The National Geographic Channel, a.k.a. NatGeo TV, had a fun 2-hour documentary on last night entitled ′Evacuate Earth.′ Sunday was a marathon of various doomsday programs, including a mix of Doomsday Preppers along with shows about the Mayan Calendar with their date for doomsday looming closer on December 21, 2012. The premise for Evacuate Earth is what would we do if we knew that a neutron star was headed our way in 75 years? Could we organize and construct a massive spacecraft to transport an assortment of humans to another Earth-like planet in a distant star system? Is there a lesson to be learned now? Should we start to consider leaving Earth to escape Barack Obama and Socialist tyranny?
Okay, so image some 40,000 years ago, a nearby giant star explodes in a supernova. Part of what is left is a neutron star, a very small but dense object. Perhaps about ten miles wide but weighing three times that of our own Sun. The supernova flings it off on its way through the heavens towards us. Astronomers detect it when it is about 75 years away after a series of meteor showers and other similar events. What do we do?
Naturally, our government forms a secret committee to hatch a plan. Saving 7 billion people is out of the question, but salvaging perhaps 250,000 might be possible. After a few years of study, they come up with using some old ideas that have been kicking around. Namely, Gerald O′Neil and his habitat tubes proposed in the early 1970s to be propelled by Project Orion′s nuclear bombs of the 1960s. An O′Neil Tube is a massive space dwelling about 15 miles long and 2 miles wide which would spin about its long axis to create artificial gravity. The interior would have about a dozen times the land mass as Manhattan Island.
Since our current breed of chemical rockets would mean a journey to the stars lasting tens of thousands of years, we opt for something faster. Project Orion involves equipping our giant spacecraft with a huge blast shield on the tail-end. When ready to go the ship fires off a series of small nuclear bombs at a rate of one every three seconds for ten days, The shockwave from each explosion hits the blast shield, kicking the ship forward and faster. After tend days, we could be hitting velocities near 70% that of the speed of light. At this speed, a journey to a potential Earth 2.0 could be completed in 80 years.
Picking who would go is a major issue which would cause all sorts of conflict. Genetic screening would help select near-perfect humans who would stand the best chance for survival and keeping our species going. You can just image the politics and chaos the selection process would cause! No doubt there would be wars, terrorism and other familiar problems as government committees decide who is worth saving. The TV program did offer another option, where a group of the super-rich decide to fund their own exit. Oddly enough, during the show, their spacecraft blows up on the launch pad. Somehow I don′t see that happening. My guess is that the super-rich would get their ship built first and it would be faster and better than anything the government builds.
Even when you select your near-perfect humans, based on health, you still need a reasonable cross-section of skills and professions. Scientists, engineers, medical doctors will rank high on the list, as well as those needed to keep the ship running and provide food and the rest of life′s necessities to the passengers. Life a board an O′Neil Tube would be essentially a city-state. People would have jobs and go about living much as we do now. What sort of government would such a group have to maintain their civilization? Would democracy, as we know it today, but too chaotic and inefficient to guarantee success of the over-all mission? Would our hardy travelers require something closer to a Fascist state to keep the population under control for the duration of the flight?
Gerald O′Neil′s book, ″Living In Space″, is one of my favorites. A collection of essays which tackles many of the issues, both technical and social, that future space colonists would face. One of the best essays was written by none other than LSD-guru, Timothy Leary. Leary postulates that much as we see a connection between freedom and liberty increasing as we travel from the Old World west to the New World, likewise a move into space would probably be led by Libertarians seeking more freedom than even America provides.
O′Neil imagines building his ′tube′ at a LaGrange point, where the gravitational pulls of the Earth, Moon and Sun all cancel each other out. There are five such points about the Earth, and O′Neil chooses the L-5 point, roughly 200,000 miles from Earth and about 40,000 miles from our Moon as the best spot to locate. Since the cost of transporting construction material from the Earth is so high, O′Neill first has our intrepid space colonists set up on the Moon. With plenty of mineral resources to utilize, and just one-sixth the gravity of Earth, an electromagnetic ′rail-gun′ is used to fling construction material to the L-5 building site. Other sources, such as small asteroids or comets, could also be obtained and parked at the L-5 site to add more needed material, including water and oxygen.
Pretty far fetched, eh? Well, NASA is going to propose building a a large space station at the L-2 point, which is about 10,000 miles beyond the farside of the Moon. From there, ships could be built and launched to explore the other planets and interesting objects in our own solar system much more efficiently. While not a massive O′Neil Tube, such a space station would serve as a jumping off point for any future we might decide to have in space.
Last night′s presentation of ′Evacuate Earth′ on the National Geographic Channel was very interesting. The 2-hour special was part of NatGeo TV′s doomsday marathon, which including episodes of Doomsday Preppers and programs about the Maya Calendar and other apocalyptic themes. We may not have to worry about a neutron star rolling into our solar system to destroy Earth, but who knows? At some point, the wealthy, the clever or just the fed-up may decide that it is time to leave our planet and seek political and economic freedoms elsewhere. Is it too crazy to consider a future where the Earth is one giant, Socialist welfare state and the only option is to flee to the heavens? Another four years of Barack Hussein Obama may give us an answer to that question!










December 3rd, 2012 at 8:55 am
I think the premise of “Evacuate Earth” was too optimistic. I used to be an optimist. Not so much the older I get. The idea that government (at any level … global or national) would be able to work together to accomplish even half of what was proposed will NEVER be possible for one simple reason — religion. Mankind taking his fate into his own hands flies in the face of most world religions. And that would be fine if those who have their faith were content to exist on their own terms, but they are not. They have some great need to put their faith upon everyone around them. And those who aren’t with them become mortal enemies.
History has shown us repeatedly that mankind’s need to place his faith in some ancient mythology will always doom us as culture … and eventually as a species. Ultimately, it won’t have anything to do with Obama (or even the presidency per se), but it will have everything to do with everyone’s different interpretation of what they believe “God” is. And they’d rather slit throats or blast people to bits than admit there is no higher power and we are ultimately responsible for ALL of our actions — good and bad.
December 3rd, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Most likely given 75 years notice (or even 5), we would launch a device to knock it off course while it was far out.
It just takes a small “nudge” to change the trajectory (math/path) of a trans-celestial element.
I’ll leave politics out of this.
December 3rd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Couldn’t we all just take shelter behind Michelle Obama’s ginormous booty?
December 3rd, 2012 at 4:06 pm
By then my spirit will of traveled the universe finding and bringing life to the planet of my choice.
You’ll all be welcome as one day in your own search your spirits may tire in their search among a dwindling supply of suitable environments, due to abuses by the evil empire of Republicans.
December 3rd, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“Couldn’t we all just take shelter behind Michelle Obama’s ginormous booty?”
No doubt that would be the right wing response, as the scientists (serious people with brains) worked out a solution.
December 3rd, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Micky – Republicans won’t be around in the future.
Those who doubt evolution won’t evolve.
December 3rd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
I never said they would be around, only that there’d be unsuitable environments due to their abuses.
Nice to see where your heads at. I invited everyone
December 3rd, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Although I will be checking for halos or horns.
All those like you with their eye in their forehead will be cast off to the planet cyclops.
December 3rd, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“No doubt that would be the right wing response, as the scientists (serious people with brains) worked out a solution.”
Yeah, the same jerks who told us Greenland or the West Antarctic would cause raised sea levels of 20 feet by now, or the idiots that told Carter all the planets oil reserves would be gone in 15 years.
You need to work on your funny bone dude, seriously.
December 3rd, 2012 at 6:07 pm
So your point is you doubt science?
Please, please don’t tell me you want to debate global warming now?
Before getting my architecture degree, I majored in astrophysics at Cornell, and (after some brushing up) can do the MATH on man-made warming.
And the models are even more accurate now than what we worked it out in lab for NASA. Our Lab professor, Joe Viverka, headed Mars atmospheric research for NASA while he taught at Cornell.
So if you want a global warming debate, you REALLY picked the wrong guy.
Later mate….
December 3rd, 2012 at 7:03 pm
“o your point is you doubt science?”
You believe everything scientists tell you ?
Government funded/sponsored scientists depend entirely upon politicians for their research money. Science, which by definition is an objective discipline, is instantly politicized: i.e. science is made non-objective.
At that point your science becomes a thing of consensus – which by definition means that science is no longer science.
Instead of rational debate and scientific inquiry, we’re subject to these endless lobby campaigns, these endless invectives, these endless personal smears against any scientist who dares to do her job, or person such as I who questions and investigates — and this is the reason we now hear the constant authoritarian cry: “Silence! The debate is over, I am a scientist !”
“I majored in astrophysics at Cornell, and (after some brushing up) can do the MATH on man-made warming.
And the models are even more accurate now than what we worked it out in lab for NASA. Our Lab professor, Joe Viverka, headed Mars atmospheric research for NASA while he taught at Cornell.
So if you want a global warming debate, you REALLY picked the wrong guy.
Later mate….”
I’ll take you to the cleaners.
You can pick any choose any stats you want.
You can cherry pick data from today to make any case, butt…
The fact is, your predictions have always failed except for a one degree change in global average temps, your models, data and predictions 10-20 years ago were wrong, and quite frankly exposed as fraud between those damning E-mails out of the U.N./IPCC.
Theres a reason no one calls it “global warming” anymore and did an about face to “climate change.
You guys are a riot
December 3rd, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Me;
“Yeah, the same jerks who told us Greenland or the West Antarctic would cause raised sea levels of 20 feet by now”
Cont…
If you doubt my words, listen to what Dr. Kevin Trenberth himself says in his Rocky Mountains News response: “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.”
Ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
The answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal, take millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated: “… temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice.
Is that, as Dr. Trenberth says, merely “misleading” on Gore’s part?
Or is it outright prevarication?
December 3rd, 2012 at 8:26 pm
“You believe everything scientists tell you ?”
No. I review the DATA they publish. No scientist TELLS anyone anything. They conduct experiments and PROVE theorum. Then release data for scrutiny.
Mick, I’m not even going to waste time talking to the likes of you on this issue. The very idea of invoking Gore, a politician, into a scientific discussion makes this a meaningless exercise.
You’ve obviously never taken part in scientific study, and have no idea of methodology.
December 4th, 2012 at 5:38 am
HAH!!! Funny, RonM…, Mr. Astrophysics! I guess that is why your first post about just nudging the neutron star made me laugh.
It is one thing to nudge an asteroid or a comet that might weigh a million or three metric tons. But a neutron star with a mass several times more than our own Sun? Just what would we nudge that with? Your pointy head?
December 4th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Andy Z – I’ll use an analogy from when I used to TA Intro AP 101.
Imagine making a pool shot on a table a 1,000,000 miles long. A minute piece of dust in the way would send your shot wide by thousands of miles.
It’s the same physics for a free celestial body. The math of mass,force, and trajectory just have to be worked out.
It’s the same math that allows us to throw out probes from Earth, calculate planetary orbits and the gravitational (mass) forces of our moon and Mars’s two moons (Phobos,Deimos) and land on Mars within a 2 square kilometer target, 95,000,000 kilometers away.
In short, we can deflect anything headed our way. We’ve had the science and technology for decades.
Again…I’ll leave out the politics.
December 4th, 2012 at 9:11 am
RonM,
There is just one minor little problem you seem to be over looking…, the mass of the neutron star!
I don’t care if we shot every nuke built since Nagasaki at it. We still could not muster sufficient force to influence it’s path one inch. Don’t waste my time with butterfly wings. A deflection is just not an option if the darn thing is 75 years away after traveling tens of thousands of years towards us. Even a near miss, like it blowing through in between Saturn and Uranus would still trash our solar system.
December 4th, 2012 at 9:14 am
“No. I review the DATA they publish. No scientist TELLS anyone anything. They conduct experiments and PROVE theorum. Then release data for scrutiny.”
The data they publish is the same as them telling you something genius.
The peers who perform that scrutiny are also question as I mentioned and proved above that federally funded science is rarely objective.
Here you go again with the stupid semantic games.
“Mick, I’m not even going to waste time talking to the likes of you on this issue. The very idea of invoking Gore, a politician, into a scientific discussion makes this a meaningless exercise.”
Your a chicken.
You bang on your chest, boasting your vast knowledge by stating …
…”So if you want a global warming debate, you REALLY picked the wrong guy.”
“Please, please don’t tell me you want to debate global warming now?”
“I majored in astrophysics at Cornell, and (after some brushing up) can do the MATH on man-made warming.”
And then you back out with your tail between your legs upon your typical snot nosed liberal faux indignation of having to debate a supposed lesser individual not worthy of your time.
“The very idea of invoking Gore, a politician, into a scientific discussion makes this a meaningless exercise.”
And just where do you think Gore gets his science/data genius ?
Just what do you think his whole “climate change”(previously known as global warming) platform is based upon ?
You lose, you’re pathetic.
I engaged you civilly and with a substantial return in which you offered no rebutal whatsoever but to bash ones intellect.
“In short, we can deflect anything headed our way. We’ve had the science and technology for decades.”
Not enough to divert an obstacle the size Andy mentioned.
A billiard table hardly represents a universal scale. Your piece of dust may well equate to nothing.
“You’ve obviously never taken part in scientific study, and have no idea of methodology.”
You dont know this.
Ron,you’re a sucker, an easy mark. But cant really debate a thing unless it involves pitting one party against another.
For all your supposed education you really are one simple minded man.
I set you up for the climate change debate by criticizing the scientists who were wrong and caught lying because I actually am educated on the subject and wanted to spank your ass all over the place.
Your ego had you ahead of common sense that dictates you never judge a book by its cover.
But you do, because you’re an ideological and intellectual bigot.