Tesla’s “Starman” or 2001’s “Star Child”—Which One Should Guide Our Species Into Space?
By: Barry Vacker
Tags: Science Fiction, Science, Space, Mars, Space Exploration

Let’s imagine that the aesthetic-science model ensures that all but .001% of Mars is completely set aside for ecological protection, available only for scientific study, philosophical inquiry, and aesthetic appreciation. Given that Mars has about 55 million square miles of surface area, .001% would still leave 550 square miles for minimal human development scattered among select spots on Mars.

These areas would be set aside for human usage and habitation, such as biospheres, astronomical observatories, museums (with artifacts from the planet), art galleries (with artwork based on the planet or cosmos), outdoor art installations, and sites for space tourism (hotels, camp sites, and hiking trails). How amazing would it be to hike along the Valles Marineris canyon, which stretches almost 4000 kilometers and has depths that reach almost 10 kilometers? Space hotels can orbit Mars, while the rest of the Red Planet would remain untouched.

Imagine visiting great artworks, museums, or observatories on Mars (or the moon), with celestial artworks and science exhibits that tell the story of our cosmic origins and neighborhood? If this seems impossible, it is not, because we already have these symbols of enlightenment and ecology on Earth. That’s why I link to think of this as the 2001 and Carl Sagan model—born in 2001, but detailed in Sagan’s Cosmos, the epic documentary series from1980.

Star Trek?

Upon the founding of the U.S. Space Force, Elon Musk tweeted: “Starfleet begins.” This is absurd. When has America or the Pentagon ever followed the Prime Directive of Star Trek? Is Musk is somehow unaware of what is happening on Earth or is he just a cheerleader for the military-industrial complex because he needs their space contracts?

“Starfleet” begins only when humans unite as a single, cooperative species, who venture off Earth in pursuit of knowledge and wonder. As Captain Kirk says in the famed opening to the Star Trek episodes: “Its continuing mission to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilization, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Unfortunately, the Star Trek movies rarely obey this coda.

Existential Stance

Elon Musk is popular precisely because he has no real new vision and appeals directly to the narcissistic narratives that dominate our planet — plunder, pollute, brag incessantly, and remake the world in our own image.

Starlink Light Pollution

Elon Musk’s “Starlink” program is launching 1500 communication satellites (silver and highly reflective of light) around Earth. Sure, the satellites will give humans ever more bandwidth to tweet, spy, stream Netflix, and upload Tik Tok videos. But the satellites reflect light downwards and make it very difficult for optical telescopes to view the night sky, effecting yet another form of light pollution. How come Musk did not anticipate this problem if he is such a space visionary? Rather than a link to the stars, Starlink is much more a mirror reflecting humanity back to itself — the latest stage in terraforming Earth into iPlanet.

The Challenge of “2001”

It seems ironic that the Tesla Starman was launched in 2018, the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey—a towering work of art and philosophy, offering a vision of hope and meaning in a majestic and awe-inspiring universe. As suggested by 2001, we are an evolutionary species capable of great things. We evolved from apes to artists to astronauts, from simians to scientists and space farers. Inspired and seduced by the black monolith, we created a technological civilization capable of exploring the stars and seeking to understand its origins and destiny via art, science, and philosophy.

We face the paradox and challenge of our greatest achievement — we have discovered a vast and ancient universe in which we are insignificant and possibly meaningless. In addition to Hubble, NASA’s other greatest achievement — the Apollo moon landings—must be accounted for in any new space philosophy. We live in a universe with untold numbers of stars, planets, black holes, possible advanced civilizations, and vast stretches of emptiness. How can our philosophies ignore this?

The Sublime and Radical Wonder

It is the aesthetics of the sublime that lie at the heart of the human experience of nature and the universe—whether we are hiking the Grand Canyon or gazing through the eyes of the Hubble telescope. When confronting such vastness, there is a tension between our reason and percepts. Our percepts are overwhelmed, but we can still order the totality of the experience into emotional and rational sensibilities—felt at the same time.

In the sublime moment, we have the simultaneous sense of awe and wonder, the vast and majestic, the connection of the infinitesimal (us) with the infinite (nature, the universe, vast landscapes, etc). It is the radical wonder of the sublime that connects our origins and destiny to nature and the universe from which we evolved. Any 21st century space philosophy needs this as as a starting point—as it’s existential stance. After all, 2001 fills us with these kinds of sublime experiences, which is why it is an aesthetic masterpiece and should guide us into space.

The Ultimate Purpose

Rather than pillage and plunder, why not pursue radical wonder in the aesthetics and science. NASA and the world’s scientists have continued exploring the cosmos and regularly blow our minds with images from the Hubble telescope and status updates about Voyager outside the solar system. But, instead of uniting as a species and protecting the planet (the only sane options following Apollo and Hubble), humans have continued the tribal warfare and full-on consumer society. The legacies of Apollo and Hubble deserve better. So will all the new giant telescopes.