Newsletter Articles 2024b

July ~ Food on Mars: Part 2

Last month we examined the requirements to provide sustenance for ten colonists on a two-year mission to Mars. Recall that at 3,000 calories per day a human requires 1,095,000 calories per year.

We reviewed NASA’s packaging methods, which are extraordinary. But to my thinking, fresh food is as necessary for mental health as it is for meeting astronauts’ nutritional needs. Its availability will be critical for success and a long-term presence on the Red Planet.

To accomplish this, we determined it will take 233 square feet of garden area per astronaut to provide enough nutrition if they harvest four times per year. Our crew will need a total indoor grow space of up to 2,330 square feet.

As I noted in last month’s edition, indoor farming in Martian regolith isn’t the only option for agriculture on Mars. Here on Earth, and to a limited extent on the ISS, hydroponics has proven to be a reliable growing method for certain crops. In many cases, increased crop yields have been documented using this technique.

Hydroponics is the growing of plants in the absence of soil. Roots are immersed (or sprayed, as in the case of aeroponics) in an aqueous solution of nutrients and minerals essential for plant life. It’s a closed system. Water is pumped from a reservoir into pipes or troughs where the roots draw the water and minerals. Energy is provided by grow lights suspended above the crops. Returning the leftover effluent to the reservoir closes the system.

Hydroponic systems can be modularized. Trays or racks of plumbing, plants and grow lights can be stacked one on top of another, reducing the overall footprint and increasing the yield per unit area.

A number of supporting systems and requirements are shared in common between hydroponics and soil-based ag for our Mars colony. Water must be collected and distributed for irrigation. If it’s sourced locally, it must be purified using a Urine Processor Assembly to remove perchlorates. Ongoing water quality must be monitored for the buildup of deleterious compounds such as nitrate salts or organics and rerouted through the UPA.

Crop production will supplement the base’s oxygen supply and CO2 scrubbers. Both systems will be automated. AI will monitor and manage pests, humidity, water purity, fertilizer, harvesting and composting surplus biomass.

But hydroponics offers distinct advantages in a closed colony. First, as noted above, it requires a smaller footprint. Depending on the plants selected, and using LED lighting, a given growing rack could be no more than 18 inches high.

In a 30-foot-diameter dome, as many as nine layers could be stacked close to the center. Assuming two-foot-wide aisles for human and robotic passage, three-foot-wide stacked racks could be arranged in three concentric circles. That provides 2800 square feet of hydroponic growing area within the 707-square-foot structure. A similar planting arrangement for crops planted in soil yields a net production area of 443 square feet. Our hydroponic system yields six times the net growing area!

The setup would be less laborious. A one-foot soil depth in our dome means a hydroponic system would save astronauts from having to collect and haul over 26 cubic yards of regolith into our sealed dome. That volume of dry soil on Earth would weigh 26 tons! In Mars’s 1/3G gravity, that’s still nearly nine tons. And as noted last month, four domes will be required to provide enough food for our crew of ten colonists. Hydraulic equipment will need to be sent with the mission to facilitate this kind of earthmoving. Plus, as I noted, perchlorate must still be filtered from the regolith before it can be used for crops.

Native water would also have to be purified to remove perchlorate. But the volume required for hydroponics could be as little as 1/10th of that required for soil-grown crops.

A final advantage to hydroponics is that it can provide fresh produce for the nine-month flight to Mars. Arriving with growing produce would give the mission a head-start until the full system is up and running.

To fully realize the above advantages of hydroponics, plants should be selected that only grow a foot tall. Leafy greens, herbs, strawberries, tomatoes (with some pruning) and peppers (more pruning) have all been successfully grown hydroponically. Kale and chard are rich in calcium and folate, vital nutrients for astronauts in the reduced Martian gravity. Herbs will allow for most ethnic cuisines, re-creating a little bit of home for our explorers. Tomatoes and peppers will add variety to the otherwise monotonous three sisters crop regimen I recommended in last month’s issue. And strawberries offer sweet in an otherwise savory diet.

But there are disadvantages. One drawback to the exclusive use of hydroponics on Mars is that it can’t close the carbon cycle. As I noted last month, with soil-based agriculture, human waste and food scraps will all go into a composting toilet. Composting gives off CO2, which will be absorbed by the crops. But without soil to amend with the remaining compost, that biomass will be lost to the system, likely dumped outside the base.

Another disadvantage is that most low-growing plants suitable for our system are not calorie-dense. But they are more nutrient-dense than their taller cousins. The larger root mass of these bigger plants make them best suited instead for soil-based cultivation.

Given what we’ve learned about food on Mars, let’s examine a mission ag plan. Ideally, our astronauts should grow most of their own food. Once our base is established, only specialty commodities too difficult to cultivate on Mars like coffee, wheat flour, sugar and meat should be shipped from Earth. This conserves shipping space for other mission-critical equipment. The more variety in our explorer’s menus, the better will be their mental health and mission success.

I estimate constructing and outfitting greenhouse domes will take six months apiece. I expect decontamination of soil and water could prove to be a slow process. It will take the full two-year mission duration to build out the agriculture infrastructure.

The inaugural human mission will rely on its 14-ton allotment of packaged food. If the ag facilities are successful, that produce should be consumed. Any unused packaged food could be set aside as part of a one-year emergency stash for subsequent missions.

The risk of crop failure due to habitat or equipment failure, or loss due to disease outbreak or environmental toxins is high. Any rescue would be at least a year away, making it prudent to provide adequate packaged food for that amount of time.

What facilities should be constructed? Recall that our crew will need an indoor grow area of up to 2,330 square feet, requiring four 30-foot diameter domes.

I propose the construction of one dome at a time. The first dome provides enough hydroponic capacity to address each astronaut’s personal preferences and needs with respect to leafy greens, herbs, strawberries, tomatoes and peppers. 100 square feet apiece would suffice. A ring of hydroponic platforms stacked five-high placed against the outer wall would yield 1000 square feet of production space. The remainder of the floor could be allocated to the three sisters, supplementing the processed fare. The final buildout of three more 30-foot diameter domes dedicated to the three sisters should achieve food self-sufficiency.

Growing crops on Mars will be a substantial component of any permanent human presence. Installing the necessary infrastructure will divert personnel and computing capacity away from exploration, research and resource extraction. But once established, agriculture will be the foundation on which those endeavors will stand. Until then,

Happy Reading,

Like what you just read? Share this issue with friends and encourage them to subscribe to receive free short stories, news about upcoming promotions and books by yours truly and other exciting Sci-Fi authors!

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics
https://getgrowee.com/best-plants-for-hydroponic-farming/#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20best%20crops%20for%20hydroponic,similar%20nutrient%20requirements%2C%20and%20offer%20high%20yields.
https://ourlittlesuburbanfarmhouse.com/18-plants-you-can-grow-year-round-hydroponically/#google_vignette
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/science-enabling-technology/technology-highlights/a-novel-approach-to-growing-gardens-in-space/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/world/mars-food-interstellar-lab-climate-scn-spc-intl/index.html

August ~ Energy Supply on Mars

Over the past year, we’ve considered what it will take to create a permanent human presence on Mars. We’ve evaluated ground transportation, oxygen and carbon dioxide cycles, water recycling, thermal management, and food production. But we’ve danced around what will make it all possible: energy. This edition we’ll examine several options available for operating our Red Planet base, then decide which makes sense to deploy.

First up is fusion. This is the sexy power source. It’s the first that comes to mind by most futurists and planners for long-term human occupation.

Fusion combines the atomic nuclei of two isotopes of hydrogen: deuterium (one proton and one neutron) and tritium (one proton and two neutrons). The reaction creates one helium atom (two protons and two neutrons), one free neutron, plus energy. Lots of energy, and efficient. Just half a pound of fuel per year will provide 1 MW of clean, dependable power. A typical “starter” base will use about 40 kW, a mere 4% of such a reactor’s output.

Deuterium is relatively common. Shortly after the Big Bang, a quark-gluon plasma condensed into protons and neutrons, some of which then fused to form deuterium nuclei as the universe cooled. Most of it in existence today is believed to have been produced during this event. It can be found in any molecule that contains hydrogen, including water. Deuterium-containing water, known as heavy water, can be separated from regular water by distillation. Electrolyzing the heavy water yields deuterium and oxygen.

Tritium is less common. It’s mildly radioactive (it emits a weak beta particle) with a short half-life of 12 ½ years, making it quite rare in nature. But, it can be manufactured by bombarding lithium with neutrons. This is the process in nuclear fission breeder reactors. And the same will be true for fusion reactors, utilizing a thick bed of lithium-containing ceramic beads called a breeder blanket.

Unlike tritium, lithium is abundant. Here on Earth, lithium exists as a salt. Many commercially viable sources are either lithium brine aquifers, or deposits leftover from such geologic features. On Mars, subterranean brines will be likely sources for both deuterium in the water and lithium in the saline fraction.

But fusion has never been achieved for more than a few seconds. The technology is not mature enough to maintain a stable, reliable burn. The reactor itself must be miniaturized by orders of magnitude smaller than today’s behemoth experimental reactors to make transfer to Mars viable. I deem this unlikely until well after 2050, possibly even decades later.

Nuclear fission is a well-developed technology that has been miniaturized for space travel and exploration. NASA’s 10 kW Kilopower fission reactor uses uranium-235 to generate heat that is piped to an integrated Stirling electric generator by molten sodium. These compact devices can power nuclear electric ion propulsion drives in spacecraft. Or can serve as stand-alone power generation plants on the Moon or Red Planet.

An even smaller fission energy source is a radioisotope thermoelectric generator(RTG). Less powerful than a Kilopower generator, it’s a type of nuclear battery employing an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by radioactive decay into electricity. Most Mars rovers employ RTGs.

Solar is another power source used on the Red Planet. Photovoltaic cells on Mars produce about half of the output they would on Earth. The maximum solar irradiance is about 590 W/m2 compared to about 1000 W/m2 at the Earth’s surface. Therefore, it will require twice as many cells to generate a comparable output on Mars as here.

A 50 kW photovoltaic system on Earth needs around 100 5-foot by 3-foot panels. Roughly 200 panels would be required for the same output on the Red Planet. Shipping weight, less mounting hardware, would be 4 tons. That’s a lot of weight for a system that would be available for a fraction of each day, and not at all during an extended dust storm.

Scientists have evaluated the feasibility of wind power on Mars. They studied a medium-sized Enercon E33 wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 33 m and a rated output of 330 kW. The turbine could operate at an average output of about 10 kW there.

Winds on the Red Planet are more reliable for longer durations, both day and night, than the sun. But some sort of battery backup would still be required to get through the inevitable outages. Delivering the bulky equipment will be difficult. The rotor diameter requires a minimum 16.5 m (55 ft!) tower. Add another 10 feet so no one walks into a spinning blade, plus three 16.5 m blades and the generator. Then add to that the bulk and mass of the batteries.

Combustion has been a mainstay energy source for humankind for millions of years. There is evidence that Australopithecus(recall the famous Lucy skeleton) used fire. But it’s not a good idea inside the confines of a Mars habitat without careful control of the oxygen feed, and the flue gasses. Outside, there’s no free atmospheric oxygen to sustain a reaction.

A variation would be an internal combustion engine using compressed oxygen. Two fuels are available on Mars: compressed hydrogen and compressed methane. Both fuels require energy to produce, making them advantageous for transportation uses, but impractical for base power.

I’ll add a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle here. But an HFCEV requires a small RTG to maintain a warm enough operating temperature

So, that’s the rundown of possible energy sources on the Red Planet. And the winner is: It depends on the application.

For vehicles, RTGs have been used to power the various Mars rovers. Earth-moving equipment will likely need an ICE or HFC power source. For large fixed facilities like habitats, greenhouses or industrial sites, 10 kW Kilopower units are designed for that very application. For smaller facilities such as weather stations or communications relays, solar arrays or RTGs should continue to be used.

My personal preference is nuclear fusion. But until the tech is matured and miniaturized, it would be a waste of valuable shipping capacity to deploy it to Mars. It won’t be practical within my lifetime, or that of my children. But my grandkids could help install a 1 MW unit to be shared by several bases. Or they’ll drill the Red Planet’s briny aquifers for lithium and deuterium, or work in the refineries to extract them. Or maybe they’ll pilot the spacecraft that instead deliver those fuels directly from Earth. Until then,

Happy Reading,

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fusion-energy-future#:~:text=Deuterium%20can%20easily%20be%20extracted,distributed%20in%20the%20Earth’s%20crust.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
https://physicsworld.com/a/wind-energy-could-power-human-habitations-on-mars/#:~:text=Hartwick%20says%20that%20they%20%E2%80%9Cwere,solar%20to%20boost%20power%20generation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+combustion+possible+on+Mars&sca_esv=76c8920d8a4a7859&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIK7MC07YQHyoSzvctYLDP_MK6hsjA%3A1721857504504&ei=4HWhZqC6Huvw0PEPvMmMqAU&ved=0ahUKEwigqqOH08CHAxVrODQIHbwkA1UQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=is+combustion+possible+on+Mars&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHmlzIGNvbWJ1c3Rpb24gcG9zc2libGUgb24gTWFyczIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRirAjIFECEYnwUyBRAhGJ8FMgUQIRifBTIFECEYnwVIhDZQAFisLnAAeAGQAQCYAXCgAcASqgEEMjguMrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCHqACoBPCAgoQIxiABBgnGIoFwgIEECMYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFwgIOEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEYigXCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICDRAuGIAEGEMY5QQYigXCAggQABiABBixA8ICBhAAGBYYHsICCBAAGBYYHhgPwgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiiBBiJBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEmAMAkgcEMjcuM6AH3N0B&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

September ~ Better Batteries

This summer our Subaru turned over 130,000 miles. After ten years, it was time for a new car. My wife and I were keen on buying a battery electric vehicle (BEV) but were put off by 1) the friggin’ high cost, and 2) the not-quite-stellar charge range. We live in a part of the country where public chargers are few and far between—when they’re working.

So, we compromised and bought a RAV4 hybrid. We didn’t eliminate our driving carbon footprint, but we did cut it in half. We get twice the gas mileage of our trade-in. And we contributed to the lithium-ion (Li-on) economy. Hybrids have a small Li-on battery pack that charges during braking or when coasting downhill. It supplements the engine during acceleration and when going uphill. Bottom line, we went from 27 mpg to well-north of 40.

For a time, BEV sales by legacy auto makers, and a few noteworthy startups were gaining momentum. But the initial enthusiasm has cooled. These early models, based on Li-on technology, often offered less than 300-mile range. Their battery packs can overheat in hot weather, don’t perform well in sub-freezing temperatures, and charge very slowly if at all. While not as frequently as earlier iterations of the tech, batteries occasionally burst into flames. And there was the cost premium: anywhere from $10 to $15 thousand dollars. Ouch.

So car companies and battery manufacturers are retooling to bring down prices to make BEVs price-competitive with cars powered by internal combustion engines.
In the meantime hybrid sales are booming as BEV sales are languishing. We bought our car knowing that battery technology is steadily improving, offering the promise of greater range, lower cost, and improved product safety. Our next car will definitely be a battery electric vehicle. Let’s examine what car and battery makers are doing to give me so much faith in the future.

A bit of a disclaimer here. If you’ve tried to buy a new vehicle recently, you’ve noticed how difficult it can be to make apples-to-apples comparisons of different makes. I think that’s deliberate. It forces you to depend on their marketing when deciding what to purchase. I’m seeing the same trend when it comes to automotive battery tech. I’ve done my best to ferret out comparable data regarding chemistry and performance. But sometimes companies are loathe to reveal trade secrets. If my information is inaccurate, please bring that (and your source) to my attention. I’ll happily publish a correction.

* * *

Let’s examine what strategies certain auto makers and their partners are pursuing. We’ll compare the basic battery chemistries, energy densities (measured or postulated), charge cycles, range, a few notable pros and cons, and when to expect them to come to market.

Today, most manufacturers rely on the same Li-on battery chemistry, with certain variations in materials depending on what aspects of performance they seek to emphasize. Generally, the negative electrode (cathode) of a conventional Li-on cell is lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NMC) or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (NCA).The positive electrode is typically a metal oxide or phosphate. The electrolyte is a lithium salt in an organic solvent. The lithium ions migrate toward the cathode during battery use, and toward the anode when charging.

Organic solvents are used because voltages are so high that if water was used it would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen gas. While using alternative solvents reduces the explosive potential, overheated and/or damaged batteries can and do burn. Tesla experienced high-profile incidents in the past, driving them to adopt a newer battery chemistry (more on that below).

Energy density measures the amount of power a battery can store and restore relative to its volume or weight. It’s usually expressed in watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg) or watt-hours per liter (Wh/L). A watt-hour is the equivalent of using one watt for one hour.

Higher energy density can be achieved by adjusting electrolyte chemistries and/or electrode materials. Doing so can increase a battery’s range, or allows the same range, but with a smaller battery. Typical automotive Li-on batteries have energy densities between150-220 Wh/kg, or 400 Wh/L.
Most auto companies only guarantee battery performance for 1,500 to 2,000 charge cycles.

* * *

Tesla Of all BEV manufacturers, Tesla is the farthest along in the race for next-generation batteries. They’ve already teamed up with CATL, a Chinese battery manufacturer and begun selling Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries in their standard mileage trims. LFP uses a liquid electrolyte comparable to other Li-on batteries. They have a lower energy density, 205 Wh/kg. LFP packs are exceptionally stable, lasting anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 charge cycles. They’re also less flammable than Li-on batteries. They’re cheaper to produce, are considered more ethical because they use less cobalt and nickel, and can rely on a North American supply chain.

Note the lower energy density. Tesla considers the larger battery pack a reasonable compromise given the benefits. LFP batteries suffer from reduced range and longer charge times in sub-freezing weather, similar to other Li-ons. Tesla began offering LFP packs in China in 2021, and in the US in 2022.

Ford When Ford announced they would revamp their BEV manufacturing to reduce model costs, switching to LFP batteries was part of that strategy. Like Tesla, they have teamed up with CATL, licensing that company’s process for their Blue Oval Battery Pack facility currently under construction in Michigan. Like Tesla, Ford is banking on lower manufacturing cost, controllable supply chain, higher durability and lower flammability. Today, they deploy LFP tech in their Mustang Mach-e and F-150 Lightning models. Blue Oval will go on line in 2026.

General Motors GM is gambling that it can realize cost-savings with its Ultium nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum NCMA battery system. It’s flexible, uses larger individual cells and uses less cobalt, nickel, and lithium than comparable Li-on batteries. GM claims that the Ultium system costs less than$100 per kilowatt-hour to make. Because the system is Li-on, it has a greater energy density, 280 Wh/kg, than LFP chemistry. GM claims a range of 500 to 600mi/charge. Deployed since 2023, Ultium will be adapted to more models as battery manufacturing capacity increases.

GM has also embraced a longer-term battery strategy. Along with BMW, Hyundai, Rivian and Stellantis, they are testing an oxide solid state battery provided by Samsung. They’ve released little detail about their batteries, but claims they have twice the energy density of liquid electrolyte Li-on batteries. Their estimated range will be over 600 miles. Because they’re solid, they’re inflammable, and should offer better performance in both cold and hot weather. One downside will be higher cost. They’re expected to be offered in premium models first, beginning in 2027.

Volkswagen has been testing a prototype battery supplied by American startup Quantumscape. Details have been sparse, but CleanTechnica reports that the architecture features a semi solid state ceramic separator with a self-organizing anode and a liquid organic electrolyte/cathode. The prototype delivers an energy density350 Wh/L. They are expected to last up to 4000 charge cycles. No target release date has been announced, but a streamlined manufacturing process should be operational in 2025.

Toyota has been developing a solid state battery with manufacturer TDK. Popular Mechanics describes the tech as a solid state ceramic-oxide electrolyte with lithium alloy anodes. It could charge in minutes and provides a whopping energy density of 1000 Wh/L, promising a 750 mile range. Prototype battery life is around 1000 charge cycles. One hurdle preventing early adoption is the fragility of the ceramic. Think how durable your grandmother’s ceramic figurine was when you dropped it. Toyota has delayed deployment in the past and currently predicts their batteries will be available in 2027.

The US Military is also funding solid state battery development through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This summer, ION Storage Systems reported its intent to scale up production of its solid state porous ceramic design, funded in part with a DARPA grant. The battery architecture blends lithium metal with a porous ceramic electrolyte. These are expected to be nonflammable. No figures have been provided by ION, but they claim energy density exceeds Li-on. As of August 1, the prototypes have achieved 800 charge cycles. The goal of the $20 million grant is a commercially available battery in three years, 2027.

One final option is NFC’s Quantino 25 prototype BEV. They’ve ditched the battery entirely for a refillable bi-ION electrolyte. The reservoir is built into the vehicle body. According to NFC’s website, their vehicle achieves a range of over 1,200 miles(2,000 km) per refill. Details are sparse, but the reaction of the electrolyte generates electric current which powers the car. It’s claimed to be nonflammable and environmentally friendly.

NFC is seeking venture funding to construct a research and manufacturing campus. Their intent is to license the manufacturing to a third party. If their assumptions fall into place, they could potentially put their tech on the street in about three years. With the caveat that they’ll offer adequate electrolyte refill locations.

So, there you have it, our brief overview of the battery technology that we should be able to drive by 2030. Other chemistry and architecture options are out there: sodium, lithium-sulfur, and graphene, to name a few. But they are not nearly as developed as the tech we’ve just discussed.

Over the next few years, we should see prices drop dramatically. Improvements in manufacturing techniques, cheaper raw materials, and shorter supply chains will all drive prices lower. All while battery performance and safety improve. We’re on the threshold of a golden age of electric vehicles.

Happy Reading,

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240319-the-most-sustainable-alternatives-to-lithium-batteries
https://electrek.co/2024/06/27/anodeless-compressionless-solid-state-battery-ion/
https://ionstoragesystems.com/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a61197028/solid-state-batteries-breakthrough-tdk-energy-density/
https://www.tdk.com/en/news_center/press/20240617_01.html
https://www.solidpowerbattery.com/all-solid-state-batteries/default.aspx
https://www.androidauthority.com/lithium-ion-battery-alternatives-3356834/
https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2024/07/09/blueoval-battery-park-michigan-construction-progresses-alongside.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBlueOval%20Battery%20Park%20Michigan%20will,programs%20and%20energy%20supply%20chain.
https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/lfp-battery-in-your-next-ev-tesla-and-others-say-yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultium#:~:text=Battery%20materials%20will%20be%20supplied,by%20CATL%20with%20cylindrical%20packaging.

October ~ Consciousness and The Singularity

Ever since Vernor Vinge coined the term, Singularity, in 1983, the specter of conscious computers achieving intelligence greater than their human creators has been a staple of science fiction. In the context of artificial intelligence (AI), it’s the point where sentient devices reach a superhuman level of cognition. When a machine is able to build better versions of itself at a rapid rate, it becomes impossible for humans to understand or control it.

Popular books and movies on the subject have proliferated. The Terminator, Battlestar Galactica (I’m still in love with Katee Sackhoff), I Robot, and Ex Machina, all explore the fear that self-aware artificial intelligence may not hold the same value of human life that we do. With catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Are we close to The Singularity? Recent advances in AI would seem to suggest it. Some reviewers of Chat GPT have claimed its human-mimicking responses were evidence of sentience. But first we must answer the question, what is consciousness?

Philosophers have been debating that since the time of Aristotle. John Locke was the earliest to articulate the modern concept consciousness in the 17th century. While there are multiple definitions and nuances, these theories can be summarized into two components. The first is self-awareness, our unique experience of sensory input. A camera records images, but doesn’t experience awe when it captures a sunset, or love when it views another camera. Self-awareness experiences a separation between our self and others, or the environment around us.

The second component is intent. This goes beyond your computer’s security app that switches off an exterior lamp at dawn, then flips it back on at dusk. Intent is the act of creating a conscious goal. After reading your power bill, you may choose to override the program and leave the light off at night to save money. If friends are coming over to visit for the evening, you may plan to turn it on so they can see the front entry steps in the dark. Such planning is beyond the capacity of any present computer programming.

Ever since neuroscience became a discipline in the 19th century, scientists have sought to discover the seat of consciousness. It’s been a daunting task. There is unanimity that it resides in the brain, with its 86 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses and over 100 known neurotransmitters. But no one can pry open someone’s skull, look inside and say, “Aha! There it is. I see your consciousness!”

We know that certain areas of the brain generate repeatable electrical signals when it processes sound, or sight, or if we perform a math problem, etc. But in spite of progress mapping brain regions associated with conscious activity, scientists have yet to discover how we get from this low voltage network of chemical reactions to sentience. What separates us from some complex chemical reaction that lacks self-awareness?

There are nearly limitless theories of consciousness. If you don’t believe me, do a Google search. I’ll wait. And wait. And wait. You get the picture. But these myriad hypotheses only speculate about the what, not the how. How exactly does that bundle of electrochemical reactions make the leap to consciousness? An intriguing idea is taking hold within the neuroscientist community.

More and more scientists suspect that quantum effects may be involved. And recent experimental results are beginning to hint at that. Papers have identified that microtubules exhibit spontaneous electrical self-polarization. They’re the long spindly protein organelles giving cells their three-dimensional structure, that transport molecules within cellular cytoplasm, and that are vital for mitosis (cell division).

Furthermore, microtubules form bundles within axons (the primary long-distance signal carrier of neurons) and dendrites (the wispy extensions that form dozens (maybe hundreds) of connections with surrounding neurons. These bundles generate an oscillating, self-regulating low voltage current. They also produce bursts of electrical activity that correspond with action potentials, the rapid change in neuron cell membrane voltage we associate with neurotransmission. Several science teams have demonstrated that the binding of anesthetic molecules to microtubule bundles inhibits their activity, inducing unconsciousness.

Electromagnetism is a quantum field, associated with photons and electrons. And the interesting thing about quantum fields is that the interactions of waves within those fields produce emergent properties. For example, the random waves within spacetime produce virtual particles, matter and antimatter pairs of subatomic particles that wink into existence, then disappear through self-annihilation.

Consciousness, in my opinion, may be an emergent property of complex nanoscale interactions within electromagnetism and/or other quantum fields associated with neural microtubules. Our thoughts, our hopes and dreams reside not in the chemistry and physics of our neurons, but within the quantum realm.

Now, back to our original question. Will Chat GPT or some other form of AI achieve The Singularity? It’s unlikely. The chips and processors that make AI possible are complex. There are 150 billion transistors on an AI chip. But the microcircuits within them are composed of simple homogenous conductors and logic gates. The resultant quantum interactions are vast orders of magnitude simpler than the those of the atomic bonds within the molecules and signal-resonating cylindrical shape of microtubules.

Within a brain reside multiple trillions of these complex structures, all creating their own individual quantum field waves. In turn they interact with the fields of adjacent tubules, and those of nearby neurons or those of more distant brain cells connected across synapses.

If we could somehow render our brains invisible, revealing the even more complex quantum fields they engender, we could at last say, “Here it is!” I also think we’d have to come up with a new superlative. Awe and wonder would barely suffice.

In my opinion, humanity is centuries away from constructing a structure as complex as the brain, and more importantly, having a quantum field of requisite complexity. More likely, we create a machine with the sentience of a cockroach or a flatworm. But I suspect at that point, our collective alarm would force the abandonment of such a project. Strictly enforced prohibitions would further delay or prevent artificial sentience.

But what if an AI could “borrow” the consciousness of a living brain? What would that look like? How would that occur? What would be the consequences vs our typical conception of Singularity? Would the host’s consciousness supply the host’s moral code? Would our better angels win the day? These are the questions I intend to explore in my next series.

Happy Reading,

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30453-2#:~:text=Microtubules%20(MTs)%20are%20long%20cylindrical,help%20define%20axons%20and%20dendrites
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-consciousness-goes-beyond-exploring-brain-chemistry/
https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/

November ~ A Climate Surprise

I usually take an in-depth look at some technology in the EPSILON SciFi Thriller series. Or something coming our way in the near future. On occasion I’ll discuss the physical environment, often on Mars.

In Scarlet Odyssey, I reference an event related to our changing climate here on Earth. Today we’ll examine that, providing some bonus Scarlet Odyssey background to only you, my subscribers.

Climate change. Global heating. No matter what our personal opinions are on the topic, most of us are familiar with the potential repercussions: melting ice sheets, sea level rise, ocean warming, weather extremes, drought-enhanced wildfires, ocean acidification, the displacement of climate refugees. Each one of these outcomes poses dire consequences.

Here in Central Oregon, we’ve had to contend with the twin calamities of drought and extreme wildfires. But there’s another consequence of ocean warming few are aware of, hydrogen sulfide eruptions or blooms. More than any other effect of global warming, I fear this one the most. Here’s why.

Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, is a naturally occurring gas composed of two atoms of hydrogen attached to a sulfur atom. It has a distinctive “rotten egg” smell. Inhaled in small doses, it’s an inconvenience. But in increasing amounts it can lead to irritated mucosa, headaches and fatigue. Exposure to concentrations greater than 500 ppm can be fatal.

H2S is a minor gaseous component of volcanism. Water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are far more common. If you can smell it, you’re more likely to die choked by ash or roasted by a pyroclastic flow. It’s easier (and safer) to get faint whiffs of it when visiting natural hot springs.

But hydrogen sulfide is also a byproduct of anaerobic microorganism metabolism. In the oceans, the concentration of free oxygen diminishes with increasing depth. Free oxygen, too, diminishes with increasing water temperature. Microbes in the subkingdom Archaea, thrive in low and no oxygen environments. In fact, oxygen is toxic to them. When you smell H2S in coastal mud flats at low tide, that’s a sure sign of anaerobic conditions.

That covers the hydrogen sulfide part. But what the heck is the “eruption?” In a low oxygen environment accompanied by high concentrations of dead biological material, anaerobic bacteria on the sea floor grow unchecked. The concentration of H2S increases and begins to move up the water column.

When it reaches the surface, the water turns a milky yellow-green. The gas is released into the air, creating a toxic pocket that dissipates with distance from the bloom. Fish kills are common. Even marine mammals and birds can succumb in larger events. But more critically, it wipes out the phytoplankton and algae that otherwise oxygenate the water. That creates a negative feedback loop that so far dissipates by ocean currents and seasonally cooler water.

As marine waters have warmed over the past few decades, more and more of the water column is anaerobic. Gulf of Mexico dead zones have been increasing in size and frequency. During that same period, H2S concentrations have increased in the Baltic Sea as well.

Here’s the scary part for me. 252 million years ago, near the end of the Permian Era, there was a massive volcanic event in what is present-day Siberia. This eruption lasted 1 to 2million years and buried the landscape under almost a million cubic miles of basaltic lava flows.

So much CO2 was released, that global temperatures spiked. Higher-latitude temperatures became 18°F to 54°F warmer than today. Ocean temperatures climbed, leading to a proliferation of hydrogen sulfide gas. The outcome has been called “The Great Dying,” the worst global extinction event known. Some 80% of all marine species went extinct. Many terrestrial species disappeared as well.

Not to downplay the current climate crisis, but human-caused CO2 levels and global heating won’t approach anything like what happened at the end of the Permian Era. But I do believe that increasing H2S blooms could cause certain fish stocks to crash, thereby straining human populations that rely on seafood for their protein. This may have already occurred to the snow crab fishery in the Bering Sea. That crash was attributed to warmer water on the sea floor there.

What does all this have to do with Scarlet Odyssey? Without giving too much away, the future owner of EPSILON experiences a passing hydrogen sulfide event driven by Caribbean currents. He is so moved he purchases an autonomous EV company to promote lower CO2 emissions. But his business finds itself embroiled in the global competition for rare earth elements, spurring him to source those vital minerals on Mars. The rest (at least from the omniscient perspective of this author) is history.

Check out the info below this article then download your FREE copy of Scarlet Odyssey today!

Happy Reading,

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts114.pdf
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/18791/hydrogen-sulfide-eruption-off-namibia#:~:text=People%20living%20along%20Namibia’s%20desert,hydrogen%20sulfide%20eruption%20in%20progre
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/global-warming-led-climatic-hydrogen-sulfide-and-permian-extinction
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25019-2#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20the%20Permian-Triassic%20mass%20extinction%20occurred%20during,at%20the%20million-year%20timescale)%20of%201

December ~ Ghost Riders in the Sky

… they’ve got to ride forever
On that range up in the sky
On horses snorting fire
As they ride on, hear their cry … ~ Stan Jones, 1948

In mid-January, Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost lunar lander will blast off from Kennedy Space Center aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. Dubbed Ghost Riders in the Sky Mission 1 by the company, the Blue Ghost will touch down by a volcanic feature called Mons Latreille within Mare Crisium. The more than 300-mile-wide basin is located in the northeast quadrant of the Moon’s near side.

Contracted by NASA in February 2021, the private aerospace firm is benefitting from NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative. Through this program, the space agency is investing in commercial delivery services to the Moon to enable industry growth and support long-term exploration.

Throughout the Apollo and Space Shuttle eras, NASA paid open-ended cost-plus fixed fee contracts, covering all the development costs for space vehicles. But the CLPS program pays a lump sum for services, saving the agency billions of dollars. Private companies shoulder the development expenses but are also free to pursue other customers. NASA’s use of SpaceX for ISS resupply missions is an example.

Once Firefly’s Blue Ghost lander has safely touched down in Mare Crisium, it will deploy its payload of several robotic instruments and devices. Science investigations will include testing lunar subsurface drilling, regolith sample collection, global navigation satellite system abilities, radiation tolerant computing, and dust mitigation. The data captured should provide insights into how space weather and other cosmic forces will impact future missions.

According to the company’s website, the lander itself boasts impressive capabilities for lunar exploration. Its modular construction allows for customization to suit various mission needs. It can carry up to 150 kg and offers a spacious interior for scientific instruments. The vehicle utilizes a powerful propulsion system for maneuvering and soft landings on the lunar surface. And its low center of gravity and widely spaced adjustable struts will ensure its stability.

Once on the ground, the Blue Ghost provides data, power, and thermal regulation to support the operation of its payload throughout the lunar day (approximately 14 Earth days). This first mission serves as a rigorous testbed for the Blue Ghost, providing valuable information on its performance and reliability in the lunar environment.

The Blue Ghost carries instruments to analyze the regolith (surface soil) for water ice. Identifying such resources is vital for establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Ice can be processed into potable water for drinking or for oxygen production at future outposts. In-situ resource utilization will be crucial for supporting a long-term occupation on the Moon, and later, on the Red Planet. Transporting these resources from Earth would be prohibitively expensive.

Mission 1 will also demonstrate a communications link that will be used for communication relays with Firefly’s Lunar Pathfinder, an orbital platform that will be deployed on a second Ghost Riders in the Sky mission to the lunar far side in 2026. This region remains perpetually out of radio contact from Earth due to the Moon’s synchronous rotation. Hence, the need for a reliable orbital comm link.

Watch for the liftoff of this important mission during its six-day launch window next month.

Happy Reading,

Want a deeper dive? Check out these sources.
NASA.(2024, November 25). NASA Invites Media to Firefly Blue Ghost Mission1 Launch to Moon. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/firefly/FMfcgzQXKNJlhqTWTDZcvHSdFWpwcvCL
NASA.(2024, December 10). NASA to Discuss Firefly’s First Robotic Artemis MoonFlight. NASA.gov. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-to-discuss-fireflys-first-robotic-artemis-moon-flight/
NewSpace Economy (2024, July 26). Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost: Pioneering LunarExploration and Customizable Cislunar Solutions. Newspaceeconomy.ca. https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/07/26/firefly-aerospaces-blue-ghost-pioneering-lunar-exploration-and-customizable-cislunar-solutions/#:~:text=Blue%20Ghost%3A%20A%20Versatile%20Lunar,ample%20space%20for%20payload%20integration.
FireflyAerospace. Blur Ghost Mission 1. Fireflyspace.com. https://fireflyspace.com/missions/blue-ghost-mission-1/#:~:text=Mission%20Summary&Upon%20launching%2C%20Blue%20Ghost%20will,hours%20into%20the%20lunar%20night.
FireflyAerospace. Blue Ghost. Firefly Space.com. https://fireflyspace.com/blue-ghost/#:~:text=Blue%20Ghost%20can%20be%20customized,surface%20mobility%2C%20and%20sample%20return.
FireflyAerospace. Blue Ghost Mission 2. Fireflyspace.com. https://fireflyspace.com/missions/blue-ghost-mission-2/#:~:text=Firefly’s%20Blue%20Ghost%20lunar%20lander%20can%20deliver%20150%20kg%20of,thermal%20resources%20for%20payload%20operations