Let me start by saying I loved the move and rate it 5 out of
5. If you enjoy reading my technical
blog entries, then you’ll enjoy watching this movie. Furthermore, I’m only able to pick apart the
science failings of this movie because most of it is so accurate. Another movie I liked this year, Guardians of
the Galaxy, would be impossible to pick apart because there is essentially
nothing accurate about it. I’d be hard
pressed to find any scientifically accurate sections!
SPOILER ALERT: There be movie spoilers ahead!
The topics that sprang to mind
Pre-flight
Farming
The combines driving around the farm did not have the
harvesting heads down & engaged and therefore were wasting lots of energy
doing nothing. The corn was not ready to
be harvested!
Need more Farmers
The movie states that since
people are starving and society needs more people to devote their lives to growing
food.
An examination of US history reveals that at its beginning
it took more than 90% of all citizens to grow the food consumed by the
country. As engineers and inventors improved the quality of machines
available, this declined to less than 5% of the country's population to raise
the food necessary for the country. Farms and farming has become
so efficient, the amount of land under cultivation has declined for years
because we can grow the necessary amount of food on smaller and smaller plots
of land and the number of people required to do this cultivation continues to
decline.
In reality, a starving world
wouldn't need more farmers. It might force us to cultivate more land,
switch to higher yield crops, or change our farming practices but we would not need to turn the majority of of the population into farmers to do any of
these.
Don't need Engineers
Dialog in Interstellar reveals some people's opinion that the world no longer needs engineers. That eliminating engineering as a career allowed society to use those people as farmers.
Yet as portrayed, the engineer turned farmer Cooper was a great farmer. Although not explicitly stated, the audience is left to surmise that, in part, Coopers abilities as a farmer came from his ability to design and modify farm machinery to perform tasks better/more efficiently than their original design permitted. If this principal was allowed in other spheres, perhaps the world wouldn't have been in a crisis.
Blight
Interstellar mentions a biological organism that infests food crops and ruins them. They imply the organism can jump between species and that it has already made it impossible to grow many food plants. Dr. Brand mentions that the microbe breaths nitrogen and implies it destroys oxygen in the process.
The Earth already possesses nitrogen breathing microbes that infest plants; they’re called nitrogen fixing bacteria and are an essential component to modern framing practices. Furthermore biological or chemical reactions that consume N2 & O2 to produce various nitrogen oxides consume energy and would not be used by organisms.
Consider the blight as a generic (unfleshed out) environmental plot driver to force humanity off the Earth.
The Earth already possesses nitrogen breathing microbes that infest plants; they’re called nitrogen fixing bacteria and are an essential component to modern framing practices. Furthermore biological or chemical reactions that consume N2 & O2 to produce various nitrogen oxides consume energy and would not be used by organisms.
Consider the blight as a generic (unfleshed out) environmental plot driver to force humanity off the Earth.
Drone
Cooper states that the drone at the beginning of the movie was an Indian Air Force surveillance drone that's been flying around autonomously for decades. Since the world divested itself of militaries, presumably no one now claims the machine which is why Cooper coops it for his own uses.
The drone depicted flying around (a Predator) is not the drone later shown on the ground. The drone depicted on the ground appeared similar to this but used a turbofan instead of turboprop and possessed side air inlets rather than a top inlet.
The drone depicted flying around (a Predator) is not the drone later shown on the ground. The drone depicted on the ground appeared similar to this but used a turbofan instead of turboprop and possessed side air inlets rather than a top inlet.
 |
| Predator type drone |
Engineers
As portrayed in Hollywood movies, engineers are a sort of
mechanic superhero. I *know* some
engineers like this but they are very rare.
Most engineer’s knowledge is highly specialized for the type of work
they do and not broadly applicable across multiple disciplines and they don’t
usually have the practical mechanical knowledge to do the sorts of things
Cooper does.
The difference between a mechanic and engineer is exemplified by the Korean ferry Sewol incident. One finding in the trial was that the ferry was modified to take on more than twice the weight in cargo than it was designed to carry (this along with several other mistakes led to the deaths of over 300 people).
When designing (or contemplating modifications), engineers take into account the amount of weight, its distribution, the ship's sea worthiness, and the ship's dimensions to ensure the ship can be operated safely. Mechanics make the changes they're told to make and do not have the knowledge, background, or ability to take these other factors into account before they make the modifications.
The difference between a mechanic and engineer is exemplified by the Korean ferry Sewol incident. One finding in the trial was that the ferry was modified to take on more than twice the weight in cargo than it was designed to carry (this along with several other mistakes led to the deaths of over 300 people).
When designing (or contemplating modifications), engineers take into account the amount of weight, its distribution, the ship's sea worthiness, and the ship's dimensions to ensure the ship can be operated safely. Mechanics make the changes they're told to make and do not have the knowledge, background, or ability to take these other factors into account before they make the modifications.
Cheyenne Mountain Facility
Many shows use the Cheyenne mountain facility as the "secret base" kept by the military and Interstellar is no exception. This is the facility portrayed as the secret headquarters of NASA. It contains everything a secret facility could want: research labs, medical facilities, conference rooms, heavy launch vehicles, and is also an O'Neill cylinder awaiting anti-gravity engines.
Some of this makes sense, if building a facility to double as a habitat for humanity it should have everything that people might need - except the massive heavy lift launcher in the center. That's stupid.
Launching such a vehicle out of the center of all your hard work would ruin quite a bit of the facility.
Theory of Everything
The Holy Grail of current physics. Michael Caine’s Dr. Brand is trying to solve
a minimum of 4 dimensional problem (3 spatial and 1 time dimension) with only 3
dimensions (as shown by the vectors on his white board). Some branches of research on the theory of everything (String theory, M theory, etc.)
require 11 dimensions to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity.
I have no idea what developing a Theory of Everything might
provide in the way of eventual benefits to humanity but I suspect anti-gravity drives would
take a bit of time to develop from the raw equations and might require a Manhattan Project style crash research program in order to design and build such engines for the Earth's population.
Doing things the hard way
As portrayed in the movie, the NASA O’Neill habitats *require*
the anti-gravity drives to lift from the Earth.
It’s a little known fact that humans have known how to lift such
colonies from Earth since the 1960s via Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. With the survival of the human
species hanging in the balance, I sincerely hope we can overcome the public’s
fear of nuclear power and use this solution before everyone dies.
Added 12/7/2015
In Kipp Thorne's original version of the story, the use of the anti-gravity drives used at the end of the movie disrupt the entire Earth turning it into an asteroid field. In such a case, it'd be easier and faster for humanity to have used the "Max Launch" version of the Nuclear Pulse Propulsion concept. Assuming each craft would require something like 2000 bombs (plenty to get anywhere in the Solar System), then the world has at least enough refined fissile material to power 30 such craft. Given a 40 years or so (as portrayed in the movie), there's no reason to believe we couldn't have generated orders of magnitude more.
Added 12/7/2015
In Kipp Thorne's original version of the story, the use of the anti-gravity drives used at the end of the movie disrupt the entire Earth turning it into an asteroid field. In such a case, it'd be easier and faster for humanity to have used the "Max Launch" version of the Nuclear Pulse Propulsion concept. Assuming each craft would require something like 2000 bombs (plenty to get anywhere in the Solar System), then the world has at least enough refined fissile material to power 30 such craft. Given a 40 years or so (as portrayed in the movie), there's no reason to believe we couldn't have generated orders of magnitude more.
Space Flight
Initial Ranger Launch
During the initial launch sequence / departure from Earth's surface, Interstellar shows a massive rocket launching out of the center of the secret NASA facility. That facility placed living spaces, research laboratories, and even conference rooms directly in the blast path of very powerful rocket engines.Kiss all that stuff goodbye.
This was a silly mistake but one that other shows have made (yes, I'm talking about you Stargate SG-1: Episode "1969")
SSTO
During the launch from Earth sequence, the movie shows a
multistage launch of the crewed vehicle (Ranger) as befitting current and
projected technologies. Throughout the
rest of the movies, all lander vehicles possessed the ability to achieve orbit
with a single stage (called single stage to orbit, or SSTO).
I worked for years on a SSTO concept called the National AeroSpace Plane (NASP). I’m completely convinced that humanity *could* create such a thing but is not currently willing to pay the price. Beside this concept would have weighed more than a fully loaded 747 (and been several times larger) and been capable of 1 launch and 1 landing without refueling – that’s it.
I understand the poetic license required to tell this story required nifty space launch capabilities, but if their landers were as capable as portrayed, humanity would no dire need to solve the anti-gravity equations.
I worked for years on a SSTO concept called the National AeroSpace Plane (NASP). I’m completely convinced that humanity *could* create such a thing but is not currently willing to pay the price. Beside this concept would have weighed more than a fully loaded 747 (and been several times larger) and been capable of 1 launch and 1 landing without refueling – that’s it.
I understand the poetic license required to tell this story required nifty space launch capabilities, but if their landers were as capable as portrayed, humanity would no dire need to solve the anti-gravity equations.
Endurance launch
As seen in the movie, they first spin up Endurance and then
apply orbital transfer thrust. This
tremendously increases the stresses on the spacecraft. To reduce stress (which allows you to reduce
structural mass, which allows you to use that mass for payload), perform the orbital
transfer burn first and then spin up the habitat.
Endurance propulsion
As shown, Endurance possessed the same sort of chemical
rockets used by the other craft (judging by the nozzles and exhaust color this would be liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen).
However, there’s no reason for Endurance to use engines with such poor
fuel economy (in engineering jargon it's called specific impulse). They
should have given Endurance something more exotic like ion or fission fragment
rockets. These provide very small (and completely non-dramatic) levels
of thrust but are exceedingly fuel efficient and a much better match for the
type of mission Endurance needed to run (high delta V - loosely equivalent to long distance driving).
It also provides a better excuse for using the high thrust engines of
the landers later in the movie at the black hole.
The Endurance, as shown, was plausible. It was just a missed opportunity of showing the
audience how things could be.
Added 12/7/2015
I'll be writing another post detailing possible propulsion systems for the Endurance in the near future. The short answer is it's probably some sort of Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) based upon Endurance's configuration. Based upon the displayed performance, it'd likely be an Open-Cycle Gas Core NTR. However, there are a couple of other viable alternatives if you gloss over one detail or another.
Added 12/7/2015
I'll be writing another post detailing possible propulsion systems for the Endurance in the near future. The short answer is it's probably some sort of Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) based upon Endurance's configuration. Based upon the displayed performance, it'd likely be an Open-Cycle Gas Core NTR. However, there are a couple of other viable alternatives if you gloss over one detail or another.
"Counter orbital" flyby of Mars
"Counter orbital" flybys remove energy from the Sun centric trajectory of the
spacecraft. Consider this the opposite of a "slingshot" maneuver. This would have cost the
crew of Endurance both time and fuel and served no purpose. Change the dialog to “pro-orbital flyby of Mars”
and the words and scene make sense. (Added 12/7/2015: except that Mars would provide only a minimal boost in delta V).
Endurance de-spin
De-spinning prior to entering the worm hole was IMO very
smart! It reduced the stresses on the spacecraft giving it a much higher safety factor as it passed through this unknown environment.
At Miller's world, what about the…
TIDES!
You have the world’s preeminent exobiologist, engineer, and astrophysicist on board. You are considering landing on a planet suffering extreme time dilation due to its proximity to a giant black hole. Did *no one* consider the possibility that the thing might have extreme tides on Miller's planet?
Added 12/7/2015
Light and Heat
Both Miller's and Mann's planets possess lighting and heat comparable with that encountered on Earth. However, no star capable of emitting such radiation is in this system. Only a neutron star, black hole, and the accretion disk are known to be present.None of these would provide light and heat like we are accustomed to. But they would put off a lot of deadly:
Radiation
This system contains a normal star, a neutron star, and a
giant black hole. Normal stars emit lots
of damaging radiation that some planetary environments can protect us
from. Neutron star and black hole
radiation is far, far worse (higher energy and more penetrating types). Even if this
system presented 3 candidate planets, the radiation environment alone would likely
force me to write them off.
Added 12/7/2015
Accretion disks radiate lots of very high energy radiation. Such radiation would "evaporate" solid matter (such as Miller's planet) over long periods of time. Over short periods of time, it'd certainly cook the crew of Endurance.
Black holes, even "gentle" ones as portrayed in this movie, or horribly dangerous places.
What we're left with is they stopped at Miller's planet for plot purposes like time dilation (dialing up tension to get the mission done), showing the perils of space travel, showing the exotic nature of other worlds, and dialing up tension between the Endurance crew.
Added 12/28/15
Added 12/7/2015
Objects falling into a black hole or even orbiting a bit too close (such as Miller's world), get tidally disrupted, broken apart, and spread out through a structure called an accretion disk. The material orbiting in this disk is moving extremely fast (at a substantial fraction of the speed of light at the inner edge) and when bits of this matter strike one another, it heats the material.
Accretion disks radiate lots of very high energy radiation. Such radiation would "evaporate" solid matter (such as Miller's planet) over long periods of time. Over short periods of time, it'd certainly cook the crew of Endurance.
Black holes, even "gentle" ones as portrayed in this movie, or horribly dangerous places.
Gravity?
A planet like Miller's so deep in a black hole's gravity well that the time dilation was 1 hour local time equated to 7 years outside the region, would have required tremendous amounts of fuel. This runs counter to the reason stated in the movie for visiting, that it was the most fuel efficient to visit the planets in the order presented in the movie. This negates any reason for stopping at Miller's.What we're left with is they stopped at Miller's planet for plot purposes like time dilation (dialing up tension to get the mission done), showing the perils of space travel, showing the exotic nature of other worlds, and dialing up tension between the Endurance crew.
Added 12/28/15
"Purging engines with cabin oxygen"
Whether the engines use chemical fuel, nuclear power, or exotic fuels like metastable helium it's highly unlikely the environmental oxygen supply would ever be plumbed into the engine exhaust and there is absolutely no way you could blow the cabin gases through the engine.
The other problem with this is that even if it could be blown through the engine exhaust, only the pressure differential between the cabin and the external atmosphere could be used to blow them out. Since the cabin pressure had already been equalized to that of the external environment, then you'd get no blow through at all.
The other problem with this is that even if it could be blown through the engine exhaust, only the pressure differential between the cabin and the external atmosphere could be used to blow them out. Since the cabin pressure had already been equalized to that of the external environment, then you'd get no blow through at all.
Mann's World
Frozen clouds?
Mann's world possessed frozen clouds. This was beautifully imagined, artfully shot, and a great
introduction into the wide variety of strange planets out there.
But the little strength of materials demons in me scream and rant that such things would collapse under their own weight, even at 80% of terrestrial gravity. I don’t know intellectually that this is wrong but my gut engineer’s reaction is about as extremely negative as it can be. Consider this one pegged at almost certainly fantastical until/unless someone does some calculations that prove otherwise.
But the little strength of materials demons in me scream and rant that such things would collapse under their own weight, even at 80% of terrestrial gravity. I don’t know intellectually that this is wrong but my gut engineer’s reaction is about as extremely negative as it can be. Consider this one pegged at almost certainly fantastical until/unless someone does some calculations that prove otherwise.
Alkali atmosphere
In throw-away dialog, Dr. Mann mentions that his planet has an alkali atmosphere. Alkali refers to a specific element family (the vertical column of elements) of metals on a
periodic table (starts with Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, etc.). These elements are extremely unlikely to
form part of any atmosphere due to those metal’s low partial pressures (even in a
vacuum). Dr. Mann later explains that closer
to the surface the Chlorine crystallized into compounds, etc. Chlorine in the atmosphere would make the
atmosphere a Halogen atmosphere (and highly corrosive to humans and most of our stuff).
Ideally the dialog in this section should be rewritten
though by someone with better credentials in exo-solar planetary geology and
atmospheric chemistry than me.
Added 12/7/2015
I think I misheard Mann's commentary. He may have been discussing the water and called that alkali - meaning low pH. If so that was correct and the later discussion about Chlorine had nothing to do with the water.
Imperfect dock
The docking mechanism for Endurance wasn’t correct (the
paddles were in the wrong place, they go on the outside). The docking mechanism for all craft were not
compatible (as shown in graphic's details, there were at least two separate
mechanisms – that’s poor engineering or imagineering). The docking mechanism locks were too
complicated / required too many latches.
Real locks use many fewer latches to hold the locks together to reduce weight, complexity, and likelihood of failure.
As for the imperfect dock, I was surprised the ships stayed together as long as they did. Even minimally pressured craft (5 PSI of oxygen atmospheres) mean that 5 pounds of force are generated for every square inch of surface area. Given that the lock diameter appeared to be 5 feet in diameter, then the force driving the ships apart was approximately 14,400 lbf pushing the spacecraft apart.
As for the imperfect dock, I was surprised the ships stayed together as long as they did. Even minimally pressured craft (5 PSI of oxygen atmospheres) mean that 5 pounds of force are generated for every square inch of surface area. Given that the lock diameter appeared to be 5 feet in diameter, then the force driving the ships apart was approximately 14,400 lbf pushing the spacecraft apart.
Updated 12/7/2015
"Necessary" docking maneuver
CASE: "This is not possible."
Cooper: "No. It's necessary."
Really all docking maneuvers in this movie were portrayed as taking much less time than they take in real life. Spacecraft do all they can to reduce weight. This includes eliminating excess structures that might be used to reinforce docking rings. This means spacecraft A REALLY doesn’t like to be rammed by docking spacecraft B.
Cooper: "No. It's necessary."
Really all docking maneuvers in this movie were portrayed as taking much less time than they take in real life. Spacecraft do all they can to reduce weight. This includes eliminating excess structures that might be used to reinforce docking rings. This means spacecraft A REALLY doesn’t like to be rammed by docking spacecraft B.
Cinematically, I loved the radical, spinned up, impossible docking maneuver
scene, and accompanying music but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the chances of success were negligible
(“come on TARS!”).
Added 12/7/2015
Also the configuration of the docking mechanisms was wacky.
The paddles shown inside the docking collar conform to the paddles used by Russian styled docking ports. Those paddles go on the outside of the docking collar and help guide the two ports together and hold the docked craft together.
The rest of the docking mechanism was too complicated (and heavy) and too easy to dock incorrectly. Docking craft together is not easy so requiring docking ports to align perfectly in order to get a good dock is unrealistic.
Added 12/7/2015
Also the configuration of the docking mechanisms was wacky.
The paddles shown inside the docking collar conform to the paddles used by Russian styled docking ports. Those paddles go on the outside of the docking collar and help guide the two ports together and hold the docked craft together.
The rest of the docking mechanism was too complicated (and heavy) and too easy to dock incorrectly. Docking craft together is not easy so requiring docking ports to align perfectly in order to get a good dock is unrealistic.
Black Hole
Black hole slingshot
Done well and believably.
I like the terminology and they folded this fundamental law artfully
into the story “You can't get
anywhere without leaving something behind." Furthermore, dumping mass at the bottom of a gravity well provides more thrust than mass dumped at the top of the gravity well. So it made sense to both do the burn (thrusting) and drop the stages (lander and Ranger craft) as shown.
Could Cooper have accomplished the same without sacrificing himself? A single line of dialog indicates "no" he could not have. The dialog went something like "the control linkages are down so we'll have to pilot the craft individually". Meaning either he or CASE would have to pilot the Ranger craft.
Added 12/7/2015: Discussions of the remaining life support and fuel situation which mostly occurred off-screen (between Cooper and TARS) and then referred to on-screen by Cooper as (paraphrased) "barely eking out a trajectory to Edmunds' planet with enough life support" indicate Cooper sacrificed himself because they both would have died if he hadn't.
Could Cooper have accomplished the same without sacrificing himself? A single line of dialog indicates "no" he could not have. The dialog went something like "the control linkages are down so we'll have to pilot the craft individually". Meaning either he or CASE would have to pilot the Ranger craft.
Added 12/7/2015: Discussions of the remaining life support and fuel situation which mostly occurred off-screen (between Cooper and TARS) and then referred to on-screen by Cooper as (paraphrased) "barely eking out a trajectory to Edmunds' planet with enough life support" indicate Cooper sacrificed himself because they both would have died if he hadn't.
Updated 12/7/2015
Black hole hail storm
Cooper's Ranger craft encounters debris also falling into the black hole. As portrayed, the debris generates noise and damage equivalent to a bad hailstorm (ice particles up to one inch in diameter traveling up to 100 miles per hour).When the Space Shuttle or Space Station encounter tiny dust grains in orbit around the Earth, the impact velocity is so high that those tiny specks do as much damage as bullets. Unfortunately (for movie accuracy and Cooper), the velocity difference between Cooper's ship and any debris around this black hole would be thousands of times greater. If Cooper's ship ran into any debris around the black hole, each strike would detonate like a large bomb and take out large sections of the craft or perhaps destroy it outright.
The scene was included to make the fall appear more perilous, it should have been omitted.
Falling into the black hole – inside the black hole
We humans (even the most knowledgeable of us) really don’t know what
happens. But the movie is almost
certainly wrong.
For details, you’ll have to review my posts on Initial Thoughts on Blackholes and the Faller's Perspective to see what I think really happens.
However, using reality in this case blows the movie’s plot out of the
water. So the scenes are highly
unrealistic but IMO necessary for the story being told.
Time Tesseract
LimitationsHumanity lives in 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension. However, mathematicians and some other professionals have spent much time imagining other dimensions. One dimension we can sometimes envision is 4 spatial dimensions. They have determined how 3 dimensional shapes translate into 4 dimensional shapes (analogous to how a 2 dimension circle translates into a 3 dimensional sphere).
Tesseract
A three dimensional cube translates into a four dimensional shape called a tesseract (much as a 2-dimensional square translates into a 3-dimensional cube). To imagine a tesseract, envision a cube with other cubes attached at each of the first cube's 6 faces. The walls of adjacent cubes all touch (equivalent of two dimensional corners).
Another perspective is the Schlegel diagram of the thing. Consider this the 2-dimensional representation of the 3-dimensional shadow of the 4-dimensional shape (say that 5 times fast :) ):
Wikipedia contains this mind blowing representation of how the shadow of this rotating structure would appear in 3-dimensions:
Cooper
The 5-dimensional beings ("They") create a 4 *spatial* dimensional structure for Cooper to explore. They "translated" our 4th dimension (time) into another spatial dimension, which permits Cooper to navigate through time and view a specific spatial point (Murph's bedroom) at any point in time.
Cooper (with TARS's help) figures this all out. He also figures out that the "bands" represent the force of gravity, which "They" enabled Cooper to manipulate. Cooper manipulates gravity in Murph's room to send messages back in time.
This does not (necessarily) represent time travel. One solution to physics equations (which do not forbid time travel, fyi) is that any changes performed by us in the past - must have always been present. The movie does not violate this particular interpretation of time and time travel. (updated 12/7/2015) The problem with this sort of interpretation is that it either violated assumption of Causality (this action causes that action) or Freedom of Will (we have free will in making our own decisions). If science had to rule on which of these assumptions was more likely to be correct, I think it would abandon freewill first.
On Gravity
Interstellar's Assertion
|
Veracity
|
Gravity escapes black holes
|
TRUE
|
Gravity can be used to send messages
|
TRUE
|
Gravity could send information out of black hole
|
TRUE1
|
Gravity can cross
dimensions
|
TRUE2
|
Gravity can go back in time
|
FALSE3
|
Wormholes permit crossing distances quickly
|
TRUE4
|
- I think my science and math isn’t up to confirming this
- Depending upon whose interpretation/theory of physics you use, this is true
- I’ve not read anything which indicates this could be true. But as portrayed, the movie didn't necessarily violate this. Added 12/7/2015, I also recently heard that at least one theory in physics that would permit this but I don't know the details.
- If worm holes exist, they also permit traveling across time - which allows everything to play out as portrayed in the movie
Worm holes
Our current understanding of worm holes does not theoretically forbid the existence and use of worm holes. However, our current understanding also indicates that practically speaking they will be impossible to use (the hole collapse before any matter or energy can cross the throat of the hole). Certain exotic (and so far undiscovered) forms of matter could prevent this. Potentially some radically solutions to the equations involved might point the way to other means of using them - but so far we haven't figured those out yet.Worm hole would allow matter and energy to cross vast distances quickly (both to the observer using the worm hole and to the outside observer). If such worm holes do exist, then our understanding of the phenomenon indicates they also permit matter and energy to cross time.
Let me leave you with two thoughts:
How many people do you estimate escaped the Earth?
The movie only shows TWO habitats in Saturn’s orbit. If each held 10,000 people, then we saved
20,000 / 6,000,000,000 people. My
feeling at the end of the movie was that more habitats existed than the two
shown and an optimist could assume there were many more. To rescue everyone would require something
like 100,000 such habitats and I just can’t imagine that happening.
What form of government would a space habitat require?
If someone got severely injured, the colony would have to
carefully consider the benefits such an injured person could contribute and
balance that against the costs of keeping that person alive. A generous society might even keep such
people when the equation was close or in doubt. However, past a certain threshold these people
would be too big a drain on colony resources (which would threaten the survival
of the entire colony) and would have to be killed.
The same is true for people who are able but refuse to work.
The colony needs almost certainly eliminate the usefulness
of a democratic form of government. Very
careful thought into how to form a government that ensured the colony’s
survival without becoming a tyranny.
This is a question better suited to a political scientist than an
engineer.
No comments:
Post a Comment