Category Archives: Moon Colonization

Space colonization (also called space settlement, or extraterrestrial colonization) is permanent human habitation off planet Earth.

Many arguments have been made for space colonization.[1] The two most common are survival of human civilization and the biosphere in case of a planetary-scale disaster (natural or man-made), and the vast resources in space for expansion of human society.[citation needed]

No space colonies have been built so far. Currently, the building of a space colony would present a set of huge challenges both technological and economic. Space settlements would have to provide for nearly all (or all) the material needs of hundreds or thousands of humans, in an environment out in space that is very hostile to human life. They would involve technologies, such as controlled ecological life support systems, that have yet to be developed in any meaningful way. They would also have to deal with the as yet unknown issue of how humans would behave and thrive in such places long-term. Because of the huge cost of sending anything from the surface of the Earth into orbit (roughly $20,000 USD per kilogram) a space colony would be a massively expensive project.

There are no plans for building one by any large-scale organization, either government or private. However, there have been many proposals, speculations, and designs for space settlements that have been made, and there are a considerable number of space colonization advocates and groups. Several famous scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, have come out in favor of space settlement.[2]

On the technological front, there is ongoing progress in making access to space cheaper, and in creating automated manufacturing and construction techniques.[3] This could in the future lead to widespread space tourism, which could be a stepping stone to space colonization.[citation needed]

The primary argument that calls for space colonization as a first-order priority is as insurance of the survival of human civilization, by developing alternative locations off Earth where humankind could continue in the event of natural and man-made disasters.

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking has argued for space colonization as a means of saving humanity, in 2001 and 2006. In 2001 he predicted that the human race would become extinct within the next thousand years, unless colonies could be established in space.[4] The more recent one in 2006 stated that mankind faces two options: Either we colonize space within the next two hundred years and build residential units on other planets or we will face the prospect of long-term extinction.[5]

In 2005, then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin identified space colonization as the ultimate goal of current spaceflight programs, saying:

Louis J. Halle, formerly of the United States Department of State, wrote in Foreign Affairs (Summer 1980) that the colonization of space will protect humanity in the event of global nuclear warfare.[7] The physicist Paul Davies also supports the view that if a planetary catastrophe threatens the survival of the human species on Earth, a self-sufficient colony could "reverse-colonize" Earth and restore human civilization. The author and journalist William E. Burrows and the biochemist Robert Shapiro proposed a private project, the Alliance to Rescue Civilization, with the goal of establishing an off-Earth "backup" of human civilization.[8]

J. Richard Gott has estimated, based on his Copernican principle, that the human race could survive for another 7.8 million years, but it isn't likely to ever colonize other planets. However, he expressed a hope to be proven wrong, because "colonizing other worlds is our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our species".[9]

See the original post here:
Space colonization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ballistic capture, a low-energy method that has coasted spacecraft into lunar orbit, could help humanity visit the Red Planet much more often

A newfound, lower-energy means for spacecraft to attain Martian orbit could help make Red Planet voyages cheaper, safer and therefore more frequent. Credit: NASA

Getting spacecraft to Mars is quite a hassle. Transportation costs can soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars, even when blasting off during "launch windows"the optimal orbital alignments of Earth and Mars that roll around only every 26 months. A huge contributor to that bottom line? The hair-raising arrivals at the Red Planet. Spacecraft screaming along at many thousands of kilometers per hour have to hit the brakes hard, firing retrorockets to swing into orbit. The burn can require hundreds of pounds of extra fuel, lugged expensively off Earth, and comes with some risk of failure that could send the craft careening past or even right into Mars.

This brute force approach to attaining orbit, called a Hohmann transfer, has served historically deep-pocketed space agencies well enough. But in an era of shrinking science budgets the Hohmann transfer's price tag and inherent riskiness look limiting.

Now new research lays out a smoother, safer way to achieve Martian orbit without being restricted by launch windows or busting the bank. Called ballistic capture, it could help open the Martian frontier for more robotic missions, future manned expeditions and even colonization efforts. "It's an eye-opener," says James Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division. "It could be a pretty big step for us and really save us resources and capability, which is always what we're looking for."

The premise of a ballistic capture: Instead of shooting for the location Mars will be in its orbit where the spacecraft will meet it, as is conventionally done with Hohmann transfers, a spacecraft is casually lobbed into a Mars-like orbit so that it flies ahead of the planet. Although launch and cruise costs remain the same, the big burn to slow down and hit the Martian bull's-eyeas in the Hohmann scenariois done away with. For ballistic capture, the spacecraft cruises a bit slower than Mars itself as the planet runs its orbital lap around the sun. Mars eventually creeps up on the spacecraft, gravitationally snagging it into a planetary orbit. "That's the magic of ballistic captureit's like flying in formation," says Edward Belbruno, a visiting associated researcher at Princeton University and co-author, with Francesco Topputo of the Polytechnic University of Milan, of a paper detailing the new path to Mars and the physics behind it. The paper, posted on arXiv, has been submitted to the journal Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy.

"A delicate dance" Ballistic capture, also called a low-energy transfer, is not in of itself a new idea. While at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory a quarter century ago, Belbruno laid out the fuel-saving, cost-shaving orbital insertion method for coasting probes to the Moon. A Japanese vessel, called Hiten, first took advantage in 1991, as did NASA's GRAIL mission, launched in 2011.

Belbruno worked out how to let the competing gravities of Earth, the sun and moon gently pull a spacecraft into a desired lunar orbit. All three bodies can be thought of as creating bowl-like depressions in spacetime. By lining up the trajectory of a spacecraft through those bowls, such that momentum slackens along the route, a spacecraft can just "roll" down at the end into the moon's small bowl, easing into orbit fuel-free. "It's a delicate dance," Belbruno says.

Unfortunately, pulling off a similar maneuver at Mars (or anywhere else) seemed impossible because the Red Planet's velocity is much higher than the Moon's. There appeared no way to get a spacecraft to slow down enough to glide into Mars' gravitational spacetime depression because the "bowl," not that deep to begin with, was itself a too-rapidly moving target. "I gave up on it," Belbruno says.

However, while recently consulting for the Boeing Corp., the major contractor for NASA's Space Launch System, which is intended to take humankind to Mars, Belbruno, Topputo and colleagues stumbled on an idea: Why not go with the flow near Mars? Sailing a spacecraft into an orbital path anywhere from a million to even tens of millions of kilometers ahead of the Red Planet would make it possible for Mars (and its spacetime bowl) to ease into the spacecraft's vicinity, thus subsequently letting the spacecraft be ballistically captured. Boeing, intrigued by this novel avenue to Mars, funded the study, in which the authors crunched some numbers and developed models for the capture.

View post:
A New Way to Reach Mars Safely

Current missions use rocket to slow themselves as they approach planets New, slower mission would be gradually 'grabbed' by martian gravity Wouldadd several months to mission - but make it cheaper Theory used in 1990 to put stricken Japanese probe into moon's orbit

By Mark Prigg for MailOnline

Published: 19:56 EST, 23 December 2014 | Updated: 20:11 EST, 23 December 2014

56 shares

57

View comments

Traditional missions to Mars involve large rockets for both blasting off and slowing down.

However, researchers believe there may be a simpler, cheaper way.

Rather than blasting to the red planet and using rockets to slow themselves down, future craft could simply use planetary gravity fields to 'drift' into the Martian atmosphere.

Called ballistic capture, the new method could help open the Martian frontier for more robotic missions, future manned expeditions and even colonization efforts, researchers say - and even Nasa is interested.

Original post:
Have mathematicians found a cheap and easy way to get to Mars? New theory plots route to use the red planet's gravity ...

By MIKE SILVERMAN Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) - When Anthony Freud was 14, his favorite pastime was going to the opera in London and then, on the train ride home to Wimbledon where he lived with his parents, "dreaming about how I could do it better when I ran a company of my own some day."

He's gotten his chance, not once but three times: first in Wales, then in Houston and now in Chicago, where he has been general director of the Lyric Opera since 2011.

Freud is only the fourth person to run the 60-year-old Lyric, and the first, after founder Carol Fox, who didn't come up through the ranks. Fox established the company's reputation for artistic excellence, but it was her successors, Ardis Krainik and William Mason, who stabilized its finances.

Lyric long enjoyed a subscriber base that was envied throughout the industry, but that has slipped in the wake of the economic meltdown. Changing tastes and competing demands on people's time also have contributed to a decline in ticket sales.

Despite these problems, Lyric ended last season in the black on a budget of more than $70 million. Meanwhile, the similar-sized San Francisco Opera and New York's Metropolitan Opera - five times as big - finished in the red.

But, as Freud was quick to point out during an interview last week in his office on the fourth floor of the Civic Opera House, though Lyric is financially sound for now, "Stability is also fragile, especially post-2008."

"Arts organizations the world over went through a period of existing in hermetically sealed bubbles," he said. "We felt we were doing a good job ... and if it ain't broke, why fix it? Those assumptions gradually proved less and less reliable, to the point where they became almost irrelevant."

Keeping Lyric relevant is much on Freud's mind these days. And his proudest initiative is Lyric Unlimited, an outreach to cultural and community groups that previously had little or no exposure to opera.

For starters, he brought to Chicago a mariachi opera, "Cruzar la Cara de la Luna" ("To Cross the Face of the Moon") that he had commissioned in Houston. It played one performance at the 3,600-seat Civic Opera House and several more in neighborhoods with large Mexican populations.

Continue reading here:
Freud's goal: Keep Chicago's Lyric Opera relevant - Quincy Herald-Whig | Illinois & Missouri News, Sports

Ballistic capture, a low-energy method that has coasted spacecraft into lunar orbit, could help humanity visit the Red Planet much more often

A newfound, lower-energy means for spacecraft to attain Martian orbit could help make Red Planet voyages cheaper, safer and therefore more frequent. Credit: NASA

Getting spacecraft to Mars is quite a hassle. Transportation costs can soar into the hundreds of millions of dollars, even when blasting off during "launch windows"the optimal orbital alignments of Earth and Mars that roll around only every 26 months. A huge contributor to that bottom line? The hair-raising arrivals at the Red Planet. Spacecraft screaming along at many thousands of kilometers per hour have to hit the brakes hard, firing retrorockets to swing into orbit. The burn can require hundreds of pounds of extra fuel, lugged expensively off Earth, and comes with some risk of failure that could send the craft careening past or even right into Mars.

This brute force approach to attaining orbit, called a Hohmann transfer, has served historically deep-pocketed space agencies well enough. But in an era of shrinking science budgets the Hohmann transfer's price tag and inherent riskiness look limiting.

Now new research lays out a smoother, safer way to achieve Martian orbit without being restricted by launch windows or busting the bank. Called ballistic capture, it could help open the Martian frontier for more robotic missions, future manned expeditions and even colonization efforts. "It's an eye-opener," says James Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division. "It could be a pretty big step for us and really save us resources and capability, which is always what we're looking for."

The premise of a ballistic capture: Instead of shooting for the location Mars will be in its orbit where the spacecraft will meet it, as is conventionally done with Hohmann transfers, a spacecraft is casually lobbed into a Mars-like orbit so that it flies ahead of the planet. Although launch and cruise costs remain the same, the big burn to slow down and hit the Martian bull's-eyeas in the Hohmann scenariois done away with. For ballistic capture, the spacecraft cruises a bit slower than Mars itself as the planet runs its orbital lap around the sun. Mars eventually creeps up on the spacecraft, gravitationally snagging it into a planetary orbit. "That's the magic of ballistic captureit's like flying in formation," says Edward Belbruno, a visiting associated researcher at Princeton University and co-author, with Francesco Topputo of the Polytechnic University of Milan, of a paper detailing the new path to Mars and the physics behind it. The paper, posted on arXiv, has been submitted to the journal Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy.

"A delicate dance" Ballistic capture, also called a low-energy transfer, is not in of itself a new idea. While at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory a quarter century ago, Belbruno laid out the fuel-saving, cost-shaving orbital insertion method for coasting probes to the Moon. A Japanese vessel, called Hiten, first took advantage in 1991, as did NASA's GRAIL mission, launched in 2011.

Belbruno worked out how to let the competing gravities of Earth, the sun and moon gently pull a spacecraft into a desired lunar orbit. All three bodies can be thought of as creating bowl-like depressions in spacetime. By lining up the trajectory of a spacecraft through those bowls, such that momentum slackens along the route, a spacecraft can just "roll" down at the end into the moon's small bowl, easing into orbit fuel-free. "It's a delicate dance," Belbruno says.

Unfortunately, pulling off a similar maneuver at Mars (or anywhere else) seemed impossible because the Red Planet's velocity is much higher than the Moon's. There appeared no way to get a spacecraft to slow down enough to glide into Mars' gravitational spacetime depression because the "bowl," not that deep to begin with, was itself a too-rapidly moving target. "I gave up on it," Belbruno says.

However, while recently consulting for the Boeing Corp., the major contractor for NASA's Space Launch System, which is intended to take humankind to Mars, Belbruno, Topputo and colleagues stumbled on an idea: Why not go with the flow near Mars? Sailing a spacecraft into an orbital path anywhere from a million to even tens of millions of kilometers ahead of the Red Planet would make it possible for Mars (and its spacetime bowl) to ease into the spacecraft's vicinity, thus subsequently letting the spacecraft be ballistically captured. Boeing, intrigued by this novel avenue to Mars, funded the study, in which the authors crunched some numbers and developed models for the capture.

Read the original post:
A New Way to Reach Mars Safely, Anytime and on the Cheap

Its a basic human instinct attempting to avoid pain. And its the reason we are in so much trouble now, because when it comes to managing economies, the longer you put off necessary pain, the worse the result in the end. This is the primary distinction defining the difference between Keynesian andAustrian economics. The former, which is also known as interventionist economics, promotes ever-increasing and active central (state) policy responses (think fiscal and monetary) in the management of an economy to thwart the natural course; and, the latter, in its purist form, invites nature, and more specifically, the natural state of man as a rational decision maker (methodological individualism), to bring about equilibrium in markets, setting prices based on actual demand and supply conditions.

So again, the profound difference between the two, from a price discovery perspective, is ever-increasing interventionist policy will distort prices away from the natural path, while leaving markets alone, as promoted in Austrian economics, would in a perfect world, allow markets to arrive at equilibrium, which in theory would in turn allow man to exist with nature in harmony. Heres the rub however, leaving markets alone does not allow for bureaucracys to thrive, which is why the Keynesian model has become the cornerstone of the modern day economy (the Anglo American Western Debt Based / Colonization Model), our fait based economies gone wild in an interventionist orgy, which on the surface may appear practical to the unaware and naive, but in the end will be lethal as economies (and prices) are thrown back into the natural sphere.

This then, is the premise behind the truism short-term pain for long term gain, which is derived from a true understanding of how nature works either with or against man (as a collective), and why this understanding is the basis of Austrian economics. Because again, when we put off pain, we become spoiled (along with corrupt and greedy), and forget Mother Natures lessons, where the blowback becomes more profound the longer imbalances are allowed to exist. Which brings us to the situation as it is today, where we have the most profound bubble economies in history that are still growing larger with necessary expansion of credit / debt cycles (or face implosion), along with asset bubbles that are set to burst at some point.

Of course ifone has been following our work you would know the equity bubbles still have a ways to go because the money printing (monetary policy) is still accelerating on a global basis, which will make the fallout (think economic depression) correspondingly profound. Because again, by avoiding the pain today, we will eventually experience far worse ramifications longer term when prices readjust back to equilibrium, as they always do. This is naturally the argument against allowing Keynesians to become too powerful in any market economy, because you in fact cease to have a market economy as these idiots impose an improperly engineered construct on people, eventually bringing down the system (as they are systematically disenfranchised from the graft and can no longer make the interest payments).

What you are seeing in Ferguson is just the beginning of this process revolution that will intensify as process unfolds and the mob strikes back at the establishment. But the money printing is still supporting the rich as the insane asset bubbles continue to grow ever larger, until one day something happens the powers that be cannot control. Timing is obviously a big question in this regard, but we are looking at two windows for bubble tops right now, with stocks running into some trouble in March, if only temporarily, and then bonds in October of next year according to Martin Armstrongs Economic Confidence Model (ECM). And this next episode in the pain department is really going to be something, because we have become experts at extending cycles way past any sense of good measure, well into the theater of absurd, The Twilight Zone, or any other imagery one cares to throw at this subject matter.

In assigning the proper terminology and mindset to what is coming then, what we are looking at is the much daunted Grand Supercycle event in terms of the US stock market, where a lasting turn now appears likely sometime between October of next year (concurrent with a top in bonds) and 2017-2018, where as Martin Armstrong envisions, starting in October of 2015 (the next ECM turn date), capital will flee government and go anywhere else its perceived as safe (out of government control), which will not only include stocks, but commodities too, including precious metals. Whats more, and again, according to Armstrong, if capital from around the world joins in this orgy, the Dow could reach up to 25,000 (and higher) before its all over. And sure enough, in viewing Figure 2 below, the technical picture supports such a view. More on this below.

The rest is here:
Avoid The Pain

Image: NASA Langley Research Center

It has been accepted for decades that Mars is the next logical place for humans to explore. Mars certainly seems to offer the most Earth-like environment of any other place in the solar system, and its closer to Earth than just about anyplace else, except Venus. But exploration of Venus has always been an enormous challenge: Venuss surface is hellish, with 92 atmospheres of pressure and temperatures of nearly 500 C.

The surface of Venus isnt going to work for humans, but what if we ignore the surface and stick to the clouds? Dale Arney and Chris Jones, from the Space Mission Analysis Branch of NASAs Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at Langley Research Center, in Virginia, have been exploring that idea. Perhaps humans could ride through the upper atmosphere of Venus in a solar-powered airship. Arney and Jones propose that it may make sense to go to Venus before we ever send humans to Mars.

To put NASAs High Altitude Venus Operational Concept (HAVOC) mission in context, it helps to start thinking about exploring the atmosphere of Venus instead of exploring the surface. The vast majority of people, when they hear the idea of going to Venus and exploring, think of the surface, where its hot enough to melt lead and the pressure is the same as if you were almost a mile underneath the ocean, Jones says. I think that not many people have gone and looked at the relatively much more hospitable atmosphere and how you might tackle operating there for a while.

At 50 kilometers above its surface, Venus offers one atmosphere of pressure and only slightly lower gravity than Earth. Mars, in comparison, has a sea level atmospheric pressure of less than a hundredth of Earths, and gravity just over a third Earth normal. The temperature at 50 km on Venus is around 75 C, which is a mere 17 degrees hotter than the highest temperature recorded on Earth. It averages -63 C on Mars, and while neither extreme would be pleasant for an unprotected human, both are manageable.

Whats more important, especially relative to Mars, is the amount of solar power available on Venus and the amount of protection that Venus has from radiation. The amount of radiation an astronaut would be exposed to in Venuss atmosphere would be about the same as if you were in Canada, says Arney. On Mars, unshielded astronauts would be exposed to about 0.67 millisieverts per day, which is 40 times as much as on Earth, and theyd likely need to bury their habitats several meters beneath the surface to minimize exposure. As for solar power, proximity to the sun gets Venus 40 percent more than we get here on Earth, and 240 percent more than wed see on Mars. Put all of these numbers together and as long as you dont worry about having something under your feet, Jones points out, the upper atmosphere of Venus is probably the most Earth-like environment thats out there.

Its also important to note that Venus is often significantly closer to Earth than Mars is. Because of how the orbits of Venus and Earth align over time, a crewed mission to Venus would take a total of 440 days using existing or very near-term propulsion technology: 110 days out, a 30-day stay, and then 300 days backwith the option to abort and begin the trip back to Earth immediately after arrival. That sounds like a long time to spend in space, and it absolutely is. But getting to Mars and back using the same propulsive technology would involve more than 500 days in space at a minimum. A more realistic Mars mission would probably last anywhere from 650 to 900 days (or longer) due to the need to wait for a favorable orbital alignment for the return journey, which means that theres no option to abort the mission and come home earlier: If anything went wrong, astronauts would have to just wait around on Mars until their return window opened.

HAVOC comprises a series of missions that would begin by sending a robot into the atmosphere of Venus to check things out. That would be followed up by a crewed mission to Venus orbit with a stay of 30 days, and then a mission that includes a 30-day atmospheric stay. Later missions would have a crew of two spend a year in the atmosphere, and eventually there would be a permanent human presence there in a floating cloud city.

The defining feature of these missions is the vehicle that will be doing the atmospheric exploring: a helium-filled, solar-powered airship. The robotic version would be 31 meters long (about half the size of the Goodyear blimp), while the crewed version would be nearly 130 meters long, or twice the size of a Boeing 747. The top of the airship would be covered with more than 1,000 square meters of solar panels, with a gondola slung underneath for instruments and, in the crewed version, a small habitat and the ascent vehicle that the astronauts would use to return to Venuss orbit, and home.

Getting an airship to Venus is not a trivial task, and getting an airship to Venus with humans inside it is even more difficult. The crewed mission would involve a Venus orbit rendezvous, where the airship itself (folded up inside a spacecraft) would be sent to Venus ahead of time. Humans would follow in a transit vehicle (based on NASAs Deep Space Habitat), linking up with the airship in Venus orbit.

Here is the original post:
NASA Study Proposes Airships, Cloud Cities for Venus Exploration

Moon colonization. The very idea whips up images of interconnected biodomes, hovercrafts cruising the pockmarked surface, and ships darting to Earth and back again. The moon is the only planetary object whose features can be seen without the aid of a telescope. It's also the closest object to our planet large enough for humans to inhabit. When considering long-term space exploration and living, building a moon colony seems like the next logical step. We have the technology to get there and the innovative thinking to be successful. But what are the benefits of a moon colony? Do the risks outweigh the gains? How is such an expensive undertaking feasible in uncertain economic climates? Will we build on the moon in the next decade, or will the dream of a moon colony continue to hang on the horizon, just out of reach?

Let's take a look at some of the pros -- and cons -- of colonizing the moon.

View original post here:
10 Pros (and Cons) of Colonizing the Moon | Curiosity ...

Anthropologist Cameron Smith talks about the cultural and genetic implications of long-term space missions

Cameron Smith, author, anthropologist. Courtesy of Perimeter Institute

If humanity ever travels to another star, the trip could take generations. Such a journey would present serious technological challenges, of course, but the social difficulties of keeping a large population happy and healthy on a spaceship could be no less daunting. Anthropologist Cameron Smith of Portland State University has studied these questions and will discuss the biological and cultural science of long-term space travel during a lecture at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario that will be broadcast live here on this page.

Smiths talk, Interstellar Voyaging: An Evolutionary Transition, will begin Wednesday at 7 p.m. ET as part of the Perimeter Institutes public lecture series presented by Sun Life Financial. The lecture will be viewable on this page as well as at http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca. Online viewers can pose questions to Smith by tweeting to @Perimeter and using the hashtag #piLIVE.

Scientific American spoke to Smith about what it will take to mount an interstellar voyage. Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Is it really plausible to discuss a multigenerational space journey? Are we even close to being able to do something like this? Im presuming that the physics people will give us high-speed propulsion. Im playing the same game as [space research organization] Icarus Interstellar. Their project is not to build anything now. They want to give humanity the option at the end of this century, in a hundred years from now, of interstellar voyaging. I think thats a smart approach. Its a mind-boggling thing to imagine, but so was going to the moon 100 years ago.

I think its a very good idea to start thinking about it now, and to spend a century thinking about the genetics, the cultural implications, the propulsion and designs. I think its possible, but I think it should be done carefully. I dont want to see a brief flurry of interest and then see it flare outthe American moon program did that.

One of your first projects in this field was to research the population genetics of a space colonization journey. What did you learn? If youre going on multigenerational voyages and you have a closed population, you dont have the natural interbreeding links that all human societies have. We have good evidence that human populations need to be well over 5,000 and into the tens of thousands of people to maintain healthy genetic variability. I suggested recently in a paper that 40,000 is a safe number.

People have proposed that you could send fewer human beings and store frozen eggs and sperm and maintain viability that way. But there are cultural reasons why thats not so great. I think we should go in populations that are culturally familiar. In evolution, generally speaking, radical changes in the short term are not too typically likely to work. And so I would propose a larger starship with tens of thousands of people aboard and let them sort out the new variety of social and genetic interactions that need to happen as theyre going. Dont try to invent it all here.

What are the other human evolutionary challenges associated with such a voyage? Its largely going to be developmental genetics in non-Earth environments. When we think of space biology now, we tend to think of adults. But Im thinking about the developmental biology of the young.

Continued here:
Watch Live Tonight: The Challenges of Interstellar Flight

At a recent event sponsored by NASA and the Library of Congress, a group of scientists and scholars explored how we might prepare for the inevitable discovery of life beyond Earth.

n 1960, the astronomer Francis Drake pointed a radio telescope located in Green Bank, West Virginia, toward two Sun-like stars 11 light years away. His hope: to pick up a signal that would prove intelligent life might be out there. Fifty years have gone by since Drake's pioneering SETI experiment, and we've yet to hear from the aliens.

But thanks to a host of discoveries, the idea that life might exist beyond Earth now seems more plausible than ever. For one, we've learned that life can thrive in the most extreme environments here on Earth - from deep-sea methane seep and Antarctic sea ice to acidic rivers and our driest deserts.

We've also found that liquid water isn't unique to our planet. Saturn's moon Enceladus and Jupiter's moons Ganymede and Europa harbor large oceans beneath their icy surfaces. Even Saturn's largest moon, Titan, could spawn some kind of life in its lakes and rivers of methane-ethane.

And then there's the discovery of exoplanets, with more than 1800 alien worlds beyond our Solar System identified so far. In fact, astronomers estimate there may be a trillion planets in our galaxy alone, one-fifth of which may be Earth-like. As Carl Sagan famously said: "The Universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space."

Now some scientists believe the hunt for life beyond Earth may well pay off in our lifetimes. "There have been 10,000 generations of humans before us. Ours could be the first to know," said SETI astronomer Seth Shostak.

But what happens once we do? How would we handle the discovery? And what would be its impact on society?

This was the focus of a conference organized last September by the NASA Astrobiology Program and the Library of Congress. For two days, a group of scientists, historians, philosophers and theologians from around the world explored how we might prepare for the inevitable discovery of life - microbial or intelligent - elsewhere in our Universe.

The symposium was hosted by Steven J. Dick, the second annual Chair in Astrobiology at the Library of Congress. The video presentations can be viewed here.

"Three Horse Races" Of course, the impact of discovery will depend on the specific scenario. In a talk titled "Current Approaches to Finding Life Beyond Earth, and What Happens If We Do," Shostak described three ways - or three "horse races" - for finding life in space.

The rest is here:
Preparing for Alien Life