Space: the Final Frontier

We are attempting, even today, to escape the confines of this world and arrive with engines roaring and orbits trailing behind us at the limits of the universe.  I long for this day, and when it comes, I will have only a lingering reluctance and regret in leaving behind the already infinite wealth of worldly aspects, studies, and people. I want to glance backward at our star system as we leave its influence to investigate even deeper mysteries; I want to see for myself the elusive centerpiece of our galaxy, brilliant and ever enigmatic; I want, most of all, to answer that one question that both plagues and transcends our time – what’s out there?

So many fundamental questions like these linger about the cosmos that we inhabit. This is a frontier that still today eludes the grasp of even the most intrepid and ingenious of men and women. The vast territory that is space remains largely uncharted, its outer limits unknown but to theory and imagination, despite the best efforts of scientists and explorers throughout the millennia of human history.

A better understanding of the hostile environment of space must be grasped in order to develop means to counter and alleviate issues while operating in its midst. But to gain this better understanding, we must make forays into space itself to conduct experiments and relay results. We must utilize practical methods to discover truth; we must understand truth to develop practical methods. This is a distinctly Isocratean problem, and it requires an Isocratean solution.

One of the largest barriers to space activity and exploration is the sheer cost associated with the planning and execution of a mission – manned or unmanned, local or far-flung. The cost of a launch vehicle that injects a spacecraft into orbit can range anywhere between 50 million USD and 150 million (depending on the mass of the payload to be transported). The entire cycle of researching, developing, and constructing a spacecraft and sustaining its operation could demand a budget of over 1 billion USD.

These enormous costs are often offset by government-based funding (e.g., the 2010 NASA budget tops 18 billion USD), which is currently a necessary but unhealthy dependence. The recent global economic downturn placed great strain on annual budgets, and space agencies throughout the world suffered numerous setbacks and cancellations. As a result, the industry is inordinately sluggish and progress is often haphazard, subject to the whims of politicians and their incessant campaigning and posturing.

How can we address this unhealthy dependence? The Isocratean answer is clear: sever it.

To achieve this, the space sector must establish a measure of fiscal self-sufficiency. There must be a motivation for space exploration and pioneering that melds both scientific pursuit and commercial enterprise: an entrepreneurial and venture capital motive. I would like to see a burst of advancement and innovation in space technology that can rival the dot-com boom of the 1990s in information technology and internet-based fields. I want to help spark an interest in space so intense that a hub for the space sector as iconic as Silicon Valley can be created and sustained.

Hence, the primary task of engineers like myself should be to develop technology that reduces the cost of space activity such that it is accessible to the individual – something akin to the transistor in the field of electronics and computing. Enabling a vested commercial interest in space would provide a basis for a fast-paced, vibrant space industry. Whether this viable interest manifests in mining, tourism, communications, et al. is yet to be seen.

Encomium of John Bardeen

The name John Bardeen is uttered with quite familiarity on the University of Illinois campus, just like Busey, Edmund James, and all those “Six-Pack” residence halls. But how many students can match accomplishments to these names, illustrious enough to adorn the face of this University for all eternity? Bardeen itself has been attached to that little plot of land inhabiting the region between Everett Lab and Engineering Hall – quite small, but recipient of a huge quantity of pedestrian traffic. There is no place more fitting, as this is the area that aspirants of the electrical engineering discipline frequent the most.

John Bardeen was the only person in history to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics twice. The two technological breakthroughs that were honored by the Nobel represent the apex of his work; they revolutionized this world to the point that we would hardly be able recognize life prior to their inception, let alone contemplate living one like it. The subject of this panegyric must focus on the accomplishments of the man, rather than the exemplary nature of his character, but I shall show nevertheless that he was a paragon in both regards. Praise from a mere student such as myself will not benefit him in the slightest, but let it serve as a solemn remembrance of one who is infinitely greater.

The first Nobel was awarded for his involvement in the 1947 invention of the transistor, a device that can amplify and switch electrical signals. Such a thing hardly seems exceptional to those unfamiliar with the field, but in fact, the transistor is single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the entire field of electronics. Its inception cleared the path for the development and mass production of now-widespread devices, such as computers, cell phones, and calculators. The Internet Age, the Information Age, the Obsolescence Age; for better or worse, you may attribute all of these to the rise of the transistor. Today, they are recognized as a fundamental building block in all electronics, replacing vacuum tubes as the primary electrical component. This spurred the transformation of electronics from towering behemoths to the palm-sized devices that we are accustomed to using today.

Simple logic gates, which are small architectural components that facilitate a computer’s binary logic, can consist of up to 20 transistors. An advanced microprocessor can contain up to 3 billion. In the year 2002, it was estimated that 60 million transistors were built annually just for you. It was also estimated that by 2010, the number of transistors built per person  annually would exceed one billion. Such is the ubiquity of this device in the modern era, and indeed, few other inventions can claim to have experienced the same meteoric rise.

Image (yikes): Atmel ATS2343 Microprocessor. Transistors circled in red.

As if this technological breakthrough were not enough, Bardeen was awarded a second Nobel for his contributions to superconductivity theory, which was developed when he was a professor at the University of Illinois. (Should you pass by the engineering quad, take a moment to stop and read the sign by the river titled Theory of Superconductivity. Or you can just click here.) The property of superconductivity refers to a material’s ability to maintain zero electrical resistance, which gives rise to powerful magnets and magnetic fields. Bardeen and his colleagues proposed an explanation for how materials achieve this state, which is now known as BCS theory. Superconducting magnets are widely used in modern equipment, such MRIs, mass spectrometers, and signal filters for cell phone towers. However, the most revolutionary applications of this theory are not yet completely within our grasp. Examples of these include magnetic levitation “maglev” devices (such as the maglev train), electric motors and generators for conventional vehicles, and the development of advanced materials such as nanotubes and composites.

Finally, let it be known that John Bardeen, despite his great genius, always maintained a humble and unassuming personality. Bardeen was recognized by his neighbors to be affable and frank, and was best known to them not for his scientific accomplishments but for the many cookouts he held right on his front lawn. In outward appearance, he never claimed to be anyone out of the ordinary, but instead embodied knowledge and achievement in his very manner. Too many in this field adhere to and perpetuate the stereotype of the “mad scientist” or the “crazy genius” in a dank laboratory. Such foolishness is unbefitting of those who hold a professional station and is indicative of one who craves fame and attention over virtue and substance; these are the sophists of the scientific realm.

The full implications of BCS theory will be explored for decades into the future, and there is no improvement or replacement in sight for the transistor. Many future generations will yet be influenced by the magnitude of Bardeen’s works.

I had once mentioned the potential rift between physics and engineering as possibly reminiscent of the millennia-old dispute between philosophy and rhetoric. Upon examining the life of this eminent scientist, what conclusions can we draw? What greater example could we obtain of a single being that delved deeply into the mechanisms of the universe, and then armed with that knowledge, wrought goods of great and practical significance to the world at large? Proponents of the dichotomy, take heed. Apply your furious efforts elsewhere, advocate disunity no longer, and all will benefit from your abandonment. Truth, the ideal, sublimity; such things are achievable only when all matters come together as a whole. Let the Paragon of John Bardeen remain a testament to the transcendence of this splendid harmony.

Physics, Engineering, Truth, and Practicality

The metaphysical battle between philosophy and rhetoric spanned centuries, transcended generations, and divided the loyalties of even the reconcilable of minds. The former claimed to be the art that discovered truths and condemned the latter as derivative and illusory, whilst the latter professed indifference and ridiculed the former for taking itself so seriously. The origin of this clash is difficult to pinpoint, but all might agree that the great inquisitive mind of Socrates, ever intent to flesh out the truth, had poured fuel into the fire that threatened to burn rhetoric and its practitioners.

The criticisms are not completely unwarranted. Much emphasis is always placed on the ease with which rhetoric can be used to obscure the truth, and abused to subvert and coerce, by exerting the intoxicating power of speech upon easily-swayed minds. Indeed, even I must seek to distance myself from those sophists with outlandish boasts, claiming to know all things under the sun, and teaching all for but a paltry fee. Philosophy, in contrast, can only be pursued by those that are good and just, for the purpose of determining truth.

Lately, I’ve heard rumblings that instances of this dichotomy may be found between other disciplines too – that of physics and engineering, the latter a field that I have chosen to call my intended profession.

If Socrates were to ask me to define the both of them, I would be fairly confident in the response I could offer. It can be said that physics takes the role of philosophy, in that it attempts to determine the governing principles of the universe and expresses them in the absolute language of mathematics. Now, it must be noted here that mathematics is just a language, such as English or Latin or Greek, but is particular, precise, quantifiable, and succinct. Note the examples below.

The wave equation, which describes a wave propagating along a medium (e.g. air, water, wood):

The Euler-Bernoulli equation, which describes the deformation of a beam under loading:
And finally, Newton’s law of gravitation,
All such physical principles of our universal have been revealed by the tireless work of physicists. Now, you may wonder where subjects like chemistry and biology belong in relation, but for simplicity’s sake I will group all such sciences under the heading of physics, as it was only in modern times that science experienced such segmentation. It is also noteworthy that in the days of Newton and the Royal Society, scientists called themselves natural philosophers.

Then, does engineering belong with the likes of rhetoric? In the simplest and most general of terms, engineering is the application of physical principles. Using the wave equation, engineers construct theatres in which sound can reach all members of the audience and build cars whose engines are dramatically quieted to accommodate passengers. Using the Euler-Bernoulli equation, engineers build towers and ensure that if 100 people stood on the top floor, the structure wouldn’t so much as budge a millimeter. Using Newton’s law of gravitation, engineers can build planes and spacecraft and scheme to leave the confines of Earth behind us in a trailing plume of smoke and dust.

Where does engineering fall astray? By harnessing the principles of combustion to develop bombs and other incendiary devices to maim and kill. By converting chemical energy to mechanical energy in order to construct machines used to systematically strip the earth of its resources. By concocting sinister poultices with the sole intention of harming those that are tricked to imbibe them. Of course, let us not forget an improper or incomplete education in physics would more oft than not result in collapsing bridges, sputtering engines, and sinking ships.

Why do the physicists not cry foul at the devious uses of their hard-gained work, like so many philosophers had at the rhetoricians? It is perhaps easier to see in a discipline that uses a language so explicit. To be an engineer, you must understand all the fundamental principles. You are just like a physicist, except your immediate task is to discover methods to utilize existing principles, not to discover more principles. Only the foolish would hark to such an inconsequential distinction to sow discord in this mutually beneficial relationship, and such people would likely make poor physicists and poor engineers.

Engineering is a tool to be utilized for benefit or for harm, depending on the wielder. It is by no means inherently unjust. Its correct usage depends on a broad swath of education that addresses the ramifications of wielding a power as potent as the very secrets of the universe.

Just so, an aspiring rhetorician must receive a broad education in order to perceive the just use of the power of speech.

Socrates chose a truly pure path: he did not risk corruption by wading into the public fray, but his ideas are left unexplored and at the mercy of time. He had power at his fingertips, but chose not to use it. As a result, much of his work and wisdom is lost to us. A question had once been posed during class regarding why Plato chose to defy his beloved mentor in writing a host of treatises. I believe it to be this: Plato recognized that in order for philosophy to benefit the world at large, it must be taken into the public sphere of rhetoric.

Without engineering, the principles uncovered by physics can never be harnessed to benefit the world. Vice versa, without physics, engineering would only stumble blindly through a world full of intricate and elegant truths. Likewise, truths determined by philosophy cannot be implemented in policy without rhetoric.

Aristotle put it most aptly: engineering is the counterpart to physics, just as rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic. The relationship between them is that of duality, not dichotomy. Without one, the other cannot function.

Exordium

These are the results of the inquiries undertaken by a student of Isocrates pertaining to matters of both high mystery and earthly enterprise. Accordingly, the conclusions reached herein are by no means absolute fact – the ultimate goal of these inquiries is to relay the relativistic and paradoxical nature of the universe. It is the view of the auctor that nothing at all is ever absolute, that the cosmos is eternally evolving and mercilessly dynamic; there lies the paradox. Nothing endures but change.

Such beliefs vie with the philosophies of some of my Athenian colleagues, who aspire to know ultimate reality and eternal forms. They would argue that the world we see and hear is nothing but an illusory shadow of the divine world of truths, and that our every endeavor has a perfect, absolute counterpart in that divine realm. I understand the reason for these arguments, as my colleagues seek only to improve our society and institutions by fashioning them after the universal forms, such that these institutions can only be harmonious, benevolent, and effective. But can an ideal form really exist for every decision we must make? How can we ascertain that our conclusions through metaphysics produce the form rather than another deceptive shade? For how long can we afford to seek out these elusive truths, only to leave our institutions to weather the very real torrents of the material world?

I also seek to improve our institutions and preserve our society, but through a different means entirely. I contend that reality, such as it is, comprises nothing but immediate human perceptions and the conclusions drawn accordingly. All knowledge is speculative and tentative, subject to change under the scrutiny of individuals so long as time marches on. We cannot know anything for certain, and we should not pretend to; no morsel of information should be deemed as absolute truth. As thus, it is my view that the divine world of absolutes and forms – praised so highly by my colleagues – is the actual illusion, the actual shadow. It is unnecessary to align ourselves with the specter of ultimate reality, but it is desirable to allow a measure of fluidity in our fashioning, so that our inevitable mistakes can be remedied empirically. Hence, the importance lies in how we interpret the myriad results gleaned from observations made by our very eyes and ears.

How, then, can we wade through this seeming quagmire of variables and uncertainties that I have proposed? This, I believe to be the proper domain of those we call philosophers and seekers of wisdom. Knowledge and information is freely available for all to gather and observe in the natural world, but it requires a sort of insight to put forth a conjecture, based on these likely incomplete observations, that contains the best course of action. An individual that I can rightly call a philosopher would be capable of attaining this insight, whether through study or experience. From this agile model, we are able to identify problems and immediately offer solutions, rather than reaching back into an absolute world to find where we have strayed from a form. Such agility is to be prized in a dynamic reality. Intransience and inability to adapt, especially if it is embraced knowingly and willingly, can lead only to the failure of the institutions we hold dear.