Earth, life, space: how we think about them

Unknown

Credit: youtube.com

Though I’m no longer consulting with NASA’s planetary protection office, I still consider myself a member of the planetary protection community, and I’m paying attention to the neoliberal/libertarian drive to loosen up (eliminate, some argue) planetary protection requirements for so-called commercial space missions – robotic or human.

An ad hoc committee of the National Academies’ Space Studies Board is currently engaged in a review of planetary protection policy development processes, and I’m keeping an eye on this project as well as the discourse in the broader space community about planetary protection.

I’ve been reviewing some of the papers I’ve presented or published over the past 10 to 12 years that are relevant to planetary protection, and I’m going to post some of them on this blog.

What follows is a paper I presented at the 23d annual conferences of the International Association for Science, Technology, and Society (February 1, 2008, Baltimore MD). I’ve made some minimal changes to bring the paper up to date.

My intent here is to give you some food for thinking about whether and how the scientific search for evidence of extraterrestrial life has affected our conception of the terrestrial biosphere.

From my biased perspective, as a consultant to NASA’s astrobiology program, a scholar of communication, and someone who has worked in the space community for more than 30 years, I propose that the search for life beyond our planet has affected the way we think about our home planet. Can I prove it? No. Can I make a good case for this claim? I think so…. Can I provide a comprehensive explanation of how it has affected our conception of our biosphere? Probably not. But I will try to make my case as best I can….

Background

Scientists have been studying the origins and evolution of life on Earth since the beginnings of what we call science.

Philosophers have been speculating about the possibility of other worlds and life elsewhere since the days of ancient Greece.

Scientists have been searching in earnest for evidence of extraterrestrial life since the beginning of the Space Age.

In the 21st century, the study of the origins and evolution of life on Earth, the origin and evolution of Earth itself and its sister planets, the origins and evolution of life in the universe and the origins and evolution of the universe itself are intricately intertwined.

Astrobiology, the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe, has made huge strides just in the past 10 years, due to space flight opportunities, new technology, and advances in molecular biology.

Let me quickly review the state of the art in the field of astrobiology….

We still do not know exactly how life began, or precisely where, or when, though theories about the origins of life continue to proliferate, and complexify.

We have learned that life as we know it – that is, carbon-based cellular life – can survive in virtually all terrestrial environmental extremes – nuclear radiation, permafrost, deep subsurface Earth, no sunlight…. Wherever humans or their technological counterparts have gone on Earth, they have found life.

We have learned that microbial life accounts for the majority of biomass on Earth and that most of this microbial biomass is likely beneath the surface of Earth.

Our spacecraft have flown by, orbited around, or landed on Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and several of its moons, Saturn and several of its moons, Neptune, and the dwarf planet Pluto and its moons…. And of course we’ve orbited a myriad of spacecraft around Earth to study the home planet. Comparative planetology is now a thriving field. We are now looking at Europa and Enceladus, in addition to Mars, as possible habitats for life….

Thanks to all of these advances, the prospects for finding extraterrestrial life – as we know it, or perhaps as we do not know it – look more promising by the day…

At the same time that research into the origin, evolution, and distribution of life is revealing that life is highly resilient, these same lines of research are helping to reveal how life and its environment are deeply interdependent.

Some key lines of research in this area – for example, the timing and mechanics of the rise of oxygen in the atmosphere of early Earth – have been sponsored by the element of NASA’s astrobiology program now called exobiology and evolutionary biology.

These findings are improving our understanding of life on Earth and prospects for life elsewhere, contributing to understanding of global climate history and evolution, and complexifying the further study of life.

This new understanding of the highly interdependent nature of life and its environment – their co-evolution, as it were – is undoubtedly changing the way we think about our biosphere and our place in it. And when I say “we” I mean both experts and non-experts…. This understanding has a role to play in defining our future on Earth and in space….

What follows is a brief and admittedly idiosyncratic review of the parallel and intersecting histories of the study of life on Earth, space exploration and the search for extraterrestrial life, and our understanding of our own biosphere.

The beginnings…

Questions of life – the origin and evolution of life, the fate of life on Earth, the possibility of life elsewhere – have driven space exploration from its beginnings. The search for evidence of extraterrestrial life is and always has been a primary focus of NASA’s planetary exploration program.

Planetary protection – the policy and practice of preventing terrestrial biological contamination of extraterrestrial environments and extraterrestrial biological contamination of Earth – has been a concern of the international science community since the start of the Space Age.

By 1967, spacefaring nations had reached agreement to regulate interplanetary contamination, as articulated in Article IX of the United Nations Outer Space Treaty. The treaty states that exploration of planetary bodies will be conducted “so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter….”

In 1959, NASA funded its first exobiology project, an instrument intended to detect evidence of biological activity on Mars. In 1960 NASA organized an Exobiology Program, to fund studies of the origin and evolution of life on Earth and the search for evidence of life beyond Earth.

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, in 1966 environmentalist Stewart Brand (founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog and CoEvolution Quarterly) began a public-awareness campaign aimed at prodding the space community to look at the whole Earth from space. “Why Haven’t We Seen a Photograph of the Whole Earth Yet?” Brand was asking, in hopes “that it would stimulate humanity’s interest in its mega-habitat” (Brand, 2007).

The first time U.S. astronauts saw and took pictures of “Earthrise” from space, capturing Earth and its Moon in a single frame from lunar orbit, was on the Apollo 8 mission in 1967. The common wisdom is that the advent of the human ability to see the Earth in its entirety from space helped to inspire Earth Day and the environmental movement.

On April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated.

It was not until Apollo 17 in 1972 that NASA astronauts produced the now-iconic photo of the whole Earth from space, appearing alone in the void (Maher, 2004).

Environmental historian Neil Maher has argued that NASA’s 1967 “Earthrise” photo and its 1972 “Whole Earth” photo played key roles in two opposing cultural narratives. The “Earthrise” photo was one of “a long line of photographs enlisting nature to support American expansion at home and abroad…. By figuratively depicting [President John F.] Kennedy’s New Frontier in its sloping lunar surface, the Apollo 8 photograph helped extend America’s Manifest Destiny into the ultimate wilderness—outer space.” NASA’s 1972 “Whole Earth” photo “tells a different story,” replacing “the idea of the American frontier with a vision of non-American nature…an image of a more global natural environment” (ibid.).

Also in 1972, NASA launched Landsat I, the first element of a system of Earth observation satellites. The Landsat satellites, and other space-based earth-observing systems after it, have produced a more or less continuous view of the surface of Earth and its oceans over more than three decades.

We now take for granted the ability to see any place on Earth, any time, from space: fires in the Brazilian rainforest, flooding in south Asia, polar ice loss….

NASA’s Viking landers, launched to Mars in 1976, included three biology experiments designed to look for possible signs of life. Though the consensus is that those experiments did not find any evidence of biological activity on Mars, some scientists are still arguing over the meaning of the results. (This dispute persists in large part because scientists have been unable to agree on a precise definition of what life is (and is not).)

In 1977, Stewart Brand initiated a public debate, in CoEvolution Quarterly, about expanding human presence into space. Colonizing space “will be as momentous as the atomic bomb,” Brand declared. With space colonization, “our perspective is suddenly cosmic, our Earth tiny and precious, and our motives properly suspect…. If we can learn to successfully manage large complex ecosystems in the Space Colonies, that sophistication could help reverse our destructive practices on Earth. And if we fail…then we will have learned something as basic as Darwin about our biosphere – that we cannot manage it, that it manages us” (Brand, 1977, p. 72).

Also in 1977, in the world of science, biophysicist Carl Woese and colleagues announced in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they had identified a new branch of life on Earth, called archaea. The New York Times reported on these findings, and history was made.

These scientists redrew the tree of life, depicting the evolution of life by genetic rather than structural relationships. The research that led to this momentous discovery was sponsored by NASA’s exobiology program.

In 1979, chemist James Lovelock unveiled his Gaia hypothesis, positing that Earth and all of its life are an integrated super-organism.

“My first thoughts about Gaia,” Lovelock says, came earlier in the 1970s “when I was working in [the] biosciences division of the [NASA] Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where we were concerned with the detection of life on other planets” (Lovelock, 1988, p. xvi) and working on plans for the Viking mission to Mars.

The Gaia hypothesis, according to Lovelock, “forces a planetary perspective. It is the health of the planet that matters, not…some…individual species” (p. xvii).

Also in 1979, Science magazine published a report of the discovery of life in hydrothermal vent systems of the Galapagos Rift (Corliss, et al, 1979). This discovery marked a major advance in scientific understanding of life. Not only was life thriving in environmental conditions considered inhospitable, but also this life depended on chemicals (chemosynthesis), not sunlight (photosynthesis), to survive.

The study of what we now call extremophilic life subsequently took off….

In the early 1980s, scientists working in the field of exobiology called on NASA to broaden its study of the evolution of complex biological systems on Earth to examine the evolution of complex life in the context of space. That is, NASA research into the origin and evolution of life should address “the effects of properties of the universe as a whole upon the evolutionary processes occurring on a planet’s surface” (Milne, et al, 1985, p. 2). NASA took heed.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development issued its now-famous report, “Our Common Future,” on sustainable development. “In the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first time,” the Commission noted in its report.
“Historians may eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on thought than did the Copernican revolution of the 16th century…. From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. Humanity’s inability to fit its activities into that pattern is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized – and managed.” The Commission also noted in this report, “We have the power to reconcile human affairs with natural laws and to thrive in the process.”

Several years later, in his book Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan (1994) observed that while the human ability to see Earth from space has changed the way we think about our home planet, “the connection between exploring other worlds and protecting this one is most evident in the study of Earth’s climate and the burgeoning threat to that climate that our technology now poses. Other worlds provide vital insights about what dumb things not to do on Earth” (p. 221) – for example, atmospheric ozone depletion, greenhouse warming, and the generation of nuclear winter.

In 1996, NASA’s exobiology program was superceded and encompassed by a new astrobiology program, dedicated to the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe (Dick and Strick, 2004)….

To reiterate, astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe. This multidisciplinary field now encompasses the search for habitable environments in our Solar System and habitable planets outside our Solar System, the search for evidence of prebiotic chemistry and life on Mars and other bodies in our Solar System, laboratory and field research into the origins and early evolution of life on Earth, and studies of the potential for life to adapt to challenges on Earth and in space.

NASA’s Astrobiology Program addresses three fundamental questions: How does life begin and evolve? Is there life beyond Earth and, if so, how can we detect it? What is the future of life on Earth and in the universe? In striving to answer these questions and improve understanding of biological, planetary, and cosmic phenomena and relationships among them, experts in astronomy and astrophysics, Earth and planetary sciences, microbiol­ogy and evolutionary biology, cosmochemistry, and other relevant disciplines are participating in astrobiology research. In its search for evidence of extraterrestrial life, the Astrobiology Program is funding a wide array of research in molecular ecology and molecular evolution, geared “towards understanding the origins of life and the evolutionary history of organisms on this planet” (Sogin, 1999).

Among “other relevant disciplines,” the social sciences and humanities have an important but as-yet-undeveloped role to play, especially in considering the future of life on Earth and elsewhere.

Conclusions

In light of all these social and scientific developments that I have just described, and many others that I have not described, I conclude that the search for extraterrestrial life has most certainly affected our conception of the biosphere, the way we think about our home planet and our place on (or in) it. Expert and non-expert understanding of life, at the macro and the micro level, is changing, rapidly…..

It would be difficult – though interesting and potentially fruitful – to document exactly how the search for extraterrestrial life has changed the way we think about the biosphere. I cannot do that right now. But I will consider some ways in which the search has altered our perspective.

Considering the biosphere at the microscopic scale, we now know that life teems kilometers beneath the surface of Earth, around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, inside Antarctic rocks and at the bottom of perpetually ice-covered Antarctic lakes, in highly acidic hot springs and radioactive water. Life like us thrives by photosynthesis. Another sort of life on Earth thrives by chemosynthesis. The idea of life in other planetary environments barely requires a leap of imagination these days….

We have recently come to understand that microbial life, extremophilic or otherwise, dominates our biosphere. As astrobiologists have put it, “For more than 3.5 billion years, microbes of untold diversity have dominated every corner of our biosphere” (Sogin and Jennings, 2003).

Microbes play a key role “in geochemical cycling, biodegradation, and the protection of entire ecosystems from environmental insult…they control global utilization of nitrogen through nitrogen fixation, nitrification, and nitrate reduction; and they drive the bulk of carbon, sulfur, iron, and manganese biogeochemical cycles.” Most important to us, “the continued survival of later evolving multicellular plants and animals is completely dependent upon interactions with microorganisms” (ibid.)….

Considering the biosphere at the planetary scale, we now know that the more we explore extraterrestrial environments, the more we learn about how different they are from Earth. And at the same time we find that they are similar, too.

We routinely look at pictures of Earth and other planets taken from space these days and remark upon their resemblances and their differences. We know that planets and planetary environments evolve. We cannot help but think – even believe – that some of these extraterrestrial environments have life….

I have mentioned the role of planetary protection policy in space exploration. Building on the concept of planetary protection and extending our constructions of “nature” and “wilderness” into the solar system, some astrobiologists have advocated the creation of a “planetary park system” to preserve and protect pristine extraterrestrial environments of scientific importance or “natural beauty” from environmental degradation or contamination by terrestrial exploration missions.

Planetary parks would “extend the reasons for practical protection policies beyond the utilitarian protection of scientific resources emphasized by planetary protection, into other utilitarian and intrinsic value arguments” (Cockell and Horneck, 2004, 2006).

The idea of “astroenvironmentalism” has been explored outside the science community as well. The principles of astroenvironmentalism, as detailed by one environmental writer, include “considering space and the celestrial bodies pristine wildernesses that need to be protected,” requiring environmental impact statements for space missions, treating planetary bodies “as wildernesses that need to be protected,” and creating ethical guidelines for protecting life elsewhere (Miller, 2001)….

So our constructions of “environment” and “nature” in what Steven Yearley (2008) calls “advanced modernity” are thus being extended from Earth into space. From an environmentalist perspective, this is a good thing.

Alternatively, the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life is affecting our conception of the terrestrial biosphere in a different, conflicting way. There is a trend in the space community, energized in the Reagan era and reinvigorated during the George W. Bush years, toward viewing the solar system as an environment to exploit, as we have with our own planetary environment. From this “dominionist” or “manifest destiny” perspective, our home planet, and our home solar system, are seen as resources here for us to use as we like.

These two opposing perspectives on the place of humans in space are reflective of two parallel and conflicting cultural narratives of space exploration (Billings, 2007): outer space as a sort of supermarket of resources, open to exploitation by whoever gets there first; and outer space as a pristine wilderness to be studied and appreciated but left unaltered.

Rhetorical critic Janice Hocker Rushing speculated that the post-Apollo focus of space exploration on the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life is a product of a widespread understanding that humankind exists in a universe, not only on planet Earth. A contemporary narrative of space exploration might better reflect this understanding by telling a story of “a spiritual humbling of self” rather than “an imperialistic grabbing of territory.” Space is too big to be conquered, as Rushing pointed out….

Cultural studies scholar Constance Penley has also examined cultural narratives of space exploration. While noting that “the WASP space cowboy version of spaceflight” has persisted from the Apollo era into the present, Penley has observed that NASA “is still the most popular point of reference for utopian ideas of collective progress.” In the popular imagination, “NASA continues to represent…perseverance, cooperation, creativity and vision,” and these meanings embedded in the cultural narrative of spaceflight “can still be mobilized to rejuvenate the near-moribund idea of a future toward which dedicated people…could work together for the common good”….

The more we look, the more we find that life is everywhere on, and in, Earth. The more we look, the more we find that the basic ingredients for life as we know it are everywhere, not only throughout our solar system but throughout interstellar space. We have also found that much of life on Earth – perhaps the majority of it – is “weird” extremophilic microbial life, adapted to niche environments that humans and their multicellular relatives could not tolerate.

While astrobiologists are identifying biosignatures for detecting extraterrestrial life as we know it – carbon-based, cellular life – they have also begun the task of developing a set of biosignatures to use in searching for signs of life as we do not know it – extraterrestrial weird life – life that does not need water as a solvent, life that is not made of carbon-based compounds (Space Studies Board, 2007).

To wrap up, let me restate my initial question in a somewhat different form….

Without the search for extraterrestrial life, would we have come to understand, as we now have, how life and environment continually shape each other?

My answer is, “I don’t think so.” Though I cannot prove my claim, let me offer the views of a few other experts to back it up.

In the mid-1970s, anthropologist Ashley Montagu told a NASA-sponsored symposium on the subject of “life beyond Earth and the mind of man” that people “are no longer humane beings, but sick persons – a sickness induced by the worship of false values….” Montagu recommended preparing for what he considered to be the eventual discovery of extraterrestrial life “by becoming what you ought to be, by realizing your evolutionary destiny, which is to live as if to live and to love were one” (Berendzen, 1975, p. 26).

In a similar vein, planetary scientist and natural philosopher David Grinspoon (2004) has observed, “We can conceive of a truly intelligent, sustainable communicating society. But we don’t know if we can become one. So we search the skies for confirmation of a hopeful image of ourselves” (p. 414).

Can, does, the search for extraterrestrial life help us humans to figure out how to live together?

Stewart Brand (2007) continues to prod us to think about Earth from the perspective of space. In the scientific journal Nature, he asserted that to better understand our home planet, we must integrate data gathered by Earth-observing satellites with genetic data gathered by microbiologists – a merger of the macro with the micro. “Metagenomics is giving us detailed access to the genes and gene communities of bacteria and archaea,” he wrote.

“A unifying body of data, ideas, models and images of the whole-Earth system could inspire the public and may shift scientific thinking. In studying the energy dynamics of the Earth–Sun system while learning how our microbial partners manage to keep this planet comfortably terraformed for life, we would begin to step up to the full meaning of Earth stewardship.”

Environmentalist Bill McKibben (2007) has considered how space exploration has broadened his perspective on our home planet. “This may come as less of a shock to others, but it’s my own recent discovery: we live on a planet,” he wrote in Orion magazine.

NASA’s Apollo images of Earth from space, he said, “seemed designed to shock us into seeing that the world we knew was finite, that we had been born onto a lovely oasis…we should protect at all costs.”

In McKibben’s opinion, however, this view “didn’t take…we’ve done more to damage the planet in the decades since that picture appeared than in all of human history before that.”

From a different perspective, political scientist Walter McDougall (2007) has considered how space exploration and the search for life elsewhere has affected our views of life on Earth and come to the same conclusion as McKibben. That is, we are not getting the message.

“The greatest icon bequeathed by space technology” to humankind thus far, McDougall claims, is the Apollo 8 “Earthrise” photo. “It has become a cliche to observe how Earthrise inspired environmentalists since it vividly depicted our biosphere as finite and fragile….”

Just as important as this new perspective on our biosphere, he says, “was the urgent if obvious revelation that the natural, holistic earth seen from space is free of political, racial, and religious boundaries. The sum of those two perceptions must be a Spaceship Earth mentality transcending mundane considerations of geopolitics and geoeconomics.”

But “no such transcendence has begun to occur,” McDougall concludes. “Even after the end of the Cold War, so often blamed for perverting the dream, astronautics has worked no metamorphosis, no paradigm shift, in human behavior. Conceptions of extraterrestrial worlds as our property to exploit and as pristine environments to protect are in competition for a central role in U.S. space policy.”

Twenty years ago, environmental philosopher Eugene Hargrove (1986) predicted, “It is not unlikely that the environmental movement…will split into warring camps over the issue of resources exploitation of the Solar System…some environmentalists will decide that we should exploit [these] resources…to the full in order to bring resource exploitation on Earth as close to an end as reasonably possible; others will conclude that such resource exploitation is simply a continuation of improper environmental policies long pursued on this planet” (pp. xi-xii).

Current discourse about our future in space addresses this important ideological issue, but, regrettably, the environmental community is not engaged in the discussion. Nor is the STS community, to my knowledge.

In the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Steven Yearley notes that environmental studies are critical to STS because they provide “key insights into the status of ‘the natural’ in advanced modernity” (p. 921)….

He concludes that science and technology studies have has become the primary scholarly means of “understanding ‘knowing nature’ in conditions of advanced modernity” (p. 940).

In this presidential election year, when space policy issues are in the public eye, scholars of science, technology, and society can contribute to the public discourse on these issues – and perhaps even build a needed bridge between environmentalists and the space community – by expanding the boundaries of their conceptions of “environment” and “nature” to encompass outer space, where humans are venturing more frequently and more invasively.

Can our vision of a human future in space become a vision of humanity’s peaceful co-existence on Spaceship Earth and the need to work together to preserve life here and look for life out there?

In conclusion, I would argue that developing new perspectives on our home planet and the place of, and for, life on it is perhaps the only sound rationale for continuing a government-funded space exploration program in the early 21st century. The search for extraterrestrial life can help humans to feel at home in the universe, fostering a sense of belonging. As it did in “Star Trek: Voyager,” the search can encourage us to care about our home.

I encourage the STS community to consider how the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life is affecting our understanding of biospheres (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) and how this understanding might help to shape space exploration policy and plans.

Which cultural narrative will it be? The human conquest and exploitation of extraterrestrial environments, at the expense of extraterrestrial life if need be? Or careful robotic exploration, preserving pristine extraterrestrial environments for their own sake, with or without life?
References

Berendzen, Richard (ed.). Life beyond Earth and the mind of man: a symposium held at Boston University on November 20, 1972. Washington, D.C.: Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1973).

Billings, Linda. Ideology, advocacy, and spaceflight: evolution of a cultural narrative, 483-499, in Dick, Steven J. and Launius, Roger D., eds., Societal Impact of Spaceflight (NASA SP-2007-4801). Washington, D.C.: History Division, Office of External Relations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2007).

Billings, Linda. To the Moon, Mars, and beyond: culture, law, and ethics in spacefaring societies. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(5), 430-437 (2006).

Brand, Stewart (ed.). Space colonies: a CoEvolution book. New York: Penguin Books (1977).

Brand, Stewart. Whole earth comes into focus. Nature 450, 797 (2007).

Cockell, Charles S. and Horneck, Gerda. Planetary parks – formulating a wilderness policy for planetary bodies. Space Policy 22(4), 256-262 (2006).

Cockell, Charles and Horneck, Gerda. A Planetary Park system for Mars. Space Policy 20(4), 291-295 (2004).

Corliss, John B., et al. Submarine thermal springs on the Galapagos Rift. Science 203, 1073-1083 (1979).

Dick, Steven J. and Strick, James E. The living universe: NASA and the development of astrobiology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press (2004).

Grinspoon, David. Lonely planets: the natural philosophy of alien life. New York: HarperCollins (2003, 2004).

Hackett, Edward J., et al. (eds). Handbook of science and technology Studies (3d ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

Hargrove, Eugene C. (ed.). Beyond Spaceship Earth: environmental ethics and the solar system. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1986.

Lemonick, Michael D. Other worlds: the search for life in the universe. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Lovelock, James. The ages of Gaia: a biography of our living Earth. New York: W.W. Norton, 1988.

Maher, Neil. Neil Maher on shooting the Moon. Environmental History July 2004. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/eh/9.3/maher.html (28 Jan. 2008).

McDougall, Walter A. The Space Age that never arrived: a meditation on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik 1. Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, November 2007. Http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200711.mcdougall.sputnikanniversary.html.

McKibben, Bill. Planet protectors: the campaign for global security needs you. Orion, July/August 2007. Http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/317/.

Miller, Ryder W. Astroenvironmentalism: the case for space exploration as an environmental issue. Electronic Green Journal 15, December 2001.

Milne, David, et al (eds.). The evolution of complex higher organisms: summary of proceedings of the ECHO Science Workshops held in July 1981 and May 1982 (NASA-SP478). Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1985.

Pellegrino, Charles R. and Stoff, Jesse A. Darwin’s universe: origins and crises in the history of life (2d ed.). Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Books Inc., 1986.

Penley, Constance. Spaced out: remembering Christa McAuliffe. Camera Obscura 29 (January): 179-213, pp. 207-208 (1992).

Rummel, J.D. and Billings, L. Issues in planetary protection: policy, protocol, and implementation. Space Policy 20(1), pp. 49-54.
Sagan, Carl. Pale blue dot: a vision of the human future in space. New York: Random House, 1994.

Rushing, Janice Hocker. Mythic evolution of “The New Frontier” in mediated rhetoric. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3(3): 265-96, quotes from p. 284 (1986).

Sayre, Caroline. The Time 100: Tullis Onstott. Time, April 30, 2007. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1595329_1615985,00.html.

Sogin, Mitchell L. Concluding remarks. Biological Bulletin 196, pp. 415-416, June 1999.

Sogin, Mitchell L. and Jennings, Diana E. Introduction. Biological Bulletin 204, p. 159, April 2003.

Space Studies Board, National Research Council. The limits of organic life in planetary systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (2007).

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Yearley, Steven. Nature and the environment in science and technology studies, pp. 921-947 in Hackett, E.J. et al, eds., Handbook of science and technology studies (3d ed.), Cambridge, MA:

 

Report from the New World: Sarasota

 

walking pathPhoto: my walking path

Last week David and I moved from Arlington, Virginia, to Sarasota, Florida. This blog post is mainly for my family and friends rather than for my regular blog readers. I’ll get back to my “scholarly” blogging soon, and I’ll probably start a new blog for reports from our new home and city. But for now, here’s a quick report.

me outsidePhoto: Our new home

We are renting a home with a pool/lanai. It’s so quiet here! And so clean… I have a two-mile walking path through the community, and, I swear, in a week I haven’t seen a single piece of trash on the ground –not a cigarette butt or a gum wrapper, nothing, nada.

The landscape is so lush – hard for me to believe that Florida is in a drought. The homes are so beautiful (no McMansions in this neighborhood, no tear-downs, no construction…).

D on lanai

Photo: David on the lanai

I wake up to a mockingbird singing outside the lanai. On my two-mile morning walk I see ducks and cormorants and herons (large and small) and egrets. Squirrels. Crows. No sparrows as yet…. I’ve seen plenty of “Caution, alligators” signs around the ponds, but no ‘gators so far. Lots of little lizards – they are very efficient carnivores, because I see no insects here. I have yet to see even a housefly. I’ve been outside one or two hours day and haven’t been bitten by anything.

bird

Photo: Seen on my morning walk today

Everyone we’ve met is so NICE. Helpful. Our neighbors across the street are from Boston, our neighbors next door are from Brooklyn. Rod (from Colorado) at Ace Hardware, around the corner, is a fount of information. I found the Sunday New York Times at the 7-11 a mile away.

At the 7-11, I was introduced to two new friends by means of my bumper stickers. When I came out of the store, a couple were standing by my car. They asked, “Is this your car?” Yes. “We love your bumper stickers!” They are: WPFW-FM – DC’s “jazz and justice” community radio station; “War is not the answer” (Friends Committee), “Media buy the people,” “I support compassion over killing” (advocacy for vegetarianism), “No big media,” “All of the planets, all of the time” (NASA’s planetary protection program). Turns out these people – B and H – live not only in my neighborhood but also on my street. B works for the Sarasota Democrats. H asked if I work for NASA (yes). He’s an astronomer. Both are left-leaning Democrats. I said I lean so far left I almost fall over. B said she’s already fallen….

diningPhoto: Our dining set, ca. 1975

We’ve shopped at Habitat for Humanity Restore (where everyone is so NICE, and helpful)– bought a beautiful dining set, made in 1975, perfect condition. Yay!

We have a fitness center down the street. Water aerobics, stretching and toning, balance work – no excuses! I’m joining today.

What do I miss about Arlington? My friends.

Do I miss the constant roar of aircraft taking off from National Airport, every day from 6 am to 11 pm? No.

Do I miss the constant din of digging up neighborhood streets, felling and chipping beautiful old trees, leaf-blowers in chorus? No.

Do I miss rude drivers and hideous traffic? No.

Do I miss rude people, people in a hurry, pushy people in lines? No. Do I miss standing in line? No. (Haven’t encountered one here yet.)

Do I miss overpriced everything? No.

All I miss – and will continue to miss – are my friends. And to my dear friends, I want to say that when you’re tired of shoveling snow and fighting traffic, come on down!

house for sale

Photo: This house, a mile from our place, is for sale at $499,000. What do you get? Four bedrooms, three baths, three-car garage, pool/lanai, a one-acre lot. (Come on down!)

More on the search for signs of extraterrestrial life

Unknown

Credit: huffingtonpost.com

Yesterday I reported on a workshop held a few months ago on how to search for signs of extraterrestrial life.

Today I’ll report on some other workshops and meetings in recent months that have addressed the same topic, one way or another. The National Academies’ Space Studies Board Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS) received briefings on these activities yesterday.

The gist of yesterday’s discussions is that as time goes on, planetary exploration (inside and outside our solar system) is becoming more and more focused on looking for habitable environments and signs of extraterrestrial life. Not that we know everything we need to know about planets in our solar system and in other star systems – but it looks like the search for ET life is what will be driving planetary exploration over the next several decades (or more).

Steve Mackwell, corporate director of science programs for the Universities Space Research Association (USRA), reported to CAPS on a “Planetary Science Vision 2050” workshop held at NASA headquarters last month. “Where do we come from? Are we alone, are we unusual? Where are we going” were the threads that knit together discussions at the workshop, Mackwell said.

“Life” turned out to be a major theme of the workshop, he said – to such an extent that it “is an understatement” to say that some members of the planetary science community are concerned that a disproportionate amount of NASA’s science funding – both for missions and for research and analysis – could be devoted to the search for ET life.

Amy Simon, a senior scientist in the Solar System Exploration Division at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, briefed CAPS on NASA’s Ice Giant Mission Science Definition Team activities. This group has been studying concepts for missions to Uranus and Neptune.

These two ice giants are largely unexplored. (NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft flew by Uranus in 1986 and by Neptune in 1989.) They are not only different from the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn but also different from each other. The SDT agrees that “both are equally important” to study, Simon said. “Ideally you’d do a mission to both,” but the cost of such a mission would be high.

(NASA’s already planning an orbiter mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa (Europa Clipper, and NASA’s Europa Lander Science Definition Team issued its report last month.)

Jim Kasting reported on the Space Studies Board’s workshop on “searching for life across space and time,” which I wrote about in yesterday’s blog post.

Mary Voytek, NASA’s senior scientist for astrobiology, told CAPS about a proposed SSB follow-on study of the search for life in the universe: “astrobiology science strategy and the current state of extraterrestrial life detection.”

Voytek explained that the fiscal year 2017 NASA authorization bill, signed into law last week, directs NASA’s Science Mission Directorate to:

  • Task the National Academies with developing a strategy for the study and exploration of extrasolar planets and delivering it to Congress by September 2018 (Section 508).
  • Report to Congress by September 2017 on how NASA plans to expand public-private partnerships in astrobiology (Section 510).
  • Task the National Academies with developing a science strategy for astrobiology and delivering it to Congress by September 2018 (Section 509).
    • NASA’s charge to the National Academies for this latter project reads: “In preparation for the upcoming decadal surveys in astronomy and astrophysics and planetary science, the National Academy of Sciences will appoint an ad hoc committee to carry out a study of the state of the science of astrobiology as it relates to the search for life in the solar system and extrasolar planetary systems.”
    • This study will “outline key scientific and technology challenges in astrobiology particularly as they pertain to the search for life in the Solar System and extrasolar planetary systems; should accommodate the overlap with the Exoplanet Exploration study in the area of assessing habitability and search for signs of life; identify the most promising research goals in the field of life detection in which progress is likely in the next 20 years; consider the role of…partnerships in furthering the to study life’s origin, evolution, distribution, and future in the universe [and how to expand partnerships]; indicate the extent to which U.S. and international missions and telescopes in operation or in development address the key research goals; and make recommendations on the above as appropriate.”
      • (LB note: IMHO this is a huge task to accomplish in 18 months. Good luck!)
      • (Another note: In 2001, the SSB issued a report on a 2000 workshop on life detection techniques. In 2002, it published a report on its examination of U.S. and international programs in astrobiology. In 2005, it published a report on the astrophysical context for life. You can find these reports here. With so much progress made in these areas over the past 10-15 years, it’s time for some updates.)

The NASA astrobiology program published a science strategy in 2015, developed in consultation with about 800 members of the science community. As noted in the charge detailed above, the new National Academies strategy will build on the 2015 strategy. It also will take into consideration the results of several other workshops and initiatives:

  • An exoplanet biosignatures workshop held in July 2016.
  • A meeting hosted at NASA headquarters September 7-9, 2016, “Agnostic biosignatures: recognizing life as we don’t know it.”
  • A workshop hosted by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, September 12-14, 2016, “Biosignatures of extant life on ocean worlds.”
  • The SSB’s December workshop, “Searching for life across space and time.”
  • The Europa Lander Science Definition Team report published last month.
  • The NASA Ocean Worlds Exploration Roadmap, developed by NASA’s Outer Planets Assessment Group (forthcoming this year).
  • NASA’s Nexus for Exoplanet System Science (NExSS) initiative, established in 2015.

The timeline for producing the new astrobiology strategy , Voytek said, is:

  • April – June 2017 – Engagement with National Academies, negotiation of study terms, establishment of contract.
  • June 2017 – June 2018 – conduct of Astrobiology Strategy Study.
  • June – September 2018 – draft study report, peer review as deemed appropriate, submission of report to NASA.
  • September 2018 – NASA submits report to Congress.

When I think about all the work going on in the planetary science community, the same thoughts run through my mind: so much talent, so many good ideas, so many science questions to answer, so limited the budget. (And today I’m thinking that the humongous addition proposed by the White House this year to the already-super-humongous Defense Department budget could fund a Europa lander, a Uranus orbiter-probe, a Neptune orbiter-probe, a space-based near-Earth object survey telescope, a mission to Venus, a Mars sample return mission including ground-based sample return facility, and then some. Sigh.)

In closing, I’d like to mention a new book written by two genius scientists, D. Eric Smith, a member of the faculty at the Santa Fe Institute, and biologist Harold J. Morowitz (b. 1927-d. 2016): The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth: The Emergence of the Fourth Geosphere (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

According to Amazon: “Uniting the conceptual foundations of the physical sciences and biology, this groundbreaking multidisciplinary book explores the origin of life as a planetary process. Combining geology, geochemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, evolution and statistical physics to create an inclusive picture of the living state, the authors develop the argument that the emergence of life was a necessary cascade of non-equilibrium phase transitions that opened new channels for chemical energy flow on Earth. This…book…provides a well-ordered and accessible introduction to multiple literatures outside the confines of disciplinary specializations, as well as including an extensive bibliography to provide context and further reading. For researchers, professionals entering the field or specialists looking for a coherent overview, this text brings together diverse perspectives to form a unified picture of the origin of life and the ongoing organization of the biosphere.”

I’m familiar enough with the work of the authors to say that they’re both deep thinkers – philosophers of biology, in a way. “The fourth geosphere” is the biosphere. I haven’t read the book yet, but just reading the table of contents gives me an idea of the “deepness” of this book. They write of life as a planetary process, the many forms of order that are fundamental in Earth’s biosphere today, the scales of living processes, the cascade of disequilibria in which stellar and planetary systems operate…and so on…. (You can read the TOC, preface, and epilogue on amazon.com.)

Here’s a little sample from their preface:

“For human minds in society, professional disciplines have been the portals to expertise, but the emergency of the biosphere was not a respecter of human silos. Few readers who have spent a lifetime becoming experts in geochemistry, biochemistry, or microbiology will have happened across the fact that the theory of robustness in non-equilibrium systems continues seamlessly to the mathematics of asymptotically optimal error correction. Yet this continuity must have been fundamental to the emergence of hierarchical architecture capable of memory and control over metabolism on the route from minerals to cells.”

Some of us in the astrobiology community like to describe astrobiology as a transdisciplinary field, on beyond inter- or multi-disciplinary, in a sense. As Smith and Morowitz are suggesting, the origin (or origins) and nature of life on Earth are so complex that they cannot be grasped within the boundaries of disciplinary research. For astrobiologists and those who are (like me) deeply interested in it, this book is likely a must-read.

 

 

The search for signs of life beyond Earth: gaining ground

pbs.org

Credit: pbs.org

This morning, the National Academies’ Space Studies Board Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science is receiving a briefing on a workshop last December on searching for life across space and time. I wrote a report on the workshop for posting on nasa.gov. It has not been published, so I’m posting it here, with a few updates.

In recent years, NASA planetary missions have identified a growing number of potentially habitable environments in our solar system – planetary bodies that have, or could have, liquid water: Mars, Jupiter’s moons Europa and Ganymede, Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan…. NASA’s New Horizons mission gathered evidence that even the dwarf planet Pluto might have a subsurface liquid water ocean. Looking for signs of habitability and life on these bodies, and on planets in other star systems, is now a major focus of NASA’s planetary exploration program.

One of the hottest prospects in the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life in our solar system is Europa, which has a global subsurface liquid water ocean that could be heated by volcanic or hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor.

Last year, responding to congressional direction, NASA established an Ocean Worlds Exploration Program including orbiter and lander missions to the Jovian moon. Planning for a NASA orbiter mission to Europa is already under way. In June, NASA appointed a science definition team (SDT) to identify scientific goals and objectives for a Europa lander mission.

Last month the SDT delivered its report to NASA, identifying three primary goals for this mission, in order of priority: 1) Search for evidence of life on Europa, 2) Assess the habitability of Europa via in situ techniques uniquely available to a landed mission, and 3) Characterize surface and subsurface properties at the scale of the lander to support future exploration. (Two town-hall meetings scheduled this spring – March 19 at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas; and April 23 at the Astrobiology Science Conference in Mesa, Arizona – will provide scientists with an opportunity to comment on this report.)

Given growing interest, inside and outside NASA, in the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life, last year NASA’s Science Mission Directorate tasked the National Academies’ Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science with organizing an expert dialogue on “searching for life across space and time.” This dialogue took place in California in December.

“The search for evidence of extraterrestrial life in our solar system and beyond is shifting into high gear. Before we decide where to look for it, we have to pin down what we’re looking for and how we’re going to look for it,” said Mary Voytek, NASA’s senior scientist for astrobiology. “It’s been 15 years since the Academies last reviewed and synthesized the relevant issues in our quest for evidence of extraterrestrial life. The forthcoming report on last month’s workshop will synthesize our current understanding of the limits of life and life’s interactions with planetary environments, as well as of our capabilities to extend this understanding,” said Voytek, who participated in the workshop.

In addition to places, the “time” factor is important to address. As then-NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan noted at the workshop, “A habitable zone is not just a place, it’s a time.”

The aim of the gathering, said workshop chair James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University, was not to produce a consensus or formal recommendations but to gather key people in planetary exploration and exoplanet studies to share ideas.

Questions that drove the dialogue were:

  • What is our current understanding of the limits of life and life’s interactions with the environments of planets and moons?
  • Are we today positioned to design, build and conduct experiments or observations capable of life detection remotely or in situ in our own solar system and from afar on extrasolar worlds?
  • How could targeted research help advance the state of the art for life detection, including instrumentation and precursor research, to successfully address these challenges?

Experts at the workshop considered what exactly “life” is. Is Earth life – life as we know it – the only kind of life that planetary conditions can engender? What does life require? How do life and its environments co-evolve? What does a planetary environment have that life needs? How does life use what its environment has, and how does that use change the environment?

For instance, “are plate tectonics and hydrothermal systems essential to the origin of life?” asked astrobiologist John Baross of the University of Washington. “I would say yes.”

Indications are that astrobiologists are well on the way to life detection in terms of both knowledge and know-how but need more of both.

“The reality is that astrobiology is looking for Earth-like life,” Baross observed. But we also need to be ready for a “surprise,” he said.

As to the search for fossil evidence of past life on Mars, Caltech geologist John Grotzinger, former project scientist for NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, said, “Silica is the great material on Earth that survives everything.” So on Mars, we should be looking to silica deposits for possible evidence.

If astrobiologists ever do find evidence of past life on Mars, given that so much material has been exchanged between Earth and Mars over billions of years (in the form of meteorites), then they will have to determine whether it originated independently of Earth life or whether it’s related to Earth life.

The ocean worlds of our solar system – Europa, Titan, Enceladus, Triton, Ganymede, Callisto, and now Pluto – have subsurface liquid water oceans today, said Jet Propulsion Laboratory astrobiologist Kevin Hand. These ocean worlds offer “the prospect of extant life living in an environment that has not been exposed to Earth (or Martian) life.” Europa’s ocean “has been there for most of the history of the solar system.” In Hand’s judgment, “ocean worlds are possibly the best place to search for extant life” of an independent origin.

As to searching for signs of habitability and life beyond our solar system, exoplanet expert Vikki Meadows of the University of Washington said some important questions to address are, “How could we recognize the effects of life on an extrasolar planet? How do we discriminate life processes from the surrounding environment?” How do we determine false positives and false negatives?” For example, it’s not enough to detect oxygen in an atmosphere. We need to be able to distinguish between biotically and abiotically generated oxygen.

Breakout groups at the workshop addressed these questions: How could targeted research over the next 5-10 years help advance the state of the art for life detection, including instrumentation and precursor research? What do astrobiologists already know and have, and what they need, to work on in-situ detection of life as we know it, in-situ detection of life as we don’t know it (a.k.a. “weird life”), remote detection of life as we know it, and remote detection of life as we don’t know it? Good ideas abounded….

How will these good ideas be translated into good science? NASA Astrobiology has a science strategy in place to guide research over the next decade, and astrobiologists have troves of data to work with from past and current planetary missions. NASA’s Cassini mission to the Saturn system – coming to an end soon, after 12 years of operations – discovered erupting geysers and a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus and revealed Titan as a world with hydrocarbon rain, rivers, lakes and seasons. NASA now has a fleet of spacecraft operating at Mars: the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, The Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, MSL, MAVEN, Mars Odyssey. NASA’s Juno spacecraft is at the Jupiter system, and planning is under way for a dedicated mission to Europa. NASA’s Ocean Worlds Program will work on the best ways to look for evidence of habitability and life on those bodies. At the same time, NASA’s NEXSS project – the Nexus for Exoplanet System Science – is bringing astrobiologists and astrophysicists together in a research coordination network dedicated to the study of planetary habitability. The search for signs of life is definitely on….

Space tourism: still a romp for the self-indulgent

unknown

Credit: youtube.com

Yesterday, SpaceX announced that it plans to send two tourists on a trip around the Moon in 2018.

I’ll believe it when I see it. As other commentators have noted, sending people into space is complicated…. Nonetheless, the main message from the mass media is that this is going to happen.

Elon Musk – net worth #13 billion, according to Forbes – and his PR machine are masters at the art of garnering free publicity – no expensive ads placed on TV or in major newspapers (a la Boeing and Lockheed Martin), just a media event – and, voila, headlines on CNN, BBC News, NPR, USA Today, CBS News, etc. etc. etc. (A simple search on Google News this morning yielded 317,000 hits.)

It disturbs me that the media continue to lionize ultra-rich people for their self-indulgent efforts to entertain themselves. (Mar-a-Lago, anyone?)

The web news site Inverse reports that a ticket for this lunar romp will cost $35 million. (Inverse’s write-up of yesterday’s announcement is one of the better-balanced reports I’ve read.)

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 2017 “poverty guideline” for a family of four is a household income of $24,600 a year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015, 43 million people in our great nation were living below the poverty level.

If both SpaceX moon passengers were to pass on their lunar joyrides and instead decide to make $50,000 grants to families living below the poverty level, they could give 1,400 of these families a shot at trying to get out of poverty (I know, I know, it takes more than cash to break out of poverty, but this could be a start). Or they could put $70 million into job training. Or they could make $100,000 grants to 700 students living below the poverty level to cover four years of college education.

This sort of thing is not my area of expertise – I’m not that kind of social scientist. But my point is that $70 million could be put to better use than adventure travel.

In 2006, I published a commentary in the journal Space Policy under the title, “Exploration for the masses? Or joyrides for the ultra-rich? Prospects for space tourism”:

“A space tourism industry appears to be about to take off. Businesses have announced plans to launch people into suborbital space for $200,000/person, with flights beginning as early as 2008. A brief review of the history of the idea of space tourism over the past four decades—and an awareness that many ventures have quietly shelved their grandiose plans—might aid thinking about the prospects for

development of a safe and thriving space tourism industry. Today’s space tourism model emphases the concept of luxury, and the lifestyle of hyper-consumption. It may be worth considering whether and how this conception of space tourism might affect the future of space exploration.”

This paper obviously needs updating (I‘ve posted it on this site), but I stand by my conclusion:

“As spacefaring nations extend human presence into space, they can take with them values and habits that have not served people especially well on Earth. Or they can

begin to consider what a spacefaring civilization might, could, or should look like in this new millennium. It is time for the global space community to initiate a broad public dialog about what sort of future in space all people want.”

 

Can we save ourselves?

unknown

Credit: YouTube.com

Here in Washington, the past few days have been rough for bleeding hearts like me. I don’t want to blog (much) about the current political environment, so I’ve found something more uplifting to write about.

In preparation for a move later this year, I’ve been sorting through my voluminous collection of space-related reports, and I’ve come across a report on a 1990 Eisenhower Centennial Space Roundtable held in D.C. My friend Theresa Foley, then a journalist, served as moderator (she was the only non-white-male speaker on the agenda).

I’ve enjoyed re-reading the keynote address at this event, given by Rev. Theodore Hesburgh (b. 1917-d. 2015), a Catholic priest and then president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, so I thought I’d write a few words (mostly his) about it.

Hesburgh was “a powerful moral voice in national affairs,” according to the New York Times. He served on 16 presidential commissions in Democratic and Republican administrations. President Eisenhower appointed him to the National Science Board in 1954. I recall that Father Hesburgh had a lively interest in the space program. For a time he was a member of The Planetary Society’s Advisory Council.

In his 1990 address, Hesburgh said that when President Eisenhower asked him to join the National Science Board, he told the President that he must have mixed him up with someone else. Eisenhower told him, “No, I want to have a philosophical and theological point of view represented on the…Board.” (This is, by the way, what NASA’s astrobiology program is attempting to provide to the community of scientists whose work it funds and to the broader audience that is interested in the work – see my blog post of last June on the subject.) With the beginning of the so-called Space Age in the 1950s, Hesburgh said, he became a “space buff.”

Observing that the 20th century accomplishments of the U.S. and Soviet space programs “were in large measure spurred on by the military challenges and national pride born of the Cold War,” he asserted that “the most difficult political and philosophical question facing us [in 1990] is this: absent the Cold War and the overhanging threat of mutually assured destruction, will the potential benefits to humankind everywhere continue to drive space exploration…?”

“I take as our most compelling symbol” pictures of Earth taken from space, he said. What do these images “say to us?” First, they show no differences or divisions among nations or people. “Is not this vision laden with other philosophical and theological implications: that, like Planet Earth, humankind is one and potentially more beautiful than our past history has indicated; that we survive together or we perish together in this unitary habitat, sharing the same hospitable climate, the air, the water, the land, and, more significantly, those spiritual yearnings for knowledge, freedom, peace, development, a civilization marked by justice, not the wars that injustice spawns?”

“The challenge here,” he said, “is to create a human spiritual unity of understanding and a justice that matches the physical beauty of this planet that is a pure gift to us, and to use it together and not to abuse it separately.”

“Space exploration arrived in time to underline for all Earth’s inhabitants in stark detail what we are now doing, largely due to our profligate use of…hydrocarbon fuels, to destroy, possibly irreversibly, most of these unearned blessings unique to our Planet Earth.”

Seeing a beautiful Earth from space “invites us to dream about ways that we inhabitants of this habitat…might truly become united in human development. To use a space metaphor, reduce the five billion plus people on Earth…to five persons, astronauts traveling in a spaceship. Imagine that one of them, representing us in the developing world (here, Europe, Japan) had possession of 80% of the life resources aboard the spacecraft, and that the other four astronauts had to share the 20% of the resources left…. It’s difficult to conceive of this as a situation promoting peace and justice, but this is precisely the situation in our world today.”

It’s a powerful picture that Hesburgh painted. While the boundaries of the “developed” world may have changed since 1990, it is still the case that a few wealthy nations consume a significant majority of global resources. Even in this great nation, the U.S. of A., the rich continue to get richer while the poor get poorer, a trend that I expect could get worse in the near future.

I share Hesburgh’s view of the potential for humankind to live in peace – whether a sufficient number of leaders in government and industry worldwide do, or will, embrace this view remains to be seen. So far, I’ve heard a lot more talk (for instance, at this year’s World Economic Forum) and seen not enough action. I myself will continue to agitate for action.

 

National strategy for asteroid impact preparedness

images

Meteor Crater, Arizona

Credit: techtimes.com

On December 30, 2016, the White House released its new “National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy,” a document that assigns roles and responsibilities across the federal government for finding and tracking near-Earth objects, identifying potentially hazardous objects, and preparing for response in the event that a near-Earth object is found to be on a certain impact course with Earth.

To my eyes, this strategy is a follow-through to White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director Holdren’s 2010 letter to Congress outlining a framework for handling these tasks.

Holdren was responding to congressional direction in the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (Section 804) directing OSTP to “develop a policy for notifying Federal agencies and relevant interagency response institutions of an impending near-Earth object threat…and…recommend a Federal agency or agencies to be responsible for protecting the U.S. from NEO impacts ad implementing a NEO detection campaign “should one be necessary.”

In his 2010 letter, Holdren said NASA – specifically, its NEO Observations Program – which now operates as a major element of NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), established just a year ago – would be responsible for finding and tracking NEOs and working on impact mitigation or deflection options, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be responsible for emergency response.

Since then, the two agencies have worked together on a number of initiatives, including four joint “tabletop exercises” simulating asteroid impact events, in April 2013, May 2014, October 2016, and December 2016. Both agencies participate in the Interagency Working Group for Detecting and Mitigating the Impact of Earth-Bound Near-Earth Objects (NEOS) (DAMIEN). Organized by OSTP, DAMIEN is the group that produced the 2016 national NEO Preparedness strategy.

(Disclosure: My work is funded in part by NASA’s PDCO. I have not been directly involved in the DAMIEN group. No one asked me to write this blog – it’s an “FYI” post.)

You can find presentations by DAMIEN principals Alvin Drew/OSTP, Lindley Johnson/PDCO, Leviticus Lewis/FEMA, and Bhavya Lal/Science and Technology Policy Institute (a sort of “think tank” for OSTP) to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on May 20, 2016, on the OSTP web site.

Is the establishment of this national strategy big news? Probably not – unless you work in the NEO or emergency response community. The strategy puts NEO detection/planetary defense on the official White House “map,” as it were, and codifies work already in progress.

Should we trust our government to do the right thing if and when the time comes? According to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press – which I consider to be a reliable source of information – a majority of U.S. respondents to a 2016 poll said they have “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence in the military, medical scientists, and scientists “to act in the best interests in the public.” However, in a 2015 poll, Pew researchers found that “just 19%” of respondents said they trust the government “always or most of the time, among the lowest levels in the past half-century.”

Who knows what this new year will bring?