got a reactor you can load into the back of a truck, on a space craft, or at a colony, you can handle most of the tasks needed to support life. we dont even need engines more advanced than current to get to mars, but staying there, making human presence self sufficient and thriving is going to take some kind of breakthrough in energy.

This is the number one reason I keep arguing for Venus over Mars. It has wind gradients and thermal gradients that can very easily be used for almost unlimited power generation. 

[Nibb31]

Maybe people who are in the industry have a better understanding out how hard space is. When you don't know how stuff works, it's all just magic, and everybody knows that with magic everything is possible. 

When you actually understand how stuff works, you get to realize that engineering problems are usually the easiest ones to solve. The biggest roadblocks are usually economical and political, which doesn't make them any less real as the laws of physics. 

[wumpus]

14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Working in aviation most part of life, I'm sure that most of aviation professionals are sure that planes fly by magic.

I've been told by a tech with both A&R mechanic and pilots licenses that in one of those classes (or possibly advanced training in one) the correct answer for "what makes plane fly?" is money.  Preferably lots of it.

I'm fairly sure that any science fair project that attempts to answer "what makes planes fly" after first shooting down the tradition answer ("planes rest on magic arrows that appear underneath: check any science textbook" Dave Barry) should win first place.

8 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Maybe people who are in the industry have a better understanding out how hard space is. When you don't know how stuff works, it's all just magic, and everybody knows that with magic everything is possible. 

When you actually understand how stuff works, you get to realize that engineering problems are usually the easiest ones to solve. The biggest roadblocks are usually economical and political, which doesn't make them any less real as the laws of physics. 

I'd have to assume that if you don't appreciate the difficulty of obtaining a million dollar budget and aren't aware that a new rocket design costs a billion (a thousand million) than you aren't  ready for more than a rather junior engineering role.  While I'm well aware that the art of prying money out of NASA isn't magic, I'm not sure I could tell the difference between a black grimoire, random gibberish, and actual government procurement law.

Edited December 17, 2016 by wumpus
avoiding doublepost

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, GluttonyReaper said:

Anyway, point is that pessimistic mindsets can be just as destructive as optimistic mindsets in their own way. A realist mindset is probably the best compromise, where you're aware of the potential worst scenario and the potential best scenario, and can weigh up which is more probable in a practical sense.

Both pessimists and optimists will tell you that they are the realists.