Nuclear Devices in Space

Here is an essay that was written by one of the authors for a college course several months ago. We thought you might enjoy it though it might be better to just skim it. This paper was meant for an uninitiated audience.

Mars has long been a target of space colonization. This little planet is actually quite similar to Earth in many different ways. But in order for Mars to be a planet that is truly amenable to humans, that is, a place where people can go and walk in the Martian sun as one would on Earth, the planet has to be terraformed. Terraformation is the global engineering of a planet’s environment (Moss). In Mars’ case terraformation refers to the heating of the planet. Several methods for terraforming

Elon Musk with Stephen Colbert

Mars have been put forward. These ideas have included pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or dropping asteroids on the planet. But the concept which is now receiving the most attention is one referenced by Elon Musk on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert. When Colbert asked what it would take to make Mars livable, Musk replied that “There are two ways, the fast way and the slow way.”(Colbert) The slow way was to use greenhouse gases to hasten global warming on Mars. The fast way was to drop thermonuclear weapons on the poles. It was the fast way which has received the attention.

In order for Mars to be the planet which humans leave Earth for, it will have to be terraformed. The use of nuclear weapons is one of the most practical methods of accomplishing the task. While technological challenges exist even with this approach, it will be the geopolitical and interplanetary ethics which will pose the greatest challenge to any type of Mars transformation.

Why is it that Musk believes that thermonuclear weapons would be ideal for terraforming Mars? The goal behind the plan is to create a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars. Mars is full of carbon dioxide. The tenuous atmosphere that exists there already is primarily carbon dioxide, and the poles are composed of frozen carbon dioxide, or dry ice. Detonation of nuclear weapons over the poles is expected to heat them enough to release huge amounts more CO2 into the atmosphere. Ideally, this initial release of CO2 would heat the planet enough that more CO2 would be melted, and from that warming more still, continuously until all the dry ice has been melted and ejected into the atmosphere. From there plants can be introduced to convert the CO2 into oxygen. Nuclear weapons are ideal to start this process because they are understood, powerful and compact. Other options for starting the process of CO2 release require huge infrastructures and technologies which have not yet been developed.

However, even though the plan is feasible technologically it is almost insurmountable politically. The current Outer Space Treaty which is signed by most nuclear powers of the world, and all space powers, states that no weapons of mass destruction will be placed in space (United Nations). Basically, the global UN treaty prohibits nuclear weapons in space. There is a possibility that the treaty can be amended to allow thermonuclear devices to be deployed for the peaceful purposes of terraforming Mars. After all, peaceful applications of thermonuclear devices in space have never been a large consideration. Also, conveniently the treaty does not apply to individuals or companies, and may become even less of a factor.

A bill up for vote in the U.S. senate is set to give companies control of extracted materials from asteroids, (Fecht) even though the UN treaty states that no country may control any resources in space. The U.S. bill will set a precedent for private organizations to make decisions about space utilization outside of international treaties. The bill will also allow for the United States to develop local legislation to allow private organizations to decide the fate of Mars. So essentially, the U.S. may not be internationally allowed to unilaterally claim parts of space or Mars, but it can provide the resources to a private company, not bound by the treaty to terraform Mars. This all operates under the assumption that the Space Act of 2015 is ratified by Congress. But it does present the possibility that Elon Musk could obtain the means to terraform Mars with nuclear devices as a peaceful utilization of the devices without forcing the U.S. to break its treaty.

If the humanitarian effort to terraform Mars with nukes was ratified by the UN, or enabled by U.S. legislation, there would be multiple primary objections to the possibility, both are based on safety. In order to get to space one must take a rocket. Rockets, the world over, only have a success rate of, at best, 96 percent (Lafleur). What would occur if a rocket carrying a nuclear device exploded upon launch (Jauregui)? Also what should occur if terrorists or hackers hijack the device and point it back towards Earth. These are the concerns of a nuclear device being launched.

The latter argument is inconceivable. Such a device would have higher than normal military security. It would not be as if it is a basic laptop to be hacked. If the nuclear arsenal of the US has not been breached then neither will a rocket to Mars be compromised.

So, regarding the issue of a failure. This is a legitimate concern. But what few people realize is that there have already been multiple nuclear payloads sent into space. The Curiosity rover uses a radioactive device to power itself which would have disintegrated should it have exploded at launch. There have also been multiple SNAP-10A fission reactors launched since the 60’s (Bennett). Thus far there have been no accidents. But the reality is that even if one of these nuclear devices were to explode in the rocket the danger of radioactive fallout would be minimal. A nuclear blast creates dangerous fallout because it is able to eject decaying plutonium in all directions very energetically and evenly. A rocket exploding is a firecracker in comparison. The reactor and its contents would fall out of the sky and into the ocean, not spread like a plume across a continent. Overall, the dangers of safety are arguments similar to saying that we might get hit by a car if we cross the street, so one should never cross a street. It would not be negligent to attempt to launch a nuclear cargo to Mars.

So, assuming that nuclear devices have been approved to go to Mars and detonate, the next argument for the opposition would be that of the ecological impacts such an act would have on Mars itself (Jauregui). These objections stem from the idea that humans do not fully understand Mars yet. Mars has been considered one of the prime locations in the solar system to find life or remnants of life. Mars is theorized to have once been very earthlike, warm and wet. These theories lend credence to the idea that there are either fossilized or living organisms to find on Mars (Johnson). But should humans go and start nuking the planet, they could obliterate evidence of that past Martian life, or possibly even that life itself if it still exists. This issue can be likened to endangerment and human caused extinction of animals on Earth. The trouble is on Earth there are other resources, other solutions to deforestation, on Mars those options are limited because terraformation is required to even open the door to those other possibilities. Mars must be terraformed in order to provide a human presence that is capable of fully understanding and studying the planet. This cannot be achieved with rovers, but it can with humans.

There exists the possibility that small colonies will be established before the planet is terraformed. The stations would conduct the science to prepare the planet for the terraformation and design the process. While performing these studies scientists would be able to conduct the final surveys for life. If found, the organisms can be protected from the terraformation process so that they can be fully studied. In this way the transformation of the planet will not eliminate any potential existing residents, and the scientific value of those organisms can be viably and organically retained.

Mars is generally touted as a second planet for humans, to ensure that if a life ending event occurs
on one planet the other will preserve the human race. Should initial preparation and study of the planet not be performed the terraformation should continue. It is not appropriate to put the protection of a hypothetical organism or fossil ahead of the actual dangers posed to the fully conscious and creating organisms that are human. Some would say that the dangers to Earth are of the same probability of getting hit by a car while crossing a street, which I presented previously, therefore why should Mars be colonized out of fear. To this let us be clear, if human protection was the only reason then there would be no interest in Mars. Humans can’t fight the urge of a donut even though it could kill them. The idea of a multi-planetary society extends far beyond survival as a benefit. These include solving problems such as population density, political oppression, and economic growth. A new planet allows humans to develop in ways that we have never seen since Europeans started coming over to the Americas. Mars is bare ground for people to create a new start. The colonization must occur for human progress to continue. That is indeed more valuable than a scientific curiosity which may or may not exist, and would still be able to be studied even after the terraformation. The development of the human race is also a hypothetical which is justified through the data of history and how expansion has improved quality of life but also scientific and economic ability to protect and understand environmental issues.

Elon Musk is a marketing genius. He often drops hints and ideas in order to improve visibility of projects he is working on. But he is also a proven achiever of lofty goals. He already operates several technology companies, one of which provides orbital rockets to service the International Space Station. When Elon Musk states that nuclear weapons are a viable method for preparing Mars for human colonization, it is generally a well substantiated belief and even future plan he is working on (Masunaga). Terraforming a planet with nuclear devices is a possibility (AOL.com), and though there are hypothetically-based concerns about it, none of them are legitimate enough to prohibit the plan. The primary issue with actually implementing it will be the fears of what may occur on Earth, either due to potential political backlash or a failure of the vehicle carrying the devices failing. It is possible that the political hurdles can be overcome and the other is a concern based on hyperbole. Nuclear devices can and should be used to prepare another planet for human development.


Bibliography
 Bennett, Gary. "Space Nuclear Power: Opening the Final Frontier." 4th International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and Exhibit (IECEC) (2006). Print.

"Citation Machine Automatically Generates Citations in MLA, APA, Chicago, Turabian, and Harvard." Citation Machine: Format & Generate Citations – APA, MLA, & Chicago. Imagine Easy Solutions. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Colbert, Stephen. "Elon Musk Might Be A Super Villain." YouTube. YouTube, 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

 Fecht, Sarah. "Is Space Mining Legal?" Popular Science. Popular Science, 23 Sept. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

 Jauregui, Andres. "Sorry, Elon Musk: One Does Not Simply Nuke Mars Into Habitability." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 11 Sept. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Johnson, Carolyn. "Ancient Lake on Mars Could Be a Prime Target in Search for Life - The Boston Globe." BostonGlobe.com. Boston Globe, 27 Mar. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

 Lafleur, Claude. "Spacecraft Stats and Insights." The Space Review:. The Space Review, 5 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

 Masunaga, Samantha. "What Scientists Say about Elon Musk's Idea to Nuke Mars." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 11 Sept. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Moss, Shaun. "Terraforming Mars." Mars Papers (2006). Print.

"SNAP-10A." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

"United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs." Outer Space Treaty. United Nations Office of Space Affairs, 19 Dec. 1966. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

 "Why Elon Musk's 'nuking Mars' Idea Isn't All That Far-fetched." AOL.com. 10 Sept. 2015. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Lunar Space Elevator

A space elevator will likely never be implemented in our lifetime on Earth. Space junk, material sciences, and general liability will all prohibit it from being a feasible system using any of the methods proposed thus far.

However, the space elevator is still incredibly viable in other locations. Small moons and large asteroids which have gravity but no atmosphere or space trash are ideal for space elevators. Since a space elevator can run off of electricity and is not limited by refueling or controlling explosions, it is far more reliable as a method of shipping items to and from orbit around a body.

The body most ideal for the first true space elevator will likely be the Moon. The Moon is a clean, fresh, low gravity environment which will undoubtedly be the base of most commercial mining and transport, due to its proximity to Earth and content of materials like Helium-3 and even water ice. The Moon will also possibly act as a spaceport to asteroid mining operations and even Mars colonization.

While rockets can be launched from the Moon easily they are still using consumable fuels. The need to use materials and weight to get something from the surface to orbit or vice versa is a waste. Rockets also break down easily, and are limited to a frequency of travel based on refueling operations and repairs. A space elevator has the potential to run off a clear view of the sun, is a simple machine compared to a rocket and is able to work 24-7 going up and down. Not to mention the fact that it is a fixed point of operations. It will always be in the same place ensuring there is no danger of missing a landing pad and hitting a habitat.

The construction of a space elevator is not as simple as just landing rockets however. The basic idea is to anchor a cable to the surface of the moon. That cable is then strung, from the surface, several thousand miles to a weight. This weight keeps the cable tight. It is similar to if you held a string with a ball on the end and then spun around. An elevator car can then run along the cable to and from orbit. All of this is possible with the materials available today. And while the set-up is risky and stringing several thousand miles of cable straight up from the Moon will be expensive, once established the elevator has little potential for problems afterward. And the cost to operate such a structure would be fixed over its lifetime just as the railroads are.

The economic benefits of a space elevator, once built on the Moon are enormous. Landing of scientific payloads would be faster and more reliable, since organizations would not have to develop landers, unless exploring other areas of the Moon. The elevator would allow for the creation of a space dock. This would be an area were spaceships would stop to unload and refuel while passengers and materials are moved to and from the Moon by the elevator.

Essentially the group that owns the elevator would own the only bridge to the Moon. It would be in the same situation as the early railroads. A colony would grow around it and all commerce would move through it. An important consideration when finding a location for such a structure.

As a business it could begin by simply offering transport to the surface at a reduced cost and increased reliability to building a lander. But as time goes on it could just be a toll elevator. A fixed cost transport one direction or the other, though seasonal costs will likely be a factor.

The business danger to this system is similar to the railroads. If it doesn't run there is still the fixed costs of  maintaining the system. Though we would hazard a guess that those costs would be minimal. Since the elevator comes into contact with nothing other than the vacuum of space environmental wear will be low. If used heavily enough it will require component maintenance but when that occurs the business will still be cash flow positive.

If the elevator were built tomorrow the real business challenge would be paying off the upfront construction cost in a timely manner while the industry catches up. Lunar mining will likely be the best solution since it can be performed autonomously and continuously. LiftPort is going this direction.

LiftPort is moving to build a lunar space elevator by 2020. The organization raised $100,000 on Kickstarter in 2014 to continue development of their design. They are intending to use a kevlar ribbon as the main cable of the elevator, which is the most vital and difficult component of the system. The elevator is meant cart lunar samples into orbit.

At this point LiftPort hasn't stated what the cost of construction would be. Though with possible launch costs and material cost it will undoubtedly be in the fractions of billions of dollars. If they succeed they will set a valuable precedent about the feasibility of the technology.

The space elevator continually appears in media as a technology to replace rockets on Earth. Unfortunately, there are just to many practical problems with such devices on our planet at this time. But space elevators are a very good idea in the correct areas. They are easy to operate, once built, and do replace rocket technologies with something more reliable. And while we have said many technologies will be valuable as businesses in the private space industry, lunar space elevators will likely be the most likely to succeed. Their superiority to conventional space transport is unrivaled from a technological and business standpoint. If a space elevator is built on the Moon those who own it will control much of the industry in that area. No one will swim a river when they can cross a bridge.

For more detailed information of space elevators see this NASA report on the technology:
The Space Elevator by Bradley Edwards Ph.D.

Seasteading as a Foundation for Space Law

There are several examples in history which can be used to avoid stumbling blocks in the current and coming space economy. Antarctica, America, etc. However, anything that has happened in history is now set in stone and cannot be experimented with only theorized upon. But space is an expensive place to go, experimentation, with technologies, and particularly law, in cheaper settings would be highly useful. Fortunately, there is a place that serves as a viable testing ground of space communities and how they will interact with Earth communities.

Over the last few years there has been a small movement for what is called seasteading. It it all predicated on the idea of creating what amounts to artificial floating cities or countries, on the earth's oceans. This movement is now lead, primarily, by the Seasteading Institute.

At the introduction of seasteading a book was written to outline challenges to seasteading, some technical others legal. Not surprisingly, many issues discussed in the book will be faced by space communities.

The seas are a legal fuzzy area. While after a certain distance there is technically no jurisdiction countries can still exercise authority for a number of reasons. There are dangers of pirates. Questions exist of whether a floating city can truly define its own laws and standards of conduct. How would an isolated community support itself financially or justify its construction? How does an artificial structure support the biological needs of its inhabitants. All of these issues, which apply to a community in the unclaimed, empty, shifting, blue void, also apply to a community in the unclaimed, empty, shifting black void.

While seasteading is an expensive and risky undertaking it is far less so than the creation of a space station. Movers in the space industry should consider this movement very seriously. Any world decisions made about free, privately-funded entities in international waters would likely be applied to free privately-funded entities in international space.

If such floating cities were created the space industry would be able to explore and even shape the political, social, and financial ramifications of space flight in as close a simulation as is possible. If technologies must be tested and proven so to should the sociological designs. Seasteading can provide this opportunity.

The creation of islands on earth can define how the islands in the sky will interact with the world they are leaving but still interacting with.

To read the book on seasteading visit The Seasteading Book

Orbital Zoning

For nearly sixty years humans have been sending objects into orbit. Some are weather satellites, others digital TV, and some are just junk. Though there is a huge volume of orbital space above Earth to put satellites in, orbits are in fact filling up and and are largely uncontrolled. As the private space industry grows the need to zone and regulate orbits for particular uses and organizations will be increasingly necessary to create a safe and effective orbital airspace.

To clarify this concept let's look at a scenario. Imagine a company, such as Bigelow Aerospace, has constructed an orbital hotel. The station sits in an orbit several hundred miles above Earth. Now another company developing a space BattleBots show decided to set up shop in the same orbit. This is allowed because no one owns the orbit or can prohibit anyone else form using it. Unfortunately, the Spacebots end up smashing each other to pieces in the orbit, much to the enjoyment of Earth spectators. But now there is an increase of debris which could easily puncture the soft hull of the space station. While the Spacebots would be held accountable for the damage the entire problem could have been avoided if the space station was able to zone its orbit for only human occupation. This is a slightly silly circumstance but the point is clear.

The same type of situation is the reason that factories can't be built in residential areas here on Earth. Similar rules must be set up for space. It will not be possible for space to continually be treated as an international free area like Antarctica. People and organizations actually want to go to space and get something from it, in this case a location.

Orbits are real estate, just as on Earth. There are certain locations better suited for certain tasks and some that are filled with dangerous litter. But there are a lot of orbits above the earth. The 3-D nature of the Void allows for this, as well as the fact that everything in orbit is moving and can be coordinated.

So how does one go about defining property in a place where there are no boundaries but simply the "idea" of locations?

Well the simple place to begin would be with altitude. Space could be divided into more altitude layers. Within those altitudes one could then define particular orbits just as radio bands are defined on earth. Particular altitudes could be reserved for earth observation, others for communications satellites, and then the areas above the debris-filled orbits could be reserved for space stations.

Then within the altitudes particular orbital trajectories could be defined. A company would be able to purchase these trajectories and maintain its hardware within them . But this opens the question, from whom does one purchase an orbit, something which transcends any type of Earth boundary.

The likely solution would be to allow for homesteading of defined orbits. Organizations and Countries could agree to allow ownership of particular orbits through a system of placing improvements in them. Then once ownership of an orbit has been established, through the International Homesteading System, the orbits can be sold. This does require international cooperation but that is the case in many aspects of Space Law and a topic for another time.

Enforcement of homesteading boundaries will be an issue. How to keep vehicles in their space and ensure no one trespasses will initially fall to ground-based tracking and monitoring of payloads as they are launched. But eventually a Space Authority will have to be established to act as a "traffic cop" for Earth orbits. It would go around checking the authorizations of certain satellites to be in certain areas and perhaps "towing" them when they are not.

The issue of spy satellites will also be a problem. These craft are some of the best kept secrets in the world. Governments will not want to register spy satellites or even relegate them to particular altitudes. But as slowly as orbital space is filling this issue may resolve itself before it has to be addressed for private needs.

Space will eventually have to have a system of organization or regulation. Responsibility for space debris and sharing of orbits will become too large of issues to simply ignore. Orbits will become crowded and at that point everyone will want to know what is theirs, else the industry could become quite confrontational. This can't happen because it would be self-defeating to the development of a Space Economy.

Note: A particular example of where zoning of orbits would have been useful would have been in the Chinese Satellite Missile Test incident. Again, it is an issue of international relations but if the Space-Faring nations had collaborated to allocate weapons testing orbits, other nations and organizations could have avoided those areas and now not have to dodge debris.

Space Body Guards

When space becomes a true society and economy space crime will develop. There will be dangers from pirates and rogue groups and governments raiding cargo ships, and even small explorers, for precious metals or resources. Ships that are prospecting or carrying any type of precious cargo (human or inanimate) will likely need some protection. The development of space "body guards" will be necessary.

These personal protectors will be able to take many shapes. Robotic or manned. Integrated or separate.
Most likely, such a company will begin by creating small groups of drones that can be rented by ships.

These drones would act as scouts generally, but could be used as killer satellites, ramming other ships, should a ship ever be attacked. By the time such devices are needed AI will have developed enough that remote control will not be necessary. The protectors will be able to behave as a dog would when its owner says "sick'em."

As time goes on manned craft will be developed that will essentially be escort fighters. This would be a very elite type of group probably only contracted by dignitaries or large corporations.

The need for protection of standard cargo and transport ships will decrease as more are launched and used. Therefore, such a security force will quickly become something for the niche market of the very paranoid or the very rich and important, just as private body guards today.

The primary reason that such force will be needed more in the beginning is because the harshness and greed in space will create the same kind of desperate crime that existed during the California Gold Rush. Those in space will need a body guard or guard dog just as the western prospectors once did to protect their claims and supplies.

Certainly, these types of "body guards," manned or unmanned, would require changes to current space law, that prohibit such weapons in space, in order to exist. But such changes will come about when those in space need protected as much as the people on the surface of a planet.

Space Crime (1)

Crime follows wherever there is either want or money. Space will have both. It will begin as disputes over needed resources and will likely develop into full blown space pirates that could endanger ships.

In the early days of space there will be a few primary resources that everyone will need. These include water, fuel, and energy. These things will be the gold of space for many years. Space farers will trade these as they would currency. It will be a system identical to the old west trading posts. The trouble is, there will eventually be those that have nothing to trade. An asteroid ship that is out of fuel and has found no rocks with water to barter. While in the very beginning there will no doubt be a space "code of conduct" where people simply help themselves out because they know they all need it. A "do unto others" mentality, brought on by the greater purpose of space colonization. But eventually that will likely fade. Those that are in need may be ignored in order to gain a higher profit. This will be when the crime begins. Space farers will begin to steal from each other either to survive or to make a buck. Again, as in the old west, one could steal a man's gold or his canteen. In space these will be one and the same, at the start. This will be the beginning of crime. Taking the resources of others in order to satisfy an assumed need. Meeting a quota, going farther, or staving off thirst.

Later space will develop to where these basic needs will be able to be fulfilled easily. This is the point where space is no longer a frontier and is rather a fully developed economy. Ships no longer look for the bare necessities. They instead look for profit. Ships will transport precious metals, large supplies of water, or passengers. These become the target of true criminals that are not hunting out of necessity but out of greed.

Now in space it is nearly impossible to intercept another ship by chance, there is just too much space. So the old means of just floating around until something comes along will not be what happens. However, the space culture will have several characterisitics that will be of help to criminals. One, all ships will be able to contact each other and likely be tracked by some form of ground control. This information will be vulnerable to hacks, leading pirate ships to cargo ships filled with platinum asteroids. Second, even if pirates can't find ships in open space they will be able to lay in wait at major ports. Such as in orbit around  the Moon and Mars. This makes it less difficult to organize targets.

In the case of waiting in orbit for a target. It will be possible because criminals will likely arrive before security services. This will change as space body guards and space police become established in order to protect the ships in port or even in transit.

As far as crime goes I have only truly spoken about theft. There are other facets that could be discussed but that would make this post go on for ever. Therefore those screws of the topic will be saved for future discussion.

Really, the best analogy for what space will be like, concerning crime, as it develops, is the Wild West. People will kill for your gold, steal your horse, take your pick, drink your water, and anything else you can think of. And it will remain like this until countermeasures are created.

Space is just a huge frontier that will require a much more developed and even multiplanetary society to maintain any kind of law enforcement or protection. When spacecraft come down to the cost of a large boat today, crime will become as commonplace as we see today in normal life. It will, primarily, be the responsibility of the prospectors and the explorers of space to find the means of protecting themselves as they go about their lives.