Issue 3: Space by Q3 Magazine

ISSUE 3: SPACE

CONTENTS 5

Life on Mars

Are Aliens Out There?

HorrorScope

12 Sci-Fi Space Travel 15 Debate: Who Owns Space? 17 Waste of Space 19 Space Rock 23 Safe Space 24 Minimalism 25 Creative Space

SPACE Editor Eleanor Parkyn Head of Design Eleanor Parkyn Contributors Bryony Stephens Beau William Beakhouse Corey Aunger Dominika Kusnierska Emma Riches Lianne Potts Sam Saunders Saman Izadyar Sarah Harris Sarah Thompson Back Cover Cartoon Tom Morris Proofreaders Josie von Jascheroff Kate Elswood Saman Izadyar Sarah Thompson Tom Morris

Space is all around us. We spend our lives filling and emptying space. Space poses questions that we may never know the answers to; but it also provides us with infinite possibilities and potential. When creating a magazine, space is everything; you have to consider the number of pages, the layout of each image and the exact number of words to fill the space available. This issue aims to consider space; both outer, and more conceptually. We ask the big questions: are aliens out there and is our future heading to Mars!? You can also experience some spacey music; be sure to check out our space Spotify playlist! Q3 started this year and this is the third of the three issues for this year, marking the end of my role as Editor. I would like to thank George Caulton for allowing me to embark on this Quench spin-off adventure and for all of the support and friendship he provided. I must also thank my Cardiff family: Sadia, Beau, Saman, Kate and Tom for all of their help in making Q3 and for being such fabulous people. Finally, I would like to wish next yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s editors, Sarah and Josie, the best of luck in their role next year. I have every faith that they will take Q3 to great places! - Eleanor Parkyn, Editor-In-Chief

SPACE

noun. the physical universe be

eyond the earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s atmosphere

LIFE ON MARS 5

hen considering the possibility of life on Mars, we are immediately drawn to memories of David Bowie, E.T, and video games such as ‘Destroy all Humans!’, with aliens roaming the streets and both parties fearing being the subject of extensive research. But what would happen if humans were the life on other planets? If humans were to attempt to inhabit Mars? Would we then become… Martians? My initial fear is that the transition period of moving humans to Mars would cause havoc: the selection process of who we choose to send alongside the potential for The Cold War 2.0: is Mars Russian, American, European, or even Chinese? Is the world ready for another Space Race? Concerns arise in the area of funding. According to Business Insider UK, it could cost over £1500 just to send a lemon into space, so it’s difficult to even imagine the cost of sending enough humans and resources for survival. On this point, it would be near enough impossible to send sufficient resources to Mars without having next to nothing left on Earth. As a planet with temperatures ranging from -153ᵒc to 20ᵒc, many of our crops will be unable to survive on Mars, thus sending them over would be futile, and many, many years will be needed to adapt our plant and animal life to the new environment and – in the meantime – the humans on both Earth and Mars would be dying out. In order to survive the lack of air pressure and the extreme temperatures of Mars, humans would require heated and pressurized habitats. Martians - in the terrestrial form - would also need a spacesuit for external use. Radiation exposure would increase with time spent in the atmosphere of Mars, and – despite the known effects of radiation - the long term effects of decreased gravity (approximately 40% of Earth’s average) on the body are unknown. These are factors that can only be known empirically. It appears that there is only one solution!

energy on a pipe dream, when we could be using the resources to find more sustainable ways of life on Earth, or exploring our own oceans that we know barely anything about? Arguments have been made that – whilst, currently, colonising Mars isn’t a priority – we should potentially be laying down foundations for a colony in preparation for a time when it may become necessary. Whilst this argument relies on a large quantity of potentialities rather than the inevitable, it seems to follow the natural law of primary precepts in which self-preservation is a priority. The issue with this comes in what is considered to be the life expectancy of the Earth; will it be the 5 billion years until the sun burns out (thus leaving Mars uninhabitable, also), or will it be an asteroid hit within the next century? As the 2012 threat showed, it is near enough impossible to verify the Earth’s final days until it is far too late to do anything about it. Should we be preparing life on Mars now, just in case, or should we take the nonchalant view of “Que sera, sera”?

In order to inhabit Mars in the long-term, we would need to figure out how to extract water from underground supplies – only recently suggested as being a possibility due to the discovery of ice in glaciers and minerals that require water to form - using this and MOXIE (an instrument that will assist the conversion of CO2 into O2 and CO) to generate air and rocket fuel that are human-friendly. On top of this, we would need to consider food sources, as not even Pizza Hut would deliver that far away! Where is the Planet Express from Futurama when you need it?

Following this, however, the point must be raised that inhabiting Mars doesn’t necessarily entail “life on Mars” as is “life of Earth”. To inhabit merely means to occupy, and Mars could be seen as a fantastic opportunity to act as almost a checkpoint when exploring the solar system. With asteroids gravitating towards the direction of Jupiter, Mars – being closer to Jupiter’s orbit - could provide an ideal base to mine asteroids for resources, thus gaining materials to sustain life on Mars, and diminishing the structural integrity of the asteroids, protecting the Earth in the meantime. It could also act as a base to refuel shuttles and pick up supplies (whilst dropping others off on the way) enabling further exploration of space, and thus a conveyor belt system could be in play to maintain the potential for sustained life. A further point that has been raised in favour of life on Mars is the potential to eliminate the class system that has enveloped the Earth. Whilst this seems very ‘American Dream’ in its achievability, the need for people of all backgrounds to work together in order to restart humanity elsewhere does have the potential to cave in the walls built by social and economic class. Alternatively, it is possible that space stations will be incredibly selective in who they choose to send to Mars, thus emphasising the already evident divide on Earth. Contrarily, it would be interesting to see how the chosen few survive without any form of hierarchy – would it result in a ‘Lord of the Flies’ style conflict, where power is established by personality and previous attributes? Or would a collectivist culture arise, devoid of money and trade, reliant on honesty and good will to thrive?

On a more serious note, does it not make more sense for us to be attempting to preserve the Earth that we have? With the atmosphere of Mars resembling that of 55,000 feet above ground on Earth - containing 95% CO2 and only trace amounts of Oxygen – Mars doesn’t even seem habitable in the first place, so why waste time and

Overall, the attempt to colonise Mars seems inevitable, be it for research purposes or merely for expansion of the species (take a visit to London and you’ll see first-hand how humans want to utilise every space possible). The point of contention would fall in the purpose and precedence of doing so; but don’t worry, Mars, we come in peace. - Sarah Thompson

ARE ALIENS OUT THERE? S

ince a plethora of incidents in the 1940s in America, there has been a massive spike in UFO sightings. The famous examples from that time include Roswell and the Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting. The former has been debunked and put unto the spotlight on numerous occasions since, and has been used countless times within pop culture. The latter brought about the coining of ‘flying saucer’. That’s not to say there weren’t any sightings prior to this, far from it: potential alien activity dates back to the antiquity period and, of course, the Egyptians (conspiracy theorists ask how else could the pyramids have been created?). Despite this being the case, the vast majority of these reports have come since the end of world war II. According to statistician Sam Monfort there have been around 104,947 reported UFO sightings since the early 1900s, with 90% of these occurring since 2000. With the UK, Australia being ‘hotspots’ for sightings, and the US having the highest quantity of reports. MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network, a non-profit organisation that sets its mission as ‘the scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity’, has a vast database of claimed sightings and reports of alien activity. There have been 25 reports in Wales alone since January 2015. On the 13th May, 2015, in the Vale, there was a report of a UFO sighting where an object in the sky ‘separated and joined together again before disappearing with an orange tail’. Just over a week later in Cardiff, a resident claimed a sighting of a UFO with a ‘wingspan’ that covered ‘nearly the width of the street’. The resident went on to state that there was an ‘identical one just behind it that appeared to be following’. ‘there was barely any, if any, noise’ claimed the resident. ‘I was the only car driving down the street, it/they must have seen me’, they went on to say. Unfortunately, there was no photographic evidence for either of these cases.

With a vast depth of sightings, and organisations dedicating themselves to the exploration of the phenomena; there could surely not be any rationality for arguing against the existence of aliens? Mr. Space himself, William Shatner, has said ‘there is no doubt there is life out there; the mathematics of it lead you to that conclusion. In my mind, there is no doubt that the universe teems – with life in all its forms’. Whilst that being said, there are the opposing forces that debunk these sightings. James Oberg, a former NASA scientist, has explored a number of these accounts and rationally deconstructs them. But, arguably, what is more interesting in his work is that he is less focused on dismissing them but rather why people react in the way they do. He claims that ‘our sensory system is functioning absolutely perfectly for Earth conditions. But we're still a local civilization. Moving beyond our neighborhood has been visually confusing’. Hence why many of these sightings are so disorientated. There is, despite that, scientific evidence that may suggest the existence of aliens. The meteorite, Allan Hills 84001 was found in Antarctica on December 27th, 1984. An isotopic analysis of the composition of the meteorite suggested it to be from Mars. But more significantly – and more controversially – through further studies it was suggested to contain fossils of bacteria-like lifeforms: Life on Mars? This received significant attention from the media 12 years later when president Bill Clinton said this in a press conference: ‘It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined.’ It has become a rather large point of discussion and debate within the scientific community, with scientists supporting and other opposing, suggesting that the evidence is too loose. More recently there have been other scientific findings that suggest an icy moon in our solar system could support life. Enceladus, one of the many moons that orbits Saturn, may contain an entire ecosystem. Scientists have said that findings of molecular hydrogen being detected from the moon suggests that it is more geologically alive than what was previously hypothesised. ‘This molecular hydrogen is a direct observation of an energetic process that is potentially capable of fuelling life’ says Caitriona Jackman from the University of Southampton. Professor Dartnell, an astrobiologist from the University of Westminster, has pointed out that anything we could find there wouldn’t be able to shake our hand – or abduct us. But chances are they’d be far less progressed forms of life, single-cell life forms that survive in harsh environments. Are aliens out there? This is a question fuelled with experiential and scientific debate. Although many theories can be debunked and explained, there are plenty out there that suggest otherwise (or at least provide more complex analysis). Scientific exploration hasn’t provided a clear answer either, but may suggest the chance of life elsewhere. The truth is – or isn’t - still out there. - Corey Aunger

HORROR SCOPE

SAMAN IZADYAR TELLS US HOW ASTROLOGY SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN FAVOUR OF PSYCHOLOGY

stronomy is the study of celestial bodies. It is a wonderful and fascinating subject that furthers our understanding of science, technology and life itself. Now, astrology is astronomy’s arrogant little brother who thinks he’s really smart and relevant whereas in reality he probably attends BNP rallies and votes for UKIP. Astrology is the “study” of how celestial bodies affect people on Earth. It’s a pseudoscience that is disregarded by the entire scientific community, yet people still believe in it and horoscopes feature in a worryingly high number of publications. It’s pretentious to think that you are so important in the universe that the movements of the planets directly affect you, and it’s insulting that any hardship you’ve faced in life has had no effect on your personality, because it was already predetermined from your date of birth. Well, I’m an “intelligent” Virgo, making me perfectly qualified to call astrology out on this bullshit and explain why some believe in it. There are a few reasons why astrology should be completely dismissed. Firstly, the Earth wobbles on its axis every 25,800 years in an event called precession. This means that the dates used for the original astrological charts are now incorrect as the stars aren’t in the same place in the sky compared to when astrology was conceived. For example, I’m born on the 9th September, so two millennia ago I would’ve been a Virgo. However, now the constellation that is behind the sun on my birthday is Leo. Astrologers don’t take this into account, opting to use the original Babylonian dates. People are reading incorrect horoscopes and personality descriptions, yet still relate to it… a tad fishy, don’t you think? Secondly, astrologers cherry-pick the astronomical data they use in their predictions and disagree with each other about what should be included. Western astrologers updated their charts with new planet discoveries, whereas Eastern astrologers only use the five original planets that were visible in ancient times. Horoscopes differ in every single publication, there’s no objective aspect to it at all. A 13th constellation (Ophiuchus) was even ignored by the Babylonians; 12 star signs with their respective opposites are a lot more convenient to write for. Lastly and most importantly, no controlled study has provided evidence for any astrological predictions. There is no statistical or factual basis for a belief in astrology and we wouldn’t tolerate this in any scientific field.

ILLUSTRATIONS: SAMAN IZADYAR

Psychology can be used to explain how we are fooled into taking astrology seriously. Humans are prone to several cognitive biases, one of the biggest being confirmation bias. This is when we focus on information that supports our hypotheses and ignore evidence that doesn’t. Horoscopes tend to be quite lengthy and include a lot of topics (love, friendship, financial etc.); if we relate to even one of these, we will exclaim “Wow, so true!” and then ignore all the things that didn’t happen. The use of ‘Barnum statements’ facilitates this logical fallacy. These are statements that are so vague that anyone can relate to them. For example, I read that Virgos apparently can seem cold at first but are really friendly when you get to know them… isn’t that the same for most people? We tend not to read the horoscopes for other star signs, but if we did, we probably would find something to relate to in some, if not all of them. Astrology can also be used as a safety mechanism for people attributed with an external locus of control. This is when someone believes that their life is mostly controlled by external forces like luck or fate, allowing failures to be scapegoated on anything other than yourself. Nobody likes you? Eugh, it’s so difficult being an insensitive Sagittarius, it definitely doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that you attend BNP rallies. Albeit this is a slight exaggeration, but mindsets like this exist and some choose to judge others’ personalities solely on their star signs.

Dating websites use star signs as a compatibility measure but it’s ridiculously ignorant to dispose of your Capricorn suitors, just because you’re an Aries. Maybe we should try and understand personalities better, instead of cowering away from them and relying on ancient methods to live our lives and initiate/avoid interactions. This is why I believe that people should be aware of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI is a questionnaire which categorises you into one of 16 personality types based on four different measures which are: Mind, Energy, Nature and Tactics. Each of these aspects have a scale with two opposing values. The Mind trait explains how we interact with people and environments. You can be Introverted, i.e. preferring solidarity, or Extraverted, preferring social situations. Energy refers to our perceptions of the world and how we process information. INtuitive people are open-minded and curious whereas ObServant people focus on experience and facts. The Nature aspect is about our ability to cope and make decisions. Thinking and Feeling are the two categories one can fit in, with the former being an emphasis on logic over emotion and the latter being highly involved with empathy. The final aspect, Tactics, is about how we tackle work. Judging individuals like to plan in advance and love clarity, whereas Prospecting individuals are spontaneous and adaptable. Once you complete the test, you get a four-letter acronym and a few pages of information on what it means. It even addresses a lot of the parts of your life that astrology just guesses at, including your relationships and friendships. Personality is a really difficult thing to measure and understand, so you shouldn’t use the MBTI solely to comprehend yourself. An important fact to consider is that personalities can be constantly changing. For example, some days I feel less spontaneous than usual and so would become more “judging” than “prospecting”, according to the theory. This is problematic as only those with extreme traits may get a stable personality type. Additionally, it is immensely difficult to avoid being biased when answering the questions and objectively knowing yourself is quite tricky. Regardless, at least it uses a scientific rationale for its findings and doesn’t just use a date of birth. It may not give you a day to day instructions on how to live your life, but it will give you a guideline for your journey of self-discovery. You can take the test on 16Personalities.com.

Millennium Falcon

Probably the most iconic ship ever to grace the sci-fi cinema screen, this old Corellian YT-1300 freighter was described by Lando Calrissian as ‘the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy!’ The Falcon is an incredible method of space travel, whether it’s dodging through asteroids or flying through the superstructure of an exploding battle station, it’s the right ship for the job, but it’ll probably take a few knocks along the way. It doesn’t boast the most formidable firepower the galaxy has ever seen, but its guns (and attached targeting screens) can make short work of any pesky pursuing TIE fighters. The Falcon isn’t the most roomy or comfortable ship however, it’s quite small inside and the seating arrangements leave a lot to be desired, as well as the fact that we’ve yet to see any sort of bunk area in a Star Wars film. The hyperdrive is also not the most reliable ever fitted to a ship, as it has a tendency to malfunction at the worst moments. There is also the issue of tractor beams, to which the Falcon has always been particularly susceptible. But overall, this piece of garbage will get you anywhere you want to go in the galaxy, from Hoth to Jakku and will get you there fast. It also boasts a friendly crew, although that does depend on who wins at Dejarik… - Sam Saunders

RATING: SPEED- Made the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs don’t you know? 5/5 FUNCTIONALITY– Boasts handy hidey holes for evading Imperials 4/5 SIZE– Not the roomiest ship, but this is an advantage in dogfights 3/5 COOLNESS- Those guns and the big blue strip at the rear: what’s not to love!? 5/5

ILLUSTRATION: ELEANOR PARKYN

TARDIS It may not be the most stylish or comfortable way to travel, but who could resist having the whole of time and space at their fingertips? The Doctor’s TARDIS was a relic when he ‘borrowed’ it from his home planet of Gallifrey all those centuries ago, and it’s been on countless adventures ever since, taking him to every corner of the universe and beyond. One of the TARDIS’ most useful features is its chameleon circuit, which allows it to blend in with wherever or whenever it lands – or it would be if it wasn’t stuck as a 1960s police telephone box. Travelling in the TARDIS doesn’t make for the smoothest ride either, since it’s almost always piloted by one Time Lord rather than the recommended six, and one who doesn’t really know what he’s doing at that. However, what the TARDIS lacks in functionality it makes up for in size. It’s hard not to be blown away by how much bigger it is on the inside, containing seemingly never-ending corridors it would be hard not to get lost in. Somewhere in its depths you’ll find a wardrobe, a library, and even a swimming pool and squash courts. If you’re looking for something reliable to get you from A to B when you’re cruising across the universe, this might not be the ship for you. You might end up in 500,000,000 AD New New York instead of 1970s Croydon, but where would be the fun in knowing exactly where you’re going to end up? - Lianne Potts

RATING: SPEED: 5/5 FUNCTIONALITY: 3/5 SIZE: 6+/5 COOLNESS: 4/5 CAMOUFLAGE: 0/5

ILLUSTRATIONS: ELEANOR PARKYN

The Normandy SR-2 RATING:

SPEED- FTL travel, but only in proximity to a mass relay 4/5 FUNCTIONALITY– Can be deployed for any stealth mission but less useful elsewhere 3/5 SIZE– Nowhere near a dreadnought but still an improvement over the SR-1 3/5 COOLNESS- The Normandy features an iconic design, but was built more for purpose than style 3/5

The Normandy SR-2 is the second edition of the legendary starship that carried Commander Shepard through the first Mass Effect game. After that ship’s destruction in Mass Effect 2, the SR-2 was built by Cerberus and features improved weaponry, more creature comforts and a larger crew. It’s also quite a lot bigger than the original and the new features were certainly needed in the latter half of the Mass Effect trilogy. The Normandy’s key feature, however, was its stealth systems, which enabled the ship to give off little to no heat signature and blend into the background of space, rendering it undetectable to enemy ships. This can only be used to 2-3 hours, as the heat from the engines eventually needs to be vented. The ship also features faster than light travel, due to a mass effect core that is triggered when near a mass relay, allowing for near instantaneous travel to the many systems across the Milky Way galaxy. Of course, as the Normandy was primarily designed for stealth, its offensive capabilities are a notable weakness, but the evasion systems on board more than make up for this. Piloted primarily by Joker, who can always provide a moment of wry humour, and the ship’s AI EDI, there is little chance of a wrong move being made in a dogfight or during a battle. The Normandy is overall a complete package, but it is more suited to stealth missions than offensive ones. - Sam Saunders

DEBATE:

WHO OWNS DEBATE ONE

Deciding who owns outer space will create monumental disruptions among nations. Personally, I feel no one should nor does own outer space. As a species, humans already struggle to share and distribute land. To then add the option of having areas of space into the equation would only spark the selfishness and possessive traits of mankind. Outer space should not be subject to human greed and there is a risk of ruining what value there may be up there. Outer space is an opportunity for not only mankind, but for any other species that is out there as it technically could be a communal ground for all to enjoy. There is no limit to the vastness of what is up there and it should be used as an experience to learn and enhance as a species, not to own and put our stamp on. As well as the ethical reasons against ownership of outer space, it comes down to fact. It would be impossible to place boundaries and develop a law that everyone would follow. How would space be proportioned between nations? What happens if it turns out space has been ‘claimed’ by another species already? There are so many questions that pose so many issues regarding who owns space and ultimately any decisions we as a race decide are pointless. As a species, we are isolated amongst ourselves, all it takes is for an unknown species to materialise and we suddenly are not the only thing in existence. One thing’s for certain, as gloomy as the topic may seem, outer space is something humans should not own, but share with amongst everyone. After all, we haven’t managed to nail it with this planet so maybe outer space is our chance to get it right? - Bryony Stephens

S OUTER SPACE? DEBATE TWO

Space is important to us human beings; be it personal space or the gardens that we fence off and call our home. But to put a fence around the perimeters of outer space would be a tad difficult, what with physics and all that. This raises the question, who actually ‘owns’ outer space? To put it simply, ‘humanity’ owns outer space – much to the disappointment of the Martian race cosmos-wide. In 1967, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs aided 129 countries in their agreement to peacefully explore the worlds beyond our own. The agreement states: “space should be considered the province of all mankind, that outer space is free for the exploration and use by all states, and that the Moon and other celestial bodies cannot be claimed by a sovereign nation state. Additionally, the Moon and celestial bodies are to be used purely for peaceful purposes, and weapons will not be placed in orbit or in space.” Seems simple, right? Yet in 2015, the US passed a Space Act which gave American space firms the rights to sell and trade materials they’re able to mine from celestial bodies and asteroids. Is this then just another capitalist ploy to make money? And why have only the US got involved? What started as only a flag in the crater of the moon could potentially result in the latest episode of Star Wars. Yet the political side of outer space still remains a little too far out of the reach of the general public. The answer? Space tourism. NASA predicts ‘affordable’ space tourism within the next 10 years. Yes, folks, you heard it here, your next door neighbour could soon lay claim to a holiday home on Mars. - Emma Riches

WASTE OF SPACE Out of sight, out of mind. The truth is that many of us do not often, if ever, consider the impact we have on the environment beyond the Earth. Although climate change and the pollution of the planet are increasingly debated on, space junk is a pressing issue that often gets ignored. The numbers are astonishing - almost 18,000 man-made objects orbit around the planet, including old satellites and rocket parts. But this number includes only the objects large enough to be tracked; experts estimate there are additional hundreds of millions of small debris. This amount is constantly increasing ever since the launch of the very first artificial object - satellite Sputnik 1. Every satellite launched into space will eventually become space debris, with a 10-ton satellite producing as much as 750,000 pieces of debris. A logical solution would be not to send more man-made objects into space until we clean waste that is already out there. But there is one problem: Kessler Syndrome. This theory suggests that, even if we stop launching satellites, there is already so much space debris that collisions between these objects will create more waste. It is a vicious circle, more debris means a higher likelihood of a collision, which will create even more debris, further increasing the risk of another crash. You may be thinking - “this doesn’t really bother me since it has no effect on my everyday life”. But it could. The sheer amount of debris makes it difficult and costly to launch new satellites into space. Then again, you may ask - “why do I even need these satellites?” You wouldn’t be able to watch telly, call your mum, or check your Facebook feed if it weren’t for satellites. But that is just the tip of the iceberg; navigation, weather, space exploration; the list is quite extensive. The life span of a satellite is relatively short; it could be around 10 to 15 years. We need to send new ones into space to continue the provision of those mentioned services. There have been cases of collisions which, as mentioned above, only create even more waste. NASA reports that, in 2009, a defunct Russian satellite crashed with, and wrecked, a functioning commercial satellite. This accident created over 2,000 pieces of trackable debris. Similarly, manned spacecraft also face a risk of collision: parts without protection, such as solar panels, are especially endangered. The issue has even been depicted in films, such as Oscar-winning Gravity. Most importantly, are we - people on Earth - in danger? Surprisingly, three-quarters of manmade objects launched into orbit have already re-entered our atmosphere. However, there are no reports of deaths from being hit by space debris. The fact is, our atmosphere protects us from the majority of the space waste. Before reaching the Earth, objects heat up so only large ones, made from high-melting-point materials (such as titanium or stainless steel) will reach the ground. However, with the majority of our planet being water, the chances of being hit by debris is very low. In 2002, NASA assessed that such probability is of 1 in 3,200. However, with the increase of the amount of space debris, the chances of such objects reaching the planet rise too. Nevertheless, the number is still lower than, for example, odds of death by unintentional drowning. Though, we should not underestimate the threat space debris poses. People have been hit and injured by space debris in the past. What’s more, in 2007, a pilot of an airplane carrying 270 passengers reported seeing satellite debris which flew only about six miles away from the aircraft. So, what could or should be done to minimise the hazard? When it comes to pollution and waste on the planet, we, as individuals, can do much in our own homes to limit it. However, when it comes to space junk, it is mainly up to governments to fight the problem. They do not always do it right, though. In 2007, Chinese military tested their anti-satellite technology on a dead satellite - the explosion created 2,000 new pieces of debris. But there are other ideas and projects - such as Japanese spacecraft equipped with a tether that would grab and dispose of pieces of debris. Another idea comes from an American corporation which proposes using a massive platform to sweep the junk from the orbit. Other missions use robotic arms or harpoons to catch debris. Experts suggest that the best way to decrease the amount of space waste is to construct new spacecrafts in a way that would enable them to come back down into the atmosphere rather than staying in the orbit. The outcomes of all these projects are yet to be seen because every year we see an increase of the amount of space debris and the danger is consequently more severe. - Dominika Kusnierska

SPACE ROCK When it comes to transcending yourself into space, thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s no legal alternative to the medium of music. So weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve decided to compile the ultimate space-y playlist for you to listen to, for whenever you need to flee your problems and take your brain to another dimension. So, pay close attention, put your headphones in and allow these musicians to take you on a journey to infinity and beyond.

CLICK ME TO HEAR THE PLAYLIST

We’ll be jumping straight into the deep end with a 20-minute masterpiece by classic rock band Rush. 2112 is a seven-part musical adventure following the narrative of a person who discovers a guitar in a dystopian future where self-expression has been outright banned by the totalitarian overlords: ‘The Priests of the Temple of Syrinx’. The protagonist thinks about how wonderful the instrument is and how everyone will praise him for discovering it, but the opposite happens he shows it to the priests. They say that it’s a superfluous toy and that it doesn’t fit in with their plan, breaking it in front of him. The protagonist is shocked and appalled at the response he receives, he goes home and dreams of the creative humans that fled the planet before the priests took over. He dreams of revolting and burning their temple down. And unfortunately, that’s all that can be said without ruining your experience of the song, particularly the impactful ending. If you’re an avid fan of guitar solos then this is the song for you. The juxtaposition between the smooth voice of the protagonist and the sharp retorts of the priests is also something to truly admire.

of space. The lyrics are imbedded with open-ended meanings which allows listeners to speculate about a lot of things that were going on in Bowie’s life at the time, from drug use to the consequences of fame. Contrastingly, Starman provides a message of hope to the children of Earth, which has been passed on to Ziggy Stardust (Bowie’s alter ego) by an alien. Instead of wanting to invade Earth or probe us, this alien just wants us to dance, making it pretty cool when compared to his/her alien peers (with the exception of E.T.). A recurring theme amongst space songs is the concept of escapism, and Life on Mars? encapsulates this pretty well. Humans can be disappointing sometimes, we make plans and then let others down, we make crap films with the same plot over and over again, we engage in violent and immoral acts. There could be a race out there without these flaws, without a corrupt capitalist system, and without inequality mediated by social classes. Postulating about life on another planet is entertaining and can give us hope, but alas it’s unlikely that we will ever meet such starmen in our time.

At this point you’re probably thinking about how depressing music about space is, so we should probably end this on a high note. Who better to cheer you up than New Zealand’s fourth most popular folk-comedy duo: Flight of the Conchords. Their song Bowie is an affectionate parody of all of the chch-changes that David Bowie went through over the course of his career. It follows the basic structure of Space Oddity, that is an astronaut going into space, but instead of it being a conversation between Ground Control and Major Tom via radio, it’s a conversation between Bowie and Bowie via Bowie’s nipple antennae. Lines such as ‘Do they smoke grass out in space, Bowie, or do they smoke Astroturf?’ combined with the hilarious accents that Jemaine and Brett put on, will guarantee you copious smiles throughout. Finally, their song Robots is another track you can add to your intergalactic playlist. The notion that robots have killed all of the humans and are now singing/rapping about it is ridiculous but it works so well. Again, the vocals are what make it great and the refreshing perspective makes it stand out from pretty When it comes to crowning the ‘King of Space’, no-one much any other song. Fun fact: Jemaine would later go on deserves it more than David Bowie. Space Oddity captures to play ‘Fart’ in the Rick & Morty episode ‘Mortynight Run’. the essence of space so well that it makes you wonder if He sings about destroying all human life in that too, with the Bowie was actually human; if he was an extra-terrestrial that song Goodbye Moonmen (which is gloriously filled with the landed here on Earth, it would explain his genius intellect, brim with Bowie vibes!). perfect vocals and flamboyant dress sense. The song resolves around the fictional astronaut ‘Major Tom’ and his account - Saman Izadyar If metal isn’t your cup of tea, then maybe a fusion of electronica and hard rock will be more to your liking. With their sci-fi album art and their space jargon song names (E.g. Exo-Politics), Muse are undoubtedly one of the spaciest bands around. There’s a fine selection of songs to pick from, particularly if you want to attract an astronomy fanatic. A word of warning before you call your crush a Supermassive Black Hole though. Avoid the songs where people are compared to colossal regions of spacetime and focus on Starlight instead if you’re looking for romantic poetic verses. Additionally, if you’re annoyed about global warming/nuclear annihilation then Exogenesis is a lovely three-part symphony about these exact problems. My personal favourite however is Knights of Cydonia, which sounds like a Western movie set in space. The lyrics actually have nothing to do with space, but hearing it always makes me want to steal a horse and rustle up some bandits with a laser gun.

SPACE noun. 1. a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied. 2. the freedom to live, think, and develop in a way that suits one.

SAFE SPACE A

form of ‘space’ that is hotly debated in recent times is that of ‘safe space’; a space in an educational setting in which hate speech is not tolerated. Originally formed for those within the LGBT+ community to feel safe in the school setting, the concept has been extended to include all marginalised groups, allowing them to discuss their experiences freely without the worry of hostile responses from those opposed to their identities or lifestyle choices. Many claim these safe spaces act as a threat to free speech as they shut down the possibility for debate surrounding certain topics. Last year a Professor at the University of Chicago controversially stated that they would not tolerate the creation of safe spaces, considering that they allowed students to ‘retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own’. And in a way this could be true; safe spaces may not allow for challenging the prejudice behind the speech that is being banned. By forbidding certain topics within the safe spaces, students with ignorant views are left unchallenged and uneducated about these topics, meaning that their racist/sexist/ homophobic etc. attitudes persist. However, we can equally ask; why should such topics be up for debate in the first place? With many of the topics considered “off-limits” in safe spaces revolving around identity politics, why should we even be entertaining the idea of debating the validity of an individual’s identity? An example of this can be seen within a debate that divided Cardiff University not long ago- when Germaine Greer faced protests based on her comments stating that she did not consider transgender women to be real women. With the calls to have her talk cancelled echoing the recurring concept of ‘no-platforming’ that is taking many British University campuses by storm over the past couple of years, the debate has continued as to whether banning controversial speakers from sharing their views constitutes a breach in freedom of speech or if what they are saying can be defined as hate speech.

Yet safe spaces are places for those in minorities or who have endured traumatic experiences. They allow these groups, who are often not provided with a platform, to feel comfortable sharing their opinions or discussing their experiences. It can be especially beneficial to those who have been victims of assault or for those suffering from PTSD; where triggering comments can prove regressive to the process of recovery. Instead, safe spaces allow for these individuals to feel empowered once more, as they can speak without threat. While some may argue that stopping the ‘debate’ in safe spaces threatens freedom of speech, if students cannot trust the spaces they enter are going to keep them safe, they are less able to feel secure enough to learn. We should not be placing the ‘freedom’ of adverse views before the needs of more vulnerable individuals, especially when these views are often already prevalent in society. This is not to say that these views should go unchallenged; obviously the only way to combat ignorance is through education. But it should not be the minority groups of which they hold ignorant views towards who are responsible for this debate, at the expense of their own education. - Eleanor Parkyn

didn’t really know much about minimalism until I wrote this article. I mean, I follow some guy on Twitter whose wardrobe consists of only 5 items of clothing, all of which are either white or grey and his living space is pretty much just a bed and set of drawers. So I did my research and voilà – I’m an uncertified expert on minimalism. For those of you who don’t know, minimalism is an extreme form of art that was developed in the US around the 60’s. In the art world, minimalism consists of work composed of simple geometric shapes, usually based on the square and the rectangle. So I guess you could say that all those artsy photos you see on Instagram of a book on a wooden table at some indie café could be forms of minimalist art. But minimalism doesn’t just apply to physical artwork. Minimalism is also a lifestyle that many individuals have chosen to adopt. It doesn’t mean you live with less than 100 items or run a blog and do yoga or all that other cliché stuff. Minimalism helps many people find the freedom they desire by adopting somewhat of a carefree lifestyle and just enjoying the world in general. But let’s start from the very beginning. Minimalist Art. Minimalism began with artists such as Frank Stella who exhibited his work at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. His series of paintings most commonly known as ‘Black Paintings’ are known as his best work. Stella famously said, “what you see is what you see,” in reference to his paintings. After Stella came some of the minimalist movement’s innovators; Carl Andre, Dan Flavin and Donald Junn (just to name a few). I’m more in to Renaissance art but you can’t deny that minimalist art is aesthetically pleasing and beautiful. It represents simplicity and regulation. After the minimalist movement in Art came abstraction, which in some ways is completely antagonistic to minimalism. Minimalism has been on the rise since the 60’s, especially when it comes to interior designs. I’m sure you’ve all seen those huge glass houses filled with fur rugs and pastel grey, suede sofas all over the internet and in films. The point of minimalist interiors is to make homes look stripped down by eliminating anything unnecessary and only having the essentials needed for the purpose the room serves. A lot of people think that minimalism is adopted from Japanese tradition, and in some aspects, it is. Zen philosophy was adapted by the Japanese and is a concept of simplicity which transitions into freedom and influences the way you live. Frank Lloyd Wright was an interior designer whose work used the concept of Zen. In particular, he admired the Japanese sliding door design, which allowed the exterior and interior to merge. Tadao Ando is another interior designer who enjoyed bringing the concept of Zen in to his work. Ando worked with materials such as concrete and wood, and used his architecture to create a relationship between space and light.

(minimalism)

It’s strange to think how minimalism has a part in your life without you even realizing it. Just look at the sleek design of the smartphone you’re probably reading this on, or the cars you see drive past you every day. Designers and artists from all over the world incorporate minimalism within their work by embracing a simpler and cleaner lifestyle. We live in a world that has literary minimalism, musical minimalism and so much more. I guess adopting a minimalist lifestyle is a refreshing and healthy approach to everything, especially considering the stress and negativity we’re surrounded by in this day and age. - Sarah Harris

CREATIVE SPACE 25

SPACE: - a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied. - the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.

space is absence, emptiness. In one sense it is free of objects, free from any particular use or definition. But space, especially today in modern cities, is also consistently defined. People use space, they create within those ‘dimensions of height, depth, and width’, a type of space that is pushed towards being one thing or another.

So not only do creative spaces enable people to create in the first place, they encourage expression. Inspiration is what is needed to provoke new ideas; a kind of friendly competition in which people are fired up by what is going on around them to create new and unique methods of expression.

A constant presence in modern cities is corporate space. Space used to sell, or to assist selling, in which the attitudes of a corporation or a business create the accepted standards of behaviour. But is there a way that space can be less rigorously defined? More open, more fluid, of more use to a broader selection of people who wish to use that particular place in their own way, unlimited by financial, social or physical constraints?

But whilst what exists in Cardiff currently is encouraging, particularly the resilience and demand for creative spaces that has been shown by the reboot of The Full Moon and the public support for the Save Womanby Street campaign, there is still a lot more that can be done. Creativity and art are open and flexible, they are an antidote, another way of doing things, that shares little with corporate attitudes. However, it is easy for that to become lost behind labels, to be a business with a creative title.

Creative space is making an increasingly large impact on the cultural landscape of Cardiff. As Creative Cardiff writes, ‘last Summer in Cardiff, three new creative co-working spaces opened their doors.’ Those were Rabble Studio, The Sustainable Studio and Tramshed Tech - adding to the presence of other more established venues* whilst others, Abacus, Dempsey’s and the The Full Moon, have had to close due to corporate interests and lack of funding. This constant desire for creative space, shows that there is something fundamental to the need for spaces free of excessive influence, in which expression is allowed to flourish in a way that is not previously dictated or defined. It is the lack of certainty and definition, and the openness to something new which characterise a free society, and which are exemplified particularly by artists and by creative spaces. As Anthony Shapland from G39 Gallery says, ‘it is a space to take risks…where the outcomes are not certain… Failure teaches you as much as success. As Beckett says, “Fail, Fail again – fail better.”’

However, within this climate, creativity and free thinking can still be supported. ‘There is an amazing growth in spaces and people surviving in all areas of the arts. If there was one thing I think needs to happen it would be that the council/arts council need to recognise that the stuff in exhibitions does not just arrive from nowhere. It is made here.’ says Shapland. Beyond this, it is not only designated venues that are creative. People’s homes, their gardens, the spaces they have all around them are the truly creative spaces. A creative city has events both formal and informal, it has an underground scene and a ‘professional’ one, coffee shops, magazines, and venues of all kinds play a part in allowing this to happen, but it is all about the people, the individuals behind these separate escapades, their ideas and what they choose to bring to life. - Beau William Beakhouse

These places, whether they are for the production of art, or for sharing it - spaces such as music venues, theatres, galleries etc. - in which a wider spectrum of people can be exposed to these ideas, are necessary for a society to see itself without prejudice or familiarity. As he continues ‘if art is a mirror through which we look at the world and ourselves then the creative space is the place that allows that to happen.’ People feel that it is necessary both for themselves and for others, to have these spaces. ‘Every community desires a place for creative exploration and expression. Creative spaces provoke a feeling of democracy in local communities, which we have found to be in high demand’. Elizabeth Arnold from Tramshed Tech says, ‘as human beings, we associate certain emotions with places that hold significance over our lives, and connect with buildings in an intimate way. People are likely to unite creatively if they are feeling a shared inspiration from their surroundings.’