|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The serious
side of time travel
By Guy P. Harrison
First of all, let's get one thing straight. Time travel is not exclusive to science fiction. It is real. Scientists have proven it. The catch is that it's only known to work in one direction--into the future.
Here's how it is done: The faster you move, the more time slows down for you. For example, imagine you traveled in space at an extremely fast speed for one year. When you returned to the Earth you would discover that everyone and everything had aged more than you had. The age difference would depend upon how fast you had traveled while you were gone. This effect was predicted by Einstein and has been proven with very precise atomic clocks in high-speed jets. But, if you were able to successfully transport yourself into the future, you likely would be stuck there. Time travel to the past is far more complicated and may be impossible.
University of Connecticut professor Ronald Mallett and his colleagues are not deterred, however. They think that time travel is not only possible but within their reach, not for humans anytime soon but time travel to the past nonetheless. Their work focuses on Einstein's discovery that gravity also affects time. Light can create a gravitational field, Mallett says, therefore, light can affect time. Mallett says he and his team will soon conduct an experiment that will attempt to "twist space and time". If that works, they will send a subatomic particle backward in time and then compare it with an identical particle that did not make the same journey.
It is important to note that Mallett is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science. He publishes his results in peer-reviewed journals. He is not touching upon magic or any other paranormal claims to frame his work. If Mallett succeeds and creates his miniature time machine, then hold on to your hat. We will have arrived upon a new era of science, as exciting and irresistible as it would be difficult to comprehend.
Guy Harrison: Is your work based on the laws of physics? You are not stepping beyond acceptable scientific methods are you?
Dr. Ronald Mallett: I base my work on the fact that light generates a gravitational field just like matter. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity time can be effected by gravity. The same force that pulls on us can also effect the rate at which time flows. If a clock was close to Jupiter [with its tremendous gravity] it would slow down even more and so too would our metabolism if we were there. One would age less in a strong gravitational field than another person in a weaker gravitational field.
I also base my work on the fact that light generates a gravitational field as well. I have shown that if you have a circulating beam of light, and you can create one with a series of mirrors, this loop of light will cause a gravitational field. The other aspect of Einstein's theory that is necessary to understand is that gravitational forces create curved space.
Describe this.
Think of space as a trampoline and place a bowling ball on the trampoline. The bowling ball will cause the rubber sheet of the trampoline to bend. Now imagine that you put a little marble on the trampoline. The marble will roll toward the bowling ball. Now if you imagine the trampoline as empty space it would appear to you that the marble is somehow being attracted toward the bowling ball. But what is really happening is that the bowling ball is pushing down the rubber sheet.
That's what gravity is, according to Einstein. It's the bending of space. What we call gravitational force is really the bending of space. This was Einstein's major discovery.
How does this relate to time travel specifically?
This is important to my work because a circulating light beam can cause a twisting of space. I predict that a circulating beam of light will cause a twisting of space and anything that is sitting in that will get twisted around too. In particular I say that if you put a subatomic particle like a neutron into empty space, and create a circulating light beam around it, it will cause a stirring of space and cause that neutron to move around. Now, in addition to space, Einstein says that time gets distorted as well.
My theory is that the circulating beam of light will twist space and it will twist time. This will create a vortex in space and create loops of time. And it is these loops of time that will allow us to travel back in time.
Describe how twisting space and time might allow you to send something back in time.
Normally we think of time as something that moves along in a straight line. Imagine a strip of paper. At the bottom of the paper you have the past, in the middle the present and at the top the future. This is how we normally live our time line. Now imagine if you twisted this line into a loop and pasted the top onto the bottom. The points of past, present and future are still there but now they are in a loop and I can go from the future into the past.
How will you test this? How will you know if it works?
The first experiment that I and my colleagues at the University of Connecticut are going to look at is to observe a circle of light to see if it causes a twisting of space by placing a subatomic particle in it and seeing if that particle gets twisted around. The next stage would be to go to higher energy and see if it caused loops in time to occur. We can identify time travel by sending two radioactive particles with identical rates of decay on different paths and then comparing them. That would give you a precise signature.
You have to understand that I am talking about sending a subatomic particle back into the past. I'm not sending a person. But that's OK, because if you can do it at the subatomic level then that means you can scale it up with sufficient money and energy. Creating those closed loops in time would allow a human to travel into the past.
So, if successful, do you believe that your experiments might be the first steps toward developing the ability to send humans back in time?
Yes, exactly right. This could be the prototype of what would become a time machine.
What about using worm holes for time travel? Is the energy required too great?
I think the worm hole idea is a really good one. But the problem is controllability. First you have to find them. Then you have to scale them up so you can use them. In principle it could work, but the problem of finding them and controlling them is tremendous.
Has work on time travel become respectable in physics now?
Yes, it has become a serious area of interest now.
Stephen Hawking says we don't see tourists from the future so therefore time travel is probably impossible.
One has to realize that a real time machine's effect only occurs when it is turned on. This was brought up years ago by Carl Sagan. One cannot travel to a past beyond when the time machine existed. This is reasonable because the machine creates the conditions for time travel. The answer to that challenge is that we aren't inundated with time travelers presently because the first time machine hasn't been built yet.
Do you have any concerns about our species having the maturity to utilize time travel responsibly?
That's a good question. It always arises with new technology. There will have to be regulation. We can't just allow it to just develop with control any more than we can genetic or atomic research. Ultimately there will be "time cops". I do believe, however, that just because we have to be careful does not mean we shouldn't explore this.
What drew you to time travel?
I was drawn to this idea of time travel because of something that happened back in my childhood. My father died of a heart attack when he was 33 years old. I was ten years old and it was a major blow to me. I cared very deeply about him and it turned my world upside down.
Some months later I came across H. G. Wells' book The Time Machine. When I read it I thought, "Oh, what if I could build a time machine, go back into the past and warn him. Maybe I could save him." It became my goal to do that. I kept this a secret all through school.
Even though the areas I have studied have been exotic, most of my publishing has been on black holes and cosmology, time travel has always been in the background. It turns out, however, that more and more physicists are studying time travel seriously. I think it's because we all grew up in the Star Trek generation. It is wonderful to live in a time when serious physics can be done to look at the possibility of time travel.
You mentioned H. G. Wells and Star Trek as influences in your life. Science fiction is something more than mere entertainment isn't it?
Yes. It stimulates us. All you have to do is think about the work of Jules Verne with rocketry and how it inspired the kids at the beginning of the 20th century. Many scientists are stimulated by what they read in science fiction. It's extremely important. Whatever we can imagine, I believe we can create.
This interview was published in the Caymanian Compass on June 13, 2003
|
|
Keeping Hope for the World
By Guy Harrison
After all of these years it seems little has changed. A tiny, almost frail voice still delivers ideas so powerful that they will outlive us all. Long ago Jane Goodall forced a revision of the definition of "human" by showing that chimps made and used tools in ways previously thought to be the exclusive domain of humans. Now in her 60s she lives out of a suitcase, travelling some 300 days per year. With Gandhi-like charisma and sincerity she lectures to millions around the world about the crisis of environmental destruction.
Her words have never been more relevant. The last 30 years have seen the Earth's natural wealth decline by 33 percent (WWF's Living Planet Report 2000). Human pressures are pushing countless species to extinction, eras-ing rainforests and coral ecosytems, and even changing the climate. Meanwhile, the human population grows by about 75 million each year despite the fact that we can't even feed everybody right now.
Goodall knows all about the depressing statistics of global degradation and she has witnessed terrible deforestation and biodiversity loss firsthand. Yet each day she emerges with confidence and hope. Somehow, she believes, we will get through this. In conversation her optimism can be infectious. She leads one to think less about impending doom and more about positive possibilities. What if the majority of people stopped voting for politicians that are ignorant or indifferent about the environment we all depend on? What if major industries found ways to profit from sustainable fuels and technologies? What if wealthy nations and individuals decided to end global poverty? Never underestimate the power of the human mind and spirit, says Goodall. Wow, maybe we really will make it.
First love. Jane Goodall fell in love with animals early in life. Even before the age of two she was at-tached to a stuffed chimp named Jubilee. Throughout childhood she read stories of Africa and its great wildlife. As a young woman she was given the chance to realise her dreams thanks to paleontologist Louis Leakey. The famed fossil hunter sent Goodall to Tanzania's Gombe National Park in 1960 to observe wild chimpanzees. Chimps are the closest living relatives to humans with DNA that is more than 98 percent identical and Leakey suspected that their behavior might offer important insights.
Goodall proved her worth by establishing what has become the longest continual field study of wild animals in the history of science.
It wasn't easy. In the early weeks the chimps fled whenever she approached. Over time, however, Goodalla's patience won out. The chimps began to tolerate her and she began to slowly accumulate a remarkable wealth of data that would forever alter perceptions of the divide between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Guy Harrison: What were your thoughts that first day at Gombe back in 1960? Did you feel like an alien in the forest or did you sense that maybe you belonged there?
Jane Goodall: I definitely sensed that I belonged there, that this was where I was meant to be. At the same time, however, there was a very strong feeling that it wasn't real, that it just couldn't be true. As I walked along the lakeshore on that first day, looking at this mountainous country with the thick forests in the valley, I remember thinking to myself "how is this going to work? How will I manage?" and "will I let Louis Leakey down?". So it was a real mixture of feelings. But, by the time I went to bed up in the hills by myself I had seen some monkeys, smelled the amazing smells of Gombe, and I pulled my little bed out under the stars and all was OK. It was probably my happiest moment.
Describe the intellectual ability of Chimpanzees. What are their brains capable of?
We are still learning more and more about what they are capable of as science learns to ask the right ques-tions. A brief answer to your question is that they are capable of intellectual feats that we once thought only humans were capable of. They can think in terms of abstractions, they understand symbols. They can be taught some 300 signs used by deaf people to communicate, American Sign Language. They can master extremely complex artificial languages on computers. And out in the wild we see this tremendous social intelligence be-cause they all have to make split-second decisions as to what they have to do in very different situations. Their brain structure or anatomy is more like ours than that of any other living creature it is therefore not surprising that they behave, they think and they feel very much like us too.
What do you feel will be the most important legacy of your research at Gombe?
I think, I hope, it will be that the more we learn how like us chimpanzees actually are, not only physically and biologically, but emotionally as well, that this will give us a new respect for them. They force us to believe that we are not the only beings with personalities, minds capable of problem solving, and emotions like happi-ness, sadness, fear, despair.
We once thought that there was a sharp line dividing humans on the one side and the rest of the animal kingdom on the other. The chimp is showing us that this line really isn't there. This leads to a new respect, a lack of arrogance. Yes, we are unique but we're just not as different from the others. It's our language, I think, which has enabled us to develop our intellect so explosively, and assume a dominant position on the planet.
So back to your question, I hope the greatest legacy is helping us to understand that this exploitation of ani-mals that is going on today is simply not tolerable. These are thinking, feeling beings.
How serious are the challenges facing chimpanzees and other apes today?
They are absolutely desperate. About 15 years ago chimps were down from about 2 million to around 500,000 but now the bush-meat trade in the Congo basin has reduced the number of chimps down to about 200,000 at the very most, it could be less. The bush-meat trade is the commercial hunting and selling of wild animals for food. This estimated 200,000 is stretched across 21 countries but the bush-meat hunting is in the central part which is where the largest and most significant population of chimpanzees remains. The logging companies are driving roads deep into the heart of the forests. These hunters follow the roads from the towns and they shoot everything, elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, everything. They load them on truck, take them back to town, butcher them and sell them. The people there like the taste. It's not sustainable. And now the indigenous peo-ple, mostly Pygmies, are given guns, ammunition and paid money to hunt for the logging camps.
The Pygmies once hunted maybe once per week [for themselves], now they hunt for the logging camps maybe five times per week.
It's not sustainable and it's actually the worst conservation threat in Africa. The orangutan in Indonesia is facing the same kind of decimation through, in this case, illegal logging.
This may not apply specifically to the situation you just described but what is the best way to deal with an impoverished society that is desperate and unable to consider conservation issues in the way a wealthy nation might be able to?
That is a very good question and it's a question that we asked regarding the people living around the Gombe National Park. Within a rather rapid time period the trees outside the park disappeared. The forest outside the park just vanished. Of course the chimps and other forest animals disappeared too. Then the people began to suffer horribly because of soil erosion, the soil losing its fertility, and there were also a lot of refugees coming into the area. So what has happened is that the local population has grown, just as the population has around the world since 1960. So the land is being asked to support far more people than it can and they're too poor to buy food from elsewhere.
So the question was exactly what you said. How can we save this 30 square miles of forest when the people outside are starving? So what the Jane Goodall Institute [www.janegoodall.org] has done is to work with these local people. We have one program that has introduced a number of tree nurseries from a central one. They are tended mainly by groups of women, usually between three and five. We got tiny amounts of money to start off one of these from a series of micro-credit banks, like the Grameen Bank. We gave them tiny loans to do this. You can't just give people something. It doesn't work. This also tries to raise the women's self-esteem and the esteem in which they are held by the village.
We are also giving scholarships to girls, not very many because we are a tiny organisation. We've given 25 so far. The scholarships enable girls to go from primary to secondary school. And that hasn't been happening in that part of Tanzania.
For conservation education we have our Roots and Shoots program in all 33 villages. We also work with the regional medical people who deliver primary health care, especially to women and children. There is also AIDS education, family planning, and people to talk about women's and children's rights because they have no idea about them. We also take a small number of the older children to see what the forest was like.
It should be their birthright and it's been destroyed. So now they are beginning to help to reforest the slope to prevent the terrible soil erosion. They are helping us to preserve the park.
Tourism comes in which makes the central government happy. It certainly boosts, to some extent, the local economy. So we are now perceived as a good organisation.
If someone in a wealthy society cares about the future of chimpanzees and other apes, what should she or he be doing right now?
They need to inform themselves about what is going on. The people concerned about the bush-meat crisis, for example, and other ways in which chimps and gorillas are vanishing in Africa. There are many concerned wildlife conservation groups that are doing the same kinds of things we are doing around Gombe. You work to improve the lives of the people, to help educate them, and help them find alternative protein sources. People should check out our Web site for the Jane Goodall Institute at www.janegoodall.org and hopefully join our institute because we are growing a circle of passionate and caring people around the world and helping to give them the information that will enable them to take in-formed action when the time is right.
We want to, for example, mount an email or letter campaign to the World Bank so that they can help to put pressure on the African governments to enforce their own wildlife laws. We also want politicians in the US to release some funds to help develop the programmes that we come up with.
I know that people may care and want to help but they aren't sure what they can do. Well, join our Institute or another that is coping with this situation, learn about it, and then join in either by writing letters or contributing funds, whichever is most appropriate for the person that wants to help.
What is your message to the world's children about their responsibility to the environment?
What I say to children all the time is to just think that every day of their life can make a difference in the world. You can't live through a day without impacting the world, and you have a choice. What sort of difference do you want to make? Are you going to try and make this a better world for people, animals and the environ-ment? Or don't you care?
We tend to think that I'm one person out of six billion. What I do can't possibly matter because I'm just one. This would be true if we were one, but we're not. We are six billion.
There are now several million people educated enough to know what we should and shouldn't do for the environment and for society. If we can make ethical choices in what we buy and what we refuse to buy, that will change the way business works because it is a consumer-driven society.
Explain your reasons for hope despite all of the environmental destruction around us.
There are four reasons and they get validated as I travel around the world.
First of all is the human brain. It is amazing what we are capable of doing if we set our minds to it. Now that we know the problems of the environment and of society the solutions are coming up ever more dramatically everywhere.
Secondly, Mother Nature is so kind and so forgiving. If you give her a chance, even places we have devastated in our horrible human destructive way can become beautiful again. Animal and plant species on the verge of extinction, given proper protection and perhaps some captive breeding can become safe enough to survive into the future.
The third reason for hope is the indomitable human spirit. There are people who tackle absolutely impossible problems and succeed.
Like you!
[laughs] Well, you just get inspired by people. All around us there are people in every walk of life, from politicians to people sweeping up leaves in the street, that lead very inspirational lives. Most of the time we don't even think about them but they are there all around us. So how can we fail when we have such potential? And, finally, the fourth reason is the energy and commitment of young people. Once they know the problems and are empowered to act, they can do anything.
Chimpanzees Facts
Chimpanzees and humans differ by just over 1 percent in the composition of DNA, and there are striking similarities in the composition of the blood and the immune responses. In fact, biologically, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas.
In captivity chimpanzees can be taught human languages such as ASL (American Sign Language), learning 300 or more signs. They can master many complex skills on computers. It has been demonstrated that chimpanzees are capable of reasoned thought, abstraction, generalization, symbolic representation and a concept of self. Although it is difficult to quantify emotions, all who have worked with chimpanzees agree that they feel, and express, emotions such as sadness and happiness, fear and despair - and they know mental as well as physical pain.
Chimpanzees in the wild seldom live longer than 50 years. Some captive individuals have lived more than 60 years.
Chimpanzees are an endangered species. The greatest threats against them are deforestation and the bush-meat trade.
Chimpanzees are found in 21 African countries - from the west coast of the continent to as far east as western Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania. Chimps live in the greatest concentrations in the rain forest areas on the equatorial forest belt.
The structure of chimpanzee brains is remarkably similar to human brains.
It was discovered that the Gombe chimpanzees use objects - stems, twigs, branches, leaves, and rocks - in nine different ways to accomplish different tasks to assist in feeding, drinking, cleaning themselves, investigating out of reach objects, and as weapons - flailing branches and throwing rocks as missiles. In communities outside Gombe, chimpanzees use objects for different purposes. These behaviors, passed from one generation to the next through observa-tional learning, can be regarded as primitive cultures.
Chimpanzees are not monkeys. They are apes. To learn more about Dr. Jane Goodall and chimpanzees visit The Jane Goodall Institue |
|
|
I truly believe that more and more people are seeing the appeal in the eyes around them, feeling it in their hearts, and throwing themselves into the battle.
Herein lies the real hope for our future; we are moving toward the ultimate destiny of our species-a state of compassion and love. Yes, I do believe we can look forward to a world in which there will still be trees and chimpanzees swinging through them, and blue sky and birds singing, and the drumbeats of indigenous peoples reminding us powerfully of our link to Mother Earth and the Great Spirit-the God we worship. But, as I've stated repeatedly, we don't have much time. The planet's resources are running out.
And so we must stop leaving it to 'them' out there to solve all the problems. It is up to us to save the world for tomorrow: it's up to you and me.
From Reason for Hope, a book by Jane Goodall
Chief Emeka Anyaoku
He is not a large man. One might easily overlook him in a crowded room. In close conversation, however, it is a different story. When His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku speaks it becomes obvious that this is a man with a long path behind him and a deep vision before him. He listens intently to questions and then leans forward with a long stare into the eyes before answering. Small smiles of optimism punctuate his comments. Like lyrics from some passionate song, the words "democracy" and "freedom" roll from his mouth with special emphasis. Chief Anyaoku desires a world that is fair and decent for all. He certainly has done his share of work toward that goal. When he took the helm of the Commonwealth in 1990, one-party or military dictatorships controlled nine member countries. Today, every member of the Common-wealth is democratically ruled. He was also a key player in South Africa's peaceful transition to full democracy in 1994, one of the most inspiring events of the 20th century.
Guy Harrison: Do you feel that the blurring of national borders as we are seeing in Europe is a good thing for the world?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: I believe that we live in an age where globalisation is the inevitable trend. I think that national sover-eignties are bound to be weakened. But this should not happen too fast, because if you step on national sovereignties before the people concerned feel that it is in their interest to do so you will have problems. I foresee the world, ultimately, becoming a global village.
GH: What must Africa do to escape its terrible problems of poverty and violence?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Africa is still coming to terms with its historical past. One of the greatest challenges that humanity faces, not just Africa, is the challenge of man-aging diversity, the challenge of enabling peoples of different cultural, ethnic or religious groupings to live together in peace. This is not just a phenomenon in Africa. If you look at the former Yugoslavia in Bosnia, more recently in Kosovo, the struggle between the ethnic Albanians and the Serbs. If you look at Rwanda, the Tutsus and the Hutus and the genocide that occurred there. If you look at Sudan in Africa, the north-ern Sudan and the southern Sudan. If you look at Sri Lanka in Asia, the Tamils and the Sinhalese. All over the world, the management of diversity is an increasing challenge.
The map of Africa was drawn at the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885. This map was drawn with no regard whatsoever to the ethnic rationality of the units. So African countries, many of them but not all, are still struggling with this. Remember, however, there are more than 50 countries in Africa and troubles exist in no more than five of them. But of course they make the news and it gives the impression that is the whole of the continent. But there is still the fact that the ethnic divi-sions created historically by the colonial past of Africa are a problem. Then, of course, there is the issue of governance. The lack of democracy in stable societies is also a contributing factor.
GH: How can we move beyond this problem of groups clashing? Is there a solution to this or is it an unavoidable growing process for our species?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: What is needed are deliberate policies on the part of the leadership of these coun-tries to foster an environment that will make for peaceful coexistence. For enlightened management of diversity, you have to have such policies. You have to. In pluralistic states, where you have different cultural or ethnic groups, you have to balance the requirements of democracy on the basis of one person-one vote. You have to make deliberate efforts to ac-commodate all groups. If you have a country where one ethnic group numbers more than everyone else and operate it sim-ply on the basis of one person-one vote then it is likely that the power will remain with that large ethnic group all the time and the other ethnic groups will feel excluded. And when they feel excluded they will resort to non-constitutional means to assert themselves. So you have to think of constitutional arrangements that recognise the needs of pluralism.
GH: But measures designed to assist groups might do harm in the long term by reinforcing identities that are the source of trouble in the first place.
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: The most important thing is to give everyone a sense of belonging, to make every-one feel that they are stakeholders. If they all feel that they are stakeholders then they are more likely to defend the collec-tive interests of the society.
Constitutional and affirmative action measures must be seen as temporary. They are not going to endure indefinitely. The aim must be that after a time the society will stabilise to where those divisions will be deemed to be less and less impor-tant.
Look at Europe and the Jews, for example. There was a time when Jews were discriminated against in many European countries. This is no longer true except in some extreme cases. The Jews proved their capability and they became ac-cepted. The division has disappeared. I think there is a lot of sense in the US with their affirmative action programme. It has helped the African-Americans and other minorities a great deal.
GH: And women.
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Yes, of course, very much so. In the Commonwealth we now have a target policy of 30 percent women in policy decision-making positions.
GH: How close are you to reaching that goal?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Well, we have a mixed bag. Some countries have attained it and many countries are still far, far behind.
GH: Can democracy really exist in a society that has a high number of illiterate citizens? H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Education is a key, but I would not suggest that the absence of education means the absence of democracy. The biggest democracy in the world is India. India's democratic credentials are second to none and illiteracy in India is one of the highest in the world.
Democracy, in my view, is an inherent instinct in every human being. Democracy can be reduced to a question of choice. You can put the choice in the language and in the form that people can understand. And they will understand, whether they are educated or not.
GH: Can all wars be avoided or are some inevitable?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Wars can be avoided. Conflicts may be inevitable. Every human society, every ani-mal kingdom, has a built in capacity for conflict. But of course civilisation and progress should mean better management of conflict.
GH: Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen says that democracy is the key to avoiding acute famines. Do you agree?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: To a certain extent, I do. Though clearly the theory does not explain all famine. There is a great deal of validity in what he says, because where famine occurs there is usually the absence of good govern-ance. In many cases famine occurs because people have not been adequately mobilised. You remember the example years ago in what was then the Soviet Union, when they allowed a tiny percentage of their agricultural industry to based on co-operatives that tiny percent turned out to produce more than the state farms. So there is the basic fact that when people are free to pursue their self-fulfillment they tend to produce more.
So to that extent Amartya Sen is correct. But there are many other cases where famine occurs as a result of natural disas-ters and natural phenomenon. In such cases I think we would be stretching the theory too far.
GH: What has been your most rewarding achievement as leader of the Commonwealth?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: If I look back over the last ten years, there are two very satisfying things. One has to be the transformation of the Commonwealth into a group of truly democratic nations. When I became secretary-general there were nine Commonwealth countries that had either had military or one-party dictatorships. Today there is not a sin-gle such country. In my time there has evolved what has come to be known as the Harare Principles that put the pursuit of democracy and respect for human rights as fundamental principles of the Commonwealth. In 1995 we established a mechanism for monitoring the performance of Commonwealth countries.
Second was my personal involvement with the transition that occurred in South Africa [end of apartheid]. I was deeply involved in the final stages of the negotiations between 1991 and 1994. I found that to be very satisfying.
GH: It was so beautiful to see that happen peacefully.
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: It was one of the miracles of the 20th century.
GH: What does South Africa's achievement of full democracy mean? What is the lesson for the world?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: It showed the world that there is such goodness in human beings and in humanity that if you strike the right chord goodness will prevail. The fact that South Africa had witnessed so much humiliation and oppression on the basis of race, and could still triumph over it in peace, with-out vendettas and vindictiveness, shows that humans are capable of great heights.
GH: The United Nations just released an environmental report [Global Environment Out-look 2000]. It says there will be steep prices to pay for our behaviour. Do you think that we can get off of this destructive, dead-end path?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: I hope so. But I am not 100 percent confidant that we will. People are still so in-clined to consume and consume with little regard to the consequences. The debate over carbon emissions and the reluc-tance of some societies, particularly North America and the other highly industrialised countries to acknowledge that they are just contributing to the drying up of this planet, shows that consumerism is still very, very strong.
GH: Can we achieve a world where peace is the rule yet humans still define themselves primarily by nations, races and religions?
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku: Yes we can. We can achieve a world where differences will be celebrated.
H.E. Chief Emeka Anyaoku
Eleazar Chukwuemeka (Emeka) Anyaoku was born 18 January, 1933 in Obosi, Nigeria.
He earned an honours degree in Classics from the University College of Ibadan (University of London).
He joined the Commonwealth Development Cor-poration in 1959.
Chief Anyaoku was elected Commonwealth Secretary-General in 1989. He took office in 1990.
He was re-elected to a second term that began in 1995.
Under his leadership, the Commonwealth Secretariat has launched many initiatives in support of democracy, human rights and social development.
In addition to his Commonwealth duties, he continues to serve as a traditional Ndichie chief in Nigeria.
Chief Anyaoku's wife, Bunmi, is a Nigerian chief as well. She has been active for many years in welfare work in her home country and throughout the Com-monwealth.
Chief Anyaoku was involved in the process leading to peace in and democracy in Zimbabwe and Namibia.
A life-long opponent of apartheid, Chief Anyaoku was closely involved in South Africa's shift to full democracy. He held meetings with both Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk.
He has received honorary degrees from 13 universities in Africa, Britain and Canada.
This interview was published in the Caymanian Compass newspaper (Cayman Islands) on 1 October, 1999.
|
|
|
The Amazing Randi
Wants You To Think
By Guy Harrison
Psychics, faith healers, astrologers, fortune-tellers, tarot card readers, Nostradamus disciples, mind read-ers, dowsers, haunted house residents, medical quacks, spoon-benders and numerologists. These characters may hail from different points within the paranormal universe but they all have at least one thing in common.
That one thing is James "The Amazing" Randi. The former magician is the world's leading skeptical investi-gator and he is their worst nightmare. He's the one that says "prove it" when people make extraordinary claims. He's that irritating guy that keeps score when the psychics stumble through their readings missing far more often than they hit.
Randi may feel lonely at times but he keeps discouraging the lemming-like masses from giving their trust and their money to con artists. Randi is the pit bull of reason and doesn't retreat from outlandish claims, no matter how popular they may be.
He also backs up his work with a lot more than any paranormal hack ever has. The James Randi Educational Foundation has put one million dollars on the table. It's up for grabs for anyone who can do anything para-normal.
So far no one has been able to earn the money. This simple fact alone makes a thundering statement about the credibility of those who claim to speak to the dead, cure AIDS with a touch of their hand, or read the future in the stars. Think about it, most of these people don't seem like the type that would turn away from a million dollars if they had a choice.
Randi heads the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The organization works to teach and encourage critical thinking, especially among children. Randi keeps a busy schedule, traveling the world to lecture about the dangers of gulli-bility and the value of skepticism. He has written several books and often turns up on TV talk shows such as Larry King Live. Last year an elite group of scholars voted Randi the most outstanding skeptic of the twentieth century. He has won numerous other awards and recognitions, including a fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation. NOVA, the popular PBS science television series, has produced a one-hour documentary about his life's work.
Yes, our technology continues to soar and we may produce wondrous art and literature, but the cobwebs of prehistoric superstitions still haunt our minds. Some suspect that our brains are hard-wired for this weakness. Regardless if it is biology or the simple momentum of traditions, real education (learning how to think and not just retaining information) is the best way to keep one's feet from sticking in the mental muck of human culture.
Considering the enormous amounts of time, energy and money that are wasted on supernatural silliness, it is perhaps surprising that more of an effort is not made to provide people with the tools to defend against it. It might even be fair to say that those who can think critically are failing those who can't. Maybe scientists, teach-ers and parents should be doing more, a lot more. One thing is certain, however, at least one man, James Randi, is doing his part.
Guy Harrison: Why did you decide to dedicate your life to promoting critical think-ing and skepticism?
James Randi: Because I was a professional magician, an entertainer, I knew how people are fooled and more importantly I knew how they fooled themselves. I saw people being deceived, swindled and taken advantage by performers who were doing nothing more than perfectly recognizable tricks to fool them into thinking they were miracles. I resent that very highly and I think that if you see a person run down by a car it behooves you to call an ambulance, and that's essentially what I've been doing.
You would be surprised how many people come up to me in the streets in many cities around the world and say thanks for making a difference in the way they view the world. That's very, very rewarding.
Why is it important for people to be able to detect and see through paranormal nonsense?
It can cost you money, emotional security and it can cost you your life. I can think of a few exceptions, but almost any untruth or deception is bound to be a negative influence.
What kind of jobs do most schools do when it comes to developing and encouraging thinking skills in their students?
Rather poorly, I'm afraid. Most schools are hobbled by rules and laws of various kinds that don't allow them to bring up the subject of religion and/or superstition. I think that students are insulated from asking really pertinent questions about their lives and how they should conduct them, especially in the politically correct at-mosphere that we find ourselves in these days.
What we seem to be saying is that everyone has a right to be swindled and everyone has a right to swindle them. As long as they do it in the name of religion or political correctness it seems to be OK.
Where is the big money being made in the paranormal game?
A thing like astrology is just a steady drain on the economy. It makes the astrologers quietly and rather un-obtrusively rich over a long period of time. The medical quackery and the faith healing racket that is out there now makes a very large amount of money. People who do this, like Benny Hinn, are multi-millionaires many, many times over. They just have so much money pouring in every minute of every day that I'm sure they can't even keep track of it.
Do you treat extraordinary claims that are linked to major religions any differently than you do those of astrologers or psychics?
No difference what so ever.
Is it more difficult for you to challenge religious claims?
Religion is blind faith, not faith based on evidence. Religion says, "This is the way it is and that's it. I don't want to discuss it any further." While with other claims such as faith healing or predicting that such and such will happen on the fourth of the month, or whatever, you can test them. You can find out if someone is healed or if something happened on the fourth or not. You can examine it because it is evidence based, while blind faith cannot be examined.
Do you think that the popular "psychics" and "faith healers" of today, the ones we see on TV, really believe that they have supernatural powers? Could they be sincere and just self-deluded, or are they just flat out con artists?
Flat out con artists is the expression I would use.
What about Benny Hinn [popular "faith healer"]?
Benny Hinn knows exactly what he is doing.
Why don't people get as excited about astronomy as they do astrology?
Astronomy is comparatively dull. Astrology promises you some advantage on the world, knowledge of the fu-ture. It promises you an advantage over other people by knowing things you wouldn't normally know. It's all a totally hollow, false and baseless promise. Astronomy on the other hand can only tell you that one of these days the Sun is going to expand and vaporize the Earth, and that's not good news. The other stuff is always good news.
Will humankind ever get beyond its weakness for all this paranormal nonsense?
I suspect not. I suspect that when the Human Genome Project is finally completed they're going to find a "silly gene" on the end of some chromosome and they're going to discover that it has a little cap and bells on because it doesn't seem to be a recessive trait. Everyone has the need to be silly or irrational every now and then. Some people carry it to extremes and they make it a guiding principle in their lives. I don't think we'll ever get rid of it. What we can do is allow those that fall for that sort of thing, according to Darwin, fall of the edge of the Earth if they want to. They simply won't survive. I'm not going to try too hard to reach over and catch them. I'll try to prevent them from going to the edge of the Earth, but if they insist on jumping that's their problem.
How does one confront ridiculous claims that people believe in passionately without seeming to be negative and destructive?
By pointing out that puppy dogs, Sophia Loren and beautiful sunrises, and things like that are the things to admire and enjoy and aspire to understanding. I think that anyone who gets to look at a newborn baby and fails to recognize the potential in that little hunk of protoplasm there, that you can hold in one hand, has failed to see the beauty of the universe and the possibilities within it, the real possibilities. We have to become more sensitive to these things and not embrace everything as if it's a new paradigm.
What are the goals of the James Randi Educational Foundation?
We maintain a headquarters in Fort Lauderdale, Florida along with a comprehensive Web page at www.randi.org. Our main purpose here is to teach critical thinking to school kids. I tour all over the world. I just got back from St. Louis, Missouri and Rochester, New York and I'm off to China next as well as other parts of the globe to pass on the message that critical thinking is a healthy attitude, that skepticism is not an ugly thing, that you still should be kicking the tires on the car before you buy it. It is important that we are thinking about things rather than just accepting what the hucksters would have us accept and for which they would take our money.
We also maintain here in Fort Lauderdale a very comprehensive book and video library. People can drop by anytime to consult and we are also available by email. We try to serve the public and enlighten people, espe-cially young people who need this kind of preparation to properly conduct their lives in a safer environment.
Tell me about this $1 million prize that nobody seems to be able to win.
It's been offered for four years now. I's kept in trust. It cannot be used for any other purpose. We aren't millionaires, I don't want to give that impression. But this money is available in the form of negotiable bonds to any person or persons who can provide evidence of any paranormal, occult or supernatural event or ability of any kind.
Now we don't get the professionals coming to us. We don't get the Uri Gellers, the John Edwards, Benny Hinns or any of these people. They stay away from us as if we don't exist at all. They like to isolate and insulate themselves from any critical questions of any kind. But we do get people who are quite innocently convinced that they have psychic powers.
I have a letter on my desk that just arrived moments ago. It's from a man that says he can tell the suit of a playing card if you just hold the back of it up towards him. Now I think he really believes it because he tests himself and he makes excuses for himself when he's wrong. This often happens because people don't know how to double-blind test themselves. We will give this gentleman a preliminary test. He will fail it and then he can't come back for another 12 months to reinstate the claim. But should he pass it, we will work up a formal test with all the controls and proper protocol and test him for the million dollars. If he can do it he will get the money.
Has anyone come close to earning the money?
We have tested hundreds of people over the past few years and nobody has ever come anywhere near getting by the preliminary test. And the preliminary test is done in a very informal manner usually by other people in whatever location that person happens to be. I'm sure, for example, that we could find someone in the Cayman Islands that would act as our stand-in and conduct a test of anyone who believes they have these powers. Come and get it!
What does it say about the paranormal and the supernatural that this money just sits there un-touched year after year?
The message is pretty self-evident. They [psychics, astrologers, faith healers, etc.] make excuses. They say "there is no money." Well, there is and it can be easily proven. Anyone can apply for the proof and we would be glad to provide it to them. They know that but they would rather pretend that it doesn't exist. They will say they don't want to win the money because it would sully their powers. Well, why don't they win it and then give it to the homeless, hungry children, or AIDS research? They would make fools of us and take our million dollars at the same time. There isn't much of an answer for that. They offer all sorts of excuses: they haven't got time, they're too busy. Anyone that is too busy to make a million dollars is intellectually challenged.
So we have the offer right here. We have a very big carrot on a very long stick and they seem to be ignoring it. The fact that they ignore it means to me that they know very well that they can't do it. We are only asking psychics, for example, to do for us what they do every day already, and get paid for it. If they can do it for us, we will give them a million dollars.
The Ten
Outstanding
Skeptics of the
Twentieth Century
1. James Randi
2. Martin Gardner
3. Carl Sagan
4. Paul Kurtz
5. Ray Hyman
6. Isaac Asimov
7. Philip J. Klass
8. Bertrand Russell
9. Harry Houdini
10. Albert Einstein
As voted by an elite group of scholars. The full results were published in Skeptical Inquirer (Jan/Feb 2000)
This interview was published in the Caymanian Compass on 1 June, 2001
The Last Moonwalker
By Guy Harrison
The confident and capable astronaut had become the third human to walk in space and was now well on his way to setting a new EVA record of 2 hours and nine minutes. But as sweat streaked down his face and fog crept across his visor, he began to think about little more than survival. His heart raced and it became uncertain if he would be able to make it back inside the small Gemini spacecraft. These were the early days of space exploration and Eugene Cernan was discovering firsthand just how much remained to be learned.
Cernan escaped disaster that day to fly all the way to the Moon on Apollo 10 in May of 1969. He and mission commander Thomas Stafford flew the lunar module within ten miles of the Moon to pave the way for the first landing that would take place two months later.
Apollo 17 was the crowning glory of Cernan's remarkable career. He served as mission commander, flying with Ron Evans and Harrison Schmitt. On December 11, 1972 Cernan and Schmitt landed on the Moon. They spent 73 hours in a deep valley called Taurus-Littrow, putting in hard days exploring and quiet nights sleeping inside the lunar module.
Cernan certainly is proud of his time spent on the lunar surface. However, he finds the title "last man on the Moon", to be a dubious honor. He happily would relinquish it, he says, just to see humans heading back to that place he once called home for three unforgettable days.
Guy Harrison: To be the last man on the Moon is unique and special, but would you prefer to have seen many more people follow behind you?
Gene Cernan: I have been the last man on the Moon for far too long. It's been 30 years. When I came back on Apollo 17 the press kept asking me how it felt to be the tail of the dog, the last one over the fence. I told them that Apollo 17 is not the end; it is the beginning. I said that not only are we going to go back to the Moon, but we will be on our way to Mars by the turn of the century. I don't regret what I said. My glass is not half empty, it's half full. We are going to do that, but were not going to do it as quickly as I had hoped we would.
To be called the "last man on the Moon" is an honor. It's a dubious honor, but it is an honor. I didn't plan to be the last man on the Moon. I lived on the Moon for the three days and I made those last steps on the Moon. But I would much rather see us exploring space avidly today, rather than what we are doing up there now.
Frankly, nobody knows or nobody cares [about NASA's efforts in recent years]. It doesn't turn anybody on. Once the shuttle is gone no one knows what is happening.
We need to get back into the exploration mode. We need to get humans geared up to go back to the Moon and to Mars. It will happen. I might not see it but you will see it.
Describe that rough Gemini 9 EVA [June, 1966].
We were venturing into a domain that we didn't know much about. Leonev, the Russian [first human to walk in space; March 18, 1965], was out there for 12 minutes. I know him very well, and he will admit today that he spent the first three minutes getting out and the last nine fighting for his survival just to get back in [the spacecraft]. It wasn't much of a spacewalk really. Ed White [Gemini 4, second human to walk in space; June 3, 1965] was out there for 20 minutes, had this little gun [hand-held propulsion unit] and tooted around. Everything went great. It was just getting out there and seeing what it was like. Ed did have some problems getting back into the spacecraft but we didn't pay much attention to it because we knew it was a tight fit.
The next spacewalk was going to be done by Dave Scott on Gemini XIII. But that was scrubbed when they had a thruster problem and they came back in and never did the spacewalk. So all of the sudden we went from 20 minutes with Ed White to a two-and-a-half hour planned walk with me actually detaching from the umbilical and putting on a backpack [AMU, or Astronaut Maneuvering Unit]. It was ambitious. We ignored the fundamental problems that we might encounter, all of us, myself and everybody involved. It wasn't anticipated to be dangerous. It was anticipated to be a challenge. Nobody ever thought of the problems we would run into in terms of stabilization, holding position. I had a tremendously difficult time just assembling this backpack, the AMU [stored at the rear of the Gemini capsule]. All I had was something like a bicycle handlebar to hold onto and I had a bar to stand on. But nobody stands on anything in zero gravity. What was eventually developed was "golden slippers" [footholds] that guys can put their feet in. And if you can anchor your feet in zero gravity then you can pick up an 18-wheeler truck with your hands.
It was difficult and challenging up to the point when I overpowered my cooling system and became all fogged up [helmet visor]. My heart rate was high. I was getting tired. I came closer than I was willing to admit at the time to a serious situation. But at this point we realized that I was in danger. We realized that we were in a position that there might not have been a way out of. I was very disappointed that I couldn't continue. In retrospect it was probably one of the best decisions we ever made. We knew that getting back into the spacecraft was going to be a problem, a problem that was multiplied because I was so tired and still fogged up. It was also hard because of my size and the bulkiness of the spacesuit. I had to wear a steel coverall in my pants. Yeah, you add up all of this and we flirted with danger. Had I put the pack on I think I could have flown it. That part of it would have been successful but we just did not have adequate plans.
Just think, the backpack I was going to wear was supposed to fire hot hydrogen peroxide exhaust so I had to wear steel pants. That is totally inconceivable today. They use cold nitrogen to move around with today. I was actually going to fire a hot rocket down my butt on both sides, and in order to protect myself I was going to wear steel pants. Now how crazy is that?
It wasn't until years later that I realized how dangerous that mission was. I got so involved with the next flight that I just never thought about what I had really gone through. Only when I wrote my book [Last Man on the Moon, 1999, St. Martin's Press] and went over every bit of detail, including the medical records and transcripts, did I realize that the people on the ground were very, very concerned.
What was it like to fly the Lunar Module? How did it handle?
Well, it was an ugly little thing, wasn't it? People will look at that thing a hundred years from now and they won't be able to understand what we were thinking. It was like the Beverly Hillbillies. We strapped everything we could to the sides of it, everything but the piano.
We had the rover strapped to the side, a nuclear power system, all of our equipment strapped on it. It was shrouded aerodynamically during launch on the Saturn V and once we were out of the atmosphere aerodynamics didn't matter. There's no air all the way to the Moon so we could design it to be functional and not worry about aerodynamic characteristics.
There were no seats. We had to stand up and we didn't have very big windows because weight was such an important consideration. The only time it got your attention is when you repressurized it and took off your helmet and gloves. Then you think about how frail the thing is. For example, the hatch for the command module looks like it was built for a tank, but the Lunar Module hatch looks like a little oil cap. It's just a thin thing that bolts down and there is nothing between you and the universe except this little sheet of aluminum titanium. But it performed beautifully.
The whole 14-plus minutes landing [Apollo 17] is a story of its own. It was a magnificent flying machine. It responded well and flew well. When we went down we weighed something like 40,000 pounds. When we lifted off the surface of the Moon we were something like 10,000 pounds in one-sixth gravity. It was just a like a little fighter airplane. If there had been an aircraft carrier somewhere around I think it could have made a great landing on it.
How did your experience as a fighter pilot translate to space flight?
Going to the Moon was not a natural extension of flying. Some people say it is but for me it wasn't. It was a whole different world, both technologically and spiritually. It was something new and different. I made use of my background and all that I had learned, but it was a real challenge. I flew to another place in the universe. Just to say that sounds like I've been smoking something. But it happened. I was there. The Moon was my Camelot for three days of my life.
You and Harrison Schmitt [the geologist turned astronaut that landed with Cernan] accomplished some serious science while on the Moon. How rewarding was that for you?
Once we got there we had something to do. Preparing to be a scientist, a lunar geologist was in itself challenging and quite frankly was very interesting. We went were no man had ever been before. Every step we took on that part of the Moon was the first by a human. We saw things that no human being had ever seen before.
The science was exciting and a big a part of the mission. Going and coming, and the landing were certainly the highpoints for me, but the science was very meaningful. This was not just some place we could go back to easily so we had to work hard and do a lot of things in the limited time we had.
Did you become mentally comfortable over the three days that you spent on the surface of the Moon? Or were you constantly aware of how dangerous it was? Did you have any nagging anxiety about the ascent stage failing? [the ascent stage is the portion of the Lunar Module that carried astronauts up to rendezvous with the command module for the journey home]
I was very comfortable. If I was worried about being stranded or whatever, then I shouldn't have gone in the first place. While I was on the Moon I never worried about that moment when we had to fire the engine and get off. I was extremely comfortable, still all the time realizing that we were vulnerable to a whole host of problems. I was prepared. I figured I could handle it. I didn't sit there with my finger on the trigger all the time. We had a job to do. I was comfortable with the environment even though it was a very hostile environment.
Things did get a little exciting when it came time to lift off, because if that engine had failed to fire, quite frankly I don't know what I would have done. Thank God I don't have to answer that question.
How physically demanding was the work you did on the Moon?
It was extremely physically demanding. Our heart rates ran 140, 150, 160 beats per minute the majority of the time we were there, other than when we were riding in the [lunar] rover.
Moving around on the Moon in one-sixth gravity was a breeze once you learned how to do it. But drilling core samples was tough. We ran a pretty healthy workload the whole time we were there.
Tell me about the initials that you scratched on the Moon.
When it was time to leave, I parked the rover about a mile behind the lunar module so the television camera [remotely operated by Mission Control on Earth] could view our liftoff. When I got out I just had an inspiration to do it and wrote "TDC", Tracy Dawn Cernan [daughter]. I guess it will be there forever, however long forever is.
What thoughts went through your mind as you walked back to the Lunar Module for the final time?
It was a fairly long walk. I thought, "pinch yourself one more time and make sure this is real. You're going to be out of here soon so appreciate it." I knew that something special, a once in a lifetime thing was about to end. It became a little nostalgic for me.
I wanted it all to be meaningful. I wanted the entire program and Apollo 17 that ended the program to be successful and meaningful. I said some words: "May America's challenge of today be man's destiny of tomorrow."
I felt very strongly that we must press on, we must continue. That's why it's very frustrating for me to be sitting her today with the label of "last man to walk on the Moon."
Where will the Apollo program rank in history a thousand years from now?
Records are made to be broken and achievements are meant to be surpassed with greater achievements, but I think that Apollo is going to rank very high.
I do think that people 50 or 100 years from now will look back and wonder what the hell was going through our minds because we had the ability to leave the Earth and go to the Moon but we just quit. A thousand years from now, however, I think the time frame will be so compressed that it won't even notice it. A thousand years from now we will be living on Mars. We will be coming back to Earth to visit the place where our great-great-great-grandparents grew up. Or, we will visit the place where humans first left the Earth to go to the Moon. Mars and the Earth will be sister planets in the same way that Europe and North America were to my grandparents. The Old Country and the New World. It will be the Old World and the New World.
How did standing so far away from the Earth's problems effect you?
I just wish I could take every human being in the world and stand them beside me on the Moon for about five minutes. You get the idea that the world might be a little different if people could just see it from the Moon, not just see it but feel it too.
You feel somewhat helpless because you know you can't change things. For me it reinforced my feelings that the world is too beautiful to have happened by accident. There must be something or somebody bigger than us who put it all together. When I stood on the Moon, I stood at a point in space and time where I witnessed science meeting its match. Science could no longer explain what I was witnessing at that point in time.
It tells you that we are on one big sailing ship moving through the universe. If you have a belief in God, no matter what name you call him, you have to believe that he has given us an opportunity to do what we want with our lives and our world. We are a piece of his creation moving through the universe and where we end up, or if we self-destruct, is up to us.
When you look back at the Earth, it is so overwhelming, so powerful and beautiful. You see no borders, no language differences, no color differences. You don't see terrorism. Like I said, I just wish I could take every human being up there and tell them to take a look.
This interview was originally published in the Caymanian Compass on 9 August 2002.
'You never
forget your first launch.'
By Guy Harrison
Still trim and fit at 70, Thomas Stafford looks ready to climb atop a Saturn V rocket one more time if NASA made the call. As commander of Apollo 10 in 1969, he flew within nine miles of the lunar surface. He is one of just 24 men that have made the journey to the Moon. He also participated in two important Gemini missions and the Apollo-Soyuz effort. The latter was an astounding moment of cooperation between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War. Stafford also accomplished a great deal in the US Air Force. Before retiring as a Lieutenant General, he spearheaded the development of the F-117 Stealthfighter as well as the B-1 and B-2 bombers. Today he retains the same passion for science and space exploration that once took him to the Moon and back.
Guy Harrison: What were your thoughts the first time you orbited the Moon and looked back at the Earth?
Thomas Stafford: When we saw the first Earthrise, it was awesome.
GH:Did you have time to reflect on your faraway home or where you too busy doing your job?
Stafford: Well, you can't help but reflect on it for the first few minutes you see it. You're very busy doing the job you have to do but you just can't help but think about it when you look at the Earth and it's about the size of a baseball or orange.
GH: Did the experience change your perception of humankind in any way?
Stafford: Yes it did. Of the four missions I flew in space, the one to the Moon made me think about it. The Earth looked so beautiful and yet in a way so insignificant. Being that far away, you had to ask yourself, 'why it is that those people have to have all those problems back there? Why can't they live in peace and solve their problems?'
GH: Why is space exploration important?
Stafford: I think it is very important. We have learned so much by going to the Moon, from the Hubble telescope and other things. For example, because of what we've done in space we know why there are four seasons on Earth. We know that a planet about the size of Mars hit the Earth early on and caused it to tilt 23.5 degrees. That's why we have four seasons today. We also now know what will happen to the Sun in the future. A lot of things out in space help us solve problems right back here on Earth.
GH: Have we done enough in the last 25 years?
Stafford: I don't think we have done enough as far as the human part of it [compared with robotic space probes]. We've picked up a bit in the last few years but we could have made a lot more progress over the last 25 years.
GH: What has been lacking? Just the political will?
Stafford:You're absolutely right. Political will has been lacking on the part of the [Clinton] Administration to invest in research and technology that we can use as the base to return to the Moon and go on to Mars.
GH: Which of your four space missions stands out in your memories?
Stafford: The most outstanding was when I went to Moon [Apollo 10]. Of course, you never forget your first launch.
GH: Were you ever scared?
Stafford: No. You have to look at the background. I was a fighter pilot, a test pilot. And you have to look at the simulations. I had over a thousand simulated launches. It was just part of the profession. If I had walked in cold for a launch, then yeah, I would have been scared.
GH: Beyond the science, what was the value of Apollo-Soyuz?
Stafford: It showed the world that two countries with different languages, different units of measurements, and certainly different political systems, can set a common goal and work together to achieve it. It's a lesson that can really help humankind.
GH: What are the most important qualities of a good astronaut?
Stafford: You have to have good intelligence, motivation to work hard, and I think a lot of common sense. You have to have the ability to make good decisions at the right time.
GH: How important is international cooperation to the future of space exploration?
Stafford: It's definitely important. When we went to Moon it was the big race against Russia, but I think returning to the Moon and going on to Mars will be an international effort.
GH: How do you respond to the criticism of spending money in space when people are starving on Earth?
Stafford: There were people starving in the world when Queen Isabella gave Columbus the money he needed to discover the New World. When JFK made the commitment to go to the Moon there were people rioting in the Washington. You can't stop and solve everybody's problems. If we wait for a perfect world we would never get anything done.
GH: What is your opinion of NASA?
Stafford: It was an excellent organisation in the 1960s. But what happened was that a lot of good people left after the lunar landings. People lost a little interest and it started to decline. It began to stagnate and it got fat. The same kind of thing happened to US Steel, IBM, American Express. It's improved a lot though. Dan Goldin [NASA's chief administrator] is doing a good job.
GH: Would you like to see space become another business frontier?
Stafford: I'd love to see that. The big problem is the cost of getting into low-Earth orbit. You've got to get that cost down. If we could get it down to $1,000 per pound it would be a great leap forward.
GH: When we will see humans on Mars?
Stafford: My gut feeling is 2016, 2018. We could do it earlier. We just need the commitment from the Administration.
GH: How does the difficulty of a crewed Mars mission compare with the difficulty of the Apollo programme?
Stafford: Compared to where we where when we started out to go to Moon, it will be technically less difficult to go to Mars.
GH: Are we capable of landing on Mars right now?
Stafford: Yes, it's just a matter of focusing the technology. The main thing is that we need to be able to recycle the water. We already know how to recycle the air. We also need to get there fast. We can protect against solar radiation but cosmic radiation is a problem. We just can't protect against it. So the way to do it is to go out there fast and come back fast.
GH: How important is it to encourage children in math and science?
Stafford: It's very important. Math and science is the basic background of all the technology that we have.
GH: You have been deeply involved with the US military, what are your thoughts today about war? Will we ever get past it?
Stafford: I think we may get past big wars but small conflicts may always be a problem. As far as I can see you will always have religious philosophical differences, territorial differences, personality differences. And as a result you're going to have wars. But I think as far as major wars like we have seen in Europe, no; you're not going to see them in the future.
GH: Where do you see our species in a thousand years, on Earth and in space?
Stafford: I think in a thousand years most people will still be on Earth but we will have a lot of people in space. But we have a big problem coming up in two or three billion years. The Sun is going to burn more and more hydrogen and start to expand. As it gets hotter and hotter our oceans will vaporise and all water on Earth will disappear. So we've got to get out of here!
GH: Thanks for your time, and thank you for your career. What you did was not just for you or for NASA. You did it for all of us. Thanks.
Stafford: That's nice. Thank you.
This interview was origially published in the Caymanian Compass newspaper (March 17, 2000)
The First Voyage
By Guy Harrison
It was to be the most daring mission ever attempted in the Space Race of the 1950s and 60s. NASA hoped to rush the launch of a three-man crew to the Moon and beat the Soviets, who they believed were close to attempting their own Moon shot. Only one Apollo mission had flown and no human had ever left Earth orbit before. To travel some 240,000 miles away from the Earth and orbit the Moon would be extremely risky. It was too much too soon. But it worked.
Frank Borman was commander of the Apollo 8 mission that included Jim Lovell and Bill Anders. Borman was a former Air Force fighter pilot and test pilot. A no-nonsense guy with a sharp mind and steady hands, he was perfect for a mission that would test NASA like never before.
Borman's first mission in space was Gemini VII with Lovell. Their primary goal was to rendezvous with Gemini VI which they did. They also orbited for a marathon 14 days in the cramped Gemini capsule, setting a new human endurance record in space. Borman was heavily involved in the investigation of the Apollo I launchpad fire that killed three astronauts. He believes the tragedy forced changes and led to a new attitude that made the rest of the Apollo program work so well.
When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin of Apollo 11 walked on the Moon in July of 1969, Apollo 8 was instantly overshadowed and has remained so since. That may change, however, in the decades and centuries to come. Borman, Lovell, Anders and the Apollo 8 voyage may be returned to top billing when historians rather than TV broadcasters shape public knowledge about the Moon missions.
They were the first humans to leave our world for another. Few things in our history compare with that. Few things ever will.
Guy Harrison: Describe those 14 days you spent in that tiny Gemini capsule [Gemini VII mission]. How tough was that mission?
Frank Borman: That Gemini flight was the longest flight to date. It was designed to show that you could exist in zero Gs for 14 days. Of course now we know that you can do far better than that, but at that time we didn't know. That was a very difficult task because we ran out of attitude control fuel and the fuel cells were breaking down, and being confined in that small an area for such a long time without being able to stretch was a tough chore.
Was it tough mentally?
It was boring. At the beginning of the flight we had all kinds of experiments to do and Gemini VI came and rendezvoused with us. That was a highpoint, but after that we were just drifting for about three days. Twenty-four hours is a long time when you are just drifting.
Put the Gemini program in perspective. It was overshadowed by the Apollo missions but how important was it to the overall effort to explore space?
Gemini was absolutely critical to the success of the Apollo program. Gemini proved all of the essential elements of the lunar landing mission possible. I agree with you that it has been overlooked but it was critical.
Apollo 8, the first voyage to the Moon, was a rush job to ensure that the US beat the Soviets. As the launch date approached did you have concerns that it might be too risky? How much of a gamble was that mission?
I think that mission was a very, very shrewd call by NASA management. We all had spent a great deal of time trying to fix the problems of the spacecraft that had resulted in the fire with Apollo I.
You're right that we did it because the word was out that the Soviets were going to try and do it before the end of the year. But I was not concerned that it was rushed. I had been on the committee that investigated the fire. I was out at North American [company that built Apollo spacecraft] working with them to get the new spacecraft in shape so I was very familiar and confident with the hardware. Nevertheless, the Apollo 8 mission was a very bold and courageous decision by NASA management.
You were closely involved with the investigation into the Apollo 1 fire [accident during a launchpad test killed astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffe]. Some suggest that this tragedy was a key to Apollo's success because it forced crucial changes before flights resumed. Do you agree?
I agree with that. As a result of the fire, the spacecraft that flew on Apollo VII [first US manned flight after the Apollo I fire] was a much superior spacecraft than the one that burned. There was a change in attitude after the fire. Everything that just would have been nice to have suddenly became imperative.
How was it to meet Charles Lindbergh before the launch of Apollo 8?
That was very interesting. Lindbergh was a boyhood hero for all of us and we were able to get him talking about his flight [first solo flight across Atlantic]. It was a wonderful time. We spent most of the afternoon laughing.
How does the far side of the Moon look compared to the side that we see? [From Earth we only see the same side of the Moon. Borman, Lovell and Anders were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon in person]
The far side is exposed to deep space so it catches a lot more meteorites. It's much rougher than the side we see. It looks like it has been pretty well chewed up by projectiles. The far side is a rough place.
Did you feel a sense of great isolation, being so far from Earth in such a small spacecraft?
I never did. We had a job to do. It was a mission and everything was subordinate to the mission. Yeah, we were homesick for our families. On Christmas Eve, for goodness sake, we were nostalgic but I never felt that we were disconnected.
As one of the first three humans to see the Earth from a great distance, what thoughts went through your mind?
Well, you go through a lot of processes in wondering why there is so much conflict and you begin to realize that we really are "riders on the Earth together." On the other hand, you can't help but think as an American that freedom is about the most precious of all commodities. And it is worth preserving. Those were the thoughts I had.
There were a lot of concerns on Earth about your engine failing to fire for the return trip home and leaving you and your crew marooned in lunar orbit. Were you worried?
We had confidence in that engine but I must tell you that there were six eyeballs glued to the instruments and we were very, very glad when it worked. You have confidence but it's nice when it actually does work.
As commander of the Apollo 8 mission how much unique pressure were you under? Were you able to enjoy that flight?
We all felt pressure. The main concern that we all had was that somehow the crew wouldn't do the job well. That was the one thing we did not want to happen. The enjoyment comes when you come back and you step on the carrier and say "boy, we did our job well."
How were you guys as a crew? Were you a good team?
Yes. I flew with Lovell twice and Anders just that once. I was very fortunate to fly with them.
Do you think that in the future, when historians rather than journalists shape public opinion, there will be more prominence placed on Apollo 8 [first lunar voyage] rather than Apollo 11 [first lunar landing]?
Each Apollo mission was so important. We could have never gone to the Moon if Apollo 7 hadn't been successful. Apollo 11 could not have gone to the Moon if 9 and 10 and not been successful. The fact that 11 was the lunar landing was, in my mind, miraculous. Who would have thought that this complicated system would put out four perfect flights: 7, 8, 9, 10? It was really an overall project and I have a hard time placing one above the other. Even after Apollo 11, the missions that came beyond that, with the Lunar Rover and everything else. It was a really incredible program.
The CIA was keeping a close watch on the Soviet space program. Did you guys learn anything from them that you were able to directly apply to the American space program?
Not that I am aware of. They certainly supplied the impetus for us though. They did an EVA [spacewalk] so we did an EVA. They were the force the made us act but I'm not aware that we ever borrowed, bought or stole any hardware or systems from them.
How do you rate NASA today? What direction would you like to see them head in the 21st century?
NASA today has a tough sell. There is enormous pressure on the budget. They don't have any competitor like we had in the Soviets to push Gemini and Apollo. I think it's going to be a long haul to be honest with you.
Some say we can do all we need to do in space with probes and robots. As a former human space explorer, how do you feel about that?
I think it needs to be a combination. We can do a lot with robots and probes, but I don't think that mankind will ever be satisfied until we put a human on the ground of whatever it is we are exploring.
This interview was originally published in the Caymanian Compass on 12 December 2001
'I was the first man in space'
By Guy Harrison
In August of 1960, a balloon carried US Air Force test pilot Joe Kittinger to an altitude of 102,800 feet, nearly 20 miles above the Earth. He was at the place where the atmosphere ends and space begins, a hostile territory that makes eyeballs explode and blood boil. Instant death waited just beyond the protection of Kittinger's pressure suit and helmet. But the climb was only half of the Excelsior III mission.
At 7:10am Kittinger took one last glance at the world below and then stepped out of the gondola. The drop lasted 13 minutes and his body broke the sound barrier on the way down. More than 40 years later it is still the greatest jump in aviation history.
Despite the daredevil nature of the feat, Kittinger was no stuntman looking for attention. He was a test pilot, committed to learning new things and finding ways to make aviation and the exploration of space safer. The series of high-altitude balloon projects in the 1950s and 1960s that Kittinger was part of contributed to NASA's race to the Moon and were key to the development of safe ejection systems for high-performance aircraft. The public has largely forgotten these men and their accomplishments, but that may change soon. The Pre-Astronauts, an excellent book by Craig Ryan, details the balloon voyages to the edge of space and it is to be the basis of an upcoming movie. Kittinger says he has been assured that the movie will be loyal to the facts.
The history books may agree that Yuri Gagarin was the first human in space, Joe Kittinger, however, does not. "I was the first man in space," he says. He defines space as the point where humans die rapidly without artificial protection. So when Gagarin took his rocket ride in 1961, Kittinger points out that he had already taken his own bold step out into space a year earlier. Craig Ryan, author of The Pre-Astronauts, agrees.
"We can think of his bailout at 103,000 feet as the first space walk," Ryan says. "The most impressive thing of all may be that he has survived to tell the tales of his remarkable accomplishments. Survival doesn't just happen, it comes as the result of meticulous planning and preparation. Joe did everything the right way."
After his work with research balloons, Kittinger returned to his fighter pilot roots and volunteered for three combat tours during the Vietnam War. In 1972 he shot down a Mig-21 and was later shot down himself. He was captured and held for 11 months at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" where the North Vietnamese tortured him.
Although Kittinger was deeply disappointed that high altitude balloons were never fully utilized as platforms for astronomical research, his passion for flying never dimmed. Over the last couple of decades he has enjoyed the life of a biplane barnstormer and won prestigious hot-air balloon races. In 1984 he became the first to make a solo balloon flight across the Atlantic Ocean.
While his claim to be the first in space may be debatable, there can be no argument that Colonel Joseph Kittinger is one of the greatest aviators of all time.
Guy Harrison: When you were a child did you imagine that you would accomplish so much in aviation?
Col. Joe Kittinger: Well, no. My dream was to be a fighter pilot. But I never dreamed I would be able to make the contributions that I have.
How close to death were you on Excelsior I? And how did you talk yourself into going back and doing more missions?
Excelsior I was a dangerous freefall. I was unconscious and the only reason I lived is because one of my team members figured out all the worst things that could happen and prepared the equipment for it. And the worst that could happen did happen. Of the three jumps that was the closest I came to not making it. But I knew we needed the data. I knew that we needed to continue with the project. I had no reservations about continuing. I had confidence in the equipment and in my team.
Before the ManHigh, Excelsior and Strato-Lab projects, how much was known about keeping a human alive in space?
Not much. You may think you know about something but until you actually do it you just don't know. There were some unknowns but we thought we had them pretty well figured out. What you worry about are the things you don't know anything about, the surprises.
As it turned out, we had figured things would work out just about the way they did. Our preparations for the tests were in fact very valid.
The point where space begins seems to be a subjective judgement. Do you feel that you were the first person in space and Yuri Gagarin was second?
I was the first man in space. Space starts at 62,000 feet because that is where you cannot live without a pressure suit. If you were exposed at 65,000 feet you would die very quickly, for example. So for man, space begins at 62,000 feet because that is the point at which you have to have a pressure suit on in order to live.
What is the view like 20 miles up?
It's a heck of a perch. I could see for 400 miles. But I was there as an experimental test pilot to gather data. I wasn't there to look out over the Earth as a beautiful object. I had to get the job done and get data in the space environment.
How bad was your right hand during the Excelsior III mission? Why didn't you abort when it was obvious that you had a serious problem?
It happened [pressure suit leak] at about 40,000 on the way up. I felt that I could sustain the pain and problems of not having a functioning right hand. I also felt that had I aborted they would have cancelled the program. I thought it was worth the risks so I made a conscious decision not to tell anybody about it.
About two hours after I landed on the ground I regained full use of my hand.
Is it true that you broke the sound barrier with your body?
Yes. At 90,000 feet I went 714 miles per hour.
Are you still the fastest human ever without an engine?
People have ejected from aircraft at faster speeds than that. But we did not do any of this to set records. It was all to gather data and information for the space program. Records were a by-product of why we were there. Although I jumped from over 100,000 feet and nobody else has done it in 41 years, we didn't do it for that.
Describe the experience of freefalling from 20 miles up [Excelsior III mission].
It was the third jump I made from a balloon but this one was really up in space. I was in five millimeters of pressure which is the same pressure that there is on Mars. I was in almost a complete vacuum. Even though I had jumped twice before from balloons at very high altitudes, this jump turned out to be very interesting. When I jumped I felt like I was just suspended in space and nothing was happening. Then I turned over on my back and I saw the balloon and gondola just rocketing into space. I couldn't believe how fast it was flying upward. Then, of course, I realized that it was me going down at a tremendous rate while the balloon was staying at the same altitude.
Were you able to enjoy the experience of that jump despite the intensity of it?
No. I was there for business, there as a test pilot. I had a lot of things to worry about. How my parachute was working, my pressure suit.
Why did you choose flying combat missions during the Vietnam War over the space program?
Well, I was really disappointed. I had worked for five years on a program to take an astronomer into space. We were on the edge of making fantastic discoveries using a manned balloon observatory. But they cancelled the program and I was a fighter pilot so I opted to go to Vietnam.
How productive could balloons be for astronomical work? Could they compete with the Hubble Telescope?
Yes, and for one-hundredth of the cost. Tremendous gains could have been derived from balloon observatories that were never attained. The problem was that we didn't have a lobby. NASA had all aircraft industry making big bucks. What I was doing cost the taxpayers nothing, but there was no lobbying for it. There were no admirals and generals pushing for it because they wouldn't get anything out of it. The only people that would have benefited would have been the research community.
The Hubble is a great thing but there were many things that could have been achieved much cheaper and quicker with a balloon-borne observatory.
The balloon platform is stable enough?
Yes. Part of the project was working with MIT. They designed stabilization and star tracking equipment just for use on a balloon observatory.
You may not want to hear this question, but can you shed some light on the belief many have about little green men falling from the skies over New Mexico?
It never happened. There was a very top secret Army project that was designed to detect when the Russians detonated a nuclear weapon. They sent a balloon aloft with a very long antenna array, almost 500 feet long. It had very exotic looking equipment on it. The balloon landed on a ranch near Roswell. The so-called alien space ship was that balloon.
It's turned into a cottage industry and it put Roswell on the map. A lot of people want to believe it was aliens and they want to believe there was a big cover up. But I'll tell you, it never happened.
Do you think the crash dummies you were dropping from high altitude balloons contributed to this myth?
Absolutely they did. These dummies that we dropped from balloons were dressed in pressure suits so they looked unusual. One time we dropped one and it fell way up in the mountains. These dummies weighed more than 250 pounds, so how do you carry one out of the mountains? We put it on a stretcher and carried it to the back of an ambulance to take away. Now if somebody is back in the weeds watching this they are going to say, "Wow, look at that alien they have there." We think that a lot of the alien sightings were actually us doing our work with the test dummies.
There is an Air Force report that covers it all. It's called "The Roswell Incident: Case Closed". Anyone that has any doubts about what happened at Roswell should read it. When you get to the end of it you won't have any doubts. Anyone that is interested in the truth and the real facts should read that report.
What stands out in your memory most, jumping out at 100,000 feet or air combat in Vietnam?
The jump. There was a lot of tension associated with that, where as when you are fighting with an aircraft everything happens very, very fast.
Are you bitter about your experiences at the "Hanoi Hilton"? [Kittinger was tortured by the North Vietnamese].
Oh no. That's in the past. A lot of us are still upset about Jane Fonda though. She was a traitor and she should have been brought to trial. A lot of us still feel badly about that.
[Actress Jane Fonda was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam conflict. She enraged many Americans when she posed for photos atop a North Vietnamese antiaircraft missile launcher.]
How much did the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo programs borrow from the high altitude balloon efforts you were involved with?
We feel that our programs helped NASA and helped speed up the space program and make it safer. We didn't make a huge contribution to them, but we were one of many that helped by making smaller contributions.
How has the US Air Force utilized your discoveries about high-altitude bailouts?
The escape systems that are used today by the Air Force are derived from the drag formulas that we came up with back in the 1950s and 1960s.
It must be rewarding to have had such a direct impact on something that has saved the lives of many pilots over the years.
Yes, it is. The funny thing is, the Russians use the same exact system we designed too.
How special was your transatlantic balloon flight [In 1984 Kittinger became the first human to fly a balloon solo across the Atlantic]?
The work that I did on ManHigh, Excelsior and StarGazer was all for scientific purposes. The reason for flying the Atlantic solo in a balloon was adventure. It had never been done before. It had nothing to do with gathering data, it was just a lot of fun, a real adventure.
You have flown a lot of planes [88 planes, 16,000 hours] in your lifetime. If you could only choose one to take up, what would it be?
I've flown a lot of them. If I had to choose one, it would be the P-51 Mustang [World War II fighter plane]. It was the most exciting plane that there was, and I say that after flying all the jets there were. The P-51 was just pure excitement.
This was published in the Caymanian Compass on 26 October 2001
|
|
|
|
|
