(A Launchspace edited op-ed piece from a retired major in the Uruguayan Army)

I carefully read your comments every week and think it's time to share with you an article prepared for Launchspace readers on the subject of U.S. manned space programs. Since I live abroad you may think it not appropriate for me to comment on these programs. Nevertheless, NASA is much more than an American tradition and patrimonial treasure; it is the world's hope for better space exploration and understanding.

As a consequence of the international financial crisis many countries around the world have decided to drastically reduce their budgets, cutting spending in a myriad of programs from small private activities to large public projects. In the United States, to the astonishment of the world, NASA’s budget has been “redirected” to simple LEO applications and some inexpensive research programs. Can this be true? 

This is the agency that has contributed most to America’s prestige with its innovative and extraordinary achievements in space, from the time of early explorations of the universe to today’s highly advanced technological achievements. Is prestige important?

Not only is prestige important, it is part of the American tradition, part of American life and by extension, America’s preeminence lights the free world and provides hope and support that other nations, too, can shine and succeed.

The budget is important for any administration. Traditionally, most countries around the world wait for a signal from America — the scientific and technological leader — and rely upon America to protect their freedoms. Until now, countries pursuing space programs have not competed against America or against each other, but they will now have to continue alone or somehow partner with other countries.

Without NASA’s leadership, who will guide the world in peaceful space applications?  Without NASA there is a void of experienced leaders well grounded in science. Indeed, we are approaching a new era in which space will be exploited by private, political, economic and military interests - not only in LEO, but also in deep space exploration. Will countries continue along the moral high ground of benefiting all mankind with the fruits of exploration and innovation or will space become a battleground for national greed and gain?

America should not decide NASA’s future merely on the basis of budgetary expedience. Space exploration is a matter that affects the rights and freedoms of people around the world. The rights and the dreams of many countries are closely tied to NASA, ESA and other recognized space agencies. The rich history of NASA brought the world Voyager 1, Apollo, robots on Mars, Kepler, Cassini-Huygens, Curiosity and so many more.

Citizen of foreign countries around the globe hope and pray for a changed view of NASA among America’s political leaders. NASA’s successes and legacy are not only America's heritage, but that of all free countries. We long to discover new scientific horizons in space that will improve our lives and allow our countries to succeed and to live in a peaceful future.

(Launchspace Staff)
About a week ago an op-ed piece by syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, was published in the Houston Chronicle. The title was, On U.S. presence in space, Obama is sounding retreat. In his piece Mr. Krauthammerpoints out that the U.S. will be depending on the Russians for astronaut transportation to and from the International Space Station (ISS) once the Space Shuttle is retired later this year. This dependence is expected to continue until new crew transportation is available in the U.S. The current transportation agreement with the Russians is valid until 2012, after which a new agreement will be needed, unless an American launch system is ready for astronauts. Current expectations indicate there will be no new system until at least 2015, but no one really knows when this will happen.
The President is pushing for cancellation of the NASA Constellation program, meaning the end of the Ares I rocket that was to replace the Shuttle by 2015. With the Ares launcher gone, U.S. hopes will rest on the ability of commercial companies to create an acceptable astronaut transportation system. There are at least three U.S. companies vying for success in developing a safe crew transfer system. However, none of these companies has a system that is near ready. Experts estimate that it will be at least several years before any commercial option is available. In the meantime, the Russians have a monopoly on astronaut delivery to ISS. After next year, they can raise their prices until Uncle Sam says, “Ouch!”

Of course, many will say that any Russian price will still be much less than the cost of Constellation and they may be right. But, are they? Termination costs to end the Orion program alone are estimated to be $2 billion. The total Constellation termination cost will be several billion dollars, not to mention the $9 billion already spent over the last five years. Then there is the price of a new U.S. program, a program that will not get U.S. astronauts beyond low orbit. In fact, the U.S. will not have an active program to go beyond where we have been so many times, not even back to the moon.

It is hard to believe, but by the end of this year, the U.S. will not have any human space program. We have dominated low Earth orbit, cislunar space and the moon since the 1960s. Soon, we will have nothing!

Congratulations losers, you have won!

Last Friday the very successful filmmaker, James Cameron, applauded the President’s proposed 2011 NASA budget and new space exploration plan in the Washington Post. He calls it a “bold plan that truly makes possible this nation's dreams for space.” NASA and the President are proposing “the full embrace of commercial solutions for transporting astronauts to low Earth orbit after the space shuttle is retired this year.” This will presumably free NASA to do what it does best, i.e., deep space exploration. However, without a crewed transportation system to go beyond low Earth orbit, all deep space missions will be robotic. While it is true that it is less expensive to send robots to the planets and the moon, this new proposal effectively prohibits American human space exploration from moving forward. While other nations are racing to the moon and beyond the U.S. appears to be moving backward.  

So, what is the big deal? Unlike Mr. Cameron, NASA is not in the science fiction business, but it is a true scientific exploration and advancement organization. Commercial solutions are great if there is a market for those solutions. The only markets for human space exploration have been artificially created by governments, because human exploration is a fundamental characteristic of our species. In the U.S. NASA is the customer for human space exploration, but the administration is proposing that NASA focus only on near-Earth activities. Such an approach will almost certainly restrain America from maintaining its space leadership.

U.S. dreams for space exploration do not include limiting flights to the ISS while other countries are flying to the moon and beyond. If this new plan is adopted, the U.S. will become an “also ran” in space exploration. This is more like a nightmare than a dream for those of us who deal with reality on a daily basis, for the economy, for our international stature and world space leadership. More importantly, national security will surely suffer since space may soon become the new battleground. Lastly, the absence of exciting new space adventures will effectively discourage the best and brightest from entering the fields of space technology and exploration.

A vision for space exploration that is clouded by the smoke and mirrors of Hollywood is largely make believe. The hard truth is that the U.S. is in a war against mediocrity and this country is losing.

(Launchspace staff - February 1, 2010)

In the past few days a large number of unsubstantiated stories have appeared in the media about the demise of NASA’s human solar system exploration program, Constellation. It seems that these rumors have now been confirmed by a NASA official. The President intends to discontinue Ares I, Orion and Altair in favor of a solution that involves commercial launch services to the space station. According to media sources, President Obama will make an announcement today that will detail his plans to change the direction of U.S. human space flight. No one is sure that the President’s choice will be implemented, because Congress may oppose major changes in the program. Nevertheless, let’s examine the implications and rationale for possible changes.

In view of the Augustine Commission’s Report, the recession and the shortcomings in the Constellation program, pending changes should not be surprising. Clearly, given the current budget constraints, a five-plus-year gap in human flight capability and the lack of a mandate for a lunar return, Constellation was on a very risky path in terms of success. To go a step further, this program may have been fatally flawed from the get-go for several reasons:

 (1) The Ares I design is based on a solid rocket motor as a first stage. This invariably leads to marginal performance in terms of delivering mass-to-orbit. Furthermore, the development costs are too high. After spending several billion dollars we have a vehicle whose performance is limited and continues to be eroded by growing stage masses. Finally, there is a number of engineering challenges unique to its design.

(2) A return to the moon in preparation for a mission to Mars may not be justifiable. First, there are many other missions of more importance and interest that should precede an attempt to Mars. Second, the expense of a lunar landing is simply too high for the potential benefits to be gained. Third, a race back to the moon, when other countries are also going to the moon would, in effect, cede U.S. leadership in space to whatever country reached the moon first. At the moment China appears to be in the lead. If the U.S. wants to lead, a new and challenging objective must be selected, e.g., a crewed asteroid rendezvous.

(3) Constellation’s development schedule and the retirement of the Space Shuttle will result in a gap in U.S. human space flight that has grown from four years to an uncertain five years. Such a gap will cause erosion in U.S. capabilities and loss of prestige around the world. Space leadership is being contested by other countries and a U.S. gap will invite others to claim space leadership.   

However, the President’s plan also has major shortcomings. There is no provision for exploration beyond the space station. Thousands of jobs will be lost in Florida and Texas. It is entirely possible that Congress will stop the President from changing the program, even though Constellation has little chance of achieving its original objectives. It is underfunded, behind schedule and offers marginal performance. The President’s approach which depends on commercial solutions may also have little chance of succeeding. Clearly, there needs to be a compromise if the U.S. is to remain a viable space leader.

(Launchspace staff)

Over the past few decades NASA and other organizations have attempted to design satellites that would be capable of carrying out multiple missions. The fundamental idea is to create a single spacecraft design that could be duplicated over and over in order to reduce unit costs while satisfying several space missions and applications. To date, the results have been disappointing. The spacecraft bus tends to become overly complicated, excessively heavy and too costly for most applications. The underlying problem with this approach is the one-of-a-kind market demand that has plagued the satellite community since its beginnings. Low production and flight numbers just do not permit realization of scaling and production advantages that are common in mass production industries.

It has taken five decades to arrive at the conclusion that most missions require unique design features which effectively precluding the use of a one-size-fits-all design. While it is true that Iridium, GPS and a few other programs have been able to produce large numbers of satellite clones, the majority of satellite purchases involve very few flight vehicles. Fortunately, the situation is not “black and white.” There are a good number of “standard” spacecraft buses that are marketed by the satellite manufacturers. For example, the geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) communications satellite market amenable to some standardization of the spacecraft bus elements and subsystems. Most GEOs require an Earth-pointing attitude control system, power collected from sun-oriented arrays and stationkeeping requirements that are similar for all equatorial positions. All payloads can be mounted on the Earth-pointing face, and so on. This situation is uniquely convenient for manufacturers of GEO communications birds.

However, standardization is not easily achieved for low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) satellites. The variety of applications and missions requires special satellite designs in almost all cases. The only situation in which a single design can be effective in terms of cost, mass and complexity is one in which many cloned satellites are needed for a unique application. Although two examples were cited above, the next new opportunity may be a distributed space infrastructure that could replace large monoliths with constellations of small satellites. This idea has been around for some years but has not been tested for a number of technical and political reasons. However, recent monolithic program shortcomings in combination with advances in small spacecraft technologies and computational techniques have encouraged a refocusing of efforts toward the possible future adoption of distributed space systems.

It is possible that one day soon many of today’s space applications will be accomplished using large numbers of inexpensive small spacecraft, all working together to provide functions that are currently the purview of billion-dollar big birds.

Now that the economy appears to have bottomed and there are indications of improvement in business and in the jobs market, it may be time to refocus our attention on a longer range area of concern.  One such area that has been largely ignored by the government and the space community in general: collisions with near Earth objects. However, Hollywood has made a great deal of money from films about this never-ending threat to mankind, i.e., a life-ending collision with some deep space object. In recent years, movies such as Deep Impact, Asteroid and Armageddon have splashed across the “big screen” and into DVDs, all trying to capitalize on an underlying fear of a civilization-terminating event.

In reality, such an event seems inevitable although not likely any time soon. These potential life-ending objects are referred to as near-Earth objects (NEOs) by scientists. By definition NEOs are objects that travel around the Solar System along orbits which bring them into close proximity with Earth. All NEOs have perihelion distances of less than 1.3 Astronomical Units, meaning they could cross the Earth’s path as it circles the sun. The NEO population includes a few thousand asteroids, comets and meteoroids.

We now know that collisions with such objects have had a huge role in shaping the history of our planet. The threat has always been with us and recent science fiction stories and movies have raised awareness of the threat. New technology has allowed us to search the skies for potentially dangerous objects. Several mitigation techniques have been studied and documented. The bad news is we currently have no effective deterrent for large NEOs that appear to be on collision course Earth. The good news is that we do not appear to have any current threats. Should we be concerned?

Just last Wednesday an object characterized as a small asteroid sped by Earth almost unnoticed by anyone. It was photographed by a University of Alabama telescope and other observatories just two days before its passing. The object was named 2010 AL30 and has yet to be properly identified. NASA initially dubbed it an asteroid, but further analysis may suggest it is an old scientific spacecraft. The significant lesson here is that we do not have the ability to track and anticipate the approach and passage of NEOs with sufficient warning time and accuracy to take steps that will allow protective measures to be taken.

The bottom line is that Earth is a “sitting duck” on a pond, vulnerable to attack by natural threats. We do gain some comfort from knowing the “pond” is very large and the number of threats seems to be small. The ultimate question is: Should we be doing more to protect our Earth from possible attacks by large NEOs?

The dream of reusable launch vehicles (RLV) has been around since the days when Buck Rogers was a new comic book character. Every few years the enthusiasm for RLV is renewed thanks to some new space application that looks like it may just be the one that will justify the huge investment in a real reusable system that will reduce the cost of space access by orders of magnitude. Each time this happens the realities of the market and the technology have proven overpowering and the enthusiasm is deflated. The last big push for RLV was in the second half of the 1990s. Both the government and private industry tried to develop a variety of first generation RLV systems. After several years of design and development efforts, NASA came to the conclusion that the technology was not ready for a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) RLV. The Air Force has been struggling to develop a variety of reusable stages, but has yet to succeed. Private industry finally gave up when the perceived market disappeared due to the bankruptcy of Iridium and other possible commercial users of RLV systems.

At the moment the investment community is reluctant to risk further investments in such systems. NASA is pursuing new expendable vehicles for its Constellation program. The Air Force continues to pursue reusable stages, but at a low level. This situation is likely to continue, at least until a clear RLV application is identified.

A looking into the crystal ball reveals that there are several possible space applications that could justify RLV development. Remembering that first generation RLVs will be limited to low Earth orbits, there seem to be two areas of potential applications. One is the realization of human space tourism. The other is the increased utilization of small satellites for commercial and military functions. Either of these could justify the investment needed to create an operating RLV system. Given the nature of human curiosity, it seems space tourism will happen and the RLV could make it affordable for almost everyone. Small satellites are getting more sophisticated and new computational technologies will likely allow these to replace many of the large military monolithic beasts in the next several years. Many of these small spacecraft will be placed in low orbits and can take advantage of low cost RLV systems.

Believers in RLV systems, keep on believing. We may finally see low-cost access to space, maybe as soon as 2020. If you are a believer, check our catalog at www.launchspace.com. Launchspace does offer several courses on launch vehicle technology, design and engineering.

Last month Congress and the White House faced off on the future of NASA’s human exploration program. Clear signals from both sides tell us that there is an impasse regarding any decision on the future direction of the Constellation program. Congressional appropriators have approved legislative language that will require Congress to approve any changes to Constellation, effectively denying any White House change in direction. Congress wants to continue the program as planned, even though the Augustine Commission has concluded that the program is fatally flawed and well behind schedule. The White House wants to make fundamental changes and expand the program through international cooperation and support.

Clearly, there are serious differences on this issue. Congress appears to want jobs protected while the President wants to redirect the program in order to save money and postpone any critical decisions regarding human space flight. Both sides make very compelling arguments in support of their ideas and the future direction of NASA. The problem is that we appear to have a stalemate.

If NASA is forced to continue on its current path with a program that is well behind schedule and under funded, it is highly likely that the U.S. will suffer a long gap in human space flight activities after the Shuttle is retired, possibly up to 10 or more years. In the meantime, other space-faring nations will advance and the U.S. stature among these nations will suffer. The consequences could negatively affect many aspects of the U.S. economy and security.

The underlying problem seems to be lack of a catalyst to spur space flight interest. There is no compelling goal or objective that has captured the national imagination and enthusiasm for space exploration. In the absence of such a focus point, other national issues and special political interests have superseded our quest for new knowledge and achievements gained through human space exploration.

The current void of interest and leadership will result in the continued decline of U.S. space preeminence. The potential for a successful new year in space does not appear to be high. Unless the Congress and the White House can come to some common and reasonable solution to the stalemate, billions of dollars may be used to maintain jobs without advancing NASA’s space exploration program.

Content

(Launchspace Staff)
Last week NASA and DARPA sponsored the first-ever International Conference on Orbital Debris Removal. This was a completely unrestricted and open two-and-one-half intense days of “trash talk” about the nature of space debris, possible approaches to a solution and legal aspects. Roughly 275 people registered for this landmark event. The room was full, and it stayed full throughout the conference. All elements of the space community were represented, including several foreign nationals, the insurance industry, policy gurus, program management types and even a large number of technical geeks. Overall, it was impressive and well done.
A few key enlightenments came out of the presentations and discussions. Space trash is here to stay. Even if we stopped flying anything into orbit, the debris program would continue to propagate and collisions would increase indefinitely. Since the Iridium/Cosmos incident the Space Surveillance Network has expanded its conjunction predictions to cover 800 operating satellites, up from 300. The number of worrisome daily conjunctions has jumped from about 5 per day to about 75 per day, indicating that there are many more conjunction events than are being tracked. The big question that went unanswered is: Who will pay for the clean up?
Nobody knows at this point, and probably will not know or some time. Several suggestions were made, including the establishment of an international regulatory body with some remedial powers. This is going to be a “tough sell” to many countries, because there appears to be a great deal of denial regarding the severity of the situation and a number of downright refusals to participate.
Nevertheless, stay tuned. Undoubtedly, the debate will continue over the next decade with little resolution. There seems to be only one thing that will accelerate a solution: another catastrophic satellite/satellite collision. In the meantime, a good deal of technology and systems concepts will be focused on a problem that may not get a real solution for some time.

In the meantime everyone reading this editorial will be affected, and all of you should be interested in getting up to speed on space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Register for the "must take" one-day intense seminar: Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight, January 25, 2010 in Cocoa Beach, FL. (See below for description)   ________________________________________________________________________________

After 50 years of trashing space and ignoring the mess, the possibility of cleaning up the debris is finally starting to get serious attention. A few months ago DARPA began an initiative to study the removal of space debris. In September, a Request for Information (RFI) was released soliciting ideas on the implementation of an orbital debris removal capability. The RFI sought information from all “potential sources, domestic and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal capabilities and to identify interest and qualification for participation in any future program.” The objective was to view and assess the state-of-the-art concerning technical approaches to cost effective, innovative systems for debris removal. By October 30, DARPA had received submissions which will be evaluated. Those with the most promise may be asked to submit proposals through a Broad Area Announcement in 2010.

The second step comes this week with the DARPA/NASA sponsored International Conference on Orbital Debris Removal at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia, December 8-10. This will be the first opportunity to measure the level of international interest in the topic and to hear many ideas on how to approach debris removal. Topics to be discussed include:

• Understanding the Problem
• A Solution Framework
• Legal and Economic Issues/Incentives
• Operational Concepts
• Using Environmental Forces
• Capturing Objects
• Orbital Transfer Solutions
• Technical Requirements
• In Situvs. Remote Solutions
• Laser Systems

These subject areas cover much of the technical and programmatic aspects of the problem, with the obvious omission of what may be the most important topic: Who is the customer?

Clearly, the reason there have been no prior serious attempts to address the debris removal problem is that no one wants to pay for a new major program which produces nothing. The only reason it is now of international interest is that debris can no longer be ignored. Any removal program will be expensive, complex and long-term. However, the vital product of this effort is continued access and use of space. Of course, every nation that uses space realizes the cleanup will be well worth the cost. Everyone reading this editorial will be affected, and all of you should be interested in getting up to speed on space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Register for the "must take" one-day intense seminar: Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight, January 25, 2010 in Cocoa Beach, FL. (See below for description)   ________________________________________________________________________________

(Launchspace Staff)

It has come to our attention that there are literally hundreds of professional positions available in the space industry that cannot be filled. At a time when there are tens of millions of people out of work due to the worldwide recession the space industry seems to be booming with projects, contracts and a variety of other activities that require space professionals with some experience in all levels of organization. So, where are these very essential people?
This simple answer is that there are not enough space professionals who have the training and experience needed to do the required work. All of the qualified people that we know are working, and they are working very hard, putting in long hours and making sacrifices to try and get the many funded space projects completed.
What is wrong with this industry? During the 1960s and 70s aerospace companies were notoriously poor employers. One day, thousands of people would be laid off and the next day thousands would be hired. Space professionals had to be mobile and expect to change jobs every two or three years. They could expect to make good incomes, but not salaries attractive enough to compensate for job insecurity. This was symptomatic of the industry in the early decades of the Space Age. Unfortunately, this image persists and the industry still experiences ups and downs. Other industries are considered to be much more stable. Consider those professionals who went into the financial and housing industries. They felt very comfortable about job security and they had well-paying positions. All that ended last year. Today, there are fewer college students studying finance, business and marketing and fewer job opportunities for graduates in these fields. However, throughout the last five decades, the majority of space professionals have consistently had well-paying jobs and still have such jobs.
Now that there are high levels of unemployment, where are those young, well-trained engineers and scientists that are so badly needed to build new space systems? They don’t exist and we will not be able to fill all of those key positions for several years to come. These people must be attracted to universities that can educate them. Then they must spend at least four years before receiving their degrees. This is followed by on-the-job training, until each is experienced enough to assume positions of responsibility. Thus, it is easy to see that current positions will not be filled for another five to ten years.
The average age of current space industry professionals has risen steadily since the days of Apollo. Today, it is not unusual to see many positions filled with post-65 year old grandparents who have the experience and knowledge needed to compete in a very-competitive international space environment. Unfortunately, while this situation offers many benefits for those people, it is a make-shift and temporary fix for the industry. The real problem is that the pipeline of future space engineers and innovators is empty. In a few years this may well result in a loss of space leadership. Warning signs are already evident, but no solution is in sight.  

(Launchspace Staff)

Launch vehicle prices are sky high and they have been for a long time. This has presented a very high hurdle to space access for many potential space applications. There are literally tens of thousands of university experiments awaiting flight opportunities, but the cost is too high for students and faculty. Hundreds of private-sector entrepreneurs have waited years for a chance to try new ideas and applications. Even large, established companies would like to stretch product lines through space experimentation, but have been frustrated by the high cost of launching trial products.
The promise of reusable space launch systems is dramatically lower costs to orbit. An ideal, fully-reusable system would be highly reliable, readily available and could cut costs by a factor of 10 or more. The introduction of such a system would open space access to thousands of denied users. So, why don’t we have one?
There are several reasons. Technologies for fully-reusable orbital launch systems still evade the many companies that have attempted to design and build them. There is a large up-front investment needed to develop and test any new launch system and companies either cannot raise enough money or are unwilling to take the risks associated with investing the needed funds. The market for a reusable system is still immature, i.e., demand for launch services is in the embryonic stages, even though we have been launching satellites for over 50 years.
Elusive technologies include truly reusable cryogenic tanks, low-maintenance thermal shielding, ultra-lightweight structures and advanced avionics. Financing such projects has been problematic, thanks to the many failures and overly-optimistic cost and revenue projections. However, these hurdles will be overcome as the market matures. The one missing ingredient that would truly make reusable vehicles come to life is a “killer application” that would create a strong market demand for low-Earth-orbit flights.
There seem to be two possible business activities that might generate the needed market demand. One is the eventual human-tourism market that is just getting started with sub-orbital flights. The other is the creation of a large, distributed space infrastructure of low-orbiting satellites that must be maintained over a long period of time. There is little doubt that the day will come when reusable systems are indeed a reality. The only question is: How soon?
If you want to know more about the design and technologies of launch vehicles register for a special session of the internationally popular course: Launch Vehicle Systems Design and Engineering, to be presented in Cocoa Beach on December 14-16, 2009. Get a complete description at www.launchspace.com.

(Launchspace Staff)
Given the recent activity and controversy surrounding NASA’s Constellation Program, and in particular the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, it is time to review a few basic rules regarding the design and use of launch vehicles. These are intended to be guidelines for professionals who work with launch vehicles. These rules will hopefully prove useful in explaining some of the many mysteries about launch vehicles and help to debunk some of the false rhetoric heard around the international launch community. Here are the six rules rules:
1. Tall, thin launch vehicles are extremely susceptible to lateral (side) loads. Thus, maximum allowable values of side loads due to uncertainties in wind direction, magnitude and shear are much lower than for conventionally shaped vehicles. Such limits demand extremely benign launch conditions and eliminate the ability to launch in most weather conditions. In other words, launch is possible in only the most favorable weather conditions.
2. Solid rocket motors are not recommended as main first stages for large launch vehicles that employ high-performance upper stages. Although large solid motors can deliver high thrust, they cannot deliver the first-stage burn-out velocities needed to relieve extreme energy requirements on upper stages.
3. The lowest achievable orbital inclination via a direct injection ascent trajectory equals the latitude of the launch site. Thus, satellites launched from the Kennedy Space Center, at 28.5 degrees latitude, will always be injected into initial orbits of at least 28.5 degrees.
4. Current technologies limit payload mass fractions to a range of 1% to 3%. For all-solid-motor launch vehicles the payload mass tends to be about 1.5% of the gross lift-off mass. For high performance all-liquid-rocket launch vehicles, this tends to be near 3%.
5. The weakest structural point of a typical launch vehicle is at base of the payload fairing. Furthermore, most launch vehicle structures are most susceptible to lateral loads and insensitive to axial loads.
6. Whenever possible, locate as many components and subsystems in the lower stages of a multi-stage launch vehicle. By moving mass to the lowest possible stage, payload performance is enhanced for a given vehicle design.

These are just the first six rules. If you want to know more about the design and technologies of launch vehicles register for a special session of the internationally popular course: Launch Vehicle Systems Design and Engineering, in Cocoa Beach on December 14-16, 2009. Get a complete description at www.launchspace.com.

Commentary from: Christopher Kraft, Jr., former Director of the NASA Johnson Space Center and Tom Moser, former Director of Engineering, NASA Johnson Space Center

The U.S. human space program and the creation of new technologies for all humans are in peril if NASA deviates from its plan to explore the Moon and Mars.  NASA should stay the course. 

A committee led by former Lockheed Martin CEO, Norm Augustine, has developed several options and recommendations for NASA that, if implemented, would have to be thoroughly evaluated before NASA could move forward.  This could, in our opinion, cause NASA to…

• Lose the momentum of space exploration and the U.S. to lose leadership in space
• Lose thousands of jobs at NASA and in the aerospace industry of experienced engineers, scientists, and mathematicians
• Curtail the development of new technologies that would benefit every U.S. citizen
• Exacerbate the time gap when the shuttle discontinues taking humans to space and a new transportation system is on-line.  We would have to depend on Russia for our human space transportation.
• Prematurely rely on unproven and non-existent commercial space systems which would increase the probability of failures and increased costs.

Our recommendations, based on our decades of experiences associated with the success of every human space program from the first man in space to today, are to…

• Provide NASA with adequate budgets to effectively and efficiently stay the course on the Moon/Mars programs
• Continue the operations of the Shuttle until a proven and viable replacement exists
• Complete the Space Station – a space scientific research facility – and enable sufficient time and opportunities for scientists around the world to perform research and hopefully develop new technologies and products that would benefit all humans.
• Continue to encourage, enable and indemnify the development of commercial space systems currently in progress.
• Continue the development of new technologies (e.g. ion propulsion and advanced power systems), which have been neglected over the last 20 years, that will have significant impact on future mission planning.
• Enable NASA to provide the leadership to continue space exploration and to encourage international participation in future deep-space missions.
• Continue to reap, without interruption, the benefits of space exploration that benefits every U.S citizen every day – microelectronics (cell phones, PDA’s, iPods, digital cameras, computers, etc.), weather satellites, imaging satellites, communication satellites, global positioning systems (GPS), medical and industrial laser devices, and management systems for large complex technology programs.

NASA has consistently shown the ability to lead the nation’s civilian space program, and as such, should be the organization that provides the White House and Congress with the proper steps to assure continued U.S. leadership in space endeavors.

(Commentary from O. Glenn Smith, former manager of Space Shuttle systems engineering at JSC)

The U.S. is approaching a near term fork in the path to Human Space Exploration.

 As it turns out the flexible path defined by the Augustine Committee would not be  very flexible unless Shuttle is extended and Orion is reconfigured to permit longer voyages with provisions for repair of micrometeoroid penetrations and systems repair as well as for more habitation room.  Orion’s current design has been optimized to support relatively short duration missions to the moon, but also sized to function as an emergency get-home vehicle for a six-person crew on the ISS.  As such, Orion, with its service module, is too heavy for earth-to-ISS travel, and is poorly suited for other potential human exploration missions beyond LEO. 

The Orion capsule is too small for any mission longer than about 10 to 14 days. Imagine three or even four people living in an Orion-sized space of about 10x10x6 ft for several weeks or months. Control panels and operating systems protrude into the limited space.  Crews get stinky and crowded. Waste management in such a small space is a real problem and privacy is non-existent.  Crew performance deteriorates. It would be possible to contain crews in the small Orion capsule for longer missions, but this is certainly not desirable.

The exploration program needs a Crew Exploration Module (CEM), which could be described as “a small, self-contained space station”, or an Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) with more living space.  In either case, the CEM would need nearly all the systems and subsystems now planned for Orion, e. g., life support, attitude control, communications, navigation, docking capability, hygiene facilities, electric power, radiation protection and thermal control. Two or more of these modules docked together may be considered for long missions. Propulsion for maneuvering could be provided by a separate service module which is launched separately and docked to the CEM.  Of course, main propulsion for missions beyond LEO will require a heavy lift launcher and/or a propellant depot.

The Shuttle could deliver a CEM to LEO of up to 14 feet in diameter and more than 50 feet long, containing more than 30 times the pressurized volume of an Orion capsule, and weighing less than 50,000 pounds.

Systems in the CEM should be mounted on swing-out panels for easy access to both sides for maintenance, and access to the interior of the pressurized shell to enable quick repair of potential micrometeoroid penetrations.  Lessons from the ISS, Apollo 13 and the Mir station illustrate the vital requirement to accommodate unscheduled maintenance and repair.

Crews could travel between Earth and LEO on other transportation vehicles, such as Soyuz, the proposed US commercial crew vehicle or eventual crew carrying vehicles from ESA, India, China, or Japan. It can be expected that each one of these entities will have an operational means for transporting people to and from the ISS by about 2020.  Return from long missions beyond LEO may require expendable CEMs and propulsion modules, plus a minimal reentry capsule that could be stored during the mission and used only for reentry.

 A summary of the advantages of a CEM (call it a reconfigured Orion CEV) are:

• Access to the inside of the pressure shell for repair of micrometeoroid penetrations
• Access to systems for maintenance and repair
• Relatively small CEM's will permit two or more CEM’s to travel together and provide backup for each other on long missions
• Relatively clean interface for international partners who might want to build their own CEM to travel in tandem with the U.S. CEM
• Space (and mass capability) for radiation protection
• Ability to qualify crews and systems for long duration missions while docked safely to the ISS
• More living volume

 

International partners (IP) need and want the ISS and Shuttle to continue.  The ISS is a perfect place to develop and qualify people and systems for much longer human missions.  IP’s would welcome that opportunity. Major IP’s could even develop and build their own CEM, as long as utilities (power, atmosphere, comm., etc) are compatible.  This would be viewed as a great opportunity for an International Partner.  And, it provides a clean interface between the U.S. and it partners.

Opportunities exist on the ISS to develop ways to make future human exploration missions safer, faster and more efficient. These include radiation protection for astronauts, recyclable water and food, ion and other advanced propulsion, electric power generation, better hygiene systems, recyclable environmental systems, in-flight repair techniques, advanced robotics, etc.

The ISS is a perfect test bed for those systems. Test and qualification of a Mars transit module at the ISS would be a fantastic and inspiring job for the station. A CEM qualification test article could be built, docked and launched using the ISS. The hatch would be kept closed, except in case of emergency, and the crew and systems would simulate long missions to destinations beyond LEO and back. This would be viewed as a very important job for the ISS and Shuttle.

 

The ISS may eventually become inoperable without Shuttle to replace large or heavy elements, like complete modules and solar arrays. The ISS is also critical to the development of advanced space transportation, such as plasma or ion propulsion requiring large and/or heavy elements.

Furthermore, the Shuttle is the only practical way to service future major scientific satellites in LEO. Retaining the current Earth-to-LEO capability may be the only way to avoid the serious gap in U.S. space launches that may space more than seven years. Such a gap could lead to a serious loss of experienced technical personnel in space operations within NASA.

The current NASA budget could support continuation of ISS and Shuttle, reinvigorate science and technology programs and continue very important work on a reconfigured Crew Exploration Module. Most of the systems planned and designed for Orion would probably work for the CEM, avoiding a possible waste of funds already spent on Orion. The current Orion contract could perhaps continue, but with a redesigned configuration. Furthermore, an inflatable structure should be considered for part of the CEM.

Regardless of changes in the configuration or schedule of Orion or CEM, the Shuttle should be extended through the life of the ISS.

The Shuttle/ISS combination is a unique, versatile, and useful system. At some point in the next several years, if Shuttle and ISS have been retired, we may well find ourselves saying, “We had it. How could we have been so short-sighted as to have thrown it away?”

(In response to a Launchspace request for comments, we have a guest commentary by Phil Henderson, Space Systems Engineer, Palm Bay, Florida)

Exploration of Mars is a worthy goal, but it should not be the only goal.  In fact, it alone could become like Kennedy's original moon goal and once completed, it becomes "been there, done that".  A more worthy goal might be:  To establish one or more self-sustaining, permanent space colonies, e.g., Mars or planetary moons, including ours.

Along the way we can:
        - Explore and exploit solar system's smaller planets, asteroids and comets. 
        - Look for evidence of life beyond earth.
We should not underestimate the difficulty of even a "simple" Mars mission (especially for a country that agonized over the risk of sending astronauts to a high orbit to repair Hubble).

 Here are some steps along the way:

        1. Return NASA to the primary goal of space exploration.  Take NASA out of the LEO space transportation business and encourage multiple, competitive commercial solutions.

        2. Develop key space travel technologies specifically for long duration missions. For example: 
                - Radiation protection.
                - Gravity simulation.
                - Closed ecosystem for food, water and air.
                - Repairable and maintainable spacecraft systems. On Earth this would be called     "Appropriate Technology for Village-Level Sustainability" (If we cannot keep our space station toilets going, how are we going to colonize Mars?).
                - Human factor design for long isolation periods.
                - Advanced propulsion systems with nuclear power generation (VASMIR) that enable significantly faster trips not limited to solar power.
                - In-situ processing (water production, mining, etc.).
                - Space robotics to handle the more dangerous or tedious tasks.

        3. Perform a series of low-gravity missions with increasing durations to build confidence and experience.
                - Visit multiple near-Earth asteroids to prospect for water and high value materials, and to learn what technologies might be needed if we need to deflect one someday.

        4. Develop a reusable, maintainable lander (cargo ship) for use on the Moon, Mars or other similar sized bodies, e.g., for the moons of Jupiter.  Test it on the moon.  Don't design something just for the moon that is not reusable.

        5. Develop and demonstrate fuel and water making capability in both carbon dioxide and methane-based atmospheres using robotic missions first.  Then, incorporate the technology as options on the reusable lander.

        6.  Plan a series of Mars missions with the capability for each to stay and explore for long durations, e.g., six months to one year each.
        7.  Develop technologies for permanent colonization in space. 
                - Establish a base first, then a colony on a small asteroid having a water source.
                - Mine ore from an asteroid and create building materials for space habitats.
                - Demonstrate sustainable industrial processes in space, later to be applied to       habitats on Mars or anywhere else of interest.
                - Establish a base, then a colony, on Mars.
                - Establish outposts or long duration exploration stations traveling throughout the   solar system.

It doesn't really matter how long it takes as long as the vision is maintained and we have incremental successes toward the ultimate goal - to become a species that thrives in more than one place in the universe.

Just last week the topic of Space Debris Removal made the “big league” conference circuit at the 60th International Astronautical Congress in Daejeon, Republic of Korea. In fact, in addition to several dedicated sessions on topics addressing almost every aspect of debris production phenomena, improved tracking accuracy, better conjunction prediction methods, advanced mitigation techniques and removal scenarios, much of the discussions in the hallways was about this topic.

There appears to be a consensus of opinions from the experts that debris will continue to proliferate irrespective of the many mitigation steps that have been adopted by most space-faring nations. Unless steps are taken to remove at least a portion of existing debris objects, the space environment will continue to deteriorate, leading to a loss of access to part of the near-Earth space region. There is a further consensus that developed nations cannot let this happen. Although the discussion was intense, no large scale solutions were offered.

It seems that, after a good deal of analysis, the most controversial areas associated with the space debris reduction issue can be simplified and summarized in three questions:

1. Technology - How do we remove excess space debris?
2. Cost - Who will pay for removal?
3. Political - Does this mean we will have space weapons?

There is no doubt that the answers to all three questions are interlinked. For example, some new innovative technology may result in cost savings. There may be a way to effectively reduce debris without the use of devices that may be classified as potential space weapons. Obviously, the list of possible combinations is lengthy, and this essay is space-limited. There will, however, surely be heated and prolonged national and international debates on the how, who and how much of debris clean up that will span the time from now until at least the state of space congestion reaches a critical stage. At this point in time, no one knows the answers to these questions, nor how much time we have to debate them. We can only hope that the answers come before the time runs out.

Clearly, all of our readers will be affected by the space debris threat, and everyone in the space community should be interested in getting up to speed on space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Either register for the "must take" one-day intense seminar on November 5, 2009 (see below), or contact Launchspace for a customized on-site briefing for your managers and staff.

Any project, large or small, is going to have a set of basic requirements, interfaces with the “world around it”, options for determining the best (preferred) design and the desire to minimize risk of failure. These factors all fit under the discipline: Systems Engineering.

What is Systems Engineering?  NASA Handbook SP6105 says, “Systems Engineering is a robust approach to design, creation and operation of Systems with the objective that the System is built and operated so that it accomplishes its purpose in the most cost-effective way possible, considering performance, cost, schedule and risk.”

The Launchspace Course “Introduction to Systems Engineering” addresses all elements of that NASA creed, covering the planning, definition, control, design, analysis, integration, risks, production, test and operation of a hardware or software product, project or program.  The “big 3” of Systems Engineering: “Requirements”, “Integration/Interfaces” and “Risk” headline this course.

• Types of  Requirements are identified (with sample lists), how they are used in the design process and then the verification procedure for assuring that each has been implemented in the design is covered in detail. The convergence of Requirements into Specifications is explained.

 

• Systems Integration and Interface design involve defining, controlling, documenting, assessing compatibility of, and verifying proper implementation of each and every interface of a component or of an entire system. The “how-to” of these tasks are detailed in the course. The need of Interface Working Groups and their function are shown. Required policies, operations and schedules, other important ingredients of Integration and Interfaces, are also addressed.

• An overview of Risk Management, the third key to a successful program, is presented, suggesting a 4-Step “attack” to manage Risk. First, Identification of Risks – use of part failure histories and past test results are emphasized for determining Risk along with scenarios of consequences of suspected failures; second, Assessment & Quantification – charting probability of occurrences and severity of consequences of failures; third, Prioritization – categorizing the Risks as “High”/“Medium”/“Low” from the “Assessment” step for determining order of action needed, first for the “High’s”, and so on; and the final step, Handling and Mitigation of the Risks (reducing occurrence or consequence) by several methods/suggested techniques that are discussed. Other “Risk Management” hints are given.

 

Additional major subjects, disciplines and needed areas of Systems Engineering activities are also included in the course. Some of them are: Program Planning and Control; Estimating and Control of Costs; Trade Study technique (for design choices); the System Design process and suggested “flow” (Design Phases); and the need for and how to accomplish Compatibility and Operations Analyses.

And more…. Overviews of two Valuable Systems Engineering “tools” are introduced:
1) The use of Metrics (time measurements of system parameters which track the progress and trend of the System’s development process and performance) is an excellent “early warning of trouble” tool, and 2) the creation and use of a “Lessons Learned Program”, another tool to help avoid past failures.

This course is tailored not only for the engineers working directly on the program, but, also, for many other personal in the company – from management to program support employees of all types (technical or otherwise).  The subjects covered are intended to address every basic systems engineering element for implementing a typical program and the needed techniques for progressing from inception to final operation of the system, culminating in meeting of all the program objectives.

A management recognized, approved, directed and implemented systems engineering program can go a long way toward achieving a successful, on time and within cost, project or program.

It is time for another Launchspace worldwide survey! A recent survey asked for ideas on ways to remove space debris. The response was impressive and the ideas were very useful in formulating ground and space flight concepts that might be implemented in the future when the international space community finally comes to grips with the space debris threat to operating spacecraft and to general access to space. In fact, Launchspace has helped to raise awareness of this threat and continues to contribute to the overall body of knowledge regarding space debris remediation. The results of these surveys have been, and will continue to be, passed onto researchers who are addressing many complex challenges.

Last week, the Launchspace editorial addressed the fact that space-faring nations have spewed trash from 200 km to beyond 36,000 km, identifying the space below about 1,600 km as the most severely abused region. Of the more than 20,500 pieces of tracked debris, a majority are to be found in this near-Earth region. Of these, there are several thousand large objects that will eventually have to be removed from regions in which active satellites operate. One approach to removing these expired satellites and large remnants of space vehicles is to launch “orbiting trash removal satellites” into orbits near these objects. These trash removal vehicles are assumed to be highly maneuverable and able to rendezvous with each large debris object of interest. However, in order to physically remove an object, these vehicles may have to grab the object and control its movement. Once this is accomplished the removal process can begin, for example, by attaching a small removal rocket to the trash object or by storing the object in a collection container. Technically speaking, all of these steps, except one, seem to be within the current state of knowledge.

The one step of concern here is the one that requires grabbing the object. Many, if not most, of the large debris objects are likely to possess some level of residual angular momentum. In layman’s terms this means large debris objects are likely to be spinning or tumbling. If this is the case, then the grabbing process can be quite complicated. These objects may be large and massive, making physical contact very dangerous for a removal vehicle. Thus, any angular momentum may have to be eliminated before removal can begin. Unlike active satellites, these objects cannot be commanded to stop rotating. This is where you can come to the rescue!

Launchspace wants to know how to remove any residual angular momentum from a large orbiting debris object before a satellite can capture it for removal purposes. Your ideas may help to resolve this key challenge in the space debris removal architecture. All of your submissions will be passed onto those who are actively pursuing debris removal solutions. Please help all space-faring nations to achieve success over the space debris threat.

Send your residual angular momentum elimination ideas to Launchspace’s DEBRIS GRAPPLING SITE 

Clearly, all of our readers will be affected by the space debris threat, and everyone in the space community should be interested in getting up to speed on space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Register for the "must take" one-day intense seminar: Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight, November 5th in Bethesda, MD.

For the last few decades the international space community has freely used near-Earth space for many important applications without regard for the impact of artificial satellites on the space environment. Although space-faring nations have spewed trash from 200 km to beyond 36,000 km, the space below about 1,600 km has been severely abused. Recent events have finally persuaded the U.S. Government to start thinking about cleaning up this environmental "super fund site." No, it is not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has been given the task of figuring out how to remove space debris. It is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a part of the Department of Defense (DOD).
 
On September 17th, DARPA released a Request for Information (RFI) regarding orbital debris removal capabilities. This request is addressed to all potential domestic and foreign sources and it asks for innovative solutions that might lead to the eventual removal of orbital debris.
 
The significance of this new DARPA initiative is that the leading space-faring nation has finally recognized the growing risk that space debris poses with regard to future free access and use of space. Important applications that keep the world economy growing and provide national security for many countries are jeopardized by the ever increasing debris threat.
 
Launchspace has been a leader in sounding the alarm about a possible future space disaster in which many operational satellites would be destroyed in a short period of time due to collisions with debris objects. This new DARPA program makes it clear that a huge new space infrastructure program is coming to the international space community: a program that will involve all space-faring nations, tens of billions of dollars and decades of development, testing and operations. This is a program in which every element of the space community will be involved.

Everyone reading this editorial will be affected, and all of you should be interested in getting up to speed on space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Register for the "must take" one-day intense seminar: Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight, November 5th in Washington, DC. (See below for description)

The tight economic conditions, new launch vehicle systems and newly developed, soon-to-be implemented integration processes present important challenges to traditional launch vehicle payload integration schedules and processes. In addition, the Air Force is investigating approaches to shorten integration timing schedules. The Air Force is also involved in funding research and development of a "launch-on-demand," rapid response space asset capable of quickly addressing emerging threats such as equipment failures that could imperil critical sensors and platforms.  In the midst of these pressures and demands, it is critical that Spacecraft Development Teams be well skilled in a number of areas. These teams are responsible for conducting trades and managing requirements for vehicles, systems and processing as well as for performing ground processing tasks.  They must do all of these activities efficiently, within budget and schedule constraints.
 
Among some of the critical knowledge areas for Spacecraft Development Teams are the following:
·         Systems Engineering
·         Technical understanding of electrical and mechanical interfaces
·         Basic knowledge of mission design, orbits and trajectories
·         Background in launch vehicle performance capabilities
·         Awareness of the launch vehicle industry and its associated workings
·         Ground operations including training in hazardous materials, processes, communications and data links
·         Range safety regulations, processes and requirements
·         Document management
 
There are few experienced launch vehicle payload integration managers. In this current economic climate, in which time for ground processing schedules is being compressed and manifests are becoming increasingly more crowded, how do we train people to carry out these important tasks? Not only are the skills needed for launch vehicle payload integration quite complex but this skill set is not a discipline taught at the college level. Most learn from experience, but many of the experienced people are reaching retirement age and leaving the field with a vacuum in the knowledge base.

Fortunately, Launchspace is now offering the first Launch Vehicle Payload Integration course tailored to provide an intense immersion in the hardware and integration management challenges involved in efficient payload integration processes that fall within budget and on schedule. This three-day course is designed for all individuals involved in or interested in spacecraft development. All systems engineers, program managers and subsystems leads will find this course pivotal to attaining a full understanding of integration processes and how to improve efficiencies and avoid cost overruns. This timely course will be held at Dulles, Virginia from September 21 through 23. Register online today!See the description at Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight.

Launchspace Guest Commentary by: George W. Jeffs

Recently, Aviation Week and Space News both published reports speculating on several options the Augustine Panel may recommend as the blueprint for NASA’s future human space flight program. If these are indeed the true options the Panel will present to the Obama Administration later this month, the U.S. will lose the opportunity to create a truly advantageous solar system exploration architecture. This is an option that NASA and the Augustine Panel should consider.
Over the last 30 years the U.S. has developed and refined an astronaut transportation system and a space station that allow this country to routinely ferry men and women between Earth’s surface and low Earth orbit. The importance of this capability is multi-fold:

• The Space Shuttle is a reusable, available and proven human transporter. It provides ascent to the International Space Station (ISS) and deals with the extremes of reentry. Furthermore, the achievement of low Earth orbit equates to roughly half or more of the needed energy to explore near-Earth regions of the solar system.
• The ISS can be used as an assembly and test station for solar system exploration. Astronauts on the station have proven abilities in assembling large space structures while performing Extra-vehicular Activities (EVAs). They can receive, store and prepare flight hardware for short or extended missions to the moon, asteroids or Mars.

Current Constellation architecture requires discarding this capability and replacing it with a far inferior architecture, i.e., one requiring the development of a very limited and costly launch system that uses a 1960s’ astronaut capsule design.
With such a magnificent ferry and space assembly system already in place the U.S. is presented an opportunity, not to replace it, but to build on it. Use the Space Shuttle to ferry astronauts and valuable cargo to the ISS and use expendable launch vehicles to transport consumables and low-value cargo to low orbit. Take advantage of the ISS as an assembly, integration and test facility for a modular reusable solar system Human Exploration Transfer Stage (HETS). Several valuable advantages present themselves:

• The HETS concept is a dedicated vehicle for solar system exploration that need not carry huge weight penalties associated with atmospheric ascent and reentry.
• It can be optimized for the vacuum flight of space, leading to performance and cost advantages that are significantly superior to those of Constellation’s architecture.
• HETS takes advantage of a modular design approach in order optimize its shape, size and design for short, medium and long flights to the moon, asteroids and Mars.
• Robotic flights of HETS can allow safe check out and testing of the vehicle and its systems during short flights, e.g., lunar circumnavigation trips from the ISS.

In order to satisfy funding constraints, HETS can be an evolving vehicle. In the early years a rather simple HETS can be used for flybys of near-Earth points of interest such as asteroids and the moon. In the later years HETS could evolve into an Earth-MARS transport vehicle.
The HETS architecture could take advantage of many existing technologies, both U.S. and international.  For example, during the return leg from Mars, HETS could rendezvous with a space tug at high Earth altitude in order to conserve propellant for Earth capture, allowing the tug to tow HETS back to the ISS. From there, the crew could transfer to the Shuttle for reentry and return to Earth.

This approach allows the continued use of already existing and proven systems for achieving low orbit, and it eliminates the requirement for an exploration vehicle that would have to carry a great deal of added mass to survive atmospheric reentry. The only required new systems would be those elements needed to explore space above low Earth orbit.

Last week Launchspace aired a radical idea. Let’s scrap Constellation and, instead, send astronauts to Mars. A good deal of mail was received, both pro and con. This week we are going to address the mail and try to list the points that have been made so far.
The number in favor was overwhelming, and here are some of the comments:
“Great idea – this will focus the country and get people excited about the space program and about technology in general. It will energize the innovative juices in America and improve the country’s overall well-being. Young people will once again go into the sciences, engineering and mathematics. Our economy will improve and people will be happier.”
“We will be trading in a likely losing Constellation Program for a winning space endeavor, a program that will assure continued U.S. preeminence in space.”
“I am already excited about the possibility of my children and grandchildren seeing the first humans land on Mars. Wow!” 
On the other side of the issue there was concern that the program would cost too much and take too long. Comments were all over the spectrum:
“Constellation is too far along to cancel.”
“Congress will never fund such a large, long-term program.“
“You must be crazy.”
“The Space Shuttle can’t go to Mars.”
“Mars is too hard.”
Let’s step back for a moment and try to get some perspective on a human expedition to Mars. First, what about the cost? The ISS partners have spent roughly $100 billion on the space station and it is going nowhere. The U.S. has committed funding for a $1 trillion plus stimulus package that is not working. Constellation will spend tens of billions and there is a good chance it will not work. The real question is: Can we afford not to go to Mars?
At this point in the history of the space program, the U.S. is giving away its leadership position as fast as possible. There is a really good chance that Ares I will not work. The U.S. will not have a human launch capability for at least five years, and probably a lot longer. The void will be filled by other nations and the U.S. has a good chance of losing its free access to space. By 2020, the U.S. may well be a second-class space power. This may not seem like a big deal, but it will negatively impact the economy, security, world leadership and the export of innovative products and services. The effective financial loss may easily far exceed the cost of a Mars program.
But, what if Constellation is successful? The U.S. is building another Apollo capsule and intends to send it to the moon, again. Is anybody excited? Are we motivating young entrepreneurs to create new innovative, productivity-improving products? Are our kids filling engineering classes at MIT and Stanford? The answer is no, no and no.  All this begs the question: Where is the national leadership?
Remember, going to Mars is not easy, but just the thought of an astronaut walking on the Martian surface is way better than the idea of racing back to someplace that we last visited in 1972, and losing to the Chinese. Everyone that wants a Mars program, write to your Congressmen, Senators and the President, now!

On July 14, 2009, Robert Block published a story in the Orlando Sentinel entitled: “Is Ares Program Dead? NASA Told to Explore New Ways to Reach the Moon.” A subtitle also appeared: “Presidential Committee Wants to See Both Minor Tweaks and 'Wholesale' Changes to Constellation Program.” According to the article, the Augustine Panel has asked NASA to design a new way to send astronauts back to the moon. This presidentially appointed 10-member group is currently reviewing the future of America's human space flight programs.
The Ares program involves two launch vehicles: Ares I is the crew carrier and Ares V is the cargo carrier. However, it is Ares I, the replacement vehicle for the Space Shuttle, that is in advanced development stages, with about $3 billion spent so far. The program is reportedly behind schedule and experts continue to claim there are major technical challenges to the vehicle design. A change in direction at this point will almost certainly result in further program delays. NASA has a five-year hiatus on human space flight already built into the schedule. From roughly 2010 to at least 2015, the U.S. will have to depend on Russian launch vehicles as astronaut transporters to the International Space Station (ISS).
If Ares I is scrapped NASA will need a replacement for the shuttle replacement. Undoubtedly, this will negatively impact NASA’s Constellation architecture, schedule, budgets and objectives. Serious additional delays in the program will be unavoidable. While there is a chance that a commercial solution to astronaut transportation to the ISS will come online in the interim, the probability of this happening before 2015 is low. On the other hand, if NASA continues with the current Ares I design and it proves to be fatally flawed, the impact on the U.S. human space program would be much worse. Considering the current budget constraints on NASA and the costs of operating the shuttle and ISS, it is impossible to simultaneously pursue two launch options. If NASA fails to create a workable crew launch system in the 2010 to 2015 time frame, the U.S. will almost certainly relinquish its status as a leading space-faring nation. By 2020, China and Russia could surpass the U.S. in human space achievements. So, what can NASA do to mitigate this potential disaster?
One obvious action is to request enough funds from Congress to carry out two launch vehicle programs to the point at which at least one is proven viable. Another step is to increase assistance to commercial launch developers in order to shorten schedules and increase confidence in alternative crew transporters. A third option is to scrap Constellation and use the saved funds to extend the life of the Space Shuttle until the U.S. can afford a new human exploration program without compromising its space leadership role. None of these may be ideal choices, but they represent alternatives to what might turn out to be the end of a great space flight era for the U.S.
To fully understand the future of U.S. launch vehicles and the real Ares I challenges, your first step is to get smart on the technical issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. Sign up for the “must take” course:

Ares I Redesign and Alternatives – A Special Session of Launch Vehicle Systems Design and Engineering, November 2-4, 2009 in Huntsville, AL

Since the February 10, 2009 collision of Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Department of Defense has begun to ramp-up its efforts to warn satellite operators of high-risk, close approaches by debris and other satellites. The latest population estimates of maneuverable spacecraft are as high as 800. However, since all operators do not report on satellite status, some fraction of these may no longer be operational. A more conservative estimate might be 700 operating satellites, of which approximately 300 to 400 may be capable of expending propellant to avoid a potential collision, if given early enough warning. In the case of geostationary platforms, large quantities of propellant are carried for regularly scheduled stationkeeping maneuvers. At such high altitudes relative speeds between active satellites and expired vehicles and other debris are low compared to those at low altitude. Nevertheless, tracking accuracies are not precise enough to predict collision events with great certainty. Whenever a geostationary satellite operator receives a close-approach warning, a decision must be made to either activate an avoidance maneuver or do nothing. It turns out that doing nothing is probably as safe as maneuvering, because the predicted probability of collision is typically between one-in-a-thousand and one-in-one-hundred-thousand, with a probable distance of closest approach in the several kilometer range. So, it is conceivable that an avoidance maneuver may, in fact, move the satellite closer to the debris.
The situation in low orbits is worse. Satellite speeds are much higher and there are many more satellites and debris objects. Closing speeds can approach 15 km/sec. Warning times are much shorter and very few satellites can maneuver to avoid debris encounters. This situation is somewhat like that of the Titanic. The iceberg was sighted several minutes before the collision, but the ship could not maneuver out of the way. There was a good deal of “yelling and screaming,” but little could be done. The technology for early iceberg detection simply was not available in 1912. Well, the tracking and prediction technology for accurately predicting satellite-debris events is simply not available in 2009, and no one knows when satellite operators will have it. What is the current state of technology? Judging from recent events and statements by the experts, we are at the “yelling and screaming” stage.
The field known as conjunction analysis has come a long way in recent years, but the orbiting object tracking data and perturbation modeling capabilities remain limited in terms of accuracy. In response to the February collision event, the Air Force’s Joint Space Operations Center (JSPOC) has increased the number of satellites it monitors for possible collisions from roughly 140 to more than 300. Plans call for continued expansion of such activities in order to monitor up to 1,300 satellites.
How does this relieve the collision risk issues? In almost all cases of predicted close encounters, avoidance attempts do not relieve the risks. The reasons are simple. Current close encounter predictions lack the needed accuracy to be sure that maneuvering will help in most situations. Most low orbiting spacecraft cannot maneuver, or cannot react quickly to warnings. Operators that can maneuver their spacecraft are reluctant to do so, because on-board propellant is very limited.
JSPOC is tracking some 19,000 objects, making continuous tracking impossible and periodic checks of orbit parameters precludes highly accurate state vector predictions. For many ground station personnel who operate satellites, the situation is getting to be like that of Allied bomber crews flying over Europe during World War II: long periods of boredom, interrupted by moments of stark terror.

For all those interested in debris for fun and profit and those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris crisis, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in space flight, you will want to sign up for the “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

Launchspace has been studying the space debris issue with an eye toward private sector participation. After all, we cannot expect world governments to willingly contribute to debris reduction until they have to. No agency of a space-faring nation will want to commit huge amounts of funding to the removal of space objects. These agencies are only interested in placing satellites in orbit in order to satisfy operational requirements. Cleaning up orbits is not perceived as being productive. Civil servants and military personnel will not see this kind of mission as career enhancing. Thus, very little official enthusiastic support can be expected. However, this situation may present a unique opportunity for entrepreneurs to get an edge on potentially profitable ways to clean up space.
Let’s do some brainstorming. How can anyone make money with space debris? Space trash has little value compared to the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to retrieve it. So, salvage does not seem to offer a viable business approach. After much thought, there appears to be only one business approach that might be successful: interactive gaming via the Internet. Yes, the idea here is to create a Space Debris Elimination Game that would be accessible to most of the world population. Suppose a private sector company creates a business plan that describes an international and interactive game to eliminate debris by using privately developed spacecraft and techniques to cause debris to be de-orbited by game players. Revenue would be created through dues and fees paid by gamers from all over the world. The concept could be set up to allow the players to challenge each other. Players could gain points by hitting debris pieces, with additional points for causing reentry. Those who accumulate a great deal of points could be awarded prizes.
Additional revenue might be possible through the creation of a worldwide lottery. Each debris piece that could possibly be de-orbited in a given week is given a number. Lottery ticket buyers would guess which debris piece reenters next. If no reentries occur in a given week then the lottery value increases each week until there is a winner.
To motivate investors, world governments should be willing to provide low interest loans to assist in capitalizing the venture. Such assistance may be risky, but the commercial approach avoids the prospect of taxing every satellite launch in order to pay for debris clean up. This is also a way for governments to avoid the eventual huge cost of cleaning up space.
Now that we have a business plan, what might a commercial space debris reduction system look like? One idea is to place a constellation of pellet-firing gun-satellites in orbit above the most dangerous debris altitudes. The system would be rigged such that all pellets will slow the targeted debris ultimately causing it to reenter. These pellets could be ice spheres or even collected pieces of small debris that is recycled to help eliminate other debris. Of course, all pellet firings would be controlled to avoid operational satellites. Furthermore, the system will be designed to work without increasing the total number of debris objects.
Lets’ do the math. Based on other constellations, we can estimate the cost of the pellet satellites, ground segments and systems maintenance as five to ten billion dollars. Annual operating costs might be in the one-billion-dollar range. If ten million gamers from all over the world each paid $150 per year to play, then all expenses should be covered. The lottery would account for additional revenues. In addition to Internet shooting galleries, a network of shooting gallery clubs might be established where there are gambling casinos, such as Las Vegas, Atlantic City and Macau.
The space pellets approach is simply an example of what might be possible in the private sector. The video game industry took in $9.5 billion in 2007 in the U.S. alone. The Space Debris Challenge industry can be real and exciting. With the right marketing, merchandizing and promotions potential worldwide revenues could well exceed those of video games.
A variation on this game is the use of high-powered lasers instead of pellets. It may also be possible to make debris reduction into a spectator sport like tennis or golf. Two professional players could challenge each other to a game of debris chasing and removal. To further expand this business opportunity, it may be possible to create ancillary activities such as documentaries and films based on the space debris industry, television game shows in which contestants try to hit debris in real time and souvenir sales involving memorabilia.
At first glance this approach may seem farfetched, but consider what is on television and how the movie studios merchandize film-related goods. It is often difficult to judge these entrepreneurial ideas until they are fleshed out and tested.

For all those interested in debris for fun and profit and those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris crisis, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in space flight, you will want to sign up for the “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

Launchspace is seriously looking at the increasing risk of space debris interfering with operational satellites in a proactive way. Although no one knows when this will turn into a crisis, we do know it will happen, unless the world stops using space applications. But, the benefits of space are simply too important and they have become an integral part of modern living. The options seem obvious. We can anticipate the logical progression of adverse events and plan mitigation and remediation programs, or we can ignore the inevitable and do nothing until access to space is denied to all space-faring nations. In other words, we can expend a low level of resource over a long period of time, or expend a great deal of resources later, after many of our space assets are no longer operational.
The new Launchspace series, Trash Talk, is intended to provide our readers with the latest ideas and actions affecting space debris mitigation and remediation. The discussion begins with the beginning of the debris accumulation problem and will continue until much of the actions and ideas that address solutions have been aired. Launchspace welcomes comments from you, our readers.
It all started at the dawn of the Space Age on that fateful October day in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik 1. No one had an inkling that the exploration and exploitation of space would eventually lead to the trashing of near-Earth orbits. Nevertheless, as the number of launches increased through the 1960s, expired satellites began to accumulate in a variety of orbits. This rate of satellite launches exceeded 100 per year within 10 years and reached an all-time high of 129 in 1984. Every space launch created some trash in the form of large and small debris objects. Often these consist of upper stages and satellites that cease to operate. Over the years in orbit, many of these break up, explode or are broken up by collisions with other debris.
As early as 1970, NASA began funding research activities at Penn State University to investigate ways to remove large expired satellites from orbit. This work addressed the capture of large uncontrolled objects that were spinning or tumbling. Some of the resulting ideas will probably be used when an actual debris reduction program is implemented. Ideas that evolved from this early work were later used to assure the safe reentry of Skylab in 1979. 
When NASA began internal debris studies in the 1970s there were less than 2000 objects cataloged by NORAD. At that time collision risks were not considered significant except for very large space structures. As the debris population expanded studies were focused on the sources of small debris objects. By 1980, NASA concluded that explosions of Delta second stages and USSR satellite tests were the major contributors to space debris. In 1981, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) issued a position paper on space debris in which the risk issues of space debris were identified and it called for real action to mitigate future catastrophic collision events.
It has been 28 years since the initial alarm was sounded by AIAA. In the interim several mitigating actions have been implemented by space-faring nations. Delta upper stages are prevented from exploding by venting the propellant tanks. Debris shielding has been added to many satellites. Most recently newly launched satellites have the ability to de-orbit at the end-of-life point. There is extensive tracking of debris pieces that are larger than 10 cm, often resulting in avoidance maneuvers by satellites. Nevertheless, the debris problem continues to grow, because the world continues to launch new satellites.
Many national and international groups are studying the space debris issue and they are making progress in mitigating future debris. But, a real debris reduction program seems is inevitable. Because of this, we should all be concerned about the future impact of space trash on our ability to use space for human and robotic exploration and exploitation of the final frontier.
For all those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris crisis, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in space flight, you will want to sign up for “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

This past week, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11’s lunar landing, the Augustine Panel held its first public meeting on the future of the U.S. human space program. Here we are, five years and billions of dollars into President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, and the new President expects a panel of a ten senior space experts to evaluate the established plan for returning humans to the moon and exploring the solar system beyond Earth’s influence. This activity is going on in parallel with the continued development of Ares I and Orion, and while preparations for the retirement of the space shuttle continue. By August, this panel is to submit its review and recommendations to the President.
It was not surprising that the first public hearing was filled with briefings on several alternative approaches that were not selected by NASA as the winning launcher and spacecraft designs. According to the presenters, every one of the alternatives would have been cheaper, better and faster than Ares I and Orion. And, NASA continued to defend its selections. All of this is not unexpected. Every alternative offering has been aired before, and rejected by NASA. However, there is one refreshing aspect to the proceedings.
NASA has been forthcoming about its technical challenges in developing the selected launchers and spacecraft. There have been no exaggerated claims of high performance, fast schedule or low cost concerning the current approach. All in all, NASA engineers have been honest about the progress of their designs. Unfortunately, the Augustine Panel may be little more than a distraction to the ongoing challenges that NASA already faces. With such little time and small staff, it is doubtful the panel can make any valuable recommendations that will dramatically improve the human exploration program.
The most likely outcome seems to be a reaffirmation of the current program with a list of minor suggested high-level programmatic and funding recommendations. For practical and cost reasons, it is probably too late to save the shuttle from retirement. A change from Ares I to another option at this time could result in major schedule delays and cost increases. A change from Orion to another design seems unlikely at this point. We already know there will be at least a five year hiatus in U.S. human space flight. It is also likely that without a major infusion of additional funding, this hiatus will increase to well beyond five years. There is little doubt that the U.S. leaves itself vulnerable to competitors and adversaries who will take advantage of the hiatus to weaken the American position as the space leader.

If President Obama is determined to assure continued space leadership, the only practical action is to infuse enough funding into the current human space program to minimize the gap in human flight. This may not be the best solution. But, given the position in which we find ourselves, this is the best of an array of bad alternatives.

Recently, a space enthusiast/entrepreneur decided to have lunch at a Chinese restaurant. Before ordering he took a few minutes to carefully study the menu. After some thought it dawned on him that the Chinese are very cleaver. They structure their menus in such a way that each customer can customize the meal to satisfy his/her varied tastes. Each patron can select an item from each of three or four columns and create the ideal hunger solution for that person's tastes at that moment. This process can be thought of as "connecting the dots" to arrive at a solution for the situation at hand. 

The spacefaring nations of the world are coming to the conclusion that the space debris issue has evolved from a minor nuisance to a full-blown imperative. Hundreds, if not thousands, of decision makers, engineers, managers, politicians and policy makers have focused their attention on how to deal with the fast-growing threat to operational satellites and future access to space. All that use space and take advantage of space applications will be affected by the actions of these people in the coming years. There is little doubt that we must move from a reactive mode to a proactive mode when dealing with space debris remediation.
It is clear that methods and systems for reducing the debris threat will be developed over the next several years. This will be followed by a period of orbital operations that will slowly reduce collision-damage probabilities to some universally accepted set of values. The solution will involve several ground-based and space-based activities, including added spacecraft shielding, extra satellite onboard propellant for maneuvering, limitations on creating new debris, automated de-orbiting of upper stages, mandatory end-of-life risk-reduction maneuvers and physical removal of debris from high-threat zones. Success will require all spacefaring nations to cooperate and work together.
Once we bring the space debris issue under control, what next? If we are to continue to utilize space and maintain safety for operational satellites, there must be an ongoing international program to keep debris-collision risks at acceptable levels. This program may be called “Space Traffic Management” and might operate on a voluntary basis in which spacefaring nations agree to limitations on populating certain orbital slots or zones. Each nation would furthermore have to accept the liability associated with the creation of new debris and agree to certain restrictions on orbital usage. Space traffic management would also entail the continued control of debris through an active removal program that maintains the highly-used orbital regions safe for operation satellites. Ultimately, the space traffic management program may be integrated with the main-stream space program in a way that would permit new spacecraft orbit insertions and debris removal operations with every launch campaign. This approach may lead to optimization of the cost and complexity of debris control while “closing the loop” on space utilization. Let’s save space for future generations!

For all those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris remediation challenge, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in the future of space applicaitons, you will want to sign up for the “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

Every entrepreneur pursuing the space debris opportunity seems to have the single answer to removing space debris. It is cost-effective, simple, quick, safe, reliable, user-friendly, non-polluting, non-interfering and almost ready to go. There is simply nothing like it and it is wonderful. Why doesn't the government grab it up and make the entrepreneur rich? In fact, why doesn't the government advertise for a single, simple solution and let the private sector submit proposals? The best single idea with the best price would get the single all-encompassing contract to clean up space. 

Last week’s editorial was dedicated to the spirit of entrepreneurism. Hope springs eternal and entrepreneurs have to have unlimited amounts of optimism and hope in order to survive. Sadly, the truth of the matter is that most entrepreneurs do not succeed. It is only the few, the lucky, the persistent ones that do have a chance. The search for profit and wealth in the growth industry of space debris offers an excellent example of how things can go wrong during the pursuit of success. Take your typical entrepreneur. He or she is watching a telecast or reading one of the space media outlets. There is a short piece about the new imperative: “Orbiting debris must be removed in order to continue our free access to space.” An idea is born. The entrepreneur sees an opportunity to create a company that services Earth’s orbits by capturing space junk and repairing satellites at the same time. Obviously, this is a brilliant idea and one that is compelling in the quest for capital. A business plan is formulated almost instantly on the back of a napkin. Friends and family are contacted immediately and told of this “ground floor” opportunity to invest in what appears to be a sure winner. Everyone is excited, especially the entrepreneur. A detailed business plan is drafted. A draft private placement memorandum (PPM) is hastily assembled. Fundraising meetings are arranged. The sales pitch sounds great. Everything is positive. There must be an IPO in the near future. How can anything go wrong?

Reality does not set in until the search for clients begins. In the case of space debris, who is the client? It is obvious that someone must pay to clean up space. It is simply a matter of finding the responsible organization and convincing the management that you have the best and most cost effective way to make space safe again. In fact, let’s assume that our entrepreneur does have a great idea about how to clean up space and service satellites. Who is going to voluntarily offer to pay for cleaning up Earth’s orbits? Is there any one organization or agency that would be willing to spend their budgets on cleaning up someone else’s old spacecraft as opposed to building their own new satellites? Before long, our entrepreneur realizes that there is no customer for cleaning up space. Everyone agrees that debris reduction is an imperative, but no one will step up to take financial responsibility.

There is only one way to get the job done. Simultaneously convince all of the spacefaring nations that all must contribute to the cost of cleaning up space. The energetic entrepreneur feels that anything is possible in the quest for success. Meetings with space agencies, commercial satellite operators and non-profit groups interested in preserving space freedom are arranged. Months of travelling, briefings and negotiations go on. The entrepreneur gets very positive responses and promises of moral and philosophical support. Letters from many of these entities are collected by the entrepreneur. Months have gone by and the initial capital from family and friends is running out. It is time to approach the next level of capital-raising. There must be an angel investor out there somewhere who will fall in love with this opportunity.

The entrepreneur searches investment resource sights and find a number of eager capital-raising agents, all happy to find capital for a healthy fee. Finder agreements are signed and meetings arranged with angels. Optimistic briefings are given and the letters of support are used to demonstrate the potential customer base. Due diligence is performed by potential investors, but alas, the entrepreneur finds out that angels use experts to review potential investments. A proper due diligence involves an assessment of technologies, relevant policies, legal aspects and market potential - many of the areas that the entrepreneur didn’t bother to check out. Finally, the angels turn down the entrepreneur.

Does the entrepreneur now realize that this quest was too quickly started, that the technology was not yet ready, that international politicians would take years to assemble the needed financial support or that the cost of space clean-up would be astronomical? No! The typical entrepreneur would react by assuming the experts and angels did not know what they were talking about. The pursuit continues until one day the entrepreneur runs out of family and friends to tap. At that point getting a job becomes the imperative and space debris will have to take care of itself!

For all those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris catastrophe, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in space flight, you will want to sign up for the “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

Entrepreneurs can smell an opportunity to make money. Some have a sixth sense and others have to work at it. But, all have something in common; they want to turn an idea into a profit. Many potential opportunities are connected to a negative event. Such events often create an imperative to correct a situation. Today, we are on the threshold of an event that may prove to be devastating to the future of the world’s access and use of space. That event is the growing cancer of space debris. Every operational satellite is already at risk of a catastrophic collision with debris, and that risk is growing.

The growth of debris poses an increasing threat to navigation, communications, defense and scientific spacecraft that must be stopped and reversed. Time is running out! Experts estimate that a chain reaction of debris collisions with each other and with operating satellites will lead to a thick spherical shell of debris engulfing near-Earth space and preventing satellites from operating in low and high orbits. No one knows when this will happen, but estimates range from a decade to 20 years. It could happen sooner; we just don’t know. Nevertheless, we do know that, left alone, the debris menace will overwhelm our ability to deal with it. In fact, in some ways, it has already overwhelmed our capabilities.

This is bad news for the world space community. But, it could be good news for some entrepreneurs because the mitigation and remediation of space debris is a growth industry that is in its infancy. Now may be the time for those swashbuckling, IPO wheeling, wide-eyed raisers-of-money to come out of the dot-bomb shadows and start to create new companies that sell debris cleanup services to the international space community. There is little doubt that space must be cleaned up and the cost will be astronomical. This may be that moment in history when the first billionaire is created by developing a plan to save space for generations to come.

How can anyone make money eliminating space debris? There are several possible innovative ideas out there. For example, borrowing an idea from the Obama Administration, all spacefaring nations might collect a “debris footprint” tax on every new satellite. Each satellite owner might be required to pay an amount equal to a large fraction of the original cost of the satellite, plus launch costs. Typically, in today’s world, this may amount to tens of millions of dollars, because the cost of removing the satellite and its debris will surely cost at least several million dollars. Imagine collecting an average tax of $25 million per satellite. There are typically 125 satellites launched each year. Thus, over $3 billion per annum would be collected, or something over $30 billion per decade. Presumably, these taxes would be used to pay for clean up services. Surely there is a cleaver entrepreneur out there who can figure a way to leverage technology, excess space assets and financial management into a lean and mean debris collection machine.
Of course, the governments of the world could simply decide to pay the existing aerospace contractor community to clean up space. But experience tells us that the right entrepreneur can do it cheaper, better and faster. So, where are you, Mr. Entrepreneur?

For all those who are concerned and interested in the pending space debris catastrophe, your first step is to get smart on the space debris issues and possible solutions. This is where Launchspace can help. If you are involved in space flight, you will want to sign up for “must take” seminar on the subject, August 4 in Washington, DC.

See the description at Space Debris and the Future of Space Flight.

Just last week the Obama Administration announced an independent review of NASA’s human space flight plans. The stated goal is to ensure a “safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable” path to achieving the nation’s vision of human space exploration, a vision that was first articulated by President Bush in 2004. This review is to be conducted by an elite panel of space experts and chaired by Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin. Mr. Augustine is well-known and has chaired many high-level panels on matters of national urgency. He is obviously a strong and appropriate choice to lead this effort. His panel will consist of 10 carefully-selected experts from various areas of the space community and have roughly 90 days to deliver an insightful and realistic list of findings and recommendations. This is a daunting task and one that will surely lack the technical depth and time required to create a new and innovative vision for human space exploration. Given the short time and limited talent pool available for panel activities, the most that we can hope for is a review of existing options and an assessment of plans and programs that are already in place.

The story of the Titanic comes to mind. NASA is already five years into the Constellation Program and has spent nearly $7 billion on the current architecture. Many major space hardware contracts are in place, each with costly change provisions and termination penalties. The daily burn rate is in the 10-million-dollar neighborhood. Although the Augustine panel will undoubtedly be very impressive, it is clear that every member will be aware of the limited impact that such a commission can have on a program that is well-established and has spent so much money in creating a culture of “Constellation Believers and Contractors,” not to mention the cost and schedule impact of changing the course of human space exploration.

Nevertheless, there is also little doubt among many space experts that the program is fatally flawed. The Ares I launch vehicle design still faces serious challenges in terms of performance, cost and schedule. There is a projected five-year gap in the nation’s ability to launch humans, from the Shuttle retirement in 2010, until the scheduled introduction of an operational Ares I / Orion in 2015. If the Commission does not succeed in changing the Constellation Program, America will likely have to depend on the Russians to fly astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) during the gap. The chance that this gap will exceed five years is a subject of great discussion, but looking at the history of space program development, the odds are that this gap could be 10 years, or more. And, what about the inevitable cost overruns, changing economic environment, and political will to continue the pursuit of Constellation as originally envisioned? Add to this many other familiar bumps in the road ahead. The real question for the Commission seems to be: Can the panel stop the leak in the ship’s hull in order to continue the journey or simply rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship?

This isn’t just “buzz” to get you excited about a new movie coming; we really are being buzzed by asteroids and other NEOs (Near Earth Objects), and one day these conjunctions could become collisions! There are lots of NEOs out there orbiting the sun. Some, like comets, are less worrisome since they are composed primarily of ice and small, rocky particles that dissipate upon entering Earth’s atmosphere. Others, however, like asteroids are thought of as minor planets that are large enough to damage Earth and its environment if an encounter should take place. Astronomers estimate that there are approximately 1100 near Earth asteroids bigger than one kilometer in diameter and more than one million that are larger than 40 meters in diameter. Those smaller than 40 meters tend to burn up in the atmosphere, but the impact of a 40-meter diameter asteroid is equivalent to a three-megaton bomb! One megaton is the equivalent explosive power of one million tons of TNT. For comparison, the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT.

Larger NEOs of about 2 kilometers in size could impart energies in the category of about a million megatons! Such an impact could result in an “impact winter” with global loss of crops and subsequent starvation and disease. Large impacts could cause mass extinctions of species. And….scientists know that most of the larger asteroids are as yet undetected!  How do we detect, and better yet, deflect such large asteroids? Eventually, one of these will be spotted. And when that happens, who do we call? Right now there is no one to call, because the world has no defense against pending large asteroid encounters! If this is troubling, here is the bad news.

On March 2 of this year, asteroid 2009 DD45 zipped just 41,000 miles above Earth at a speed of 12 miles per second at its closest point to Earth. Amateur astronomers aided professionals at the International Astronomical Union’s Minor Planet Center by providing measurements used in refining calculations of the asteroid’s orbit. But, astronomers did not even detect the asteroid until just a couple of days before it zoomed by Earth; far too late to take any preventative action.  This was not an isolated incident as many NEOs come this close to Earth and zip by undetected! 

Scientists have demonstrated that several large NEO impacts in the past have altered both life and the environment. While the probability of a life-ending impact is low, scientists know that potentially critical collisions are inevitable. Why are we not doing something to mitigate or hopefully prevent such a catastrophic event? 

The answer to this question is complicated. As humans, we focus on potential dangers only when they are imminent, or after the fact. We react when the danger becomes real and the situation becomes urgent. However, deflecting large asteroids is not easy, simple or inexpensive. We do not yet know how to do it, but we do know it will require early detection and long-term investments on a global scale.

We want to start thinking about ways to protect Earth from NEOs and we need your ideas. Please send them to our new site at Asteroid Busters and we will publish the better ideas in future articles.

• Space industry and government executives and decision makers
• Satellite program managers
• Launch vehicle and satellite insurance underwriters
• Space policy writers and lawyers
• Anyone wishing to gain insight into the space debris issues

Click here to register for this special one day course

About 12 years ago a Launchspace course attendee walked up to the instructor at the beginning of the three-day Launch Vehicle Systems Design and Engineering course. This attendee explained that he knew little about launch vehicles and did not have a technical background, but was very interested in the topic and wanted to learn all he could. The instructor said the course was technical in nature, but most of the material could be understood without having an engineering degree. The student decided to take the course.

At the end of the three days the same student thanked the instructor and asked about the advisability of building large pressure-fed liquid rocket boosters in order to compete with other launcher options such as Atlas and Sea Launch. The instructor pointed out that large booster stages use pump-fed liquid rockets because the increased performance is needed to keep the stage masses and sizes down. Otherwise, the stages get very large and expensive, rendering them inefficient. Thus, pressure-fed stages cannot compete with existing stages for large launch vehicles.

Alas, the student did not take that advice and proceeded to create a launch vehicle company to build large pressure-fed rocket stages to compete with existing vehicles. After spending three years and some $200 million, the company shut down operations and the student who loved launch vehicles gave up his dream.

Many entrepreneurs have tried to succeed in this business, but none have yet reached that goal. There is a famous saying in the launch vehicle business: "If you want to end up with a million dollars in the launch business, start out with a billion."

What is this lure that attracts so many to this business? It may be the thrill of sending something into space and being part of history-making activities. Or, maybe it is just the excitement of lighting off rockets. No one knows for sure. But, we do know that the launch vehicle business is usually a losing proposition. So, why do companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin keep on building them?

Just last week, at the 25th National Space Symposium, the theme was "The Next Space Age." This raises the question: What happened to the first Space Age? We know the first one started on October 4, 1957, when the USSR launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite. That single event not only birthed the Space Age, but also injected a shot of adrenaline into America's bloodstream. Within four years, in 1961, the nation's visionary leader threw down the gauntlet that would decide the winner. With the backing of Congress and the public, President Kennedy challenged the Reds to the ultimate and decisive race, a race to put humans on the moon "by the end of the decade." The nation was off to an exciting and action-filled competition that would lead to supremacy in the new frontier, space. The USSR had a head start, but the US had the drive, creativity and economic strength to support a winning team. America did win and the race was over. But, what about the Space Age? Are we in the first or the second Space Age?

Future historians will better determine this, but all indications are that the first Space Age ended some time ago. Look back at the history of "Ages" such as the Iron Age and the Industrial Revolution. It seems that such historic periods end as a result of two converging events: the "new" technology of the time reaches a mature, established, stable state; and new, societal-changing technologies become widely adapted. Consider the first Space Age. Certainly, space technology evolved through the 1960s, during the Apollo Program and was refined in the 1970s with the development of the Space Shuttle. By the mid-1980s technological progress slowed and by the early 1990s the space industry and its technology were mature and stable. Around the same time Internet usage began to spread, and by the end of the 90s, the Worldwide Web was making a major impact on daily living. Sometime between the mid-1990s and 2000, the industrial world fully embraced the "Information Age." At the same time the space industry was showing its age. The public seemed to lose interest, government enthusiasm seemed to wane and the industry began consolidating. International players entered the market and the technological playing field leveled. Alas, the Space Age that we lived through in the 1960s and 70s is dead! Long live the Space Age!

Will there be another Space Age? No one yet knows. However, there are reasons to be optimistic. The world is currently in a financial crisis and a deep recession. In fact, the next age may well be the "Financial Age," an age in which the world economy is being transformed into one that may re-invent monetary and economic systems. No one knows at this moment, but this will evolve over the coming months and years. In the meantime, space will likely take a back seat to the economy.

Now that you have the bad news, let's move on to the good news. The impact of the Information Age and the mature technology of the space industry should be thought of as an opportunity to synergize the new with the old. In fact, this opportunity has been already been recognized by a few innovators and advanced thinkers. Computer technology is being integrated into space operations in many ways in order to deliver better services to more users. The old stovepipe culture of isolated space applications is starting to erode and more transparent systems are starting to replace them. This is merely the beginning and we have a long way to go before the full impact is realized. Only after the new global economy has matured and stabilized will a new "Integrated Space Age" be realized. This will be an "age" in which information and space technologies converge to create a truly transparent space infrastructure that will serve all users economically, efficiently and reliably.

This is the "Cartwheel Galaxy."  The image was created using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, the Galaxy Evolution Explorer, the Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra. Cool, huh?  

Everyone in the space community is asking: "What will happen to NASA?" Under normal economic and political conditions we could assume that the various NASA science and human spaceflight programs would proceed as planned. As we know, the current conditions are anything but normal. There is a new Administration. The country is experiencing a deepening recession. The world is becoming more dangerous and international competitiveness in the space arena is getting fierce. The underlying question is: What can and will the new Administration do to answer all of the challenges and how will those actions affect NASA?

Let's consider a few realistic options. The first and most obvious choice is to allow "business as usual" at NASA. Leave unchanged the current planning and budgeting, allowing NASA to continue its Constellation Program, planned space science missions and other activities. At first glance this seems highly unlikely given the pressure to trim programs, combine defense and civil efforts and refocus government spending on stimulating the economy. Add to this the fact that NASA does not yet have a new administrator. All this must be weighing heavily on NASA and contractor morale. Jobs are at stake. Programs are at stake. Even the future of whole companies is in question. May even the survival of NASA itself be in question?

Second, if we assume the worst practical scenario for our space program, it is unrealistic to think that NASA will not survive. Nevertheless, a reduction in budgets and stretch-out of programs seems entirely possible, if not highly probable. Specifically, it seems logical that the shuttle retirement will be delayed, thereby extending the life of the shuttle for several years. All lunar missions may be postponed and all work on human exploration beyond the moon might be cancelled. As part of this scenario, it is likely that NASA will be asked to seriously consider using an EELV instead of Ares I when the shuttle is finally retired. This option would be traumatic in terms of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, but the space spending rate would be flattened or reduced over the next several years. These actions might relieve some pressure on the national deficit while allowing President Obama to refocus some funds on expanded social programs such as education and healthcare.

Finally, let's be more optimistic and assume the best possible scenario for NASA. The stated purpose of the stimulus package is to recharge the economy and create several million jobs. One day the President may have an epiphany and realize that NASA presents a unique opportunity to simultaneously answer many of the current challenges that face the nation. He might push Congress to increase support for NASA in order to create the kind of jobs that increase productivity, national stature and international competitiveness. Not only will more funding and support for NASA programs satisfy critical economic needs, but the nation would respond to international challenges to our future supremacy in space technology.

These three scenarios seem to span the basic possible options available to the President. It is unlikely that any of these will become fact, but it is likely that a combination of these scenarios will evolve over the coming months. Let's at least hope that deliberations concerning our space future fully consider NASA's impact on job creation, national security, technology, innovation, science and education as well as national pride and leadership.

The idea of reusing stages or all of a space launch vehicle has been around since before Buck Rogers first appeared in 1928. In fact, Jules Verne wrote about such a vehicle in 1865, when he published "From the Earth to the Moon." Verne was one of the first science fiction authors, but he would be surprised to learn that we have only been able to build a partially reusable vehicle, the Space Shuttle. Why are we still struggling to create such a machine?

First, let's distinguish a space launcher from a suborbital vehicle. Space launchers are capable of achieving at least orbital flight about the Earth. Suborbital vehicles are able only to fly vertically to heights that exceed the sensible atmosphere, but they lack the speed to achieve orbit. Thus, the several tourism vehicles that are being developed, such as that being built by Virgin Galactic, cannot achieve orbit. All of the world's current space launch vehicles, except the Shuttle, are completely expendable. In other words, none of the hardware is used more then once. Even the Shuttle is only partially reused.

As you might expect, this is an expensive way to get to orbit. Imagine if you could only drive your car to work once and then discard it. Every trip that you tool would require a new car. In stead of costing a few dollars each time you went to work, it would cost thousands. The mere fact that a car is reusable makes each trip very inexpensive. So, why does the space program have to pay tens to hundreds of millions of dollars for each launch?

The simple truth is that we do not know how to make reusables and we cannot make a good business case for them. Many have tried, but all have failed. Most recently NASA spent over one billion dollars trying to build a scaled down technology demonstrator, the X-33. This was to be the forerunner for a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, VentureStar. In 2000, after several years of trying to build the demonstrator, the program was shut down. The needed technology was simply not ready.

Walter Kistler started a reusable launch vehicle company around 1993 to pursue a two-stage-to-orbit, fully reusable vehicle. Kistler Aerospace raised over $500 million in private funds and proceeded to construct the first prototype, the K-1. But, the vehicle got too expensive and the perceived market disappeared when Iridium filed for bankruptcy at the turn of the century. Kistler Aerospace was liquidated before completing that first vehicle.

Here we are. It is 2009 and there are no fully reusable space launchers. The Shuttle is scheduled to be retired next year, and be replaced with an expendable Ares I. There are no near-term prospects for a truly reusable launch vehicle. SpaceX has announced that Falcon stages may be retrieved and partially reused, but that has yet to happen. To summarize, we are spending an average of roughly $70 million per launch, when we could be spending about one-tenth of this amount, if only we had reusables. Why?

The answer has several parts. There is not enough launch vehicle demand to justify the multi-billion-dollar expense of developing a true reusable. In order to cut the per-launch cost by a factor of 10, there would have to be an extremely high launch frequency. Today, the world wide annual launch rate is about 68. This will have to increase by an order of magnitude or more to make the reusable financially viable. To further complicate the picture, reusables are limited to low orbits about the Earth. The requirement of returning the vehicle limits the distance from Earth because the propellant needed to return is very limited. The Shuttle is limited and cannot go beyond the International Space Station. This eliminates one of the most important launch customers, the geostationary satellite operators. Finally, there are several challenging technology issues that must be resolved before we can build a reliable, high-performing reusable vehicle. Sadly, is does not appear that reusables are in our near-term future.

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is a set of U.S. Government regulations controlling the export of defense-related products and services that are listed on the U.S. Munitions List (USML). The Department of State interprets and enforces ITAR, with the goal of advancing U.S. strategic objectives and foreign policy through trade controls. In other words, ITAR limits certain national-security-related technologies to U.S. citizens and permanent residents, unless the State Department issues a license or exemption that is consistent with foreign policy objectives. Violators can face heavy fines and prison time. The USML includes satellites, launch vehicles, rockets and propellants, i.e., the things in the space community with which we work. The intent of the government is to protect the things that assure national and homeland security.

However, a new report from the National Research Council (NRC), entitled, “Beyond Fortress America: A review of National Security Controls on S&T Research,” issued just three weeks ago has concluded that ITAR is “broken.” In fact, according to this report, export controls that were designed for the Cold War are now undermining national security and national economic wellbeing. The specifics are surprising.

Where the U.S. was once dominant in most areas of science and technology, current export controls now harm national and homeland security. U.S. abilities to compete and innovate are diminished. But, ITAR cannot be fixed with minor changes. It will require presidential attention. The USML is too encompassing and generic, thus it is difficult to use for meaningful export control. Over the past two decades a number of countries have been successful in developing centers of research excellence and innovation that surpass the U.S. in several important areas. According to the NRC report it is “best practices” that underpin successful competition in research and technology advancement. Again, these have been undermined by U.S. Government regulations. To further exacerbate the situation the best foreign scientific talent is not being allowed to contribute to U.S. research due to current visa policies.

What is needed? The President must restructure export control processes at the federal level in order to reflect the world of today while keeping the nation’s security and technology base healthy. Once this is done, U.S. economic competitiveness will be assured for the future. As part of the restructuring, the U.S. should enhance access to foreign talent in order to strengthen the science and technology base.

In summary, there is no “risk free” solution to export control, but today’s system appears to be increasingly dangerous. One must be careful not to equate control with safety and imagine a sense of security that does not exist. At the same time a nation cannot abandon controls on potentially dangerous technologies. However, the technologies to be protected must be carefully selected while avoiding isolationism. The challenge of leadership is to maintain a balance that will keep the country healthy and safe.