Before the close of 2000, the Human Genome Project produces the first available assembly of the genome, promising quantum leaps in medicine; Expedition 1 moves in as the first resident crew of the International Space Station, a US-lead, international effort in new space-based research and promising advances in medical and materials technology and serving as a beach head for all other points in the solar system; And as California suffers the first of two years of rolling blackouts and the notorious ILOVEYOU computer worm tears its way through millions of computers worldwide, NASA prepares for another series of Mars launches including Mars Odyssey, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Phoenix Mars Lander. Clearly, the emphasis at this point is Mars. Among the policy makers at the agency, it’s taken for granted that our nearest neighbor in space, the moon, is nothing more than a celestial backwater, a dead end not worthy of any serious consideration or funding for human exploration, and lunar robotic space flight is all but completely stymied by a mars-centric culture. In the decade of the aughts, missions to the moon flown by non-US entities outnumber NASA’s by 2 to 1. Within NASA, missions to Mars outnumber those to the moon by 3 to 1. During that entire ten-year period, NASA sent only 2 spacecraft – arguably but a single mission since they flew literally on the same rocket and shared many objectives.

But oh what a difference a single decade makes. The day we entered Y2K America’s only space transportation system was a space shuttle that had proven itself far less capable and safe than the capsule-based system it replaced, leaving humans stranded in the purgatory of low earth orbit; the idea of commercial human spaceflight – the vehicle through which we would finally realize the painfully elusive goal of affordable access to orbit – was barely a dream; and we still operated under the delusive notion that water – critical for making any manned, off-earth venture affordable – found in the lunar rock samples gathered by Apollo astronauts was mere contamination from earth. On that day the machines, infrastructure and vision for establishing a permanent human presence on another world were no nearer our grasp than they were at the outset of the space age four decades earlier. The wheels of progress in space had gotten hopelessly bogged down. But today? Today is a very different day.

We enter this new decade vastly better equipped than the last. The dust of ignorance has been wiped from our eyes, and we can clearly see a fact that, in one fell swoop, brings within our reach the permanent human settlement in space that once evaded us: the moon is not the barren wasteland it was once believed to be. We can indeed live off the land, as it were, because we now know it to harbor the raw materials we need. The lunar surface contains ample amounts of water for drinking and for conversion into air for breathing. This singular and very recent discovery was a game-changing event! It meant that the round-trip travel time between earth and our first outpost could be placed at 6 days rather than the year it would be for Mars; a fact that, in turn, enabled the commercial sector to participate. And it is the commercial sector that is key to sustaining human space flight, because it reduces the cost so dramatically.

Space travel is no longer the one-dimensional construct it was. The emergence of commercial human space flight brings with it the financial and technological agility so desperately needed for the advancement of human exploration as a whole. The civil and commercial human space flight sectors work increasingly in concert to achieve, together, our new goals in space.

And with new goals have come a change in the technology we’ll use to carry them out. In an ironic turn of events, the space shuttle is being supplanted by a much-advanced version of its predecessor, the capsule. Even neglecting the glaring deficiencies in safety suffered by the shuttle, it’s a change that had to occur since the shuttle is unable to travel to the moon or any place else in the solar system. It was never designed for such a flight.

Both NASA and the private sector now have their own designs for a capsule. And despite what you may have read, they are not mutually exclusive nor will they compete with one another. Each has a distinct and important mission.

NASA is building the Orion and Altair spacecraft. Similar in concept to the Apollo Command Module but with greatly advanced systems  and double the crew capacity, Orion is designed as an interplanetary transport. It will carry astronauts from earth orbit  to the moon and beyond. Once it reaches its destination, the crew will transfer to and descend to the lunar surface via Altair, itself conceptually similar to the Apollo Lunar Module but also with pronounced advancements over its predecessor. Together these vehicles comprise the next-generation deep space exploration system. Their point of departure is earth orbit, but how do they get from the surface to orbit? That’s where the commercial sector comes in.

A company based in Hawthorne, California named SpaceX is taking up the task of producing the vehicle that can carry both cargo and crew to orbit. Its Founder and CEO Elon Musk, who also co-founded Paypal, has long carried a deep passion for human space flight and realized the importance of reducing its cost. Using his own money, he began developing the Falcon series of rockets as well as a companion spacecraft called Dragon. After several successful flights of the smaller Falcon 1 rocket, SpaceX is now preparing for the maiden launch of its Falcon 9, which will go on to regularly deliver cargo to the International Space Station and has the ability to carry crew as well when NASA gives its approval to begin development of the additional systems for Dragon necessary to support humans, such as the crew escape system.

Here for the first time we see civil and commercial space working together, providing different but complimentary systems that support the overarching goal of putting people on another world. The private sector provides transport to earth orbit and the logistical support surrounding that leg, and the civil sector provides the advanced systems needed for crew transport to the final planetary destination. It’s a beautiful symmetry.

So now that we’ve turned our sights to the moon, now what? Exactly what regions of the moon are we to explore first? And what will be the basic needs to be met for such an outpost?

Recent discoveries have uncovered water in prodigious amounts both in and around the Cabeus crater at the lunar south pole. Extraction of that water from within the interior of Cabeus and surrounding craters presents technological challenges we’ve not yet faced. First is the simple matter of descending into a crater. It’s never been done, so it will be necessary to develop new — or modify currently-existing, earth-based — technology to perform that task. Second is the extremely cold temperatures to be found inside the craters. At approximately -370 degrees fahrenheit (-223 degrees Celsius), they are the coldest regions we have yet to encounter in the solar system. Fortunately, however, we can get our feet wet (pun intended) on the simpler task of extracting water from the much more accessible and warmer areas near the crater rims.

But there may be an alternative — or additional, depending on how you look at it — source of lunar water. Less than three months ago, the Japanese Kaguya spacecraft took the first picture of what’s been termed a “skylight.” Having long been suspected by lunar scientists as a fairly common structure on the moon, a skylight is an opening to a lava tube. Vulcanism on the moon died out billions of years ago, so these tubes have spent the intervening eons vacant and hollow. In places, their roofs have collapsed, exposing the interior, and it may be possible that the same mechanism that deposits water into the cold traps within craters in the lunar polar regions has also left water here. Possible advantages provided by skylights are that they can be found at much lower latitudes, lending to better line-of-sight communications with earth, and that they could serve as natural shelters against solar storms, which can deliver intense doses of radiation.

As important as water and oxygen to the outpost will be power. Given that a single lunar night lasts for two weeks, solar cells are clearly not a viable source of energy; therefore, nuclear power is a must. Already NASA is working on the development of such a system, along with new building construction techniques, lunar surface vehicles for transporting astronauts between them, and many other technologies that will be necessary for sustaining a lunar outpost leading to a settlement. And here again, the commercial sector will be capable of providing logistical support, thereby reducing cost in much the same way it does with arctic bases on earth. As that commercial presence in space increases, so does the demand for jobs. Speaking in relative terms, we’re headed for a population explosion in space, made possible by a hand full of dreamers, of bold entrepreneurs willing to put their hard-earned fortunes at risk to realize the dream of a multi-world civilization all of us have imagined for so many decades.

As with previous decades, we enter this one with the same mixture of hope and dread. We’ll have our times of difficulties and adjustments, but we also have one thing that previous times failed to produce: a real shot at the final frontier — not just for an elite few, but for the common man. Recent discoveries, unparalleled relationships forming between public and private sectors and a change of destinations would all seem to signal the next chapter in history. We’ve opened a new decade, plotted a new course, and the possibilities are infinite.

Carle M. Pieters, Principle Investigator for the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument aboard the Chandrayaan-1 lunar probe, and his team of lunar scientists published an article yesterday in the journal Science in which they conclude that the data they collected suggests the formation and retention of water on the lunar surface. They conclude that the formation of water on the moon, “may provide an ongoing mechanism [my emphasis] for delivery of these volatile elements to cold traps in the polar permanently shadowed regions. Perhaps most importantly, harvesting the lunar regolith for volatiles now becomes a serious option for long term human activities.”

Image credit: NASA/JPL/Brown University

Some scientist have postulated that the likely source of any water to be found on the moon would be the impact of water-carrying comets. If this is the only delivery mechanism, it means that water is rare since such impacts are rare in areas where the water would not immediately be lost to space. On the other hand, a feeding mechanism would mean that water may be relatively abundant in places cold enough to trap it. And we saw only last week that such places exist at the poles when scientists for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) reported finding areas where the sun never penetrates in which they recorded temperatures colder than distant Pluto.

Yes, it’s been a banner week for lunar science, and there’s yet another bit of interesting news. Scientists from NASA and Case Western Reserve University have begun flight testing components for a device they’ve designed to extract of oxygen from lunar regolith. This generator will lift the gas from silicon dioxide and metal oxides in the soil. The plan is to build it into an overall system that includes a rover for digging and delivering moon soil into a hopper where sifters would separate particles by size, collecting those that can be converted and delivering them to a reactor. Inside the reactor, they’re mixed with hydrogen and heated to about 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. The end product: oxygen.

The engine of ingenuity is picking up speed, and the tools and processes we’ll need to establish a base on the moon are steadily coming online. Right before our eyes we’re witnessing a turning point in history. It’s an exciting time to be alive.

David Paige of UCLA and a scientist for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is reporting tantalizing clues that water ice may exist on the moon. These “cold traps” as they are called — craters, cracks and crevasses that remain in permanent shadow from the sun — are candidate sites in the search for water ice. 

Crater Faustini at upper right is located on the lunar south pole and was measured to be colder than distant Pluto. Image source: NASA

As I’ve been reporting in an ongoing series of articles, the discovery of water on the moon would represent a huge leap forward in plans to establish first a base followed by a colony on the moon. It would vastly reduce of the cost and simplify the logistics of human operations there. Every pound of cargo transported to the moon costs in fuel spent, and at 8 pounds per gallon with thousands of gallons needed, the transport of water would represent a large expenditure. Remove that load by living off the land, as it were, and the feasibility of the venture takes a sharp upturn.

Water can be extracted from the regolith (dirt) any place on the moon by heating it to about 800 degrees Celsius, causing solar wind implanted Hydrogen to react with oxides in the soil to produce water. In his book Return To The Moon, Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt states that a metric tonne of water can be extracted from two tonnes of Hydrogen. It’s a viable method for creating water on site from available resources, but it is far preferable to find it available for extraction without the need for processing. That’s why so much effort has been made by missions such as Lunar Prospector, SMART-1, Chandrayaan-1, Selene and now LRO and LCROSS.

The temperature measurements made recently by LRO indicating the presence of many cold traps in the south polar region are a very encouraging sign. At the temperatures being measured, water, Methane and other volatile chemicals can be frozen and trapped, there for the taking. 

We’re also seeing areas never before imaged at such high resolution, Paige says. There are some who claim: “The moon. Been there, done that.” But they’re wrong. What many do not realize is that lunar exploration and discovery essentially ceased after the end of the Apollo program, not to be taken up again for almost 3 decades. Most of the moon is still mysterious to us, and there is so much yet to discover, so much to appeal to our sense of wonder and urge for exploration. Our nearest neighbor in space holds untold opportunities and not only for scientific discovery but for those adventurers among us wanting to go — I’ll say it — where no man has gone before. It’s a place reachable and attainable to our current technology. Even Virginia-based Space Adventures is working on plans to offer a flight around the moon for paying passengers. Been there? Done that? Hardly!

The most talked about benefit from space is the so-called spinoff; that is, technology developed to support space missions that spun off into the consumer, industrial and medical markets. The topic has been discussed ad nauseam over the last several decades, so I won’t spend much time on this aspect, but one of the more visible spinoffs to consumers has been cordless tool technology.

What’s the old saying? Necessity is the mother of invention? When astronauts are assembling or repairing structures or any of a host of other tasks in space, it’s important that the work area be constrained as much as possible. Stringing an extension chord to provide power to a tool is neither practical nor safe, so there arose the need for a tool that provides its own power. Engineers set about solving that problem and voila! Cordless tools. Though the technology dates back to the Apollo era when astronauts needed a special drill for extracting lunar core samples, we all saw the recent application of this technology in space this past May during the fourth servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.

Although the list of spinoffs is lengthy, its inventory is but a very nice bonus and not a justification. There must be more support behind the argument for space. Why make the effort, and particularly now?

Like the old saying goes: “there’s no time like the present.”  Mankind cannot lapse into complacency without falling into stagnation. We need problems to solve and undiscovered places to explore. And it is a simple fact of our nature that the healthiest societies on earth are those actively engaged in the space frontier, and with the coming of the Space Industrial Revolution in which the commercial sector becomes vested in space, every scientific discipline, the white collar and the working class alike have opportunities in space. It is perhaps this reason above all others that provides the justification for turning our ambitions towards the heavens.

Now, for the first time in history, we stand on the cusp of an era in which space is affordable, opening the door to colonization and all the benefits that come with it, and not for a few but for everyone. It behooves us to seize the moment. Take a deep breath and pass through the door while it’s open, because there’s no guarantee it will remain so.

History is littered with examples of lost opportunities, of pathways opened only to be closed again either for lack of ambition or fear of the unknown. Take for example the Antikythera Mechanism discovered off the shores of a Greek island by that name in 1901. More than two thousand years ago someone created a mechanical calculator as complex as any Swiss watch. The mind that created it was ages ahead of its time, certainly capable of revolutionizing the world it inhabited. But such a revolution would have to wait two millennia. The Mechanism would seem to have been unique or at least exceedingly rare in antiquity.

Around the same time, someone created the first battery. It was discovered in 1936 among the ruins of a two-thousand-year-old village in Baghdad. The ancient world made discoveries that, had it pursued, could easily have resulted in a very different world history. Perhaps right now we would be living on the moon, Mars or beyond and having solved the mystery of cheap, abundant energy. We’ll never know. All we do know is that for a few, brief moments in time, technology took a great leap forward, only to abandon the gain.

Now here we stand in a similar instant. Faced with the choice of taking a collective leap forward into the cosmos or remaining earthbound, which will we choose? I’d like to think that the Balboa or the Daniel Boone in each of us will win out, but it’s a fate far from being written in stone.

And as for the future benefits of space, there is one impetus for leaving earth that we’ve only recently come to realize is ignored at our own peril. It’s called “Preservation of the Species” (see Knowing, May 7th).

There exists a very thin, seemingly innocuous layer of Iridium in the earth’s crust. It sits at the so-called “Cretaceous–Tertiary Boundary” of about 65 million years ago. What makes this layer unusual is its concentration of Iridium; in places as much as 130 times normal. It was placed there by the impact of an asteroid or comet in the Yucatán peninsula, which resulted in the Chicxulub crater some 110 miles wide. When the object struck earth, it released so much energy that it ignited world-wide wild fires, the evidence of which is found in the presence at the same layer of something called Fullerenes, molecules composed entirely of carbon, in the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, or tube, and which are thought to form in the presence of intense heat. In a flash, approximately 50 percent of all plant and animal families, including the non-avian dinosaurs, were wiped out. But this was not the only event of this kind in the history of the world. At least five major and global mass extinction events have occurred during the past 500 million years. And there is absolutely no guarantee, whatsoever, that our home world will not be visited by another such cataclysm. For that reason, we should not allow mankind to be concentrated in one place. As rocket scientist and pioneer in astronautic theory Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said, “The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one can not live in a cradle forever.”

EA plans to offer week-long orbital space flights beginning as early as 2013 – taking a big leap beyond the sub-orbital flight market targeted by most other private space companies. In addition to NPOM, other leading aerospace firms in the U.S., Europe and Japan will provide technical support for EA’s space flight operations.

EA Founder and CEO Art Dula said, “Through cooperation with NPOM and with the support of leading space contractors around the world and an exceptionally strong management and advisory team, EA is in a unique position to initiate a new era of private orbital space exploration.”

And indeed the company does have an impressive array of leadership, including Walter Cunningham who was pilot for Apollo 7 and who later served as Chief of the Skylab Branch of NASA’s Fight Crew Directorate; There’s Leroy Chiao, Commander of Expedition 10 aboard the International Space Station; Vladimir Titov, the Russian cosmonaut who set a record for spending more than a year in space for the first time and who also trained for missions using the Almaz spacecraft. Russian Cosmonaut Valery Tokarev who flew on space shuttle mission STS-96 and also spent 6 months on ISS; and then there’s Jonathan Clark, MD, the company’s Chief Medical Officer who is a member of NASA’s Constellation Program EVA Systems Standing Review Board and was a Space Shuttle Crew Surgeon from 1997 to 2005 at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. This, just to name a few.

To add still more legitimacy, the company has formed contractor and other alliances the world over with organizations such as Houston-based United Space Alliance (co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin and responsible for operating and processing the Space Shuttle fleet and the International Space Station); Tokyo-based Japan Manned Space Systems Corporation (involved in the operations HTV, Japan’s unmanned resupply spacecraft to the ISS) , Moscow-based NPOM (the original designer of Almaz) and Rice University in the US.

From the standpoint of technical expertise, Excalibur Almaz is very capable of placing private citizens into space. The open question at this point is its source of startup funds. Also, the company has not quoted prices for seats or elaborated on the flight profiles other than to say that they will be orbital. There’s also the obvious question of a destination, which they have not yet stated as a part of the flight but through which many companies wishing to establish orbiting hotels could gain their first access to space. Still, the fact that a private company will be offering orbital trips represents are huge leap forward in the Space Industrial Revolution.

It’s easy to envision a partnership with another commercial entity such as Bigelow Aerospace, designers and builders of space habitat modules, two of which are on orbit now and have established proof-of-concept over thousands of successful orbits, and with a third, much larger version in the developmental stage.

Carry the plan just a little further, and one could envisage a complete offering whereby SpaceX, Builders of the Falcon rocket, offer the booster for getting into orbit, Excalibur Almaz provides the spacecraft and Bigelow Aerospace rounds out the service by providing a destination – an orbiting hotel, if you will. This would require a great deal of cooperation, but it’s really not too different from the kinds of cooperation we see in play right now in the terrestrial-based tourism industry, in which hotels, airlines, cruise lines, bus services and car rental companies all work together to provide a complete, end-to-end service offering.

And now Excalibur Almaz adds its name to the rapidly-growing list of private space flight providers including Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures, Galactic Suite, XCOR, Spaceport America and Spaceport Sweden. The space adventures we dreamt of as children are materializing before our eyes, thanks to the Space Industrial Revolution. Today, you can book a flight to the edge of space or a 10-day stay on the International Space Station. Soon, you’ll be able to stay at an orbiting hotel and – hang on to your hat – there are plans to offer a trip to circumnavigate the moon!

While NASA and other civil agencies are scratching their heads and pondering how to remain relevant, the commercial sector is planning bold, new ventures that take not only the elite but the common man into space. Once again, we see that past is prologue.

Yet this is exactly the kind of thing going on above our heads. Operators of obsolete, debilitated or depleted spacecraft are doing something very similar to “pulling over.” They’re placing these spacecraft into what’s called a “graveyard orbit” then turning them off and abandoning them. A clearer case of “out of site, out of mind” thinking, you will never find. And it will take a change of space policy to fix this situation, one written by legislators savvy to these operations practices. They will need to understand that current policies to “de-orbit” spacecraft abjectly fail to remove risks imposed by derelict spacecraft, due in great part to the false sense of security created by the term. 

For the record, the term “de-orbit” is not synonymous with re-entry and thus a return to earth! It simply means to remove an object from the orbit it currently occupies. In the case of geosynchronous orbiting spacecraft like those used to carry television signals or even weather observation satellites, end of life means being placed into a super-synchronous or “graveyard “orbit. Translation: boost it up another 350 km (about 217 miles), turn it off and forget about it. All responsibility for the dead piece of space junk you’ve just generated is then relinquished by all currently-existing policies and international agreements. Were the practice to be used sparingly, there might be a legitimate argument that there is no need for concern. When this strategy was initially adopted, this was the case, but no longer. Today, spacecraft operators are continually replacing spacecraft and placing the defunct ones into the graveyard orbit, a convention that is unsustainable.

Part of the problem is attitudes. Many spacecraft operators subscribe to something known in the business as the “big sky” principle. Simply stated, it means that the sky in space is so vast that the likelihood of colliding with another object is infinitesimally small: essentially zero. But we’re beginning to see the fallacies in this thinking. Take for example the recent collision of an active US satellite with that of the defunct Russian Cosmos spacecraft. Both operated in low earth orbit where orbital velocities are much higher than geosynchronous orbit. The half-ton Iridium collided with the one-ton Cosmos at a relative velocity of roughly 15,000 miles per hour, generating some 1200 pieces of debris that will linger in the two original orbits for years to come as a hazard to navigation. 

The problem of space debris is being tackled primarily from the standpoint of mitigation. That is, satellites and other objects such as spent rocket bodies are tracked, probabilities of collisions computed and notifications sent to operators when a significant risk is identified; the idea being to give them time to maneuver out of the way. As we can see from the example just given, it’s a strategy that is not perfect. 

Some very ingenious engineering solutions for removing spent satellites from orbit have recently been published. One example is the “Terminator Tether” by Tethers Unlimited. Designed for satellites flying in low earth orbit, it’s a devise that is bolted onto the spacecraft before launch. When the satellite is at the end of its life, the device deploys a 5-kilometer-long tether below the spacecraft, which then takes advantage of the physics of interactions between the tether and the earth’s ionosphere to produce a drag on the spacecraft. That drag slows down the satellite until it no longer has sufficient speed to remain in orbit, at which point it enters the atmosphere and burns up. Tether Applications offers a similar device and though they have not re-entered any spacecraft, has flight tested some of their designs.

Devices like the tether are a great idea for future satellites, but what about those that are already up there? Many ideas have been put forward for their removal from using low-powered lasers to gradually slow down the satellite until it falls from space to literally blasting it out of the sky, which, as we’ve seen from example, is a solution that causes as many hazards as the problem it’s meant to solve. But any way you slice it, the problem of removing existing, dead satellites from orbit is one that presents a great challenge, one that seems ideally suited for the private sector.

An idea that I believe to have great merit and promise was recently proposed by attorney Jim Dunstan. He suggests levying fees on launch vehicle and spacecraft operators, which are then escrowed for the purpose of offering “bounties” on objects in orbit based on their size and the risk they pose. If consideration is given not to overburden the industry with too high a fee structure, this plan would simultaneously remove dangerous objects from space and the hazards to future space navigation they impose and create a new market for space entrepreneurs. And of course, the option for operators to themselves pay remediation companies for removal could also be explored.

This could, in turn, open yet another market: the salvage of spacecraft parts from orbit. Bear in mind that many of the dead spacecraft in orbit right now are in that state because they simply ran out of fuel, suffered a batter failure or other, similar problem that, while it ended the mission, did not destroy the spacecraft itself. The bulk of the spacecraft remains in tact and most of its components are still operable. How much is out there? Dennis Wingo, author of the book Moonrush: Improving Life On Earth with the Moon’s Resources (Apogee Books Space Series 43, Ontario, Canada: 260 pages) says, “There’s well over half a million kilos’ worth of hardware in GEO… There’s big solar arrays, there’s transponders: you could actually go up there and bring some of this stuff together, create a big transponder park, and recycle this hardware.”

The scenario is easy to envision whereby companies could establish a space station to serve as a base of operations, from which these and other commercial ventures are carried out. And it’s a scenario that can be played out using the scientific and engineering know how that exists in the private sector, now. These are yet more examples of the limitless opportunities that space has to offer us today!

I’ll borrow a term used by Mr. Wingo in his book by stating that government can act as the “macroeconomic enabler” such as they are today in helping private space companies with NASA’s COTS contract (see Commercial Human Space Transportation Now,  May 11) and in the proposed plan to levee fees, which are then offered as bounties on dangerous space objects. Government and private industry can act in tandem to solve these problems and, in doing so, open up whole new industries and markets, but there’s much room for growing that symbiotic relationship. You can play a part in making that happen by writing or e-mailing your congressman and telling him or her that government and the private sector must work together and more often. Tell them that you want to see the limitless opportunities that space has to offer available for you and for your children. Tell them that space need not be either government or private sector but that they should be viewed as partners in space.

Shuttle and crew left the Station and their Expedition 20 crew mates on Wednesday but remained in orbit until this morning so that they could deploy two, small satellites then begin packing up and inspecting the orbiter’s outer shield for damage, as well as checking out its flight control systems and thruster jets in preparation for reentry.

The mission set a record for the most people in space, simultaneously: 7 space shuttle joined 6 Station crew members for a total of 13 astronauts!

On Tuesday, members of the Augustine Committee stated unanimously that the International Space Station should be continued beyond 2016 when current plans call for it to be decommissioned and de-orbited into the ocean. It’s difficult to imagine a more sickening waist of the proverbial blood, sweat and tears than if those plans were to be carried out. The Station has endured a never-ending train of short-sighted nay-sayers, budget cuts and delays to get to this point. To end its life after only 6 years of useful service would be foolish, to say the very least. What is desperately lacking for the establishment of a large-scale human presence in space is infrastructure, and the ISS could serve as the corner stone from which future growth could expand. The very last thing we should desire is to throw away such a hard-won foot hold in space so close to earth. The fact that the Augustine Committee has resoundingly endorsed the idea of keeping it is a much needed breath of fresh air amid a flurry of stagnant and lifeless ideas like continuing shuttle flights at the expense of going forward with flights to the moon or bypassing the moon altogether.

And speaking of going back to the moon, I spoke to you during the 40th anniversary of the first lunar landing back on the 20th about the great importance the moon holds for humanity in igniting a space-based economy and I also told you about the most outspoken opponent to current plans to return to the moon like Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Buzz believes the moon is, as he puts it, a “dead end.” I couldn’t disagree more, and neither could Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt. Like me, astronaut Schmitt believes that the moon is an ideal place for commerce and for homesteading. In a letter to the editor published yesterday in the Washington Post, he said

My fellow Apollo astronaut and lunar module pilot, Buzz Aldrin, favors Mars over the moon ["Time to Boldly Go Once More," op-ed, July 16]. His vision for space policy, however, requires clear thinking instead of just “bold thinking,” and Mr. Aldrin missed on several points.
The moon is hardly a “dead end.” If that were true, China and other countries would not be so interested. Rather than being “a poor location for homesteading,” the moon is ideal for that purpose. Its soils provide resources necessary to support settlements, including an economic base of exports of helium-3 as a potential fusion fuel.
The fact that the “moon is a lifeless, barren world” means that it is the only place with a scientific record of the early history of the solar system.
Returning to the moon gives the fastest path to Mars. Without lunar water resources, radiation protection may not be feasible. Without lunar operational experience, risk on early Martian flights greatly increases.
Without lunar oxygen and water, payloads to Mars may be prohibitively large. Without lunar rocket fuel resources, we might not be able to even land on Mars.

Harrison and I are not the only two who feel that the moon should be our next destination. Despite the fact that there are a few voices out there who see the opportunity to resurrect the Mars-first argument after it was defeated by a majority of scientists and engineers recommending we go to the moon next, most professionals in the space field still agree that the moon is by far the most logical next step.

NASA is already working on lunar strategies and the space systems we’ll need once we get there. On Monday, The Technology Review published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that, “NASA has developed a robotic device that can help astronauts live and work on the moon and eventually Mars.” It’s a new robotic arm called the Lunar Surface Manipulator System, and it’s capable of lending a “helping hand for astronauts living and working on the moon. It could, for example, move large payloads and precisely position scientific experiments.” This is very exciting news. Already, we’re making strides towards fulfilling the Vision For Space Exploration. “The manipulator did everything we wanted it to, from lifting large simulated airlocks and habitats to more delicate tasks, such as precisely positioning scientific payloads,” said John Dorsey, a senior aerospace engineer at Langley Research Center where the LSMS was built and is being tested. The robotic arm could carry loads between 100 to 3,000 kilograms (200 pounds to over 3 and a half tons).

Jonathan Goff, an engineer with Masten Space Systems in Santa Clara, California presented a white paper to the Augustine Committee in which he suggests establishing a series of orbiting fuel depots to help rockets get to the moon and beyond. It’s a very good idea, though not a new one. In his book titled Space: What Now (Publish America, 2005, Baltimore: 310 pages), author and astronautics professional Tom Hill explores this very idea. He says, “Orbital supply depots provide a practical solution for enabling frequent commercial access to low earth orbit.” Such stations can act as orbiting gas stations, helping to enable smaller and less expensive vehicles to lift payloads to their destinations. In addition, they serve as elements of – your guest it – orbiting infrastructure. In the interest of full disclosure, Tom is a friend and colleague of mine, but his ideas are fresh and I can enthusiastically recommend his book.

We’re making tangible progress towards earth orbit, the moon and the untold opportunities they will deliver if we don’t lose our focus and determination. With a public/private partnership like that developing as a consequence of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract (COTS) between NASA and Hawthorne, CA-based SpaceX (who, incidentally, just announced the successful completion of qualification testing for human rating their powerful Falcon 9′s launch vehicle first stage tank and interstage) for the delivery of cargo and possibly crew to the International Space Station, as well as others that are likely to develop in such a positive environment, we stand to realize our dreams of space travel for the common man… today. Let’s not blow the most brilliant and worthwhile opportunity in human history by changing horses in mid stream.

If you’ve been reading SpaceTalkNOW or listening to my Podcasts, you’ve heard me talk about the economics of space flight. I’m neither a professional economist nor a professor of the subject, but history has shown time and again that such pursuits always come down to currency. It’s one of the reasons why prizes have been so instrumental in getting new technology ventures going (see Competition and Technological Advancement, May 14, 2009).

Training and staffing, the way it is done in the civil arena, will not be sustainable in the commercial space flight realm. Spending a million and a half dollars creating a military pilot then several more transforming that pilot into an astronaut with the goal of turning out a craftsman makes little sense. More than just a matter or money, it’s just as illogical from the standpoint of obtaining and retaining expertise. When it comes time to build structures in earth orbit and on the moon, we’ll see the emergence of a completely new kind of tradesman: the blue collar astronaut.

I’m a staunch supporter of the International Space Station, believing that it has the potential to be far more than even its designers envisioned. But one must admit that the cost of building it was as astronomical as its locale. If such a structure were to begin construction today, commercial services for the transport of its components and their assembly in orbit could vastly reduce the cost. Without a doubt, commercial services will do just that for current designers of space stations like Bigelow Aerospace and Galactic Suite (see The First Space Settlement, May 18, 2009), as well as those contemplating the venture. And once investors are conviced that a pocket book as vast as space itself is not a necessary ingredient for successfulness and profitability, the list of commercial off planet projects will come fast and furious.

And yes, that’s my personal opinion, but it’s one borne out by history. Let’s face it, there’s no one on earth who can say with absolute certainty how successful, large-scale space construction projects will be conducted, because no one has yet proven a concept. We’re treading on undiscovered country here. But if you accept the premise that space is for everyone then you must naturally arrive at the conclusion that we’re turning the corner on a new era in which the blue collar astronaut joins the ranks of the professionals to form a well-balanced space work force.

Projecting a bit far into the future, you say? Well, we’ll see. In 2003, if you were to have told the average Joe on the street that soon companies were going to begin flying tourists to space, he would have grinned and dismissed you as a foolish dreamer. But isn’t it amazing the difference only a few, short years makes.

___________

In the second section of today’s report, the Mojave-based company XCOR announced Friday that it has begun wind tunnel testing of a 1/16 scale model of its Lynx rocket plane at the U.S. Air Force test facility located at Wright-Patterson Air Base near Dayton, OH, as part of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA).

“The CRADA allows us to form productive partnerships between the U.S. Air Force and private sector companies,” says Barry Hellman, an aerospace engineer at the Air Vehicles Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright Patterson AFB. “We will work together to develop the aerodynamics of the Lynx which will provide valuable knowledge to help the Air Force develop future access to space systems.”

XCOR hopes to begin flying paying customers into sub-orbital flights soon. Jeff Greason, the company’s CEO, was recently named to the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Their Chief Test Pilot is Richard Searfoss, a former NASA Astronaut and Colonel, USAF (Ret). Colonel Searfoss was the Chief X Prize Judge overseeing the SpaceShipOne Flights (see The Ansari X Prize, April 6, 2009).

I was living in Merritt Island, Florida at the time; practically a stone’s throw from Cape Canaveral, which is what we called Kennedy Space Center in those days. Everywhere throughout the area now called the Space Coast, it seemed like every business had something in its name to point to space: The Satellite Motel; The Rocket Club; Apollo this; Saturn that. Everyone was behind the “moon shot” and wanted to be associated with this greatest of all human adventures in some way or another. There was a real sense of collectiveness back then that I’ve not felt since. We all felt as though we were standing on the cusp of a new era and that soon, we’d all be living the lives of the Jetsons. 

When launch day arrived, 500,000 people lined the beaches up and down the coast, north and south of the Cape and west, just across the Banana River. In every direction you looked, it was a sea of humanity. Anticipation was so thick, you could almost reach out and grab a hand full of it. When lift off came and the massive Saturn V rocket carrying Command Module Pilot Mike Collins, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin and Mission Commander Neil Armstrong left the pad and successfully made it to the first leg of their journey in earth orbit, we all let out a small breath of relief. But our angst was only on slow simmer. There was still 3 days to go, 3 days to wait before we would see whether these brave men would place the first human footprints on the moon or perhaps perish in the attempt.

Wernher von Braun, then head of the American rocket program, a man described as the greatest rocket scientist of all time, had this to say: “What we will have attained when Neil Armstrong steps down upon the moon is a completely new step in the evolution of man. For the fist time, life will leave its planetary cradle, and the ultimate destiny of man will no longer be confined to these familiar continents that we have known so long.”

And then after what seemed more like 3 months than 3 days, the time came for Neil and Buzz to climb into the Lunar Module and descend to the lunar surface, leaving Mike to orbit the moon alone, tending their life raft while they set off to walk on another world. Back on earth, huddled around our television sets, we all held our collective breath through those final moments as the LM neared the lunar surface, oblivious to the cryptic messages being exchanged between spacecraft and ground control indicating that fuel was becoming dangerously low and the computer providing critical descent data was overloaded. Had this been a robotic mission, it likely would have failed and crashed, strewing wreckage over miles of the desolate landscape. Fortunately, a man was their to make the kinds of quick decisions that only humans can make in such situations. They landed safely, and Neil went on to place those first footprints and to utter his now historic words, “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” 

As one after the other of the Apollo missions ventured to and safely returned from the moon, our confidence grew. Even Apollo 13, which failed to reach the lunar surface after the number two oxygen tank exploded and forced an early return to earth, was heralded as “a successful failure.” And from that confidence came plans for a lunar base. Before long, we all took for granted that we’d see it christened by 1980. But NASA’s plans would soon take a sharp turn in a different — and to my mind, wrong — direction.

Instead of building upon the Apollo technology we’d just spent billions on and erecting that new human outpost on another world, NASA decided instead to scrap it and build a gleaming new spacecraft: the space shuttle. In his July 17th Washington Post article titled The Moon We Left Behind, Charles Krauthammer was lenient when he called it “… the most beautiful, intricate, complicated — and ultimately, hopelessly impractical — machine ever built by man.” Let’s do a quick tally, shall we? It was promised to have a fast turnaround of approximately 30 days. It did not; not even close. It was promised to be less expensive than its predecessor. It was not. It was promised to be safer than the expendable launchers. Sadly, it failed in that regard as well. To top it all off, it was never capable of going beyond low earth orbit. And to give you some perspective, settling for low earth orbit instead of the moon is like setting out on a trip from New York to Las Angeles and deciding to quit in New Jersey. Our dream of humans exploring new worlds in person has lain dormant now for nearly half a century, and everywhere we see headlines that bespeak of a space agency lacking vision and focus. The generation that came up watching the the moon landings on television and dreaming of a day when it might be their turn are left feeling betrayed and feeling foolish at having believed all the empty promises.

Chalk it up to a hard lesson. We’ve now seen what does and does not work, so let’s regroup and treat the current situation as an opportunity. Most importantly, let’s not close the door to any possibilities.

One such possibility is a better public, private partnership. There are companies such as SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace and Virgin Galactic who are spending millions upon millions of their own money to develop space systems that, if utilized by NASA, will dramatically reduce costs. The agency must avail itself of these very valuable assets and partner with private industry. They should be viewed as two sides of the same coin.

From a deeper partnership with the private sector will  grow opportunities, many of which are a short, 3-day journey away: the moon. Those opportunities are diverse and plentiful enough to bring jobs from which there will ultimately emerge a space-based economy where living and working on the moon have gone from a research and development project to full time operations where, in turn, we see the emergence of a blue collar space work force.

Imagine that: space enough for everyone.

But if we bypass the moon, we also put off all of that. We relegate space travel to the elite for another half century, or even longer. Some might see that as anti-Mars, but I say it’s very much pro. I see it as a move that can speed up the exploration and colonization of the red planet, because when you bring in private investment in space and the advances in technology that will most certainly accompany it — advances that will only come with lunar operations — those advances can be used to support exploration of the rest of the solar system, beginning with Mars.

There are those who do not see the wisdom in this; some of them very noteworthy.

I’d like to offer a few thoughts on an interview published last week in the Washington Post with Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin. He’s emphatically stated his opposition in the past to going back to the moon, having said, “there’s no reason for us to go back.” Instead he prefers to go on to Mars. In this most recent interview, however, he seems to have softened that position… somewhat, saying that we should, “Let the lunar surface be the ultimate global commons while we focus on more distant and sustainable goals to revitalize our space program” as part of an “internationally-led coalition.” Now it’s not that I’m saying this space veteran and national hero is wrong, but in this case he may be a little short on being right.

Though I think characterizing the moon as “the ultimate global commons” borders on poetic, I take issue with the use of the word “sustainable” when used to describe a policy that focuses on Mars instead. Any serious push for Mars will take decades, spanning many administrations, and we’ve seen recently how any space vision can end up the first casualty as leaders and priorities shift. We need a goal that can be realized in just a few, short years; not decades. The moon is one such goal.

Before going on, I should say that I have an enormous amount of respect for Buzz. He’s the guy who almost singlehandedly solved one of the more daunting problems that faced the early, manned space program. Back then, they were having problems working out a process for space walking. It turns out that it’s a very physically demanding activity. Astronauts were becoming exhausted. But a reliable space walking technique was one of the milestone’s that had to be met in order to go on to the moon. Buzz worked out an ingenious plan: put hand holds and foot restraints all over the spacecraft. That way the astronauts would have a way of steadying themselves and greatly reduce energy spent. Well, it worked like a charm, and the rest, as they say, is history. They did go on to the moon, thanks in no small part to Buzz.

That said, I have to disagree with any assessment that puts the moon on the back burner… and yes, as a national priority. Going back to the moon now will usher in a new, space-based economy in which commercial space flight will grow and make opportunities for all of us in space. There’s still time to make good on all the promises made during Apollo. This can be a new beginning if we have the good sense to learn from past mistakes. 

Like Sammy Hagar sang in Dreams, “We’ll get higher and higher straight up we’ll climb, We’ll get higher and higher leave it all behind. Higher and higher who knows what we’ll find.”

One encouraging sign from Bolden comes from statements he made at his confirmation hearings regarding NASA’s relationship with the commercial sector. He recognized the stark limitations in what the government can accomplish alone when he admitted, “The government cannot fund everything that we need to do…” On the surface, that might seem like a statement of the obvious, but it’s important for NASA’s next head to realize this and to factor it into his decisions. He went on to say that, “… we can inspire and open the door for commercial and entrepreneurial entities to become involved, to become partners with NASA.” Let’s hope he truly takes these words to heart, because it’s only through this kind of symbiotic relationship that the US will maintain forward momentum itowards meeting all it’s space exploration goals. A recent Commercial Spaceflight Federation report to the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also known as the Augustine Committee, stated it another way: “government and commercial spaceflight are not a “zero-sum game” – they are complementary…” And this is precisely the relationship that must be fostered between the two entities. It is the way all successful exploration programs have been conducted throughout history, and it is the way we’ll succeed today. NASA programs act as the pathfinder, establishing the beachhead, and private industry follows to build infrastructure. Now that’s a match made in the heavens.

And now I’d like to offer my most sincere congratulations to SpaceX! On Monday, they scored another success with the second demonstration flight of their Falcon 1 rocket.

The launch took place from the Reagan Test Site (RTS) on Omelek Island at the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) in the Pacific Ocean, approximately 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. “This marks another successful launch by the SpaceX team,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. “We are pleased to announce that Malaysia’s RazakSAT, aboard Falcon 1, has achieved the intended orbit.”

And so I have to say… Way to go, guys!

Next on the company’s launch manifest for later this year will be the maiden flight of their Falcon 9 vehicle. This is the big brother of the Falcon 1. Carrying 9 of their powerful Merlin engines, this rocket will begin demonstration flights this year in preparation for service carrying cargo to the International Space Station. Commercial service like that provided by SpaceX will reduce the cost of resupplying the station, made possible by the Commercial Orbital Services Contract (COTS). There is also an option in the contract to transport astronauts as well — an option that would save taxpayers even more money while at the same time helping to bolster the entire commercial, human space flight industry — but that funding is being blocked by Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) who disagrees with the incoming Administrator over partnering with private industry. The outcome of this budgetary wrangling is yet to be determined, but with so much at stake, let’s hope Mr. Bolden can hit the ground running, and move a few rocks from the road.

It all comes down to economics.  Every pound of mass — consumables like food and water, machinery, construction materials, etc. — we launch into space costs money in fuel spent overcoming earths gravity; hence the less we’re forced to launch, the less we spend and the more economical the venture becomes. Many tons of water will be needed annually to support even a modest human presence in space. If that water is found on the moon, it changes everything. It means a lunar base has its own supply with the added bonus that where water is needed elsewhere in the solar system, it can be launched from the moon at a small fraction of the cost of launching it from the surface of the earth. The presence of water on the moon means the economics of building the first human outpost there becomes vastly simplified.

But there’s yet another benefit from such a discovery.  It would be a boon for commercial space flight, opening up vast new opportunities for the burgeoning industry at a time when it is seeking to expand into new markets.

In contrast to the lengthy, year-long trek required to reach Mars, the moon is a mere 3 days away; within the realm of expertise in commercial space flight. Indeed, commercially-available technology could be expanded to make the journey. And with a destination as close as the moon, rich in natural resources, new markets could spring up quite literally over night.

For example: hydrogen fuel cell automobiles. At the heart of the fuel cell is Platinum. The problem is that there’s not enough of it on earth to replace all the existing cars on the planet with a fuel cell, let alone accommodate for an increasing population. But hanging right above our heads is an abundant supply of it. The moon has many times the amount to be found here on earth. We simply need a cost-effective method of extracting it. Here again, we’re up against the economics of space flight, which would be facilitated by the discovery of water.

But the benefits don’t stop there. Water discovered on the moon equals a lunar base equals economic stimulus for commercial human space flight equals the emergence of a space-based economy with absolutely unlimited potential for jobs. Jobs!

And this brings me back to the original premise behind this blog: that our greatest hope for a large-scale, expansive human presence in space lies with the private sector.

Whether or not water is discovered on the moon, we will build a base there and eventually a settlement, but the presence of that precious substance would erase all doubt that the venture is feasible and open the flood gates of private investment.

And if all that were not enough, that economic stimulus would surely lead to advances in commercially-available technology that could shorten the timetable for the first flights to Mars.

So watch the count down to LCROSS impact with the moon, and cross your fingers on both hands, close your eyes and say a little prayer that we strike water.

Of course mine is the perspective of an American for whom NASA remains at the forefront of the news in space technology. One could easily change that perspective to ask the same question of the European Space Agency, the Russian Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency or any other. Should we as humans insist that our respective governments assume the role of creating new colonies – and thus opportunities – for us in space? Is that reasonable? From a financial perspective, certainly not! Where then do we turn if not to government?

Before we tackle that question,  let’s examine a bit further the notion that space equals NASA. Why is it so pervasive? That much of it is not rocket science. We can set aside for a moment the fact that the Russians have historically been very active and successful in human space flight.  Though this is true, recent events in their history have forced them to scale back that effort to a fraction of what it once was.  We’ll also leave out the Chinese human space flight program since they’ve only recently made their first, tentative steps off planet. The fact is that most people associate human space exploration almost exclusively with NASA, because that’s what we see.

NASA has for so long occupied the spotlight that it is almost inconceivable to most of us that anyone else could do the job of space flight. It’s a tacit understanding that the endeavor is so difficult and so dangerous that it must be left to those with the most experience. But there are very important points that are getting lost, because too much is tacit. We’re now at a point in space history where we must re-examine the basic tenets that form the foundation of our efforts in space. We need to take a fresh look at what we think we understand.

Let’s begin by reminding ourselves that the human colonization of space has never been in the mission statement of NASA. Their business is that of research and development. In their own words, their job, “is to pioneer the future of space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” We’ve all taken it for granted that some where along the line in all that space exploration, a byproduct will be colonization. But that assumption is erroneous, and unless we suggest re-chartering NASA to include this responsibility, we’ll have to accept their role as pathfinder and look elsewhere for the builders of a space-borne infrastructure that is so necessary to support large numbers of people in earth orbit and on the moon. The harsh truth is that NASA lacks the budget to carry out all the responisbilities of its existing charter. Adding more is simply unrealistic.

Another assumption that bears re-examination is that space flight is too dangerous and difficult for anyone but NASA. There are many companies routinely building and flying space systems that will surely take issue with that assessment. Expertise in every discipline necessary for conducting space flight exists within the private sector. Indeed it is that expertise that NASA often relies upon for executing the programs it manages.

Private enterprise can manage space programs more effectively. It can do the job at a small fraction of the cost of government programs, in great part because the development cycle leading to flight is far shorter and because processes employed in diagnosing and repairing problems are far more streamlined than those of NASA. A great example can be pulled from the pages of recent history. During the final test flight of SpaceShipOne, a problem was encountered with a faulty actuator resulted in a rolling motion of the spacecraft on ascent. The malfunction was diagnosed and fixed and the Ship returned to flight within 48 hours, something that could never happen with a NASA program.

Private sector space flight has become stronger than at any time in history. So much so that we now see the emergence of an industry trade association. The Personal Spaceflight Federation is an alliance of 19 companies dedicated to the development of commercial human space flight. Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic are two companies among the Federation’s members demonstrating that space flight can be carried out without government assistance. Flight testing is under way for the world’s first spaceliner, and regular flights are due to start by as early as next year. Soon they’ll be turning out astronaut wings by the hundreds and not for scientists and military pilots but for regular folks. The first ticket prices are what can be expected from any new technology. The first calculators that came on the scene in the early 1970 were prohibitively expensive, but as more and more were sold the prices eventually fell by some 4000%. The same will happen with the cost of taking a ride into space.

SpaceX, another Federation company, has developed a spacecraft using its own funds, and now that craft is under contract to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. There’s also a provision in the contract to deliver people to the ISS, and the astronauts that conduct the test flights of this system will not be NASA but rather commercial astronauts!

Robert Bigelow is yet another example of an entrepreneur who so believes in the power of the private sector to deliver space systems that he is doing so with his own money. His company, Bigelow Aerospace, builds space habitats that could be used to build the world’s first private space stations, hotels or any other structures we care to place into earth orbit. Such structures could constitute the first city in space and not in the far distant future but now! As you read this article, there are two of Bigelow’s space habitats in orbit with a third and much larger called the BA330 in the works. 

Put all these pieces together, and it’s easy to see that the private sector is not only capable of colonizing space but has already taken the first steps in doing just that. Train your eyes on them. Their next few years are likely to yield some surprising successes and progress that will put the limitless opportunities of space within the reach of you and I.