I propose that a space port authority be formed through which this new real estate would be managed. NASA has been presented with a remarkable opportunity if its managers are keen to recognize it. One of the few things government can do better than any other organization is to foster new industries. They’re doing it through vehicles such as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract where commercial entities now vie to develop transportation services to low earth orbit. It’s a new era in which private industry retains the rights to the technology they develop and can thus continue to develop it into an increasingly profitable commercial venture. And what is the major benefit to society of this strategy? The cost of access to space falls dramatically, opening up the final frontier to exponentially-increasing numbers of people seeking new opportunities and prosperity. And in that same spirit, the Agency can use this new real estate aboard the International Space Station to foster industry in earth orbit.

It’s not enough to encourage private enterprise in the building of rockets for reaching orbit. The real reward comes from establishing a permanent presence capable of expansion, and the Node Structural Test Article is the key to that growth.

NASA should offer this new real estate to private industry. With the pittance of government investment and effort it would take to put in place this remaining space station hardware, NASA could boost the commercial sector far more than all the contracts it has so far offered for that purpose, combined!

Tweet This Post 

The Founders demonstrated their understanding of the critical role of individual creativity in American progress by specifically delegating constitutional power to Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). The economic and personal incentives for Americans to invent and publish have grown from this remarkable clairvoyance.

The Founders did not intend for the “Science and useful Arts” Clause alone to give broad constitutional justification for federal funding of scientific and technology research. Clearly, the Founders only meant for this Clause to apply to the research activities by individuals. Federal protection of intellectual property by copyright and patent law flows from this constitutional power.

Scientific and technological advancement funded by the Federal Government has a strong constitutional foundation in the Preamble’s mandated promotion of the “common Defence and general Welfare.” Specifically, the Congress has enumerated powers in this regard in Article I, Section 8. Implementation of those powers logically requires federal involvement in science and engineering research, as follows:

* Clause 5 – fixing of “the Standard of Weights and Measures.”
* Clause 6 – detection and prevention “of counterfeiting.”
* Clause 7 – establishment and implied improvement of “post Roads” and, by logical extension, more modern means of delivering communications.
* Clause 8 – evaluation of “Discoveries” in “Science and the useful Arts” for the purpose of “securing…exclusive rights” for “Inventors.”
* Clause 12 and 13 – “support” of “Armies” and maintenance of “a Navy” and, by logical extension, future forces necessary to the “common Defence.”
* Clause 15 and 16 – support of the “Militia” and their use to “repel Invasions.”

Clause 18 of Section 8 further gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” It should be noted by the added underlines that this Clause limits Congress to only the execution of the Government’s constitutionally enumerated powers.

Relative particularly to national security, clear Article I constitutional support therefore exists for federal sponsorship, directly or indirectly, of science and technology research that applies to the following:

* Weapons of all kinds that can effectively support the armed forces.
* Natural, agricultural, and other resources required for national security.
* Military logistics technologies and transportation systems, including national highways, waterways, rail systems, and aeronautics and space systems.
* Nationally critical energy systems and the basic sciences that underlie such systems.
* Potential future military technologies such as space and missile defense, external threat sensing, cyber attack, and so forth.
* National border protection and enforcement.
* Medical research applicable to the maintenance of a healthy population from which soldiers are drawn as required and to the treatment of wounded soldiers and veterans.
* Climate and weather as they impact the above.

Under Article II, the Executive also has enumerated powers that require support from science and engineering research but which require budgetary concurrence by the Congress and, of course, congressional approval of necessary levels of supporting taxation and debt. Article II, Section 2, Presidential powers include:

* Clause 1 – acting as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy…and of the Militia…when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
* Clause 2 – negotiating and making “Treaties” on which the Congress must provide “advice and consent.”

Also under Clause 2 of Article II, Section 2, Presidents have the power to appoint “…by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate…all other Officers of the United States…whose Appointments…shall be established by Law…” Any appointments with significant executive powers not submitted to the Senate for conformation, such as President Obama’s “czars” are clearly unconstitutional.

Although the Congress, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, can legislate both responsibilities and constraints on the execution of the President’s Article II power of Appointments, Article I limits Congress to its own enumerated powers. Constraining Congress even further, the Founders did not provide in Clause 18 for Congress to go beyond enumerated powers in defining the specific responsibilities of Presidential Appointments. Science and technology research necessary to support the authorized functions of Departments and Agencies, therefore, must adhere to the limits of the enumerated powers of Congress; that is, it would be unconstitutional for Presidential appointees to be given budgetary authority to undertake activities that Article I does not state as being within the power of Congress to authorize or fund.

How, then, can “Appointments” in the Executive be given clear authority to carry out their constitutional responsibilities? First of all, through the Oath of Office, the President gains significant latitude in directing some such officers to assist him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This constitutional discretion expands further in the Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, designation of the President as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States…” Departments such as Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice, as well as the Intelligence Agencies, can be managed directly by the President, but only within the bounds of the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments. In this, the President only needs Congressional concurrence on overall budgets.

Budget concurrence creates critical balance of power limitations on the President as Commander in Chief but cannot, constitutionally, be used to prevent Presidents or the Congress from providing for the “common Defence” in any significant way. Both entities share this mandated function. For not carrying out that mandate, Presidents can be impeached and Members of Congress can be removed in their next election cycle.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, further expands Presidential Executive power by stating “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices…” This language indicates that the Founders expected Presidents to exercise significant control over the activities of all Executive Departments and, by extension, future Agencies that might be created by law.

The fact that the Constitution does not define the functions of any Executive Department, outside those implicit in enumerated powers, indicates an intent that this definition would be left to the interplay between the Congress and the Office of the President. The need for the Executive to deal with national defense and matters of state, treasury, commerce, law enforcement, and postal service derives from Articles I and II. The Founders, on the other hand, intentionally created what they hoped would be a balancing tension between the Executive and the Congress through Presidential executive power being moderated by Congress’ power over the purse and specifically limited legislative powers.

The President, with funding concurrence by the Congress, therefore has significant discretion in assigning science and technology research duties to federal Departments and Agencies so long as Congress can constitutionally fund their implementation. Development of weapons and intelligence gathering systems and systems that support the armed forces overall are obvious examples of the exercise of this constitutional discretion. Persuasive constitutional arguments also can be made for federal support of science and technology research in medicine, agriculture, energy, and natural resources based on the specific applicability to national security of research projects in these arenas. An increasingly healthy population and the obvious need for indigenous supplies of food, energy, and raw materials provide adequate justification for most of the research activities of related federal Departments. These arguments find strong support in history and in consideration of possible future national security threats and the need for improved and more diverse means of meeting those threats.

The Constitution, on the other hand, does not empower the Congress to provide funding for, nor can the President direct, research that does not have specific applicability to powers enumerated in Articles I or II. This fact calls into question the constitutionality of research on societal, economic, cultural, demographic, and educational issues that have no direct relationship to national security and that could be carried out through privately funded institutions, associations, cooperative State initiatives, and businesses rather than by government. The 10th Amendment provides for decisions on the conduct of such soft research to the people or the States.

Constitutional rationale for “big” science and technology projects that have costs, time commitments, and national security implications and lie beyond those addressable by the private sector alone lies in their tangible contributions to the implementation of the Article I powers of the Congress and the Article II powers of the President. Since the nation’s founding, federally supported or managed big science and engineering efforts have contributed to national defense or to treaty enforcement. Notably, such projects include canals, locks, dams, and levees beginning in the early 1800s; agricultural research through Land Grant academic institutions created in 1860s and 1890s; the Transcontinental Railroad in the late 1860s; construction of the Panama Canal at the turn of the 20th Century; aeronautical research that began early in the 1910s; continuously upgraded defense and reconnaissance systems since the 1940s; the Manhattan Project of the 1940s; development of a Nuclear Navy and related power systems, communication satellites, and the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s; and the Apollo Moon-landing Program of the 1960s.

Even though strong constitutional support exists for significant federal funding of science and engineering research, such support becomes fuzzy relative to big and small, pure science projects exploring the edges of our understanding of nature. Although difficult to quantify, their constitutional rationale lies primarily in the stimulation of educational initiatives that train the scientists and engineers that ultimately serve more direct constitutional functions, particularly national security.

Unfortunately, the once bright future for both federally and privately funded science and technology research has dimmed in the United States. Mismanagement of federal projects is endemic. A federal attack on private academic and research institutions has commenced through unconstitutional regulatory interference. Further, unless the next Congress and the next President contain and reduce the national debt and the cost and reach of both entitlements and unnecessary regulations, remaining taxpayers will have little money left to fund future research no matter how important and constitutional.

___

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

Tweet This Post 

That sounds like something world governments would be tripping over themselves to secure for their nations. Right? Not so much. Because in 1985, the ingredients and the technology for a fusion reactor were realized here in the US, but the problem is that those materials reside on the moon.

As the United States and the world wrestle with the large scale issues of pollution, oil prices and access to renewable sources of energy, one of the most revolutionary sources of energy is slowly fading from our near-term grasp. Specifically I am talking about the Helium 3 ion. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration’s strategic shift in focus away from a return to the moon may delay a much needed revolution in the world’s energy sector.

In 1972 Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmidt took a random sample of soil from the edge of a crater while on the last manned mission to the moon. That sample was analyzed and found to contain a low level of the Helium 3 ion. The nuclear science community found in 1939 that it exists in such incredibly low levels on earth that they referred to it as “unobtainium.” It was not until 1985 that experts discovered it in massive quantities on the moon, and with that discovery came the realization that the solution to fusion power lay within humanity’s grasp. This fact was later confirmed when the University of Wisconsin built a small fusion, electrical generator from the Helium 3 ion that was taken from those lunar soil samples.

The Helium 3 Ion is carried on solar winds, and the vast majority crossing earth burns up in the atmosphere. The trace amount that does exist here is thought to be less than 500 pounds, worldwide, and most of that at the bottom of the ocean; however, due to favorable conditions on the moon, those same ions get lodged in the soil of that world – especially on the dark side – in great abundance. In contrast to the paltry terrestrial source, less than a square mile of lunar soil to a depth of 9 feet contains enough of the Helium 3 ion to power all the electrical needs of a city like Dallas, Texas for an entire year! The half life of residuals produced in a Helium 3 (itself a non-radioactive isotope) fusion reaction is only 12 years, and the end result is simply helium gas and water.

Can you imagine what a full blown lunar mining operation would do for the US? Not only would it promote productivity in the companies involved, it would also create a flurry of high-tech jobs in the mechanized mining technology sector, robotics, and most notably in secondary industries arising to re-tool for the first US and international power-making infrastructure.

In a sense, staking a working claim for the Helium 3 ion would begin a new industrial revolution. Steam power forever changed the way global manufacturing was done, and access to electrical power changed the world again. So in the future, having an unlimited supply of clean energy would again change the way the world travels and manufactures goods, and it would create a huge job source, transitioning the various power grids to the new fusion electricity.

Not only does the Helium 3 ion offer the US a solution to its own energy woes, but it revolutionizes electrical power for the entire world. It would create a new job sector that could rival the numbers employed by the auto industry in the 1950s and solve the issue of fossil fuels. Imagine migrating the world’s automobile fleets, homes and industry to a clean, abundant and cheap power source, which bears neither the pollution of carbon-based fossil fuel nor the dangerous residuals of nuclear power. That power exists, the technology is known, and all that is left for the US to do is invest the time and effort to make it a reality.

We are the only country that could effectively make the push to mine the moon at this time, but that edge is fading quickly. The Japanese, Indian, Russian, and Chinese Space Agencies have all expressed the goal to conduct exploration of the moon for gaining access to its resources.

The strategic interests of the US would be seriously undermined should another nation claim exclusivity to fusion power. The time to act is now. Let’s return to the moon, permanently.

Tweet This Post 

PITTSBURGH, PA – August 23, 2010 – Astrobotic Technology, a Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) spin-off company announces that Caterpillar Inc. will be a sponsor its first robotic expedition to the lunar surface. The initial Astrobotic mission will revisit the Apollo 11 site in April 2013 with a five-foot tall, 160-lb. robot broadcasting 3D high-definition video. The mission will carry payloads to the Moon and convey the experience to the world via Internet video access.
The expedition also will claim a financial trifecta: up to $24 million in the Google Lunar X Prize, a $10 million data sale to NASA, and Florida’s $2 million bonus for launching from that state.
In 2007 Caterpillar sponsored Carnegie Mellon’s winning machine in the Urban Challenge, a competition for autonomous vehicles conducted by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The sensors and code base developed for this race of driverless cars through city traffic are evolving into the guidance and control for the spacecraft that will take Astrobotic’s robot to the lunar surface.
“Caterpillar has enjoyed a successful relationship with Carnegie Mellon University over the last two decades. Our sponsorship of CMU’s winning machine in the 2007 Urban Challenge has served as a technology foundation for further work to automate our large mining trucks,” said Eric Reiners, Caterpillar Automation Systems Manager. “Our customers are moving to more remote and harsh environments. This drives the need for further development of autonomous and remote operation of equipment. We look forward to applying the technology developed and lessons learned from the Astrobotic expedition toward our own Cat equipment.”
Carnegie Mellon and Astrobotic have expended more than $3 million creating mission designs and prototype Moon robots engineered to operate during extreme heat — soil temperatures at the lunar equator hit 224 degrees F at noon.
“Operating during the Moon’s daytime heat is the central engineering challenge for lunar robots, and we will take advantage of Caterpillar’s experience with rugged electronics for harsh environments,” said Dr. Red Whittaker, director of CMU’s Field Robotics Center and founder of Astrobotic Technology.
Caterpillar’s experience in autonomous mining and construction machinery also will assist with learning how to “live off the land” using lunar resources. For example, polar ice deposits can be transformed into propellant to refuel spacecraft for their return to Earth, doubling their productivity. New NASA research shows that some of the polar ice (a mix of water, methane and other compounds) is covered by an insulating layer of dry soil that robotic excavators can remove to access the volatiles.
“Caterpillar makes sustainable progress possible by enabling infrastructure development and resource utilization on every continent on Earth. It only makes sense we would be involved expanding our efforts to the 8th continent, the Moon,” said Reiners.
Astrobotic has just completed the first phase of a NASA contract to design lightweight robotic excavators for this task (see http://astrobotic.net/activities/lunar-construction-research-completed).

Tweet This Post 

The astronauts immediately undertook prescribed measures, shutting down nonessential equipment and rerouting power to ensure the habitability of the station. Despite the fact that this situation was not unexpected and had been part of standard training, the repair took longer than expected and had to be continually reassessed as the astronauts encountered new difficulties. After sixteen days, however, the astronauts prevailed, and the repairs were successfully completed.

Given the prominence of safety and reliability in the national debate surrounding NASA’s future, as well as how private commercial efforts can undertake manned launch missions, this incident is certain to be a key example. However, the real question is should this incident be displayed as an argument for or against private commercial effort, or can it lead us to a new way of approaching manned orbital space flight?

To date, the government’s position has been that private commercial efforts have successfully and admirably supported NASA’s manned orbital operations by fabricating the components used in launch vehicles and orbiting assets. However, it is believed that NASA itself best understands the dangers inherent in manned orbital spaceflight, and should maintain its leading role while commercial companies work to develop a comparable success record and ensure that an equal or improved safety rating is achieved. In this light, the difficulties of repairing the ISS clearly show the inherent dangers of manned orbital space flight and the need for NASA’s experience. Had a younger, less experienced, venture encountered this same difficulty, it might have proven disastrous and led to the loss of the entire asset, if not human life.

The commercial response is that in manufacturing the components for manned orbital spaceflight, it has already demonstrated a capacity to undertake launch responsibilities for manned orbital spaceflight. This path led to the industry’s successes with private satellite launches. Regarding manned orbital space flight launches, several companies have worked to expand into the market through the NASA COTs-D program, and SpaceX has begun to satisfy all the requirements to undertake commercial cargo launches through their Falcon program. Furthermore, the manned suborbital market is beginning to grow completely independently of NASA operations; manned orbital ventures will surely follow.

We have an opportunity to reframe the debate. Space is clearly dangerous, but just as clearly filled with opportunity. Instead of arguing if commercial companies can safely complete manned orbital space flight operations, how can the government (with its vast experience) help to guide their development with regard to safety?

The government has many natural roles relating to industry. Specifically, the government regulates an industry, it performs research and development, and it ensures safety through public services such as fire departments and medical rescue. With regard to manned, orbital space flight, only two roles are fulfilled; the FAA provides regulatory oversight and NASA performs research and development. With this most recent incident on the International Space Station, there is an opportunity to begin to discuss how the government can ensure the safety of private commercial companies seeking to expand into low earth orbit.

That conversation might be more productive than simply claiming that private industry doesn’t know what they’re doing…

Tweet This Post 

Two years earlier in 2005, a program called Einstein@Home was launched as a joint effort of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, otherwise known as the Albert Einstein Institute. If you like the idea of participating in serious astrophysics but are less enthusiastic about the hands-on aspect, this program is for you. It works by setting up your personal computer as one in a large series of nodes, which collectively have some serious computing power. It’s called distributed computing, and it makes use of your computer’s idle time to scan through data collected from various astronomical observatories like that from the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico to search for gravitational waves originally predicted by Albert Einstein, which could indicate the presence of exotic types of stars like pulsars and spinning neutron stars. And the program is turning up discoveries. On August 12, 2010 Science Express reported, “Three citizen scientists – a German and an American couple – have discovered a new radio pulsar hidden in data gathered by the Arecibo Observatory. This is the first deep-space discovery by Einstein@Home, which uses donated time from the home and office computers of 250,000 volunteers from 192 different countries.” The press release goes on to say that, “The citizens credited with the discovery are Chris and Helen Colvin, of Ames, Iowa and Daniel Gebhardt, of Universität Mainz, Musikinformatik, Germany. Their computers, along with 500,000 others from around the world, analyze data for Einstein@Home (on average, donors contribute about two computers each).” A new day has dawned in the fundamental sciences when average folks can play such a pivotal role in new discoveries. And Eistein@Home is by no means the only distributed computing project available. According to VolunteeratHome.com there are also projects in physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and math.

Another tool has become available to the amateur, and it makes possible new discoveries in Earth sciences right from home, but this time it comes from an unlikely source. On July 22, the journal Science reported the discovery of the Kamil crater in Egypt. What makes the discovery so special is that it was made using Google Earth! Hot on the heels of the first came a second discovery on August 10 and  reported by Wired Science that a crater 6 miles wide was found in the Bayuda desert in Sudan. Now a tool freely available to everyone is being used to locate as yet unknown meteorite impact sites on Earth in what’s being called the new age of “armchair crater hunting.”

Zooniverse, Einstein@Home and other programs are tapping into a powerful resource that has previously gone unnoticed: the populace. Regular folks. And why not? We are a renewable source of energy and enthusiasm. What’s more, we can contribute substantially to the greater body of human knowledge when mechanisms are devised through which we can participate in research.

But what’s next? The way I see it, the public may have a role to play in upcoming robotic exploration of the moon. Though NASA flounders for the moment, seeking direction and purpose, the private sector is moving full steam ahead with the fabrication of machines for roving, digging, sampling and exploring the lunar surface. And these machines, because of the moon’s close proximity to earth, can and will be controlled from command centers on Earth. In the next few years, we may well see instances of the public invited to climb into a virtual presence system and drive a lunar rover across the moon in much the same way that remote operators control robotic submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles. And should the call come, you can bet that yours truly will be signing up.

Tweet This Post 

The lunar rover built by Astrobotic Technology is set to launch in late 2010 aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 bound for the Apollo 11 landing site. The mission has been dubbed Tranquility Trek.

This is great news for lead contender Astrobotic Technology (see The Undiscovered Country, June 23, 2010 STN), a Carnegie Mellon University spin-off company devoted to robotic exploration of the Moon. They’re already well into the hardware testing phase of their lunar rover, set to launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 late in 2012 bound for the Apollo 11 landing site. The mission, dubbed “Tranquility Trek^TM,” will place a 160-lb, 5-foot-tall rover on the lunar surface for 10 to 12 days until lunar night fall. When the sun rises two Earth weeks later, the solar-powered robot will re-awaken to resume from its deep freeze hibernation after having experienced temperatures plummeting to -298 degrees Fahrenheit. This will be an important milestone for the technology since their plan is to follow on with additional robots to “prospect for the water ice and other volatiles at the Moon’s poles, which can be transformed into propellant to refuel spacecraft for return flights to Earth, doubling the productivity of human missions,” said Dr. William “Red” Whittaker, Astrobotic founder and director of CMU’s Field Robotics Center. There in the permanently-shadowed craters of the poles, robots must face the most bitter cold yet recorded in the solar system. This first demonstration flight will serve as a practice run for the deep freeze of the poles. And if these robots do well, they can serve as a first generation of a sort of space-based hunting dog to help in those tasks too dangerous for humans.

Design for a commercial lunar base. Could this be the shape of things to come and only just around the corner?: image courtesy Bigelow Aerospace

Still further, in an exclusive statement to SpaceTalkNOW, Dr. Whittaker said that his company also has plans to explore newly-discovered features on the Moon called “skylights,” (see A New Decade and Infinite Possibilities, January 11, 2010 STN; The Undiscovered Country, June 23, 2010 STN; and Lunar Scientists Need You, July 25, 2010 STN). These features are the collapsed ceilings of long-dead lava tubes, and they hold much promise as possible sources of lunar water as well as for natural shelter against the radiation environment.

This new NASA lunar program represents a giant leap forward in fostering lunar-based commerce around which the settlement of our nearest neighbor in space could arise. Like the COTS and CCDev commercial contracts before it, NASA will not use ILDD to take ownership of any flight or ground systems like was done during the Apollo program when the agency took full ownership of the Saturn rocket, Command Module and Lunar Lander and all their supporting technology. When Apollo died, those vehicles — so hard won — died with it. But this time, things are different. It’s a perfect example of NASA playing the role for which it is so well suited: that of macroeconomic enabler. The ILDD program’s money will spur innovation in the complimentary areas of human and robotic space flight, which is then reinvested to advance the state of the art still further. Private enterprise can then follow NASA to the moon and supply much of the agency’s needs for technology, materiel and logistical support. It’s a match made in heaven.

Once set in motion, lunar-based commerce can grow exponentially, making use of the nearly limitless, untapped natural resources to be found there not only for supplying the base there but for providing Earth with minerals such as Platinum (see Moonrush by Dennis Wingo, ISBN-13: 978-1894959100) which, though rare on Earth, is abundant on the Moon and could serve as a highly efficient catalyst for the first generation of hydrogen-powered, fuel cell automobiles.

Once a critical mass in space commerce is reached, it opens the door to the spread of space tourism, first from the short-duration, sub-orbital flights begun by Virgin Galactic to low earth orbit and then to the surface of the moon. The progression could be remarkably fast given the right set of circumstances. Already, Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace has plans for establishing the solar system’s first hotel on another planetary body. This can happen in our lifetime! All that is needed is the wise investment of both public and private funds. Uncle Sam and private industry can make great partners if they work together. Now the question is, do those in charge on either side recognize the potential? The NASA folks at the Constellation office from which ILDD will be funded obviously “get it.” But will Congress and the Administration pull the proverbial rug out from under them?

Tweet This Post 

Tweet This Post 

Which is brighter?

a) a full moon, or

b) two half moons

I’ll also include a mug for those who can go the next step and explain why.

Send your entry to contest@SpaceTalkNOW.org and be sure to include your name.

Tweet This Post 

An obvious question to ask is why satellite operators don’t dispose of spacecraft after their missions are complete by simply flying them back into the atmosphere and allowing them to burn up on re-entry. Though many spacecraft posses a propulsion system with which to adjust their positions and altitude periodically over the life of the mission and thus could conceivably be used to re-enter, there are also many that don’t, and there is no mandate to place them on board. It all boils down to cost. If a propulsion system is not absolutely essential to mission success, it will be omitted to minimize weight and thus limit cost, because each pound of mass launched requires additional fuel. Similarly, when propulsion systems are included, the amount of fuel launched with the satellite is limited to no more than is necessary to perform station keeping of the satellite at its intended orbital position.

Kristin Gates of the Global Aerospace Corporation in Altadena, California has come up with a simple and elegant solution. She proposes attaching a balloon 37 meters (approximately 121 feet) in diameter. At that size, gas pressure exerted by the atmosphere on that much surface area would induce significant drag forces, causing the satellite to gradually slow down and re-enter the earth’s atmosphere after little more than a year; that’s compared to centuries without an assist.

The idea goes like this: The balloon is folded, packed and stowed on board the satellite before launch. At a weight of only 36 kilograms (about 79 pounds), the entire package is light enough that its cost impact on the mission is minimal. When the spacecraft reaches the end of its life, the balloon is inflated with helium or some other inert gas. A year later that piece of spent space hardware burns up in the atmosphere.

This method would do well at some of the more congested altitudes below 1500 km (about 932 miles) where there is still enough of an atmosphere to provide the needed drag. For satellites above that altitude such as those at the geosynchronous orbit where many of our communications and weather satellites fly, another solution must be found. There simply is not enough air in that region that would allow the method to work.

Gates and her company are now seeking funding for a demonstration flight. This is where NASA should step in with funds to either fast-track a dedicated satellite demonstrator or place the balloon on an satellite that has already been commissioned as a “payload of opportunity.” No other technology presented to date offers the promise that this simplest of the simple offers, and while we wait for a solution to the problem of space junk, the situation is getting rapidly worse.

Tweet This Post 

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 

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 

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.

Fresh white craters are the youngest of the impacts, spreading their ejecta blankets hundreds of kilometers in some cases. Image courtesy NASA.

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!

Elongated pits are areas where subsurface lava tubes have collapsed. Image courtesy NASA.

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.

Apollo 17 Landing Site. Note the dark tracks of the lunar rover extending left and right. Image courtesy NASA

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 

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.

More than 100 years have not dampened American pioneering spirit. Upper image: Engineers and workman of the Union and Central Pacific Railroads join their tracks into the new Transcontinental Railroad on May 10, 1869. Bottom image: engineers, pilots and support personnel join together after winning the X Prize, October 5, 2004, courtesy Scaled Composites.

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.

Two modern-day pioneers, Sir Richard Branson and Burt Rutan next to VMS Eve, the world's first spaceliner currently in flight testing.

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 

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