Copyrights, Patents and Lawsuits

I'm sure you've heard the fights in the news. Apple got a patent on rectangular smartphones with a touchscreen and rounded corners. Amazon got a broad patent on scheduled home delivery of perishable goods (think the milkman). It's illegal to play most DVDs on a linux computer. You can buy a movie, but can't change its format or edit it for your own use. You know what I'm talking about.

There have always been frivolous lawsuits; recently there was a girl who sued her grad-school for a C+. People can be stupid and greedy, but when a company does it, it's something else. It can be destructive to competition, innovation, and small business. Capitalism falls apart and destroys the market when people get out of hand with lawsuits and corporate greed. Let me give you an example:

I'm going to tell you about Monsanto Chemical Company. You may not know the name, but they have been in your life. Some of the plastic you come in contact with was made by them, maybe even parts of the device you are using right now. Had something with wheat, corn, or another crop in it lately? The crops were very likely grown from Monsanto seeds, fertilized with Monsanto fertilizer, and sprayed with Monsanto insecticide and weed inhibitors. They make RoundUp and grass seed for your lawn. This is one big company. Like any big company they attract a lot of hate. In this case, it's not all unwarranted.

Monsanto has copyrights on living things and is using that to control most American farmers. Remember how I said they sell seeds? Now, in some ways it makes sense to copyright that. If you spent millions to genetically engineer a corn seed to grow fast and strong with hardly any water in a record time, you'd want to make your money back. You wouldn't want someone to make their own copy of your product that you worked so hard on and sell it. But Monsanto is not just protecting themselves.

There are a lot of opinions about GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) crops, and I'm about to afflict you with mine. I believe careful responsible gene manipulation to be beneficial. As long as we are careful not to create a monoculture or an invasive hybrid, it's fine with me. Many are more healthy and nutritious, use less water and fertilizer, and can't be grown accidentally. High-yield crops grown on little land is better for the environment too.

As soon as genetic engineering was invented and the gene sequence copyright created, Monsanto started copyrighting and patenting seeds. Not just what they made, either. They would find strains of seeds and if they could (they usually could), they would make it their property. There are certain sequences in DNA that are owned by Monsanto that used to be used by farmers for hundreds of years. Farmers would save some seed each year to re-plant next year. Now you either need to buy a license to grow your own seed (only the big farms can afford that) or buy new seed every year. Even if you get the license to grow crops from saved seeds, you'd need special chemicals to germinate many of them. They are not like natural seeds. All this cuts into profit big time. Every year they have to pay Monsanto (but the gains of using super-crop can help offset this cost).

There are still open pollinated crops: non GMO seeds that are in the public domain. Some of these are strains that are hundreds to thousands of old. If you have one of these, in theory you should be safe... in theory. Some of these have had their DNA copyrighted by Monsanto, either by accident or design. There is another issue as well.

Let's pretend that you are a farmer. You grow millet, just like all your neighbors. Some of your neighbors sell out to a Monsanto super farm. One day, out of the blue, you get a summons to court for copyright infringement. They not only want you to pay millions in fines, but back pay for 10 years of crops! You have no idea how it's possible as you have always used your saved seed stock, direct descendants from seed your great grandfather bought. You've never used Monsanto crops, but your neighbors did. There are several ways your crops might have been marked with genetic markers:

1. Cross Pollination: Bees can travel miles with pollen on their legs. Any field within 5 miles of yours is a risk.
2. Birds: A bird might eat a seed from another field and poop over yours.
3. Wind/Shipping Spillage: Strong wind may move seed or trucks may lose seed while passing your farm.
4. Erosion: Water might carry seed from one field to another. 

Bad news for you. How did they even get a sample of your crop? It turns out that they do random tests in non-affiliated fields, without knowledge or consent of the farmer. They trespass. As a huge company, they put legal pressure on your small farm. There's no way to win. Debt looms. Will you sell or hold out and pay Monsanto every year and deal with debt and profit loss? You could buy new non-GMO seed that's not contaminated.

This is not a random example; it's a true story.

The industry as a whole is becoming a battle-ground of lawsuits. The difficulty of entry into the markets is now also measured in the capital needed to survive an onslaught of lawsuits. Economies of scale dictate that big companies are more durable in a war of legal attrition. If some small firm wanted to sell new smartphones, they'd need to weather lawsuits from LG, Samsung, Apple and HTC. They don't need to win, just starve you. Innovation is stifled by this.

Luckily there is a counter-movement. It all started with a frustrated MIT student named Richard Stallman.

Richard Stallman is almost considered a god by many programmers. He has been responsible for some of the greatest changes in software in the last century, and for starting a movement that changed the world forever. Good beard too.

He was a computer programmer in the early days - a real pioneer. In those days they would change programs to suit their needs. Suddenly companies started making it impossible to access the source code, mostly to protect their intellectual property, but this meant that sometimes without modification the software would be unusable. If you used somebody else's code, even a friend's, you could be sued. He had a flash of inspiration. What if you had user-driven software creation? A community developing software for everyone can make a powerful and constantly up-dated tool. Being free, it could dodge some industry pit-falls. With help, he created the GNU license, a brilliant piece of legal gobbledy-gook that protects the producers, users, and modifiers of any free product. It spread like mad.

Have you ever used Mozilla Firefox, Linux, Android OS or Netscape? GNU. There is a staggering amount of free programs on the internet, everything from smartphone apps to software to run UAVs and industrial robots. The model of the system spread to non-product related fields. Wikipedia is free. It's even leaking into the physical world.

3D printing looks like the next revolution. A 3D printer takes a computer file and turns it into a  three dimensional physical object, usually in plastic, but metal and ceramics are starting to appear too. A file with a cup will produce a plastic cup. A 3D picture of your head will make a small bust of you in plastic. Free drawings are available all over the internet. An astonishing 70% of a 3D printer can be made in a 3D printer. Self replicating machines. Welcome to the future.

Many of the great advances and innovations started as a free product. Innovation flourishes where there is little chance of lawsuit. For the sake of our country and our world, I hope that the big guys lighten up. Play nice and let's get better together.

Cybernetic Implants and Prosthetics

We live in the future. It doesn't look how we thought it would; there are no flying cars or house-keeping androids, but there are robot vacuum cleaners and we can use our cell phones for anything (but are mostly used to play Angry Birds and look at pictures of cats). Dreams of yesterday are the realities of today, and if not today, there is always tomorrow. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. I say - not necessity, but desire. What humans desire is power, life, pleasure, love, and ease. Whatever we want, from a desire to save a life, to protect our children, or to feed our family can be traced to these basic goals. All innovations have been for one of these goals in one form or another, this includes what we term the necessities. These desires are central to what we are. Our works and our dreams hinge on this.

Today our focus is on life and power, in particular the ways we try to change ourselves to something beyond our natural state. Humankind has always had fictitious super-heroes. Demigods, legendary warriors, gods, demons, and Marvel Comics all have one thing in common: they reflect the dream of being more than human. We want more strength than our frames permit, better healing to recover from any injury, the ability to fly, to see in the dark, to move things with thought alone, and even immortality. We have bent our strength to these ends.

The Etruscans were making false teeth out of animal teeth or adding gold to fix their teeth in place as early as 7000 BC. This is one of the earliest examples of body improvement by the surgical introduction of non-natural materials.

We have been finding ways to modify the human body, replacing what is weak or lacking with man-made replacements. This is nothing new. We have always sought ways to make better bodies as far back as history tells us. People have been adding bits of metal, leather, and bone to their bodies to hold back the march of physical decay for thousands of years. Sometimes we add bits of metal and leather for purely cosmetic purposes (think piercings). Over time we have become better at re-building ourselves.
Our recent advances would stun our ancestors - the progress has been absolutely stunning. Enhancement has become common place. We've even advanced into integrated cybernetics. Cybernetics is defined as command (thought), action (motor ability in muscle), and feedback (senses sending input to command centers) working together. So, you are already cybernetic. Your body works as a well-oiled machine, unless it breaks. When we break down, we've got two main choices which I'm going to call the gardener approach and the engineer approach.

A gardener will graft branches, use fertilizer and chemicals, prune or train branches into new shapes to cure - basically most modern medicine today. This is a topic for another time.

An engineer will find a faulty part and either remake or replace it. An engineer looks for ways to update the design and lives for a good upgrade. The best upgrades network devices together for increased inter-operability.

There have been some problems historically with this method. Infections where flesh and foreign objects meet. Lack of control and functionality. The new parts never worked as a part of the body. That has changed. So let's get to it!

Hypoxyapatite: Used as a coating on metal surfaces, bone and flesh can bond to it like an antler bonds to the skin of a deer. This can allow the body to attach to a piece of metal as if it were a natural part of the body. A titanium bone can be as firmly linked to muscles and other bones as you like. Ports and protrusions can pass through the skin with no fear of infection.

Nervous System Control: Artificial limbs and control devices have come a long way. The C-Leg has archived well-deserved fame helping wounded warriors walk again, but a man with a C-Leg can't wiggle his foot. The sensors in the leg can guess how he wants to move but can't read his mind... yet.


The woman in this video has a device implanted in her brain (note electrode on her head) allowing her to move the arm as she wishes. Reading the brain like this is easier and more mainstream than many people think. We've advanced to the point where we can record sound by using readings from the hearing centers of the brain instead of a microphone. The electronics in the video above can be cheaper than an iPhone because of the simplicity of it (not the arm, just the mind reader thing), but the human research needed to produce it, the sterility standards needed to certify it as human safe, and the skill needed to implant it put it way beyond the reach of the common man. Lucky for us, that isn't the only way to read the mind. More on that below.

Haptic Feedback: Close your eyes and touch something for a second. Several remarkable things happen at once: your skin comes in contact with the surface; nerves at the surface send back information on the surface (texture, temperature and size). Your skin deforms as you press against it; nerves throughout your skin telling you how much pressure you are exerting. Nerves in every joint relay information on the position and angle of each joint giving your mind knowledge of your current posture (known as proprioception), letting you know the position of the object you touch relative to yourself.

This is far harder than reading the mind. Giving signals back to the brain has proved very, very difficult. Pain is easy to produce, but imagine the complexity of smooth or cold. Even our greatest success in this area, the cochlear implant, has very limited resolution. New tech has enabled us to link electrical sensors to nerves. This has been around for a while, but limited by the difficulty of  connecting the tiny nerves and the limited time before the body rejects the electrodes. Recent development has refined the lifespan and precision of the connections. Go here if you want to know where we are now.

Microbial Glucose Fuel Cell: Imagine a pace maker that never needed batteries, but drew energy from your body, just like everything else. Your blood contains glucose, refined bio-fuel destined to power your cells. Scientists have figured out how to make microbes turn this into electricity; this can be built into a tiny implantable fuel cell along a blood vessel, powering electronics in your body. Hit this link for the long explanation. Warning: contains words. Lots of words!

Artificial Muscles: Self-explanatory. The name is what they are. These have been around for ages too. Many of them use shape-memory alloys, but the field has recently undergone a revolution.

This century's miracle material: graphine. It has many  uses. Pictured here is a twisted strand of nano-muscle. It's made from nano-tubes, graphine rolled into tube shape.  

They made tiny cords of carbon nano-tubes and filled them with paraffin wax. A change in heat causes the cord to contract. The tiny yarn above can lift hundreds of thousands of times its own weight and resist even more without breaking. This can be used to make bundles of muscle fiber that act like human muscles but are. in fact, many, many times stronger. As long as there is power, they will not tire. Also, they could stop a bullet.

So, where does this all put us? I think we've come a long way. We are almost at the point of creating a perfect prosthetic.

Remember this scene from The Empire Strikes Back? Luke Skywalker's hand is almost possible. It's a fusion of engineering and flesh. Hypoxyapatite could bind it into the body, nerves wired into sensors in the hand, blood powering the artificial muscles

The problem is the cost of the project would rival the Apollo program! The tech is all experimental and costs a lot.

At the moment this is the best we can do.

So, what about optional implants? The idea is not that far-fetched. Each year hundreds of women have stuff packed in to their breasts for no other reason than appearance. I can easily imagine a market for tiny fibers planted in to an arm that give you superhuman strength. How about re-enforced bones? Maybe you'd buy if someone offered to give you a reflective layer on the back of your retina to give you night vision like a cat? One that would serve a good purpose is a system to add oxygen to the blood in case of emergency. There are tiny nano machines called respiracites that doctors are studying. The idea is they will activate if your blood-oxygen level falls too low. They could keep you alive underwater for four hours or so.

Something I'd like is to replace the canals in the inner ear. The canals are lined with tiny hairs; when you turn your head, the fluid in the ear pushes the hairs. The vibration of these hairs gives us our sense of balance. Now, the problem is if we move too much, the fluid just sloshes around and the signals get confused. Our brain can't compute that, so we just feel dizzy. Imagine if we replaced the whole thing with a couple of accelerometers. You'd have great balance and never get dizzy.

The average reaction time to an expected event is 1/10th of a second. That is how long it takes for your eyes to see it, the signal to travel to the brain, the brain to process it, the brain to send a signal, the signal to reach a limb, and the limb to move. How about replacing some of those nerves with fiber-optics? Could you increase reaction speed?

Another fun one is controlling things with your mind. There is already a commercially available product that can do that without even the need to implant it!

This is the Neurosky Mind controller. Wireless and flexible, you can get one with an SDK  and  go nuts. They are still finding uses for this thing.

At the moment, the Neurosky only has a single channel of control. This can only be used to control one thing, like dim a light or press the gas pedal. You'd need something different if you want a brake.

I'd like to see a Neurosky used with eyeball-tracking and a computer. There are trackers you can buy for a PC. Just look at an icon, and your cursor is on it. No more hand-mouse-eye, just eye. When you press a button it selects what you are focused on. The end result is a computer that is faster than one with a mouse! Now, replace the button with a Neurosky, and you have control with just looking and thinking. This has real-world applications (besides the obvious cool factor) as a tool for the handicapped.

The goal is to make it a part of you. I think the best technology is one that is so natural that you don't even notice it's there. Something so perfect that you just do the impossible without a second thought.

With this kind of tech at our disposal, I imagine it will be only a matter of time before companies start offering implants to the general public. The question is: how far do we go? Can we slow the aging process? Can we be super human? Should we?

If we go ahead with this, we risk widening the gap between the haves and have-nots. They haves would be stronger, faster, smarter with longer lives. The have-nots would not be able to compete. Already it is illegal to enhance your body and compete in sports.

At what point do we stop being human? I don't know the answer to this, or even have much of an opinion on the matter. I do look forward to the need to make the choice. The future is going to be interesting and fun.

New Space

About that update plan...

Yeah, it's not happening the way I planned. I thought that I would finish my post in a week. I kept on editing and editing until finally I forgot it completely. I'm going to to switch to a shorter post more unplanned update style.
This mini post is being written on a train with my cell. There will be no proof read, spell check or fancy pictures. It'll just be stuff I think is cool.

Today the topic is New Space. If you are unfamiliar with that term it means any private non-government space program. Off the top of my head there are several I could name:

Spacex (my favorite)
Cignus
Virgin Galactic
Masten Aerospace
Armadillo Aerospace
Blue Origins
Sierra Nevada Corporation
Bigelow Aerospace
Linx Aerospace
Excalibur Alamaz
Planetary Resources
Deep Space Industries
Space Exploration

Many of these make their money by selling to the US government. In the past companies like Boeing, Lockheed, ATK  and Playtex (yes that Playtex, they made spacesuits as well as bras) have built things for NASA - but there is a vital difference. All these were NASA driven, and the senate is in NASA's driver's seat.

During the great space race NASA did whatever worked. There was only one goal set by the government - go to the moon. Nothing else mattered. Scientists look at blueprints and picked the cheapest one, the one that looked like it would work. Cost, speed and innovation were the watch-words of the day. NASA was very efficient for a government entity.

Then the worst thing for NASA happened, our competitor all but disappeared. With the death of their chief designer followed by their demoralizing defeat in the race to the Moon the Soviet space program all but disappeared. Low earth orbit was the new goal. NASA managed to do a few things on inertia - a few more moon landings were done and Skylab was launched with left-over Apollo gear. Then began the change.

Apollo launched Apollo with 4.1% of the USA's budget. That was the first to change. NASA runs on less than .05% of the budget today. This slowed progress down. Next there were more goals set for NASA by the senate: go back to the moon, land rovers on Mars, put satellites in orbit, invent better airplanes, build a reusable space plane (shuttle), come up with new engines, build a space station, invent robots for space, do medical research, figure out how the weather works, launch space telescopes, refuel and repair satellites and run education programs - all at once. By the way, do it only with the technologies we pick, after all we want jobs in our district.
Guess what that means. NASA is a jobs program now. The senate wants to reuse shuttle parts for new rockets, just to send jobs to ATK. It makes no good sense.

I'm not just talking here. I have hours of specific examples, but I won't subject you to my whiny tirade (unless you ask for it in the comments below), so I'll just give one example. Do you remember the X-33? No? Back in the '90s there was a cool program to replace the space shuttle called Venturestar. It was a single-stage to low-earth-orbit space-plane (I'm running out of dashes) with a revolutionary engine. The half-scale prototype was the X-33. Great promise in this thing. The design had this crazy complicated lobed tank design. The higher-ups specified a carbon-fiber (seriously, more dashes) fuel tank, because everybody knows those are lighter right? I'll let you in on a secret, carbon-fiber can't do tight corners easily. If you put a bend in it you need way more material to get it strong enough. The extra material was enough to put it way over the weight budget. The engineers shook their heads and said "This is stupid, it will never work. We can build it out of aluminum/lithium alloy like on the space shuttle for way less money and less weight." They did. They were just about to put the light and strong tank to the test when the NASA director testified before congress that his program needed a little more budget for the carbon-fiber tank. It became law that the tank HAD to be Carbon-fiber. So the program spent the rest of it's budget exploding too-heavy carbon tanks on a test stand until it was cancelled. The end. Just one of hundreds of stories.

Enter new space. Private companies looked at the space program and said "Oh come on, it's only rocket science!" They began to beat NASA at their own game. Instead of going to NASA and taking orders with NASA's pork-bloated blueprints, they produced a design using good sense and looked for buyers. Spacex has a launch system less than 1/10th the cost of the shuttle per pound to low-earth-orbit. Bigelow took an old NASA design that failed because law-makers got in the way, and will launch next the first manned version next year. Sierra Nevada Corp. is also using a NASA cast-off. Virgin cut NASA out all together and made a space airline just for fun. Everybody still has to play by NASA's rules (they must get permits and pass safety tests), but the change is that NASA doesn't pick the technique, just the product.

This brings us to the last new field: asteroid mining. A single m-type asteroid may have more platinum than all the platinum humans have ever mined in all history. There is water, helium 3 and iron too, all very expensive to launch. So companies are starting to appear. Deep Space Industries just launched. This is the second mining company, they are competing with Planetary Resources. This one launched with a daring video showing a long term future. Nobody has had the guts to do that. Once I get to the office I'll add the video and post it.  
Special bonus: try to spot the Avatar reference in the video.



Cheers!

Generation Ships

Warning: this post gets strange and creepy. Read your own risk

One of the great staples of science-fiction is human settlement of space. The protagonists are shown plying the cosmos in gleaming ships capable of conveniently violating the speed of light to have adventures on fantastic worlds far from our own. The unobtanium powered handwavium drives permit the ships to cross the incomprehensibly great vastness of space in a matter of plot moving months, days, or hours. This allows us to have homes on many worlds, and importantly, to travel between them. This is not possible by any method we are even close to understanding.

Space is big. I mean really, really big. Metaphors break down and the mind boggles with the sheer size of it all. The Voyager 1 space probe is traveling at 62,136kph (38,592mph) and was launched way back in 1977 and is only now at the edge of the solar system. That is only 11 billion miles away. If Voyager was going to pay a visit to the neighbors, then we could say in 35 years it opened the door and walked down the steps. It hasn't crossed the lawn or the sidewalk or the street. We struggle to reach the nearest body to us, the Moon, can you even imagine interstellar travel?

I sure hope so because that is what this post is all about.

In almost every Science Fiction story there is a reason to leave Earth. Maybe our home was destroyed, or we were lured off with riches, adventure, and treasure, or maybe we just out-grew the earth and had to leave for lack of room. Another good reason that they never seem to think of is just to have a back-up for the human species.

Let's say for a moment that we had a reason to leave our star-system. A planet wide evacuation would be difficult because I want this to be a near-future hypothetical situation. That many people would not be possible. So, for our purposes let's say it was a back-up of humanity just in case something happened to Earth - this lets us send a small group to colonize another world.

One of the biggest constraints in not technology, but budget. Apollo just sent four men to the moon, yet it strained the resources of our coffers, personnel, and our ingenuity to the limits. Any interstellar launch will be many, many orders of magnitude greater. All launches measure cost by weight. Take a space shuttle. Its purpose was to put cargo in space - human cargo and equipment or supplies. That total payload is the whole raison d'etre, so all cost of maintenance, procurement and launch costs are just for that cargo. If you take the total cost and divide by the weight of the payload, you get a cost per pound to low-earth-orbit. A single gallon of water cost $80,300 on the shuttle! Newer programs cost far less, but remember, it's not going to low earth orbit, but to another star-system. Again, we are not talking far future, but near future, so things like weight and fuel are all tied into a single problem: cost. We theoretically have the technology to build a star ship now, but there is not enough money on the entire planet to do so. Not money available - I'm saying in existence. A program to launch millions of people may not be possible for eons to come.

Let's pretend that we've found a world. The Kepler space telescope picked up an earth-like planet, and after years of observation with first; the Hubble, then the James Webb followed by even bigger and better systems, our scientists decided it would support a colony. It will be a new home for humanity, to hedge our bets and preserve us from extinction. Excitement builds on Earth. Humanity unites to build something truly colossal: our first star ship.

It has a tremendous amount of fuel to allow it to move at fantastic speed. Due to the immense distances involved, it will take hundreds of years for our ship to travel to its destination, a very short time when discussing interstellar travel. Decades, perhaps centuries will be spent accelerating, then that many more to slow it down as it nears the new world. This means that most of the ship will consist of its exotic fuel. Next is life support. This ship will be a home for the colonists for longer than most American cities have existed. There must be food, air, heat, power, and comforts for hundreds of years. There must be a shield on the front of the ship. A grain of sand at millions of kilometers an hour would have an impact like a warhead. This shield will be a heavy piece of ablative armor, perhaps with some sort of deflector field to improve our ship's chances. We should make our ship narrow enough to be protected by a small shield, to save on weight. The math says our ship will be kilometers long.

James Cameron's Avatar star ship is shown above. It actually has a good lay-out. Huge fuel tanks and engine in one end, debris shield, storage and habitat at the other. It's just a little small. A great feature is that the habitat spins to provide the illusion of gravity.

Because our ship will take hundreds of years to travel, the crew is an issue. Nobody on board will live to see the end of the journey. Only their descendants will make the trip. This is called a "Generation ship."

Construction of the ship will be largely done in space - it's far too big to launch from the earth in one piece. Much like we built the International Space Station, it will be launched as parts. The star ship will be expensive. Stephen Hawking talked a bit about this. He pointed out that the people who build the ship will spend a great deal of time and treasure on this huge project, only to see a few people board it, the engines power up and then move out of the solar system, never to return. It will have to be a selfless sacrifice, or perhaps an act of desperation.

Aside from the antimatter - or whatever fuel source we have - the ship must carry the colonizing equipment, life support and everything. Space and weight are at a premium here. We must deduce what the minimum we can send is, and then shave that where we can. The goal is to establish life, in a meaningful way, on this world. There need to be educators, doctors, nurses, engineers, architects - in short all the human resources of Earth. We don't just want this colony to survive, we want it to thrive. We don't need all of that immediately, but we need it when they reach the planet. In addition, we need to avoid inbreeding and the Founder Effect.

So the question is, how few people can we send? How broad a genetic base do we need, and how do we prevent gene pool deterioration? I don't really know. It's hard to find any info on this. I think, from what I've been able to find, that if you deliberately select for genetic diversity you can establish a population with as few as 6,000 - if you maintain a high birth-rate. This is a problem. That pushes the habitat size and needs way beyond what is reasonable. That is more than the crew of a Nimitz class super-carrier!  The big aircraft carriers are like a floating city, but are far too cramped. Even with an open deck, the crew needs shore leave and time off rotation. We can fix this by increasing the size of the habitat to three times the size of a Nimitz class carrier, or reducing the crew. Neither will work. Hold on to your hats, there's a solution, but it's kind of disturbing.

Do you remember the frozen sleep pods in 2001, A Space Odyssey? Yeah, those don't really work. It would be nice if they did. Maybe someday we'll figure out how to freeze people and keep them alive.

2001, A Space Odyssey also failed to have much of a back-up crew. Frozen sleep, if it even worked would not be without fatalities. Two guys left awake to run the ship is not a good idea.

Maybe I should say that frozen sleep doesn't work on developed humans. Embryos are a different story. This brings us to this freaky idea I got from the life cycle of some species of aphid.

In early spring the aphids hatch  out of eggs. They are small, but strangely are all female and born pregnant. They grow and give live birth to their young. These are clones of their mothers, also born pregnant. They give live birth to clones. The cycle continues with each generation producing the next by parthenogenesis until fall. In the fall a mutation occurs. Some are born male and some are born as unfertilized females. Sexual reproduction of these strange aphids produces eggs that can survive the winter.

Wow, you're still reading?

The idea is that you launch a ship crewed solely by young women, about 60 of them, and a hold full of frozen embryos. Of the passengers, only a few will be core crew. The others would be grunt labor or some other occupation like hairdresser. All crew would have time to pursue their own interests on the side, even change career if they wished.

In this plan there are two sets of embryos aboard, one for transit, one for re-population. The transit embryos are all female, genetically tested to ensure that they are similar to simplify medical treatment. They could even be clones. During transit each woman will impregnate herself with one by in vitro, and raise her child to replace her. Thus the population is maintained at a manageable size. As they near their destination they will begin to grow the population, each one having multiple children. They'll open up the habitat sections that were kept sealed to save supplies and expand their space to handle the new generation.

NASA came up with a concept of an inflatable habitat section for the International Space Station called a Transhab, a concept now being used by Bigelow Areospace to build their own station. This may be a good idea, the living area for the new generation. They can be kept deflated to conserve supplies and prevent transport damage in the hundreds of years before use.

After they land on the planet they will continue as they were. Once they hit about 3 thousand they will open the second batch of embryos. This batch contains genetically diverse male and female embryos, the base of our new population. There will be some cultural problems to sort out - after all these women will have never met a man before. There also will be a period of cultural change as they go from lesbian relationships (if any formed at all) to heterosexual. The shock would be great.

Now, I think this whole thing is a bad idea and really, really creepy. What I want to happen is I want to take my wife aboard a faster-than-light ship to a distant world, and go visit our parents on earth every Christmas. This whole thing was a thought experiment with foreseeable technologies. Who knows, when we leave Earth we might just beam straight to a new place instantly. Guessing the future never works as well as we think it will. Just look how much more advanced our cell phones are than Captain Kirk's communicator.

I can't wait to see the surprises that lie in store for us. How will we leave Earth and when? I would love to know.
 P.S. I promise that the next post will be less weird... well at least a little bit less weird.

Intelligent Design vs Guided Evolution and real science

I am a christian. I believe God created Heaven and Earth. I believe that He made the stars, planets and matter that make up our galaxy. I believe we are his children, made in his image. I also don't believe in Intelligent Design. Confused?

Don't be. Intelligent Design is not what you may think it is. It is a specific set of beliefs, not a blanket name for Creationism. It is propagated by a specific entity called the Discovery Institute, a christian conservative organization. In theory it is a scientifically based view not influenced by any belief, faith, religion  or preconceptions. In reality it is a christian religious agenda based primarily on a specific interpretation of The Bible. It is best summed up in a quote from them: "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Intelligent design is NOT the only  form of creationism. It does NOT represent all christianity, and definitely not all creationists. In my opinion Intelligent Design is limited and dangerously restricting as well as misleading, as it is often thought to be the be only christian answer. Let's look at it flaws from both a christian and scientific stand-point.

Intelligent Design limits God

One of the first flaws of Intelligent Design that comes to our notice is that it is dependent on a single fixed view of God. Let us return to this quote: "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." There seems to be an assumption here that God can't direct natural selection, that he must use His direct power. Think about it - it's stating that the "intelligent cause" would not use certain types of creation. Albert Einstein once said "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." (I know I'm taking that out of context), I say God can play dice if he wants, he knows how they will fall. He can always roll sixes if he wants, they are His dice. He knows the end from the beginning. He has the fore-knowledge to be able to set things up so that "A" causes "B" which causes "C" and so on. To our mortal minds it may at first seem like a random process, because we don't know enough to predict the results out of the infinite possible ends. Our minds are not advanced enough to even grasp that. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9 KJV) I believe God can use evolution as a powerful self-regulating tool.

Intelligent Design is not scientific

There have been no unbiased experiments conducted, no whitepapers published and it has never presented a body of proof sufficient to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Much of what they say hinges on flawed analogies, like the watchmaker analogy - which would be valid if we were talking about mechanical things and not biology. Every specific argument for Intelligent design has fallen prey to research. For example: Bacterial Flagella. These are small hair-like protrusions from bacterial cells that rotate, providing propulsion. Proponents state that the flagella are too complex to have simply evolved; they must be created. A partial flagella serves no purpose and would not provide an advantage. After the the proponents of Intelligent Design made this claim, it was shown that a poison spur on a similar type of bacteria were one protein short of a rotating flagella. In short, it was obvious how it evolved with a single mutation. It is clear that they have much to do and prove to be taken seriously as a viable theory.

Intelligent Design is dangerous to the future of science

I see it as deliberately blind view that things are what they are because God made it that way and that is that, stating that if you don't understand something you should ascribe it to God and call it done. This bugs me on many levels. I want to know how God created the universe. Yes, stating that God made it is true, stating that all things are His handiwork is valid, but not even trying to find out why - proclaiming it to be a dogma that science cannot and should not probe does not rest well with me. If you say that, you fall into the same stagnant trap that forces good people to chose between their faith and logic. It pushes all we do not yet understand into the untouchable realm of God's power. This is not right. Galileo ran up against a system like that. One cannot define science by religion, what exists is what is and deserves to be seen as that. Scripture is vague. In Galileo's time people believed that heaven had perfect spheres called planets. They were symmetrical and geometrically perfect. Along came a scientist who had evidence to the contrary. Today we understand that the Catholic church read into the scriptures things that were not there; they added to their dogma things with no scriptural basis. May I point out that scripture does not state "and verily He poofeth the earth and animals into existence fully formed in an instant."

Science must be allowed to postulate freely. Part of the scientific method is to observe objectively, not within the restrictions of dogma or ANY preconception.

So what do I think happened?

It's fairly simple. This video (you don't HAVE to watch it, but it comes recommended) has some real gold in it. It is produced by Sal Khan, founder of Khan academy.

In this, he states that a self-regulating universe speaks to a more profound God. The very fact that we continue to improve and grow shows that God is not done. The work of God is endless - endless number of creations, endless improvement of His creations and creations that have no end. The form may change, but matter (by the laws we know) can neither be created nor destroyed. Sal Khan also spoke of fractals. I imagine that God would know every whorl that a fractal would have in it in all its infinite complexity before it was done. If you think of the universe as a fractal, things start to get interesting.

We are at the Big Bang. God has looked across all the possible universes, all the infinite combinations and all the ends and chosen the one he wanted. The bang starts. Space and time are warped, the very concepts don't exist yet. As the universe expands, the laws God has chosen snap into place. The electromagnetic force is stronger than gravity. Dark energy, inertia and heat forces everything apart. Antimatter and matter cancel each-other out. In this improbable universe there is a tiny bit more matter. It is not evenly dispersed. As God planned, the irregularities cause it to collapse into clouds then stars. These live and die, they explode into heavier elements, seeding the universe with minerals needed for life. New stars form. Some organize planets in orbit around them from the heavy elements that were scattered. Some form life that grows and evolves into what we see today. God uses this genetic soup as the raw material to create his children on this and other worlds.

Some of these children stand and see the order and patterns and state "this must be the work of a God, I have my faith so I need look no further," others stand and see the same and say "I see how this was done, it must not be the work of a God, I'll look further." Then there are some of us who say "I believe it was God who made it. He is a God of order, let us see how he did it."

I live in wonder of the wisdom and power of God. This world of ours is beautiful and complicated beyond our current understanding, but I would love to understand as much as a mortal is able.

Topics I plan to cover

This is a list of topics I plan to cover. I may end up changing the order.

Intelligent Design vs Guided Evolution and real science
Generation ships
Cybernetics
The why of space travel
Ekranoplans
Home Automation and smart home building
NASA and the government
New Space
Marine Biology
Star Trek and Science
Education
Earth as a unit
Terraforming

First post

This is just a quick blog post. The purpose of this blog is to be a platform from which I can pontificate on science. It will include new discoveries, old sidelined discoveries, interesting was to combine technology for something new and the occasional tirade against the ignorance and apathy toward science shown by most of our culture. If there were a way to make an International Space Station reality TV show things might be different.
 "Your last experiment failed to produce results and you've been voted off the station. Pack your bags and get into the Soyuz."
Yeah right.
Anyway, while some things I will cover might be interesting to some people, this is just an excuse to hear my own voice. I'm opinionated. I have an agenda. I will rant. Posts will be on random topics at random intervals. You have been warned.
I will try to avoid setting up straw-man arguments and offending people. I'm NOT here to always point fingers, I want to open peoples eyes to the possibilities. I don't claim to be an expert, but I do claim to have decent broad knowledge in many, many areas. I have a love of learning, especially things that are new. I love the future, it can be a wonderful place. I never grew out of wanting to be an astronaut/scientist/engineer/explorer (/race car driver/millionare).
By the way, I love to be proven wrong (if done respectfully and non-confrontationally) because it can take things into a new and interesting direction. I live in a state of constant wonder - wonder in a world that was the science-fiction of my childhood, chock-full of unexpected twists and turns. We don't have intelligent androids, but who would have thought that the internet would become such a vital part of this world 20 years ago? We don't have flying cars, but our cars are more comfortable with more entertainment options than my living room growing up. I didn't expect that. I am amazed at this world. I hope to share that with you. We live in the future, and it is up to us to make it awesome.