Life Out There

A bit of a brouhaha was raised last week when Dimitar Sasselov, an astronomer at Harvard University, presented Kepler space telescope data at the TEDGlobal conference in the United Kingdom. He stated that the data shows around 140 worlds to be “like Earth.” Many in the media and the general public took him to mean that these planets potentially harbor life.

Let’s set the record straight. Dr. Sasselov was strictly referring to the size of these worlds. Using Kepler data, Sasselov and his team employ something called the transit method of planet detection. That is, they observe the change in the amount of light emanating from the parent star as the planet passes — or transits — in front of it. If you plot that change on a graph, it forms what astrophysicists call a “light curve.” And that curve can tell you, within a certain unavoidable margin or error, the size of the transiting planet. This method could not, however,  tell you about the surface characteristics of the planet, let alone whether life may exist there or not.

What I find very interesting about so many scientists searching for life out in the universe is their predilection for earth-like conditions. For example, you hear many references to the “Goldie Locks” or the “habitable” zone. These terms are meant to describe the area of our own solar system inhabited by the earth: not so far from the sun as to freeze our planet and not so close as to boil; just right. This zone turns out to have been ideal for the formation of life — and here’s the salient point — “as we know it.”

I’m reminded of a cartoon I saw some years ago depicting an astronaut on some far flung planet focused intensely on a rock lying near his feet and proclaiming “no life here” to mission control. Being so intent on the area surrounding his feet, he completely overlooks the 8-foot alien standing right over him.

It’s no intentional bias to which we, as humans, resort when we use earth life as our standard of measure. After all, having never met an alien, we have no other source of reference. Still, one would think that we as a species have reached a level of intellectual maturity that would preclude a preoccupation with our feet. We’d like to regard ourselves in the way the Prince of Denmark describes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet:

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving, how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension, how like a god!

The overwhelming likelihood when we finally do encounter extraterrestrial life (note the foregone conclusion) is that it will bear no resemblance to us, whatsoever. Our biology comes as the culmination of a nearly infinite number of random events. Change one of them, and the end product may take a drastically divergent path. And the odds that another form of life that emerged and developed elsewhere in the universe would resemble us are infinitesimally small; essentially zero.

So when we cast a gaze outward towards other planets, we might do well to keep an open mind, to make no assumptions and to take life as we find it and not as we expect it to be. It would be an awful pity to overlook what would surely be one of the most profound discoveries in human history, because we didn’t simply open our eyes and see.

Tweet This Post 

Earth Now Has a Ring

If you’re Sci-Fi fan, you’ve undoubtedly seen more than one movie depicting a habitable planet bearing a striking resemblance to Saturn; the main character looking up to see a large, color set of ring spanning from horizon to horizon. And if you were tempted to scoff at the prospect as being no more than an artifact of a fertile imagination, think again. Though the natural ring systems found in our solar system are observed exclusively around gas giant planets — planets with no solid surface on which to land and a crushing gravitational field — Earth does nonetheless have its own ring system. It’s a artificial ring composed entirely of thousands of satellites, both operational and dead, spent rocket bodies plus many more thousands of space hardware fragments that are the products of accidental collisions with one another, secondary collisions of fragments with fragments and even the intentional shooting down of the Fan Yun 1C spacecraft by China as part of an anti-satellite weapon test in 2007. That one event drastically increased the number of pieces of space junk and made much of low earth orbit a much more dangerous place, the impact of which (pun intended) is felt so much more so now that we have people there aboard the International Space Station, tending the orbital laboratory 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Two nights ago such a piece of debris came uncomfortably close to the space station… again. It’s not the first time, and will certainly not be the last. The event underscores the need for a plan to be put in place to 1) stop placing more junk into orbit and 2) begin to remove that which is already there. The US is in the position to lead the charge, but so far there’s been nothing more than talk while one orbit after another fills up with junk at an exponential rate.

Perhaps it wouldn’t be quite so bad if Earth’s ring could at least treat us to the same color display as Saturn with it’s shimmering reds, greens and blues wrapping around the planet’s equator, but it is not to be. What we have is a belt of hypervelocity junk, which represents an increasing menace to space navigation, itself set to increase as commercial, human space flight begins to come into its own.

There are things the government can do right now to help alleviate some of the threat. As it stands, US policy for retiring a spent weather satellite in the geosynchronous orbit is not to return it to earth once its life is over as it should be but to simply boost it into a higher — so-called super-synchronous — orbit and turn it off. This strategy continues to add to the population of junk; it cannot and should not be maintained in the future. It must change and the sooner, the better.

Even this strategy is not adhered to by all spacecraft operators. SpaceNews reports that, “In 2008 and 2009 alone, four geostationary orbiting satellites — the U.S. EchoStar 2 and the Russian Gorizont 33, Raduga 1-5, Cosmos 2371 and Cosmos 2379 — were all left to expire on the geostationary arc without performing end-of-mission orbit-raising maneuvers. EchoStar 2 failed suddenly in orbit and could not be moved.” Then, of course, there is the occasional errant spacecraft like Galaxy 15, which recently ceased responding to commands from the ground and is now plowing uncontrolled through geosynchronous orbit.

The White House has issued orders to NASA and the DOD to begin researching techniques for the mitigation and removal of space debris, but this could take many years before an effective, affordable strategy of space junk removal is put in force. There are thousands of pieces of junk, and to physically remove each one could cost many millions of dollars per piece. Then again, one can easily see the potential for jobs creation in the endeavor.

In the meantime, policy must change. We must adopt strict rules to prevent spacecraft operators from leaving dead satellites in space. Let’s not wait until the multi-billion-dollar International Space Station is crippled or destroyed before we become proactive.

Tweet This Post 

Lunar Scientists Need You

Have you ever daydreamed of exploring space? Ever found yourself wandering off on an imaginary expedition of discovery across some vast, alien landscape? Of course, the regular guy and gal could never hope to make such a journey in person. That’s really only Hollywood stuff. Right? Wrong. In fact, you now have the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of the Apollo astronauts and be the next human to look across the moonscape and discover some of its many secrets as part of a serious and ongoing scientific program.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter launched on June 18, 2009, and since it arrived in orbit around the moon has been taking the highest resolution images of its surface in existence. Data is coming in from the spacecraft at such a phenomenal rate that scientists have difficulty sifting through it all, so they’ve asked for the help of folks just like you to help them identify high-value targets for further scientific study. And for this citizen science project they’ve set up a website where you can go to take part. After viewing videos and other help that will show you how to recognize features, you’ll peruse through images of the moon’s surface few others — if any — have seen, even among planetary scientists. In the process of becoming a lunar researcher, you will learn more about the surface or our nearest neighbor in space than you ever have before and perhaps discover something as yet unknown. It’s a voyage of discovery seldom available to those outside astrophysics.

Go to MoonZoo.org and register. From there, you’ll have tools at your disposal that allow you to mark interesting features like the more recent craters that have excavated light-colored material in an ejecta blanket all around the impact site. They call these fresh white craters, and the science team will count the number that you identify so they can calculate the current impact rate. The information you provide with help them to assess the risk to earth of asteroid strikes.

You may also discover elongated pits. These are areas where a subsurface lava tube has collapsed in on itself. Another, similar feature called a “skylight” has been discovered recently in which only a section of a lava tube’s ceiling has collapsed to reveal a cavernous expanse within. These features have scientists and lunar base planners alike excited. Such areas could serve humans as a natural shelter from the radiation environment. They may also be sources of water, trapping it in frozen form in their permanently dark recesses. In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), more popularly known as the concept of “living off the land,” is an important strategy for maintaining a permanent human presence on the moon. If we can obtain shelter from natural features and extract from them some of the resources and consumables we need, the cost of the venture is dramatically reduced. I becomes obtainable within our lifetimes. It becomes attainable by you!

Spacefaring nations have been launching probes and landers to the surface of the moon for decades. You may also run across the technology they left behind. When you find these pieces of space mission hardware, the positions that you mark will be used to build up a database that can be made available to the worldwide science community and used as positional landmarks for lunar cartographic mapping.

These and other features — many of which could only be described as just plain weird — are yours to discover. You’ll have a great deal of fun and adventure, and you can share what you find through the built-in Moon Zoo blog. And perhaps you’ll discover something that no one else has ever seen. If you have the heart of an explorer, this site is definitely for you.

Moon Zoo belongs to a larger community of citizen science projects called the Zooniverse. There you’ll also find Galaxy Zoo Hubble where you can help astronomers figure out how galaxies form and evolve by classifying their shape using Hubble images. There’s Solar Stormwatch where you can help spot explosions on the Sun and track them across space to Earth. Then there’s Galaxy Zoo Mergers and Galaxy Zoo Supernovae. But if you’re interested in helping build a knowledge base of our moon, and in so doing help usher in the age of lunar settlement, Moon Zoo is your best bet.

So log on and plug in to a universe of discovery. You can make a difference, and you’ll satisfy that innate urge to explore that we all have. And maybe, just maybe, the day when you can board a rocket bound for a moon base to see the sights in person will get even closer.

Tweet This Post 

Space Commerce

For nearly half a century now we’ve heard from the futurists what our lives will be like just around the corner. The picture they paint is one with human settlements circling the earth and sprawling across the surface of the moon; of space hotels spinning like pinwheels through black skies; of rocket flights as common as airplane flights are today; and most importantly of a swelling population of off-world settlers pursuing the limitless prosperity that this new frontier of space has to offer. It’s a picture that can be transmuted from the water color and canvas of our imagination to those more vibrant colors of real life.

The technology exists with which to make the dream a reality, so why does it still seem so far away? A naive over reliance on government.

The headline in this week’s print version of Space News reads Effective Cost-Control Strategies Remain Elusive, NASA Officials Say. Space travel — particularly on a large scale — requires the kind of financial agility not found in any bureaucracy. Only the private sector can deliver cost-effective space technology, and then only if there exists a sustaining market. For space commerce to emerge as a self-sustaining enterprise, it cannot be reliant upon the government for its survival. We find ourselves at a nexus in history where, like the time leading up to the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, a market is logically assumed to exist but, it has yet to be proven, leaving many holding the really big purse strings with some angst. There is certainly plentiful capital with which to launch space commerce into its own, but most investors remain diffident, choosing to wait and see how investors like Elon Musk of SpaceX, Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Galactic and Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace fair. These men have put up their own fortunes to prove that the final frontier is a place of opportunity for all brave enough to go there. When their risks prove successful, others will follow. In the mean time, what is required is a few more like Durant and the Union Pacific Railroad.

At the opening of the week-long Farnborough Air Show in England yesterday, Robert Bigelow in partnership with Boeing announced the intent to build and launch into earth orbit a commercial space station by 2014 — an imminently achievable goal based on Bigelow’s flight-proven, inflatable space habitat design. Should this enterprise come to fruition, it would represent a huge boost to commercial, human space flight by offering a destination open to a throng of paying customers. It would serve as both hub and incubator for orbiting commerce and a place from which that traffic could spread to the moon and beyond. Speaking for Boeing’s space exploration division, former astronaut, Vice President and General Manager Brewster Shaw said, “We need the funding. The money that NASA has proposed closes the business case. Without that, we would have a difficult time.” That was yesterday. Today it was reported in Space News that the newly-passed House of Representatives version of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 cuts in half the $500M CCDev contract funds, a share of which they had hoped to capture for the venture.

This is typical of government wrangling over money, all the more limited by unchecked growth in entitlement spending, which will never boost productivity in any area of the country one iota. Obama wanted to kill the Constellation moon program, outright. Congress, however, has passed a measure that would keep but restructure Constellation, retaining only the heavy lift rocket used to get into earth orbit and the crew transportation vehicle  for transport out of orbit. The moon as a destination and the systems needed to land and establish a base there are sadly, but for the moment, set aside. And the money private companies were hoping to gain for human space flight would now seem much harder to obtain, but there is another way.

The private sector knows only too well the blind spot that exists 2 feet beyond the end of the bureaucrat’s nose. And the changes in course that come with every administration only further exacerbate the problem of getting a coherent, manageable and affordable civil space program. They know that the only hope of getting humans into space en masse rests with a sustained strategy carried out over a decade or more. And this will never come out of Washington.

What is required is more investment from the private sector. More investors ready to face a big risk for an even bigger payoff will need to step up. Burt Rutan has shown the way. He’s demonstrated that commercial, human space flight can be profitable when he designed and built SpaceShipOne. Within the space of a couple of years he transformed his SpaceShip from a concept into a paying contract. Virgin Galactic has purchased a fleet of 5 vehicles, which are set to become the world’s first spaceline when the flight test program is complete some time over the next 18 months. And if you’re one of the naysayers who contend that Rutan’s design is not proven, consider this: VMS Eve, the first production model of SpaceShipTwo, is a scaled up version of SpaceShipOne that won the X Prize.

The emergence of space commerce will foster even more growth of investment and technology and set the stage for off-world settlement. And such a tenuous and fragile construct can only be born near earth where it can be nurtured into health. This is why so many have argued in favor of going back to the moon and establishing a permanent presence there before going on to Mars. The latter requires massive government research and development programs, which have proven time and again to evaporate into a mist of apathy and bureaucratic self interest. If government has not been able to go back to the moon in 40 years then why should we believe that have the ability will suddenly appear now?

Set aside for the moment the government’s demonstrative inability to focus or to formulate a coherent strategy for getting humans into space on any meaningful scale. There is another term to this equation that, in and of itself, is reason enough for them to work against the settlement of space. Our government believes that space travel is just too dangerous for the public. Yes, there are those among us too fragile for the venture, but America was settled by a hearty breed of human, both physically and mentally, and we still have that pioneering spirit in our blood. When it at last lights upon our collective consciousness that space travel is no longer science fiction but science fact, and that all that stands between us and adventure beyond our wildest dreams is the decision to go, what a spectacle it will be.

Tweet This Post 

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to Recent Misperceptions Related to US Human Spaceflight

Washington, D.C., July 12, 2010 – As a strong supporter of a robust NASA human spaceflight program, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation is releasing the following statement to address topics related to human spaceflight, including commercial human spaceflight.  Please see items below on the topics of capability, safety, and cost savings:

Topic: Capability

MYTH: “The new plan hands over Low Earth Orbit spaceflight to unproven companies.”

FACT:
·      The Commercial Crew Program will include the use of highly proven launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, which has achieved a perfect record of 21 consecutive successful flights to orbit. In addition to Atlas V, the commercial Delta IV has 13 consecutive successful flights, and the Falcon 9 recently reached orbit on its first flight, with over a dozen more Falcon 9 flights scheduled in the next few years.
·      The Commercial Crew competition will include highly experienced firms, including major aerospace prime contractors, such as Boeing, which is developing the CST-100 commercial crew capsule under CCDev, and Boeing has built nearly every U.S. human spacecraft since Mercury. The list of companies winning CCDev or COTS demonstrates the wide experience base of potential competitors, such as Boeing (158,000 employees), United Launch Alliance (3,900 employees), Orbital (3,600 employees), Sierra Nevada Corporation (2,000 employees), and SpaceX (1,000 employees).

MYTH: “Commercial spaceflight has yet to ‘prove cargo before crew.”

FACT:
·      Commercial companies, such as United Launch Alliance, have already proven the ability to successfully carry high-value cargo to orbit.  Given the urgency of closing the gap, Commercial Crew should be promptly started.  Only two companies are developing cargo capabilities under the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, so it is not logical for the other companies to be forced to “wait” for the completion of the COTS Cargo program.
·      The Department of Defense already trusts commercial launch vehicles such as the proven Atlas V to launch cargo worth billions of dollars per mission and which the safety of our troops overseas depends on.  These vehicles are also entrusted by NASA to handle some of the most safety-critical applications in the civil space sector. For example, the Atlas V is Category 3 certified by NASA for launch of NASA’s most critical payloads.

MYTH: “Commercial Crew will take ten years to develop.”

FACT:
·      Developing a low Earth orbit Gemini-class capability (which is the historical human spaceflight project most similar to Commercial Crew) is a simpler, and therefore shorter, task than developing an Apollo or Orion-class capability.  The first piloted Gemini flight to orbit was achieved only about 3 years and 3 months after McDonnell accepted Contract NAS 9-170 to develop Gemini.  Today, the fastest way for America to regain its ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station is to develop a simple Gemini-class capability rather than waiting for a more complex Apollo-sized system.
·      Because Commercial Crew funds multiple redundant capabilities, schedule delays with any one company will not delay the availability of astronaut launch capability. Commercial Crew is actually less vulnerable to schedule slips than a program such as Ares I that has only one provider. With Commercial Crew, a delay with a single competitor does not increase the “gap,” because other competitors are progressing in parallel, while under the old plan, each delay with Ares I does increase the “gap.”

MYTH: “Commercial Crew will take tens of billions of dollars.”

FACT:
·      The historical data from the low Earth orbit Gemini Program, the human spaceflight project most similar to commercial crew, disproves this assertion.  As the Augustine Committee stated, “Gemini is the closest historical program in scope to the envisioned commercial crew taxi. … In GDP-inflator-corrected FY 2009 dollars, the DDT&E [design, development, test, and evaluation] cost of this program was about $2.5-3 billion, depending on the accounting for test flights.” Since that time, technology for human spaceflight has benefited from 40+ years of technology advances and lessons learned.  If Gemini were built today, it would likely cost even less to develop.
·      Cost prediction curves that use Apollo and Orion as key sources of data in estimating the cost of commercial crew are “comparing apples and oranges.”  This is because commercial crew capsules are serving a simpler mission (and thus will cost less) than the far more capable Apollo, Space Shuttle, or Orion vehicles.  Commercial crew vehicles will transport crew to and from the International Space Station in low Earth orbit, but will not need the added capabilities needed for deep space missions to the Moon, asteroids, or Mars as Orion was designed to do.
·      Commercial crew does not require spending money to develop new launch vehicles, only capsules.  The launch vehicles already exist: Atlas V has flown 21 consecutive times to orbit successfully; Delta IV has flown 13 consecutive times to orbit successfully; and Falcon 9 just had a successful flight to orbit.  Not needing to develop all-new launch vehicles is a substantial cost advantage of Commercial Crew.

MYTH: “The new plan ‘places all our eggs in one basket’ by using commercial services.”

FACT: The exact opposite is true: the previous plan relies 100% on Ares I for launching crew into space, while the new program funds multiple redundant capabilities to transport crew to LEO. This will mean that NASA’s human spaceflight program will no longer be solely dependent on any one single domestic vehicle—a major benefit.  America will finally have “assured access to space” for astronauts, similar to how military satellites have assured access to space by using both the Delta and Atlas.  Achieving “assured access” for astronauts, via multiple commercial capabilities, will dramatically improve our ability to fully utilize the International Space Station.

MYTH: “Commercial Crew represents a radical departure from current national policy.”

FACT: Commercial Crew is, in fact, a continuation of existing national policy:
·      The 2008 NASA Authorization Act endorsed commercial crew, stating:
“In order to stimulate commercial use of space, help maximize the utility and productivity of the International Space Station, and enable a commercial means of providing crew transfer and crew rescue services for the International Space Station, NASA shall… issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with two or more commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) crewed vehicle demonstration program.”
·      Similarly, the 2008 NASA Appropriations House report endorsed commercial crew; it “encourage[d] NASA to consider exercising its option for the Commercial Cargo (COTS) Capability D (crew transport) as soon as possible…”
·      Additionally, National Security Presidential Directive-49, issued by President Bush in 2006, stated, “Departments and agencies shall use U.S. commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum practical extent,” and also stated, “It is in the interest of the United States to foster the use of U.S. commercial space capabilities around the globe and to enable a dynamic, domestic commercial space sector.”
·      In June 2004, the Aldridge Commission on implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration recommended that “NASA recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations… most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit.” The Aldridge Commission added, “the Commission believes that commercialization of space should become a primary focus of the vision and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey.”
·      A quarter-century ago, the law that created NASA, known as the Space Act, was amended to specify that NASA is to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

Topic: Safety

MYTH:  “The data shows commercial vehicles are less safe than other vehicles such as Ares I.”

FACT:
·      The demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles, combined with numerous upcoming manifested flights, means that the family of commercial vehicles already has, and will continue to have, a much stronger track record than other vehicles such as Ares I.  The Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes including 21 consecutive successes for Atlas V, and additional unmanned flights will occur over the next few years before any astronaut flights begin.  Similarly, many flights of the Delta and Falcon vehicles have already occurred or will occur before astronauts would be placed onboard.  Astronauts will not be flying on vehicles that lack a solid track record.
·      By contrast, NASA was planning to place astronauts on just the second full-up orbital flight of the Ares I system.  Ares I would have many fewer test flights than Atlas V, Falcon 9, or Delta IV.  Furthermore, the first crewed flight of Ares I will not occur until the year 2017 as determined by the Augustine Committee.  Thus, at the planned rate of two Ares I flights per year, it would take the Ares I rocket until at least the year 2025 to match the demonstrated reliability that the Atlas V rocket already has today.  That is, the commercial rocket has a fifteen-year head start on safety.
·      Demonstrated reliability through multiple actual flights to orbit is crucial because paper calculations have historically been insufficient to capture the majority of failure modes that affect real, flying vehicles—especially new vehicles flying their first few missions. As the Augustine Committee stated, “The often-used Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) … is not as useful a guide as to whether a new launch vehicle will fail during operations, especially during its early flights.”  Demonstrated reliability is crucial.
·      The Department of Defense already trusts commercial vehicles, such as Atlas V and Delta IV, to safely launch multi-billion-dollar national security payloads upon which the safety of our troops overseas depends.  These vehicles are also entrusted by NASA to handle some of the most safety-critical applications in the civil space sector. For example, the Atlas V is Category 3 certified by NASA for launch of NASA’s most critical payloads, and is also certified for launch of nuclear payloads, such as NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft with radioactive plutonium onboard, which demands extremely high safety levels for launch.

MYTH: “The Commercial Crew Program will be held to lower safety level expectations than alternative programs would.”

FACT:
·      Safety is paramount— private companies understand that they will not be in business if the systems they develop are not safe. In fact, private industry recognizes that it must increase safety from that demonstrated in the past in order to fulfill its vision of greatly increasing human activity in space.
·      Commercial industry is planning to meet or exceed the safety standards that NASA applies to its own vehicles. The initial NASA version of NPR 8705.2, “Human-Rating Requirements for Space Systems,” was released over five years ago, so industry has had access to this data for an extended period.  For example, United Launch Alliance has begun work on an Emergency Detection System (EDS) for the Atlas V using funds awarded by the NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) Program and access to NASA documents including NPR 8705.2B and other NASA documents.
·      NASA will be there every step of the way.  The Commercial Crew program is a partnership between NASA and industry. NASA will have oversight during design, testing, manufacturing, and operations.  As the customer, NASA will also have go/no-go authority over the readiness of each mission to fly.

MYTH: “The astronaut community does not believe that commercial spaceflight is safe.”

FACT: Thirteen former NASA astronauts who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in an October Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely. The astronaut signatories were Buzz Aldrin, Byron Lichtenberg, Charles Walker, Hank Hartsfield, Jake Garn, Jim Voss, John Herrington, John Lounge, Kathryn Thornton, Ken Bowersox, Norman Thagard, Rick Searfoss, and Robert Gibson. These thirteen astronauts have collectively flown a total of 42 space missions and logged a total of 2 years and 48 days in space aboard six different space vehicles including Gemini, Apollo, Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Mir, and the International Space Station.  These astronauts stated:
“We believe that the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation.   … As astronauts, we know that safety is important. We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle. Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans. These vehicles are already set to fly over 40 flights to orbit in the next four years.”

Topic: Cost Savings

MYTH: “Commercial spaceflight capabilities will be no cheaper than Ares I for servicing the International Space Station.”

FACT:
·      The development cost of Ares I plus a crew-launch-capable Orion is at least $35 billion, which is 6 times more expensive than the Commercial Crew Program that will develop multiple redundant systems. The $35 billion cost figure is a direct NASA quote from the June 17, 2009 New York Times, which stated: “In an interview, Steve Cook, manager of the Ares Project at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., said that the cost estimate for developing the Ares I and seeing it through its first manned flight was $35 billion.”  Independent cost estimates are even higher than $35 billion.
·      In addition, the per-flight costs to transport astronauts to the International Space Station on Ares I would significantly exceed that of simpler commercial systems.  The Augustine Committee report stated, “The Ares I and Orion would be a very expensive system for crew transport to low-Earth orbit. Program estimates are that it would have a recurring cost of nearly $1 billion per flight, even with the fixed infrastructure costs being carried by Ares V.”
·      There are at least four distinct reasons for these cost savings under Commercial Crew:

• Proven launch vehicles already exist, such as Atlas V, and others have demonstrated successful orbital flights, such as Falcon 9, substantially reducing the amount of new hardware needing development.
• Higher flight rates and satellite launches: Commercial vehicles also launch commercial communications satellites and national security payloads, leading to an increased flight rate that reduces per-flight cost.  By contrast, NASA-unique vehicles are prohibited from launching commercial satellites, so there are usually fewer flights to share costs among.
• The mission is simpler: Low Earth Orbit transportation is less difficult than extended missions to the Moon, so a capsule built just for LEO is less expensive.
• Competitive forces and pay-for-performance: Unlike traditional programs, commercial procurements utilize fixed-price, pay-for-performance, milestone-based agreements and leverage the power of competition between multiple providers.

MYTH: “Commercial Crew will not save NASA money if non-NASA human spaceflight markets are slow to develop.”

FACT: Non-NASA human spaceflight markets are not the primary source of cost savings for the NASA customer:  The sources of cost savings to NASA – which still apply even if non-NASA human spaceflight markets are slow to develop – are the following: proven launch vehicles already exist, higher flight rate from satellite launches reduces per-flight costs, the LEO mission is simpler, and pay-for-performance leverages the power of competition.  While it is true that non-NASA human spaceflight markets have implications for regulatory frameworks and corporate business approaches, they are not the primary source of cost savings for the NASA government customer.  The benefits of additional commercial markets for human spaceflight are to increase the safety, reliability, and diversity of the services offered and further reduce the cost to NASA.

MYTH: “Full utilization of the Space Station can be accomplished by relying on a government option rather than a fully-funded Commercial Crew system.”

FACT: Space Station servicing is an urgent need that requires the quicker, simpler solution of the Commercial Crew program that is optimized just for the Space Station.  Heavy-lift systems designed to go beyond low Earth orbit are far more capable than is needed for low Earth orbit operations, so for the specific mission of Space Station servicing they are neither cost-effective, nor available in a timely manner. While it is entirely appropriate for NASA to develop heavy-lift systems for exploration, those systems are not the solution to the needs of the Space Station. Because Commercial Crew and heavy-lift serve entirely separate missions, our ability to utilize the Space Station depends entirely on whether Commercial Crew is robustly funded.

MYTH: “Diverting money from Commercial Crew to fund Constellation would still allow NASA to service the International Space Station.”

FACT: Commercial Crew does not contain sufficient money to fund Constellation.  The $6 billion requested for the Commercial Crew program is much smaller than the $35 billion Ares I-Orion effort, not to mention that Ares V costs would be significantly larger.  Diverting money from Commercial Crew would only fund a small fraction of a system that, even if fully funded, would not come online until 2017 or later, increasing the spaceflight gap and jeopardizing our utilization of the International Space Station.

MYTH: “Commercial Crew could risk a large “bailout” if a company fails to perform.”

FACT:  Commercial Crew does not risk a large “bailout” for the following reasons:
·      No one single provider is treated as “Too Big to Fail,” because multiple commercial capabilities are funded. If one competitor falls behind, the government has multiple alternatives.  This contrasts favorably with winner-take-all, cost plus programs like Ares I, where the government has to pay “whatever it takes” to finish the project since there are no alternatives.
·      Cost per system is much less than Ares I: Because of this substantial difference in cost, a given percentage cost overrun for Ares is much more expensive than the equivalent overrun for a commercial system.
·      Pay-for-performance:  Unlike a traditional cost-plus program where the government pays the cost of development no matter how high, a commercial milestone-based program does not commit the government to spending money until progress is shown.
·      “Assured access to space” is available because choosing multiple commercial winners means that the probability of every single provider failing to deliver is less likely than the probability of a single lone system, such as Ares I, failing to deliver.

MYTH: “The Department of Defense’s attempt to use the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) model in the 1990s shows commercial crew cannot succeed.”

FACT: In Tom Young’s hearing examples, Total System Performance Responsibility was applied to programs that were developing cutting-edge technology and attempting feats never before accomplished, which stands in contrast to a Commercial Crew Program that is similar to the 40-year-old Gemini Program.  Specifically, Tom Young cited cost overruns for the FIA (Future Imagery Architecture) program and SBIRS High (Space-Based Infrared System) program, both programs that involve the development of new cutting-edge technologies that had never before been demonstrated. By contrast, the Commercial Crew Program uses existing launch vehicles and well-established technologies to duplicate a capability first achieved over 40 years ago with the Gemini Program, and therefore does not fit in the same category as the Future Imagery Architecture and SBIRS High programs. Commercial Crew is a perfect example of a program where commercial acquisition techniques are appropriate and beneficial.

MYTH: “NASA is the only customer for commercial launch providers.”

FACT:
·      Launch vehicles such as Atlas, Delta, and Falcon already have multiple customers today for the launching of satellites and cargo. The Augustine Committee report, in the section on Commercial Crew, pointed out “the existing markets of ISS cargo to low-Earth orbit, science and national security space satellite missions, and commercial satellite launches.”  The costs of the launch vehicle are thus already shared among multiple customers.
·      While the satellite market alone is sufficient to increase flight rates and reduce per-flight costs to NASA, other markets also exist for the crew capsule:

• Sovereign clients: This term refers to U.S.-allied nations paying American commercial companies to fly their national astronauts to space, generating American jobs in the process. Sovereign clients are friendly nations seeking to expand their existing space program, create “first astronaut” national heroes, conduct industrial and scientific research on-orbit, or bolster national prestige. Bigelow Aerospace, whose founder has committed an investment of $500 million, told the New York Times last month that the company has visited countries including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, Britain and Sweden to determine interest in the sovereign client market.  Demand from sovereign clients has also been demonstrated by the fact that since 1978, the United States and Russia have flown almost 100 guest astronauts representing 30 countries, often in exchange for in-kind services but sometimes for payment.  As a recent example, in 2008 South Korea paid Russia $20 million to launch South Korean astronaut Yi So-yeon.
• Private individuals: over $150 million has been already paid by private citizens to travel on a Soyuz to the Space Station.  In fact, the demand for this service has continued to increase despite the Russians doubling their prices from under $20 million to over $35 million per seat, with the price now at about $45 million.  Furthermore, when Commercial Crew taxi services begin in the United States, prospective astronauts, who are often business leaders running companies, will no longer have to spend half a year training in Russia with limited contact with the outside world— so demand will no longer be dampened by that burden.
• Industrial clients, such as large scientific corporations represent another potential source of demand for on-orbit access.

·      Investment in the commercial spaceflight industry offers the opportunity for America to win back a larger share of the international launch market. Norman Mineta, who served under the Bush Administration as the Secretary of Transportation, and under the Clinton Administration as the Secretary of Commerce, stated in a recent op-ed, “With Russia, China and India close on our heels, the only way we can maintain our hard-won leadership in space transportation is by employing America’s unique entrepreneurial strength. Obama’s new plan for NASA does exactly that.”

[Contact: John Gedmark, Commercial Spaceflight Federation, 202.349.1121]

Tweet This Post 

Former Senator Schmitt Accuses National Academy of Conflict of Interest in Study of Global Climate Change

Extraordinarily complex natural processes underlie changes in the Earth’s climate. They represent decadal to millennial to epochal variations in weather patterns as nature continuously attempts to compensate for solar heating imbalances in and between the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses.

Nature’s attempts to restore heat balance at and near the Earth’s surface take place under many complicating influences. These include the rotating Earth’s seasonally variable orientation relative to the sun; periodic differences in Earth’s orbital positioning; movement and release of heat stored in the oceans; atmospheric circulation; the sun’s variable irradiance and magnetic fields; frequent and unpredictable volcanic eruptions; and geologically slow but exorable redistribution and reconfiguration of land, ocean, and ice masses.

In this context of natural reality, the recent report, “America’s Climate Choices,” released May 19, 2010, by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), illustrates how far that formerly illustrious Academy has strayed from the principles of “science.” Those principles are, simply: observe, hypothesize, test, analyze, retest, and repeat this cycle until plausible, objective conclusions appear to be warranted – conclusions that others or nature can replicate.

The Academy, in contrast, has become just another political arm of the governmental establishment, promoting a federal mandate of “major technological and behavioral change” based on flawed as well as selective science. The report’s conclusions that “climate change is occurring, caused largely by human activities…” and that “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” ignore contradictory tests of such hypotheses that come through objective observations.

Unfortunately, support for the Academy’s political statements also comes from Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).¹ The AAAS, in an Essay Review of books related to the climate change debate in its Science magazine,² could not even bring itself to require consideration of books dissenting from the “consensus” that current climate change is human caused³.

In taking these political, non-scientific positions, the Academy has joined another political body, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in attacking the heart of free institutions and economic prosperity. The Academy’s and British Royal Society’s Presidents and membership, in recent reactions to the public disclosure of fraud within the climate science political community, have exacerbated their loss of credibility rather than enhancing it.⁴ The Royal Society’s takes a particularly disappointing and ironic position as its founders’ motto 350 years ago was to “accept nothing on authority.”⁵ The National Academy now has embarrassed itself further by using a statistical analysis of publication records as “scientific” justification of the so-called “consensus” that humans cause climate change⁶.

Unfortunately, bias permeates both the reports and the published work reviewed in reports produced by the Academy and IPCC for the use of “policy makers.” This bias follows from the dependency on government funding of so many climate researchers and bureaucrats as well as from the extra-constitutional political leanings of most academics today⁷. If grant applications from the researchers involved do not propose to show the effects of humans on climate, their proposals risk not being funded. If their conclusions do not allege an effect by humans on climate, however tenuous that effect might be, their career-essential papers probably will not be published by politically committed journals. Not following liberal orthodoxy on climate change thus may create problems of tenure at home institutions.

If the recent climate science policy scandals show nothing else, they show the existence of political bias. Even the Academy’s study of “America’s Climate Choices” was funded by the leadership of the Congress and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both of which have huge political and budgetary interests, respectively, in reaching the conclusion that humans cause modern climate change. 85% of the Academy’s future study funding⁸ depends on concluding what your political customers, the politicians and bureaucrats, want you to conclude.

On the other hand, Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the Academy, correctly states “that the state of climate change science is strong;” however, ironically, he refers to the wrong aspects of climate change science when he makes that statement. Recent international scientific conferences hosted by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, the broad compilation of information contained in “Climate Changed Reconsidered,”⁹ and an increasing body of published research shows that observational climate science is indeed strong.

The results of this observational scientific research and analysis show that natural processes dominate changes in Earth’s climate and it is that conclusion which should drive national policy. The last thing policy makers should rely on is guidance based on assumptions put into obviously flawed computer models. It is factually, professionally, and absolutely wrong for the former Chairman of the National Science Board to state in congressional testimony that there exist no “specifics, alternate hypotheses, and facts” contrary to the human-caused climate change hypothesis.¹⁰ As the NAS report confirms, a socialist political agenda drives government policy and that policy seeks control over all aspects of local as well as national economic activity, particularly energy production and use.

What do we actually know about climate variability over the part of Earth history most relevant to the present? Actually, we know a lot. Since the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago¹¹ (the glacial maximum lasting between 33,000 and 19,000 years ago¹²), geological and tree ring records for that interval document prolonged periods of warmth and cold, ranging from 3000 years to a few hundred years in duration.¹³ The Little Ice Age of 1400-1900,¹⁴ following the Medieval Warm Period of 600-1300, recorded the last significant period of global cooling during that 10,000 years, although decades-long cooling has occurred several times since.

By 1400, Artic ice pack had enclosed Iceland and Greenland and driven Viking settlers away from their farms on those islands.¹⁵ By the end of the 1600s, in response to the earlier climate cooling, glaciers had advanced over valley farmlands cultivated as those same glaciers receded during the Medieval Warm Period.¹⁶ Indeed, all of the consequences of warming prior to 1300 reversed during the next several hundred years of the Little Ice Age.

Since about 1660, the middle of the last 70 year-long phase of the Little Ice Age, global surface and near surface temperatures have risen an average of about about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (half a degree Centigrade) each 100 years.¹⁷ In response, a general retreat of world glaciers has taken place over the last century or more, not just in the last decades of the 20th Century,¹⁸ repeating the documented pattern of the Medieval Warm Period.

The Artic Ocean ice pack has retreated northward since about 1800¹⁹ and, as during the Medieval Warm Period, may have largely disappeared during some summers, depending on the high latitude atmospheric circulation.²⁰ Similarly, though only on a decadal rather than a century scale, satellite observations since 1979 show that the decrease in the area of the Artic ice pack since 1996 appears to have reversed from its 2007 summer minimum.²¹ Antarctic sea ice also retreated from the extent reported by many explorers and whalers early in the 20th Century²². Antarctic sea ice, however, has been expanding northward for about two decades²³ after indications of an additional gradual decline following the 1950s.²⁴

Since the last vestiges of the most recent major Ice Age about -10,000 years ago (end of the Younger Dryas cold period²⁵), decades-long periods of warming and cooling have been superposed on even longer cycles. The longest of these cycles repeats about every 1500 years and the shortest about every 55-60 years.²⁶ These latter, short, multi-decade intervals of rapid warming and cooling²⁷ have occurred during the current, 350-year long general warming trend. The most recent short-term variations have been cooling between 1935 and 1975, warming between 1975 and 1995, and now cooling again since 2000.

In short, nothing out of the ordinary natural climate variations have occurred since fossil fuel use accelerated in the last Century. General agreement exists among both climate change alarmists and climate change realists that most of the slow variations over the centuries before 1949 came from natural causes,²⁸ with a general warming trend continuing the recovery from the extremes of the Little Ice Age. Then politics took over when definitive measurements of a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide became available after 1960²⁹. Since then, “carbon dioxide,” an essential ingredient for life itself, has become a stalking-horse for increased government control of consumers, private business, industry, and the economy.

In the name of the impossible goal of climate control, Congress is preparing to vote on legislation that would seriously and unconstitutionally harm the American economy and employment dependent on the strength of that economy. The Environmental Protection Agency already has assumed unauthorized, unconstitutional, dictatorial powers to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

These continue to be dangerous times for liberty and constitutional protection of that liberty. Election battle lines have formed for November 2010.

---

Harrison H. Schmitt is a former United States Senator from New Mexico as well as a geologist and former Apollo Astronaut. He currently is an aerospace and private enterprise consultant and a member of the new Committee of Correspondence.

---

1 AAAS Announcement to Members, email, June 29, 2010; News and Notes, 2010, On Capitol Hill, researchers offer data to answer climate skeptics, Science, 328, p. 1121.

2 Kitcher, P., 2010, The climate change debates, Science, 328, pp. 1230-1234.

3 Spencer, R. W., The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Scientists, Encounter Books, New York; Spencer, R. W., 2009, Climate Confusion, Encounter Books, New York ; Carter, B., 2010, Climate: The Counter- consensus – A Scientist Speaks, Stacey International, London; Solomon, L., 2008, The Deniers, Richard Vigilante Books, USA; Idso, C. D., and S. F. Singer, 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change; Paltridge, G. W., The Climate Caper, Taylor Trade, Plymouth; Plimer, I., 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, Connor Court, Victoria, Australia; Singer, S. F., 1999, Hot Talk, Cold Science, Independent Institute; Horner, C. C., 2010, Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America, Regnery, Washington; Booker, C., 2009, The Real Global Warming Disaster, Continuum International, New York; Singer, S. F., and D. T. Avery, 2007, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Rowman & Littlefield, Plymouth; Klaus, V., 2008, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington.

4 See Lindzen, R. S., 2010, Global warming: How to approach the science (Climate models and the evidence?), Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Rees, M., and R. J. Cicderone, 2010, What’s happening to the climate is unprecedented, Letters, FT.com, April 9, 2010; Gleick, P. H., et al, Climate change and the integrity of science, Letters, Science, 328, pp. 689-690; Nature, Climate of fear, Editorial, Nature, 464, p. 141.

5 Rees, M., 2010, The royal Society’s wider Role, editorial, Science, 328, p. 1611.

6 Kintisch, E, 2010, Critics are far less prominent than supporters, New of the Week, Science, 328, p. 1622.

7 Horowitz, D., and E. Lehrer, 2003, Political bias in the administrations and faculties of 32 elite colleges and universities, http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/1898/lackdiversity.html.

8 http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/faq1.html

9 Idso, C., and S.F. Singer, 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered, Heartland Institute, Chicago, pp. 112-128.

10 News and Notes, 2010, On Capitol Hill, researchers offer data to answer climate skeptics, Science, 328, p. 1121.

11 Steffensen, J. P., et al, Science, 321, pp. 680-.

12 Clark, P. U., et al, 2009, The last glacial maximum, Science, 325, pp. 710-714.

13 Dennis Avery, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #2, New York, March 9-10, 2009; McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005, Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance, Geophysical Research Letters, 32. No. 20; Luckman, B. H., Geoscience of climate and Energy 6. Tree rings as temperature proxies, Geoscience Canada, 37, 1, pp. 38-42; Hocker, L., 2010, The temperature rise has caused CO2 increase, not the other way around, .

14 Fagan, B., 2000, The Little Ice Age, Basic Books, New York, pp.10-15; Mann, M. E., et al, 2009, Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science, 326, pp. 1256-1259.

15 Goldberg, F., 2010, Some historical ice observations and future possible ice conditions in the Arctic, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Polyakov, I., Akasofu, S-I., et al, 2002. Trends and variations in Arctic climate system. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83, p. 547-548; Seaver, K.A, 1996, The Frozen Echo: Greenland and the Exploration of North America ca. A.D. 1000-1500, Stanford University Press; Koch, L., 1945, The East Greenland Ice, Copenhagen; Fagan, B., 2000, The Little Ice Age, Basic Books, New York, pp.10-15.

16 Esper, J., E. R. cook, F. H. Schweingruber, 2002, Low-frequency signals in long tree- ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, pp. 2250- 2253; Trouet, V., et al, 2009, Persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation mode dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Science, 324, pp. 78-80; Akasofu, S-I, 2007, Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, abstract, May 7; Fagan, B., 2000, The Little Ice Age, Basic Books, New York, pp. 3-51; Cook, E.R., et al, 2004, Long-term aridity changes in the western United States, Science, 306, 1015-1018; see also Center for the Study of Carbon dioxide and Global Change, 2009, Medieval Warm Period <http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php>; Huss, M., 2010, et al, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2010GL042616(2010); Idso, C., and S.F. Singer, 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered, Heartland Institute, Chicago, pp. 72-98.

17 Syun Akasofu, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #2, New York, March 9-10, 2009; Roy Spencer, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #2, New York, March 9- 10, 2009; Michaels, P. J., 2010, Cap and trad regulation, legislation, and science, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Carter, R.M., 2007, The myth of human-caused climate change, in Australasian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, New Leaders Conference, Brisbane, May 2-3 2007, Conference Proceedings pp. 61-74. http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005- 03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf.

18 Akasofu, S-I, 2007, Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, abstract, May 7.

19 Polyakov, I., Akasofu, S-I., et al, 2002. Trends and variations in Arctic climate system. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83, p. 547-548.

20 Morison, J., et al, 2007, Recent trends in Arctic Ocean mass distribution revealed by GRACE, Geophysical. Research Letters, 34, L07602, doi:10.1029/2006GL029016.

21 Goldberg, F., 2010, Some historical ice observations and future possible ice conditions in the Arctic, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Chapman, W. 2008, The Cryosphere Today, Illionois Arctic Climate Research Center, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

22 Lansing, A., 1959, The Endurance, Carroll &Graf, New York.

23 Watkins, A.B., and I. Simmonds, 2000, Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology, Journal of Climate, 13, pp. 4441-4451; Yuan, X. and D.G. Martinson, 2000, Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity, Journal of Climate, 13, pp. 1697-1717.

24 Curran, M. A. J., et al, 2003, Ice core evidence for Antarctic sea ice decline since the 1950s, Science, 302, pp. 1203-1205.

25 Alley, R. B., 2000, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, pp. 213-226.

26 Dennis Avery, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #2, New York, March 9-10, 2009; Easterbrook, D., 2010, The looming threat of global cooling, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Sharp, G. D., L. Klyashtorin, and D. McLain, Projecting climate changes and ecological responses, Heartland Conference on Climate Change #4, Chicago, May 17, 2010; Patterson, T., A. Prokoph, G. Swindles, H. Roe, and A. Kumar, 2019, Gleissberg Solar Cycle: Pacemaker of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation?, Heartland Conference onf Climate Change #2, New York, March 9, 2010.

27 Steffensen, J.P., et al, 2008, Science, 321, pp. 680-; Fluckiger, J., 2008, Did you say “fast”?. Science, 321, pp. 650-651.

28 Karoly, D. J., et al, 2003, Detection of a human influence on North American climate, Science, 302, pp. 1200-1203.

29 Keeling, R.F., 2008, Recording Earth’s vital signs, Science, 319, pp. 1771-1772.

Tweet This Post 

Constellation and Commercial Crew Not Mutually Exclusive

Lawmakers introduced the “Protecting Human Space Flight Act of 2010″ yesterday with the aim of forcing NASA to spend 90 percent of the program’s remaining funds in the last quarter of this fiscal year. Let’s all hope that they succeed.

If you find that puzzling coming from a commentator touting commercial, human space flight, remember this: Constellation is, and always has been, about going back to the moon – so much more so following the earth-shaking discoveries made in just the last several months (see A New Decade and Infinite Possibilities, January 11, 2010 STN). Most of the pundits have reduced the argument to an either-or proposition: a) go back to the moon, or b) fund the private sector to create a commercial transport system to low earth orbit. I assure you, there is an option c.

Yes, private enterprise can and should be funded for the creation of a commercial transport to LEO. And yes, Constellation should go forward, albeit without Ares (see Constellation Plan-B A Good Idea, March 5, 2010 STN). But funding one to the exclusion of the other makes no sense. The inspiration and purpose behind transporting humans to the International Space Station and all other points in earth orbit is to create an environment economically conducive for building an orbiting infrastructure, itself capable of supporting transportation to the moon and eventually Mars. Building a inexpensive transport system while canceling Constellation is about as useful as building an elevator to nowhere. Conversely, moving forward with Constellation and spending a needless amount of its budget reinventing booster rockets when the private sector can do it at a fraction of the cost is equally ridiculous. Such an expenditure could undercut other systems like the Altair lunar lander to the point where they are ultimately unachievable. Again, the whole point is going back to the moon. To put it in perspective, if you’re goal is to drive across country, your limited funds are better spent on a good set of tires. How much sense, then, would it make to spend your entire vacation budget on inventing and manufacturing your own wiper blades, leaving no money for the tires… any tires? The bottom line is that going back to the moon and creating a commercial crew transport capability are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the one compliments the other.

How is it that these simple but conspicuous principles completely escape the grasp of our President and the Administrator of NASA? Perhaps it’s the difference between knowledge and wisdom. And perhaps the administration also suffers from a case of Not Invented Here. As for the commercial folks backing the cancelation of Constellation, I’m less critical. Before the President’s proposed 2011 budget was announced, they were facing rigid, myopic forces bent on shutting them out. Still, parties on both sides should be concentrating more on what’s best for the country. It’s called balance, and when it’s observed, everyone wins.

Tweet This Post 

The Undiscovered Country

What we know today of the moon’s fundamental nature is light years ahead of what it was only a year ago, thanks to a spacecraft named LCROSS, or Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite. It’s mission was to look for evidence of water by slamming a large mass into a permanently shadowed crater at the lunar south pole then directly sample the impact plume by flying through it. A painstakingly meticulous post-impact examination of the telemetry revealed that they had indeed found what they were looking for. Over night, the cries of “bombing the moon” and “mission failure” were replaced with the infinitely more rational realization that we were witnessing one of those moments in history when knowledge takes a huge leap forward. Scientists, engineers and just plain enthusiasts of the moon immediately recognized the discovery as a “game changer,” because in one fell swoop, it meant that the cost of establishing and maintaining a human presence there, be it an outpost or a colony, was profoundly reduced.

NASA’s Project Constellation to permanently return humans to the moon would seem to have gotten a shot in the arm from the revelation that it would no longer need to transport tens of tons of water from earth at enormous cost in fuel. Water for drinking, mixing with lunar-derived concrete with which to build shelters, deriving oxygen for breathing and a myriad other necessities for the wet substance can now be extracted on site. But before the ink is even dry on the scientific papers that proclaim this most fantastic of discoveries, the political powers that be, in their most boundless wisdom, propose to scrap the entire program.

The debate over the fate of the moon program is still building, and it remains to be seen where it all leads. A defiant Congress intent on saving Constellation has dug in its heels, only last week demanding that NASA produce all documents used in reaching its decision to end the program. But whether the politicians succumb to the Not Invented Here syndrome (remember, Constellation was the Vision of another president), the fact that we now know the moon to be immanently obtainable as a destination and a new source of natural resources, wealth and prosperity remains.

So where do we go from here? As I see it, there are two courses for returning to the moon possible within the current environment.

Course 1: Constellation is saved, but is redefined and reworked. The expensive Ares rocket for transporting civil service and commercial astronauts to low earth orbit is deemed unsustainable and ended in favor of privately-developed rockets. Though it could survive from a purely technical standpoint, it is unlikely Ares could ever reach a flight rate that would make it economically viable. Leave that mission to the private sector, who despite all the hype to the contrary, are quite capable of fulfilling that role and are well on their way to proving their own designs and vehicles for both cargo and human transport.

The Orion capsule for transporting astronauts between earth, the moon and other deep space destinations and for returning them to earth, deserves further scrutiny. The private sector may be able to build and fly it – or a similar, capsule-based design – at far less expense than NASA. But either way, we need a vehicle with its capabilities, and unlike Ares, there is no vehicle currently in the private sector pipeline that can take on the mission of Orion.

Finally, the third – and to my mind most important – vehicle component to Constellation is Altair, which will take astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface. This part of the program, if no other, must continue. It is the heart and soul of Constellation. We must have a vehicle capable of transporting crew and cargo to the lunar surface, even if ultimately they become two roles slated for two, different vehicles. The same development program could produce both.

Course 2: Constellation and the billions already spent on it are added to the ash heap of NASA programs started in good faith throughout its history only to be scrapped later by political forces. In this case, it falls to the private sector to completely design and fund the venture.

Investors like Elon Musk of SpaceX, Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Galactic are pumping tens of millions into private space ventures, but the overall number of investors is still insufficient to take on a program as massive as the settlement of the moon. But history has shown us that competition serves as a powerful mechanism through which this shortfall may be addressed. Take for example airline transportation. In the early part of the 20th century, there was neither enough pilots and airplanes nor was there the operations know-how to profit from transporting passengers, so the Orteig Prize was offered to jump start an industry that was as yet only the stuff of dreams. It was that $25,000 prize that spurred Charles Lindbergh to make his now famous flight from New York to Paris in May of 1927, forever altering the course or aviation history.

Fast forward to the latter part of that century when a visionary named Peter Diamandis realized that the time had come to offer up a prize for jump starting yet another industry that existed only in the minds of a few dreamers. It was called the X Prize, and it offered $10M to the first team to fly into space twice within two weeks and do it without any government money. Again, it was a prize that offered the best hope of encouraging research and development for

By 2003 when the competition was in full swing, it was anybody’s guess which of the 26 competitors would win, but I knew it would be Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites. No, I didn’t have a crystal ball and I’m not clairvoyant. Neither were necessary for picking the winner, because even a cursory assessment of the contenders revealed one very telling fact: that Scaled was the only group building and testing hardware. The remainder fielded nothing more than impressive, computer-generated pictures of concepts but not one, tangible thing on which you could place your hands; just so much vapor ware.

So today when I look to pick the winner of the newest X Prize offering $30M to the first team to place a robot on the moon, drive it 500 meters over the lunar surface and send back pictures, I once again look for who’s building and testing hardware. After all, computer models, no matter how impressive, can’t move a single inch much less fly to the moon and drive over it’s surface.

The Astrobotics team is one of the 21 teams now registered in the competition. Led by Dr. William “Red” Whittaker of the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute, they bring to bear an impressive knowledge base and practical experience gained from building robots to carry out missions too dangerous for humans on earth. There were Dante I and II deployed to the interior of volcanoes in Alaska and Antarctica as well as Pioneer, which went to the Sarcophagus at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor following the disaster in 1999. This team already has an impressive track record and a man at the helm with a practical, business approach to tackling new challenges.

Now the team is building Red Rover prototype robots designed to take on the harsh environment of the moon, which presents them with a few challenges not faced by the famous Mars rovers, Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity.

To begin with, lunar regolith, or dirt, is quite different from its counterpart on earth, because the geological processes it undergoes are so different. On earth, soil is exposed to constant weathering, which acts something like a tumbler, rounding off the edges of the individual grains. On the moon, however, this process is absent, so the grains resemble tiny shards of glass. And these shards are very abrasive to technology like robots and their inner workings, even more so than Martian regolith. And that’s to say nothing of the deleterious effects on human lungs.

Then there are the extremely cold temperatures to be found on the moon and the long periods over which those temperatures must be endured. Unlike the Earth and Mars, which have days and nights measured in hours, a single lunar night lasts for two earth weeks. During those two weeks, temperatures at the surface drop to minus 173 degrees Celsius (minus 279 degrees fahrenheit). That’s a long, deep freeze. Still worse are the temperatures found within the polar craters. Within the Cabeus crater at the south pole where water was discovered, temperatures plummet to an almost unimaginable minus 370 degrees fahrenheit! We’ve only recently learned that permanently shadowed areas such as Cabeus are the coldest places yet detected in our solar system.

The moon presents challenges, but Astrobotics has faced serious challenges before, and they have very interesting ideas on how to win the Google Lunar X Prize. The plan is to launch their robot late in 2012 aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 heavy lifter. Red Rover will land on the lunar surface attached to its Artemis lander, and once there, they’ll set about meeting the objectives of the competition, which are to drive roughly about three tenths of a mile or roughly twice the distance Wilbur Wright flew he and his brother’s airplane during their first powered flights in December 1903. They’ll also send back video, but instead of grainy images likes those sent back to earth by Apollo 11, we’ll be seeing the surface of the moon in high-resolution 3-D!

Their expedition to capture the Google Lunar X Prize will not be a flash in the pan. Already they are drawing up plans for follow-on missions where the intent is to go after what I would call “targets of opportunity.” The opportunity was provided by yet another recent and unexpected discovery, this one made by the Japanese spacecraft Kaguya launched to the moon in 2007. By the end of 2009, it was discovered that images it had taken over the Marius Hills region on the earth-facing side revealed a curious feature, the existence of which lunar scientist have long suspected but until now had not been directly imaged.

The feature is called a “skylight.” Billions of years ago when vulcanism was active on the moon, lava flowed through tubes, some of which ran near the surface. Today, with that activity long dead, and where the roof of such a tube has collapsed, it forms an opening called a skylight. The Marius Hills Hole, as it has come to be called, presents a gaping maw of some 60 meters (197 feet) – big enough to swallow several houses. And within its recesses may lie still more water trapped by the same process that caused it to collect in the polar craters. We’ve known that there are places of permanent shadow in craters at the poles. There, where the light of day can never reach, temperatures plummet to roughly minus 370 degrees fahrenheit. In such frigid conditions, water becomes trapped. It stands to reason that within the darkness of the Marius Hills Hole, there too we will find water as well as a natural shelter against a harsh space environment.

The logic is not lost on the Astrobotics team. “Yes, [the] skylight is an Astrobotics destination, and it is an early option, since that has advantages of being equatorial, favorable lat[itude] and lon[gitude] and for comm[unication], passive, and interesting to exploration,” says Dr. Whittaker. He realizes that the, “real payoffs of dwelling in or on a skylight wall will be protection from radiation, meteorite strike and extreme thermal gradients.” And though robots should never supplant humans for explorations, they can and should be our hunting dogs, at our sides every step of the way. These Astrobotics ‘hunters’ already have a well established pedigree, which places them at the head of the pack when it comes to taking on the tough terrain in and around these skylights. Dr. Whittaker points out that they are, “experienced practitioners of robot repelling.” And though the intent of the Google Lunar X Prize is not to take on this kind of exploration, follow-on missions are in the planning stages that will.

Though Red Rover will enjoy a degree of on-board autonomy, the bulk of their operations will make use of supervised teleoperation. From their command center on earth, an operator will direct the movements of the rover, driving it from place to place, or as Dr. Whittaker puts it, “safeguard and waypoint driving with visualization, oversight and intervention (when necessary) by human[s].” This is possible, because the moon is so close. The time it takes for 3-D video provided by onboard vision sensors to be beamed from the robot resting on the surface of the moon to the operator on earth and then for that operator to respond with control inputs that are then beamed back to the robot is short enough to allow real time operation: about 6 seconds for turnaround, not including the operator’s human response time. This was not possible with the Mars rovers. The time it takes for the signal to travel just one way from the red planet is roughly 18 minutes. That means that if either Spirit or Opportunity were to have approached a hazard, it would require – at a minimum – 36 minutes for that hazard to be conveyed to an earth-based operator and then commands to arrive back in time to save the rover; a design concept that would have presented far too much risk. In their case, what was required was a design that incorporated a great deal of autonomy and at a vast increase in expense over a moon rover needing only modest onboard autonomy.

But for any of this to work, there must be a reliable power source for running onboard systems, keeping them cool when exposed to sunlight and warm when exposed to darkness. And for this, there are two options. The first is called a radioisotope thermal generator, or RTG. This device has been used very successfully for decades on deep space missions where there is too little sunlight for generating electricity from solar cells. This ingenious design works, because of something called the thermoelectric effect. When two, dissimilar metal plates are brought very close together and a large temperature difference is applied between them, something very curious begins to happen. Electricity flows from one plate to the other. It’s very easy to chill one plate, because space itself is very cold. But what about the hot side? That’s where the “radioisotope” part of “RTG” comes in. A small pellet of plutonium provides all the heat necessary and is, for all intents and purposes, an unlimited supply. Spacecraft like Voyager 1 and 2 launched back in the 1970‘s and that have now left our solar system for interstellar space, are still provided with plenty of power by their RTGs even after three and a half decades of sustained space flight. Sadly, however, there is so much of a stigma attached to the “P” word that most missions opt not to use it unless there is no alternative. RTGs have been blown up, dropped from great heights, and suffered every conceivable type of destructive testing and in each case, passed. Still, the stigma remains, which brings us to option number two: solar cells.

The moon basks in the same, plentiful sunlight that we enjoy here on earth. But remember there are its two-week nights. And if you’re still trying to wrap your brain around that one, picture the moon as it orbits earth. It takes 28 days to complete just one of those rotations and with one side always facing the earth. It spends half that journey in darkness.

Having chosen solar cells as their power source, Astrobotics faces engineering challenges that must be overcome to use them. For the Google Lunar X Prize, it will not be necessary to survive longer than the short time it takes to complete their objectives. But successors will need to survive for extended periods. Those surface robots must bear freezing temperatures never faced by any of their predecessors and continue to function and make discoveries. And true to form, Dr. Whittaker and his team have come up with an answer: night hibernation.

“We’ve demonstrated recovery of key components like battery, computing, memory and some sensors.  Our motor controllers are likely to succeed [and] our next step is to combine these into a system mockup, then to recover and operate that after sequential cryo-freezing.” The robot will land near the dawn, making use of as much of the 14 days of light as possible, and when nights comes, it will role to a stop and hunker down. Already the team has made progress with cold tolerance. Their Scarab Drillbot concept is designed for ice exploration.

One other area in which robotic precursor missions to the moon will need to concentrate is something called In-Situ Resource Utilization. The more familiar term is “living off the land.” Every pound of material brought up from earth costs money in fuel spent to transport it there, so the more material that can be extracted from the surrounding lunar environment, the less it will cost for us to live there. Here again, the Astrobotics team has been thinking ahead, stating that, “ISRU is strategic for Astrobotic and CMU.” Perhaps they could begin with something like making a single ice cube from water extracted from the Marius Hills Hole. It sounds so simple, but it will represent a monumental achievement.

In his recent novel titled Platinum Moon, Bill White shows us a world where NASA has abandoned the moon and it’s left to private enterprise to return mankind to its surface to stay. The plot sounds eerily like what we’re seeing play out in the headlines today. But whether we go back to the moon under a national flag, flying the colors of commercial logos or a bit of both, it will happen. It must happen. Without the hardship and difficulties, the failures and the triumphs of new frontiers to conquer, a society falls into stagnation. Such will be our fate if we fail to express our innate need to explore and to embrace the undiscovered country – the eighth continent, if you will – that hangs right above our heads.

Tweet This Post 

Iridium and SpaceX Sign Major Commercial Launch Contract

Contract for Launch of Iridium NEXT Satellite Constellation Represents a New Benchmark in Value for Commercial Launch Services

MCLEAN, Va. and HAWTHORNE, Calif. – June 16, 2010 – Iridium Communications Inc. (Nasdaq:IRDM) and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) are pleased to announce that the Falcon 9 will be a major provider of launch services for Iridium NEXT, Iridium’s next-generation satellite constellation. The $492 million contract, while being the largest single commercial launch deal ever signed, nonetheless represents a new benchmark in cost-effective satellite delivery to space.

Iridium operates the world’s largest commercial satellite constellation, and is the only communications company to offer mobile voice and data services across the entire globe. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle will carry multiple Iridium NEXT satellites per vehicle, inserting the satellites into a low-earth orbit (LEO) as Iridium replaces its current satellite constellation. The Iridium NEXT satellites are set to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in California between 2015 and 2017.

The contract stipulates that SpaceX will provide launch services to Iridium over a two-year period starting in early 2015. Iridium is also in discussions with, and expects to contract with, at least one additional launch services provider. Launch services are included in the total estimated cost of $2.9 billion for Iridium NEXT.

“This is the third major building block on the road to Iridium NEXT,” said Matt Desch, CEO of Iridium. “Two weeks ago, we announced our fixed-price contract with Thales Alenia Space. We also announced our Coface-backed financing plan, and today I am pleased to announce our partnership with SpaceX for extremely cost-effective launch services.”

Added Desch, “We are proud to be partnered with SpaceX, and want to congratulate Elon Musk and the entire SpaceX team on its successful inaugural Falcon 9 launch. Hands down, SpaceX offered us the best value coupled with an unwavering commitment to flawless performance and reliability. SpaceX has combined the best of aerospace and commercial best practices to design reliable and cost-effective access to space, and Iridium will be the beneficiary of that effort.”

Desch further commented, “SpaceX also offered dedicated Iridium NEXT launch slots within its manifest, which currently has 24 Falcon 9 flights scheduled ahead of us, including those for commercial and government customers, during the coming five years. Clearly, SpaceX has established itself as a significant player in the launch industry, and we have great confidence that SpaceX will build on its recent success and continue to cement an impressive track record of successful space flight in advance of our mission.”

The June 4 inaugural launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 achieved 100 percent of its mission objectives, culminating in a near bull’s-eye insertion to its targeted 250km circular orbit. SpaceX has been working with Iridium and Thales Alenia Space, the prime contractor for Iridium NEXT, to ensure compatibility between the satellite design, the Falcon 9 vehicle and the Iridium NEXT program schedule. This full coordination positions Iridium, SpaceX and Thales Alenia Space for a successful multi-year process of designing, building and launching Iridium NEXT.

“Iridium NEXT is now our largest commercial satellite launch customer and we are excited to play such an integral part in the most significant commercial space program underway today,” said Elon Musk, CEO, SpaceX. “We are impressed by Iridium’s comprehensive approach and diligence in its planning as the company prepares for the design, build and launch of Iridium NEXT. SpaceX greatly appreciates Iridium’s efficient approach to satellite production – an approach we share when it comes to our launch vehicles. As the next generation of the world’s only global satellite constellation that reliably covers 100 percent of the Earth’s surface, the implementation of the Iridium NEXT satellites will mark a significant achievement in mobile satellite communications, and SpaceX is looking forward to making it happen.”

The SpaceX Falcon 9 is a medium-to-heavy lift, two-stage launch vehicle capable of lifting approximately 11 tons to LEO. Designed to the highest levels of reliability and performance, NASA selected Falcon 9, along with the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, to resupply the International Space Station starting in 2011. This $1.6 billion contract represents 12 flights to and from the International Space Station. Further validating the reliability and robustness of commercial launch, President Obama recently decided to turn over astronaut transport to the U.S. commercial sector, specifically mentioning the example of Falcon 9 in his historic speech at Cape Canaveral. The U.S. government’s confidence in SpaceX provided further validation for Iridium’s decision.

About Iridium Communications Inc.
Iridium Communications Inc. (www.iridium.com) is the only mobile satellite service (MSS) company offering coverage over the entire globe. The Iridium constellation of low-earth orbiting (LEO) cross-linked satellites provides critical voice and data services for areas not served by terrestrial communication networks. Iridium serves commercial markets through a worldwide network of distributors, and provides services to the U.S. Department of Defense and other U.S. and international government agencies. The company’s customers represent a broad spectrum of industry, including maritime, aeronautical, government/defense, public safety, utilities, oil/gas, mining, forestry, heavy equipment and transportation. Iridium has launched a major development program for its next-generation satellite constellation, Iridium NEXT. The company is headquartered in McLean, Va., USA and trades on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbols IRDM (common stock), IRDMW ($7.00 warrants), IRDMZ ($11.50 warrants) and IRDMU (units).

About SpaceX
SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles and spacecraft intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of both manned and unmanned space transportation, ultimately by a factor of 10. With the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 vehicles, SpaceX offers highly reliable/cost-efficient launch capabilities for spacecraft insertion into any orbital altitude and inclination. Starting in 2010, SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft will provide Earth-to-LEO transport of pressurized and unpressurized cargo, including resupply to the International Space Station.

Founded in 2002, SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. The SpaceX team now numbers over 1,000, with corporate headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif. For more information, and to watch the archived video of the Falcon 9, Flight 1 launch, visit the SpaceX Website at SpaceX.com.

Tweet This Post 

Bigelow Aerospace Aims to Address Commercial Crew Transportation Misperceptions

Washington, D.C., June 16, 2010 – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation is pleased to announce that Bigelow Aerospace, LLC (“Bigelow Aerospace or “BA”) has joined the Federation as an Executive Member, having received unanimous approval by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s Board of Directors.

Mark Sirangelo, Chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, commented, “On behalf of the member companies of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, we are proud to welcome Bigelow Aerospace as an Executive Member.  Bigelow is a great fit with our other members, all of who are pursuing the common goal of a robust commercial human spaceflight sector.  With the addition of Bigelow Aerospace to the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, all of the pieces of a self-sustaining commercial space economy are falling into place – launch providers, spaceports, suppliers, and on-orbit destinations.  For those who suppose there is no market for commercial crew launches other than NASA, Bigelow Aerospace serves as one counterexample.”

Robert T. Bigelow, Founder and President of Bigelow Aerospace said, “The future is being created now.  Commercial crew transportation has the potential to revolutionize the space industry for public and private sector entities alike.  The unprecedented success of the Falcon 9’s inaugural launch clearly demonstrates that it’s possible to dramatically reduce the cost of human spaceflight operations. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule were developed at a cost dramatically below that of traditional cost-plus programs – this should be a wakeup call that it’s time for a new way of doing business.  We are becoming a member of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation at this time to join with like-minded organizations, who want to see America be able to compete again in the global space launch marketplace, and push back against the pernicious misconceptions that are being perpetuated to harm the Administration’s commercial crew initiative.”

“Specifically, I’m appalled by the condemnation of commercial crew as being somehow less safe than government programs, and the refrain that commercial companies need to prove they can deliver cargo before they deliver crew.  In regard to the latter, a leading contender for commercial missions, the Atlas V, has had 21 consecutive successful launches.  This rocket is arguably the most reliable domestic launch system in existence today.  It strains the bounds of credulity to claim that any new rocket would be able to trump the safety of a system that has an extensive record of flawless operations.”

“Moreover,” Bigelow added, “we’re extremely pleased to be part of the Boeing team constructing the CST-100 capsule under the auspices of NASA’s own Commercial Crew Development program.  Boeing’s unparalleled heritage and experience, combined with Bigelow Aerospace’s entrepreneurial spirit and desire to keep costs low, represents the best of both established and new space companies.  The product of this relationship, the CST-100 capsule, will represent the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective spacecraft ever to fly.  Again, I don’t understand the critics who say ‘commercial’ entities can’t safely build a capsule.  Why is it that Boeing, the company that constructed the ISS itself, can’t safely build a capsule that would go to their own space station?  These are the sorts of questions and issues that we will be posing in Washington as a member of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.”

Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, added, “Bigelow Aerospace joining the Commercial Spaceflight Federation will help us to further our organization’s goals — to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry.  This is the start of an exciting new era for commercial spaceflight.”

About the Commercial Spaceflight Federation

The mission of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation is to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever-higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s member companies, which include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, spaceports, suppliers, and service providers, are creating thousands of high-tech jobs nationwide, working to preserve American leadership in aerospace through technology innovation, and inspiring young people to pursue careers in science and engineering.  For more information please visit www.commercialspaceflight.org or contact Executive Director John Gedmark at john@commercialspaceflight.org or at 202.349.1121.

About Bigelow Aerospace

Bigelow Aerospace, headquartered in Nevada, is a general contractor providing design, engineering, fabrication, testing, assembly, and marketing of future orbital space complexes. Bigelow Aerospace has already successfully launched and deployed two pathfinder spacecraft, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, launched in 2006 and 2007 respectively.  Bigelow Aerospace is currently constructing the habitats and hardware that will comprise the world’s first private sector space station, which will be deployed as soon as domestic commercial crew transportation becomes available.  For more information please visit www.bigelowaerospace.com or contact Mike Gold at mgold@bigelowaerospace.com or at 240.235.6016.

Tweet This Post 

We’ve Missed The Point

Imagine if you will a scenario in which the powers that be announce that beginning next year, all airline flights will be cancelled. In their place, emphasis will shift to various, commercial entities for geting passengers from the parking lot to the terminal.

Hearing such a thing, you’d probably – and rightly – walk away scratching your head and conclude that those same powers lack a fundamental understanding of airlines and what they do. Of course, this is a silly notion and nothing more than a rather odd mental exercise. Right? Well, not really.

Time and time again since the Administration announced it’s desire to cancel NASA’s Constellation program for returning humans to the moon, we’ve heard the argument framed along various permutations of this statement: the Obama administration intends on cancelling Constellation and instead focus on the commercial sector for getting astronauts to the International Space Station.

Huh?

All variations of that statement leave the listener wondering whether the Administration understands why Constellation exists and what it seeks to accomplish. The focus of the program is not getting people to low earth orbit. The function of the program is getting people into deep space – and more precisely, the moon!

The issue of transport to low earth orbit has become the prime focus for the debate over the future of Constellation. In short, rockets – sometimes called “boosters.” But once they’ve reach orbit, their job is done. Going any place else — which is presumable the whole point of having a human space program — requires altogether different vehicles. So when we fail to address the issues of deep space transport and landing craft, we’re completely missing the point. It is these vehicles, which are the real idea behind Constellation, and they are called Orion and Altair. Together, they are the most important components of the program. Take away either — but particularly Altair —  and NASA is reduced to a multi-billion-dollar taxi service, destined only to watch others reach and settle the moon.

Forget Ares! Let’s talk about Altair.

Tweet This Post 

Constellation Plan-B A Good Idea

When the Administration announced it’s proposal to scrap NASA’s Constellation project, it touched off an explosion of opposition including a bipartisan letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden asking him to cease and desist in his actions to begin dismantling the program before the issue can be addressed — and voted upon — by the Congress. The American people have invested billions already in the program, and any unilateral action to end it is not only improper but unlawful. And many believe that to end Constellation completely will effectively end US leadership in space.

Now the rank and file within NASA are speaking up. In an effort lead by former astronaut and now Director of Johnson Space Center Michael Coats, NASA will be considering a Plan-B, and in his first show of independence since taking over as chief of the agency, Administrator Bolden is backing Coats’ play. He has instructed all NASA center directors to begin exploring “what a potential compromise might look like.”

The plan will be a stunningly rational effort to realign the goals of Constellation so that commercial, human space flight can assume the long-overdue role of transporting cargo and people to low earth orbit while leaving US leadership on the frontier of space intact. No other program typifies American leadership in space better than Constellation, but to be sure, some change is necessary.

There are three major aspects to Constellation. The first is a program to design and build two new rockets, Ares 1 and Ares 5; the former a booster to carry  people to low earth orbit and the International Space Station, and the latter a so-called “heavy lift” variant that could carry large payloads including a spacecraft for transporting astronauts from earth orbit to the moon and beyond. And though Ares 1 has already flown and shows much promise to become a capable system, it’s a sad reality that both it and it’s big brother are simply too expensive. Neither could reach a flight rate that could offset the cost of development or to offer the country the frequent and affordable access to space that is needed. Private industry has matured its commercial systems to a point where they can offer transport services at a fraction of that cost of Ares. But more than that, the building of rockets no longer falls within NASA’s bailiwick. The agency was formed to be a research organization, not a manufacturer. It simply makes no sense to have the agency continue in that role. It would be akin to asking the FAA to build airliners. Just try to imagine the price of airfare were that to be the case.

It’s likely that there is going to be a tug-of-war between the two sides of the debate over Constellation. One side wants to keep all the large pieces of the program intact, while the other argues to scrap it completely. It’s yet to be seen how this will play out, but in all likelihood, Ares will go down in history as another good program that didn’t survive the budget axe. There’s a very bright side to this story, however, in that the commercial sector now has the opportunity to accomplish what no government program has: to dramatically reduce the cost of access to space, and in doing so, open up the frontier to the rest of us. There are opportunities to be had and fortunes to be made for those of us with the pioneering spirit. And along the way, all of us stand to gain from the natural resources space and other planets have to offer but that only private enterprise can afford to go after.

The next big piece of Constellation is Orion. Sometimes described as a scaled up version of the Apollo capsule that first took men to the moon in the 1960’s, this spacecraft represents a big leap ahead of its predecessor. Yet this program has had to reinvent certain technologies lost when Apollo was canceled in the early 1970’s. For example, ablative shielding was first invented in the early days of manned flight to keep spacecraft re-entering the earth’s atmosphere from burning up by carrying away heat with the layers of its surface literally blasted away during descent. The loss of this and other technologies as a result of our abandonment of the lunar program in favor of a space plane never capable of going beyond low earth orbit stands as the biggest mistake NASA has ever made. Apollo represented not only an enormous investment of the country’s treasure but in the dreams of its citizens to continue to push back the boundary between what is possible and what is only imagined. Orion, or more accurately to say it’s mission as a transporter of humans between planets, may be fertile ground for the commercial sector as well. Already a company called SpaceX has developed a capsule for moving cargo to, and waste from, the International Space Station, but it was designed from the beginning to carry humans as well. Other companies are ready and capable of doing the same. The time is ripe for them to step up to the plate.

And finally there’s Altair. Able to transport astronauts to the surface of the moon, this spacecraft embodies the dream from which Constellation was born: to return humans to deep space. And it is upon this vehicle that NASA should, above all else, focus its resources and funding. This is where there is real research to be done, and this is where the agency can continue in another role to which it is ably suited: that of macro-economic enabler. Around this vehicle and its destination will arise the first space-based economy. Private enterprise will follow NASA to the moon, providing all manner of logistical support including everything from food to communication services. Along the way, the technologies transferred to that sector will enjoy a ceaseless process of improvement and cost reductions.

So here we are at a another crossroads. There is a critical choice to be made, and we had better get it right. This debate surrounds the continuation of our deep space program, not whether private enterprise should participate in manned space flight as so many of the so-called pundits have put it. Private enterprise will ascend. That much is a foregone conclusion. The wheels of progress cannot be stopped. But at the same time, we must not abandon the moon as we did 4 decades ago, lest those same wheels roll over us. Russia, China and yes, even India are poised to take up the challenge of building the first lunar settlement. The miraculous discovery of water there late last year is not lost on them, neither is the presence of abundant natural resources such as platinum for building hydrogen fuel cells for our next generation of automobiles or helium-3 for providing clean, renewable energy for an ever-increasingly energy-hungry world. And these are only two among many.

Pursuing a plan-b for keeping but restructuring Constellation is a good idea: one worthy of our best efforts. Canceling the program outright amounts to throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Administration is attempting to sell the idea that pouring funds and effort into the production of a heavy-lift rocket without interplanetary vehicles will, somehow, miraculously translate into a human presence in deep space down the road, but this is only so much vapor ware. It doesn’t add up, let alone provide any focus. Without Orion (or a commercial version) and Altair for transporting people into deep space then landing them on another world, we’re left stranded in low earth orbit again. The Apollo program teaches us what happens when you lose momentum. We’ve spent four decades playing catch up for that mistake. Let’s not make it again.

Tweet This Post 

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Commends New Mexico for Passage of Key Liability Legislation

Commercial Spaceflight Federation, March 2, 2010

On Saturday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed into law the “New Mexico Space Flight Informed Consent Act,” following similar legislation already passed in Virginia and Florida.  The legislation marks a key step towards commercial operations of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo at the New Mexico spaceport. Recognizing that commercial suborbital spaceflight is a developing industry, the law provides critical liability protections that will enable spaceflight businesses to operate efficiently and effectively for their customers.

“This legislation secures New Mexico’s investment in Spaceport America and its resulting job creation by ensuring we are competitive with other space states such as Virginia and Florida who have similar legislation in place,” said Gov. Richardson.

The state legislation builds upon the federal Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, passed by Congress in 2004, which states that “space transportation is inherently risky” and requires space flight participants to sign an informed consent waiver in recognition of this fact.

Steve Landeene, Executive Director of Spaceport America, added, “The passage of the Space Flight Informed Consent Act was critical to the success of Spaceport America and our ability to attract and retain commercial space companies to New Mexico. Any company taking participants into space must obtain a signed waiver where they acknowledge the inherent risks of spaceflight.” Landeene said that this protects New Mexico and operators licensed by the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation such as Virgin Galactic, but still allows legal options in cases of gross negligence.

Spaceport America’s 10,000-foot runway is currently under construction in preparation for flights of SpaceShipTwo.  Since August 2009, Spaceport America has created almost 500 construction jobs in New Mexico, with more to come.

Tweet This Post 

Astronautics Giant Speaks Out

Astronautics giant Burt Rutan, whose name entered the household lexicon in the 80’s for designing and building Voyager, the first aircraft to fly around the world without refueling and most recently for the revolutionary SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo, the first, private spacecraft, has made a statement regarding what he feels was a misrepresentation by the Wall Street Journal of comments he made concerning the fate of NASA’s Constellation program. Constellation is the agency’s program to return humans to the moon and go beyond. But the President has proposed in his FY2011 budget to cancel it.

Here is Dr. Rutan’s statement followed by his letter to Congressman Wolf.

__________________________

Since the WSJ chose to cherry-pick and miss-quote my comments to Cong Wolf and since the blogs have taken that to further mischaracterized my comments, I am forwarding the Wolf memo in its entirety, in the hopes that some of this gets corrected. Some additional clarification of my thoughts follow:

My basic concern is that the real value of NASA’s contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. How can we rationalize a surrender of our preeminence in human spaceflight? In my mind, the important NASA accomplishments are twofold: 1) The technical breakthroughs achieved by basic research (not by Development programs like Constellation) and 2) The Forefront Manned Exploration that provided the inspiration for our youth to plan careers in engineering/science and that established the U.S. as the world leader in technology.

In short, it is a good idea indeed for the commercial community to compete to re-supply the ISS and to bring about space access for the public to enjoy. I applaud the efforts of SpaceX, Virgin and Orbital in that regard and feel these activities should have been done at least two decades ago. However, I do not see the commercial companies taking Americans to Mars or to the moons of Saturn within my lifetime and I doubt if they will take the true Research risks (technical and financial) to fly new concepts that have low confidence of return on investment. Even NASA, regarded as our prime Research agency has not recently shown a willingness to fly true Research concepts.

For years I have stated that a NASA return-to-moon effort must include true Research content, i.e. testing new concepts needed to enable forefront Exploration beyond the moon. The current Ares/Orion does not do that. While I have been critical of Constellation for that reason, I do not think that NASA should ‘give up’ on manned spaceflight, just that they should be doing it while meeting the 1) or 2) criteria above.

Some have guessed that my recent comments are based on my overall displeasure with the Obama Administration. they are not; however it does seem that the best technical minds in U.S. industry are still striving to find HOW America can continue to be “exceptional”, while the Administration does not want America to BE “exceptional”.

Burt Rutan

__________________________

And now in its entirety, here is the letter from Dr. Rutan to Congressman Wolf.

Thomas M. Culligan
Congressional Appropriations Legislative Assistant
The Hon. Frank R. Wolf (VA-10)

Tom,

I occasionally banter with my friend, Mike Griffin on subjects that  include golf, the AGW scare and NASA policy.  After sending him my latest tirade, he shared with me his recent letter to you regarding taxpayer-funded space research.  I promised him that I would send you my thoughts on the debate, which follow:

From my past comments on NASA’s post-mid-70s manned space efficiencies/accomplishments, an observer might think that I would applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers.  However, he would be wrong.

No question, it would be good to see commercial companies quickly succeed at orbital access and to take that capability beyond low earth orbit.  However, I am fearful that the commercial guys will fail; i.e. they will do little more in my remaining lifetime than NASA accomplished in 3.5 years with Gemini in the mid 1960s.  That would be a very big
mistake for America to make, as we move into an era of real competition in space exploration as well as risk the loss of our leadership in nearly every other technical discipline.

Mike Griffin’s excellent statement says it best; “I too want, in the strongest possible terms, to have government policies which serve to stimulate private development of space. But at the same time, I too am reluctant — with an analogy to instrument flying — to give up an airport where I know I can get in on the approach, for one where I might”.

What I would like to see is a decade or two of overlap – an initial push in the commercial arena of manned spaceflight (Development programs, not Research programs), while NASA flies risky new ideas (read, true Research programs, giving at least a chance of discovering an important new Breakthrough), and at the same time pushes the forefront of Exploration beyond the earth’s moon.

Imagine how much better America could motivate our youth if we were spending the billions of Stimulus Package money on making real progressin our efforts to someday colonize off the planet.

Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in awarding PhDs in science/engineering/math.  Today we are not even on the first or second page and most of our University’s technical graduates take their skills back to their own countries to compete with us. The motivation of our youth is the most important thing we do for our nation’s long-term security and prosperity.  NASA’s role in that can be as critical as it was in the 60s if the taxpayers fund true Research and Exploration.

The attachment is a photo I took at the Shuttle STS-130 launch - Caption: “Reaction when told about the President’s NASA directive to abandon manned spaceflight”.

As always, I am ok with the distribution of my thoughts without limitation.

While I usually offer candid remarks at the drop of the hat, I am not interested in Congressional testimony, since under duress I occasionally have been known to blurt out the truth.  I have no interest in being in the same room with John Holdren….. Taking a line from a very old play: ”I must turn away, least I soil my hands with the blood of a fool”

Burt Rutan

Tweet This Post 

SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Preparing for Launch at Cape Canaveral

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle is now vertical at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral. Following its mate to the transporter erector, Falcon 9 was rolled from the integration hangar to the launch pad where final checks of the pad hydraulic and pneumatic systems were completed.

Falcon 9 is undergoing a checkout of the critical flight connections including fuel, liquid oxygen, and gas pressure systems. Once all system interfaces are verified, the SpaceX launch team will execute a full tanking test of both first and second stages (wet dress) followed by a brief ~3.5 static fire of the first stage. SpaceX has not set specific dates for wet dress or static fire as schedule will be driven by the satisfactory completion of all test objectives and a thorough review of the data.

Tweet This Post 

Next Page »

• Categories

  • Civil Space Flight
  • Climate Change
  • Commercial Space Flight
  • General Space Topic

• Archives

  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009

• Links

  • Armadillo Aerospace
  • Atlas Aerospace
  • Bigelow Aerospace
  • Blue Origin
  • Commercial Spaceflight Federation
  • Excalibur Almaz
  • Masten Space Systems
  • Mojave Air & Space Port
  • NASTAR Center
  • National Space Society
  • Orbital Outfitters
  • Orion Propulsion
  • OSIDA
  • Paragon Space Development Corp.
  • Scaled Composites
  • Space Adventures
  • Space Florida
  • Space News
  • Space Operations Communicator
  • Space: What Now? Blog
  • SpaceDev
  • Spaceport America
  • Spaceport Sweden
  • SpaceX
  • Virgin Galactic
  • Wordpress Themes
  • Wyle Labs
  • X Prize Foundation
  • XCOR

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • WordPress
  • XHTML

• Flash Poll

  Would you live on the moon?

  • Yes
  • No

  View Results

   Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

• Syndication

  
• 
• 
• 
• Wikio

• Great Science Books

• Books and DVDs I Recommend

• Recent Posts

  • Life Out There
  • Earth Now Has a Ring
  • Lunar Scientists Need You
  • Space Commerce
  • Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to Recent Misperceptions Related to US Human Spaceflight

• Tip Jar

  Donation Amount:
  (Currency: USD)

  Put my Donation on the Recognition Wall

  Show on Wall:
  Do not show any information Donation Amount, User Details & Comments User Details & Comments Only

  Name:
  

  Email:
  

  Website:
  

  Comments:
  
  Write your comment within 199 characters.

  

• Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org