| | JSC TODAY CATEGORIES - Headlines
- What Type of Innovator Are You?
- SS Janice Voss
- Access Online Resources at the JSC Library - Organizations/Social
- Free Starport Fitness Assessments - Schedule Now
- Sam's Club in Building 3 Café This Week
- Beginners Ballroom Dance: Aug. 19 and 21
- Miss the Distribution of Apollo 45th T-Shirts? - Community
- Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation
- JSC Child Care Center Has a Few Openings |  |
| Headlines - What Type of Innovator Are You?
Two new innovation awards established by the Office of Human Capital Management are on the scene to recognize innovators with the "right stuff." Are the type of person who leans forward, in spite of risk, and consequently learns from the experience? You could win the Lean Forward; Fail Smart Award. Or, are you a supervisor/manager who builds a culture of appropriate risk taking and supports and encourages creative and innovative behaviors from employees? You could be crowned the Champion of Innovation Award. A complete description of the award categories, along with specific evaluation criteria, eligibility requirements and detailed submission instructions can be found here. Award submittals are due Aug. 1.
As part of Innovation 2014, JSC submissions will be posted to the JSC 2.0 website to allow the JSC workforce to vote for their top choice for Lean Forward and Champion of Innovation. AND—there will be two voting opportunities to win! One for the agency awards, and one for the JSC awards. The JSC voting will take place after the agency voting is completed. - SS Janice Voss
Orbital Sciences launched their second commercial resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS). When the SS Janice Voss was berthed to ISS, it delivered 3,669 pounds of support equipment, crew provisions and new experiments to our orbital outpost. Read more here. - Access Online Resources at the JSC Library
Do you need access to an important online public journal articles, conference papers or e-books, but keep getting those annoying user login messages? Your JSC library, also known as the Scientific and Technical Information Center, can get it for you via Interlibrary Loan Services. If you have questions, Ask a Librarian, call 281-483-4245 or come by Building 30A, Room 1077, between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday (open Flex Fridays). We're here to assist you with your information research needs. Please visit the website for the complete policy and procedures. Organizations/Social - Free Starport Fitness Assessments - Schedule Now
It's already that time of year for your six-month assessment. If you had your first fitness assessment at the beginning of the year, it's time to call and schedule your appointment. If you haven't had an assessment, now is the time to come in. Let the Starport Fitness team help you get started on the path to a fitter, healthier you. A baseline assessment will help you see where you currently stand compared to your age group across the entire nation and give you a starting point for setting some very basic goals that will make a huge difference in your life. Assessments start as early as 8 a.m. or as late as 6 p.m. on most days. Popular appointment times fill up fast, so call us today at 281-483-8112! - Sam's Club in Building 3 Café This Week
Sam's Club representatives will be in the Building 3 café Thursday, July 24, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. to assist you with a new membership or annual renewal. Stop by the Sam's Club table this Thursday to see their current offers. Event Date: Thursday, July 24, 2014 Event Start Time:11:00 AM Event End Time:1:00 PM
Event Location: Building 3 Cafe
Add to Calendar
Cyndi Kibby x47467
[top] - Beginners Ballroom Dance: Aug. 19 and 21
Do you feel like you have two left feet? Well, Starport has the perfect spring program for you: Beginners Ballroom Dance! This eight-week class introduces you to the various types of ballroom dance. Students will learn the secrets of a good lead and following, as well as the ability to identify the beat of the music. This class is easy, and we have fun as we learn. JSC friends and family are welcome. Discounted registration: - $90 per couple (ends Aug. 8)
Regular registration: - $110 per couple (Aug. 9 to Aug. 19)
Two class sessions available: - Tuesdays from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m.
- starts Aug. 19 - Thursdays from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.
- starts Aug. 21 All classes are taught in the Gilruth Center's dance studio (Group Ex studio). - Miss the Distribution of Apollo 45th T-Shirts?
If you missed the distribution of Apollo 45th anniversary T-shirts last week, stop by the Building 11 Starport Gift Shop at your earliest convenience to pick up your shirts. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Remember, you will receive 10 percent off most merchandise purchases in the Starport Gift Shops while wearing your shirts every Friday through Oct. 31. Community - Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation
Six out of 10 children in our area have little to no food to eat in the summer, when reduced school breakfast and lunch programs shut down. YOU can make a difference in their lives by participating in the JSC Feeds Families activity going on NOW, which benefits the Galveston County Food Bank and the Clear Lake Food Pantry. Please drop something in the bins located across the center, or purchase a food voucher or pre-filled bag of food in either of the cafés. Right now we are collecting "non-food needs" such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, shampoos, soap, detergent, diapers and more. We're also planning a run/walk in August. The registration cost is reasonable—a bag of food. Look for more information soon! Our JSC goal is 60,000 pounds. Won't you help us knock out hunger? - JSC Child Care Center Has a Few Openings
Space Family Education, Inc. (SFEI) has openings available to dependents of JSC civil servants and contractors for the school year beginning in August. Openings available Aug. 25 are for: - Children 16 to 34 months old
- Children 3 years old
- Children 4 years old
Program Details: 1. Open 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (closed federal holidays but open Flex Fridays). 2. Competitive pricing with other comparable child cares, but SFEI includes more amenities. 3. Additional security. Badges required to get on-site, and an additional security code to get in the school's front door. 4. Accelerated curriculum in all classes with additional enrichment and extracurricular programs. 5. Convenience. Nearby and easy access for parents working on-site at JSC. 6. Breakfast, morning snack, lunch and afternoon snack are all included. 7. Video monitoring available from computers, androids and iPhones. | |
| |
| JSC Today is compiled periodically as a service to JSC employees on an as-submitted basis. Any JSC organization or employee may submit articles. Disclaimer: Accuracy and content of these notes are the responsibility of the submitters. |
NASA and Human Spaceflight News
Tuesday – July 22, 2014
HEADLINES AND LEADS
NASA honors Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, first man to set foot on moon 45 years ago
Associated Press
NASA honored one of its most famous astronauts Monday by renaming a historic building at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Apollo-era building named for Neil Armstrong
James Dean – Florida Today
Lots of kids build model airplanes, but how many also build a wind tunnel to test and improve their models?
NASA names historic operations building for first moonwalker Neil Armstrong
Robert Pearlman - collectSPACE
NASA on Monday (July 21) paid tribute to the first man to walk on the moon by naming a building at its Florida spaceport where work is being advanced to send astronauts to Mars.
Actor Morgan Freeman Talks Mars Trips & More with NASA Astronauts
Actor Morgan Freeman grilled NASA astronauts on the International Space Station about how their work can get humans to Mars someday.
The Future of Moon Exploration, Lunar Colonies and Humanity
A rocket carrying more than a dozen privately built probes touches down on the moon. The robots burst from the vehicle in a race to beam back high-definition video and other data while roving the surface of Earth's nearest natural satellite. The people of Earth watch a broadcast of the race as the rovers roam (or stall) in the lunar dust.
Was Neil right, and Buzz wrong? Why NASA should rethink the moon.
Eric Berger – Houston Chronicle
This weekend America rightly marked and celebrated the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. What an awesome achievement.
After the 45th anniversary of the first moon landing, a case for more footprints
Alexandra Petri – The Washington Post
Another year, another July 20, another anniversary to be sacrificed on the altar of Boomer Nostalgia. This time, it's the first moon landing.
The Second-best Plan
Robert Zubrin – Space News
Recently, an advisory committee assembled by the National Research Council (NRC) published a report titled "Pathways to Exploration" calling for redirection of NASA's human spaceflight program. The report is written in a somewhat obscure form of bureaucratese, so as a public service I will provide a brief summary in English.
Russia Sanctions Aren't Rocket Science, Except When They Are
One item unlikely to make it on the U.S. sanctions list: Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines, which are used to launch America's most sensitive military and intelligence satellites.
Doug Cameron – The Wall Street Journal
Russia doesn't have much leverage amid calls for tougher international sanctions following the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in Ukraine, but it does have the space rocket engines the Pentagon still loves, and some U.S. politicians love to hate.
RD-180 Not Needed To Launch All U.S. Air Force Payloads
Dave Schweikle – Space News
There is a considerable amount of press these days about how the Russians are withholding the sale of the RD-180 rocket engine for the Atlas 5 launch vehicle, which reduces our defense space launch capability. This is absolutely wrong.
Profile | Mark Sirangelo, Corporate Vice President and Head of Space Systems, Sierra Nevada Corp.
Leonard David – Space News
Some people are criticized for chasing dreams. But for Mark Sirangelo, as corporate vice president and head of Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Space Systems division, that's part of his job as he leads the effort to develop the Dream Chaser — a lifting-body spaceplane the Louisville, Colorado-based company is positioning as an economical successor to the retired NASA space shuttle.
SpaceX 'Flights Are As Safe And Reliable As Possible': NASA Backs Musk's Company In Response To Air Force Letter
Angelo Young – International Business Times
Citing "anomalies" in Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) flights, the U.S. Air Force has yet to certify the company for Pentagon contracts.
Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies Gets $1.3 Billion ISS Support Contract
Dan Leone – Space News
NASA awarded Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies (SGT) a nine-year contract worth up to $1.3 billion to provide mission and flight crew operations support for the international space station and future human space exploration, the agency announced July 14.
Russian Cargo Spacecraft to Host Experiment After Delivering Supplies to ISS
RIA Novosti
Russia's Progress M-23M resupply spacecraft is due to get undocked on Tuesday from the International Space Station (ISS) and embark on an autonomous scientific flight to study the impact of its engines on the plasma of the Earth's ionosphere.
ULA targeting Wednesday evening launch
James Dean – Florida Today
A busy period of launches from Cape Canaveral continues with this week's planned 7:03 p.m. Wednesday blastoff of a United Launch Alliance Delta IV rocket carrying a pair of military satellites.
More Eyes on the Skies
Dennis Overbye – The New York Times
The future, it is often said, belongs to those who plan for it. And astronomers have been busy working the proverbial smoke-filled rooms (or whatever passes for them today) where the destiny of big science is often shaped and crisscrossing one another in airports on fund-raising trips. Now they are about to have something to show for it.
COMPLETE STORIES
NASA honors Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, first man to set foot on moon 45 years ago
Associated Press
NASA honored one of its most famous astronauts Monday by renaming a historic building at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
It now bears the name of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon when the Apollo 11 mission landed there 45 years ago.
Armstrong, who died in 2012, was remembered at a ceremony as not only an astronaut, but also as an aerospace engineer, a test pilot and university professor. Michael Collins, who orbited the moon as Armstrong took his historic steps on July 20, 1969, said he had a "powerful combination of curiosity and intelligence" along with an intuitive grasp of the complexities of flight machinery.
"Neil probably liked hangars better than office buildings, but he was certainly good in either venue," Collins said.
NASA renamed the Operations and Checkout building, also known as the O&C, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. It has been the last stop for astronauts before their flights since 1965. It was also used to test and process Apollo spacecraft. Currently, it's where the Orion spacecraft is being assembled to send astronauts to an asteroid and later to Mars.
The renaming ceremony included remarks by Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin and backup mission commander Jim Lovell. Armstrong's sons Rick and Mark also spoke.
Apollo-era building named for Neil Armstrong
James Dean – Florida Today
Lots of kids build model airplanes, but how many also build a wind tunnel to test and improve their models?
Neil Armstrong did, and more than the "small step" on the moon that secured his place in history 45 years ago, that explains the kind of person he was, said Michael Collins, Armstrong's Apollo 11 crewmate along with Buzz Aldrin.
"That powerful, powerful combination of curiosity and intelligence propelled him to the top of his profession," Collins said today at Kennedy Space Center. "Over and over again he took it one step further, and that eventually brought him to the last rung on the ladder of the Apollo 11 (lunar module)."
Collins, Aldrin and family members of the late Armstrong, who died in 2012 at age 82, were among dignitaries who addressed roughly 500 guests during a ceremony formally naming a historic KSC facility after the first moonwalker.
Though Armstrong would not have sought the honor, they said, it was appropriate for his name to grace the Operations and Checkout Building, where thousands worked behind the scenes to prepare Apollo spacecraft for flight and where astronauts spent months training for their missions.
"Neil never capitalized on his celebrity," said Jim Lovell, Armstrong's backup commander for Apollo 11. "He always felt that he was part of a team of thousands of people working together to honor President Kennedy's commitment."
Inside the renovated "O&C" high bay that housed the ceremony, a smaller team now is working on a spacecraft NASA says will lead to its "next giant leap," to an asteroid in the mid-2020s and some day Mars.
The Orion capsule is being prepared for a first test flight in space later this year, without a crew.
In a move symbolically linking the Apollo program's achievement with planned future exploration, Administrator Charlie Bolden gave KSC Director Bob Cabana a framed mission patch that flew to the moon.
The Apollo 11 crew gave the patch to NASA in 1987 with an inscription that it should be presented to the first Mars-bound crew – a mission the agency hopes to launch from KSC, possibly in the 2030s.
"That is just unbelievably cool," Cabana said.
NASA also linked its two current International Space Station crew members, Steve Swanson and Reid Wiseman, into the ceremony.
Both credited Apollo 11 as a source of inspiration, and Wiseman drew laughs with his admission that he wasn't alive at the time (he was born six years later), but had learned about his parents' experience watching the lunar landing in the summer of 1969.
"They used to tell me the story every single summer, so I grew up with this in my mind all the time," he said from orbit 260 miles up. "It was huge inspiration for me."
Armstrong, after whom NASA also recently renamed its Dryden Flight Research Center in California, was remembered as an American hero and icon, with brains to match his superb skills as a test pilot.
"That man, without a doubt was one of the best, certainly the best test pilot, I feel, that was selected for the NASA program," said Aldrin.
Armstrong's two sons also touched on lighter moments in their father's career and the kind of person he was.
Mark Armstrong presented a painting commemorating the "incident" during some rare time off when his dad and fellow astronaut Pete Conrad ran a boat aground while water skiing on the Banana River (Conrad was driving).
His brother Rick told the audience that if Armstrong were running the building now named in his honor, they could expect a boss who was honest, forthright and fair almost to a fault.
If you were unprepared for a question from Armstrong, he suggested, stall with discussion about airplanes or complex math problems, but never bluff through issues.
"He is a bit of a stickler for accuracy and precision," said Rick. "Although, if you're working in this building, I'm pretty sure you've got that concept covered already."
In addition to being the factory for Orion's assembly, the Operations and Checkout building continues to serve as crew quarters for visiting astronauts. For three decades it was recognizable as the place shuttle crews suited up before walking out to a cheering crowd and a ride to the launch pad in the Astrovan – the last time three years ago.
Collins said Armstrong would be proud to have his name on a building that reflected the "heart and soul of the space business," even if it was not his style to want such things.
"If he were here today, I think he would enjoy prowling around this building, every nook and cranny," he said. "More than anyone else I have known, I felt he had an intuitive grasp of flight machinery and its complexity, and of the intricate knowledge required by you in the jobs that you perform here daily."
NASA names historic operations building for first moonwalker Neil Armstrong
Robert Pearlman - collectSPACE
NASA on Monday (July 21) paid tribute to the first man to walk on the moon by naming a building at its Florida spaceport where work is being advanced to send astronauts to Mars.
The "Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building" at NASA's Kennedy Space Center added the late astronaut's name to the historic facility where he, his crew mates and their Apollo 11 spacecraft were readied for a launch to the moon 45 years ago this past week. Today, the building is being used to ready Orion, NASA's next-generation space capsule being developed to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit for the first time since the Apollo lunar landings.
"It is altogether fitting that we rename this facility," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said during a ceremony held inside the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building, where hundreds of space workers gathered. "Armstrong was not only the first man to set foot on the moon... he challenged all of us to expand the boundaries of the possible."
"He, along with his crew Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, are a bridge from NASA's historic journey to the moon 45 years ago, to our path to Mars today."
Bolden was joined at the ceremony by Aldrin and Collins, as well as Armstrong's backup commander, James Lovell, and Armstrong's sons Rick and Mark. During the event, Bolden presented Kennedy Space Center director Robert Cabana with an Apollo 11 patch that the astronauts carried to the moon in 1969 and then inscribed for the first crew to fly to Mars.
"We present this patch because it's here where the Mars 1 crew will lift off on America's next bold mission," Bolden stated. "We salute Neil Armstrong and his crewmates for blazing a path that is leading us all the way from the first footprints on the moon to, very soon, the first footprints on Mars."
Armstrong, who famously declared his first small step on the moon a "giant leap for all mankind," died in 2012 at the age of 82.
"Neil's spirit lives on in these halls, in our hearts, and now his name will be a constant reminder of where we've been and that in his words 'our opportunities are unlimited,'" said Cabana.
In addition to updating the signs identifying the facility, a plaque and a spacesuit display in the building's lobby also pay tribute to the O&C's new namesake. Mark Armstrong also presented the center with a painting of his father from his days as an astronaut.
"On behalf of the Armstrong family, I would like to thank you for this tremendous honor," Armstrong's youngest son Mark said. "It's our hope the name that graces this facility will inspire those who work here for many years to come."
The five-story-tall O&C building, which was originally titled the Manned Spacecraft Operations Building at its opening in 1964, housed the quarters where the astronauts stayed while at the Kennedy Space Center prior to their launch.
"Since 1965, the Operations and Checkout building has been the final stop for America's astronauts before they embarked on their space journeys," Cabana said. "Like all the others, the crew of Apollo 11 left their mark, not only on the moon, but here in this building."
The building also included the high bay where the Apollo command, service and lunar modules were tested for flight before being stacked atop the Saturn V rocket.
The O&C's crew quarters were used throughout the Apollo program and for the subsequent Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and space shuttle flights. In the early 1980s, the facility's high bay was used to support the European Spacelab modules that flew on the shuttle.
The Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building is in use today to assemble NASA's Orion spacecraft as the space agency prepares to embark on its "next giant leap" in space exploration, sending astronauts out to an asteroid and Mars. The facility is, at present, assembling the Orion capsule that will launch this December on the Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1).
"I very much like that [Armstrong's] name will be on this building," Collins remarked. "He wouldn't have sought this honor, that was not his style, but I think he would be proud to have his name so closely associated with the heart and the soul of the space business."
"On Neil's behalf, thank you for what you do every day."
Actor Morgan Freeman Talks Mars Trips & More with NASA Astronauts
Actor Morgan Freeman grilled NASA astronauts on the International Space Station about how their work can get humans to Mars someday.
"So you guys are out there, floating around, tossing that microphone back and forth there cleverly," Freeman said during a webcast Friday (July 18) featuring the station's Expedition 41 NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman and Steve Swanson. Before Freeman could finish his question, Wiseman did a backflip.
"Showoff," Freeman retorted as the audience at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California laughed. "All right, one of my bucket list things is going to be to get up there with you so I can just try that."
Swanson thinks that the International Space Station is a good place to practice for an eventual trip to Mars. Astronauts can learn more about how to make life support systems work for three years continuously, and even how to survive the radiation blast of a trip to the Red Planet.
"You can see what works and what doesn't work on this vehicle," Swanson said to Freeman, who was participating as part of NASA's "Next Giant Leap" event honoring the 45th anniversary of Apollo 11.
'It's not made of green cheese'
Freeman admitted that his interest in science was not in the field itself, but more how it attaches itself to science fiction. For example, how the atomic submarine of Jules Vernes' "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" became real fascinated Freeman.
"My involvement here is to me, one of the mysteries of my life because it's only through show business that I wind up having this relationship with the JPL," said Freeman, who is also the narrator of the newer Science Channel science documentary series "Through the Wormhole."
Speaking to an audience mostly comprised of NASA interns, Freeman was one of the few people in the room who remembered watching Apollo 11's historic moonwalk on July 20, 1969. He was on the couch in his apartment in New York City at the time, he said.
"We learned one thing there that was very, very instructive for a lot of us: It's not made of green cheese," Freeman intoned seriously to audience laughter.
"[It is] such a momentous event," he added. "To have actually done that, and come back, is proof positive that whatever we can imagine, we can do."
Voyage to Jupiter's moons
Freeman also wanted to know what the Expedition 41 astronauts thought of building a Mars spacecraft in space, rather than on Earth.
"Certainly, if we can build a heavy-lift vehicle that could launch up a lot of parts and a lot of mass, and then assemble this in low-Earth orbit outside of our atmosphere, I think that would be a great way to start," Wiseman said.
Freeman pressed the astronauts, asking how long it would take to build. Swanson replied that it depends on funding.
"I think we've spent a lot of money doing the wrong things. We can do different things," Freeman responded.
After the astronauts signed off, Freeman took questions from the audience, among them concerning where he would like to go in the universe.
Freeman said he would visit Jupiter's moons, adding that he would like to spend time "looking around tagging things" in the asteroid belt on the way. But even a trip into low-Earth orbit would be a treat.
"I think that would probably be the adventure of a lifetime for an average person," he said.
The Future of Moon Exploration, Lunar Colonies and Humanity
A rocket carrying more than a dozen privately built probes touches down on the moon. The robots burst from the vehicle in a race to beam back high-definition video and other data while roving the surface of Earth's nearest natural satellite. The people of Earth watch a broadcast of the race as the rovers roam (or stall) in the lunar dust.
The motives that drove teams to send these robotic emissaries to the moon might be different — ranging from inspiring a country to starting a sustainable, commercial endeavor — but they have all flown the more than 200,000 miles (321,000 kilometers) to the moon, riding on a wave of commercial hopes that rest on the lunar surface.
Could this be what the start of a lunar revolution looks like 45 years after the Apollo 11 moon landing? For some of the people involved with a private race to the moon, that hypothetical scenario could become reality in a little more than a year.
"For the X Prize, we're going to carry multiple X Prize teams with us to the surface," said John Thornton, CEO of Astrobotic, a team competing for the X Prize. "It's going to be a little bit like NASCAR on the moon, where we're going to have multiple rovers deploying. These are rovers from different nations, different X Prize teams, and we'll be competing for the biggest prize ever, streaming live from the moon … You can see these HD videos coming back as the competition is unfolding, as other countries are competing with our rover."
Eighteen teams are currently competing to win up to $30 million as part of the Google Lunar X Prize, which will be awarded to the first private team that successfully launches an unmanned mission to the moon and meets a set of objectives. To win the grand prize, a team needs to be the first to send video and other data back to Earth, as well as travel 1,640 feet (500 meters) on the moon by Dec. 31, 2015.
An X Prize for exploration
The motives behind the newest ventures to explore the moon are markedly different from earlier reasons for sending humans and equipment to the natural satellite. NASA launched the Apollo missions 45 years ago to beat the Soviet Union in the space race. Many of today's lunar entrepreneurs have different goals in mind — ones that sometimes don't have anything to do with what space agencies around the globe are doing.
Some companies might be interested in lunar tourism, others have a desire to mine the moon for resources and still others see the moon as a potential second home for humanity.
"The first question is why anybody is interested in the moon," said John Logsdon, a professor emeritus at the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University. "One, it's an interesting object, but probably for many potential explorers, the most interesting thing is that it's close. It's just an offshore island, where[as] any other destination in space is weeks to months away. Any private organization, and most nations interested in going beyond low-Earth orbit, are going to be focused on first going to the moon."
Ideally, the Google Lunar X Prize competition will help to create an industry based around commercial motivations for visiting the moon, representatives for the organization have said.
While the 18 teams are all contributing to the development of commercial lunar interests, their motivations for entering the competition — and explanations of what winning the prize will mean — are as diverse as the international teams themselves.
Bob Richards, founder of the Google Lunar X Prize team Moon Express, was involved with spaceflight ventures for years before the competition came to be. Moon Express engineers are currently in the process of testing the technology necessary to move their robotic craft around on the moon.
Richards sees the team's participation in the X Prize competition as a way of furthering a goal he's been thinking of for years. He doesn't want this lunar landing to be a one-off experience. Instead, Richards believes that there is a market for, and interest in, bridging the gap between Earth and the rest of the solar system, starting with the moon.
"The founders of Moon Express believe in the value of the moon and its resources to life on Earth and our future in space as a space-faring, multiworld civilization — and the investors do, too," Richards told Space.com. "In the long term, we're looking to develop, basically, a railway to open up the possibility of lunar resources complementing our economy here on Earth, expanding our economic sphere out to the moon." Other teams, like Israel's SpaceIL, are more focused on the Earthly possibilities of the X Prize. The company's probe may be tiny, yet it's designed to not only get to the moon, but also inspire young Israelis back on the ground, said SpaceIL co-founder Kfir Damari.
"Today, when we look at it, our mission is to land the first Israeli spacecraft on the moon," Damari said. "Our vision is much, much bigger. It's to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers to develop technologies that will help humanity to research the universe … We are working hard to win the competition, but the vision is much, much bigger."
Meanwhile, Astrobotic's Thornton thinks that humans should build a sustained presence on the moon. By using pits and other features that could bring people and technology below the lunar surface, humanity could extend its reach to the moon, Thornton said.
Thornton and representatives for Astrobotic see the X Prize as a way to kick-start a lunar industry.
"We'd be perfectly happy landing on the moon and placing last in the X Prize," Thornton said. "That would be fine by us. For us, the big win is to commercially land on the moon, and open up the pathway to the moon."
A global path to the moon
Other companies unaffiliated with the X Prize are even looking into building lunar bases and creating a tourism industry centered on the draw of the moon. But all this commercial interest in digging into the lunar dirt doesn't mean that nations around the world don't have a role to play in the future of spaceflight or lunar exploration.
Even representatives of companies interested in sending private crafts to the moon admit that commercial industry can't do everything right away. Sometimes, nations need to lead the way into uncharted territory.
"You won't see private companies doing science for the sake of science or doing exploration for the sake of doing exploration," Thornton said. "I think that's where the space agencies need to be leading. They need to be leading in the direction of eventual settlement of the moon and eventual settlement of Mars. That's hard. That will be a very difficult thing for commercial to do."
Private companies also might not have the funds to launch a manned mission to the lunar surface. Such a mission is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than a robotic venture, Logsdon said.
"The moon is within reach of private operators operating on modest budgets, but it's also within reach of nations that are not spending an immense amount of money on space," Logsdon told Space.com. New lunar nations
While NASA led the way to the lunar surface in 1969, it doesn't look like the space agency will be launching any manned missions to the moon anytime soon. The U.S. agency is not planning to return astronauts to the lunar surface, instead opting to send a crew to an asteroid pulled into orbit around the moon. The new undertaking is thought to be a testing ground for an eventual crewed Mars mission.
At one point, the United States was planning to return to the moon with the Constellation Program — designed to deliver astronauts back to the lunar surface — but that plan was canceled in favor of the asteroid redirect mission after President Barack Obama took office.
"Personally, I think the asteroid mission was a good plan, as it had elements suitable for robotic missions and human spaceflight, and it was a new destination, with multiple milestones," said Joan Johnson-Freese, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. "The 'new' part being important, as it took the U.S. out of a potential race back to the moon, against China, which the U.S. could well lose — not for lack of technical capability, but for lack of political will."
In fact, it might actually be easier for nondemocratic nations to forge the way back to the moon, Johnson-Freese said.
"While human spaceflight holds great attraction for the public in many, if not most, countries, it is very difficult to actually pursue in democracies, where people have a voice in what the government funds," Johnson-Freese told Space.com. "It is viewed as a good thing to do, but expendable when juxtaposed against government programs like housing, jobs, education and defense. Countries like China can pursue human spaceflight on its own because the government, not the people, gets to choose what it funds." China has plans to go to the moon. The government is aiming to launch a mission to return lunar samples back to Earth sometime in 2017. In 2013, China became the third country to soft-land a robotic craft on the lunar surface. Government officials are also working on developing technology that could bring Chinese astronauts to the moon.
Russia also has lunar plans. Officials are reportedly planning to launch robotic missions to the moon starting in 2015. The private company Space Adventures is also hoping to use Russia's Soyuz rockets to take tourists on a trip around the moon for about $150 million per person, with cosmonauts leading missions.
A lunar CATALYST
Though NASA officials are not planning to forge a way back to the moon, it doesn't mean that scientists and engineers at the agency have lost interest in the moon.
NASA recently launched the Lunar CATALYST program, designed to help private companies interested in going to the moon. CATALYST (short for Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown) is a program that provides unfunded NASA support for a select group of private companies that want to pave a way to the lunar surface.
Though NASA will not provide funds for the three companies selected for Lunar CATALYST, officials will give Moon Express, Astrobotic and Masten Space Systems use of NASA facilities and technology.
"From a commercial standpoint, we have seen, in this agency and across the federal government, a look at ways to work with the commercial sector," said NASA's Nantel Suzuki, robotic lunar lander program executive. "Public-private partnerships are being examined in new ways."
NASA has successfully partnered with private companies before. Two private organizations are currently flying robotic missions to the International Space Station for the agency. NASA is also partnering with companies to create a ferry service to the space station that could begin flying as early as 2017.
The CATALYST program doesn't necessarily have the same goal as NASA's other commercial partnerships, however, Suzuki added.
"If we look at the moon, we don't have an anchor guarantee of any kind — nothing like an International Space Station that will be orbiting and requiring a steady supply of cargo over X-number of years," Suzuki told Space.com. "We don't have that on the moon, so it doesn't really make sense to have the analogous service contracts at this time — something akin to the CRS station cargo supply." One spaceflight veteran thinks that NASA's role should be to facilitate the growth of other nations that want to fly people to the moon. Apollo 11 astronaut and second man on the moon Buzz Aldrin thinks that the United States should help other countries get off-world.
"Let's try doing something that doesn't compete with prestige-seeking nations sending their citizens to kick up dust on the moon," Aldrin said during a Google Hangout with Space.com earlier this month. The United States should help other nations by placing robotic probes on the moon that can be used to explore and aid other nations' lunar ambitions, Aldrin added. From the moon to Mars
It's also possible that countries could use the moon as a jumping-off point to access other parts of the solar system, like Mars.
By building up and mining the moon, groups could be able to extract material that can be used to fuel rockets and bring people farther into space than ever before, said Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow Aerospace, a company aiming to develop the capability to land a base on the moon.
"I see the moon as a tremendous resupply asset for going to Mars, for going anyplace else," Bigelow said. "Because even though you may have depots on the way to Mars — and Mars is anywhere from 50 million to 140 million miles [80 million to 225 million km] away from Earth — you're going to have to have way stations in between, places where people get special supplies, extra help, if they need it on the way to and from [Mars]."
The moon could also act as a proving ground for future missions to other places in the solar system.
"The moon is kind of the mother of all locations for which you can really have a sizable operation scattered over the surface in a lot of different areas," Bigelow added. "This doesn't just involve the United States. We're going to have multiple nations involved in lunar operations."
Base of lunar operations
The Bigelow Aerospace plan hinges on the idea that private companies and nations will be interested in having a base on the moon. Those groups could contract Bigelow to build a base and fly it to the lunar surface, where they can then mine, experiment and settle on the moon.
Different companies and countries could have specific bases built by Bigelow and designed to fit their needs.
"Bigelow will eventually need a sizable astronaut corps," Bigelow said. "These men and women will be working in activities additional to flight operations, such as perfecting spacecraft hardware, assisting our clients, providing information to members of Congress and their staff, working with NASA and assisting Bigelow's eventual plans for commercial lunar bases, which we hope can be a reality in about 10 years." [See photos of Bigelow Aerospace's ideas for lunar bases]
Another company, Golden Spike, also plans to help launch people to the moon. At first, officials with the company plan to provide interested nations with the capability to launch their astronauts on a round trip to the lunar surface for $1.5 billion per flight instead of starting from scratch.
"It's basically an opportunity for any foreign nation to have their own people travel to the moon to explore, to excite their population, to create motivations for STEM [science, technology, engineering and math] education, or any other purpose they like," Alan Stern, CEO and president of Golden Spike, told Space.com. "The offer is a much safer, a much quicker and a much less expensive alternative to developing their own lunar program." The company plans to use existing, tested technology to fly astronauts to the lunar surface. Representatives with Golden Spike plan to buy rockets and capsules — like those already in development for NASA's commercial crew program — for the lunar missions. According to Stern, Golden Spike should be ready to fly the first missions in six to seven years.
Golden Spike could also eventually provide flights for private organizations like Bigelow who needs to get people up to the lunar surface safely, Stern said.
Exporting problems to the moon?
A utopian view of future moon exploration — in which different nations, scientists and private companies can harmoniously work side by side — might not be immediately probable, however. It's possible that conflicts could erupt on the moon, just as they do on Earth.
"If we look at our history, the human being did not have a very pristine history of peaceful coexistence," Bigelow said. "So we had better wise up. We had better start to change our behavior here, and we cannot export, off of Earth, the same irresponsible behavior that we not only are conducting today on this planet, but have conducted for millennia. As human beings, our record is absolutely terrible. I think we owe a responsibility to space exploration, space existence of an entirely different level of attitude and respect."
Countries and private organizations alike will also need to set up rules and regulations governing exactly who lays claim to any particular plot of land on the moon. As it stands now, no country can "own" a part of a celestial body according to a United Nations treaty introduced in 1967 and eventually signed by 128 nations.
No matter what the future of lunar exploration holds, the Google Lunar X Prize moon race will be televised. Officials with the competition have announced that they are partnering with the Science Channel and the Discovery Channel to cover the race from testing to the landing, so that Earthlings can catch every minute of the new lunar action.
Was Neil right, and Buzz wrong? Why NASA should rethink the moon.
Eric Berger – Houston Chronicle
This weekend America rightly marked and celebrated the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. What an awesome achievement.
As part of those celebrations one of the first two men to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, restated his preference that NASA should focus its efforts on going to Mars. Neil Armstrong, who died in 2012, preferred a return to the moon.
Luckily for Buzz, NASA is doing just that. The space agency has said it's going to send humans to Mars in the 2030s.
Unluckily for Buzz, while pretty much everyone agrees that Mars is the ultimate destination for humans this century, NASA probably can't afford to go there any time soon.
Four-time astronaut Leroy Chiao, commander of the International Space Station in 2004 and 2005 and a member of the Augustine commission in 2009 told me earlier this year:
"We all recognized and agreed that Mars should be the next big destination. But when we looked at what it would take to go directly to Mars, what would it take to do an Apollo like program to get to Mars in a reasonable number of years, the costs were prohibitive. It was not credible for us to present anything like that to the administration."
Which is why NASA should re-think the moon. And not just because it's close. As I report in the third part of my Adrift series, there are many good reasons to go back to the moon. There's geopolitics. There's interesting science. There's the opportunity to further a burgeoning private space industry.
But most importantly there's scads of rocket fuel that will eventually get us to Mars — and beyond — without waiting decades longer for a president to come along and double or triple NASA's exploration budget.
A sustainable NASA begins on the moon.
After the 45th anniversary of the first moon landing, a case for more footprints
Alexandra Petri – The Washington Post
Another year, another July 20, another anniversary to be sacrificed on the altar of Boomer Nostalgia. This time, it's the first moon landing.
One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.
And now what?
We put up with a great deal from the baby boomers, including a constant barrage of anniversaries and commemorations, from JFK's assassination to the Beatles landing. Tread anywhere on the calendar and you will awaken a Date of Significance to the boomers and it will go rampaging onto your TV screen for hours and hours, devouring all but the worst possible news. Some of them were maybe 5 when the first moon landing happened and hardly even remember it, but that has never stopped them. They love a good commemoration. Meanwhile, all we millennials ever get to do is write lugubrious personal essays about where we were on Sept. 11, 2001. It seems like we have gotten the short end of the stick again.
But it's odd to feel nostalgic for manned space travel. Audiocassettes and vinyl records and leg warmers, sure. Things of the past! But space travel? That was supposed to be a thing of the future.
And it's not even that we feel nostalgic for visits to the moon. We don't remember them at all.
It seems unfair that the closest thing we recollect to a Big Space Event was when our shuttles touched down for the last time and the voyagers returned. "Gravity" was good, but it wasn't quite the same.
As an ardent procrastinator, I know how it can be — you say you will be on the moon again in five years, on Mars in 10, and then two more decades pass and instead you have just dawdled around in low-earth orbit singing "Space Oddity." I get it. But it's been 45 years since the first moon landing. It is time we did something.
I understand that manned space travel is costly, unwieldy and inefficient if what you care about is Hard Science. But putting hard science aside for a moment (as our budgets have been saying each year for a while now), can we really allow the placing of the last human foot on the moon to be something the boomers remember (get primed for that 45th anniversary of the Apollo 17 landing in 2017!) and we don't? As a generation, they are entirely too smug already.
On a more serious note, I understand all the considerations keeping us down on terra firma. It is a tremendous understatement to say that we have trouble enough down here. The past weeks have certainly reminded us of that.
But if we wait until we've solved our problems down here, we'll never look up again. There are always problems. And the grimmer moments make me wish we had a reason to gaze skyward, together. Now, the sky still sits in the background, the Super Moon looming in pictures over wreckage of buildings and bodies just as it shines over more peaceable back yards. And on the surface of that moon still sit the same undisturbed footprints as before.
This can devolve pretty quickly into an overwrought voice-over about Common Purpose as a Species and the Gift of Wonder, or about how we spend all our time looking down into our screens and, yes, that can make us feel closer as a species, and help us see deeper into ourselves, but if we turned the same powerful lens of human curiosity outward rather than inward, who knows what we might glimpse?
But leaving that aside, there are immense and tangible benefits to making investments in scientific curiosity, in data-gathering (why should the National Security Agency have all the fun?), in better equipment to answer the most exciting questions, in pushing the circle of light and knowledge out just a fraction of an inch further, even if it means no new footprints as yet.
It wouldn't hurt to have some anniversaries of our own to celebrate, either.
The Second-best Plan
Robert Zubrin – Space News
Recently, an advisory committee assembled by the National Research Council (NRC) published a report titled "Pathways to Exploration" calling for redirection of NASA's human spaceflight program. The report is written in a somewhat obscure form of bureaucratese, so as a public service I will provide a brief summary in English.
The NRC report translates as follows: NASA should build a lunar base.
The NRC committee authors never present this as their conclusion. Rather, they attempt to induce the reader to draw it for himself or herself, via the following subtle logic:
- NASA needs a definite and inspirational goal for its human spaceflight program, and that goal should be the human exploration of Mars.
2. There are three paths to get humans to Mars:
(a) Perform the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). Then send humans to Phobos. Then send
humans to Mars.
(b) Build a space station at Lagrange point L2. Then send astronauts to the Moon. Then send
astronauts to near-Earth asteroids. Then send astronauts to Phobos. Then send humans to
Mars.
(c) Build a Moon base. Then send humans to Mars.
3. Options (a) and (b) make no sense. So choose one of the remaining options.
I must admit that presented with this set of alternatives, the Moon base path seems very attractive.
I am going to criticize this report, but before I do, I would like to point out some parts where it really got things right.
In the first place, point 1 — that NASA needs a definite and inspirational goal for its human spaceflight program, and that goal should be the human exploration of Mars — is correct. Furthermore, the NRC authors gave valuable service in making clear that such a goal-directed program is incompatible with NASA's current methodology of developing technologies based on bureaucratic constituency support, and then selecting missions based on their value in providing putative rationales for such irrationally chosen technology programs. They also imply, correctly if a bit too politely for clarity, that the ARM mission was chosen on this basis, as its primary purpose is to provide a customer for an otherwise unnecessary high-power electric propulsion system.
They also do a fair job of showing that both option (a), which is unfortunately NASA's current program of record, and option (b), a sometimes offered alternative, are highly defective as potential pathways to Mars, as they both involve extensive mission operations and technology developments that have nothing to do with the final goal. They fail to offer cogent criticism of Phobos as a way station to Mars, but I can correct that omission here. The idea of using Phobos as a base station for Mars exploration operations is absurd because Phobos is in an equatorial circular orbit that limits access to Mars' equatorial regions, and even there, involving it places a heavy logistics load on missions to the martian surface. Specifically, stopping at Phobos on the way down to Mars adds a delta-V of 2.14 kilometers per second to the mission, while stopping at Phobos on the way back to Earth from Mars adds another 1.67 kilometers per second, for a devastating total delta-V addition of 3.81 kilometers per second to the mission propulsion requirements. But this omitted data actually greatly strengthen the authors' main point, that one should not invent pointless missions for the purpose of trying to justify previous irrational decisions — as Phobos-basing now is being pushed to try to concoct Mars relevancy for the ARM mission.
The NRC report does further public service in dismissing out of hand the false claims of some electric propulsion zealots that their pet project offers an enabling technology for quick trips to Mars.
Furthermore, the authors offer a useful principle for a goal-driven human spaceflight program, to wit, that in our real universe of finite NASA funding, one should not engage in major human spaceflight programs that have nothing to do with the goal. Unfortunately, however, they don't follow this solid logic themselves, and thus fail to call for early redirection of international space station funding to their desired lunar exploration program — despite the ISS's complete irrelevancy to lunar missions — thereby abandoning their paper Moon base to the universe of make believe.
But the most serious problem with the NRC report is the way that the authors avoid competent discussion of the real alternative. If our goal is to send humans to Mars, and we understand that engaging in diversionary activities is counterproductive to that achievement, then instead of engaging in diversionary activities, we should send humans to Mars. The authors however, actually want to build and operate a Moon base, and so to buy (several decades of) time for such an effort, they raise several challenges that supposedly must be solved before a humans to Mars program can be initiated. These are:
- Entry, descent and landing on Mars.
- Advanced in-space propulsion and power.
- Radiation safety.
The creation of entry, descent and landing systems that can place large payloads on Mars, and nuclear power systems that can provide 30 to 100 kWe (kilowatts electric, or 1,000 watts of electric capacity) on the martian surface, are important developments that need to be done, but they are not fundamental technology issues. They would be done in the course of a human Mars exploration development program, and not done outside of it. The claim that advanced propulsion is a fundamental challenge for the Mars program is curious, because, as noted above, the authors correctly dismiss electric propulsion as a means of achieving much of interest. They therefore implicitly endorse nuclear thermal propulsion. However, while a useful enhancing technology, nuclear thermal propulsion would best serve to cut launch mass in half rather than substantially cut trip time, and thus its proper relevance is as a potential way of reducing downstream costs of a continuing Mars exploration program, rather than an upstream tall pole perpetually cited as a unfulfilled requirement to block the initiation of such a program.
But citing "radiation safety" as a technology challenge that must be mastered before we can start a Mars program truly confuses the issue. Regardless of whether it is using chemical or nuclear thermal propulsion, a properly designed Mars mission would use a six-month outbound transit because that is the two-year free return orbit, and so in addition to cutting payload capacity and thus critical system redundancy, attempting to go faster would further compromise mission safety by forfeiting this important abort option. So the cumulative radiation dose that Mars exploration crews would get from galactic cosmic rays is well known, irreducible (solar flare doses in transit can be protected against using provisions to make a storm shelter), and — since dose rates in low Earth orbit are 50 percent those of interplanetary space, have already been experienced by half a dozen cosmonauts and astronauts who have done extended stays on either the ISS or Mir, without any radiological casualties. This is to be expected, since the total galactic cosmic rays round-trip mission dose of 0.6 to 0.8 sieverts represents a probabilistic casualty rate of about 1 percent. Furthermore, since a Mars mission spends only about 40 percent of its total duration in transit (with infinite mass available for shielding while on the martian surface), and has a comparable crew size to the ISS, the total dose, measured in person-sieverts, that the continuously occupied ISS program will impose on its crews over the next 10 years will be the same as that which would be imposed on the personnel of a humans to Mars program, assuming five missions, each flying at every biannual opportunity over the same period.
So the argument that we should defer human Mars exploration for a couple of decades while scientists engage in unproductive "radiation safety" research that will produce nothing not already discovered by the previous seven decades of radiation safety research is a snow job — advanced with all the sincerity of a 10-year-old making the case that a light overnight snowfall, must, for the safety of all children, entail the cancellation of school. The primary difference being that with a human spaceflight program running a tab on the order of $10 billion per year, a two-decade-long NASA snow day will hit the public with something like $200 billion in extra costs before Mars can be reached.
The NRC authors' lunar initiative should be recognized for what it is. It is the second-best plan. It is greatly superior to NASA's current scatterbrained program of record, which would have our human spaceflight program accomplish nothing of significance for the next decade or more. A Moon base is not a critical step on the way to Mars, but it would be a real accomplishment, and it would certainly be better for NASA to accomplish something than nothing.
They are also right in saying that NASA needs to choose a goal and stick with it. The George W. Bush-Mike Griffin Constellation program can readily be criticized, but if it had been held to, we would be looking at initiating operations on the Moon five years from now employing our astronauts — as they should be — as explorers, instead of a future of endless experiments using astronauts stuck in low Earth orbit as human subjects for pointless research on zero gravity medical effects that could all be avoided by rotating a spacecraft.
But if we want to get to Mars, we need to aim for Mars.
Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the Mars Society and the author of "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must." The paperback edition of his latest book, "Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism," has just been published by Encounter Books.
Russia Sanctions Aren't Rocket Science, Except When They Are
One item unlikely to make it on the U.S. sanctions list: Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines, which are used to launch America's most sensitive military and intelligence satellites.
Doug Cameron – The Wall Street Journal
Russia doesn't have much leverage amid calls for tougher international sanctions following the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in Ukraine, but it does have the space rocket engines the Pentagon still loves, and some U.S. politicians love to hate.
The prospect of the U.S. running out of RD-180 engines, used to launch its most sensitive military and intelligence satellites, faded last month after weeks of hand-wringing in the corridors of Congress and the Pentagon. The problem? A senior Russian politician threatened to pull the plug on shipments of the engines in retaliation for the first round of Ukraine-related sanctions.
The threat didn't materialize, and the joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing that uses the engines last month assured that a new batch would arrive in August, topping up an existing supply that was deemed sufficient for another two-and-a-half years of satellite launches.
The joint venture, United Launch Alliance LLC, expects to receive two boosters in August and is confident the supply will continue, a plan it said Monday remained in place.
Pentagon leaders and lawmakers had reacted to a potential shut-down in engine supplies by pushing efforts to develop a U.S.-made rocket engine to end the reliance on the RD-180 boosters imported from Russia's state-controlled NPO Energomash OAO
Lockheed and United Technologies Corp. – which has a 50% stake in the firm that imports the Russian engines – both report quarterly earnings Tuesday, when the head of U.S. Air Force Space Command is also due to give a speech in Washington D.C. Boeing reports the next day. Watch out for any executive commentary on whether rocket engines are once again becoming a cause for concern.
RD-180 Not Needed To Launch All U.S. Air Force Payloads
Dave Schweikle – Space News
There is a considerable amount of press these days about how the Russians are withholding the sale of the RD-180 rocket engine for the Atlas 5 launch vehicle, which reduces our defense space launch capability. This is absolutely wrong.
The Delta 4/Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles always had the capability to launch all defense space missions from the first day of the EELV. The Atlas 5 never had that total capability because the Atlas program did not bid the heavy vehicle and necessary launch capability out of Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
It is worthwhile to briefly revisit the background of the EELV procurement that began in the late 1990s.
The original EELV procurement was a winner-take-all competition to replace the then-existing payload launch capability of the Delta 2, the Atlas 2 and the Titan 4. As part of the U.S. Air Force procurement requirements, any major foreign component, such as the RD-180, had to be produced in the U.S. within a specified time period after the award. During this time, the commercial satellite market was robust with many satellite providers and operators bullish on the expansion of the commercial market for communication satellites, especially in low Earth orbit. Iridium was in orbit and Teledesic was planning an 800-satellite low Earth orbit constellation. McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and Lockheed were pursuing that market. McDonnell Douglas was pursuing the commercial market independent of the EELV.
The Delta 4 program initially considered using existing Russian engines, both liquid oxygen (LOX)/RP-1 and LOX/hydrogen. However, the Air Force requirement of having to bring manufacturing into the U.S. was a cost and International Traffic in Arms Regulations issue. Overall, the internal launch vehicle trade studies didn't differ significantly between the LOX/RP launch vehicle and the LOX/hydrogen vehicles. Consequently, the Delta 4 opted for a new, U.S.-built engine utilizing a low-cost gas generator cycle, which satisfied the Air Force domestic production requirement and kept the defense space launch capability within the U.S.
Rocketdyne was selected to build the 650,000-pound-thrust LOX/hydrogen RS-68 engine. The engine gave a significant performance advantage over LOX/RP with a specific impulse of 410 seconds versus 335 seconds for a LOX/RP engine. Although the Delta 4 program bore the development cost of the engine, which had to be amortized into the recurring cost of the vehicle, the large number of anticipated commercial launches made it competitive.
Second, the cost of a Russian engine would significantly increase when production in the U.S. was factored in, primarily because Russian pricing is not market-based. Bringing the RD-180 production into the U.S. would also impact the Atlas 5 recurring cost.
There was some question at the time whether the Russians would release all of the technology related to materials and coatings for the oxidizer cooled, staged combustion engine. Also, stage combustion engines are more complicated than gas generator engines and would be more expensive when built in the U.S.
The Air Force decided to change its procurement approach to the EELV based on the contractors pursuing their commercial launch vehicle families. The service modified its new strategy to include "Assured Access to Space," meaning using two contractors with significantly different launch systems. This strategy would protect the launch capability if one launch system were inoperable. Rather than have a winner-take-all procurement, it changed to a shared procurement, and the Air Force would become an investor in both contractors' launch systems.
The service would invest $500 million in each launch system, a small percentage of the overall development cost. In return, each contractor would provide a launch system that could launch the Air Force total mission model including a heavy-launch capability with launch pads at both Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg.
After the awards were announced, the Delta 4/EELV met all requirements to meet the Air Force mission model and the Atlas 5 did not.
The robust commercial market started to fade as satellite operators were rethinking the viability of the market partially caused by the bankruptcy of Iridium and the increased capabilities of the cellular system. Soon, the business models of both contractors were in trouble as was the EELV program and Assured Access to Space.
The Air Force supported the formation of the United Launch Alliance Boeing-Lockheed joint venture and subsidized the large recurring costs incurred by both contractors brought about by the reduced commercial market size. The service relaxed the requirement to bring the RD-180 production into the U.S., which left the Atlas 5 with a large cost advantage, but one dependent on Russian suppliers.
Since the Atlas 5 family cannot launch the full national mission model, the source of the RD-180 does not jeopardize the Air Force's capability to launch all missions. The Delta 4 can launch all missions, although it would be more expensive because of the U.S.-produced RS-68. If the RD-180 or equivalent is produced in the U.S., it too will become more expensive and the cost differential between the two launch systems will diminish.
Also, a different engine integrated into the Atlas 5 would incur vehicle and infrastructure development costs to modify and qualify the launch vehicles to the new engine. Although estimates vary, a new, staged combustion engine development program would take about six years and $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Bringing the RD-180 manufacturing into the U.S. would not significantly change those numbers and the engine would have to be requalified. The RS-68 engine development cost about $500 million and took a little less than five years to develop 15 years ago. It is a less-complex engine than the more-complicated staged combustion engine cycle.
The Atlas 5 RD-180 stockpile is reported to be 15 engines. That should allow time for the transition of more launches to the Delta 4 over a two-year period as production is ramped up.
A new engine development would not solve the RD-180 problem in a timely manner because of the six-year lead time. Also, stage and launch pad modifications may have to be made.
It seems probable that since the U.S. is not harmed by the Russians' refusal to sell the RD-180, they might reconsider the ban and continue a good business for them. The Russians might also think that providing the RD-180 could stop the U.S. from developing a new engine. However, if the Cold War attitude returns and the RD-180 engine is withheld from the U.S., then the impact will be greatest on the Atlas 5 and not on the U.S. defense space launch capability.
The U.S. has let its rocket engine propulsion capability deteriorate by not supporting new engine development, and as a result three major rocket engine companies have now merged into one. The RS-68 is the last major, high-performance engine development and was funded by Boeing's Delta 4 program, not the government. If the U.S. were to pursue a new engine development, it should not be a 20-year-old RD-180. It should be a new, modern engine designed for today's manufacturing capability. Because of the timing of a new engine development, and the potential modifications to existing launch vehicle and infrastructure, perhaps a new launch system should be considered.
One conclusion is obvious from the threat of the Russians to stop selling the RD-180 to the U.S.: The Air Force's strategy of Assured Access to Space to provide two independent launch systems has worked. The loss of the RD-180 does not impede our government's ability to full access to space because of the Delta 4/EELV capability to meet all Air Force mission requirements.
Dave Schweikle was the Delta 4/EELV program manager at McDonnell Douglas and then Boeing.
Profile | Mark Sirangelo, Corporate Vice President and Head of Space Systems, Sierra Nevada Corp.
Leonard David – Space News
Some people are criticized for chasing dreams. But for Mark Sirangelo, as corporate vice president and head of Sierra Nevada Corp.'s Space Systems division, that's part of his job as he leads the effort to develop the Dream Chaser — a lifting-body spaceplane the Louisville, Colorado-based company is positioning as an economical successor to the retired NASA space shuttle.
NASA is soon to award one or more Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts meant to provide the agency by the end of 2017 with a U.S. alternative to Russian Soyuz vehicles for transporting astronauts to and from the international space station.
The competition is stiff. The winged Dream Chaser is up against the Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Dragon V2 and the Boeing CST-100 — both capsules.
"We have well over 40 organizations and companies on our team in 31 states," Sirangelo said, dubbing them the "space dream team."
"We think we have a great proposal," Sirangelo said, "but it has been a nine-year journey for me on this one program."
In his other SNC work, Sirangelo has helped to build and grow a product portfolio ranging from small satellites and space technologies for planetary missions to hybrid rocket motor work for Virgin Galactic's passenger-carrying SpaceShipTwo suborbital rocket plane.
Sirangelo, who has spent most of his professional life as an entrepreneur founding and leading several successful technology and communications companies, spoke recently with SpaceNews correspondent Leonard David.
When do you expect a NASA commercial crew decision?
They've said in the August-September time frame. As far as we can tell that is when it's going to happen. As a team we're very proud of Dream Chaser. Nine years ago there were those that doubted we were going to build a replacement to the space shuttle. We're standing here today as a viable, well-recognized potential competitor in this area.
If the decision doesn't go your way, would you mothball Dream Chaser?
We are in a competition. There are many factors, and it really depends, I think, on how one loses. Is it because of price or a technical issue? Is it because NASA only wanted to choose one, but if they had more money they would have chosen two? There are many things that go into that decision and there's no simple answer to your question. It depends on what happens. We'll make the business judgment as to what we ought to do.
Why build a winged vehicle, with all its challenges, instead of a ballistic capsule like Boeing and SpaceX are doing?
When we look at building essentially shuttle 2.0 we are using control techniques, computers and other technologies that did not exist 40 years ago. So many of the challenges that were faced by a lifting body in the 1980s and 1990s we have been able to overcome. We think the vehicle is extraordinarily safe. It has been tested more than any other design that's ever been out there.
The idea that you can get 20 or 30 flights from every Dream Chaser is highly compelling. In 60 years of capsules, there's never been one that's gone back up to space from any country that I'm aware of. Also, we don't have to land in the water having the U.S. Navy or Coast Guard pick us up. Coming home to a runway in eight hours from the station at less than two g's is another big, compelling feature.
We have recently been calling Dream Chaser a "space utility vehicle" — a very efficient plane that can have multiple uses in space. While there's nothing against capsules, they don't have near the utility that something like this does.
What market opportunities do you see for Dream Chaser beyond crew transport?
We think there are several missions Dream Chaser could perform. One is the transportation mission for the international space station of both crew and critical cargo. We can bring down mass within hours to a runway in Florida, or Texas or California. Second is a servicing mission — repairing things, refueling satellites or eliminating future debris by moving satellites out of the way. Another one is as a standalone research center because the interior volume of the Dream Chaser is similar to what a module offers on the station. The vehicle can be on orbit for an extended duration, multiple weeks with a couple of crew members, or over a year without crew.
So you foresee producing a line of Dream Chasers for these different applications?
We have entered into a strategic relationship with Lockheed Martin. They are building the composite structure for us. The idea is that we will have the ability to build multiple structures. I wouldn't say an assembly line, but a progression of bodies as we need them. Much like the automobile industry, you build a standard chassis and you can change bodies out. We can build a relatively standard Dream Chaser and then modify it to be a cargo vehicle, a crew vehicle or a servicing vehicle by using a standard base.
Can you outline the schedule that will achieve NASA's 2017 date for delivery of crew to the space station?
We have first launch on the Atlas 5 in 2016, and it would be an uncrewed flight. The second flight would be with crew and that would happen six to eight months later. So we will be in service by the end of 2016.
How about additional drop tests like the October 2013 flight at Edwards Air Force Base, although you encountered trouble with the left landing gear deployment?
We are going to do more tests, although we don't know how many. Our first flight was so good that we actually got enough data for two or three flights. The landing gear problem was something that we didn't want to happen. But interestingly enough it has turned out to be a positive thing in some ways. We got to test the strength of the vehicle. The landing gear didn't fully deploy, but it had to with bad hydraulic fluid. It's not the landing gear we're using on the orbital vehicle.
We've decided to fly the next flight with our orbital software. So a couple more flights uncrewed using the orbital software. Then we will bring the vehicle back in and finish outfitting it for a couple of flights piloted. In total, perhaps five drop tests. That's probably something that we're targeting.
Is Congress providing sufficient funding for NASA's commercial crew program to meet the 2017 goal?
From the perspective of someone who has been with the commercial crew program when there was not money — and now we're arguing between $785 million and $805 million, which is a healthy budget for a program. It's not quite where it needs to be. But when you look at how it's stepped up, sometimes you need to give credit where it's due. They have understood this in both the House and the Senate. And they are probably as close on this issue with President Obama as any issue they have up there right now. So I don't look at it negatively. I think there's a learning process that needs to go on.
Also, I don't think it's a question of if there is going to be a commercial crew program. It's a question of when. And somebody will win and we think it's going to be us.
Do you see the Boeing-built X-37 spaceplane operated by the U.S. Air Force as a competitor?
I think it's a successful program. I don't know if it's a competitor. It doesn't seem to be, but I don't have any knowledge of Boeing's plan. But there's more than one kind of airplane. But we don't view it as a competitor right now; part of it is because of cost. It's still a government program, funded by the government. Ours is privately owned and that gives us a lot more flexibility.
How are Sierra Nevada's other space business lines doing?
In general, we are something on the order of 10 times as big as we were five years ago. So we've had a fair amount of success.
We're building a constellation of small, second-generation communications satellites for Orbcomm. We will put 17 of them up this year, including the six that SpaceX launched July 14. Depending on which part of them you look at they are anywhere from eight to 12 times more capable than the ones they are replacing — and at lesser cost.
Our subsystems and components, what we call space technology, is something that people don't see. It's one of those quiet things. We have built over 4,000 items with an on-orbit success that's 100 percent.
That includes working for what people might have thought as a competitor — by supplying the passive berthing mechanism for Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Cygnus space cargo tug. We were also heavily engaged in the Curiosity Mars rover landing, as we were in the Opportunity and Spirit rovers. We've been to seven planets, the Moon and the sun with something that we've built.
Any future business lines that you're exploring?
No, I don't see a major expansion, but we see expansion within each of our business lines, like our recent decision to acquire Orbital Technologies Corp. to add additional propulsion capability.
Last year, Colorado's governor appointed you the state's chief innovation officer. How's that task going?
Colorado has been a great home state for space in general, not just for us. The governor just appointed an aerospace advocate for him to make sure that issues get brought up. Me being the chief innovation officer is a volunteer job and it was an honor to be asked. What the state has asked me to do, in a nonpartisan way, is to help bring attention to the fact that Colorado is quite innovative, not just in space but in bioscience, in agriculture, in renewable energy and in other areas.
We have a lot of larger heritage companies here. There are also a lot of startup and innovative new companies. What the state is focused on is to try to make sure that those growing companies stay here and have the ability, as midsized companies, to establish themselves and grow.
Your advice to space entrepreneurs?
We think of ourselves as pretty smart, savvy technical people. But we also know what we don't know. And that's a hard thing to do, to admit that there are many people in the world that are smarter than you in certain areas. And we reach out to those people and bring them in. That is why we have a wide group of partnerships.
I think our style is we sort of under-promise and over-deliver as a company, not someone who goes out there and promises a price that's four times as low and can't get there. So I think the advice is to be confident, but be honest and try not to over-promise.
SpaceX 'Flights Are As Safe And Reliable As Possible': NASA Backs Musk's Company In Response To Air Force Letter
Angelo Young – International Business Times
Citing "anomalies" in Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) flights, the U.S. Air Force has yet to certify the company for Pentagon contracts.
In a letter to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the Air Force said there were problems in three of SpaceX's missions: reignition failure in a second-stage rocket engine in September 2013, an engine fire during the December 2013 mission, and "unacceptable fuel reserves" at one point in the January mission, states the letter dated May 20 and cited in a report Monday from Bloomberg.
The Air Force also said it was in talks to address "lesser but still significant flight and ground operations," but also said the space cargo transport company founded by billionaire inventor Elon Musk has made the most progress among other private firms vying for defense contracts.
In addition to its work with NASA and companies launching commercial and research satellites into orbit, SpaceX is seeking contracts worth billions of dollars to boost secretive Pentagon satellite missions into orbit.
SpaceX wouldn't comment on its efforts, but NASA released the following statement to International Business Times Monday:
NASA has successfully returned space station resupply launches to U.S. soil, ending our reliance on other countries to get to space and bringing the associated jobs back to America. Our private sector partners in this effort are meeting their obligations under their Commercial Resupply Services contracts. The contracts and certification process allow us to work with Orbital Sciences and SpaceX to ensure that flights are as safe and reliable as possible. To date, NASA's partners have delivered about 14,000 pounds of vital supplies to the International Space Station, including science and research experiments, supplies, and hardware for the orbiting laboratory.
Currently only Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT) and the Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) have clearance to perform Pentagon missions through their United Launch Alliance joint venture. SpaceX designs and manufactures its rockets in the United States, while Lockheed and Boeing rely on Russian-made RD-180 engines to deliver military payloads to space.
Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies Gets $1.3 Billion ISS Support Contract
Dan Leone – Space News
NASA awarded Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies (SGT) a nine-year contract worth up to $1.3 billion to provide mission and flight crew operations support for the international space station and future human space exploration, the agency announced July 14.
The contract includes a pair of options that would keep SGT on as NASA's main space station support contractor until Sept. 30, 2024 — the date through which the White House in January proposed extending the station's orbital mission. Work will take place mostly at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, NASA's lead center for the ISS program.
The company has supported Johnson human spaceflight projects before, but never on such a large scale as the contract just awarded will require, SGT spokeswoman Shelley Johnson wrote in a July 17 email.
SGT employs about 1,950 people now and will ramp up to about 2,400 after the Integrated Mission Operations Contract 2 award phases in Oct. 1, Johnson said. The company had about $450 million in revenue for 2014 and a roughly $2 billion backlog, not counting the contract award announced July 14.
Most of SGT's revenue comes from NASA, and the company has contracts at six of the agency's field centers. Among the largest of those is the Mechanical Systems Engineering Services 2 contract with the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Awarded in 2007, NASA announced an extension July 11 under which the pact could be worth up to $430 million for SGT through September 2015.
Major SGT subcontractors under the new ISS support contract include Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions, Gaithersburg, Maryland; GHG Corp., Webster, Texas; and GeoControl Systems and Cimarron Software Services, both in Houston.
The contract just awarded to SGT combines many of the services NASA pays for under a pair of legacy contracts: Lockheed Martin's Facilities Development and Operations Contract, and United Space Alliance's Integrated Mission Operations Contract.
Besides supporting the space station with engineering services and products, the cost-plus-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract keeps Greenbelt-based SGT on call to help NASA with other programs including:
- the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the Johnson-managed deep-space crew capsule Lockheed Martin Space Systems of Denver is building for NASA.
- the Space Launch Systems heavy-lift rocket, construction of which is being managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
- the commercial crew program, NASA's effort to replace the retired shuttle's crew-carrying capacity to ISS with one of three commercially designed spacecraft by 2017.
- the Lunar Precursor Robotics Program.
- the Human Research Program.
- the Exploration Technology Program.
- commercial cargo, and advanced technology and research.
-
Russian Cargo Spacecraft to Host Experiment After Delivering Supplies to ISS
RIA Novosti
Russia's Progress M-23M resupply spacecraft is due to get undocked on Tuesday from the International Space Station (ISS) and embark on an autonomous scientific flight to study the impact of its engines on the plasma of the Earth's ionosphere.
"An experiment titled 'Radar-Progress' is scheduled to be held on board the Progress [spacecraft] from July 22 to August 1, it is connected to the studies by earth-based observatories on the light-reflecting capacity of plasma heterogeneities generated by propulsion systems in the ionosphere," a source in the Russian mission control center told RIA Novosti.
Another Progress cargo ship is to be launched on July 24. It will bring 45 snails to the ISS for a scientific experiment, which will see how space flight influences morphological and electrophysiological properties of a biological object's regeneration process, Russian space agency Roscosmos said last week.
The unmanned spaceship will also deliver fuel, food, water and oxygen for the crew, as well as scientific equipment. The Soyuz-U carrier rocket will put the new Progress M-24M ship into orbit on July 24, at 1:44 a.m. Moscow time.
A total of 130 Progress spacecraft have supported orbiting outposts over the past three decades, lifting many tons of supplies to low Earth orbit.
ULA targeting Wednesday evening launch
James Dean – Florida Today
A busy period of launches from Cape Canaveral continues with this week's planned 7:03 p.m. Wednesday blastoff of a United Launch Alliance Delta IV rocket carrying a pair of military satellites.
The satellites are the first of four the Air Force will use to hunt for threats to critical satellites flying in geosynchronous orbits more than 22,000 miles above the equator.
The Air Force declassified the program earlier this year with the goal of deterring potential attacks on satellites that spot missile launches, provide command and control capability during nuclear war, and support drone operations.
The Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness program officially seeks to improve awareness of what's flying around that region, whether it be other satellites or space debris, by drifting above and below the geosynchronous belt. The patch for the upcoming mission features images of two owls.
In addition to the two primary satellites, a small satellite developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory will fly as to advance related technologies.
Called ANGELS — short for Automated Navigation and Guidance Experiment for Local Space — the satellite will practice maneuvers close to the Delta IV rocket's upper stage after it flies to a higher orbit safely above the geosynchronous satellites.
The Delta IV launch comes nine days after SpaceX's July 14 launch for Orbcomm, and could be the second of four launches from the Cape within three weeks.
ULA is targeting a July 31 launch of an Atlas V and Global Positioning System satellite, and SpaceX could follow Aug. 4 with a Falcon 9 launch of a commercial communications satellite.
While the Air Force has released the targeted launch time on Wednesday, the full launch window will not be disclosed, but extends no later than 10 p.m.
The Delta IV completed a fueling and countdown demonstration July 8, and the two spacecraft were attached to the rocket July 11. A readiness review is Tuesday.
More Eyes on the Skies
Dennis Overbye – The New York Times
The future, it is often said, belongs to those who plan for it. And astronomers have been busy working the proverbial smoke-filled rooms (or whatever passes for them today) where the destiny of big science is often shaped and crisscrossing one another in airports on fund-raising trips. Now they are about to have something to show for it.
More than a decade after competing groups set out to raise money for gargantuan telescopes that could study planets around distant stars and tune into the birth of galaxies at the dawn of time, shovels, pickaxes and more sophisticated tools are now about to go to work on mountaintops in Hawaii and Chile in what is going to be the greatest, most expensive and ambitious spree of telescope-making in the history of astronomy.
If it all plays out as expected and budgeted, astronomers of the 2020s will be swimming in petabytes of data streaming from space and the ground. Herewith a report card on the future of big-time stargazing.
On June 20, officials from the European Southern Observatory blew the top off a mountain in northern Chile called Armazones, breaking ground for what is planned to be the largest, most powerful optical telescope ever built. Known as the European Extremely Large Telescope, or E-ELT, it will have a segmented mirror 39 meters (about 128 feet) in diameter, powerful enough to see planets around distant stars. By comparison, the largest telescopes now operating are 10 meters in diameter.
The European Southern Observatory is a consortium of 14 European nations and Brazil, which has agreed to join but is still waiting for its Parliament to ratify the move. Brazil's official entrance would put the group more than 90 percent of the way toward the $1.5 billion in 2012 dollars the telescope is projected to cost, enough to begin big-ticket items like a dome, said Lars Christensen, a spokesman for the consortium.
The telescope should be ready on June 19, 2024. "We'll all be back here," said Tim de Zeeuw, the group's director general, at the groundbreaking.
That's not the only mega telescope project out there. Two years ago, another group of astronomers blasted away the top of another mountain in Chile, Las Campanas, where they plan to build the Giant Magellan Telescope. That telescope will have at its heart a set of seven eight-meter mirrors ganged together to make the equivalent of a mirror 25 meters in diameter. Three of those mirrors have been cast and polished at the University of Arizona, one of the Giant Magellan partners. A fourth mirror is on order for next year.
Wendy Freedman, the director of the Carnegie Observatories, one of the spearheads of the Magellan collaboration, said by email that members were now in the final phases of forming a limited liability corporation, the legal and financial entity that will build and own the telescope. To date, the group has raised about $500 million of the $880 million (2012 dollars) needed for their telescope. On Monday, Dr. Freedman announced that the São Paulo Research Foundation in Brazil was joining Giant Magellan.
She expects construction to begin later this year. "Our plan is to be on the air with the first four mirrors taking early science data in 2021," she said. "So things are continuing to go very well."
In Hawaii, there will be no blasting needed, just some grading with a bulldozer, on Mauna Kea, where yet another group of astronomers plans to build a telescope 30 meters in diameter — the simply named Thirty Meter Telescope — on a plateau just below the nearly 14,000-foot summit. Mauna Kea, the highest peak in the Pacific, is already home to 12 telescopes, including the twin 10-meter telescopes at the Keck observatory and a pair of eight-meters, making it the busiest mountain in astronomy.
It is also a sacred place for Hawaiians, many of whose ancestors have been buried up there. As a result, it's not so easy gaining permission to add yet another telescope, said Michael Bolte of the University of California, Santa Cruz, a co-director of the project, an international collaboration led by Caltech and the University of California and now doing business as Thirty Meter Telescope International Observatory LLC.
"I think we're finally free and clear to build on that site," Dr. Bolte said in an interview, saying they had chosen an unobtrusive spot for the telescope. He expects to begin grading a road to the site this summer as soon as the project clears its last hurdle with the Hawaiian authorities.
The Thirty Meter Telescope will cost $1.2 billion in those same 2012 dollars. By early next year, when India and Canada are expected to become full members of the corporation, Dr. Bolte said, they will have 85 percent of the money needed; they are still looking for more partners. A grand groundbreaking ceremony is being scheduled for Oct. 7.
"It's a crazy science," Dr. Bolte said, ticking off the names of historical benefactors of astronomy and telescope financiers, "that facilities at the forefront tend to be built with private money," something that rarely happens in, say, physics.
Big Mirrors, Big Views
Hale reflector on Palomar Mountain, in San Diego County, was considered the practical earthly limit, but in the 1980s, astronomers devised ways to build bigger, thinner, mirrors that would not sag, leading to a bevy of eight-meter mirrors as well as the two 10-meter Kecks. The Magellan, the smallest of the new breed, however, will be six times as powerful as the Kecks in scooping up distant dim starlight; the others will be even more powerful.
The Hubble Space Telescope is only 94 inches, about 2.4 meters in diameter. It gains its power not from size but from being above the atmosphere, which blurs and filters the light from stars. Increasing their powers even more, the new telescopes will be equipped with a technology that did not exist the last time around: adaptive optics, the ability to adjust the shape of the mirrors to minimize or cancel the effects of the atmospheric turbulence that causes stars to twinkle. The result, astronomers say, is that these telescopes will be able to detect fainter objects than Hubble can, like planets or bits of galaxies coming together, and more clearly.
A Boom in Chile
The inauguration of these new telescopes, early in the next decade, will further enshrine the Atacama Desert in Chile, which is bone-dry, high, dark and blessed with remarkably steady air, as the center of world astronomy. The region already is home to, among other observatories, the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter Array, or ALMA, an international project that is the world's most expensive radio telescope, and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, an array of four eight-meter telescopes near the site of the coming Extremely Large Telescope.
The whole neighborhood, in fact, is booming. But for red tape, construction was also supposed to have started this month on the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope on Pachón Mountain, in, yes, Chile. That telescope, a joint project of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, is eight meters in diameter. That mountain was dynamited back in 2011. The project director, Steve Kahn of Stanford, said that a news release was already written and waiting for the moment when the project, officially the LSST Corporation, receives formal approval from the National Science Foundation to start spending money.
"I am sure we will get started officially soon, but unfortunately, this process isn't over until it is over," Dr. Kahn wrote in an email.
A ceremony for laying the "first stone" is planned for next spring in Chile, he said.
The National Science Foundation has budgeted $473 million to build the telescope. The Energy Department is kicking in $165 million for a 3,200-megapixel camera, which will produce an image of the entire sky every few days and over 10 years will produce a movie of the universe, swamping astronomers with data that will enable them to spot everything that moves or blinks in the heavens, including asteroids and supernova explosions.
Among the Stars
What about outer space, where the stars actually are?
It was front-page news two years ago when the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, gave NASA two space telescopes the same size and design as a Hubble that had been sitting in a warehouse. Some astronomers, notably the former astronaut and Hubble repairman John M. Grunsfeld, NASA's associate administrator for science mission, suggested that one of these could be used to jump-start a mission to study dark energy.
The National Academy of Sciences had ranked that mission atop the to-do list for this decade, but it was ambushed by the rising cost of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (more on that later).
A committee from the academy has recently endorsed the idea of using the spy telescope, which is 2.4 meters in diameter, for the mission, instead of the originally envisioned one-meter telescope. The academy agreed that the bigger telescope would enhance the scientific returns of the mission, now known as Wfirst-AFTA, for Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets, but warned that it could increase the cost and complexity. Congress directed NASA to spend $56 million on the mission in the last fiscal year, 2014, and the proposed budget for 2015 includes about $14 million.
If this keeps up, said David Spergel, an astronomer at Princeton who is involved with the academy and the telescope, the mission could start as early as 2023, near the time the European Space Agency will send up its own dark energy probe, known as Euclid. By then, he said, the mission's name would probably be less of a mouthful. "The good thing about Wfirst-AFTA," Dr. Spergel wrote in an email, "is that there is no way that we will keep that name."
Among the possibilities that NASA is studying closely is adding a coronagraph to the telescope. Coronagraphs are basically opaque disks that were invented to black the intense light from the sun so astronomers could study the feathery faint corona of hot gases streaming outward from it. Exoplanet hunters are eager to deploy them to look for planets around distant stars. Getting a coronagraph on the dark energy telescope would be a valuable step toward a future mission, once known as the Terrestrial Planet Finder and now known by the placeholder name of New Worlds Telescope, long a dream of exoplanet hunters, that would be able to study Earthlike planets for signs of habitability, weather and life.
And then there is the most expensive and high-flying "big eye" of all, NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, which Nature magazine once called "the telescope that ate astronomy." Named for a former administrator of NASA, it is the successor to Hubble (which is still going strong, thank you), but is almost three times its size, with a 6.5-meter-diameter mirror that will have to fold out like a flower in orbit.
The Webb telescope was supposed to be launched this year, but was late and burned past its $5 billion budget like one of NASA's rockets, devouring money that could have gone toward other projects. The House Appropriations Committee once voted to cancel it, but the project was reinstated with a budget cap of $8 billion and a launch date of 2018.
Since then, no news has basically been good news for Webb. It is still on track for 2018, NASA says. In July the agency reported that it had finished testing the framework that will hold the leaves of the telescope mirror and scientific instruments in place.
Heat and Light
The Webb telescope was built to study the first stars and galaxies that emerged in the hundred million years or so after the Big Bang, a missing period in cosmic history. It is therefore designed to record infrared radiation rather than visible light because objects at that distance and vintage are flying away from us so fast, by the rules of the expanding universe, that their light has been "redshifted" to longer wavelengths.
As it happens, infrared, or heat radiation, is an excellent way to study planets, which tend to emit relatively more heat than light compared to their stars. Astronomers have long hoped that spectroscopic observations of an exoplanet atmosphere might reveal the signatures of life, such as oxygen or chlorophyll.
Recently, some astronomers have suggested they might even be able to see industrial pollution as well, in particular chlorofluorocarbons, the greenhouse gases that also destroy ozone. Over a few millenniums of industry, the thinking goes, some of these gases could build up to levels detectable from far away and stay that way for 50,000 years.
It would be ominous, however, Henry W. Lin, a student at Harvard, and his colleagues wrote in a paper submitted to The Astrophysical Journal, if astronomers see the markers of pollution around some distant planet but no indications of present life. That detection, they wrote, "might serve as an additional warning to the 'intelligent' life here on Earth about the risks of industrial pollution." The future belongs to those who plan and care for it.
Last but hardly least is the Hubble Space Telescope, which has been providing humanity with matchless cosmic postcards from its perch above the sky ever since it was launched in 1990 and first fixed in 1993. Hubble was last visited and serviced by astronauts — presumably for the final time — in 2009. Matt Mountain, the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, reports that it is doing well. A recent NASA review concluded, he said in an email, that "Hubble is operating at or near the highest level of performance and scientific productivity in its history."
Recent estimates of its orbit suggest that it will re-enter Earth's atmosphere no earlier than 2027 and will probably stay up well into the 2030s. Its main instruments are likely to still be working in 2020. That means the Hubble will still be operational when the Webb telescope goes up in 2018.
"It looks like it," Dr. Mountain said. "We are certainly setting our planning that way."
END
No comments:
Post a Comment