Astronautical Humanist

May

2017

Manuel Perez and Adriano Autino talk about the USIP event and requirements for an Outer Space Law

Space Renaissance USA, together with Lifeboat Foundation, will held an event, next October 10th 2017, at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) in Washington.

The event will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies” (Outer Space Treaty http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html), proposed in 1967, by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Later it was signed by 106 Countries, and other 24 Countries are going through the process for signing it.

The Treaty was never updated, and it only provides rules for national governments operations in outer space, for the peaceful use of space environment.

In our last international congress (October 2016), SRI approved a short list of requirements, for the quick implementation of an Outer Space Law, to provide rules for civilian activities, expanding human rights into the Outer Space.

Additive manufacturing: a disruptive renaissance technology!

Additive manufacturing: a disruptive renaissance technology! by Adriano V. Autino
As promised, here is a short reportage—and a few considerations—of the Additive Manufacturing workshop that ran from July 20th to July 22nd 2016. The workshop, organized by ASI, took place in the auditorium of the Tor Vergata branch in Rome. The initiative—relying on the expertise of Roberto Formaro, head of ASI’s Technology and Engineering Division, Danilo Rubini, and their staff—has without doubt been a success. During the course of three days, it has seen more than 300 participants, mostly from the industrial and academic fields. During the workshop, about fifty speakers have taken the floor. Of these, the 60% were representatives from industrial or technological research entities, 30% from universities, and 10% from research institutions. Among the universities, many came from Milan Polytechnic and Tor Vergata University. I was a little taken aback by the more limited—although of remarkable level—participation of the Turin Polytechnic, especially considering the prominent presence of Turin-based companies at the workshop. Would you believe it possible that, during this seemingly endless economic crisis, in Italy of all places, an industrial sector is seeing growth rates in double figures? Well, this sector exists, and it is called Additive Manufacturing.
.		. During the workshop the involved parties had the opportunity to meet face to face, without hiding a certain surprise in realizing we are currently, in many cases, talking about actual production, and not only prototyping anymore, and that 3D printed components are already flying. There was extensive discussion on manufacturing process standardization and certification, a key step strongly recommended by ESA—represented at the workshop by Tommaso Ghidini, head of the Materials Technology section—for the safe use of such products.
. See also this great TED conference on 3D printing in space by Tommaso Ghidini. In the first part it is also shown the section of lunar wall printed in 3D by D-SHAPE (Enrico Dini). Enrico Dini, in his presentation at the workshop, demonstrated his 3D printing technique, achieved through a very big plotter that “writes” the chemical binder on layers of simulated lunar regolith.	.

Additive Manufacturing: a quick and non-exhaustive technical data sheet Since not all of us are experts of industrial productive techniques, a few informative notes are necessary. It is simple enough: traditional mechanical manufacturing technologies are called subtractive, since they mostly work on metals by subtracting material. From a round or squared piece, superfluous material is sheared through turning or milling with the support of CAD/CAM tech. I hope experts in mechanical processing technology will forgive me for this extreme simplification, but I just aim to give a general idea to the non-experts. Additive manufacturing—commonly known as 3D printing—operates instead in the opposite way, by adding material where it is needed. This is done by layering material in shapes based on CAD/CAM models. Prime materials are in this case powders from metal or other materials, then mixed with additives to obtain alloys and compound materials. The powders are then melted with lasers or other heat-based methods, following the outline of the digital model. 3D printing can also be used to create objects starting from polymers or polymeric alloys. Precision additive manufacturing is divided in a few sub-technologies. I will list here the ones I was able to note down: EBM (Electron Beam Melting), DMLS (Direct Metal Laster Sintering), SLM (Selective Laser Melting), SLS (Selective Laser Sintering), LBW (Laser Beam Welding), FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling). Large scale 3D printing, presented by its inventor Enrico Dini (D-SHAPE), utilizes sand mixed with chemical binders, and obtains a compound similar to rock. This is used to build habitable facilities and a variety of different elements—including artificial coral reefs to repopulate ocean floors. Since 2010, ESA has been experimenting with this technology to “print” habitable modules on the lunar surface, using regolith as construction base material. For more on this, see the famous videos of architect Norman Foster, one of the partners in the D-SHAPE team. As widely discussed during the workshop, these are technologies destined to radically change the ways of industrial production. Or maybe we could say—if by industrial production we mean the tayloristic model of serial factory, or its modern adaptation, the robotic islands—that these technologies are destined to embody the ways of post-industrial production. Of course, for mass production purposes, serial production chains will continue to exist. But the most important aspect that seems to have reached its end—or at least to be significantly reduced—is the paradigm of economies of scale: “the larger the volume the lower the production cost”. This is because 3D printers allow to drastically lower the production costs for small or very small series as well. The advantages of additive production, compared to subtractive, are plenty and, as revealed during the workshop itself, many of them are yet to be discovered. Here, in random order, are the ones I was able to capture from the slides shown by workshop participants. Through additive manufacturing, it is possible to create geometries and structural properties that would be impossible to create with traditional processes. It is possible to create components of incredible geometric complexity. It also becomes exponentially easier to customize production, even for low volumes. 3D printing allows for a great reduction of the number of components needed to make up an object—if not, in many case, for the production of a single shaped piece. Prototyping and production times are also much shorter, compared to traditional techniques. The finished product is much more durable, resilient, and compact, thanks to the substantial absence of mechanical stress—which in classic processing happens due to “violent” processes such as turning, milling, bending. Also, the finished pieces tend to be significantly lighter in weight. Last, but not least, additive manufacturing definitely presents itself as a “green” technology—or, in other words, sustainable. The saving of material and waste reduction are huge: just consider that the leftover powders not used in the process are not ruined or modified in any way, and can therefore be reused in the process for a very high number of cycles. At the same time, there is a great reduction of environmental pollution, both through the production process, through the massive reduction in transport and logistics activities, and also through saving of material. Compared to traditional foundry, we have less use of energy, and no emission of toxic waste, such as dioxins, etc. Mechanics is not “mechanic” anymore As noted by the various speakers at the workshop, and in particular by Professor Quadrini, from Tor Vergata University, the shapes of the objects developed through AM are very different from the shapes—usually squared or roundish—of traditional mechanical products. They resemble more closely the organic shapes of nature instead: bones, trees, seashells. Through opportune study of the structural characteristics of certain natural shapes, it will be then possible to create 3D printed components with similar qualities of flexibility and durability. For those endowed with artistic sense, 3D printed shapes are very stimulating tools, and it’s not difficult to imagine an age that will inspire artists as much as the futurism-mechanics duo did for the great artistic movements of the past century. Let’s forget terms such as beams, clamps, pillars, and let’s adopt words maybe a little more disquieting, because they resonate with our own biology—for example trabecula. These terms make us think of future blends between medical science and mechanical engineering, and not only on obvious common grounds such as robotics and cybernetics. As noted by the various speakers at the workshop, and in particular by Professor Quadrini, from Tor Vergata University, the shapes of the objects developed through AM are very different from the shapes—usually squared or roundish—of traditional mechanical products. They resemble more closely the organic shapes of nature instead: bones, trees, seashells. A.M. and space development Up to here, we have been talking about a new technology, certainly revolutionary and fit for the renaissance—yet definitely confined to terrestrial purposes. Additive manufacturing, as Professor Quadrini himself observed, works by stratification, in a vertical direction, depending heavily on the force of gravity. It is therefore limited, at least for now, to terrestrial applications. In just a few instances—Loredana Santo from Tor Vergata University, Maurizio Romeo from BEAMIT—the discussion verged on 3D printing techniques in microgravity conditions, that could be tested aboard the ISS. Why, then, the strong interest shown by ESA and ASI for this technology? First of all, we must not forget, for the time being the main focus of most companies is still satellite activities. However, the wind is definitely changing, as demonstrated by the strong interest towards the Moon shown by ESA after the assignment of the new general Director Johann-Dietrich Wörner, and by Professor Roberto Battiston’s speech at the end of the workshop. We wait with bated breath for these promising intentions to be translated into actual Intended Tenders. Nevertheless, it is still an important step forward that ESA started a great mediatic outreach, on a true expansion programs. The production of components using A.M. techniques is already started, and in the aeronautical field 3D printed components have been flying for a while now. In the space field, Space X employs 3D printed valves on the Falcons, and the Super-Draco engine is equipped with an entirely 3D printed combustion chamber. Nowadays additive technologies allow to significantly reduce launch costs for all components, from launchers—much cheaper—to payloads (satellites). It will be possible to design, prototype, and produce everything at least one order of magnitude faster; it will also weight less, and cost less, reducing as well the constricting requisite of high durability of space components. When missions used to cost a billion, it was inevitable to rely on fully established technologies, thus neglecting innovation. As remarked by Mauro Varetti—CEO of 3D-NT, ambitious Turin-based startup—additive techniques will open the aerospace field to experimentation, without skipping on reliability requisites—especially when missions include human beings. All of this would be hard to even imagine if Elon Musk had not knocked down launch costs from the 900 million standard—maintained for so many years by United Launch Alliance—to 60 millions, even before the coming of entirely reusable rockets. It is predicted that, when the process of reuse will be established, launch cost will settle around 500.000 dollars. Up to here, we have been talking about a new technology, certainly revolutionary and fit for the renaissance—yet definitely confined to terrestrial purposes. Potential of AM for the development of civilian astronautics The potential of AM is even greater. There is, in fact, the possibility of reducing the cost of launching satellites into orbit almost down to zero, at least for launching from Earth. We can imagine a series of orbital production facilities, using lunar and asteroidal raw materials reduced to powder. The powder would be produced through factories, installed at the lunar poles and at the Lagrange points. The designs for satellite parts and others will be transmitted from Earth, and produced by 3D orbital factories. Astronaut technicians will assemble the satellites and, through suitable interorbital vehicles, they will take them to their destination; technicians would also be responsible for maintenance and, at the end of satellites’ life cycle, for decommissioning. In time, the space infrastructure will be able to sustain its production using only extraterrestrial resources. Satellites will be rid of the expensive and sophisticated automated components—expensive because of the robustness required by launch stress—currently used to unfold solar panels and antennas. Of course, as soon as entrepreneurs will start to populate the geo-lunar space—together with researchers, inventors, and technicians—industrial activity will not be limited to satellite components anymore. It will naturally extend to all the areas that sustain terrestrial civilization, and probably much more will bloom into the human mind as soon as it will be able to think—in 3D!—outside of Earth’s gravitational well.
. At the end of the workshop, Professor Roberto Battiston, president of ASI, has taken on the challenge of Space X and NASA. He hypothesizes that, with to the great reduction of rocket engine costs thanks to additive manufacturing, expendable rockets might in the future become more convenient compared to reusable ones. The certain thing is that powerful renaissance forces are now into play: reusable rockets from Space X, and additive manufacturing technologies. Both these forces are breaking down the wall—that until recently seemed insurmountable—of the high cost of transport from Earth’s surface to low orbit. And this will open, from any point of view, the high frontier to many private entrepreneurial initiatives. Be these activities industrial, touristic, service, civil activities: civilian astronautics in short—the development of which is a conditio sine qua non to complete the renaissance started back in 1500!			.
(English language editing by Ginevra F. Autino)

Oct

2015

“The Martian”, a movie and a book still to be written

SRI NEWSLETTER – OCTOBER 20^th 2015 – by A. V. Autino

There’s never time to write and comment on everything worthy of comment, however “The Martian” (in Italian, “Il sopravvissuto”) gives me the opportunity to put on paper some concepts very central to my space activist sensitivity.

First of all, I will say that I would like very much to see an exploration mission to Mars, and I could also say that I’d like to have seen it some years ago, and now to be witness to its initial settlements. This is a first point of discussion: many will say that the technologies are not mature enough. I would reply that technologies to go to the Moon simply didn’t exist in 1961, when President Kennedy challenged NASA to reach our natural satellite within ten years. So please let’s not listen too much to the ones who make things even more difficult than they are, in order to “raise the price” of their supply.

Having said that, I have to say that the book written by Andy Weir is much better than the movie, from the point of view of the novel: we listen to Mark Watney, his desperation, his hopes, his continuous reasoning on the practical problems he does his best to solve, by his skills of as an astronaut and botanist. And, most of all, the book is a manifesto of the human initiative, and capacity to never give up. The book also gives us the measure of how much Mars needs to be explored, in order to understand the conditions in which the first settlers will find themselves. This is something that the movie doesn’t convey, or, if it does, in a reduced measure.

Coming to the policy aspects, the book and the movie were released just before NASA was presenting its budget to the Congress. At the same time, NASA announced the discovery of liquid water flowing on Mars, albeit seasonally. The mission statement of NASA is space exploration and it is entirely appropriate to justify an agency’s proposed budget by highlighting achievements that demonstrate the mission is being accomplished. They have done so repeatedly and with savvy marketing capability: chapeau! (said without irony :-). The message is quite clear, and it is repeated several times during the movie: the goal is to do exploration missions, and always to bring the explorers back to home, on Earth.

Not by chance, the end of the movie is quite different from the end of the book. The last lines of the book are taken from the board logbook, Mission Day 687. Mark questions why such a significant amount of money was spent to rescue him, one only person, instead of abandoning him on Mars’ surface. Beyond the humanitarian rationales, he mentions “progress, science and the interplanetary future that we dream since centuries”. The last scenes of the movie show us Mark, considering a green, small plant spontaneously growing among stones on Earth and, subsequently, giving an education to young candidate explorers, illustrating the very hard conditions of space. The subliminal message seems very clear to me: let’s continue to empower trained explorers to go to Mars, while the rest of us remain “safe” (so to say) on Earth. During the credits, we listen to the announcement of NASA about next exploration mission, reiterating the concept: the goal is to bring the explorers back to home, to Earth. So, even “ordinary” viewers of the movie, fully unaware of any space policy, could ask: but why are we going there, if we don’t want to stay, and to settle on another planet for human benefit? To address that question, I’d like to submit few reflections those who promote Mars colonization and spacefaring civilization.

First, are we sure that, in 2030, should the only space strategy remain exploration, we will have resources and funds to re-purpose an Apollo-style program to Mars? Considering the social, economical and environmental situations that could be logically anticipated, considering that likely in 2030 we will be 9 or 10 billions people on Earth, I have many doubts. Only expanding our industrial development beyond the limits of our mother planet we can hope to revert the global crisis, and to ignite the greatest economic and cultural revolution of all times. So, why should we just keep on exploring, and not to start expanding? And, talking about expansion, what are the logical first steps? Industrializing the geo-lunar space region, of course, the so called Greater Earth, including the Earth’s orbit, the Moon, the Lagrange Points and the Near Earth Asteroids crossing in or near such area.

Rick Tumlinson recently wrote an article, titled “How we go to Mars”. This is a good approach to the matter. Nobody wants to discuss whether to go or not to go to Mars. The questions are: with which resources, with what support by people, by public money or by private effort? And, could it be a program forwarded by one only country, or would it be an international cooperation program? My opinion is that we won’t be able to reach Mars in 2030, nor later, if a serious expansion program is not well rooted and in progress. Rick answers the question “why” thusly: to improve science and to expand civilization. And he discusses several possible ways, through the Moon or directly, just to explore or to settle and remain. The extent to which the world is in crisis may be perceived differently, depending on whether one lives east or west of the Atlantic. Maybe many more alternatives seem to be possible, from one’s particular vantage point. I would say that, being the current global expenditure around $1,7 trillions/year, for opposing global terrorism and feeding different conflicts, and the expenditure for space just $25 billions, if the world remains closed we can only expect such a quite immature balance to get worse. Any space exploration mission will be more uncertain, unsafe and insufficiently supported.

Having said that, we can still see the problem in different ways. We could criticize the NASA strategy, still oriented only to space exploration and closed to space expansion and industrialization. But I am afraid that would be an old method, based on opposition, instead of collaboration. In parallel, we can however cautiously applaud the new ESA’s strategy, that includes a quite interesting Moon program, for the years 2020 – 2030, including the building of a first lunar village. Some of the Tumlinson’s questions are ruling, of course: who should finance space exploration, and who should finance space expansion? May we simply split the problem, as apparently the US administration tried to do: exploration by governments, by public money, and industrialization by private ventures? It is not that simple. Such an approach could simply lead to half the agency’s budget, and leave few courageous entrepreneurs fighting alone for the benefit of humanity. Is that correct?

I don’t think so. I believe we should move a few percent of the public expenditure toward the support the civilian astronautic industry. This does not preclude continuation of militaristic (defense) systems; such an high cultural maturity cannot be achieved in few months, nor years. But, considering that civilization is exposed to an incredibly high risk of implosion, if we don’t relaunch the global economy by bootstrapping the space revolution, could the military expenditure be reduced from $1.7 billion to $1.6 billion?

Can we imagine what we could do, should the space budget grow from the current $25 billion/year to $125 billion? We could develop the exploration of Mars, and the expansion into the Greater Earth, accelerating the decrease of the cost to orbit, building infrastructures at L4 and L5, on the Moon, and begin mining Asteroids. The civilian astronautic industry would be boosted, many companies founded, space tourism will take off (literally!), and the global crisis will could be overcome. Missions to Mars will move from a space yard located in L5, and not from Earth: that will be quite different book, with all my respect and appreciation to Andy Weir, and movie.

SPACE, NOT WAR!

The World Congress “Space, Not War!” (https://www.spacenotwar.org/) in preparation for 2016, will propose to the world public opinion the only real alternative to involution of civilization constrained within the boundaries of a physically and philosophically closed world.

This Call for Papers (https://www.spacenotwar.org/call_for_papers.php), still evolving, will be soon opened to abstracts submission.

It is already possible to express interest for the congress, using this Pre-Registration form (https://www.spacenotwar.org/congress_pre-registration.php)

[English review by Susan Singer]

download pdf version here: The Martian, a movie, and a book, still to be written

Sep

2015

MIGRATION AND EXPANSION – EARTHLINGS LOOKING FOR OTHER WORLDS

SRI NEWSLETTER – SEPTEMBER 11^th 2015 – by Adriano V. Autino

As always, I avoid commenting on hot news, on the the emotional wave of media images. I do this so as to not confuse myself with those who profit from the death of innocent children to gain visibility. However, my reflections aim to a higher and wider horizon, and a week more or less cannot change the substance.

On the exodus of almost biblical proportions of Middle Eastern peoples escaping massacres by wars and by ISIS, I do not pretend to be neutral and above. God forbid: I could no longer call myself a humanist, if I did. So I state now my conception of a world open, friendly and free, in all its meanings and directions, incoming, outgoing, and especially upwards, through the interface between our Earth and the Cosmos. I therefore welcome not only the position of the German government, probably dictated not only by humanitarianism, but also and much more the decision of those German citizens who put gifts and aids in their car, and went on to take in refugees. This is definitely the Europe that I like. But it’s already been said by many, and I do not intend to waste your time by repeating what has been already read and heard.

The matter is not, in fact, to decide whether to open or close the door to the refugees, because it would be like trying to stem a tsunami bare handed. The real point is: what are we doing, while we welcome the refugees (which I hope), or close them off? I’ll explain. Those who want to erect walls speculate on the fear of some potentially negative effects of mass immigration. Some of these effects can not be denied, however. I contend that such effects would be the same even in the case of closure. What causes them is not, in fact, the actual movement of migrants from their unfortunate countries to these (so far) less unfortunate countries of Europe. The real danger is the strong tides of possible cultural involution that the ongoing extensive social phenomena can contribute to determine. In other words, the social fear, both by migrants and by residents of destination countries, is the real destabilizing agent, which can retract the civic consciousness of centuries in a few seasons. The social fear affects both the people “invaded” by migrants and populations locked within neo-medieval physical and mental walls.

So the real problem is, what we, the so-called advanced societies, do in order to maintain and improve the level of culture and civil advance hard-won during the industrial era, thanks to the sacrifices of our fathers and grandfathers, who threw the blood, sweat, tears and brain synapses in the factories, in the fields, in the research laboratories? I know this probably sounds a little rhetorical and “twentieth centuried,” but please see it with “today eyes”. The real threat is that the intellectual and business vanguard born from the industrial revolutions at some point may throw in the towel and surrender before the tide of violence, of war and neo-feudal vulgarity and arrogance boarding at all levels. If that happens, the genocidal regime of ISIS, and all it represents, in terms of absolute primitivism and destruction of civilization, will have won. Why? Because the so-called advanced societies will not have been able to offer anything to young people, leaving them adrift, prey to the forces of evil and destruction.

When we leave our body still and idle for a long time, it is very easy that some disease will arise. In a culturally stagnant social context social ills develop and, if the context is the globalized world, diseases are global. It will not be the erection of walls, to be anyway overwhelmed, that will cure diseases, indeed: the closed world stale air can only worsen the condition of patients. The great migration is a reaction to great social ills: extreme poverty, bloody dictatorships, stagnant and abominable bureaucracies. People sets off in search of new worlds … Closing the doors and remained bounded in a rotting immobility will be useless. And, the ones who believed they had done enough welcoming in the refugees, would be making a mistake just as glaring! Accepting the migrants and remaining inert it would mean giving up any projects and to be submerged. We urgently need to restart the cultural progress, to open the world, a clear commitment to space, providing us with a more scientific and humanistic governance, and less corrupt, short-sighted, opportunistic and degrowther in facts. There is an urgent and indispensable need to defy civil unrest on the planet by exponentially increasing our design effort, aiming high, expanding the androsphere in space, building villages on the moon, constructing rotating O’Neill cities at Lagrange points, triggering new industrial development, all of which the free and peaceful civilization is in dire need. And no, Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama, the world today will not understand why the “powers” should feel the need for a military confrontation between themselves, triggered with the help of useful idiots like the Ukrainian aspirant tyrant or the unfading Syrian despot! The only understandable and sustainable use of force today is to unite and remove butchers, tyrants and despots.Much more important, however, is to bring the industrial revolution to the countries involved in the Arab Spring movement and in all countries striving for democracy. And what is the only ground on which a new industrial development can now be developed, especially in light of the recent vertical crisis of the BRICS countries? I know I’m repeating myself, but it can never be said enough: the only ground is outside the earthling ground! The geo-lunar industrialization, space tourism, spaceports, low cost vehicles to transport passengers into space, the use of lunar and asteroidal raw materials, the creation of millions of new jobs both on Earth and in space! The globalized world of today no longer offers to its seven and a half billion people, any possibility of low-cost expansion: unavoidable then that the people looking for peace, development and democracy are oriented to migration. While the so-called advanced nations fall into an endless spiral of increasingly devastating conflict. The only possible way is to expand upwards, to start to exploit the incalculable resources of our Solar System. Then the youth will have a very worthwhile perspective, from which to study and engage. And the future will continue to exist, in spite of the Sorcerer’s Apprentices who fomented the birth of ISIS.On October 7, 2015, at the Politecnico of Torino (Italy), the conference “The fledgling industry of civilian space flight” https://www.spacerenaissance.it/eventi/la-nascente-industria-del-volo-spaziale-civile/will discuss these issues.