the POLITICS AND PERILS OF SPACE EXPLORATION who will compete, who will dominate?. [2 ed.] 9783030568351, 3030568350

Citation preview

Linda Dawson

THE POLITICS AND PERILS OF SPACE EXPLORATION Who Will Compete, Who Will Dominate? Second Edition

The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration Who Will Compete, Who Will Dominate?

Linda Dawson

The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration Who Will Compete, Who Will Dominate? Second Edition

Linda Dawson Senior Lecturer Emeritus University of Washington Tacoma, WA, USA

SPRINGER-PRAXIS BOOKS IN SPACE EXPLORATION Space Exploration Springer Praxis Books ISBN 978-3-030-56834-4    ISBN 978-3-030-56835-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2017, 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To the great pioneers of aviation and space; to my grandparents-immigrants and adventurers to a new world.

Preface

At a small observatory in New Hampshire, I was a young girl on a day trip with my family when I heard an eerie-sounding “beep, beep, beep.” I was told it was coming from a manmade satellite passing overhead. It was an exciting event to hear an object orbiting above us. It was a Soviet satellite. From listening to the news every day, I knew who the Soviets were and about the conflict with America, including the threat of a nuclear war. To find out that the Soviets were first in space was confusing and disappointing, but I was filled with excitement for the beginning of the Space Age. My enthusiasm for all things space continued for years and inspired me to study aerospace engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The race to the Moon fueled my enthusiasm and helped me succeed through the difficult engineering curriculum at MIT, George Washington University, and the University of Washington. My first visit to Cape Canaveral occurred when I was a junior in college. It was so exciting to be at the forefront of the American space program. Touring the bunkers and launch pads fueled my passion for learning more about space and maybe one day being a part of NASA.  My graduate degree studies involved an internship at NASA-Langley in Virginia. I focused on aeronautics, analyzing the aerodynamics and stability of fighter jets by investigating models flying in a full-scale wind tunnel. The work was interesting and provided me with a broad base and practical understanding of aerodynamic control. I began my aerospace engineering career at NASA in Houston several years prior to the first launch of the Space Shuttle. I was hired to work as an Aeronautical Flight Controller for Mission Control. This was my dream job. The shuttle orbiter was the first vehicle that would operate as an airplane on re-entry, requiring the development of a series of operational tools. The Space Shuttle orbiter vehicle was already designed, developed, and being built in the mid- to late 1970s. When I was hired by NASA, the prototype Enterprise was about to be transported and drop-­ tested from a 747 airplane to test its glide capabilities. I became familiar with the shuttle vehicle and NASA operations and came to understand how stable the orbiter vehicle would be during its re-entry maneuvers. After initiating a de-orbit vi

Preface   vii burn, the orbiter would go through a series of S-turns designed to slow the spacecraft down prior to landing. No other combination airplane/spacecraft had flown before at hypersonic speeds outside of Earth’s atmosphere. There were a lot of unknowns. My group investigated other hypersonic aircraft such as the SR-71, the X-15, and experimental lifting bodies to gain insight into the behavior of the orbiter as a glider. As it turned out, the orbiter vehicle was very stable and never became unstable in its descent. One of my major tasks at NASA was to help develop the flight rules for the orbiter primarily for entry operations in addition to an abort re-entry. The development of these rules required participation in extensive simulations for de-orbit and re-entry. I developed and conducted some of these studies using a re-entry simulator flown by shuttle astronauts. Another component of my job was to estimate how much fuel was necessary to control the vehicle in case of stability problems. After the de-orbit burn, the only control for the orbiter vehicle comes from small reaction control jets that were used for orbital maneuvering and control during entry or orbit maneuvers in the highest part of the atmosphere. If a control jet fails or another control problem requires a jet to stay on or off, vehicle control is maintained by the opposite reaction control jets, which stay on to compensate. This type of failure uses an extra quantity of fuel. To conserve fuel and save weight, only so many of these malfunctions can be accommodated. Therefore, the failures are prioritized as the most or least likely. After extensive simulations, the final entry fuel budget reflected my simulation study for entry failures. The final component to my training as a flight controller involved a series of extensive integrated simulations prior to the first shuttle launch. The purpose of these simulations was to verify all systems were being monitored properly, and if one or more systems failed, that the appropriate steps were taken to assist the crew and fix the problem. The truth is, for launch and re-entry, there is little that flight controllers could recommend that would be transmitted to the crew in a timely fashion. There were some issues that could be addressed if there was sufficient time during noncritical phases of the mission, such as while the vehicle was in orbit. After the first shuttle was launched, it was thought that some tiles might have been knocked loose from the thermal protection system on the underside of the orbiter. The resulting discussions among flight controllers and their support staff resulted in no action being taken, but there was little that could be done anyway. The situation in part reminded me of John Glenn’s flight, when a faulty sensor indicated that the heat shield was loose and could put the vehicle in jeopardy of being burned up upon re-entry. It was at first decided during that mission that John Glenn didn’t need to know these facts if there was nothing to be done to solve the problem. This would not be the only time that the “no news is good news” approach was used for spaceflights when there were no available remedies for possible malfunctions. Every time a possible disaster was averted, it seemed like the issue was forgotten and the underlying problems were never fully addressed.

viii  Preface The thermal protection tiles were always a critical component for vehicle safety upon re-entry, and there was consistent damage to the tiles from the fuel tank insulation materials hitting some parts of the rest of the vehicle during launch, starting with the first shuttle launch. Eventually, the worst possible scenario did happen. Tiles were damaged on liftoff on a critical area of the orbiter wing, resulting in the fatal re-entry disintegration of the Columbia on February 1, 2003. I bring this particular case up because I was involved in the original discussions of the thermal protection tiles during the first shuttle mission. At that time, it was determined that the crew was not in danger—most likely. However, there were a lot of unknowns and it had been simulated that missing tiles in critical locations on the wings could cause a “zipper” effect, allowing extreme heat to travel rapidly through the wing and compromise the vehicle. In the case of the Columbia, that exact case did happen, and the wing structurally failed. After the Columbia tragedy, a method was put into place to investigate suspected tile damage by utilizing cameras that would view the underside of the orbiter while the vehicle was in orbit. A crew spacewalk to repair the tile would be conducted if necessary, and if the damage could not be repaired, the orbiter would rendezvous with the International Space Station and wait for a rescue mission. This was not a high-tech solution, and yet, why NASA didn’t employ these methods earlier in the shuttle program is a mystery. I have the same feeling when I think about my colleague Dick Scobee and the other astronauts who lost their lives in the Challenger. Again, a known problem in the solid rocket booster seals was ignored because it hadn’t yet resulted in tragedy—until it did, on January 28, 1986. When I worked at NASA, none of my colleagues were knowledgeable in solid rocket booster technology. Morton Thiokol had the expertise necessary to build reliable rockets and determine safe conditions for launch. Warnings were ignored on that cold January morning, and the worst possible result occurred. What hurt the most was that later, it was discovered that the crew compartment was still intact, and the astronauts were at least initially aware of their dilemma for at least some time after the explosion. Several seconds later, the compartment impacted with the ocean, which killed them all. I no longer worked at NASA at that time, but that didn’t help the anger and hurt feelings that a disaster might have been avoided. In addition, the crew compartment had no chance of survival, no parachute, and no control mechanism for soft landing in the water. The remainder of the shuttle launches still had no way for the astronauts to survive under similar circumstances in the launch sequence. It was determined that upgrades were too expensive and would add too much weight to the launch vehicle. Luck prevailed, and no other similar launch accidents happened. My work experiences at NASA demonstrated the positive and negative of the way decisions were made in the shuttle program, which I think was an extension of other programs that came before. Funding and scheduling pressure was a constant in all programs. As it turned out, it was not the failures of some of the more

Preface   ix complex or cutting-edge systems that caused these fatal accidents but rather existing, nagging unsolved problems and the breakdown of human communication and decision-making. Time will tell if these same sorts of issues will continue to affect future NASA or private enterprise endeavors. This is the second edition of the 2017 book by the same name. Since then, there have been several major changes in space policy and private enterprise, and all of the current missions needed to be updated. I wrote this book for a number of reasons. First, I wanted to help inform the public about the current space exploration activities, both national and international. In addition, I wanted to write about the one subject that continually inspires me. I have always loved airplanes, rockets, and the space program, and have always kept a connection with space. This project is one more way of keeping the subject fresh and alive in my life. My goal for this book is to provide some insight into current efforts in space exploration, primarily manned efforts. During the Space Race, the players and the objectives were straightforward, but today, dozens of countries have participated in some aspect of space. Many countries are interested in scientific exploration, security, and communications. Only a few can support the high price of manned missions, which have been confined to low-Earth orbit since the last Moon mission. The relationships between the space programs and their goals are varied and often determined by the resources available. The complexities can often be simplified by looking at regional goals rather than worldwide ambitions. Shared objectives can be combined in partnership efforts. As in other aspects of combined efforts, power and achievement can be accomplished by joining forces and available resources. Another objective in writing this book is to address how politics has affected the direction of the American space program. Whether it is international or local politics, it is clear that government programs follow government priorities and their associated funding. Success of the Apollo program was one of the most important priorities for U.S. government funding in the 1960s. Our national and international priorities have gone through major changes. Military and wartime efforts in the Middle East depleted the available budget for space efforts. The dependence of NASA and the space program on government funding resulted in limited resources devoted to space missions and space science research. Other types of funding and public support were needed to support more robust space activities. Because of strong public interest and entrepreneurs that were visionaries, a number of small, medium, and large space-related businesses started development on a variety of systems that are crucial to space travel taking the next step. It is important to understand that focusing on space science and the investigation of celestial bodies is essential for the future of humankind and the preservation and betterment of Earth. Spaceflight is as exciting as it is dangerous, which is

x  Preface why so many people are drawn to it, both in reality and in their love of science fiction. We are facing an exciting decade of innovative development and a return to outer space past Earth orbit. I am now officially retired for a couple of years. I was a professor for over 25 years at the University of Washington, teaching statistics, physics, and space science. I still maintain an enthusiasm for the space program which now extends past NASA to include commercial enterprise. I remain involved with the Museum of Flight in Seattle and through my writing and research stay current with the latest missions and technology to prepare to travel back to the Moon and on to Mars. You can find out more about my activities on my website: LindaDawson.space. Senior Lecturer Emeritus University of WA

Linda Dawson Tacoma, WA, USA

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Maury Solomon of Springer Nature for originally giving me the opportunity to tell this story. In addition, Hannah Kaufman, who took over for Maury after she retired, has encouraged me and supported my writing. Also, my sister Judi Brodman for her edits and encouragement, and my husband Allan for his constant support with this project.

xi

Contents

Dedication ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    v Preface ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   vi Acknowledgements �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   xi About the Author�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  xvi 1 The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration����������������������������������    1 The U.S. Focus in Outer Space Today ����������������������������������������������������������������    3 International Space Programs and Partnerships��������������������������������������������������    7 The European Space Agency ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   10 China��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   12 Russia������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   14 Japan��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 India ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 Other Asian Space Activities�������������������������������������������������������������������������������   19 Other Space Agencies������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   19 The Politics of the New Space Age����������������������������������������������������������������������   20 2 The New Space Race ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    25 The New International Space Race����������������������������������������������������������������������   26 The Asian Space Race������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   28 The New Commercial Space Race����������������������������������������������������������������������   33 Reflections on the New Space Race��������������������������������������������������������������������   36 3 Commercial Interests in Outer Space��������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 The Commercial Development of Outer Space ��������������������������������������������������   40 Space Contests and Prizes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40 Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Development������������������������������������������������   41 Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Projects��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   47

xii

Contents   xiii The Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)������������������������������   50 Sierra Nevada Corporation Development of Dream Chaser��������������������������������   54 Blue Origin����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 Bigelow Aerospace Inflatable Habitats����������������������������������������������������������������   59 Reflections on Commercial Interests in Outer Space������������������������������������������   61 4 Why Not Go Back to the Moon?���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 Going Back to the Moon��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68 The Politics of Returning to the Moon����������������������������������������������������������������   71 Commercial Interests in Returning to the Moon��������������������������������������������������   78 Reflections on Returning to the Moon ����������������������������������������������������������������   80 5 Going to Mars������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 A Dangerous High Tech Landing on Mars (August 6, 2012)������������������������������   84 The Case for Mars������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   86 The Supporters of Mars Colonization������������������������������������������������������������������   89 Elon Musk������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   90 Unmanned Mars Exploration������������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 Life From and on Mars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   92 The Cost of Going to Mars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   93 The Mars 2020 Mission ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 NASA’s Manned Mission to Mars ����������������������������������������������������������������������   96 Comparison of the SLS and the Falcon Heavy Rocket����������������������������������������  102 The Mars One Mission����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 China’s Plans for Mars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 Russia’s Plans for Mars����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 Commercial Efforts for Red Planet Manned Missions����������������������������������������  107 Final Thoughts on Humans Going to Mars����������������������������������������������������������  108 6 Politics, the Military, and the Space Force����������������������������������������������������������������  112 Politics and the Military in Outer Space��������������������������������������������������������������  112 The History of NACA and NASA ����������������������������������������������������������������������  113 The U.S. Air Force ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Threats to Outer Space Military Resources ��������������������������������������������������������  117 The U.S. Space Force: The Debate����������������������������������������������������������������������  117 X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6) ������������������������������������������������������������������  120 Reflections������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  122 7 The Science and Dangers of Outer Space������������������������������������������������������������������  125 Lost in Space��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  125 The Space Environment ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 The Dangers of Spaceflight����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 Microgravity Issues����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  128 Protein Concentrations����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  129 Muscle Atrophy����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  130 Bone Loss������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 Radiation��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  132

xiv  Contents Professor James Van Allen and Space Travel������������������������������������������������������  135 Radiation and Space Missions ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  135 Cardiovascular Effects ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 Aging��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  138 Changes to the Human Mind in Space����������������������������������������������������������������  138 Space Debris��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 Final Thoughts on the Dangers of Outer Space ��������������������������������������������������  146 8 Politics and the Space Race����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151 An Introduction to Modern Rocketry������������������������������������������������������������������  152 Robert Goddard, the Father of American Rocketry ��������������������������������������������  153 Rocket Development During World War II����������������������������������������������������������  155 Wernher Von Braun, the Father of Space Travel��������������������������������������������������  155 The Early History of Space Politics��������������������������������������������������������������������  157 Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, the Founder of the Soviet Space Program ����������������  160 The Space Race Heats Up������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  162 Yuri Gagarin, the First Man in Space������������������������������������������������������������������  165 Alan Shepard, the First American in Space ��������������������������������������������������������  167 Next Steps in Space ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  168 Final Thoughts on the Politics of the Space Race������������������������������������������������  170 9 The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era����������������������������������������������������������������������  175 Post-Apollo Space Exploration Politics��������������������������������������������������������������  176 Space Stations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 The U.S. Air Force vs. NASA������������������������������������������������������������������������������  181 Skylab������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  182 The Space Shuttle������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184 The Visions of Max Faget������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185 The Accomplishments of the Space Shuttle System and the Future in Space Transportation���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  187 The Spacelab Module������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  190 Legacy of the Space Shuttle��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  193 The Military Influence on Space Shuttle Operations������������������������������������������  195 10 Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise��������������������������������������������������������������������  201 International Space Station Politics ��������������������������������������������������������������������  202 The Legacy of the International Space Station����������������������������������������������������  206 Post-International Space Station Politics ������������������������������������������������������������  208 11 Politics and Commercial Space Activities������������������������������������������������������������������  213 Government Policy of Commercial Space Activities������������������������������������������  213 Successful NASA Partnerships����������������������������������������������������������������������������  218 Additional NASA Partnerships with Private Enterprise��������������������������������������  221 The Politics of Future Commercial Exploits ������������������������������������������������������  222

Contents   xv 12 Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties����������������������������  225 Technological Risks of Spaceflight����������������������������������������������������������������������  226 Apollo 1 (January 27, 1967)��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  227 The Space Shuttle Challenger (January 28, 1986)����������������������������������������������  230 The Space Shuttle Columbia (February 1, 2003)������������������������������������������������  233 Lessons Learned from NASA Space Disasters����������������������������������������������������  235 SpaceShipTwo Crash (October 31, 2014)������������������������������������������������������������  236 SpaceX Explosion (June 28, 2015)����������������������������������������������������������������������  238 Risks in the Commercial Launch Vehicle Industry����������������������������������������������  239 Lessons Learned from Commercial Space Disasters������������������������������������������  240 13 New Technology and Deep Space����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  242 Deep Space Exploration Technological Challenges��������������������������������������������  243 Methods of Propulsion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  245 Ion Propulsion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  245 Solar Sails������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  248 Thermal Fission ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  248 Habitat Technology����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  249 Radiation Protection Technology������������������������������������������������������������������������  250 Communication Technology��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  250 Enhanced Power Technology������������������������������������������������������������������������������  251 Food Crops for Deep Space Applications������������������������������������������������������������  251 Water: A Precious Resource��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  254 New Technology and the Road to Deep Space����������������������������������������������������  255 14 Future Topics in Space ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  259 Future Human Space Exploration������������������������������������������������������������������������  259 Space Tourism������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  260 Interplanetary Contamination������������������������������������������������������������������������������  262 The Reality of Deep Space����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  262 The Search for Alien Life������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  263 Reflections on the Future of Space Exploration and Colonization����������������������  264 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  269

About the Author

Linda Dawson  received her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from M.I.T. and an M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from George Washington University at NASA Langley Research Center in addition to completing post-graduate studies in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Washington. She is currently retired as Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Physics and Space Science from the University of Washington, Tacoma. Dawson served as Aerodynamics Officer for the NASA Houston Mission Control Center Ascent and Entry Flight Control Teams during the first Space Shuttle mission. During orbital phases, she served as an advisor on the impact of  system failures on the orbiter’s re-entry trajectory and configuration.

xvi

About the Author   xvii

From re-entry through touchdown, she was responsible for monitoring the orbiter’s stability and control, advising the crew of any necessary corrective actions. Additionally, through extensive simulation analysis, she helped to develop the entry fuel budget for the first shuttle flight and flight rules for the crew to follow during mission entry. After retirement in 2017, Dawson authored the 1st edition of The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration and then in 2018, the book titled War in Space, both published by Springer Praxis Books. She currently serves on the Space Committee for the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington.

1 The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration “Space exploration is a force of nature unto itself that no other force in society can rival. Not only does that get people interested in sciences and all the related fields, [but] it transforms the culture into one that values science and technology, and that’s the culture that innovates.”1 –Neil Degrasse Tyson (2012) In 2019, the world celebrated the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, the first time that a human walked on another celestial body. Apollo 11’s lunar landing was the official end of the Space Race with the Soviet Union. On this anniversary, we relived our pride in the accomplishment and experienced a heavy dose of nostalgia. In the decades following the first Moon landing, manned space exploration took on less lofty visions, primarily due to budget cutbacks. NASA and other space agencies largely focused on low-Earth orbit space stations and the study of long-terms effects of zero gravity on the human body. The International Space Station (ISS) is the most recent orbiting research spacecraft, an engineering achievement made possible through the cooperation of several countries. Unmanned scientific missions to study various regions of the Solar System became a focus because of lower mission costs. Questions about why no crewed missions had returned to the Moon were finally answered by the NASA’s latest plans to return humans to the lunar surface by 2024, which is intended to serve as a stepping stone for travel to Mars. Space travel is currently an exciting topic worldwide. Almost every day, there are news stories of recent space launches and accomplishments, both national and international. Entrepreneur billionaires such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson have a passion for outer space and have contributed to this resurgence by funding their own companies and outer space activities. High levels of © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_1

1

2  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration private funding, advances in technology, and growing general interest is renewing our fascination for outer space. Dozens of countries are participating in space efforts, most of them to improve their basic communication and navigation capabilities in order to keep up with neighboring regions. Competitors are developing technologies that challenge U.S. and allied space systems and services. Reduced costs of space launch services have supported an exponential growth in the number of objects launched into space and enabled numerous countries to acquire advanced technologies, boosting their own space industries. Increased commercialization and affordability of space technologies means satellites are no longer restricted to a few space powers. Today, over 50 countries and multinational organizations own or operate space assets.2 Outer space is considered to be a valuable investment, supporting a nation’s infrastructure and the development of commercial revenues generated by space endeavors. The revenue generated by the global space industry, which could increase to more than $1 trillion by 2040, is very enticing.3 The number of countries investing in space continues to rise (88 by 2019). Several countries have launched their own space agencies with this commercial goal in mind, including Luxembourg, the U.K., Australia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).4 The world leaders in space exploration have changed slightly today although the traditional superpowers (the United States, China, Russia, Japan and the combined European Union) still lead the international space efforts. In a tense world environment, collaboration among nations is necessary to unite countries and prevent any further aggression in space. The global economy and civilian population have become increasingly dependent on space systems, satellites and spacecraft that control daily life including communication, business transactions, navigation, military surveillance, and emergency services. Adversaries are aware of the importance of these services and have actively sought capabilities to disable or eliminate them. Countries such as China and India have demonstrated their ability to launch kill weapons from Earth. These countries, including other adversaries like Russia, continue to develop and test anti-satellite weapons. Meanwhile, the bulk of the development of space exploration vehicles and technology is shifting away from national space agencies to ambitious businessmen and entrepreneurs. Many grew up as “space cadets,” in love with the idea of space travel, launching model rockets in the backyard and thinking that they could build their own rockets someday. With start-up companies and support from NASA, the dream is becoming a reality. It will be interesting to watch how this combination of NASA, private enterprise, and other partnerships will combine to create an exciting future for us all. The future of space exploration is unlimited. Industry is on the verge of exploring a new frontier—Mars and beyond—with both manned and unmanned missions that will utilize new methods and spacecraft technology developed by a host of new participants. All global citizens will be benefit from this next phase of Earth’s journey into outer space.

The U.S. Focus in Outer Space Today 3 The U.S. Focus in Outer Space Today Over 50 years ago, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a Cold War that spilled over into outer space as a platform to demonstrate scientific dominance. The conflict ended with the U.S. landing on the Moon and eventually peaceful cooperation between the two nations (see Chapter 8 for details). The space program was cut back considerably to include more cost effective scientific missions, primarily unmanned exploratory missions. In addition, international cooperation missions helped to curb the costs of the ISS.  All of this history is described throughout this book in detail. In this chapter, the current U.S. space programs are summarized with a focus on manned space flight. In the past 10 to 15 years, both innovative private sector and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) programs have transformed the space industry. The opportunities for exploration and economic development of the Solar System are expanding. Space technologies have become an integral part of our economy— telecommunications, imaging, and global positioning satellites all formed on the basis of over 50 years of research and development by NASA and other government agencies such as the Department of Defense. Over the next few decades, NASA will continue to provide the programs and investments necessary to expand our missions farther from Earth. The space organization has a legislated responsibility to “encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”5 As part of this responsibility, NASA has partnered with private sector individuals and U.S. companies to invest in space exploration. In addition to American efforts in space exploration, several countries are now competing for international and regional prestige in the demonstration of space technologies and space science. The new Space Age is well on its way. NASA’s current focus is to return humans to the Moon (see Chapter 4) and then continue on to Mars (Chapter 5). After several unmanned and manned missions to Earth’s Moon, it has remained of interest to scientists all over the world who are still analyzing and reporting on more than 500 Apollo lunar samples. Only the U.S. has landed both unmanned and manned spacecraft on the lunar surface although Russia and China have had robotic probes successfully land on the Moon. In addition to these countries, Japan, India, and Israel have also had probes orbit the Moon. Both China and the U.S. plan to establish a lunar base as a possible stepping stone to other locations in the Solar System. NASA plans to land astronauts on Moon’s South Pole through the Artemis program by 2024 (see Figure 1.1).6 The Artemis program is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. A manned NASA Mars mission will follow the successful delivery of scientific and technology equipment to the lunar surface as well as the construction of the Lunar Gateway, a spaceship placed in orbit around the Moon. The Gateway will provide services and support both human and robotic missions to the surface. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion spacecraft will combine to build the Gateway and transport astronauts and supplies to and from Earth (see Chapters

4  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration

Fig. 1.1  Illustration of an ascent spacecraft separating from a descent vehicle to depart the lunar surface as part of the Artemis program. Image credit: NASA

4 and 5 for more detail). The Gateway will also provide scientists a platform to observe the Earth, Sun and the universe (see Figure  1.2). The current timeline reflects an aggressive schedule, with the Gateway completed by 2024. The plan is to involve both commercial and international partners to create a spaceport that will be a testbed of learning and developing new technologies to be used in deep space exploration. Prior to sending a manned mission to Mars, NASA launched the Mars 2020 rover mission in July, 2020 as part of a long term robotic exploration effort to study the Martian surface and environment that humans will encounter.7 Various robotic spacecraft have been launched in the past decades to study the Sun, planets and asteroids as well as the cosmos that lies beyond the Solar System. The goals are scientific, to study planets, asteroids, and comets beyond Earth orbit. Current U.S. plans are to focus on the Moon in preparation for setting up a Mars outpost. In addition, several missions are designed as Earth observers, collecting information about the planet’s surface, seas, weather, and climate change effects through sophisticated imaging. Probably the most exciting aspect of America’s space exploits in the past decade is the presence of commercial entrepreneurs with sufficient money and enthusiasm to support NASA as well as branch out on their own missions (see Chapters 2 and 3 for a more expanded story on SpaceX and other commercial enterprises). SpaceX has partnered with NASA for over 10 years, initially resupplying the ISS with its Dragon cargo spacecraft (see Figure  1.3). SpaceX began transporting astronauts back and forth to the ISS at the end of May, 2020. SpaceX is also

The U.S. Focus in Outer Space Today 5

Fig. 1.2  Lunar NASA Gateway station orbiting the Moon. Image credit: NASA

preparing a Mars mission, titled the Red Dragon project, to bring rocks back to Earth for analysis. Other companies, such as Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Lockheed-Martin, are working with NASA on various missions to expand U.S. expertise and utilize technology developed commercially.

Fig. 1.3  The SpaceX Dragon cargo craft is pictured moments before its release from the Canadarm2 robotic arm on June 3, 2019. Image credit: NASA

6  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration In addition to NASA partnerships, there are other commercial enterprises with their own energizing new ideas for making a profit in outer space. For example, the construction company Caterpillar is interested in mining rare metals contained on the Moon and on asteroids for profit. Some entrepreneurs are interested in space tourism and even removing space junk. Some companies are developing specific technologies that will be useful for living in outer space. More than 60 years after NASA was created, its goal is no longer just to reach a destination in outer space but rather to develop the capabilities that will allow Americans to explore and expand their economic horizons beyond Earth. With the combined talents of government and the private sector, the next journeys beyond Earth will come quicker and will integrate new industries and technologies in the process. NASA’s immediate goals focus on establishing the Moon’s orbiting Gateway, creating a sustainable presence on the lunar surface, and taking major steps to pave the way to Mars. Figure 1.4 displays the presidential budget request for (FY) 2021 related to space exploration programs. The budget provides $25.2 billion for NASA, a 12% increase from 2020. The increase will be used to support an accelerated lunar program with a 2024 crewed landing goal. Also included in the funding are programs that support the main goals, such as the development of lander systems and robotic missions to Mars to test advanced technology prior to humans landing. The budget also funds continued commercial services to deliver cargo and, for the first time since the end of the Space Shuttle program, American crews to space starting in 2020. Also funded are a broad range of other NASA programs, including continued commercial activities in low-Earth orbit and the development of new space stations in the future.8 NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program will deliver robotic payloads to the Moon’s surface. SpaceX is proposing to do this work with its Mars colonizing Starship and Super Heavy, the reusable spaceship rocket combo being developed to explore other planets. The commercial Moon flights will help NASA study the Moon under the Artemis program. As its next step in exploration, NASA is preparing to send the first woman and another man to the Moon by 2024, establish sustainable lunar exploration by 2028, and send astronauts to Mars by the mid-2030s. In order to achieve missions to deep space, NASA is developing a heavy lift rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS). Described in detail in Chapters 4 and 5, the SLS rocket is a key component of NASA’s Artemis mission along with the Human Landing System and the Orion crew capsule. SLS was supposed to be tested in 2017, but costs have since ballooned to almost $20 billion and the test launch pushed to late 2021. NASA has pushed forward despite the challenges.9s “This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars. And perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond.” - President Donald J. Trump December 11, 201710

International Space Programs and Partnerships 7

Fig. 1.4  (FY) 2021 Presidential budget request related to space exploration. Data Credit: Planetary.org

International Space Programs and Partnerships Almost every country in the world today is utilizing outer space resources, namely satellites, to assist in weather forecasting, navigation, communications, and managing resources. A smaller group of countries actually own satellites and even fewer have the capability to launch satellites. The top international space

8  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration programs belong to the U.S., China, Russia, India, Japan, and France. Other countries have smaller budgets but still a strong interest and pride in participating to some degree in Earth observations and outer space exploration. From 2013 to 2018, the actual space related expenditures decreased significantly (see Figure 1.5) due to downsizing and budget restrictions in both U.S. and Russia. At the same time, there was a considerable increase in civil and government agencies launching satellites. In 2018, there was an over 80% increase in the number of satellites launched and a significant increase in the number of organizations capable of launching. Over 50 launches occurred from China, with the U.S. at half that amount and then Russia below that.

Fig. 1.5  Space budgets by country, 2019 (USD billions). Data credit: Space News11

Henry Hertzfeld, research professor at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, states, “There are a lot of new starts.” He does say that it is important to put them in perspective. “There are different launch vehicles and different capabilities, too. Comparing a manned capability that India might want

International Space Programs and Partnerships 9 to spend some money on with Iran launching a very small, very low-Earth orbit satellite is really apples and oranges.”12 Many countries have also been able to participate in some aspect of space research by having crew members from their country travel to the ISS and carry out work there. Figure 1.6 displays a map showing how many countries have visited the ISS, demonstrating an interest in space travel and space science.

Fig. 1.6  Visitors to the ISS by country. Image credit: NASA

There is a baseline level of communication and security needs for most developed countries. Satellite networks have become commonplace and a fundamental requirement to connect to the rest of the world. Other countries have the resources and interest to expand beyond the basic level and participate in developing technologies and experiments to further scientific knowledge of outer space. To achieve some worldwide agreement addressing common goals in space endeavors, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) was created in 2007 after 14 space agencies developed a global exploration strategy that presented a shared vision of coordinated efforts for both human and robotic missions to explore the Solar System. Current members of the ISECG are Italy, France, China, Canada, Australia, Germany, the European Space Agency, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United States, the Ukraine, Russia and the United Kingdom. The organization created a Global Exploration Roadmap in 2013 that identifies common goals and objectives as well as a strategy for long-­ range human exploration.

10  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration The advantage to an international roadmap to outer space is to bring consensus information to interested parties in order to keep everyone informed about current and near-future missions and to provide pathways for partnerships. Despite the differences of the involved countries and space agencies, the commonalities are straightforward and consistent, reflecting similar ideas that involve the betterment of humankind. Some of the common approaches are Earth related—enhancing Earth safety and engaging the public in space exploration. Other goals focus on travel to outer space—extending the human presence beyond low-Earth orbit, doing research to enable humans to work and live in space environments, searching for life, and stimulating economic expansion into space that can benefit us back on Earth.13 Here is a look at the capabilities of some of the most involved spacefaring nations in what may be a new world order. The race is on for space dominance. The European Space Agency The European Space Agency (ESA), formed in 1979, is a multi-nation agency that includes the following members: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. France and Britain launched satellites early in the 60s and 70s before joining ESA.  The most recent countries that have launched their own satellites are Iran (2009) and North Korea (2012).14 To support an ambitious space program, ESA will seek increased funding from each member country. Its new set of goals include building spacecraft at a 30% faster pace, a feat accomplished through increased funding and better efficiency using advanced manufacturing processes. Other goals address significant cost cutting and accelerating technology development by using increased adaptation of commercial-off-­ the-shelf components. Finally, ESA intends on making contributions to orbital debris removal and assuring that their space missions are “risk neutral.” ESA has a long list of achievements supporting scientific discovery and accumulating benefits for society and markets. There has been an extensive use of probes and satellites to explore the cosmos. Its manned program, in collaboration with NASA, has supported research on the ISS. ESA was a large contributor to the international partnership that created the ISS.15 Its largest individual contribution was a research laboratory module called the Columbus Laboratory (see Figure 1.7), launched in 2008 and built to last well over a decade. In addition, the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) was developed by ESA as an expendable cargo spacecraft used for transport (2008 to 2014) to the ISS much like the Russian cargo vehicle but with a larger capacity.16

The European Space Agency 11

Fig. 1.7  The Columbus External Payload Facility has four external attachment sites for scientific payloads or facilities. Image credit: NASA

ESA spacecraft have explored several planets in the Solar System, including Saturn and Mars. A number of its satellite programs explore Earth and other celestial bodies—notably, Mars Express, which is in orbit around Mars, and the Rosetta spacecraft, which took images of several asteroids on its way to its destination, Comet 67-P.  Finally, ESA is working on the next generation GPS technology. ESA has its own rockets, the most famous being the Ariane, which has gone through several iterations since it was first launched in December 1979. The rocket is an example of a reliable and affordable launch system that is financed through commercial exploits.17 ESA’s future plans focus on threats from outer space to human health and safety. The dependence on advanced technology in spacecraft and satellites orbiting the Earth increase the vulnerability to threats, both human and natural. ESA’s Space Safety & Security activities help to prevent impacts from hazards from space, including debris from inactive satellites or collisions. ESA cooperates with 22 member states to coordinate and analyze the data necessary to respond to threats. By 2030, Europe will be involved in global defense, providing early warnings of asteroids larger than 40 meters in diameter and having the capability to deflect asteroids if given an early warning. ESA has a series of planned missions to prove the necessary technology. In the same timeframe, Europe will use a fleet

12  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration of Earth orbiting spacecraft to demonstrate an Automated Collision Avoidance System that will identify threats and even remove hazards if possible. ESA is dedicated to providing an Earth orbital environment that is not only free of debris but also utilizes greener products and technologies. Its Clean Space Initiative includes a variety of methods to refuel, move, or if necessary de-orbit non-working satellites, ensuring the long-term sustainability of spaceflight. 18 China Outer space plays an integral role in defining China’s power and international influence. Its role in military space has become a critical component of its overall strategy in the upcoming decades. China became the third country (after the U.S. and Russia) to land a probe on the Moon, in January, 2019. However, it was the first country to land a probe on the dark side of the Moon, a complex technical achievement that neither the U.S. or Russia pursued (see Fig. 1.8). This could lead to a dominant role in outer space and on Earth. This gives the United States pause to reflect on possibly engaging in another Space Race. There is concern that China’s progress will translate into dominance over resources on the Moon, including helium 3, a gas than could be used to provide nuclear power without radioactive waste, as well as an abundance of valuable rare minerals and precious metals that can be used for a variety of electronics and industrial applications.19

Fig. 1.8  The Chinese Chang’e-4 spacecraft successfully landed on the farside of the Moon (January 3, 2019). Image credit: NASA

China 13 Compared to the United States and Russia, China’s space program has been slow to develop with its first human spaceflight in 2003. The rise of the Asian economy has resulted in increased resources for space programs and military efforts. China’s plans for the next decades are similar to NASA in many ways. The initial requirements include the development of cost effective heavy lift launch vehicles, a new launch site, and its own permanent space station. The next goal is to develop a permanent Moon base that could sustain human presence by using its own solar power technology and manufacturing methods. Once this is accomplished, they plan to explore deep space and eventually mine asteroids to extract valuable resources. The Chinese space program seems to be progressing at a steady pace although due to aspects of secrecy, details of its capabilities are difficult to asertain. The next lunar mission (Chang’e 5) is aimed at landing on the Moon and returning to Earth with a lunar sample. As for military applications, China has demonstrated their ability to destroy a satellite using a ground-based ballistic missile. The anti-satellite test that took place in 2007, creating orbital debris that continues to threaten other satellites.20 China’s anti-satellite program tested in 2007 was seen as a military threat to the United States and a possible violation of the space treaty. The satellite system is part of the national security for not only the United States but also other nations, including Europe and Russia. In May 2015, China also tested part of a new anti-­ satellite ballistic missile system. These aggressive military actions are part of a larger military posturing by China, and many nations are watching as these events unfold.21 The sci-fi movie hit The Martian portrays the Chinese space agency and one of its rockets saving the day to rescue astronaut Watney, who is left stranded on Mars. Many wondered if this type of collaboration could occur between nations that are generally opposed to each other on many issues. However, in 2011, Congress passed a spending bill forbidding NASA from collaborating with China, including being involved or even coming aboard the ISS, citing a high risk of espionage. It doesn’t appear that the relationship between these nations has changed much since then.22 Estimates are that China’s space budget is close to U.S. $1.3 billion. That is only a small portion of NASA’s over U.S. $20 billion annual expenditure. As China broadens its space programs, it is also relying on private companies. Since 2014, private entities have been allowed to launch small satellites into orbit from Chinese territory. Since then, dozens of start-ups began to develop launch systems for commercial flights to the explore outer space. The leading companies include ExPace, LandSpace, LinkSpace, and OneSpace which still have a long way to go to match the milestones of their American peers that have over a twenty year start, such as Blue Origin and SpaceX.23

14  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration China is developing a new spacecraft for human spaceflight designed to take astronauts to the Moon and other missions to deep space. It will be capable of carrying six astronauts, or three astronauts and 1,100 lbs. (500 kilograms) of cargo to China’s planned space station. The advanced technology incorporated into the new vehicle will include technology for humans to endure the radiation environment and high velocity reentry. In addition, the spacecraft will be partly reusable and appears to be capable of docking with the ISS, although, docking would not allowed in this political environment. At the same time, China is working on constructing a modular space station that will provide a platform for future missions to the Moon and beyond. The new spacecraft’s test flight in 2021 will also test China’s new rocket, set to launch large payload modules to the Chinese Space Station. China’s recent plans include an ambitious mission expected to launch and land a remotecontrolled robot on the surface of the red planet.24 Russia Russia has always had spacefaring ambitions. After its amazing accomplishments during the Space Race, Russia focused on permanent human presence in space utilizing Earth-orbiting space stations. The program amassed the largest collection of human physiology from living in space long term. The space program was forced to reduce spending (from nearly $10 billion in 2013 to just over $4 billion in 2018) and refocus its priorities. Its strategic plan outlines updated launch vehicles and Earth observation systems and an increase in capacity for telecommunications. It is expected that their space budget will return to $6 billion by the end of this decade.25 Russia is still very much involved in space transport and the scientific exploration of deep space. The Russian Federal Space Agency, Roscomos, is involved in the day to day running of the ISS, shuttling cargo and astronauts back and forth to Earth on Russian spacecraft, as well as providing resources and guidance for ISS operations. This was necessary after the Space Shuttle Program ended in 2011, leaving no means for U.S. astronauts to be transported to the ISS. The only available transport was renting space (approximately $86 million a seat in 2019)26 on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. This has become a source of controversy in the United States, particularly since relations between the two countries have become tense. The U.S. is moving to become once again independent of the Russian space transport services through its Commercial Crew Transport program. It is currently thought that the Russian space industry, as well as other government-­supported Russian programs, is having financial difficulties. The building of a new launch facility has been delayed citing setbacks due to funding problems and possible corruption. The Federal Space Agency’s budget has been

Japan 15 cut by 35% for the next decade.27 Future Russian plans include the development of a space station that improves on ISS technology. Roscosmos Chief Oleg Ostapenko says: “We are considering the possible construction of a high-latitude station from which 90 % of the Russian territory will be visible. It may become a base for prospective lunar expeditions.”28 Roscosmos plans to spend three quarters of a billion dollars on a new manned spacecraft, which is more than three times less than NASA allotted to SpaceX for the commercially built Dragon space vehicle. Russia plans to launch their new space vehicle in 2021 and use the vehicle to transport crews and supplies to the ISS.29 Future plans for Russia include the development and launch of a super-heavy rocket from the new Vostochny Spaceport. The Russian development of a heavy rocket has been on hold every since its previous design, the Energia, had two successful flights in the late 1980s and then was halted due lack of funding after the fall of the Soviet Union. In 2018, President Putin signed off on its next big rocket, an expensive endeavor meant to reenergize the space program back to its earlier days. A plan has been developed to create a medium size rocket (Soyuz-5) using off-the-shelf engines and then adding booster stages strapped together to create a huge rocket. The rocket, which would be capable of transporting 90 tons of cargo to Earth orbit and at least 20 tons into lunar orbit, would blast off around 2028. This compares to NASA’s SLS rocket with a capacity of 70 tons upgradable to 130 tons. The current Russian space strategy plans to land its new rocket on the surface of the Moon around 2030. Planned missions for the establishment of a lunar base and an expedition to Mars are well into the future, 20–30 years. The progress depends on a consistent level of funding.30 Japan Prior to the formation of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in 2003, the national space agenda was pursued through three government agencies: the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS, 1955), the National Aerospace Laboratory of Japan (NAL, 1955), and the National Space Development Agency (NASDA, 1969). JAXA is responsible for all civilian space activities in Japan, with activities ranging from basic space research to ongoing space missions. Prior to JAXA, Japan’s human space exploration included contributions to the ISS and fostering astronauts to participate in ISS research. The H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) is designed to be an expendable, automated cargo spacecraft used to resuppy the Japanese Experiment Module attached to the ISS (see Figure 1.9) and provides the only non-U.S. or Russian transport vehicle able to ferry supplies to the ISS.31 The HTV delivers more than 12,000 pounds of cargo, both pressurized and unpressurized, to the orbiting laboratory.

16  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration

Fig. 1.9  The Canadarm2 moves toward the unpiloted Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV-3) as it approaches the ISS bringing 7000 pounds of cargo (2012). Image credit: NASA

Japan’s current space budget is expected to increase in the upcoming years for the development of new programs, including the next generation HTS ETS-3 satellite and the expansion of a regional satellite network system. Japan has an interest in being a regional leader in space exploration as a symbol of power as well as to utilize the most current technology to benefit their national interests.32 Tokyo has increased its space efforts with a new launch vehicle and renewed efforts in space science and human spaceflight. This includes scientific research on its Kibo module on the ISS. Japan’s H-II Transfer Vehicle spacecraft now provides the only non-U.S. and non-Russian transport vehicle able to ferry supplies to the ISS.33 One of Japan’s more ambitious space missions is the Hayabusa 2, launched in December 2014, to explore and collect soil samples from an asteroid (see Fig.  1.10). It orbited the asteroid Ryugu, over 5.5 million miles from Earth, in 2018, sending probes to the surface. The spacecraft blasted the surface of the asteroid with explosives so that the probes could gather up the rock and soil debris. Hayabusa 2 is scheduled to return the samples in December 2020.34

India 17

Fig. 1.10  Hayabusa 2 is a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) mission to rendezvous with the Ryugu asteroid and return soil samples to Earth (arrival in 2018). Image credit: NASA

The next JAXA project initiated was the Martian Moon eXploration (MMX) Mission. It is described as follows: “Approximately one year after leaving Earth, the spacecraft will arrive in Martian space and enter into an orbit around Mars. It  will then enter a Quasi Satellite Orbit (QSO) around one of the Martian moons to collect scientific data and gather a sample from the moon’s surface. After observation and sample collection, the spacecraft will return to Earth carrying the material gathered from the Martian moon.” The launch date is scheduled for 2024 with insertion into Mars orbit in 2025 and return to Earth in 2029.35 India India is intently watching China’s progress in space. It has opposed the weaponization of outer space but understands the importance of space exploration to gain political power and to advance science and technology. It has upgraded its space science program in order to gain more prestige in this area. All in all, the future seems bright for India’s space program.

18  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration Some of India’s recents accomplishments include: • Launching its first military satellite in 2013. • The Mangalyaan spacecraft successfully orbiting Mars in September 2014 (India becomes the first Asian country to reach the Red Planet). • Lunar orbiters Chandrayaan 1 (2008) helping to confirm the existence of water on the Moon. Chandrayaan 2 to be launched in 2017 will test new technologies and conduct science experiments. • Future missions to study the Sun’s corona (Aditya-1) and future plans for human spaceflight.36 • Chinese President Xi Jingping and India Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently signing a pledge to explore peaceful cooperation in space. This is a positive step in overcoming decades of mistrust and leading the two countries to a place of mutual respect. • In 2017, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) launched 104 satellites on a single Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), a world record.37 India has managed to accomplish many goals in space on limited resources. India’s space program continues to grow, with the launch of larger satellites, a heavy-lift rocket, and improved Earth-observation capabilities. India is planning on sending its first manned mission into space by mid-2022. A successful launch of the three-person crew will make India the fourth country after Russia, the United States and China to put humans into space. Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the plans for the manned mission and the approved budget close to $1.4 billion to provide technology and infrastructure for future events. The sum would make it one of the most inexpensive manned space programs in the world. Both men and women could be selected for the mission.38 India is now competing with other countries for a share of the satellite market. India’s global navigation satellite system (GNSS) called Navigation with Indian Constellation (NAVIC, also a Hindi word for navigator) consists of a constellation of seven Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) satellites located in Geostationary orbit at 36,000 kilometres altitude. NAVIC was formerly accepted by the U.S. government to be part of an “allied system” seen as equivalent to the Japanese and ESA’s satellite systems. In addition to its own satellite system, India has used their own vehicles to launch hundreds of satellites for dozens of different countries and commercial enterprises.39 India currently has plans for soft landing a rover on the Moon. After a failed attempt in 2019, India will try again in 2021 with the Chandrayaan-3 mission. India would become only the fourth nation after Russia, the United States and China to land on the moon’s surface.40 India has also developed anti-satellite defense capability. One of their own satellites in low-Earth orbit was destroyed by their own missile in 2019. Because the

Other Space Agencies 19 collision was in a low altitude orbit, India stated that it expected that most or all debris will fall back to Earth, but this type of activity is still of concern due to the generation of thousands of pieces of fragments in space.41 Other Asian Space Activities Other Asian countries have also shown enhanced space activity. North Korea successfully launched a primitive satellite from its Unha 3 rocket in December 2012. South Korea responded with a launch of a more sophisticated satellite in January 2013, using a Russian first stage on the rocket. South Korea has also announced accelerated plans for a larger launcher and a lunar research mission lander in the 2020s time frame and a lunar sample return mission in 2030. Several smaller efforts are being made in Singapore (satellite manufacturing and communications) and Vietnam (satellite development and technology development with Japan).42 Other Space Agencies Australia defined a space policy in 2013, expressing their interest in cooperating with the United States in agreements regarding space awareness, tracking of orbital debris and collision prevention in space. Other countries with interest in space activities are: The Israel Space Agency This was established in 1983, has funds devoted to the Venus Project and other science and technology development for space interests. Iran Launching satellites and other spaceflights since 2005, Iran has had joint projects with Russia, Thailand and China, launching satellites designed for research and communications. The United Kingdom This country created its own space agency in 2010. The UK paired up with the European Space Agency, where they have been involved in scientific research and the launch of low-Earth orbit rockets.43 Spaceport planning is a main area of interest for the UK space sector.

20  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration United Arab Emirates The United Arab Emirates also has a very newly formed space agency, as of only 2014, yet is eagerly expanding into the field and taking the space sector very seriously as an engine of economic growth. The Politics of the New Space Age International politics today is very different than politics in the 1950s and 1960s. The conflicts that we face today are multifaceted, with threats that are not necessarily defined by geographic location. In the past, space achievements were restricted to the United States and the Soviet Union and were a sign of their political power and military prestige. As time went on, more countries became interested in space exploration not only to demonstrate prestige but to discover more about the universe and to provide the technology for better communication, navigation, and business opportunities for their countries. Several countries began to cooperate on space missions, and ultimately the ISS came into being as a testimony of this international effort. Fear of countries staging war either in space or from space have not come to fruition, despite the occasional demonstration of such capabilities. Regional demonstrations of space dominance seem more likely, however, none of these qualify as “races.” It can be said that countries with power and a natural competition with each other consider space as another platform to demonstrate excellence with advantages that are not necessarily focused on the military. China’s recent aggressive posturing with laser weapons, anti-satellite missiles and jammers are of concern to the United States as well as other countries. Their plans for high altitude hypersonic vehicles, as well as low-Earth orbit platforms, create a military scenario where China desires to control the airspace closest to Earth. The United States has to match these capabilities along with having the ability to detect China’s use or testing of their high-tech “weapons.” China’s activities border on the aggressive use of weapons in airspace defined for peaceful purposes in the space treaty. At this time, the United States is monitoring and creating a strategic space plan to deal with perceived threats. At the same time, China’s neighbors are watching their progress with similar interest, if perhaps with even greater alarm. Certainly the country has shown an aggressive approach to naval expansion, and it could be that China’s space activities may follow the same model. Claiming territory—and any associated potential mineral deposits— will surely be tempting. In addition, China’s recent plans to establish a Moon colony has caused a reversal in NASA plans. Currently, NASA is bound for the Moon again in order to create a staging platform for a manned trip to Mars. U.S. dependence on Russia’s transportation to the ISS has been of concern as well. However, as far as space efforts go, Russia has been nothing but cooperative

The Politics of the New Space Age 21 and thus far has provided no major reasons for additional concern. Time will tell how this relationship will play out in outer space, since it is increasingly volatile on Earth. Overall, the international level of effort of space exploration today is remarkable. By all levels of measurements, it seems that the status of both interest and level of development and planning for space travel both in the United States and around the world is very high. The future is bright for space research and exploration. The primary thing that holds countries back from pursuing further efforts is their financial status; however, the desire to know more and reap the benefits of technology in space for all nations seems universal. The more interesting and dynamic space race is among the new faces of space entrepreneurs. Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is now a low-cost provider of low-Earth orbit transport, and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is on the verge of establishing his company as a major contender in space exploration. Other companies are developing new technologies and ideas to make space travel easier and more affordable. These innovators will define the future of space exploration. Instead of a geopolitical struggle, the new space race is a test between private-­sector engineers and commercial interests, with the resulting competition having the potential to drive forward the needed innovations for manned missions to succeed, while international collaboration by and large remains the watchword in government-funded space missions driven by the desires of the global scientific community of researchers. One area of interest among private companies is the commercialization of outer space, particularly in low-Earth orbit. Space tourism, satellite networks, even collecting space garbage has peaked the competitive interest of the private sector. Some corporations are interested in exploiting resources for profit from celestial bodies such as the Earth’s Moon or asteroids. Mining for profit has brought on some controversy in terms of how it conflicts with the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The U.S. government has given the go-ahead for pursuing these efforts. The space frontier will be explored with enthusiasm using new technologies in the next decade, with humankind being the ultimate benefactor. The goal of landing humans on Mars is becoming a reality. Notes 1. Tyson, Neil Degrasse. 2012. Space chronicles: why exploring space still ­matters [audio – radio]. NPR Radio. [Internet] [cited 2016 Mar 17]. Available from:http://www.npr.org/2012/02/27/147351252/space-chronicles-why-exploringspace-still-matters. 2. Driscoll, Kara. [Internet]. daytondailynews.com. Wright-Patt at center of space threat research. 20 Jan 2019. daytondailynews.com. [Internet] [cited 2019 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ local/wright-patt-center-space-threat-research/hdY9qxExHgw0a6KzlIhshI/

22  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration 3. Morgan Stanley Research. [Internet]. MorganStanley.com. 02 Jul 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/ investing-in-space 4. Seminari, Simon. [Internet]. SpaceNews.com. 24 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 20].Availablefromhttps://spacenews.com/op-ed-global-government-space-budgetscontinues-multiyear-rebound/ 5. NASA.gov. National Aeronautics and Space Act. [Internet] NASA.gov Pub. L. No. 111-314; Dec. 18, 2010 [cited 2016 Mar 22]. Available from: https:// www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html 6. McKie, Robin. theGuardian.com. 06 Jul 2019. [Internet] [cited 2019 Nov 22]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/06/everyonesgoing-to-the-moon-again-apollo-11-50th-aniversary 7. NASA.gov. [Internet]. NASA.gov Explore Moon to Mars. [cited 2019 Nov 22]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/overview 8. Fact Sheet. [Internet]. planetary.org. NASA’s FY 2021 budget. ©2019. [cited 2020 May 24]. Available from: https://www.planetary.org/get-involved/be-aspace-advocate/become-an-expert/fy2021-nasa-budget.html 9. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. SpaceX’s Starship May Start Flying Moon Missions in 2022. 19 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 23]. Available from: https:// www.space.com/spacex-starship-moon-missions-2022.html 10. Whitehouse.gov. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 24]. Available from: https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-boldlyputting-americans-back-moon/ 11. Seminari, Simon. [Internet]. SpaceNews.com. Global government space budgets continues multiyear rebound. 24 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 24]. Available from:https://spacenews.com/op-ed-global-government-space-budgets-continuesmultiyear-rebound/ 12. Belfiore, Michael. [Internet]. Popularmechanics.com. International space dominance: 7 nations launching the next space race. 30 Sep 2009. [cited 2016 Mar 25]. Available from: http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ a12531/4307281/ 13. NASA.gov. [Internet]. ISECG.  The global exploration roadmap. Aug 2013 [cited 2016 Mar 25]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/ files/GER-2013_Small.pdf 14. SpacePolicyOnline.com. [Internet]. Internation space activities. 28 Dec 2019. [cited 2016 Mar 25]. Available from: https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/ international-space-activities/ 15. Henry, Caleb. [Internet]. SpaceNews.com. Four technology goals ESA favors for honing Europe’s competitive edge. 22 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 27]. Available from: https://spacenews.com/four-technology-goals-esa-favorsfor-honing-europes-competitive-edge/

The Politics of the New Space Age 23 16. European Space Agency. [Internet]. esa.int. Columbus: Europe’s laboratory on the International Space Station. Oct 1999. [cited 2019 Nov 28]. Available from: http://www.esa.int/esapub/br/br144/br144.pdf 17. Howell, Elizabeth. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. European Space Agency: facts and information. 27 Aug 2013. [cited 2015 June 16]. Available from: http://www.space.com/22562-european-space-agency.html 18. European Space Agency. [Internet]. esa.int. Plans for the future. [cited 2019 Dec 02]. Available from: https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/ Plans_for_the_future 19. Shen L, Hunt K. China to explore ‘dark side’ of the moon. CNN Wire Service. 21 May 2015. 20. Makichuk, Dave. [Internet]. asiatimes.com. China’s bold space program flourishing. 06 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Dec 05]. Available from: https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/chinas-bold-space-program-flourishing/ 21. Asia’s space plans worry. Eastern Eye. 2013 Dec 20; Sect. 17. 22. Dickerson, Kelly. Here’s why NASA won’t work with China explore space. Tech Insider. 2015 Oct 19. 23. Wheeler, Michelle. [Internet]. particle.scitech.org. Is China the Next SuperPower? 14 Jul 2017. [cited 2019 Dec 03]. Available from: https://particle.scitech.org.au/space/china-next-space-superpower/ 24. Times of India. [Internet] indiatimes.com. China spacecraft launch on track despite corona. 25 Mar 2020. [cited 2019 Dec 03]. Available from: https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/china-spacecraft-launch-on-trackdespite-corona/articleshow/74803410.cms 25. Seminari, Simon. [Internet]. SpaceNews.com. Global government space budgets continues multiyear rebound. 24 Nov 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 24]. Available from: https://spacenews.com/op-ed-global-government-space-budgetscontinues-multiyear-rebound/ 26. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. Here’s how much NASA is paying per seat on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon & Boeing’s Starliner. [cited 2019 Nov 25]. Available from: https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html 27. Kottasova, Ivana. [Internet]. money.cnn.com. Economic crisis at heart of Russia’s pride: its space program. 27 April 2015. [cited 2016 Jan 16]. Available from: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/27/news/economy/russia-space-crisiscosmodrome/ 28. Roscosmos: High-latitude orbital station may become lunar expeditions’ base. Interfax: Russia & CIS General Newswire. 16 Dec 2014. 29. Russian News Agency. [Internet]. tass.ru. Russia’s new manned spacecraft to be 3.5 times cheaper than US Dragon. 22 Jan 2016. [cited 2015 June 16]. Available from: http://tass.ru/en/science/851562 30. Zak, Anatoly. [Internet]. popularmechanics.com. Russia is now working on a super heavy rocket of its own. 08 Feb 2018. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a16761777/russiasuper-heavy-rocket

24  The Excitement of Current & Future Space Exploration 31. Moltz, James C. It’s on: Asia’s new space race: while NASA and the European Space Agency gets most of the world’s attention, China, Japan and India are racing for the heavens. The Daily Beast [New York]. 17 Jan 2015. 32. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. JAXA: Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency. Space.com. 19 May 2016. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://www.space.com/22672-japan-aerospace-exploration-agency. html 33. Moltz, James C. It’s on: Asia’s new space race: while NASA and the European Space Agency gets most of the world’s attention, China, Japan and India are racing for the heavens. The Daily Beast [New York]. 17 Jan 2015. 34. McFall-Johnsen, Morgan. [Internet]. sciencealert.com. Japan just landed a spacecraft on an asteroid, and the photos are nuts. Sciencealert.com. 12 Jul 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://www.sciencealert.com/ japan-just-landed-its-spacecraft-on-an-asteroid-and-the-photos-are-nuts 35. Foster, Scott. [Internet]. asiatimes.com. Japan’s Space Program aims at the moons of Mars. Asiatimes.com. 10 Mar 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://asiatimes.com/2020/03/japans-space-program-aims-at-themoons-of-mars/ 36. Working on manned space mission: ISRO chairman. Indian Express. 04 Jan 2015. 37. Menon, Jay. India’s second Moon mission to be fully homegrown. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report. 20 April 2015. 38. Phys.org. [Internet]. phys.org. India plans manned space mission by December 2021. 11 Jan 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://phys.org/ news/2019-01-india-space-mission-december.html 39. SpaceWatchGlobal.com [Internet]. India’s NAVIC GNSS capability declared an allied system by U.S. Congress. 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 8]. Available from: https://spacewatch.global/2019/12/indias-navic-gnss-capability-declaredan-allied-system-by-u-s-congress/ 40. Phys.org. [Internet]. phys.org. India targets new Moon mission in 2020. 02 Jan 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://phys.org/news/202001-india-moon-mission.html 41. Grush, Loren. [Internet]. theverge.com. India shows it can destroy satellites in space, worrying experts about space debris. 27 Mar 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283730/india-antisatellite-demonstration-asat-test-microsat-r-space-debris 42. Moltz, James C. It’s on: Asia’s new space race: while NASA and the European Space Agency gets most of the world’s attention, China, Japan and India are racing for the heavens. The Daily Beast [New York]. 17 Jan 2015. 43. Ten leading space programs around the world. [Internet]. cbc.ca. 04 Nov 2013. [cited 2015 June 16]. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/space-programs/

2 The New Space Race

“To set foot on the soil of the asteroids, to lift by hand a rock from the Moon, to observe Mars from a distance of several tens of kilometers, to land on its satellite or even on its surface, what can be more fantastic? From the moment of using rocket devices a new great era will begin in astronomy: the epoch of the more intensive study of the firmament.”1 - Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, Father of Russian Astronautics (1896) The interest in American space exploration declined for decades after the U.S. won the manned Space Race to the Moon. Space efforts continued on a lower budget over the years, focusing on the research and science of the long term effects on humans in outer space. This research was accomplished aboard space stations, first Skylab and most recently the International Space Station (ISS). There has been a human presence in outer space continuously for almost 20 years aboard the ISS. Unmanned missions continued to Mars and beyond. This chapter discusses the new and exciting era of both manned and unmanned space efforts that are racing against each other to return to the Moon and then on to Mars. One race involves the governments of the U.S., Russia, and China, each with projects involving launch systems, satellites, transport spacecraft, space stations, even settlement colonies. Another race involves Asia and the competing regional nations of China, Japan, and India. Finally, there is a race involving commercial companies competing for NASA contracts in order to accomplish common goals. In addition, private enterprise has been pursuing profit-making ventures such as space tourism, satellite communication applications, and mineral mining. The races between nations and corporations are currently very dynamic, with dozens of missions being conducted worldwide involving satellites and spacecraft conducting scientific research or travelling to some target location in outer space. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_2

25

26  The New Space Race Every day there are updates on either government or private spacecraft mission development or operations. These times are very exciting and have reinvigorated public interest in all things space. The following chapters provide a snapshot and history of space accomplishments worldwide. They provide important context to events happening today. The New International Space Race A space race among nations is caused by one nation of power planning or developing a bold mission that could change the balance of authority if they succeed. The Moon Space Race pitted the Soviet Union against the United States, two nations of differing ideologies with massive underlying tensions including threats of nuclear war. Starting in the late 1950s, the Space Race ended with the Apollo 11 mission that put American astronauts on the Moon in July, 1969. A new race on the scale of the great Space Race would involve power, national pride, and regional dominance. Underlying tensions between nations usually accelerates competitiveness, eliminating goals that might have been reached with a partnership; the result is a race that inspires one nation to beat its opponent. The space policy of President Obama’s administration focused on the commercialization of low-Earth orbit and the development of NASA partnerships to develop common goals. Preparations for a manned mission to Mars eclipsed returning to the Moon. An intermediate exercise sending astronauts to a nearby asteroid would demonstrate vehicles and technologies required for travel to Mars. During this same period of time, China ramped up its efforts to explore the Moon. In January, 2019, a Chinese rover became the first spacecraft to ever land on the dark side of the Moon. In late 2020, China plans to launch a large-scale lunar sample return mission using the Chang’e 5 vehicle. The project involves building special facilities and laboratories for mining, processing, and storage of lunar samples. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States successfully executed sample return missions from a variety of landing sites. However, none were as ambitious as what is proposed by the Chinese. In addition, plans were already in place to build a scientific research station near the Moon’s south pole. It is expected to take about 10 years for the station to be built.2 Given the tense nature of the relationship and power struggle between China and the U.S., neither country wants to see the other nation have an advantage, either on Earth or in outer space. Because of these advances in the Chinese space program, the next administration, that of President Trump, made significant changes to Obama’s space policy. The new NASA plans include an accelerated mission to the Moon, putting humans on the surface by 2024. “Make no mistake about it—we’re in a space race roday, just as we were in the 1960s, and the stakes are even higher,” Vice President Pence said during a meeting of the National Space Council (NSC) in March, 2019. The original date of 2028 was “not good enough.” Now with the official policy being to return the astronauts to the Moon by 2024, a 21st-century Space Race has begun with China.3

The New International Space Race 27 The other country in the mix is Russia. The U.S. has been paying Russia more than $86 million per person to use the Soyuz vehicle to transport astronauts to the ISS. Russia’s space agency has approved the design of the country’s most powerful rocket since the 1960s. The launch system, called Yenisei after a Russian river, will stand nearly 250 feet tall, use 10 engines in 5 stages of flight, and allow Russians to transport large payloads to Earth orbit, travel the quarter million miles to the Moon and/or a space station orbiting the Moon. The Russians need a new rocket to perform the tasks but the projected $22 billion cost might be too much for their economy. The estimated date for cosmonauts landing on the Moon is 2030. It is not clear at this time whether China or Russia are interested in an accelerated race to the Moon. The Chinese have taken a slower-paced, more methodical approach to achieving their space goals, which focus on the promotion of national prestige and military dominance. They have interest in developing a space station (Tiangong 3), which will be constructed in modules in the 2020–2022 timeframe. Their timeline calls for manned lunar missions sometime after 2030. The Russians as yet haven’t stated their interest in human spaceflight to the Moon. In addition, because of a weaker economy, they have a lot of obstacles to clear before they can become a competitor in this type of race. However, if the Russians succeed in building their Yenisei rocket, it is thought that the Russian government could use the rocket’s capability as a bargaining chip in negotiations for future collaborations in space.4 Back in the United States, NASA also needs a new heavy lift rocket in order to achieve its goals. The design of the new Space Launch System (SLS) involves taking old Space Shuttle engines and adding them four apiece to a new rocket body. Similar to the Yenisei, the SLS will be capable of transporting 130 tons up to low-Earth orbit or send an Orion crew capsule all the way to the future lunar space station, the Lunar Gateway. The SLS’s first test is planned for 2021 in time to second astronauts to the Moon by 2024. Budget issues could come into play but even if NASA does receive the money it needs, the schedule to return to the Moon is challenging for the development of new vehicles and equipment, such as the Orion crew capsule, a new lunar lander, and the SLS.5 In 2017, NASA revealed their plans to build the Deep Space Gateway, a space station placed between the Earth and the Moon (in cis-lunar orbit) with the intent of using it to launch vehicles to explore other destinations in the Solar System (see Figure 2.1). At first, it was assumed that NASA would be the sole agency responsible for constructing the station using the SLS as the method of transporting modules over a period of several years through at least 2026. Later in 2017, NASA and the Russian Space Agency Roscosmos announced that they would partner to build the Deep Space Gateway together. Russian officials said that they’d be providing up to three modules and a docking device for the station.6 In March 2020, at a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council Science Committee, a NASA administrator, Douglas Loverro, stated that the Gateway will no longer be required for a crewed landing on the Moon in order to make the 2024 deadline. Loverro emphasized that NASA was still committed to building the station and that these changes would not affect NASA’s international partners and their contributions.7

28  The New Space Race

Fig. 2.1  Lunar Gateway Configuration Identifying Contributing Members. Image credit: NASA

The Asian Space Race Asia might be seen as an unlikely region for a new space race. However, several Asian countries have space programs competing to achieve scientific and technological advancements in outer space, which translates to regional supremacy. Developments have occurred in China, Japan, India, Pakistan, and South Korea. The three recognized space powers, Japan, China, and India, have similar goals focused on economic development and national security and are driven to keep a balance of power in the region and beyond. Japan has been involved in space missions for years. One of their most famous robotic missions involved a probe, called Hayabusa, that was launched in 2003 to the asteroid Itokawa to collect samples to be returned to Earth. It arrived at the asteroid in 2005 and returned to Earth in 2010 but because of a series of failures, returned without surface samples. Hayabusa2 was launched in 2014, traveling 190 million miles (300 million km) from Earth to the asteroid Ryugu, arriving in 2018. The spacecraft created an artificial crater on the surface by thrusting a four-pound copper ball toward the asteroid’s surface with the speed of a bullet. The purpose of the experiment was to calculate Ryugu’s age. Results estimate the asteroid to be between 6 and 11 million years old, which considerably narrowed the previous estimation which ranged from a couple million to 200 million years old. The mission so far has been deemed a success and is returning to Earth with its rock samples in a capsule

The Asian Space Race 29 from the orbiting spacecraft.8 The next planned mission after Hayabusa2 will be the Martian Moon eXploration Mission (MMX), scheduled to launch in 2024 with Martian orbit insertion in 2025 and return to Earth in 2029. Its scientific goals are to research the evolution of the Mars including its moons (see Figure. 2.2).9

Fig. 2.2  An artist’s concept of Japan’s Mars Moons eXploration spacecraft, carrying a NASA instrument to study the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos. Image credit: NASA

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), formed in 2003 after the merger of three other government space organizations into one, is responsible for all Japanese civilian space activities. Japan’s human exploration program existed long before the beginning of JAXA. Its contributions to the ISS include the Kibo research module (containing a robotic arm) and regular cargo flights to the ISS. The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) H-IIB rocket launched for the last time in 2020 carrying onboard the ninth and last H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) to the ISS (see Figure 2.3). Onboard are a number of different experiments including a remote-controlled robot that gives user on Earth an idea of what it’s like to be onboard the ISS. The HTV was developed by JAXA as part of its contribution to the International Space Station program. Its successor is scheduled to fly in 2022 and will include advanced capabilities such as automated docking.10 This vehicle will also be designed to make it all the way to NASA’s lunar Gateway for long-­ distance cargo delivery.11

30  The New Space Race

Fig. 2.3  The ninth and last H-II Transfer Vehicle spacecraft (HTV-9) has arrived at the International Space Station (May 25, 2020). Image credit: NASA

JAXA also has an important focus on lunar exploration. The mission SELenological and ENgineering Explorer (SELENE), also known as Kayuga, was launched in 2007 and operated for a year, surveying the surface in composition and magnetic and gravitational fields, before crashing into the surface as planned.12 Further interest extended to human exploration of the Moon. In September 2019, NASA and JAXA announced their intention to work together on the Artemis program, NASA’s program to return astronauts to the Moon by 2024 and then on to Mars. According to The Japan Times, Japan will “offer technical cooperation for the construction” of the Lunar Gateway. It remains unclear whether Japan will assist with the construction of the gateway itself due to cost concerns.13 China’s growing space capabilities lead this group driving much of the Asian space competition. In a desire to keep up, China’s accomplishments have inspired increased cooperation between India and Japan in Earth and space sciences and lunar exploration. In November 2017, the president of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency announced that “India and Japan will lead the space sector in the Asia Pacific region.”14 China’s growing aggressive technologies such as the increasing number of close rendezvous operations of Chinese satellites are also raising concerns about the possible security implications of China’s military space program. India’s space program is more than sixty years old and until recently has focused on using space technology to improve the social and economic conditions for its population. China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test in 2007 was a wake-up call to India to address challenges involving national security. India began to focus on developing the technological capabilities necessary to protect its own space assets. In March 2017, India performed a successful ASAT weapon test with a kinetic kill vehicle

The Asian Space Race 31 aimed at its own satellite in low-Earth orbit. The test made India the fourth country to test an ASAT after the U.S., Russia, and China.15 The Indian ASAT test seemed opposite to the country’s position that space should be used for peaceful purposes and is not a place for space weapons. India realized that if it did not keep up with the current technology in space, it could lose its position in the regional balance of power. However, scientists argue that India’s actions are troubling since any collision in space can create thousands of pieces of debris that pose a threat to other spacecraft. India has had ambitious visions for exploring the Moon through its Chandrayaan program. NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper instrument mounted on India’s Chandrayaan-1 mission, took an image of Earth’s moon showing the reflection of infrared radiation from the sun from different materials on the side of the Moon facing Earth (see Figure 2.4). Blue in the picture is the signature of water, shown near the poles.16

Fig. 2.4  Image of the moon taken by NASA’s Moon Minearalogy Mapper instrument aboard India’s Chandrayaan-1 vehicle. Water distribution shown in blue at high latitudes near the poles. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

32  The New Space Race Through the Chandrayaan-2 mission, India attempted to become the first country to land a robotic mission at the Moon’s south pole and only the fourth country to complete a lunar soft landing (the other 3 - the U.S., Soviet Union, and China). In September 2019, the engineers lost contact with the lander just before it was to make a soft landing. The orbiter vehicle will continue to circle the Moon for several years gathering information about possible water deposits. The mission will be followed up with Chandrayaan-3 in 2024 which will also contain a moon rover.17 In order to keep up with China’s achievements and future planned missions in space, India and Japan investigated what it would take to develop their own independent lunar missions. However, neither country could compete with China’s Chang’e robotic exploration program that successfully landed a rover on the far side of the Moon in 2019, a feat that no other country has done so far. Instead, India and Japan decided to combine their efforts and plan a joint mission to explore the polar regions of the Moon for water that could be used to support human life for an extended period of time. “Both India and Japan have demonstration landings on the moon coming up,” said Hiroki Furihata of the JAXA. “The next step for both of us is true exploration. If we combine the strengths of both sides it can be a win-win.” 18 India has also approached other space faring nations, such as France and the United States to partner in other efforts. China’s aggressive behavior on Earth and in space has made other nations concerned for their security, safety and economic conditions in the region. Increased power is found in partnerships with India, the U.S., Japan, and France. South Korea, an enthusiastic late-comer to the current group of spacefaring nations, had their first successful rocket launch in January 2013. It was thought that this advancement in space technology would generate regional economic opportunities and military competitiveness. However, lack of budget and cooperation between the government and private industry slowed down the process of advancement. Accomplishments to date include a South Korean astronaut’s visit to the ISS along with future plans to establish independent launch capability. South Korea’s first mission to the Moon was designated as a national objective. The launch date for the Korea Pathfinder Lunar Obiter KPLO was pushed forward to mid-2022. In addition, the government seeks to expand and protect its existing space-based assets. In light of the growing North Korean missile threat, South Korea has been looking to develop a counterstrike capability to destroy North Korean missiles in the event of a conflict. This technical capability requires extensive space surveillance platforms, such as spy satellites.19 Within the past couple of years, both China and India have landed, or attempted to land, probes on the Moon. These types of missions are one way to achieve international prestige. But they also peacefully demonstrate capabilities that could be used in conflict. The Asian space race is intertwined with the political tensions in the region and the changing balance of power over time. Pakistan has been aware of the aggressive actions demonstrated by China and India’s space activities. India’s space activities, combined with its escalating tensions with Pakistan,

The New Commercial Space Race 33 contribute to increasing regional tension. India’s surveillance capabilities could encourage Pakistan to develop ASAT weapons. The region could become more unstable if this intensifies to an arms race.20 The New Commercial Space Race A space race discussion should include the race in private enterprise, particularly in the United States. Commercial exploits are detailed in Chapter 3 and summarized here for purposes of outlining the space race between corporations. The emergence of private enterprise in space exploration ventures has been instrumental in reducing the cost of space travel. The first astronauts to fly aboard a U.S. spacecraft since 2011 were launched on a NASA mission aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon vehicle at end of May, 2020. Since the Space Shuttle program ended, transport of astronauts has been by rental of seats aboard a Soyuz Russian crew vehicle. SpaceX, led by Elon Musk, has been a consistent competitor in the area of human and payload transport to the ISS.  An unmanned version of the vehicle has already docked with the International Space Station multiple times (see Figure 2.5). SpaceX was one of three companies selected in April, 2020 to develop new lunar landers to transport astronauts to the surface of the Moon and beyond as part of the Artemis program.21

Fig. 2.5  Photo taken from the International Space Station of the capture and docking of the SpaceX Dragon (3 March 2013). Image credit: NASA

34  The New Space Race The second team awarded the lunar lander contract is called the National Team (partners include Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and Draper) and is led by Blue Origin, a company that has maintained a lesser profile to SpaceX. Founded in 2000, Blue Origin (owned by Jeff Bezos) is an aerospace manufacturer that has been rapidly expanding in the last few years. Its focus is on human space travel and rocket engine construction. The U.S.  Air Force is committed to use Blue Origin’s advanced rocket called New Glenn. The company has been quite successful in testing its rocket boosters named after a few of the Mercury 7 pioneer astronauts, the most recent one named New Shepard after Alan Shepard. New Shepard is a reusable rocket capable of transporting six human passengers to space and back to Earth (Figure 2.6). Its maiden flight with paying passengers is expected to take its suborbital flight within a couple of years.22 Dynetics, an applied science and information company based in Huntsville, Alabama, was the third contractor chosen to design a Human Landing System (HLS) for lunar missions. Dynetics will lead a team of other businesses to provide a vehicle focused on reusability and sustainability along with proven technology to support its vital subsystems. The Dynetics HLS can be launched aboard the SLS or the United Launch Alliance’s rocket for commercial launches.23 The Boeing company has plans to fly astronauts to the ISS aboard its Starliner spaceship (Fig. 2.7). In December 2019, a Starliner test revealed extensive computer software issues that prevented a rendezvous and docking maneuver with the ISS and could have ended with disastrous results. Boeing is now reviewing the errors and making recommendations for fixes. Boeing’s design was not chosen to be a finalist for the HLS vehicle perhaps due to these other problems. Boeing has been working on both manned and unmanned space related projects for decades and have a broad range of developed technology to use in NASA and military partnerships and commercial exploits. The company has designed and built advanced space and communications systems for military, commercial and scientific uses. As an example, the Boeing Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) provide high-bandwidth communications between Earth-orbiting spacecraft and ground stations. Today, they are working with Lockheed Martin on the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a delivery system to Earth orbit. In addition, they are building the SLS rocket that will launch missions to the lunar Gateway outpost and on to Mars. The rocket is currently over budget and behind in schedule.24 Other companies are focusing on space tourism, space mining, space debris, and partnerships opportunities with NASA and the military. Some of these ventures are summarized in more detailed in Chapter 3.

The New Commercial Space Race 35

Fig. 2.6  NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, second from left, tours the Blue Origin facilities near Kennedy Space Center in Florida (May 23, 2019), viewed the New Shepard booster and crew capsule. Third from left is Kennedy Space Center Director Bob Cabana. Image credit: NASA

36  The New Space Race

Fig. 2.7  The Boeing CST-100 Starliner spacecraft resting on its airbags after it landed in White Sands, New Mexico (Dec. 22, 2019) after an Orbital Flight Test for NASA’s Commercial Crew program. Image credit: NASA

Reflections on the New Space Race The new space race is an adventure on several fronts. Nations are competing against other nations to achieve an edge in power. Companies are partnering with governments for resources and to achieve common goals. Corporations are vying to gain financial support to develop advanced technologies to utilize in the decades ahead. We are experiencing a rebirth in space exploration interest and the development of both manned and unmanned vehicles to perform various tasks such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory design of a four pound helicopter to explore the surface of the Mars. From electronics to materials to large scale rocket development, there are dozens of participating corporations and government organizations that are in the midst of cutting edge engineering projects, both unmanned and manned. Each day brings news of the latest development, testing, and operations of satellites, space vehicles, rockets, and every aspect of space flight. We are on a roller coaster ride that has no end in sight. The next chapters describe the story in more detail— the past, present, and future of space exploration.

Reflections on the New Space Race 37 Notes 1. Space Quotes. nasa.gov. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 28]. Available from: https:// er.jsc.nasa.gov/SEH/quotes.html 2. David, Leonard. [Internet]. Space.com. China wants a piece of the moon. 17 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.space.com/chinamoon-sample-handling-plans.html?utm_source=notification 3. Bartels, Meghan. [Internet]. space.com. Are we really in a new space race with China and Russia? 28 Mar 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 13]. Available from: https:// www.space.com/are-we-in-space-race-russia-china.html 4. Axe, David. [Internet]. thedailybeast.com. The new U.S.-Russia space race has begun. thedailybeast.com. 23 Jan 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 13]. Available from: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-us-russia-space-race-has-begunbut-moscow-may-be-bluffing 5. Davis, Jason. [Internet]. nbcnews.com. NASA’s Artemis program will return astronauts to the moon and give us the female moonwalker. 11 Jun 2019. nbcnews.com. [cited 2020 Apr 15]. Available from: https:// www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-s-artemis-program-will-returnastronauts-moon-give-us-ncna1015341 6. Cain, Fraser. [Internet]. sciencealert.com. It’s official: Russia and the US will work together on the first-ever moon station. 28 Sept 2017. [cited 2020 Apr 14]. Available from: https://www.sciencealert.com/russia-and-the-us-aregoing-to-space-together-again 7. Gray, Tyler. [Internet]. nasaspaceflight.com. NASA decides against using Gateway for 2024 lunar landing. 20 Mar 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 14]. Available from: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/03/nasa-against-gateway-lunarlanding/ 8. BBC News. [Internet]. bbc.com. Hayabusa-2: Japan spacecraft leaves asteroid to head home. 13 Nov 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.bbc. com/news/world-asia-50403272?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/ news/topics/c3473d42xw1t/hayabusa-2&link_location=live-reporting-story 9. Foster, Scott. [Internet]. bbc.com. Japan’s space program aims at the moons of Mars. 10 Mar 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 19]. Available from: https://asiatimes. com/2020/03/japans-space-program-aims-at-the-moons-of-mars/ 10. Graham, William. [Internet] nasaspaceflight.com. HTV-9 arrives at ISS on final mission. 25 May 2020. [cited 2020 May 28]. Available from: https:// www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/05/h-iib-last-htv-mission-iss/ 11. Etherington, Darrell. [Internet]. techcrunch.com. Watch Mitsubishi Heavy Industries launch a milestone space station resupply mission live. 20 May 2020. [cited 2020 May 27]. Available from: https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/20/ watch-mitsubishi-heavy-industries-launch-a-milestone-space-station-resupply-mission-live/

38  The New Space Race 12. NASA Science staff. [Internet]. solarsystem.nasa.gov. Kayuga. 5 Apr 2019. nasa.gov. [cited 2020 Apr 19]. Available from: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/ missions/kaguya/in-depth/ 13. Moon, Mariella. [Internet]. engadget.com. Japan will help NASA build a space station near the Moon. [cited 2020 Apr 19]. Available from: https:// www.engadget.com/2019-10-18-japan-nasa-artemis-lunar-gateway.html 14. Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai. [Internet]. eastasiaforum.org. A new space race in Asia. 18 May 2018. [cited 2020 Apr 16]. Available from: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/05/18/a-new-space-race-in-asia/ 15. Grush, Loren. [Internet]. theverge.com. India shows it can destroy satellites in space, worrying experts about space debris. 27 Mar 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 16]. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283730/ india-anti-satellite-demonstration-asat-test-microsat-r-space-debris 16. nasa.gov. [Internet]. 25 Sept 2009. [cited 2020 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1478.html 17. Romo, Vanessa. [Internet]. npr.org. India’s attempt to land rover at Moon’s south pole fails. 06 Sept 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 20]. Available from: https:// www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758419791/indias-attempt-to-land-rover-at-moons-south-pole-fails 18. Sherrif, Ahmed. [Internet]. thebetterindia.com. The mission highlights the rising importance of Asia in space, and the geopolitical reaction in the region to China’s rise. 05 Jan 2018. [cited 2020 Apr 17]. Available from: https://www. thebetterindia.com/126839/india-japan-team-reach-moon-plan-exploration/ 19. Kim, Harry. [Internet]. thediplomat.com. South Korea’s race to space is lagging behind. 20 Nov 2017. [cited 2020 Apr 20]. Available from: https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/south-koreas-race-to-space-is-lagging-behind/ 20. Sabarini, Prodita. [Internet]. theconversation.com. Indian Moon probe’s failure won’t stop an Asian space race that threatens regional security. The Conversation Indonesia. 10 Sept 2019. [cited 2020 Apr 21]. Available from: https://theconversation.com/indian-moon-probes-failure-wont-stop-an-asianspace-race-that-threatens-regional-security-123144 21. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. NASA picks SpaceX, Dynetics and Blue Origin-led team to develop Artemis moon landers. 30 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 03]. Available from: https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-moon-landersspacex-blue-origin-dynetics-selection.html 22. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. Blue Origin probably won’t launch people to space this year. 04 Oct 2019. [cited 2020 May 01]. Available from: https:// www.space.com/blue-origin-fly-people-2020.html 23. Dynetics. [Internet]. dynetics.com. Dynetics to develop NASA’s Artemis human lunar landing system. 30 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 May 01]. Available from: https://www.dynetics.com/newsroom/news/2020/dynetics-to-developnasas-artemis-human-lunar-landing-system 24. Boeing. Boeing in space. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 02]. Available from: https://www.boeing.com/space/

3 Commercial Interests in Outer Space

“Since Yuri Gagarin’s and Al Shepard’s epoch flights in 1961, all space missions have been flown only under large, expensive government efforts. By contrast, our program involves a few dedicated individuals who are focused entirely on making spaceflight affordable.”1 –Burt Rutan (2004) Decades ago, the thought of a private company launching rockets with both manned and unmanned payloads was inconceivable. Today, dozens of companies are developing space vehicles and their associated technologies. Creativity abounds in thinking of new ways to perform required tasks in space. Without restrictive guidelines that sometimes occur with government contracts, these companies feel a new freedom in their initially self-funded efforts to create methods that might prove to be easier and more efficient while using fewer resources. The American space program will benefit from all of these creative efforts. National funding for the United States space program remains tied to the goals of each administration as well as the power of political lobbyists. Interest in space was generated in the private sector through prize money along with a renewed public interest and support for space-related activities. When the shift to private enterprise began, a sector of the scientific community was concerned that the new space ventures could be reckless and might lack the checks and balances that NASA had put in place. In addition, barriers to space enterprise are in place in the form of government regulations that can bog down efforts, increase expenses and delay timelines. So far, the private ventures have brought an incredible variety of new and exciting participants into solving the challenges of our next goals in space.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_3

39

40  Commercial Interests in Outer Space The Commercial Development of Outer Space For decades, NASA has led the American space program. As a government agency, NASA funding has been dependent on government priorities and has experienced periods of increased and reduced support depending on the state of the economy. Over time, a budget cut led to lesser space exploration goals and extended timelines. The breaking point came when it became obvious that there would be no American vehicle to transport American astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) once the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011. In addition, private companies were thinking of outer space as a potential commercial opportunity. Some commercial efforts responded to the need for rockets and vehicles to transport cargo and crews to the ISS and deliver satellites into orbit. Other companies had visions of providing a space tourism industry, creating new technologies to make space transport easier, or exploring new options such as the mining of asteroids. Some of these companies are highlighted in this chapter. In addition, the history of increased private engagement is chronicled here as well as commercial ventures from other countries interested in exploring outer space. Space Contests and Prizes XPRIZE is a non-profit organization that formulates and conducts public competitions that require technological development representing “radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity.” The prize concept was used previously in aviation with Charles Lindbergh winning the second Orteig Prize in 1927, a $25,000 reward offered by a New York hotel owner to the first aviator to fly non-stop from New York to Paris or the reverse. The XPRIZE organization’s high profile trustees include Elon Musk, James Cameron, Arianna Huffington, and others.2 The concept of an incentivized race to achieve a particular set of technological goals inspired the first XPRIZE. In 1996, entrepreneur Peter Diamandis offered a $10 million prize (funded by the Ansari family) to the first privately funded team that could build and fly a three passenger reusable vehicle that could travel 100 km into space twice within 2 weeks. The contest was later titled the Ansari XPRIZE. The prize was awarded in 2004 to Mojave Aerospace Ventures (a company backed by Sir Richard Branson) with their spacecraft SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan.3 Many consider the successful flight of SpaceShipOne as the beginning of a new era for private enterprise commercial options for outer space. Things progressed for Mojave Aerospace Ventures with some success and also setbacks. SpaceShipTwo crashed during a test flight Oct. 31, 2014, killing the copilot and injuring the pilot. It was determined that the accident was due to pilot error.4 Sir Richard Branson was devastated and considered ending the venture. However, the company pulled together and SpaceShipTwo, redesigned and rebuilt, passed a major milestone in

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Development 41 2020 bringing it closer to its eventual goal of taking passengers on short trips to suborbital space. The next great XPRIZE contest, the Google Lunar X Prize, a Moon challenge sponsored by Google Inc. in 2007, offered up to $30 million in an array of prizes. The first private company to launch from Earth, land a robotic rover on the Moon, travel at least 500 meters on the surface, and transmit high definition data and video footage to Earth by end of 2017 would take home $20 million. Bonus prize money would be awarded for various achievements such as length of travel, operating at night, detecting water, and accuracy of landing at a particular location. Five teams have already been awarded money for some of these prizes—Astrobotic (USA), Hakuto (Japan), Indus (India), Moon Express (USA) and Part-Time Scientists (Germany). The international participation is remarkable—all continents are represented except for Africa. Twenty-six teams were still involved in the primary race by the end of 2011. Due to delays associated with technology and competitor financing, the deadline was extended to the end of 2016 to announce a launch date.5 None of the five finalist teams were able to make a launch attempt to reach the Moon by the end of the March, 2018 deadline so the grand prize went unclaimed.6 Another $50 million lunar competition, the O-Prize or American Space Prize, was offered by hotel magnate Robert Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace to the first American team to launch a manned spacecraft into orbit by 2010. The date came and went without a winner. Bigelow Aerospace, however, has been a pioneer in considering space tourism and travel. The company is one of those featured later in this chapter. There are a number of current NASA challenges in the area of space technology which are meant to assist in executing future missions. As an example, the Sample Return Robot Challenge was a five year competition with more than 40 participating teams worldwide competing annually for over a million dollar prize. Other challenges involved demonstrating cubesat (mini-satellites) technologies beyond low-Earth orbit, low cost shelter production using planetary resources, and developing a vehicle to bring samples back from Mars. Additional robotic challenges involve developing humanoid robots that can assist astronauts inside the ISS and other locations in space. NASA intends to form partnerships with private and university organizations that show potential to dramatically improve future robotic capabilities.7 Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Development NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is a multibillion dollar collaboration with private industry to develop the capability to safely launch astronauts to the ISS and other low-Earth destinations. After the Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, there was a significant business opportunity to meet the demand of low cost transport of cargo and humans to the ISS. NASA has always hired outside contractors to build

42  Commercial Interests in Outer Space vehicles or systems to NASA specifications, but now was initiating new ways of performing space business, that is, establish partnerships with corporations that would focus on their own specialties, such as crew vehicles or propulsion, in order to fill the gaps that exist. The result would be greater profits for NASA and increased efficiency. Up until 2010, NASA and the U.S. government did not have any established collaboration with the commercial side of spacecraft development. In mid2010, as the Shuttle program approached its end, the United States released a new National Space Policy that stated that “the U.S. Government will use commercial space products and services in fulfilling government needs…[and will] seek partnerships with the private sector to enable commercial spaceflight capabilities for the transportation of crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station.”8 Commercial crew missions to the ISS will restore America’s manned spaceflight capabilities and increase scientific research of both Earth and outer space. A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry up to four crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo. The spacecraft will remain at the station for up to 210 days, also available as an emergency lifeboat during that time.9 As previously stated, no other means existed for cargo and humans to be transported to low-Earth orbit or to the ISS other than the rockets and spacecraft belonging to other countries, in particular, the Russian transport, a very controversial situation to American astronauts, scientists, and the U.S. government. To address this problem as quickly as possible, a plan was put in place to develop a U.S. commercial crew transportation capability by 2017, although delays have extended the date to 2021. This plan uses commercial partnerships to develop space technology and services while maintaining high NASA standards for safety and reliability. The result was the CCP (see Fig. 3.1).10 Since the implementation of this plan, there has been a boon in the development of space applications of all types—rocket propulsion systems, crew transport vehicles, reusable launch vehicles, life support systems, and satellite delivery mechanisms just to name a few. Early in 2010, NASA awarded $50 million in stimulus money to support five companies in developing technologies for upcoming space missions. The companies would provide matching funds from other sources.11 The companies and their development and accomplishments since that time are: • Sierra Nevada Corp: $20 million for the development of the Dream Chaser lifting body space plane, designed to launch vertically and land on a runway, inspired by NASA lifting body designs. Their vehicle lost out in the competition for NASA’s commercial cargo transport to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp. Despite this setback, the Dream Chaser program publicly offered Dream Chaser vehicles for purchase to the European Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, who had recently expressed interest in them. In addition, a ­remodeled craft entitled the Dream Chaser cargo system will be submitted for the next NASA Commercial Resupply Services contract.12

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Development 43

Fig. 3.1  Diagram of the advances and purposes for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). Image credit: NASA

• Boeing Co: $18 million to develop a spacecraft that is compatible with a variety of launch vehicles. Boeing had extensive experience with the development of systems designed for human use, particularly with the ISS. In April 2011, Boeing was selected for the second round of the crew development program and continued to refine its Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 spacecraft. After a flight error in December, 2019, the CST is working on fixing glaring software issues. The CST-100 is capable of carrying up to seven people or the equivalent space for a combination of humans and cargo.13 • United Launch Alliance (ULA): $6.7 million to develop a launch system for the Boeing CST-100 to the ISS.  ULA represents the joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. • Blue Origin: $3.7 million to develop a new American-built rocket engine, the BE-4, to power the ULA vehicles. The rocket will meet both commercial and military requirements. • Paragon Space Development Corp: $1.4 million to provide environmental controls for commercial human spaceflight systems.14

44  Commercial Interests in Outer Space SpaceX was missing from the awards most likely because funding was earmarked for developing technologies, whereas SpaceX was already much further along in the development of the Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft used to ferry cargo to the ISS. In April 2011, NASA distributed its second group of awards—$269 million to four companies to develop spacecraft to take American astronauts to orbit more quickly and less expensively than humans in the past. Several of the same corporations in addition to SpaceX received further funding to spur on their final development: • Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX): $75 million towards adapting the Falcon 9 rocket and the Dragon capsule for human flight. The vehicles have had a number of successful flight tests since that time and a few setbacks. A detailed account of SpaceX was given earlier. • Sierra Nevada Corp: $80 million to further develop the Dream Chaser, which was not chosen to be in the final group but had several other commercial options—see their story earlier. • Boeing Co: $92.3 million to continue the capsule design. • Blue Origin : $22 million to develop its capsule. NASA awarded over $8 billion by 2015 under various agreements15 including the Space Act Agreements (SAAs) and individual contracts for the development of different aspects of commercial crew transportation. NASA could now focus more on deep space missions while private U.S. companies would develop and operate flights between Earth and the ISS. NASA would have more resources to focus on its future visions of space exploration, leaving the business service of space transport to private enterprise. The result would save money while generating American resources and jobs.16 All of the spacecraft being developed, with the exception of the SpaceX vehicle, needed a launch system. The United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket is still looking as the top choice for this application.17 In 2016, Bigelow Airspace announced a deal to use the Atlas V in launching an expandable habitat into orbit in the 2020-21 timeframe. NASA’s ambitious commercial space program enabled a successful partnership with two American companies to resupply the ISS. A little more than two years after the end of the Space Shuttle program, SpaceX and Orbital ATK began successfully resupplying the space station with cargo launched from the United States. The companies developed the rockets and spacecraft through public-private partnerships under the agency’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, an initiative that aimed to achieve safe, reliable and cost-effective commercial transportation to and from the space station and low-Earth orbit. NASA then awarded Orbital ATK and SpaceX commercial resupply services contracts to deliver at least 20 metric tons of cargo to the orbiting laboratory.

Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Development 45 In September 2014, NASA chose Boeing and SpaceX to receive the final awards to finish the development, testing and certification for their spacecraft and commercial crew transportation services.18 By mid-June 2015, the Senate subcommittee considering the NASA budget approved $900 million (the House version appropriates $1 billion) for the commercial crew program. NASA says that $1.2 billion is needed to keep the program fully funded. This budget reduction would result in launch delays of at least another two years of the first flights of the Boeing and SpaceX capsules, pushing them past 2017, requiring further reliance on Russian spacecraft and rockets. In addition, NASA reports spending $500 million per year having our astronauts ferried per agreements with the Russian space agency.19 The message was heard and the commercial crew program was given over $1 billion in the 2016 budget.20 In May 2016, Boeing announced a delay of the first crewed flight until early 2018 due to technical problems as well as adjustments affecting the program. Once operational, NASA stated, the vehicle would be capable of making two crew launches a year from the United States to the ISS.21 “Once certified by NASA, the Boeing CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon each will be capable of two crew launches to the station per year,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s commercial crew program. “Placing orders for those missions now really sets us up for a sustainable future aboard the International Space Station.”22 In July 2015, NASA identified four of its most experienced astronauts to train to fly orbital flight tests in SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft and Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner (see Fig.  3.2). These astronauts are the first to train for commercial spaceflights that will return launch capabilities to the United States. The first group of astronauts selected, all veterans, are already participating in an intensive training program to prepare for the upcoming launch of the CST-100 spacecraft.23 “These distinguished veteran astronauts are blazing a new trail—a trail that will one day land them in the history books and Americans on the surface of Mars,” said former NASA administrator Charles Bolden.24 In early 2016, NASA awarded its next round of Commercial Resupply Services contracts to continue its partnership with commercial companies for cargo resupply of the ISS. Boeing’s uncrewed version of the CST-100 Starliner was eliminated from the group. SpaceX and Orbital ATK won contracts to continue developing their Dragon and Cygnus vehicles. In addition, Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser was added to the list of commercial cargo resupply vehicles delivering to the ISS.25 In early 2020, NASA was investigating two software issues that arose during Boeing’s test flight of its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft in December, 2019. The Boeing spaceship has been racing against SpaceX in the competition to be first to shuttle astronauts to and from the ISS. During a critical orbital flight test, a clock software error caused the Starliner to initiate a phase of the mission incorrectly, burning 25% more of its fuel leaving it unable leading to dock

46  Commercial Interests in Outer Space

Fig. 3.2  A mock-up of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner is seen as it is prepared for landing tests at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia. Image credit: NASA/Langley Research Center

with the space station. NASA revealed a second software issue fixed in the middle of the test flight, which would have caused a collision. These errors are of great concern and can result in extended delays of future Boeing missions. Starliner spacecraft are launched atop an Atlas V N22 launch vehicle and return on land with airbags on one of four designated sites in the western United States, representing the first American spaceship to return on land rather than water. The first operational mission transporting astronauts aboard the Starliner is scheduled now for 2021.26 SpaceX made advances while Boeing’s problems caused delays. The SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft was launched into space atop the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on May 30, 2020 (see Fig. 3.3). The Demo-2 launch, carrying two NASA astronauts bound for the ISS from the Kennedy Space Center, was the first time that U.S. astronauts were launched from American soil since 2011. Return to Earth was via splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. SpaceX had beaten Boeing and the world watched intently.

Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships… 47

Fig. 3.3  SpaceX Dragon is launched aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on its first astronaut transport to the ISS. (May 30, 2020). Image credit: NASA

 ext Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships N (NextSTEP) Projects The next step for human spaceflight in deep space exploration is the development of capabilities to support longer, more complex missions to destinations such as the region surrounding the Moon, known as cislunar space, and Mars. NASA has been a pioneer in producing advances in space technology. Along this vein, in 2015, NASA sought the expertise of commercial partnerships in order to expand the areas of advanced propulsion, habitation, and small satellites for human exploration of deep space. The program was called The Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP). This type of partnership is meant to boost the U.S. space industry by expanding its space technology capabilities. NextSTEP’s goal is to support the development of 12 technologies that are considered necessary to sustain human presence in the solar system. Designated partners will aim to demonstrate electric propulsion systems with higher specific impulse, greater efficiency, and increased power for long-duration transportation systems. The companies selected were Ad Astra Rocket Company (Webster,Texas) to develop

48  Commercial Interests in Outer Space and test an advanced plasma engine; Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc. (Redmond, Washington) to complete the development of a unit to generate electrical power from a spacecraft’s solar arrays, and MSNW LLC (Redmond, Washington) to develop a thruster for high-power missions.27 The next major requirement for human exploration beyond Earth orbit is a suitable habitat for outer space destinations. The Orion capsule, created as the first step for this mission, will have the capability of supporting a crew of four for 21 days in deep space and returning them safely to Earth. The next requirement is the ability to connect to the Orion capsule, providing a sustainable environment for a crew of four for up to 60 days close to lunar orbit. The awards were given to Bigelow Aerospace LLC (Las Vegas, Nevada) to produce a plan for how its living habitats can be used in multiple missions; Boeing Company (Pasadena, Texas) to develop a low-cost habitat for long-term crew missions; Orbital ATK (Dulles, Virginia) to develop a modular building method utilizing its Cygnus cargo spacecraft; Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (Denver, Colorado) to create designs regarding the systems needed on the Orion spacecraft for the environment of deep space; Dynetics Inc. (Huntsville, Alabama) to remove unfavorable gases such as CO2 from life support modules; Hamilton Sundstrand Space Systems International (Windsor Locks, Connecticut) to create modular electrical systems; Orbital Technologies Corporation (Madison, Wisconsin) to demonstrate a life support system for long-duration human missions. The final major technology requirement is the development of small satellites called Cubesats. CubeSats are a new, low-cost tool for space science missions (see Fig. 3.4). CubeSats will fly on the Space Launch System (if available) during the Orion test flight. The companies selected to develop Cubesats for different applications include Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (Denver, Colorado), Morehead State University (Morehead, Kentucky).28 In August 2016, the participating companies were given approximately 24 months to deliver the results of their research. Promising results include Lockheed Martin’s lunar habitat which is the capsule where astronauts would live in on their way to the Moon and would serve as a template for the prototype Lockheed Martin will use to build a habitat for taking humans to deep space. Another set of NextSTEP proposals were issued in 2016 to advance other research areas. These partnerships will be vital for success in future deep space missions. NASA released a proposal in October 2019 that calls on industry to support the development of commercial space stations. The NextSTEP program encourages commercial investment to support development of low-Earth orbiting facilities separate from the ISS. These facilities are called “free flyers.” The proposal states: NASA seeks to enable multiple privately owned and operated destinations in LEO that are commercially viable in the long term, providing services to the Government as one of many customers,… NASA seeks to potentially transition away from full reliance on the ISS and cost-effectively meet its

Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships… 49

Fig. 3.4  CubeSats fly free after leaving the NanoRacks CubeSat Deployer on the International Space Station (May 17, 2016). Image credit: NASA

long-­term needs in LEO by purchasing services from commercially owned and operated destination(s) that offer a broad portfolio of products and services to both the commercial market and NASA. NASA expects to spend over $500 million through fiscal year 2024 on both the commercial ISS module and the free flyer initiatives. The plan is to commercialize the ISS, which will eventually result in the end of NASA operations in that facility. The ISS has a limited life so a commercial plan is required. Bigelow Aerospace noted that its B330 habitat module in development could be a successful commercial unit if attached to the ISS. It warned that either a commercial module attached to the ISS or a standalone space station requires adequate funding.29

50  Commercial Interests in Outer Space NASA has also solicited help from private companies to build a crewed Artemis lander.30 The human landing system (HLS) awards are under the NextSTEP-2 projects. In April, 2020, NASA selected three U.S. companies to design and develop the HLS, including Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, Dynetics of Huntsville, Alabama, and SpaceX of Hawthorne, California. Each company will refine their lander concepts through the contract period that will end in February, 2021. NASA will evaluate which designs will be developed further. During each phase of development, NASA and its partners will evaluate and determine the final concepts that will be used for future lunar commercial services. NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine stated that “With these contract awards, America is moving forward with the final step needed to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, including the incredible moment when we will see the first woman set foot on the lunar surface,” said “This is the first time since the Apollo era that NASA has direct funding for a human landing system, and now we have companies on contract to do the work for the Artemis program.”31 The Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) One of the most successful entrepreneurs today is Elon Musk, multi-billionaire and currently CEO of SpaceX (Hawthorne, CA) as well as Tesla Motors, and chairman of SolarCity. He founded SpaceX in 2002  in order to design, manufacture, and launch rockets and spacecraft. The ultimate goal of the company is to enable humans to live on other planets. SpaceX has grown from only 160 employees in 2005 to currently over 7000 employees.32 Musk says that he originally founded SpaceX in order to support NASA in building a greenhouse on Mars. However, since there were no immediate plans to go to Mars, he decided to start his own space company.33 His goal was to improve rocket technology and develop his own launch system. His persistence, vision, and long-term success formed the basis of a collaborative effort forged with NASA and through lucrative government contracts. SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch vehicles, with the goal to eventually have those vehicles become completely reusable. They also designed and built the Dragon spacecraft, which is flown into orbit by the Falcon 9 launch vehicle to supply cargo to the ISS (Fig.  3.5). Musk explained that his business strategy is to transport cargo to low-Earth orbit, saving time and money. One of his goals is to decrease the cost per pound of payload to less than $1000, whereas in the past, it was $5000–$10,000 per pound.34 In 2012, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launched the Dragon space capsule as payload to the ISS, making history as the first private company to dock with the ISS and deliver cargo. Since then, the company has made several flights to the ISS for NASA. The company is also interested in the development of reusable rockets.

The Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) 51

Fig. 3.5  NASA astronauts Kate Rubins and Jeff Williams aboard the ISS set to grapple the SpaceX Dragon supply spacecraft carrying nearly 5,000 pounds of supplies and equipment (7/20/2016). Image credit: NASA

Rockets generally only have a one-time use, falling off into the ocean as trash. The Space Shuttle was an exception, with the solid boosters being retrieved and refilled for subsequent flights. Musk’s objective was to add landing legs to the rockets so that they can land on a barge and be reused. “We have to do something dramatic to reduce the cost of getting to space,” Musk said. “If we can get the cost low, we can extend life to another planet. I want to help make humanity a spacefaring civilization.” 35 Musk delivered on his promise landing the first stage of the Falcon 9 rocket back onto a platform out in the ocean (December 15, 2015). Since that time, he has landed multiple stages at the same time onto a platform.36 SpaceX’s milestones include: • The first privately funded liquid-propellant rocket, the Falcon 1, reached orbit (September 28, 2008). • The first privately funded spacecraft, the Dragon, successfully launched, orbited, and recovered (December 9, 2010). • The first private company to send a spacecraft, the Dragon, to the ISS (May 25, 2012). • The first SpaceX satellite delivery into geosynchronous orbit (December 3, 2013).37

52  Commercial Interests in Outer Space • The first landing back on Earth of a first stage of a rocket after launching and sending a payload into orbit (December 21, 2015). After this event, Elon Musk told reporters: “I do think it’s a revolutionary moment. No one has ever brought an orbital class booster back intact. We achieved recovery of the rocket in a mission that also deployed 11 satellites. This is a fundamental step change compared to any other rocket that’s ever flown.” 38 • The first successful launch of a commercial vehicle transporting astronauts to low-Earth orbit since the Space Shuttle flew its last flight in 2011 (May 30, 2020). The road to space for SpaceX has not been without setbacks and failures including numerous launch aborts as well as unsuccessful landings of the Falcon launch systems. In June, 2015, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket exploded on launch, destroying an unmanned Dragon spacecraft carrying food, care packages as well as scientific and electronic equipment and resources for the ISS. The reason for the explosion, a faulty mechanical strut, demonstrated the importance of quality control and multiple backup systems for each piece of a launch system. About 6 months later, in December 2015, the Falcon 9 rocket returned to flight with a successful mission delivering 11 satellites to orbit for their customer Orbcomm. This time, the first stage booster returned to the launch site successfully, rather than to a barge in the ocean.39 In September 2016, the Falcon 9 exploded again, this time during a prelaunch test.40 SpaceX had another successful return to flight in 2017, launching 10 next-generation Iridium telephone satellites. Space operations continue to have ups and downs for the powerhouse company. The massive rocket entitled Falcon Heavy successful launched for the first time in 2018. The Falcon Heavy is the most powerful operational rocket in the world with the ability to lift into orbit more than twice the payload of the next closest operational rocket. More recently, in 2019, the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft was destroyed in a test failure. Although these failures were setbacks to the company, they have not deterred the company’s mission to explore deep space and create a Mars settlement.41 SpaceX successfully launched the the Crew Dragon atop its Falcon 9 rocket transporting two astronauts to the ISS on May 30, 2020. The flight was the first commercial vehicle to deliver astronauts to the space station and also the first American spaceship to launch astronauts since the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011. SpaceX and Blue Origin are among five companies that were selected in November, 2019 in the (Commercial Lunar Payload Service (CLPS) competition to deliver payloads to the lunar surface for NASA (see Fig. 3.6). Adding these five new companies to the list makes a total of 14 companies now eligible to bid on taking material to the moon through the CLPS program. SpaceX plans to accomplish this task using the Starship and Super Heavy, the reusable spaceship rocket combination that the company is developing specifically to set up outer space settlements.42 A prototype of SpaceX’s upcoming heavy-lift rocket, Starship,

The Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) 53 exploded on May 29, 2020 during ground tests in south Texas as Elon Musk’s space company pursued an aggressive schedule to fly the launch vehicle for the first time. For now, SpaceX is focusing on their Crew Dragon missions and will return to evaluate the cause of the Starship explosion.

Fig. 3.6 Artist’s concept of a SpaceX commercial lunar lander on the Moon. Image credit: SpaceX

As part of the CLPS program, NASA selected a SpaceX’s lunar optimized Starship as a vehicle to transport supplies and crew between the surface of the Moon and lunar orbit. As part of its Artemis program, the Starship could deliver as much as 100 tons to the lunar surface in one day. SpaceX stated that “a lunar optimized Starship can fly many times between the surface of the Moon and lunar orbit without flaps or heat shielding required for Earth return. With large habitable and storage volume, Starship is capable of delivering significant amounts of cargo for research and to support robust operations on the lunar surface to enable a sustainable Moon base.” The Starship is also capable of transporting paying passengers. A Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa has already booked a trip around the Moon with some of his friends (2023).”43 In addition to collaborating with NASA, SpaceX and Elon Musk have lofty visions of colonizing Mars and establishing a sustainable settlement. The Starship vehicle carried by the Super Heavy rocket is designed to transport about 100 people. His goal has always been to cut the cost of spaceflight by using reusable vehicles. This plan includes building up to 100 Starships per year which makes the Mars settlement supported by fleets of Starships an achievable reality. The Super Heavy rocket will launch the Starships from Earth which will then be capable of launching to further destinations from the Moon or Mars.44

54  Commercial Interests in Outer Space One of Elon Musk’s latest venture is to establish a broadband internet service beamed from satellites in low-Earth orbit. SpaceX’s internet service (Starlink) will consist of thousands of satellites grouped over highly populated areas to ensure adequate coverage as well as providing internet access to less populated and poorer regions. The service is expected to be offered at a substantially lower cost and faster speeds, comparable to 5G. So far, SpaceX has launched hundreds of Starlink satellites into space with thousands more in the upcoming years. The test version is expected to be available by end of 2020. The plan is to make the service available to the public and to investors.45 There is concern in the technical community that SpaceX’s thousands of small satellites orbiting Earth will be problematic, eventually contributing to the already thousands of pieces of space junk which orbit the Earth (see Chapter 7 for an expanded discussion of space debris). Each chunk of space debris is traveling at extremely high speeds, and, like a bullet, can damage or destroy other spacecraft, satellites, and even a space station. The FAA, not NASA, is responsible for launching in a clear window, with no collisions but is not involved in the approval of large constellations of satellites. After an object is launched, the U.S.  Space Surveillance monitors the enormous catalog of objects orbiting Earth down to the size of a baseball. Federal law only issues warnings. “Corporations should work closely with NASA, the U.S. Air Force, the FAA, and other satellite stakeholders to minimize collision risk to include planning for speedy disposal of the satellites when they reach end of life,” the FAA spokesperson told The Daily Beast. “We would also recommend that each satellite have a propulsion system to actively avoid a potential collision.” SpaceX insists it will de-orbit old satellites as they age, but contact was lost with three of the first 60 satellites from its first Starlink launch. They will continue to circle Earth until gravity eventually drags them down into the atmosphere to burn up which could take years. We are also years away from any company that can provide space services to remove space debris.46 Sierra Nevada Corporation Development of Dream Chaser In January 2016, NASA awarded Commercial Resupply Services contracts to Orbital ATK, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) for its Dream Chaser spacecraft. The Dream Chaser will enable spacecraft reusability and runway landings for U.S. cargo delivery and access to the ISS through 2024. “SNC is honored to be selected by NASA for this critical U.S. program,” said Ereb Ozmen, chairwoman of Sierra Nevada Corporation. “In such a major competition, we are truly humbled by the show of confidence in SNC and look forward

Sierra Nevada Corporation Development of Dream Chaser 55 to successfully demonstrating the extensive capabilities of the Dream Chaser spacecraft to the world. SNC’s receipt of this award is an American dream come true for all of us.”47 The Dream Chaser, a snub-nosed version of the Space Shuttle, was originally developed by a company named SpaceDev which had expertise in electronics, avionics and communications systems. Its design was based on an early NASA shuttle design that was itself based on a Soviet spacecraft (HL-20) that never flew. After agreement with NASA to reuse the design, the company struggled to get funding, and after a series of events, SNC purchased the company in 2008. In 2014, SNC was not awarded a contract in the first round of Commercial Resupply Services. However, after further development, SNC was rewarded with the second round funding for six cargo missions to the ISS by 2024. Dream Chaser has been in development for over a decade and offers a space plane that is in some ways similar to the Space Shuttle—reusable and able to land on a runway (Fig. 3.7). The vehicle is about 30 feet long, 15 feet wide, and approximately 6 feet tall. While smaller than the Space Shuttle, the Dream Chaser was designed to hold about the same volume. The structure is the most advanced high-temperature all-composite spaceframe ever built (designed by Sierra Nevada and built by Lockheed Martin).48

Fig. 3.7  Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Dream Chaser spacecraft shown on the runway at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center preparing for a tow-test (May 20, 2017). Image credit: NASA

56  Commercial Interests in Outer Space SNC is on schedule for a 2021 launch debut of the robotic Dream Chaser space plane, while looking ahead to the Moon under NASA’s Artemis program. At least six orbiting flights to the space station will be launched on the new United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur rocket (Fig. 3.8). Dream Chaser will become the next unmanned cargo vehicle to ferry supplies to ISS joining the Northrop Grumman’s Cygnus spacecraft, SpaceX’s Cargo Dragon, Russia’s Progress spacecraft and Japan’s HTV ship, all of which currently do the job. Dream Chaser was originally designed to carry humans, but its first delivery will be a cargo resupply mission to the ISS.49

Fig. 3.8  Artist concept of the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser spacecraft and cargo module attached to the ISS. Image credit: NASA

The Dream Chaser cargo system includes several features that make it adaptable for multiple types of missions and delivery systems. Being reusable, it lowers costs and makes a quick turnaround possible for its next mission. A low-g re-entry and pressurized cargo capability allows sensitive payloads to return to Earth safely and quickly for studying microgravity experimental subjects. Other features include a folding wing that allows the spacecraft to fit inside a variety of rockets. It will be launched vertically on an Atlas 5 rocket and, upon return, land at the Kennedy Space Center’s Shuttle Landing Facility. The Dream Chaser is also approved to land at Huntsville International Airport in Alabama while working on approvals for additional landing sites.50

Blue Origin 57 Sierra Nevada Corporation submitted the Dream Chaser for NASA’s Commercial Crew program. The agency awarded SpaceX and Boeing with contracts to ferry astronauts to the station. While the Dream Chaser was left out, SNC said the cargo version of the Dream Chaser could one day also ferry up to seven astronauts to an orbiting complex if NASA or another customer is interested.51 SNC has participated in robotic planetary exploration for decades, building subsystems for more than 450 missions including 14 missions to Mars. The SNC contributions to the Mars 2020 rover include components for the coring drill, robotic arm, and landing-system brakes. The company is also supplying equipment for several NASA missions in development, including interplanetary explorations. In November, 2019 SNC was selected as one of five new commercial partners for NASA’s robotic Commercial Lunar Robotic Services (CLPS). Under this program, companies vie for contracts to deliver NASA payloads to the lunar surface, using landers they built themselves. SNC’s lander concept is pretty far along in development, and the company is also working on another proposal for a human landing system. SNC has partnered with Dynetics to work on a project for NASA’s Human Landing System program.52 Blue Origin The Kent, Washington-based aerospace manufacturer Blue Origin was founded in the year 2000 by another successful billionaire entrepeneur Jeff Bezos (founder and CEO of Amazon) with a passion for space exploration. He is interested in creating long-term options for human survival. The company is developing technologies to provide sub-orbital spaceflight services with the aim to dramatically lower costs and increase reliability. Blue Origin is planning to systematically move from sub-orbital to orbital flight, building on the success of each previous step. The company motto is Gradatim Ferociter, Latin for “Step by Step, Ferociously.” The mission statement is, “we’re committed to building a road to space so our children can build the future.” 53 Blue Origin sees the future of mankind as a road to space, made possible through the development of spaceships and landers including the New Sheperd, New Glenn and Blue Moon, names that pay omage to Alan Shepard and John Glenn. The New Glenn, a heavy-lift orbital rocket with a reusable first stage, is expected to fly in 2021 and will be available for commercial and government applications. Blue Origin also plans a Moon flight program called Blue Moon, which would take place further in the future. NASA awarded Blue Origin with more than $25 million in contracts for the Commercial Crew Development program, however, NASA chose SpaceX’s Dragon and Boeing’s CST-100 spacecraft to go forward. The company also had its

58  Commercial Interests in Outer Space first major setback in 2011, when a development vehicle failed at around 45,000 feet in altitude during a flight test. The New Shepard spaceship flies suborbital and includes a crew capsule for customers in the future. A date for paying flights hasn’t been released yet, but the tourist adventure will be only a few minutes long, with space passengers weightless for about four minutes. The view will be back to Earth from over 300,000 feet (91,500 meters) before the spacecraft re-enters the atmosphere for a safe landing on Earth. New Shepard has made several test launches (see Fig. 3.9). In December, 2017, the vehicle took a mannequin called Skywalker (named after a Star Wars character) into space along with several experiments that generated revenue. Blue Origin may be best known as being the first to land a reusable rocket back onto a landing pad. On Nov. 23, 2015, New Shepard flew just past the boundary of space (62.4 miles, or 100.5 kilometers). The rocket and vehicle separated but instead of falling back to Earth, it moved toward a landing pad, softly touching down with the help of its engines.

Fig. 3.9  Blue Origin’s New Shepard booster rocket returns to its West Texas launch pad on Dec. 12, 2017 after testing the Evolved Medical Microgravity Suction. Image credit: NASA

Bigelow Aerospace Inflatable Habitats 59 “Rockets have always been expendable. Not anymore,” said Bezos on the company website blog. “Now safely tucked away at our launch site in West Texas is the rarest of beasts, a used rocket. This flight validates our vehicle architecture and design.”54 NASA selected Blue Origin, Dynetics and SpaceX to continue the development of human-rated lunar landers, committing nearly $1 billion in funding for a range of concepts. Blue Origin’s contract is valued at $579 million but only covers the first phase of development. Each commercial contractor team is expected to provide private funding to support lunar lander design and development.55 Blue Origin has some catching up to do with SpaceX but the competition is on with aggressive schedules for vehicle development. However, it is certain that the company is working methodically on advancing their goals to advance human space exploration. Bigelow Aerospace Inflatable Habitats Bigelow Aerospace is a Las Vegas company owned by Robert Bigelow, a real estate investor and space entrepreneur. He earned his fortune in the hotel business (Budget Suites) and is interested in extending tourism into outer space, focusing on inflatable space station modules as a starting point. Bigelow has visions for orbiting space stations and a Moon base. He currently has two inflatable prototype modules in orbit—Genesis 1 (launched 2006) and Genesis 2 (launched 2007). NASA awarded a $17.8 million contract to Bigelow in 2013 to design and manufacture the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM). The module was transported to orbit aboard a SpaceX Dragon Capsule and then attached to the International Space Station in 2016. Figure 3.10 illustrates the module expansion after attachment to the ISS.  NASA has observed how it has functioned and responded to the stresses of outer space, including strength, radiation, and temperature. So far, the BEAM has performed well and it will remain attached to the station at least through 2020.56 B330 is a much larger inflatable habitat. As an independent space station, B330 will have its own life-support and propulsion systems and will be capable of supporting a crew of four in orbit, such as attached to the ISS, or in deep space. It is 14 meters long, and almost 7 meters in diameter when fully inflated. Its launch mass will be 20,000 kg, requiring a heavy lift vehicle to carry it out into a lunar orbit. The internal volume is about a third of the ISS at 330 cubic meters, impressive for a single launch (see Fig.  3.11). Bigelow hopes that the B330 will be selected for use on the upcoming Lunar Gateway, part of the Artemis program which intends to put astronauts on the moon by 2024. The Lunar Gateway will be a stepping stone to Mars and could be just the beginning for Bigelow habitats assuming the module passes NASA’s tests.57

60  Commercial Interests in Outer Space

Fig. 3.10  The Bigelow Module Expansion Steps after Attachment to the ISS.  Image credit: NASA TV

Bigelow and United Launch Alliance (ULA) announced that they intend to send their own inflatable habitat, called the Lunar Depot, to lunar orbit by 2022. The habitat would be a destination for visitors to visit the Moon and would include

Fig. 3.11  An illustration of the inside of Bigelow Aerospace’s B330 space station (2016). The company says it will be ready for lunar orbit by 2022. Image credit: Business Insider

Reflections on Commercial Interests in Outer Space 61 both a laboratory and a hotel. The B330 Expandable Module would be launched by a ULA Vulcan 562 rocket.58 In October 2019, NASA administrator Charles Bolden expressed disappointment that the company hadn’t done enough to support the funding of commercial enterprises. However, Bigelow has spent over $350 million out of its own pocket to pursue the development of commercial facilities over the past 20 years, including pursuing business cases relative to using the ISS. Bigelow discovered that ISS is a stepping stone to other orbiting stations, but is handicapped from a business perspective. It was pointed out that if a B330 is attached to the American side of the ISS (which is only about 420 cubic meters), there is a terrific business opportunity from the resulting combination of both. Bigelow warned that this type of asset requires proper funding. Reflections on Commercial Interests in Outer Space The way that America explores outer space has completely changed. Decades ago, when NASA was in the Space Race to the Moon with the Soviet Union, space business was only conducted in one way. Government interests prioritized funding for NASA to pursue missions that were agreed upon according to the administration and requests from the scientific community. NASA would set out to accomplish the goals and provide funding to winning bidder contractors to fulfill the missions. NASA provided complete overseeing of the projects, including safety, quality control, and system integration. Then the process completely changed. After a series of budget downturns, NASA looked for other ways to conduct business instead of being responsible for entire projects including all of the supporting contractors. NASA looked to private business to develop technology and vehicles to fulfill desired missions. Contracts started small, including a series of prizes for developing vehicles and technology. Over the past 10 years, proposals were submitted to private enterprise for bidding on whole arrays of missions and needed technology, vehicles, and propulsion. The result has been an incredible transformation and exciting rebirth of space exploration by American private enterprise. Additional commercial enterprises have focused on their own interests for profit, identifying other needs required for deep space exploration. There are a myriad of private ventures willing to explore outer space for profit. The new method of NASA doing business culminated in the SpaceX flight on May 30, 2020 which took American astronauts back into space after nine long years. SpaceX was the primary focus, taking charge with NASA as a back seat partner. It was the beginning of a new era with excitement and adventure for the future.

62  Commercial Interests in Outer Space Notes 1. David, Leonard. [Internet]. cnn.com. Private spacecraft blast offs June 21. 02 June 2001. [cited 2016 Apr 26]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ TECH/space/06/02/private.space/ 2. Shivapriya, N. All for a good cause XPRIZE can help solve big problems: Peter Diamandis. Economic Times (E-paper edition). 12 Dec 2014. 3. Hudgins, Edward. Signals from SpaceShipOne. Washington Times. 06 Oct 2004. A14. 4. Harwell, Drew & Brenner, Glenn. Spacecraft crash shows test-pilot dangers. The Washington Post. 06 Nov 2014. A20. 5. Yeld J. 26 teams in race to reach moon first and strike it rich. The Argus. 2011 Oct 05; Sect. 4. 6. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. Ex-Prize: Google’s $30 million Moon race ends with no winner. 23 Jan 2018. [cited 2020 May 03]. https://www.space. com/39467-google-lunar-xprize-moon-race-ends.html 7. Staff. [Internet]. spaceprizes.blogsplot.com. Centennial challenges in NASA FY 2016 budget estimates. 03 Feb 2015. [cited 2020 May 03]. Available from: https://spaceprizes.blogspot.com/ 8. Federal Aviation Administration. 2011 U.S.  Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies, and Spaceports. 9. NASA.gov. [Internet]. NASA orders second Boeing crew mission to international space station. NASA.gov Release 15-240; Dec. 18, 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orderssecond-boeing-crew-mission-to-international-space-station 10. Progressive Media—Company News. NASA’s CCiCap programme completes first milestone. 27 Aug 2012. 11. Clark, Stephen. NASA selects winners of first commercial crew contest. Spaceflight Now. 02 Feb 2010. 12. Keeney L. 2014 was the year of Colorado space exploration. Denver Post. 28 Dec 2014. 13. PR Newswire. Boeing selected for 2nd round of NASA commercial crew development. 18 Apr 2011. 14. Clark, Stephen. NASA selects winners of first commercial crew contest. Spaceflight Now. 02 Feb 2010. 15. NASA.gov. [Internet]. NASA.gov. Commercial crew program—the essentials. [cited 2016 Mar 23]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/content/ commercial-crew-program-the-essentials/#.VvMWQuIrK70 16. Anderson, Chris. Nov 2013. Rethinking public-private space travel. Space Policy. 29:4:266–271.

Reflections on Commercial Interests in Outer Space 63 17. Chang, Kenneth. NASA awards $269 million for private projects: [national desk]. The New York Times. 19 Apr 2011: A.13. 18. Science committee democrats congratulate Boeing and SpaceX on NASA’s commercial crew development awards. Targeted News Service. 16 Sep 2014. 19. Clark, Stephen. Commercial crew spaceships face likely delays. Spaceflight Now. 10 June 2015. 20. Grush, Loren. Congress wants to give NASA $19.3 billion next year, even more than Obama asked for. The Verge. 16 Dec 2015. [Internet] [cited 2016 Jan 21]. Available from: http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/16/10289030/ nasa-budget-increase-2016-congress-funding 21. NASA.gov. NASA ordersSpaceX crew mission to international space station. [Internet] NASA.gov Release 15-240; Dec. 18, 2015 [Internet] NASA.gov Release 15-240; Dec. 18, 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 23]. Available from: http:// www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-spacex-crew-mission-to-internationalspace-station 22. NASA.gov. [Internet]. NASA.gov. NASA orders second Boeing crew mission to international space station. Release 15-240; Dec. 18, 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orderssecond-boeing-crew-mission-to-international-space-station 23. NASA.gov. [Internet]. NASA selects astronauts for first U.S. commercial spaceflights. NASA.gov Release 15-148; Jul. 9, 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-astronautsfor-first-us-commercial-spaceflights-0 24. NASA picks four astronauts to fly first commercial space mission. Shanghai Daily. 2015 Jul 10. 25. Gebhardt, Chris and Bergin, Chris. [Internet]. Nasaspaceflight.com. NASA awards CRS2 contracts to SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra Nevada. Jan. 14, 2016 [cited 2016 Mar 21]. Available from: https://www.nasaspaceflight. com/2016/01/nasa-awards-crs2-spacex-orbital-atk-sierra-nevada/ 26. Bachman, Justin. [Internet]. Bloomberg.com. NASA faults Boeing for ‘critical software defects’ in Starliner. 07 Feb 2020. [cited 2020 May 02]. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-07/ nasa-lashes-boeing-for-starliner-software-flaws-in-test-flight 27. Verma, Pragati. [Internet]. fossbytes.com. NASA going for deep space exploration with NextSTEP. 04 Apr 2015. [cited 2020 May 05]. Available from: https://fossbytes.com/nasa-deep-space-exploration-with-nextstep/ 28. NASA.gov. [Internet]. Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Projects. 05 May 2015. [cited 2020 May 05]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/next-space-technologies-for-explorationpartnerships-nextstep-projects 29. Foust, Jeff. [Internet]. spacenews.com. NASA looks to support development of commercial space stations. 08 Oct 2019. [cited 2020 May 02]. Available

64  Commercial Interests in Outer Space from:https://spacenews.com/nasa-looks-to-support-development-ofcommercial-space-stations/ 30. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. SpaceX’s Starship may start flying Moon missions in 2022. 19 Nov 2019. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https:// www.space.com/spacex-starship-moon-missions-2022.html 31. NASA. [Internet]. scitechdaily.com. NASA selects SpaceX and two other companies to develop human landers for Artemis Moon missions. 19 May 2020. [cited 2020 May 30]. Available from: https://scitechdaily.com/ nasa-selects-spacex-and-two-other-companies-to-develop-human-landersfor-artemis-moon-missions/ 32. SpaceX.com. [Internet]. spaceX.com. SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. ©2020. [cited 2020 Apr 02]. Available from: https://www.spaceX.com 33. Zhou, Jonathan. [Internet]. theepochtimes.com. Elon Musk only wanted a greenhouse on Mars but ended up building rockets instead. 20 May 2015. [cited 2020 May 30]. Available from:https://www.theepochtimes.com/thelife-death-elon-musk-first-attempt-mars_1363759.html 34. Buildtheenterprise.org. [Internet]. SpaceX-breaking the $1000 per pound launch cost barrier. 27 May 2013. [cited 2020 May 31] https://www.buildtheenterprise.org/spacex-breaking-the-1000-per-pound-launch-cost-barrier/ 35. Lee, Rhodi. SpaceX milestones: how Elon Musk brought a company to the forefront of spaceflight. Tech Times. 26 May 2015. 36. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. SpaceX lands orbital rocket successfully in historic first. 22 Dec 2015. [cited 2020 May 02]. Available from: https://www. space.com/31420-spacex-rocket-landing-success.html 37. Lee, Rhodi. SpaceX milestones: how Elon Musk brought a company to the forefront of spaceflight. Tech Times. 26 May 2015. 38. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. Wow! SpaceX lands orbital rocket successfully in historic first. 21 Dec 2015. [cited 2016 Jan 21]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/31420-spacex-rocket-landing-success.html 39. SpaceX conducts return-to-flight launch, rocket lands on ground. Cihan News Agency. 22 Dec 2015. 40. Davenport, Christian. Explostions cited in space launch fight. The Washington Post. 22 Sept 2016. 41. Harwood, William. [Internet]. cbsnews.com. SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft destroyed in test mishap, company confirms. 02 May 2019. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-crew-dragonspacecraft-destroyed-test-mishap-company-confirms-today-2019-05-02/ 42. Etherington, Darrell. [Internet]. techcrunch.com. NASA adds SpaceX, Blue Origin and more to list of companies set to make deliveries to the surface of the Moon.18 Nov 2019. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https://tech-

Reflections on Commercial Interests in Outer Space 65 crunch.com/2019/11/18/nasa-adds-spacex-blue-origin-and-more-to-list-ofcompanies-set-to-make-deliveries-to-the-surface-of-the-moon/ 43. Staff. [Internet]. humanmars.net. NASA selects SpaceX’s lunar optimized Starship for Artemis program. 30 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https://www.humanmars.net/2020/04/nasa-selects-spacexs-lunar-optimized.html 44. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. Elon Musk is still thinking big with SpaceX’s Starship Mars-colonizing rocket. Really big. 18 Jan 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https://www.space.com/elon-musk-starshipspacex-flights-mars-colony.html 45. Reisinger, Don. [Internet]. inc.com. Elon Musk says he’s about to deliver the future of high-speed internet. 07 Feb 2020. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.inc.com/don-reisinger/elon-musk-says-hes-about-todeliver-future-of-high-speed-internet.html 46. Axe, David. [Internet]. thedailybeast.com. The billionaire’s gonzo rocket startup SpaceX plans to launch a staggering 12,000 tiny communications satellites over the next decade-exponentially increasing orbital hazards. 11 Feb 2020 . [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ will-elon-musk-create-an-orbiting-garbage-pile-around-earth 47. Sierra Nevada Corporation Release: [Internet]. sncorp.com. NASA selects Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser spacecraft for commercial resupply services 2 contract. 14 Jan 2016. [cited 2016 Jan 21]. Available from: http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/2754 48. NASA.gov. Commercial crew & cargo. ©2012. [Internet] [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/spacedev/ 49. Thompson, Amy. [Internet]. space.com. Sierra Nevada eyes 2021 launch of Dream Chaser space plane. 16 May 2020. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.space.com/sierra-nevada-dream-chaser-launch-2021.html 50. SNCorp. [Internet]. sncorp.com. Dream Chaser Spacecraft passes another NASA milestone. 21 Mar 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https:// www.sncorp.com/press-releases/snc-dream-chaser-nasa-milestone-5/ 51. Kohler, Judith. [Internet]. denverpost.com. Sierra Nevada’s “Dream Chaser” closer to reality with production of spacecraft starting in earnest. 16 Oct 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/16/ dream-chaser-spacecraft-sierra-nevada-international-space-station-nasa/ 52. Thompson, Amy. [Internet]. space.com. Sierra Nevada eyes 2021 launch of Dream Chaser space plane. 16 Jan 2020. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.space.com/sierra-nevada-dream-chaser-launch-2021.html 53. Blue Origin. [Internet]. Blue Origin mission and vision statement analysis. 11 Sep 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 21]. Available from: https://mission-statement. com/blue-origin/

66  Commercial Interests in Outer Space 54. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. Blue Origin: quiet plans for spaceships. 15 May 2018. [cited 2020 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.space. com/19584-blue-origin-quiet-plans-for-spaceships.html 55. Clark, Stephen. [Internet]. spaceflightnow.com. Blue Origin wins lion’s share of NASA funding for human-rated lunar lander. 30 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/30/blue-originwins-lions-share-of-nasa-funding-for-human-rated-lunar-lander/ 56. Clark, Stephen. [Internet]. spaceflightnow.com. Dragon arrives at space station with inflatable habitat in tow. 10 Apr 2016. [cited 2016 Jun 26]. Available from: https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/04/10/dragon-arrives-at-spacestation-with-inflatable-habitat-in-tow/ 57. Thompson, Amy. [Internet]. observer.com. This inflatable space habitat could house the next astronauts to walk on the moon. 21 Sept 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 23]. https://observer.com/2019/09/nasa-bigelow-b330-space-habitat-lunargateway/ 58. Cain, Fraser. [Internet]. universetoday.com. Bigelow and ULA are sending a habitat to lunar orbit by 2022. 19 Oct 2017. [cited 2020 Feb 23]. Available from: https://www.universetoday.com/137553/bigelow-ula-sending-habitatlunar-orbit-2022/

4 Why Not Go Back to the Moon?

“Well, I don’t think we should go to the Moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there.” –Ron Paul, 2012 1 Going back to the Moon doesn’t seem as interesting for many as traveling to Mars. Humans have never set foot on another planet, and the challenge and intrigue of the Red Planet far exceeds returning to the Moon. NASA’s proposed manned Mars mission includes a preparatory journey to the Moon. The scientific community feels that going back to the Moon and setting up habitats to develop and test techniques for sustainable living would improve chances for success on Mars and is the logical and safer progression than going straight to Mars. Americans have landed on the Moon several times but scientists still know very little about it—its origins, resources below the surface, etc. Arguments can be made to establish a colony nearby Earth where available resources and long-term survival challenges can be studied while still being close enough to Earth in case of emergency or need for supplies. Others feel that focusing on the Moon takes away resources that could be used for developing Mars destination technology. There are experts and logical arguments on both sides of this issue. Finally, there is the political standpoint. Focusing on the Moon would delay a manned mission to Mars, and the thought of being second or third in this effort is not acceptable. Furthermore, if another country such as China is first to set up a manned base on the Moon, the United States could fall behind in key space technology development while feeling discouraged at not being the first to establish a settlement on a celestial body. This chapter provides some of the scientific and political arguments on both sides as well as detailing the progress of missions proposed by the U.S., China, and Russia. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_4

67

68  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? Going Back to the Moon The Moon can be used as a launching platform, making it easier to explore or colonize other celestial bodies in the Solar System. Rockets designed to be launched directly from Earth to Mars for example have to be powerful enough to overcome Earth’s gravity first and then travel the long distance to Mars. The distance to our Moon is approximately 386,000 km (about 240,000 miles) and can be accomplished in about three days. On the other hand, the distance between Earth and Mars varies as the planets travel along their respective orbits. The average distance between the two is 225 million km (about 140 million miles), which would take about 300 days to travel when Mars is at its closest point, 55 million km from Earth. Such a proximity launch only occurs once every two years . This makes a crewed trip to Mars more challenging.2 The NASA Apollo missions to the Moon used multistage rockets that provided enough thrust for lifting heavy payloads off of the surface of Earth. As each stage burns out, it drops off and propels the next stage faster than the previous stage because it is lighter. If you start your journey from the Moon, you only have one-­sixth of Earth’s gravity to escape, which makes the rocket development and ability for longterm flight easier. Rocket design is targeted for certain operating conditions, including the type of atmosphere. Rockets that operate efficiently in outer space with no atmosphere, called a vacuum (which includes the surface of the Moon), are designed differently than those that have to push through Earth’s dense atmosphere. Five countries have sent unmanned spacecraft to the Moon (United States, Soviet Union, Japan, India, and China). The first landing was the Soviet Union’s Luna 2 spacecraft in 1959 (see Fig. 4.1). Several other nations have had unmanned crash landings on the Moon, including Japan, the U.S., French Guiana, China, and India. China has had successful soft landings including China’s Change’4 that landed on the far side of the Moon in 2019. Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to the surface of the Moon (July 20, 1969) (see Fig. 4.2) and following NASA missions brought a total of 12 men from the U.S. to the Moon until 1972.3 Government interest in manned ventures to the Moon dropped off rapidly due to the high cost and risk of the missions. Focus was on the International Space Station (ISS) and the scientific research on the long term effects of life in outer space. Several unmanned exploration missions were launched to explore deep space. Eventually, the public started to focus on trips to Mars but the Moon was seen as an important stepping stone to deep space exploration. The Moon is thought to have resources that could be accessed and mined to build launch platforms. It also makes logical sense to launch rockets from a site with less gravity in order to save fuel and to provide an efficient mechanical servicing facility and international launch site. Mining on the Moon can also lead to the discovery and extraction of materials that could be used for rocket development. It is thought that below the lifeless surface of the Moon, there are minerals and rare elements of national importance. Rare Earth elements are found in Earth’s crust and are used for modern electronics, health care, and national defense

Going Back to the Moon 69

Fig. 4.1  Soviet Luna 2 probe first to crash land on the Moon in 1959. Image credit: NASA

applications. They have unique properties that include greater energy efficiency, durability, and reduced weight. There are only seventeen elements (including scandium, lanthanum, and cerium) that fall in the rare Earth element category and are a valuable commodity among nations that mine them. China is the leader in

70  Why Not Go Back to the Moon?

Fig. 4.2  Apollo 11 lunar module looking back toward Earth from the Moon, 1969. Image credit: NASA

this mining activity, followed by the United States, India, and Australia. China has blocked the export of these elements to Japan to prevent their applications in wind turbine, hybrid care, and defense. As these elements become rarer, there are increasing concerns about the countries that control these resources. It is evident that some of these materials are contained inside of the Moon’s crust similar to Earth’s crust. However, more sophisticated research would have to be conducted to see where the rare elements are concentrated.4 Being close to Earth, the Moon provides a somewhat familiar space environment to test new technologies to be used in a more ambitious trip to Mars. U.S. national space policy changed in 2019 to call for manned missions to Moon before Mars, rather than pursuing the asteroid redirect mission. In a comprehensive review of NASA’s human spaceflight program, the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that NASA’s strategy will be unsuccessful in achieving a Mars

The Politics of Returning to the Moon 71 landing in the near future. The 286-page NRC report, mandated by Congress and published in 2014, reviewed research collected over an 18-month period of time. It states that if NASA stays on its current course with a consistently low budget, it will “invite failure, disillusionment, and the loss of the longstanding international perception that human spaceflight is something the United States does best.” The report supports sending astronauts back to the Moon.5 The Politics of Returning to the Moon The primary reason that the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on the Moon race was to gain political power and prestige during an intense Cold War. Since the last Apollo mission (17) in 1972 (Fig. 4.3), several missions from other

Fig. 4.3  Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 lunar module pilot uses a sampling scoop to retrieve materials. Image credit: NASA

72  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? countries were sent to the Moon, but only Americans walked on the Moon. The Smart-1, launched by the European Space Agency in 2003 using solar-electric propulsion, employed sophisticated miniaturized instruments to analyze key chemical elements on the lunar surface until its mission ended in 2006. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched Kaguya (Selene) in 2007 to investigate the lunar origin and develop technology for future space technology.6 In mid-1989, on the twentieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, President George H. W. Bush announced plans for the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) (see Fig. 4.4). Plans included the construction of the Space Station Freedom, returning humans to the Moon, and future manned missions to Mars. The study following this announcement resulted in an estimated cost of $500 billion, which was mindboggling even spread over 20–30 years. It was unable to gain congressional support, and President Bush was unable to pull international partners together at this high a cost. The resulting recommendation was that NASA focus on space and Earth science, and manned spaceflight would be addressed project by project. The result was that human exploration beyond Earth’s orbit was dropped, and robotic exploration became the only affordable option for the next several years.7 In 2003, President George W. Bush’s administration boldly proposed that the United States go back to the Moon. The Constellation Moon landing plan never

Fig. 4.4  Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) lunar base concept. Image credit: NASA

The Politics of Returning to the Moon 73 really got off the ground, due to lack of funding and changing political objectives. Some of the NASA budget was diverted to extend the life of the ISS to 2020. Additional portions of the budget focused on the development of spacecraft by private enterprise to ferry astronauts to the space station after the Space Shuttle was retired. When President Obama released his 2011 budget proposal, it was determined that the funds to return to the Moon were insufficient. NASA’s future was left somewhat undefined, with only vague goals defined to send humans beyond Earth’s orbit but with no specific timelines.8 The general consensus in early 2016 is that we’ve already visited the Moon (six Apollo missions with 12 men walking on the surface of the Moon) and that it’s time to travel beyond to discover new worlds. However, many experts think that we should return to the Moon to explore new territories and establish and test new technologies required for deep space travel and colonization. Both the Moon and Mars have similar gravities, atmospheres, and temperatures. A Moon colony could provide a scientific testing center using current technology to travel, land, set up living quarters, and test sustainable habitats with less risk than travel to Mars. Former NASA flight director George W. S. Abbey says, “You’re not going to go to Mars before going back to the Moon. You need to establish a goal to go to the Moon and do that first and have a program laid out for an effective way to do it, but they’re not doing that right now and I think that’s really key to exploration.”9 In an age of budget constraints combined with instant gratification, public support is more in line with travel to Mars than making preparations for a station on the Moon in order to prepare for an upcoming mission to Mars. NASA and U.S. policy is focused on establishing a strategic presence on the Moon in order to reinforce American leadership in space. In addition, the Moon venture would broaden commercial and international partnerships while expanding U.S. global economic impact. Given limited resources for the foreseeable future and the expense of manned missions, the choices of what and where to explore have to be prioritized.10 Thus far, the Moon is seen as a more favorable destination by our international partners. Over 45 years after the United States won the space race to the Moon against the Soviet Union, when asked about NASA’s plans to return to the Moon, Charles Bolden (then NASA Administrator and former astronaut) made it clear that NASA had no plans to have a human return to the Moon. “NASA will not take the lead on a human lunar mission,” he said. “NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.” Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done.”11 There seemed to be a distinct difference in goals between U.S. space policy and other countries interested in setting up platforms and doing research on the Moon. Because international collaboration is important, it is useful to examine the disconnect in policies. Most industrialized nations have extensive lunar plans except

74  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? for the United States. In 2010, President Obama canceled NASA’s plans to return to the Moon in lieu of the Asteroid Redirect Mission, a precursor to travel to Mars.12 The biggest reason for the focus on the Moon by nations other than the United States is cost. A manned mission to Mars requires a heavy-lift rocket with sophisticated technology to travel to the planet and return safely. This type of mission required a long-term commitment and a tolerance for risk from an international economy that has been stagnant or growing slowly. In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Space Policy Directive 1, which made a crewed lunar return the official policy of the United States. It also directs NASA to use the Moon as a base for eventual human missions to Mars and other deep-space destinations. In March 2019, Vice President Pence announced that the U.S. was again in a space race, currently with China and Russia, and would return astronauts to the Moon by 2024. The nation had previously been targeting a 2028 lunar touchdown, but “that’s just not good enough,” Pence said during the fifth meeting of the National Space Council (NSC), which he chairs. So, it is now the official policy of the United States to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon by 2024 and the United States is committed to stay, Pence added. The nation’s next goal involves establishing a permanent base on the lunar surface “and developing the technologies to take American astronauts to Mars and beyond.” 13 The Moon base will likely be built near its south pole, a region where large amounts of ice water exists on the crater floors. The vice president acknowledged the aggressiveness of the 2024 timeline but stressed that it was achievable, citing the successful Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969, just 12 years after the Space Age started. However, cost is an important factor, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic in 2020. The use of commercial rockets are an option if NASA’s mega rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), isn’t ready. No matter what, it will be a challenging task to accomplish by 2024. NASA’s SLS will provide a heavy-lift launch capability built to human safety standards in order to transport both people and cargo to the Moon and on to Mars. The rocket is capable of launching payloads farther and faster than ever before. Managed out of Huntsville, Alabama, Boeing is the prime contractor for the design, development, and production of the launch vehicle core stage and the flight avionics suite. The first test flight, Artemis I, will carry an uncrewed Orion space capsule to the Moon to test the performance of the integrated system. It is expected to launch by late 2021 (see Fig. 4.5).14 NASA is now committed to landing the first American woman with a man on the Moon by 2024. In 2019, the lunar exploration program was named Artemis after the Greek goddess of the Moon, twin sister to Apollo, the name of the program that first brought humans to the lunar surface over 50 years ago. The goal of NASA’s Artemis program is to place astronauts on the lunar surface once more and develop an ongoing presence there (see Fig. 4.6).15

The Politics of Returning to the Moon 75

Fig. 4.5  Artist concept of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) Block 1 on the launchpad. Image credit: NASA/MSFC

76  Why Not Go Back to the Moon?

Fig. 4.6  Artist’s concept of a future moon landing carried out under NASA’’s newly named Artemis program. Image credit: NASA

NASA’s current plans include the construction of Gateway, a small space station orbiting the Moon, which is meant to be a point of departure for robotic and crew sorties to the lunar surface and back to Earth. In order for the lunar landing to occur by the 2024 date, the Gateway assembly is scheduled to begin in 2022. Another key piece of NASA’s lunar mission is the Orion crew capsule, which has completed a round of full integration environmental testing by March, 2020. Orion has one spaceflight under its belt—a successful uncrewed test mission to Earth orbit in December 2014, launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket.16 The Orion will dock with the Gateway, transporting astronauts and supplies back and forth to Earth and the Moon (Fig. 4.7). Designed to be flexible for launching spacecraft for crew and cargo missions, the SLS and Orion will expand human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. Currently, the space agencies of China, Japan, Europe, Russia, Iran, along with a few private companies are interested in sending humans to the Moon, some as early as 2025. Some plans are vague, but others are more specific, such as building bases, mining resources, and studying the surface in scientific detail. Several nations plan on sending robotic missions to the Moon. China put a robotic rover on the Moon in 2013, becoming the first nation to successfully make a soft landing there in over 40 years. In January of 2019, China became the first country to land a probe on the dark side of the Moon.17 Europe, Japan, India, Russia, North and South Korea and several private companies hope to follow in the near future with lunar explorations.

The Politics of Returning to the Moon 77

Fig. 4.7  Illustration of the Orion capsule approaching the Gateway. Image credit: NASA

China has the most ambitious space program, with plans to land humans on the Moon sometime in the 2030s in preparation for establishing a Moon colony. In order to make that a reality, China will need to develop a powerful rocket and more advanced technology. Advancing China’s space program seems to be a priority for the Chinese government, and currently President Xi Jinping is pushing to establish China as a space power. Although insisting the program’s goals are peaceful, the United States is cautious looking at some of China’s demonstrated capabilities to prevent space-based assets from operating in a crisis. The U.S. Congress has banned NASA from cooperating with the Chinese for common space goals due to possible espionage, although China has indicated that they want to partner with the United States on space missions.18 China plans to construct a permanent operating space station that will orbit the Earth and be completed in a couple of years time. The first habitable module is scheduled to be launched in 2020. The Chinese focus is primarily on the Moon, although it also plans to launch a probe to Mars in 2020.19 Wu Weiren, chief designer of China’s missions to the Moon and Mars, told the BBC the following: “Our long-term goal is to explore, land, and settle [on the Moon]. We want a manned lunar landing to stay for longer periods and establish a research base.” He also spoke on partnering with the United States: “We would like to cooperate with the U.S., especially for space and Moon exploration,” he said. “We have urged the U.S. many times to get rid of restrictions so scientists from both countries can work together on future exploration.” Buzz Aldrin (retired Apollo astronaut) predicts that the United States will start working with China soon. “I think we will be organizing the other three—Russia, Europe, Japan—so that they will be cooperating and coming along soon after China, because we’re helping all of them,” he said.20

78  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? Russia plans to put cosmonauts on the surface of the Moon by 2030. This is an ambitious schedule for this country considering the financial and technical challenges. If the plan holds true, it would set up a race to the Moon between the U.S., China, and Russia. The leader of Russia’s space corporation, Dmitry Rogozin, gave a speech at Moscow University in May 2019 describing Roscosmos activities and a potential lunar landing in the future. Under Rogozin’s plan, the country will develop a heavy booster named Block 1B that is equivalent to NASA’s Space Launch System. Other developments will lead to crew flights to lunar orbit with a landing in 2030. Rogozin did not think there was much potential for the industrialization of the Moon, a key component to both the U.S. and China programs. Instead, he stated that the lunar station would be a first defense against comets and asteroids. It will be interesting to follow the Russian space ventures.21 NASA has altered its priorities about the Moon in order to succeed in its long-­ term vision of sending humans to Mars. For many scientists, it makes sense to develop a Moon base, test mining practices and set up commercial contracts and delivery methods for private enterprise in preparation for future activities and possible colonization in deep space. A country such as China setting up an extensive Moon base brings up Cold War feelings. The same type of political jockeying for position and control that happens on Earth has begun in space. As this new age of exploration begins, it will be important to define international space policy and further define the details of the Outer Space Treaty. All this being said, NASA has reinforced its commitment and readiness for the upcoming manned missions to Mars. In September 2015, Bolden stated that NASA’s goal of getting astronauts to Mars by the 2030s is totally achievable. “We are farther down the path to sending humans to Mars than at any point in NASA’s history,” he said in a NASA headquarters meeting on manned Mars plans. “We have a lot of work to do to get humans to Mars, but we’ll get there.”22 Commercial Interests in Returning to the Moon There are commercial interests in returning to the Moon. In general, private enterprise is motivated by the commercial aspect of space travel rather than the science of exploration. However, some companies have joined with NASA to provide technology and vehicles to fulfill U.S. goals, a partnership that satisfies the needs of both entities. A program initiated by NASA early in 2014, called the Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) Initiative, sought private companies to develop reliable and cost-effective delivery of payloads to the Moon’s surface through the use of robotic landers. NASA provided the winners of the competition with scientific support, facilities, and technology rather than funding to support commercial activities. The three U.S. finalists selected were Astrobotic Technology of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Masten Space Systems Inc. of Mojave, California, and Moon Express Inc. of Cape Canaveral, Florida. 23 The purpose of this effort was to encourage the development

Commercial Interests in Returning to the Moon 79 of robotic lunar landers that can be integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities and deliver payloads to the lunar surface. Commercial capabilities can support activities on the Moon such as managing lunar sample returns and applying new technology to assist in resource mining and other ventures. “NASA is making advances to push the boundaries of human exploration farther into the solar system, and continues to spur development in the commercial space sector,” said Jason Crusan, director of the Advanced Exploration System division at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Robotic missions to the moon have revealed the existence of local resources including oxygen and water that may be highly valuable for exploration of the solar system. The potential to use the lunar surface in partnership with our international and commercial partners may allow these resources to be characterized and used to enable future exploration and pioneering.”24 Developing navigation and hazard avoidance for a self-landing, rocket-­powered spacecraft on Earth is challenging, due to the need to test in the same operating conditions that the system would encounter in a planetary landing. Astrobotic and Masten companies collaborated on the technology that enabled a successful test flight without prior knowledge of exactly where the rocket would choose to land. Astrobotic’s Auto Landing System scanned the landscape and selected a safe landing point. Masten’s onboard flight system received input from the Astrobotic vision and navigation system, validated the input, and accepted the selection of a path to the touchdown point. The flexible architecture enables more choices for future landings on the Moon.25 Moon Express’s commercial efforts are focusing on mining the lunar surface. In the near future, Moon Express will be exploring the Moon for the potential of mining precious materials needed on Earth, with the goal of returning lunar samples to Earth for science and commercial purposes. Related to the Catalyst Initiative, astronaut and Moon walker Buzz Aldrin is supportive of the United States helping other nations travel in space: “Let’s try doing something that doesn’t compete with prestige-seeking nations sending their citizens to kick up dust on the Moon,” Aldrin said during a Google Hangout with Space.com in July 2014. “The United States should help other nations by placing robotic probes on the Moon that can be used to explore and aid other nations’ lunar ambitions,” Aldrin added.26 NASA has also solicited help from private companies to build a crewed Artemis lander.27 With NASA’s plans changed to returning to the Moon first before going to Mars, a series of proposals were submitted to solicit companies to help with a variety of projects to make the Moon mission a success. As one example, NASA solicited help to build a human landing system (HLS) for the Artemis program. As part of the NextSTEP-2 projects, the HLS awards were given to three U.S. companies in April, 2020, including Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, Dynetics of Huntsville, Alabama, and SpaceX of Hawthorne, California. Each company will refine their lander concepts through the contract period that will end in February, 2021. NASA will evaluate which designs will be developed further.28

80  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? Other commercial interests include mining and drilling on the Moon. President Trump signed an executive order in April 2020 that opens the way for the mining of the Moon without a new international treaty. “Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space,” the order states. In 2015, the U.S. Congress passed a law explicitly allowing American companies to use resources from the Moon and asteroids.The executive order states that the federal government will “require partnership with commercial entities to recover and use resources, including water and certain minerals, in outer space”.29 It remains to be seen what commercial efforts will succeed on the lunar surface but it is clear that the Moon will provide an important testing ground for a lot of new and sophisticated technologies with space applications (see Fig. 4.8).

Fig. 4.8  Illustration of Artemis astronauts on the Moon. Image credit: NASA

Reflections on Returning to the Moon Returning to the Moon will be an exciting venture for NASA. At the same time, other nations are interested in exploring the Moon either with unmanned rovers or setting up a more permanent settlement in a Moon base such as China’s plans. The next race has begun. It is more than an international race. It is a race for the required technology and capabilities for a sustained presence on a celestial body. In addition, it is a testbed for the next journey to Mars. Commercial enterprise is a vital component to the success of these missions. Without a doubt, we are finally returning to the Moon. Decades later, it will be exciting to see how the story unfolds—new technology, spacecraft, sustainable settlements. We will experience an exciting ride into outer space in the next couple of decades, this time with all new players.

Reflections on Returning to the Moon 81 Notes 1. Weinger, Mackenzie & Munsil, Leigh. [Internet]. politico.com. The 25 best quotes from Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign.14 May 2012. [cited 2020 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.politico.com/gallery/the-25-best-quotes-fromron-pauls-2012-campaign?slide=0 2. Redd, Nola Taylor. [Internet]. space.com. How long does it take to get to Mars? 14 Nov 2017. Space.com. [cited 2020 May 07]. Available from: https://www.space.com/24701-how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars.html 3. worldpopulationreview. [Internet] Countries that have landed on the moon 2020. [cited 2020 Apr 21]. Available from: https://worldpopulationreview. com/countries/countries-that-have-landed-on-the-moon/ 4. David, Leonard. [Internet]. space.com. Is mining rare minerals on the moon vital to national security? 04 Oct 2010. [cited 2016 Apr 02]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/news/moon-mining-rare-elements-security-101004.html 5. Achenbach, Joel. NASA strategy can’t get humans to Mars, says National Research Council spaceflight report. The Washington Post. 05 June 2014. 6. Bilger, Burkhard. Apr 22, 2013. The martian chroniclers—a new era in planetary exploration. The New Yorker. 89:10:64–79. 7. Dick, Steve. [Internet]. nasa.gov. Summary of space exploration initiative. [cited 2016 April 02]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm 8. Mail FS.  Obama scraps new moon mission. 02 Feb 2010. Daily Mail. [London (UK)]: 8. 9. Burks, Robin. [Internet]. techtimes.com. Should we go to the moon before mars? These Astronauts Think So. 07 Jan 2015. [cited 2015 April 22]. Available from: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/24920/20150107/astronauts-think-we-should-go-to-the-moon-before-mars.htm 10. NASA.gov. [Internet]. What is Artemis? 25 Jul 2019. [cited 2020 April 25]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artemis 11. Hedman, Eric. [Internet]. thespacereview.com.The Moon or Mars? The Space Review. 04 Aug 2014. [cited 2015 June 05]. Available from: http:// www.thespacereview.com/article/2737/1 12. Weitering, Hanneke. [Internet]. scienceline.org. NASA opts out of new moon race. 04 Feb 2014. [cited 2015 June 05]. Available from: http://scienceline.org/2015/02/nasa-opts-out-of-new-moon-race/ 13. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. US to return astronauts to the moon by 2024, VP Pence says. 26 Mar 2019. Space.com. [cited 2020 Apr 25]. Available from: https://www.space.com/us-astronauts-moon-return-by-2024.html 14. Foust, Jeff. First SLS launch now expected in second half of 2021. [Internet]. spacenews.com. 02 Mar 2020. [cited 2020 April 25]. Available from: https:// spacenews.com/first-sls-launch-now-expected-in-second-half-of-2021/ 15. NASA.gov. [Internet]. What is Artemis? 25 Jul 2019. [cited 2020 April 25]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artemis

82  Why Not Go Back to the Moon? 16. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. US to return astronauts to the moon by 2024, VP Pence says. 26 Mar 2019. [cited 2016 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.space.com/us-astronauts-moon-return-by-2024.html 17. Reuters.com staff. [Internet]. China to land probe on dark side of the moon in 2018: Xinhua. 15 Jan 2015. Reuters.com. [cited 2016 June 16]. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-moon-science-idUSKCN0UT030 18. Harrington, Rebecca. [Internet]. techinsider.io. China plans to reach Mars by 2020 and eventually build a moon base. 21 Apr 2016. [cited 2016 June 16]. Available from: http://www.techinsider.io/china-plans-mars-moon-landings-2016-4 19. Hong, Ning. [Internet]. space.com. Core module of China’s space station arrives at launch site. 20 Jan 2020. [cited 2016 Apr 23]. Available from: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-20/Core-module-of-China-s-spacestation-now-at-launch-site-NpopX3ujPW/index.html 20. Harrington, Rebecca. [Internet]. techinsider.io. China plans to reach Mars by 2020 and eventually build a moon base. 21 Apr 2016. [cited 2016 June 16]. Available from: http://www.techinsider.io/china-plans-mars-moonlandings-2016-4 21. Berger, Eric. [Internet]. Arstechnica.com. Very difficult times ahead for our space program. 28 May 2019. [cited 2020 May 07]. Available from: https:// arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/how-russia-yes-russia-plans-to-landcosmonauts-on-the-moon-by-2030/ 22. Space.com Staff. [Internet]. A manned mission to Mars is closer to reality than ever. 05 Sep 2015. Space.com. [cited 2015 June 05]. Available from: http://www.space.com/30580-nasa-manned-mars-mission-reality.html 23. NASA selects commercial space partners for collaborative partnerships. U.S. Fed News (USA). 25 Dec 2014. 24. NASA.gov. [Internet]. Lunar Catalyst. 31 Oct 2017. [cited 2020 Apr 26]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst 25. Moon Express, Inc. [Internet] [cited 2016 June 16]. Available from: http:// www.moonexpress.com/missions.html 26. Kramer, Miriam. [Internet]. space.com. The future of moon exploration, lunar colonies and humanity. 21 July 2014. [cited 2015 April 26]. Available from: http://www.space.com/26584-future-of-moon-exploration.html 27. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. SpaceX’s Starship may start flying Moon missions in 2022.19 Nov 2019. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https:// www.space.com/spacex-starship-moon-missions-2022.html 28. NASA. [Internet]. scitechdaily.com. NASA selects SpaceX and two other companies to develop human landers for Artemis Moon missions. 19 May 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 01]. Available from: https://scitechdaily.com/ nasa-selects-spacex-and-two-other-companies-to-develop-human-landersfor-artemis-moon-missions/ 29. Milman, Oliver. [Internet]. theguardian.com. Trump order encourages U.S. to mine the Moon. 07 Apr 2020. [cited 2015 April 26]. Available from: https://www. theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/07/trump-mining-moon-executive-order

5 Going to Mars

By refocusing our space program on Mars for America’s future, we can restore the sense of wonder and adventure in space exploration that we knew in the summer of 1969. We won the Moon race; now it’s time for us to live and work on Mars, first on its moons and then on its surface.1 – Buzz Aldrin (2009) Little green men, the Red Planet, stark but beautiful landscapes… we all have our own images of what Mars looks like and opinions about whether Mars should be the next big step in manned space exploration. Those of us who are lovers and advocates of space travel support confronting the challenges that such a trip would present. Among the supporters are scientists and astronauts who feel that the United States is losing its dominance in space travel, both manned and unmanned. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, believes that America needs strong leadership to inspire the nation to make strides in space travel. “America must be the world leader in human spaceflight,” he said in early 2015. “There is no other area that clearly demonstrates American innovation and enterprise more than human space flight.” He outlined a “unified space vision,” a plan for American space exploration and the colonization of Mars. His focus is to build enthusiasm among the young and old to travel into deep space. As we approached the 50th anniversary of walking on the Moon (July, 2019), he hoped that America would commit to colonizing Mars and continuing scientific research in deep space. “Humans need to explore, push beyond current limits just like we did years ago,” Aldrin said. “Apollo was the story of people at their best, working together for a common goal. We started with a dream, and we can do these kinds of things again. I know it. I’m living proof that it can be done.”

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_5

83

84  Going to Mars Aldrin wants to establish a permanent residence on Mars by 2040, with preliminary missions beginning before 2020. The plan is outlined in his book Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration. The plan is based on a concept called “The Cycler,” a spacecraft that continually travels between Earth and Mars. “People ask me sometimes ‘Why do we need to go to Mars?’” Aldrin said. “‘Why do we even need a space program?’ Because by adventuring into space, we improve life for everyone here on Earth. The scientific advancement, the innovations that come from this kind of research, new technology that we use in our daily lives…”2 Others would argue that we might be better off spending our resources on causes more relevant to us here on this planet than on space exploration. The fact is that the NASA budget has only been a flat 0.50% of the entire U.S. federal budget for the past 5 years.3 In addition, some of our most important goals surrounding making life better here on Earth have to do with sustainability, development of transportation that does not rely on fossil fuel, and the use of advanced technologies for medical advancement. These issues could be addressed by deep space exploration and the establishment of a colony on Mars. Some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in the past decades have come from spinoffs of space research. Investment in space brings about benefits for all humankind. Finally, deep space travel and eventually the colonization of Mars will provide options for our survival. If we can spread civilization out throughout the solar system and the universe, we will have a better chance should a disaster strike our planet. A Dangerous High Tech Landing on Mars (August 6, 2012) The pod containing the rover Curiosity approached the Martian atmosphere— which starts about 78 miles above the planet’s surface—with a blazing velocity of 13,000 mph (21,000 km/hour). The atmosphere increased the friction against the spacecraft as it descended toward the surface, resulting in scorchingly high heat (3800 °F or 2100 °C) on the outside of the pod, which is protected by a heat shield. The journey was a long one—about 352 million miles over 8 months. The NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), also referred to as just the rover Curiosity, is tucked inside of a larger spacecraft that protects it from the outside elements. In a short period of time, the craft needs to slow from 13,200 to 1000 mph (5.9 to 0.45 km/second). A crash would end a $2.5 billion mission and maybe the future of Mars human exploration. At 7 miles (11 km), a giant parachute—the biggest chute ever used in an outer space landing at 51 feet (15.5 m)—deploys to slow the spacecraft to a gradual descent. About 5 miles (8 km) above the surface, the heat shield comes off and drops away. Shortly after, the radar determines when to start powered descent. As

A Dangerous High Tech Landing on Mars (August 6, 2012) 85 with landing on the Moon, the powered descent needs to be started exactly at the right time, otherwise, the craft will run out of fuel (start too early) or will still be descending too fast without enough time to stop (start too late). About a mile (1.6 km) from the surface, the protective outer shell drops the MSL. The eight retrorockets fire and allow it to freefall and fly away from the descent stage. The craft has been slowed to about 170 mph (274 km/hour). The spacecraft performs the final tricky maneuver known as the sky crane maneuver, dropping the MSL to the surface using cables that lower it about 25 feet (7.5 m). Curiosity is lowered slowly and then separated from the descent vehicle. At final separation, its descent has been slowed to less than 1.7 mph (2.7 km/ hour). Curiosity’s wheels and suspension system double as landing gear and are deployed close to the surface. The cables are spooled as the rover descends and softly touches down. The descent stage knows the rover has landed when the weight on the cables is reduced. The bridle and cord is cut and a connection to the computer brain is severed, and the sky crane flies away. The descent stage flies out of the way, almost 500 feet (about 150 m) from the rover. The nuclear-powered rover Curiosity moves on to fulfill its scientific research and preparation for further missions (Fig. 5.1).4

Fig. 5.1  Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) entry and descent to Mars sequence. Image credit: NASA

86  Going to Mars NASA described this delicate and untried landing method as “seven minutes of terror.” This complex landing maneuver is one example of the demonstrated technology and ingenuity required to send heavy equipment and eventually humans to Mars. The success of the MSL landing is another testament to NASA’s creativity and expertise in space exploration. The entry method included technology from past NASA Mars missions along with new technologies. Instead of the airbag landing of past Mars missions, the MSL used a guided entry and a sky crane maneuver to land the massive Curiosity rover (over 2000 pounds, or 900 kg). The new aspects of the guided entry made the landing more precise, making specific target areas more possible for future missions. Curiosity landed about 1.5 miles from its destination, the Gale Crater.5 Over the past couple of years, Curiosity has been determined to be a success, still roaming the surface remotely controlled and transmitting data back to Earth. It has survived radiation, dust storms and other hazards on the Martian surface. As for discoveries, it has found elements supportive of life, evidence of water but no organic molecules so far. In early 2015, the robotic rover detected nitrogen on the Martian surface in the form of nitric oxide, a product of nitrates that can be used by living organisms. In addition, Curiosity has found that water can exist as a liquid near the planet’s surface.6 This finding leads scientists to support the theory that dark streaks seen on crater walls could have been formed by flowing water. Although there is nothing definitive for now, the discovery is another piece of the puzzle to determine the presence of past or present life on Mars.7 The Case for Mars Mars, the fourth planet from the Sun, holds a certain fascination for those of us who grew up with science fiction movies, Orson Welles and the War of the Worlds, as we all as the vision of little green men. We can now actually gaze at the Red Planet and wonder what it would be like to travel or live there—something that could be accomplished in our lifetime. These same science fiction books and movies have fueled the quest for life on Mars and encouraged investigation into the existence of life supporting elements that could have connections to the beginnings of life on Earth. New discoveries on the surface of Mars are providing evidence that water once was plentiful on the Martian surface, one of the primary requirements for past life on Mars. Although remarkable, the existence of water is just one of the requirements for life as we know it. It is thought that Mars was hospitable enough to at least support a primitive type of bacteria in the past, a far cry from little green men. Robotic rovers have explored Mars over the past few decades, transmitting numerous scientific information and visual images about the planet. However, it will take more complex human missions to explore Mars’ numerous surface

The Case for Mars 87 features and to drill into subsurface groundwater. Mars appears to be the next logical step in human space travel. It is more hospitable and accessible than other planets, asteroids or moons. The Martian surface also has enough space to accommodate a human colony and possesses a variety of materials that can be mined and processed to build structures and equipment. Scientists have eliminated Venus, the second planet from the Sun, for colonization. At first look, it has some potential for recreating our own environment. It is close to the same size as Earth, giving it a similar gravitational field. That, however, is where the similarity ends. Surface pressures are so high that they would crush us to death in an instant. The extremely high surface temperatures would be prohibitive for humans to exist in. Add to that sulfuric acid clouds and rain, and Venus as a human destination was scrapped as a near future option by all space agencies. It is thought that we can reach Mars with a minimal extension of existing technology. Once there, if we want to live on the planet for any length of time, humans will have to build a sustainable environment using solar and other types of energy to maintain life support. Recently, astronauts grew and ate lettuce on the International Space Station (ISS), a step to better understanding of how to produce food crops outside of Earth. In addition, an astronaut (Scott Kelly) and a cosmonaut (Mikhail Kornienko) spent one year on the ISS providing valuable data on human physiology and psychology for long duration spaceflights.8 Progress is definitely being made also in technology and transportation systems to make the Mars mission a reality. This chapter focuses on the challenges to colonizing Mars and two current approaches to Mars exploration—the NASA mission to Mars and the Mars One project. To provide some background, Table 5.1 provides some of the most common comparisons between Earth and Mars. See Fig. 5.2 for size comparison).

Table 5.1  Comparison of Earth and Mars (http://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/facts/#infographic)

Earth

Mars

Average distance from Sun Average speed in orbiting Sun Diameter Tilt of axis Length of year Length of day Gravity Temperature Atmosphere

93 million miles 18.5 miles per second 7,926 miles 23.5 degrees 365.25 days 23 hours 56 minutes 2.66 times that of Mars Average 57 degrees F nitrogen, oxygen, argon, others

Number of Moons

1

142 million miles 14.5 miles per second 4,220 miles 25 degrees 687 Earth days 24 hours 37 minutes 0.375 that of Earth Average -81 degrees F mostly carbon dioxide, some water vapor 2

88  Going to Mars

Fig. 5.2  Earth and Mars side by side. Image credit: NASA

The two terrestrial planets, Earth and Mars, have many similarities such as comparable rotational axis tilts (resulting in seasonal variability), similar length of a day, and the existence of polar caps. Some of the differences, such as a low gravitational force on the surface of Mars, about one third of that on Earth, will provide a challenge for human colonization. The effects of a low gravity environment on humans include loss of bone density and muscle mass over time. It may be necessary to introduce an artificial gravity environment, although there are no plans for this kind of facility at this time and no definite solutions to this problem for long-term residency. Another challenge for humans on Mars is the thin protective atmosphere that surrounds Mars with a composition that is almost entirely carbon dioxide. The air is not only unbreathable but provides little protection against radiation from the Sun. (Dangers of humans in outer space are further discussed in Chap. 7.) Space suits would be required for outside work or travel on the surface of the planet. Exposure to radiation would be limited to short periods of time; living and working modules would have to be shielded. Another characteristic of the planet requiring protective clothing or a suitable habitat is the average surface temperature, which is –81 °F on Mars versus 57 °F for Earth. Seasonal variation can result in even harsher temperatures. Dust storms make landers, rovers and modules susceptible to tipping over in strong winds, and blowing dust particles can infiltrate electronics and other hardware, affecting performance. Yet, Mars possesses all of the required raw materials to support life and has enough land to create a large human colony. Understanding Mars can tell us many things about our own planet and its origins as well as teach us about the formation and structure of other worlds in our Solar System. As an exploration target, Mars

The Supporters of Mars Colonization 89 remains high on the list of importance for scientists of many disciplines. Several of the most vocal supporters of Mars colonization are discussed next. The Supporters of Mars Colonization Robert Zubrin Robert Zubrin (1952–) is the founder and president of the Mars Society, an organization whose purpose is to further the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet using both public and private means. He is also president of Pioneer Astronautics, an aerospace R&D company in Colorado. He has degrees in aerospace engineering and a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the University of Washington. He was one of the advisors for the Mars One mission, a now defunct international one-way human colonization effort. Dr. Zubrin is also an inventor and scholar in space propulsion and strategies for space travel. While working for Lockheed Martin, he developed a “Mars Direct” mission plan that uses Martian resources to reduce a manned Mars exploration program to about an eighth of what was previously estimated by NASA. The Mars Direct plan is a minimalist approach to exploring Mars using existing launch technology to travel there and Martian resources to generate rocket fuel (using the abundance of carbon dioxide processed into methane for propellant), extract water and construct living modules. The mission’s approach is to establish a colony by rotating crews that build on each other’s success to create a step-by-step complete colony. Zubrin believes that the U.S. space program needs a challenge: A bold humans-to-Mars program would also be a challenge to every kid in the country: Learn your science, and you can help explore a new world. Imagine the potential that an ambitious Mars program could have in inspiring legions of future engineers, inventors, medical researchers, doctors and other scientists. Zubrin’s plan is detailed in his popular and timeless book: The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must (first published in 1996 and updated in 2011). The book still remains informative and inspirational as a vision for space exploration and provides a focus for future endeavors. Zubrin presents Mars as the new world. Its settlement presents the challenge that will determine whether we remain confined to Earth, or can become a multi-planet spacefaring species, with a future made unbounded by our courage and creativity. 9 Zubrin’s latest book is The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility. He argues that private companies, in particular Elon Musk’s SpaceX, are filling the void in government run manned

90  Going to Mars space programs. “In contrast to the very successful Mars robotic program, manned programs have stagnated.” He goes on to say: Precisely because of the failure of the official Government led human space flight programs a new force has moved in, and that is the entrepreneurial space companies exemplified most forcefully by SpaceX which has now proven it is possible for a relatively small well led entrepreneurial team to do things it was previously thought only the Governments of super powers could do. At another point, he says, “This is the power of free enterprise let loose and I’m sure we’re going to see a lot more of this. I’m sure we’re going to see a Chinese equivalent of SpaceX and maybe in many other countries.10 Elon Musk Elon Musk (1971–) is the CEO of SpaceX and the CEO and product architect of Tesla Motors. He earned undergraduate degrees in economics and physics from the University of Pennsylvania. He is an entrepreneur, inventor, engineer and investor, overseeing rocket and spacecraft development to Earth orbit and beyond. In 2008, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft won the NASA contract to provide a commercial replacement for the cargo transport function of the Space Shuttle. In 2012, SpaceX became the first private company to dock with the ISS and return cargo to Earth using the Dragon. The company specializing in small satellite launches and cargo runs is now moving into the business of human spaceflight. Musk detailed his vision and plans for colonizing Mars in early 2016. SpaceX was going to conduct an unmanned mission to Mars on its Flying Dragon version 2 rocket starting in 2018, a deadline not met, with plans for continuing launches approximately every two years. After a series of successful test flights, their first rocket carrying human payloads would launch in 2024. The vehicle has the capability to carry up to seven people for the 18-month trip. It does not have the capability to return to Earth, so the plan is for colonization.11 Musk has argued that we must put a million people on Mars if we are to ensure that humanity has a future. He believes that going to Mars is as urgent an issue as eradicating poverty and disease. It is true that human civilization won’t last long in this universe if it stays on a single planet. We know that our Sun will one day grow so large it will destroy Earth. Even though it will take 5–10 billion years, there will be significant changes prior to that event, as soon as 500 million years from now.12 If humanity is to survive, it will need to expand outside of Earth’s system. Setting up a Mars colony is one step in that direction to being independent of Earth.

Unmanned Mars Exploration 91 Musk is an enthusiastic supporter of space exploration. After a perceived American loss of space vision, he began planning a Mars mission of his own. Musk funded his own rocket company and now has visions of a self-sustaining civilization on another planet. He sees the trip as one-way, and the first group of colonists would have to pay their own way. Far into the future, he believes, as does Zubrin, that Mars could be terraformed into Earth-like surroundings. At the start, the habitat would be crude and challenging, and those that survive for decades or longer will be the new settlers, pioneers. In order to form a genetically diverse civilization, Musk believes that it would take a million people, several hundred trips of a giant spaceship (which he calls a Mars Colonial Transporter). This begins to sound like science fiction, but it is comforting in a way to know that a lot of thought has been put into our survival. Musk says, “If we’re going to have any chance of sending stuff to other star systems, we need to be laser-focused on becoming a multi-planet civilization. That’s the next step.”13 At the Satellite 2020 conference in Washington, Elon Musk shared that his biggest concern was that SpaceX will not complete it’s mission of getting to Mars before he dies. “If we don’t improve our pace of progress, I’m definitely going to be dead before we go to Mars.” In 2018, he stated that he was aiming to get to Mars by 2024 and that there was a 70% chance that he would personally go on the journey.14 Unmanned Mars Exploration There have been over three dozen unmanned missions launched from six countries to help us understand more about Mars. Some were only brief flybys (early 1960s), gathering small amounts of data and visually scanning a number of different geographic regions. Other missions lasted for years and involved orbiters and landers that gathered a significant amount of information needed to answer more detailed scientific questions. The organizations and countries that have invested in Mars missions are NASA (the United States), the Soviet Union, the European Space Agency, and the Indian Space Research Organization. The United States and Soviet Union were the only two countries initially investing in a number of early missions, only a few years after Sputnik was launched in 1957. Many of the early flights were failures, but hundreds of visual images were sent back to Earth for analysis. The Soviet Union stopped their Mars missions in the early 1980s.15 Early Mars missions and their discoveries can be seen on the NASA.gov and space.com websites. One mystery that these early flights solved was the idea that canals sited on the surface of Mars provided possible evidence of intelligent life on the surface. These canals were first seen by the Italian astronomer Schiaparelli in 1877 and later by more sophisticated observatories. Debates continued about whether the canals

92  Going to Mars were real or were optical illusions until the NASA Mariner spacecraft visited Mars on the 60s and 70s and proved that the canals did not exist. The Viking missions in the 1970s had involved both orbiters and then landers that collected soil samples. When analyzed, the result showed no evidence of life.16 In the early 2000s, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers: • measured the atmosphere of Mars and detected argon, • explained how dust and sand are moved by wind in Mars’ very thin atmosphere, • demonstrated recent water or frost altering rock surfaces, identified an ancient hydrothermal system, • and found evidence that Mars may have been capable of supporting life for millions of years.17 Recent significant discoveries have been made by the rover Curiosity, launched in 2011 and successfully landing in 2012 after completing a complicated set of maneuvers. Curiosity is the most sophisticated unmanned vehicle yet sent to Mars, with the ambitious mission of finding out if Mars can support life. Curiosity drilled samples and analyzed the composition to include the fundamental elements that could support life: sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon. In addition, Curiosity identified organic materials considered to be the building blocks of life. These results point to a suitable environment to support life.18 “A fundamental question for this mission is whether Mars could have supported a habitable environment,” stated Michael Meyer, lead scientist for NASA’s Mars Exploration Program. “From what we know now, the answer is yes.”19 Radiation levels remain a concern for long term flight and colonization. Curiosity’s instruments detected levels that were acceptable for the length of a Mars mission. Long-term exposure is still an issue that would need to be dealt with in the design and structure of living modules as well as protective space suits.20 Life From and on Mars Discussions surrounding the mystery of life originating on Earth from Mars were reborn in 1996 when NASA announced that microfossils found in an Antarctic meteorite could have come from Mars.21 The meteorite, called Allen Hills 84001, was thought to contain frozen bacteria that was blasted from the Martian surface over 16 million years ago, when the Solar System was forming, and landed on Earth about 13,000 years ago. Debate continued on for years, with further investigations of the meteorite resulting in controversy on whether the lifelike patterns seen were really evidence of life. Further experiments and analysis with new technology has resulted in NASA scientists’ current thinking that the bacteria could have survived the blast (rather than being caused by it) and was then transported

The Cost of Going to Mars 93 to Earth. The material surrounding the Martian bacteria showed evidence of interaction with water on Mars more than 3.5 billion years ago.22 Why is discovering evidence of life on Mars so important? We could say that life on any other planet, moon, or celestial body changes everything about our perception of life being unique to Earth. This is similar to the shift in understanding from the scientific discovery that Earth is not at the center of the Solar System or that our Solar System is also not unique. If we are not the only planet or heavenly body with life, many more questions arise about the universe and its origins and our whole perception of our existence and even our notion of spirituality is thrown into doubt. These issues drive civilizations to find answers through exploration and scientific discovery. The Cost of Going to Mars The debate about whether the United States should support manned space exploration today and in the near future compares predicted positive outcomes of colonizing outer space against risk and cost. Large sums of U.S. federal monies have gone to defense and supporting wars in the past decade. Prohibitively high costs will be the most obvious deterrent. An expert panel in 2014 estimated the total budget for a manned mission to Mars to be in the range of $80–$100 billion.23 Most of the expenditure involves the development of NASA’s Orion spacecraft and the new heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS). The SLS is a solid rocket booster rocket similar to the Space Shuttle Launch System but improved with the latest technology and the capability to carry humans and equipment to Mars and beyond. Delays in the development of the SLS have caused an estimation of the first test launch to not be before the end of 2020. 24 President Donald Trump’s 2021 budget request increases NASA’s funding by 12% to $25.2 billion. Approximately half that amount would fund activities aimed first at transporting humans to the Moon followed by Mars. The budget requests $3.3 billion for the Artemis program’s human lunar landers and would also support NASA’s heavy lift Space Launch System rocket. To make these efforts possible, several future programs are recommended to be cut. These details were released in February 2020 by NASA and the White House Office of Management and Budget. “This is a 21 century budget worthy of 21st century space exploration and one of the strongest NASA budgets in history,” NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said during a State of NASA event unveiling the budget. The NASA section outlining the administration’s 2021 budget request states: “NASA’s top-priority mission is to return American astronauts to the Moon by 2024 and build a sustainable presence on the lunar surface as the first step on a journey that will take America to Mars. The budget redirects funds from

94  Going to Mars lower-­priority programs to fulfill the President’s promise to get Americans back to the Moon.” Of course, NASA’s budget request is only a request that still has to be approved by Congress later in the year 2020. Thus far, Congress has not been totally behind many of the president’s space priorities, particularly the Artemis program and its tight deadline of a 2024 landing. The legislature has tended to favor a more conservative timeline for the Moon landing and prioritizing Mars exploration more directly, without first going to the Moon. 25 Considering the high cost in terms of NASA’s budget and development uncertainties, scientists and space exploration advocates compare costs with benefits. Here are several reasons given for NASA to pursue manned missions to Mars. 1. America needs to embark on another great adventure and focus on a positive experience that boosts national pride. 2. Knowledge of the planet and the search for extraterrestrial life is an important goal. Robotic rovers can transmit only certain kinds of information. The search for fossils, and the ability to travel long distances and do heavy work are all beyond the scope of a rover. These activities if successful will further our knowledge of Earth’s place in the universe and hold the key to its formation. 3. Technological and medical discoveries and innovation have been some of the primary benefits of human space exploration. The colonization of another planet, moon, or asteroid will force new methods of sustainable living, efficient transportation systems, and medical treatments. 4. Educational benefit that can result from a mission to Mars is a renewed interested in math and science for children and young adults who are inspired by a voyage to another planet. 5. Providing a possible habitat that may be required by humans in the future is another benefit. If we can learn to live on Mars, it might provide an option for life if there is a disaster on Earth or at the very least, a steppingstone to further exploration. A manned mission to Mars is a very risky endeavor. Some of the risks associated with manned Mars missions include the following: 1. Mars is about 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. The trip to Mars will last several months, making it the longest manned space mission in history. Astronauts have stayed on the ISS for about that length of time, but the difference in traveling to Mars is that the astronauts are moving farther and farther away from Earth over time, making any chance of rescue nearly impossible. Issues that can arise over that time are human illness, mechanical failures, fire, micrometeorite collisions, exposure to deadly radiation and solar particle events, guidance and navigation errors, etc.

The Mars 2020 Mission 95 2. The mission has to support humans for the duration of the flight, including sufficient food, water, and oxygen. All of these sustainable systems have to work correctly to maintain life support. 3. If the mission is two-way, a vehicle launched from the surface of Mars is required and must perform satisfactorily, or the crew will not be able to return to Earth. Both manned and unmanned space missions have suffered failure and tragedies over the years. Everyone accepts a certain amount of risk and uncertainty in space travel. The debate is about how much risk is acceptable for a mission to Mars to be launched. Manned scientific missions are very expensive and some think the funding would be better spent on more robotic missions or other types of scientific research. The two manned Mars missions that have the most attention are the NASA Mars mission and the Mars One mission. Let’s explore the similarities and differences in these expeditions. The Mars 2020 Mission The Mars 2020 rover mission is part of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program, a longterm effort of robotic exploration of the Red Planet. The Mars 2020 mission addresses high-priority science goals for Mars exploration, including key questions about the potential for life on Mars. The mission takes the next step by not only seeking signs of habitable conditions on Mars in the ancient past, but also searching for signs of past microbial life itself. The Mars 2020 rover introduces a drill that can collect core samples of the most promising rocks and soils and set them aside in a “cache” on the surface of Mars (see Fig. 5.3). A future mission could potentially return these samples to Earth. That would help scientists study the samples in laboratories with special room-sized equipment that would be too large to take to Mars. The mission also provides opportunities to gather knowledge and demonstrate technologies that address the challenges of future human expeditions to Mars. These include testing a method for producing oxygen from the Martian atmosphere, identifying other resources (such as subsurface water), improving landing techniques, and characterizing weather, dust, and other potential environmental conditions that could affect future astronauts living and working on Mars. The mission is timed for a launch opportunity between July 17 to August 5, 2020, when Earth and Mars are in good positions relative to each other for landing on Mars. That is, it takes less power to travel to Mars at this time, compared to other times when Earth and Mars are in different positions in their orbits. To keep mission costs and risks as low as possible, the Mars 2020 design is based on NASA’s successful Mars Science Laboratory mission architecture, including its Curiosity rover and proven landing system.26

96  Going to Mars

Fig. 5.3  Illustration of the Mars 2020 rover accessing and storing rock samples in sealed tubes. Image Credit: NASA/JPL

NASA’s Manned Mission to Mars NASA has invested in Mars exploration for decades, starting with a flyby and the first close-up picture of Mars in 1965. An impressive series of robotic rovers followed, transmitting detailed images of the landscapes and soil. Among the discoveries, one of the most important was the possible presence of liquid water, a primary necessity of life. Several successful missions set the stage for the ultimate journey for humans to Mars in the 2030s. The more recent and future missions are shown in the timeline in Fig. 5.4, with the science strategies outlined in Fig. 5.5. The human mission to Mars will involve taking a trajectory that will take advantage of the orbits between Earth and Mars. It is preferable to choose a path that will use the least amount of fuel, which translates into the least amount of energy. In interplanetary travel, this is not a straight line. The spacecraft on the launch pad is already in Earth’s solar orbit. Rockets are launched into the direction of this orbit and assisted by the rotation of Earth. The journey has to begin at exactly the right time in order to arrive at the correct point in space for their target, which is approaching. This time interval is called the launch window. The trajectory path is usually a partial orbit around the Sun. The spacecraft is launched into a transfer orbit moving around the Sun and toward the orbit of Mars. This is called a Hohmann transfer orbit (Fig. 5.6). Once the initial acceleration of the spacecraft increases the energy to the transfer orbit, essentially the vehicle can coast at that velocity until it reaches the target, which is an orbit around Mars. Timing is

NASA’s Manned Mission to Mars 97

Fig. 5.4  NASA’s journey to Mars. Image credit: NASA

Fig. 5.5  Evolving science strategies for Mars exploration. Image credit: NASA

everything. Arriving at the Mars orbit at exactly the right time and place require precise guidance and navigation. Both objects are moving at a high velocity. Once the Mars orbit is reached, the spacecraft will slow down by using a retrograde rocket or other method. In order to land, the vehicle has to decelerate more to enable it to land safely on the surface.27 The NASA Mars mission depends on continued government funding and other investments, including international partners. The Mars Exploration Program includes the development of a new spacecraft and preparation of an appropriate landing area by a newly designed robotic rover. The rover would use a guided approach,

98  Going to Mars

Fig. 5.6  Earth to Mars using a Hohmann transfer orbit. Image credit: NASA

descent and landing, including the use of a parachute. The final landing involves what is referred to as a “skycrane maneuver” to lower the rover to the surface. The proposed Mars 2020 rover mission would not only continue to look for life but also test key challenges for human expeditions using lessons learned from Curiosity. The rover will have the latest technology for analyzing, communicating, taking images, grappling for objects, etc. It will study rocks and soil, seeking signs of ancient life forms, monitor the Martian atmosphere and dust levels, and test the ability to extract oxygen from the primarily carbon dioxide atmosphere for future human missions.28 The astronauts will leave Earth aboard the Orion spacecraft atop the very powerful heavy-lift SLS rocket. Both are new designs (the SLS will have some existing shuttle technology) and are being tested. Orion is the first spacecraft built for space exploration since the Apollo missions and looks very much like the Apollo crew capsule. Orion will provide a safe environment for deep space travel, missions that extend much farther than previous manned missions. Orion completed its first test in space on December 5, 2014, launched atop a Delta IV heavy lifting rocket, a proven multi-stage rocket with many commercial and military uses. The Orion crew module was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, and landed less that five hours later southwest of San Diego (see Fig. 5.7). During the flight, Orion passed through the Van Allen Belt twice, where it was

NASA’s Manned Mission to Mars 99 exposed to high amounts of radiation, heated up to 2200 °C on re-entry, and reached speeds of 32,000 km/hour. The successful testing of the Orion has been critical to the success of future manned Mars missions. Future test flights will include the integrated Orion and SLS system.29

Fig. 5.7  NASA’s Orion spacecraft after its successful flight test in December, 2014. Image credit: NASA

NASA’s SLS is a composite of the Space Shuttle and the cancelled Constellation program (a NASA manned spaceflight program from 2005 to 2009 that planned on travel to the ISS, the Moon, and Mars as the final goal). There are fifteen RS-25s, the Space Shuttle main engines, available for use. These engines would have to be refurbished for future missions, but the fact that this engine had a flawless record during the Space Shuttle program is one reason to use this technology and the available inventory. The SLS will also borrow certain features from the Ares I rocket (built for the Constellation program), including a new digital engine controller. The SLS will be more powerful than the Saturn V multistage rocket that took astronauts to the Moon. As awesome and successful as this rocket is, its budget is astronomical as well. It is estimated that NASA could spend up to $20 billion in development prior to a test launch which has been delayed until 2021.30 Costs could increase, and it is estimated that the project is short on funding. The SLS could also be used for other missions, such as transporting American astronauts and goods to the ISS. In its first stage, the payload capability will be 77 tons and it will stand 321 feet, almost as tall as the Saturn V but with 10% more thrust. As the rocket is further developed, it will stand on the launch platform at 40 feet taller

100  Going to Mars than the Saturn V, with 20% more thrust, which will enable it to deliver 143 tons to Earth orbit or a manned crew to Mars. It will be the most powerful rocket ever built. The SLS will be very expensive to build with a lot of challenging unknowns. Even though annual costs are much less than the Space Shuttle program, the Shuttle made multiple flights (133 in over three decades), whereas the SLS will only launch once every two years. The SLS is seen by NASA as a rocket that satisfies multiple needs and fills the gap post-shuttle for a variety of missions. It is possible that private sector partnerships can help fund the program. 31 Much like the Saturn V Moon rocket, the Orion capsule for manned flight will be situated at the top of the stack. Below the capsule, the SLS will look very much like the Space Shuttle, with two solid rocket boosters attached to the sides. The first stage of the rocket (which NASA refers to as the core) is a stretched version of the shuttle’s external tank with the same diameter, allowing the shuttle tools to be used. The bottom of the core will hold four shuttle engines (SSMEs). Finally, a single upper stage will boost Orion into deep space. Modern manufacturing techniques, such as 3D printing, will be used to build state-of-the-art equipment for the Orion capsule (Fig. 5.8).

Fig. 5.8  Artist rendering of NASA’s SLS rocket in a 70 metric-ton configuration as it lifts off into space. Image credit: NASA/MSFC

Landings on Mars previously relied on one or multiple large parachutes to slow a vehicle’s speed to prevent a crash landing. However, the Mars atmosphere is much less dense than Earth’s and doesn’t slow the spacecraft down as much. The Curiosity lander carried a large mass of 900 kg (1 ton), requiring a giant parachute and descent rockets to slow the craft to a safe landing. Some Mars missions could

NASA’s Manned Mission to Mars 101 double the mass of the payload, and the required parachute size to slow the vehicle down becomes too large (60 m in diameter). To assist in using atmospheric drag for the entry, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) is developing a Low-­ Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD) Technology Demonstration mission which will be tested full-scale in Earth’s stratosphere. The Supersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (SIAD) is a durable inflatable cone-shaped object that envelops the spaceship, increasing its surface area and its associated drag, thus slowing the craft down from Mach 3.5 or greater down to Mach 2. A 30.5-m-­diameter parachute is also being developed to slow down the vehicle further to subsonic speeds. These devices will assist with both unmanned and manned mission to the Martian surface (Fig. 5.9).32

Fig. 5.9  Artist rendering of NASA’s Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD). Image credit: NASA

The specific plans for the SLS missions are still being solidified. The first mission was an unmanned test, sending the Orion capsule around the Moon and back to Earth. It was successfully completed in December 2014. The second mission plans to send astronauts to explore an asteroid orbiting the Moon (see the earlier description of the Asteroid Redirect Mission). Finally, the manned Orion trip to Mars will take place around 2030 and will last 18–24 months. It is possible that the astronauts’ first mission will study the Martian surface from orbit.

102  Going to Mars There are many critics of the NASA Mars mission. Former NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver argues that by the time the SLS goes to Mars, the equipment will be “50-year-old technology.” There are several new companies worldwide that are developing rockets for future manned and unmanned commercial missions, providing other ways of exploring deep space. One example is SpaceX. Its Falcon 9 rocket has launched cargo to the ISS and delivered satellites to higher orbits. SpaceX is planning on building a heavy-lift rocket using advanced propulsion technology (liquid methane as fuel rather than the standard hydrogen or rocket-grade kerosene). In addition, its first-stage booster is designed to vertically land on a floating platform in the ocean. These advances in rocket development have the support of many scientists and businesses. Another company, Orbital Sciences Corporation, is proposing future applications for its Cygnus spacecraft as a crew support vehicle to augment the capabilities and life support of Orion.33 One could argue that there is room for everyone. However, NASA has a limited budget, and many feel that the Mars mission is usurping the budget from other important endeavors planned for the future, such as a robotic mission to Europa. On the other hand, NASA has not extended beyond low-Earth orbit with manned vehicles for decades and needs a bigger rocket to travel into deep space and maintain a leadership role in human spaceflight. The traditional methods of building a rocket require that the rocket be big and very expensive, and it is unclear if NASA will have the continued budget to support the SLS. Comparison of the SLS and the Falcon Heavy Rocket The frontrunner for the Mars One heavy-lift launch vehicle is the new SpaceX Falcon Heavy (FH) rocket, which looks very much like the SLS with boosters strapped to the sides. (The role of SpaceX and its rocket development in the future of space exploration was discussed in more depth in Chapters 2 and 3). SpaceX has been developing this powerful rocket in order to fill a need for both government and commercial space missions. In 2014, SpaceX signed a lease agreement with NASA for the commercial use and operation of Launch Complex 39A, originally used for Moon launches (Fig. 5.10). One of Falcon’s capabilities will be to deliver satellites to a geosynchronous orbit, which is a high Earth orbit (22,236 miles, or 35,786 km above Earth34) that matches satellite speeds to Earth’s rotation, allowing for stationary surveillance and communication networks. The geosynchronous orbit is occupied primarily by communication and weather satellites. The orbit classifications and altitudes are shown in Fig. 5.11. The last rocket to have the capability to deliver more payload than the SpaceX Falcon to Earth orbit was the Saturn V Moon rocket, last flown in 1973 and decommissioned after the Apollo program.

Comparison of the SLS and the Falcon Heavy Rocket 103

Fig. 5.10  Gwynne Shotwell, President and CEO of SpaceX announcing a lease agreement with NASA for the use and operation of Launch Complex 39A, originally built for Apollo/Saturn V rockets. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden on left and Kennedy Space Center Director Bob Cabana on the right. Image credit: NASA

high Earth & geosynchronous orbit (≥35,780 km) mid Earth orbit (2,000–35,780 km) Earth

low Earth orbit (180–2,000 km)

lunar orbit (384,000 km)

Fig. 5.11  Orbital classifications and their associated altitudes. Image credit: NASA

104  Going to Mars How does the SpaceX FH lift rocket compare with the SLS? Let’s compare the two heavy-lift launch vehicles being developed separately by NASA and SpaceX by evaluating the progress in both programs and the projection of what will be flying aboard in the upcoming timeframe. The SLS and the FH look very similar, with boosters strapped to the side around a central core that has a second stage on top and the payload above that. The design approach similarities end there. The SLS is designed to achieve certain heavy lifting goals (70 MT, then 105 MT, and finally 130 MT) and to reuse the existing technology available from the Space Shuttle and Constellation programs (completion of the International Space Station and the return to Moon mission). There is also a modification of proven Delta IV upper stage, a rocket engine that burns liquid oxygen and hydrogen and provides a maximum terminal velocity. The rocket design takes a traditional approach using solid rocket boosters to yield greater thrust for a given size and weight as well as reusing the established Space Shuttle main engines, also using liquid oxygen and hydrogen for fuel. On the surface, it might seem like the SLS design is a cobbled connection of used parts. However, this approach makes the rocket more affordable, time tested, and more easily manufactured. The FH rocket is based on the technology of the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets. The central core, boosters, and upper stage appear to be either unmodified or slightly modified from the Falcon 9. The proposed engines (a total of 27) are the Merlin IDs that use liquid oxygen for fuel, and the RP-1, using liquid oxygen and hydrogen. These engines are optimized for minimum cost to low-Earth orbit with the option to transfer to a geosynchronous orbit. The engines provide less thrust than the SLS engines but run cooler, with less wear on the parts and greater reusability. Emphasis was also placed on minimizing the cost of manufacturing and operations. A cost comparison of capabilities to low-Earth orbit is quite dramatic. The payload capability of the first SLS design is 70 MT, costing $600 M, yielding a cost per MT of $8.6 M/MT.  Payload capability of the FH Heavy is 53 MT, costing $158 M, yielding a cost per MT of $3.0 M/MT. Clearly, the proposed FH Heavy design is more cost effective to low-Earth orbit. However, the SLS will take the advantage for launching further out in space. SpaceX remains as a cost effective solution for business space applications. The SLS is built for heavy lifting into deep space. The risk factors are similar for both designs. Both are using some proven technologies with some modifications. SpaceX has the edge in terms of consistent testing and modifying its designs. However, when we move to large payloads being transported into deep space, the SLS begins to have the edge. SpaceX plans to develop its most powerful engine, a methane-liquid oxygen engine delivering

China’s Plans for Mars 105 500,000 pounds-force compared to the 150,000 pounds-force for the Merlin 1D. This engine would be responsible for the heavy-lift capabilities to Mars and beyond. Both rockets will most likely be developed and used for perhaps different types of missions. Whether we go to Mars or back to the Moon first, it is possible that both rockets will play a part.35 The Mars One Mission The Mars One endeavor was designed by a Dutch space entrepreneur, Bas Lansdorp, the co-founder and CEO of the Mars One nonprofit organization. The plan, announced in 2012, has drawn a lot of interest and scrutiny because it is not only ambitious but also controversial: start sending humans on one-way trips to Mars by 2025. The purpose was to colonize the planet by sending groups of manned missions staggered over time to build the first permanent human settlement on the surface of Mars. The organization would be coordinating technical efforts, training crews, and developing mission profiles. The actual rockets, living modules, landing rockets, etc., would be contracted out to developers. According to sources, Mars One Ventures was declared bankrupt as of January, 2019 with less than $25,000 in its accounts. The company has now been dissolved. Mars One had been fairly silent in the media for a while. Its founder, Bas Lansdorp, hasn’t said much in public in recent years. Mars One repeatedly pushed back its planned date for sending humans to Mars. Its last press release of note was back in 2017 when it announced new revenue predictions for the mission. Aside from that and a smattering of other minor announcements, Mars One has been long gone— this bankruptcy is most certainly the final nail in an already rotting coffin. 36 Some of the chosen Mars astronaut candidates chose to expose the company’s method of selection being tied to the ability to sell merchandise or donate money. Recently, one of the finalists exposed what he thought was a scandal in the Mars One selection process. He says that applicants were not put through extensive interviews or testing, and as a finalist, he never met anyone from Mars One in person. There is a question about whether the whole process was a scam from the outset. Whatever the truth, the mission is over now. 37 China’s Plans for Mars NASA is not the only country with a focus on establishing a manned Moon colony in order to send humans to Mars. China also has plans to orbit the Moon, land humans on the surface, and eventually set up an outpost. In fact, China intends to

106  Going to Mars get a spacecraft to Mars sometime in 2020. Wu Weiren, chief designer of China’s Moon and Mars missions, told the BBC in a 2016 interview: Our long-term goal is to explore, land, and settle [on the moon]. We want a manned lunar landing to stay for longer periods and establish a research base.” Weiren said that China wants to send a rover to the Red Planet by 2020. China is one of three countries planning missions to Mars for the summer of 2020. The U.S. is launching a lander, China is launching a landerorbiter combo, and the United Arab Emirates is sending an orbiter.38 China’s growing space program has developed rapidly, especially since its first crewed mission in 2003. They achieved a major milestone last year by being the first to land a spacecraft on the dark side of the Moon and has plans to launch a lander and rover on Mars. On May 5, 2020, China’s space agency completed a successful test launch of its heavy-lift rocket (called Long March 5B), an essential element of the nation’s future space exploration plans. The rocket has been designed specifically to transport modules of China’s future space station into orbit. It is capable of lifting 25 tons of payload to low-Earth orbit, a vital requirement for building the station and transporting a crew capsule. The same rocket will carry the Mars lander (Tianwen), currently scheduled to launch in the summer of 2020. China eventually plans to build a large station (Tiangong) with multiple modules in size to match the scale of the ISS.  When the ISS is no longer viable within the next ten years, Tiangong could become the only permanent habitat in low-Earth orbit. 39 The United States has banned most space cooperation with China out of national security concerns, keeping China from participating in the ISS and prompting it to gradually develop its own equipment and form partnerships with other nations. One thing is clear: China’s aspirations are to rival the U.S., Europe, Russia and private companies in outer space exploration. Russia’s Plans for Mars Russia’s president Putin announced in 2018 that he plans to send both manned and unmanned missions to Mars as early as 2019 (which didn’t happen). He also discussed plans to send missions to the Moon and into deep space. Putin’s statememts about his upcoming missions were reported in Newsweek. “We are planning unmanned and later manned launches—into deep space, as part of a lunar program and for Mars exploration. The closest mission is very soon, we are planning to launch a mission to Mars in 2019,” he said, according to Russian news agency. “Our specialists will try landing near the poles because there are reasons to expect water there. There is research to be done there, and from that, research of other planets and outer space can be undertaken.”40

Commercial Efforts for Red Planet Manned Missions 107 Russia has been working on alternative propulsion methods. Current methods of propulsion, like chemical propellants or low-power electric engines that rely on solar batteries have drawbacks for exploring deep space. The major issue with these methods is that they are relatively slow, creating problems for humans on board the vehicle. In addition, chemical propulsion requires more fuel which adds weight to the spacecraft. Russian scientists are proposing building a nuclear powered spaceship. Both Russia and the United States were working on similar systems starting during the Cold War although the efforts were mostly focused on lightweight orbital satellites. In 2018, Roscosmos presented concept designs for the spacecraft being developed by the national company Rosatom. If successful, nuclear powered space travel could transform the possibilities of travel in the Solar System. However, one of the biggest drawbacks is the cost of development. 41 Russia could be a strong competitor in the race to Mars. In the past, their announcements have not been supported by their accomplishments. In 2011, the Russian probe Phobos-Grunt was headed for Mars, but didn’t make it beyond Earth’s orbit and eventually fell back into the Pacific Ocean. Putin didn’t explain his goals for Russia’s manned missions to Mars. The reasons most likely include regional dominance and keeping up with the U.S. and China. Commercial Efforts for Red Planet Manned Missions This chapter has focused on U.S. government and international efforts to go to Mars. There are however a number of private companies that are interested in creating technology to support missions to Mars. These efforts are detailed in Chapters 2 and 3 and summarized here. Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX, is on record stating that he started his company to establish a human settlement on Mars. As NASA works toward its long-term goal of establishing the same type of settlement, SpaceX is making that dream a reality. Its spacecraft Dragon regularly launches cargo to the ISS using the Falcon 9 rocket and in May 2020 launched astronauts to the station. SpaceX is also building a vehicle named the Starship to make the journey to Mars. The rocket-­ spacecraft combo will be able to launch 100 passengers and large amounts of cargo to and from the Red Planet. Starship will start off launching commercial satellites as early as 2021, followed by a crewed flight orbiting the Moon in 2023 using the Falcon Heavy super rocket. Starship has had some setbacks in development that could affect the scheduled timeline. Elon Musk has visions of “Mars Base Alpha,” a network of buildings designed to be the first Mars base, possibly up and running in 2028. 42 The space entrepreneur Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon and owner of Blue Origin) has a different perspective. He says that focusing on reaching Mars before first

108  Going to Mars establishing a some type of settlement on the Moon is an “illusion.” He says that going to the Moon “is actually the fastest way to get to Mars… If you’re gonna need a lot of supplies and fuel and bulk materials to go to Mars, you’re much better lifting them off the Moon than you are lifting them off the Earth.” 43 Bezos and Musk have a healthy competition, and without a doubt, having multiple companies working on space travel projects is a good thing for space exploration. Final Thoughts on Humans Going to Mars It is difficult at this time to compare the two endeavors designed to send humans to Mars. It might seem that NASA is almost too methodical, following a painstakingly slow process to develop a system sufficiently safe to launch humans into deep space. A trip to Mars will rekindle the enthusiasm for space exploration in a similar way to the summer of 1969. Exploring and colonizing another planet is the next big step for manned space flight. The goal is not just a rebirth of a sense of adventure in the public eye, but also to bring new scientific information about Mars that will provide an understanding of the past and future of Earth. As Buzz Aldrin has said, “Just as Mars—a desert planet—gives us insights into global climate change on Earth, the promise awaits for bringing back to life portions of the Red Planet through the application of Earth Science to its similar chemistry, possibly reawakening its life-bearing potential.”44 Critical steps in the process to put American astronauts on Mars are planned for the next couple of years. Safety, of course, is a primary factor. We are all anxious for the Mars missions, but we also know that safety is a result of extensive planning for backup systems and a protection of life. Nonetheless, many of us can’t wait for the day when we walk on another planet. Notes 1. Aldrin, Buzz. Commentary: let’s aim for Mars. CNN.com. 23 June 2009. [Internet] [cited 2016 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/ TECH/space/06/23/aldrin.mars/ 2. NASA.gov [Internet]. News. May 15, 2015. [cited 2015 June 02]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html 3. Kuta, S. Apollo astronaut buzz aldrin lays out plan for mars colonization in talk at CU-boulder. The Daily Camera. 2015 Mar 03. 4. NASA.gov. [Internet] [cited 2015 June 02]. Available from: http://mars.nasa. gov/msl/mission/timeline/edl/ 5. Space.com Staff. 5 June 2014. Innovation the NASA way (US 2014): book excerpt. Space.com. [Internet] [cited 2015 June 05]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/26135-innovation-nasa-book-excerpt.html

Final Thoughts on Humans Going to Mars 109 6. Mars has nitrogen, key to life: NASA. The Nation [Bangkok]. 2015 Mar 25. 7. Martin-Torres, Javier et al. May 2015. Transient liquid water and water activity at Gale crater on Mars. Nature Geoscience. 8: 357–361. Published online: 13 April 2015. 8. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. space.com. 18 Sep 2015. A manned mission to Mars is closer to reality than ever. [cited 2015 Oct 05]. Available from: http://www. space.com/30580-nasa-manned-mars-mission-reality.html 9. Zubrin, Robert. [Internet]. nss.org. The promise of mars. May/June 1996. Ad Astra. [cited 2015 May 19]. Available from: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ mars/zubrin-promise.html 10. Bickerton, James. [Internet]. express.co.uk. First human landing on Mars could take place this decade claims space expert. 12 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 May 19]. Available from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1268007/ Space-news-Mars-astronaut-NASA-SpaceX-Elon-Musk-Robert-Zubrin 11. Taylor, Harriet. [Internet]. CNBC.com; c2016. Musk: we intend to launch people to Mars in 2024. 02 Jun 2016. CNBC.com. [cited 2016 Jun 28]; Available from: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/02/musk-we-intend-tolaunch-people-to-mars-in-2024.html 12. Eicher D. Feb 2013. How long can we last on Earth?. Astronomy. 41:2:7. 13. Anderson, Ross. Exodus. Sept 30, 2014. Aeon Magazine. [Internet] [cited 2015 May 19]. Available from: http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/ the-elon-musk-interview-on-mars/ 14. Coppola, Gabrielle & Hull, Dana. Musk’s top concern now is SpaceX getting to Mars before he dies. 09 Mar 2020. [Internet] [cited 2015 May 19]. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-09/elon-muskworries-spacex-won-t-get-to-mars-before-he-dies 15. Tate, Karl. [Internet]. Space.com; c2014. Mars curiosity: facts and information; Feb 27, 2013 [cited 2015 June 04]. Available from: http://www.space. com/16575-mars-exploration-robot-red-planet-missions-infographic.html 16. Quest to find life beyond Earth never-ending dream. The Daily Telegraph (Australia). 2015 Jul 23. 17. Petit, Charles W. 2004 Sep 13. Roving about the red planet. U.S.  News & World Report. 137:52–54. 18. NASA rover results include first age measurement on mars and help for human exploration. U.S. Newswire. 2013 Dec 09. 19. Sample I.  Was there life on mars? maybe, say astronomers: Strongest evidence yet of past life on red planet curiosity rover finds signs of ancient river network. The Guardian. 2013 Mar 13; Sect. 5. 20. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. Space.com; c2014. Mars curiosity: facts and information; March 26, 2015 [cited 2015 April 22]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/17963-mars-curiosity.html 21. Bruckner, Adam P. Humans To mars—why and how on earth are we going to do it? The Seattle Times. 17 Aug 1997.

110  Going to Mars 22. Leach, Ben. Nov 26, 2009. Bacteria from Mars found inside ancient meteorite. The Telegraph. [Internet] [cited 2015 April 16]. Available from: http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/6660045/Bacteria-fromMars-found-inside-ancient-meteorite.html 23. Kaufman, Marc. 23 April 2014. A mars mission for budget travelers. National Geographic. [Internet] [cited 2015 May 25]. Available from: http://news. nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-mission-mannedcost-science-space/ 24. Morring, Jr., Frank. 24 Nov 2014. Work in progress. Aviation Week & Space Technology. 176:41:44–45. 25. Bartels, Meghan. Trump calls for $25 billion NASA budget for 2021 to boost moon and Mars goals. 10 Feb 2020. Space.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/trump-calls25-billion-nasa-budget-2021-boost-moon-mars-n1134126?cid=publicrss_20200224 26. NASA.gov. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 02]. Available from https://mars.nasa. gov/mars-exploration/missions/mars2020/ 27. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Basics of space flight. Chapter 4 . Interplanetary trajectories. [Internet] [cited 2015 April 28]. Available from: http://www2.jpl. nasa.gov/basics/bsf4-1.php 28. Cole, W. UH trio picked for mars mission support. Honolulu Star—Advertiser. 22 Aug 2014. 29. Britto, D. Space exploration in 2014: A year of achievements and discoveries. Daily News & Analysis. 30 Dec 2014. 30. Grush, Loren. NASA finally rolls out completed core of its massive new rocket. 08 Jan 2020. theverge.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 03]. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/8/21057391/nasa-sls-rocket-corestage-roll-out-michoud-stennis 31. Betz, Eric. Jan 2015. Lofty goals, loftier budgets for human spaceflight. Astronomy. 43:1:16. 32. Steitz, David. May 2014. Low-density supersonic decelerator. NASA Press Kit. [Internet] [cited 2015 June 06]. Available from: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ news/press_kits/ldsd.pdf 33. Chiles, James R. Oct/Nov 2014. Bigger than saturn, bound for deep space. Air & Space Magazine. 29:5:20–27. 34. Riebeek, Holli. Catalog of Earth satellite orbits. Earthobservatory.nasa.gov. 04 Sep 2009. [Internet] [cited 2016 June 10]. Available from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OrbitsCatalog/ 35. Skran, Dale L. 27 April 2015. Battle of the Collossi: SLS vs falcon heavy. The Space Review. [Internet] [cited 2015 May 27]. Available from: http://www. thespacereview.com/article/2737/1

Final Thoughts on Humans Going to Mars 111 36. O’Callaghan, Jonathan. Goodbye Mars One, the fake mission to Mars that fooled the world. 11 Feb 2019. NASA.gov. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 06]. Available from: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/ldsd.pdf https:// www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/02/11/goodbye-mars-one-thefake-mission-to-mars-that-fooled-the-world/#2db29d602af5 37. Bowerman, M. Want to live (and die) on mars? USA Today. 18 Feb 2015. 38. Associated Press. China plans to have a space station by 2022. 06 May 2020. news.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 09]. Available from https://www.news. com.au/world/breaking-news/china-plans-to-have-space-station-by-2022/ news-story/b8e3d1cc3ed8858a2190b541f4264826 39. Bartels, Meghan. China launches next-generation space capsule on Long March 5B rocket test flight. 05 May 2020. Space.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 09]. Available from: https://www.space.com/china-long-march-5b-nextgen-space-capsule-launch-success.html?utm_source=notification 40. Ossola, Alexandra. Putin plans to put Russians on Mars in 2019. 16 Mar 2018. futurism.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 10]. Available from: https://futurism.com/putin-russia-mars-2019 41. Keach, Sean. Russia reveals nuclear spaceship that will fly to Mars in very near future. 14 Nov 2018. foxnews.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 11]. Available from https://www.foxnews.com/science/russia-reveals-nuclearspaceship-that-will-fly-to-mars-in-very-near-future 42. Weitering, Hanneke. How SpaceX’s Starship will help establish a Mars base. 15 Aug 2019. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 11]. Available from: https://www. space.com/spacex-starship-mars-transportation-plans.html 43. Huddleston Jr, Tom. Jeff Bezos says reaching Mars without first going back to the moon is an ‘illusion’. 15 Aug 2019. [Internet] [cited 2020 May 11]. Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/21/jeff-bezos-reachingmars-without-going-to-moon-first-is-an-illusion.html 44. Aldrin, Buzz. Commentary: let’s aim for Mars. CNN.com. 23 June 2009. [Internet] [cited 2016 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/ TECH/space/06/23/aldrin.mars/

6 Politics, the Military, and the Space Force

“When egotism reaches space, the universe will have no room to move.” –Anthony T. Hincks1 Politics and the Military in Outer Space Ever since President Trump announced his intent to create a Space Force in 2018, there has been debate over how this new military organization would be implemented. Space Force has been mimicked as a Star Wars Trump innovation, complete with images of Trump represented either by Darth Vader or as a Trump soldier in a spacesuit outfitted with laser weapons. Outer space today is filled with the orbiting resources owned by several countries, some allies and some considered enemies. These resources are vulnerable to attack and need to be protected from forces already demonstrated. The future of outer space may be uncertain, but the Space Force or its equivalent is important to protecting these assets. Politics and the military objectives of a country historically have driven government research and the technological advancement of airplanes, ballistic missiles, and outer space vehicles, even manned space exploration. There have always been partnerships between commercial businesses (as contractors) and a government organization such as NASA working together to achieve a policy or military objective. Only recently have companies with the necessary resources been able to achieve their own objectives and pursue their own commercial ventures in outer space. This surge in private enterprise represents the beginning of some separation between government and civilian space objectives. It also represents an exciting chapter in the exploration of our Solar System and deep space by providing an alternative to the government. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_6

112

The History of NACA and NASA 113 This chapter examines the history of the U.S. space program and how it was intertwined with military objectives and international conflicts. The current space efforts are also discussed along with the military use of outer space and the possibility that it could be a theater of war due to the abundance of critical Earth orbiting assets. The History of NACA and NASA The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was established in 1915 as an independent government agency to advance and apply aeronautical research. Its charter was to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view to their practical solution.”2 NACA developed the technologies that were applied to military aircraft and ballistic missiles. Contributing members represented the government, military, and industry including visionaries such as Orville Wright. The group remained at the cutting edge of technology in the early years. NACA expanded its facilities and number of employees over the next thirty years to take on more aerodynamic studies and practical experiments using wind tunnel and flight tests, advancing airfoils, increasing the range, speed and efficiency of both military and civilian airplanes (see Figure 6.1). As the threat

Fig. 6.1  The original NACA hangars at the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in Hampton, Virginia, now the NASA Langley Research Center (1931). A modified Ford Model used to start aircraft propellers is shown by hanger. Image credit: NASA

114  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force of a new world war increased, NACA’s research accelerated. New laboratories were added to the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, including the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory (1940) and the Cleveland Laboratory (1941, later named the Lewis Research Center).3 NACA made important contributions to U.S. military success by helping to create superior air power in World War II. After World War II, NACA started working on the design of the first supersonic airplane, along with the Air Force and Bell Aircraft. Work was conducted at a sister facility to Langley, Edwards Air Force Base in California. The Bell X-1, shown in Figure 6.2, broke the sound barrier in 1947.

Fig. 6.2  The Bell X-1 aircraft made its first supersonic flight on October 14, 1947. Image credit: NASA

As the Cold War became more intense in the 1950’s, NACA became more focused on missile technology. The possibility of space flight in the future brought additional challenges focusing on space vehicle research and reentry methods. By the late 1950s NACA had developed a plan for a blunt rather than spherical body spacecraft design that would re-enter Earth’s atmosphere with a heat shield and controls that would include a pilot. NACA led the way into the space age. Along the way, it had become a successful model for future government scientific research agencies.

The U.S. Air Force 115 After the Soviet Union’s launch of the first ballistic missile as well as the artificial satellite Sputnik in 1957, the U.S. government and NACA began to look urgently ahead to space flight. While in the throes of the Cold War, the U.S. Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space (NASA) Act in 1958, forming a new independent civilian space agency directed “to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA activities and the results thereof.” When NASA was formed, NACA was terminated, turning over air and space operations to NASA on October 1, 1958. In addition to aeronautical research, NASA would oversee civilian space programs involving satellites, robotic missions, and human exploration. The new agency would wield more power than NACA and be allotted increased resources to address a more comprehensive directive. Although NASA was designated primarily as a civilian organization, it has always maintained a strong relationship with the military, collaborating to develop technologies for military applications. The Army Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California and the Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama (now the Marshall Space Flight Center) were integrated into NASA facilities, reinforcing that relationship. As the race to space progressed, NASA was responsible for the early planning and decisions related to the human space program. Over the past 60 years, NASA has overseen hundreds of programs and launched a variety of spacecraft including satellites and orbiters to explore the Moon and other planets in the far reaches of space.4 The U.S. Air Force For over a century, the Air Force has defended the United States in the air, space, and cyberspace. It has been the primary military branch overseeing air and space operations since the National Security Act of 1947 created the Department of the Air Force as a separate and independent branch of the military. During the Cold War, Air Force space operations were concentrated on national and military leadership issues including space surveillance and command and control, launch operations, missile warning, and satellite control.5 In 1982, the Air Force created the Air Force Space Command identifying space operations as its primary focus.6 The Space Command would exist from 1985 to 2002. During that time period, the Command would assume responsibility for the development of the MILSTAR satellite system in 1983 (providing secure U.S. military global communications), the Global Positioning System (GPS) in 1984, and space launch operations involving Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida as well as Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (1990). On the military side, the Space Command would take charge of U.S. intercontinental ballistic missions along with gathering and analyzing surveillance data acquired from spy

116  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force satellites.7 The use of satellites, specifically the Global Positioning System network (GPS, as seen in Figure 6.3), assisted the military command and control for the Gulf War (1990-1991) and was considered to be the first space war.8

Fig. 6.3  GPS IIF satellite. Image credit: United States Government (gps.gov)

In 2002, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S.  Space Command was deactivated, transferring military related space operations oversight to the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).9 The Air Force kept its leading role in outer space through the Air Force Space Command. In August 2019, President Trump officially re-established the U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) as a major command of the U.S. Air Force. Its objective is to protect U.S. resources in outer space and strengthen the military to prepare for the development of more advanced anti-satellite weapons by enemy nations.10

The U.S. Space Force: The Debate 117 Threats to Outer Space Military Resources Threats to outer space resources exist in multiple forms. Missiles launched from the surface of the Earth can target orbiting spacecraft and destroy them. Missiles can also carry Vehicles carrying interceptors or other deadly weapons that can be launched into orbit with malicious intent. Direct hit interceptors, laser weapons, electronic jammers, and similar technologies are used to disable or destroy satellites. As representative examples, China and most recently India have demonstrated anti-satellite (ASAT) capability. Russia is the third country capable of ASAT technology. China’s anti-satellite test conducted in 2007 targeted its own aging weather satellite, destroying it upon impact. It was destroyed by an anti-satellite missile launched from the surface of the Earth. China’s proven capability to demolish a satellite in orbit raised concerns over the security of assets in outer space. It also generated alerts from the possible damage from the generated thousands of pieces of high velocity space debris produced from this type of collision.11 In 2019, India demonstrated its own capability to destroy a satellite in orbit by shooting down one of its own satellites in low-Earth orbit with the same type of ASAT missile launched from the surface of the Earth. This type of collision is caused by the energy generated by the high speed of the missile interceptor and is referred to as a kinetic kill missile. No explosive warhead is necessary. Again, despite warnings after the Chinese collision in 2007, dangerous high-speed debris fragments were generated causing increased concern.12 Co-orbital anti-satellite systems are equipped with an onboard weapon such as an explosive charge, interceptor, laser, jammer (soft-kill), or even a robotic arm. The ASAT vehicle is launched into the same orbit as a target satellite and then closes in toward the spacecraft. China has also developed a number of satellite jammers installed in ground bases. These jammers disrupt satellite communications by interfering or scrambling signals being transmitted or received. In addition, China has been developing highly focused directed energy laser weapons that can interfere or destroy spacecraft.13 It is obvious that existing resources in outer space are in jeopardy. Technologies demonstrated require security measures to be in place. Satellite defense can be in the form of weapons delivered on ballistic missiles equipped with sensor technology to detect, acquire, and kill enemy targets. The kill method could take on a variety of forms: exploding a warhead near it, hitting it directly with a kinetic or blunt-impact warhead, or by using a laser to cause an explosion. Testing and demonstrations have proven difficult despite decades of research and testing. The U.S. Space Force: The Debate In June 2018, President Trump instructed the Pentagon to start preparations for an independent military service branch that would be in charge of planning and operating outer space missions. The U.S. Space Force would be the first new military

118  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force service since the U.S.  Air Force was established in 1947. In August 2019, the U.S. Space Command, a precursor to the U.S. Space Force, was activated by the Pentagon. The Space Force would fall under the Air Force. The sixth branch of the military is slated to take on missions already conducted by the military, such as operating navigation and intelligence-gathering satellites and defending American spacecraft from attacks or orbital debris. A military Space Force would take charge of protecting and maintaining U.S. space resources. Protecting our assets in space from foreign nations is of increasing national concern. The Air Force has put approximately 300 satellites into orbit that remain crucial for every branch of the military dependent on surveillance, reconnaissance, weather predictions, missile launch data, and vital communications for troop emergencies.14 Adversarial nations could interfere with satellites by direct collision or by using jamming or hacking technology in order to deactivate the spacecraft or steal information (see Figure 6.4). Russia and China have been building and successfully demonstrating surface-to-air missiles that can target and destroy a satellite.15

Fig. 6.4  Illustration of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in space. Image credit: Air Force Technology

The U.S. Space Force: The Debate 119 Currently, the Air Force oversees space security. It is not clear why separating the space security duties from the Air Force would be a benefit rather than creating more bureaucracy. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson made a statement in 2018 about the proposed bill to create the new space-based military branch. “The Pentagon is complicated enough. This will make it more complex, add more boxes to the organization chart and cost more money. If I had more money, I would put it into lethality, not bureaucracy.” The debate continued on prior to the formal establishment of the Space Force. What specifically will it be responsible for and who will pay for it? No concrete details were provided although Trump has referred to outer space as “a war-fighting domain” and important for “American dominance.”16 A space war conjures up images of Star Wars type battleships and interstellar conflicts using laser weapons. In reality, a space war most likely would be a silent event or series of events that disable satellites and subsequently disrupt critical military activities such as communications, navigation, intelligence gathering, targeting, and early warning systems. The U.S. military relies heavily on satellite resources that remain vulnerable to assault, both physically and electronically. Keeping the satellite networks safe and robust would be a primary mission of the Space Force. The argument for a Space Force includes evidence that threats against U.S. space resources have been demonstrated and are growing. It is time to focus the responsibility for national security in outer space, building expertise in satellite and spacecraft defense. President Trump did not initiate the idea of an independent military organization for outer space. It has actually been debated for more than two decades. In fact, even before President Trump mentioned the Space Force, the House passed legislation to create a Space Corps, also a separate military service reporting to the Air Force and responsible for space security. Senior military officials did not universally approve the proposal, and it was withdrawn from consideration.17 After President Trump proposed the Space Force, the Department of Defense was called on to develop plans to set up the new organization by 2020. The Air Force has released its own proposal for a more gradual development of the Space Force, arguing that a strategic plan is required to identify the issues and propose the fixes. Having unrealistic timelines along with exorbitant funding in the billions and increased bureaucracy could cause more problems. In September, 2018, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson estimated that an additional $13 billion would be needed to establish both the new Department of the Space Force and the new U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM), and to keep both operating over the next five years.18 President Donald Trump described the relationship between the Air Force and the Space Force, as “separate but equal.”19 The idea of a separate Space Force goes all the way back to Eisenhower and the launch of Sputnik, the first satellite, by the Soviet Union in 1957. There was concern at the time that Soviet advancement in

120  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force space could be transferred to intercontinental missiles targeting the United States. “President Eisenhower’s first impulse was to put all space activity into the Department of Defense, and the scientific community would tell DoD what to do when space science was concerned,” stated John Logsdon (professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University specializing in space exploration). “He was talked out of that by his brand-new science adviser, James Killian, and by his vice president, Richard Nixon, who made the argument that the United States would be better off having a separate civilian agency openly engaged in international cooperation that it could talk about on the one hand, while it went about classified military space activity on the other hand.”20 The Pentagon agrees that the current military organizational structure is insufficient to address the challenges of outer space as a war domain. However, is an entirely new military service such as a Space Force required? Could a smaller version be sufficient, such as a Space Corps as part of the Air Force, already supported by some in Congress? As of May 2019, the House Appropriations Committee said it will not support the Department of Defense $72.4 million request to set up a Space Force headquarters, and instead, would like the Pentagon to study alternatives. “The Committee recommendation does not fully fund the request to establish the proposed Space Force,” according to the draft report obtained by SpaceNews. “The Committee makes this decision without prejudice and includes funds for the Department to examine and refine alternative organizational options that will streamline the management and decision-making process and minimize overhead cost and bureaucracy.”21 The House and Senate Armed Services Committees authorized the U.S. Space Force as a new military service on Dec. 20, 2019 as part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. SpaceForce.mil went live shortly thereafter. Currently, the Space Force is filling positions with thousands of airmen from what was formerly known as the Air Force Space Command along with other organizations. It will rely on a modernized Air Force infrastructure, incorporating 21st century management policies.22 X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6) The Air Force’s mysterious X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle launched its sixth mission in May 2020 from Cape Canaveral, Florida. If you haven’t heard about this vehicle, you aren’t alone. The spaceplane has been kept secretive since its early development in the 1990s when NASA was studying less expensive alternatives to the Space Shuttle. The X-37 type vehicle looks like a smaller version of the shuttle (see Figure 6.5). However, the Boeing built vehicle, owned by the U.S. Air Force,

X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6) 121 is an unmanned vehicle capable of spending months in orbit, carrying out classified missions for America’s military space program.

Fig. 6.5  An artist’s conception of the X-37 Advanced Technology Demonstrator as it glides to a landing on Earth (1999). Image credit: NASA

The X-37B was developed as an unmanned remotely controlled vehicle with no life support system or crew accommodations. This resulted in a rather small plane, almost 30 feet long with a height just under 10 feet and a wingspan close to 15 feet. It was also relatively light (a launch weight of 11,000 pounds not including the booster rocket), which requires less thrust and lower fuel costs. As an unmanned spaceplane, the X-37B vehicle can spend weeks, months, or even years in low-­ Earth orbit before returning to Earth. Boeing built two X-37Bs; the first one was launched into space for the first time on April 22, 2010 atop an Atlas V rocket. The U.S.  Space Force is responsible for the mission operations of the spaceplane, including launch and landing. The two spacecraft have completed a total of five missions with a total duration of about 2,800 days in orbit. The fifth mission was completed in October 2019 after 780 days in orbit, making it one of the longest missions.23 The sixth mission of the X-37B deployed a small satellite to conduct several experiments in orbit.

122  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force The X-37B vehicle’s payloads and missions have remained secret for years but it is thought that the vehicle could be a platform for the Air Force to test technologies for the next generation of spy satellites. Public statements revealed that the X-37B has been testing an Air Force ion thruster and working on other NASA experiments. The capability to test new systems in space and return them to Earth enables the Air Force to develop the technological capabilities that will ensure dominance outer space.24 Reflections The military has been a part of outer space from the beginning. Almost all early advancements were driven by military objectives. As stated in this chapter, NACA, in its early aeronautical advancements, developed important technologies that would be incorporated into wartime aircraft. NACA and eventually NASA would continue working with the Air Force for decades of the advancement of aircraft, ballistic missiles, and eventually spaceflight. In this current strained political climate, when President Trump announced plans to create a Space Force, public and congressional responses were divided into two opposite camps representing party differences. Supporters were all-in promoting U.S. dominance in space and safeguarding national security. However, those against are concerned that a Space Force would indicate a militarization of outer space or initiate a space arms race as opposed to the peaceful cooperation defined in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. In reality, the portrayal of outer space as a region free from militarization is a pie in the sky concept. Space is already militarized, and it has been since the start of the Space Age decades ago. It is equally unrealistic that America could completely dominate outer space. There are other contenders, notably China and Russia as well as India, that have already demonstrated their capability to threaten military resources, specifically satellites that play a critical role in the U.S. military. Given that outer space is already becoming a theater of war, the mission now should be to protect U.S. and allied military interests in space. That means both strengthening U.S. capabilities to deter and defend against strikes on its satellites and working with other nations to strengthen alliances. Notes 1. Goodreads. [Internet] Space Force quotes. goodreads.com. [cited 2020 Feb 12]. Available from: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/space-force 2. NASA.gov. [Internet]. The National advisory Committee for Aeronautics: tracing NASA’s 95-yr-old roots. 03 Mar 2010. Nasa.gov. [cited 2020 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/features/2010/95_ anniversary.html

Reflections 123 3. NASA.gov. [Internet]. History.nasa.gov. 23 Apr 2009. [cited 2020 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html 4. NASA.gov. [Internet]. History.nasa.gov. 23 Apr 2009. [cited 2020 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html 5. Military.com. [Internet]. U.S. Air Force history. [cited 2020 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.military.com/air-force-birthday/air-force-history.html 6. Air Force Space Command History. [Internet]. afspc.af.mil. [cited 2020 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.afspc.af.mil/About-Us/AFSPC-History/ 7. Roeder, Tom. Space Force: a timeline. 25 Jun 2018. coloradopolitics.com. [Internet] [cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.coloradopolitics. com/news/space-force-a-timeline/article_307d061b-687c-5332-82869b5556c5be61.html 8. Greenemeier, Larry. GPS and the World’s first “space war”. 08 Feb 2016. [Internet] [cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gps-and-the-world-s-first-space-war/ 9. Globalsecurity.org. United States Space Command. [Internet] [cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/agency/usspacecom.htm 10. Erwin, Sandra. Trump formally reestablished U.S. Space Command at White House ceremony. 29 Aug 2019. [Internet] [cited 2020 Feb 20]. Available from: https://spacenews.com/usspacecom-officially-re-established-with-afocus-on-defending-satellites-and-deterring-conflict/ 11. Dawson, Linda. War in Space; the Science and Technology Behind Our Next Theater of Conflict. Springer International Publishing. 2018. Chapter 2, Space as the Next Theater of War; p. 12-32. 12. Grush, Loren. [Internet]. theverge.com. India shows it can destroy satellites in space, worrying experts about space debris. 27 Mar 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/27/18283730/india-antisatellite-demonstration-asat-test-microsat-r-space-debris 13. Dawson, Linda. War in Space; the Science and Technology Behind Our Next Theater of Conflict. Springer International Publishing; Chapter 2, Space as the Next Theater of War; p. 12-32. 14. Specktor, Brandon. [Internet]. livescience.com. Donald Trump wants a ‘Space Force,’ but America has one. 19 Jun 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.livescience.com/62859-what-is-space-force-trump.html 15. Svab, Petr. [Internet]. theepochtimes.com. China and Russia will soon be able to destroy US satellites: Report. 05 Oct 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-and-russia-will-soon-be-ableto-destroy-us-satellites-report_2430825.html 16. Specktor, Brandon. [Internet]. livescience.com. Donald Trump wants a ‘Space Force,’ but America has one. 19 Jun 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.livescience.com/62859-what-is-space-force-trump.html

124  Politics, the Military, and the Space Force 17. Harrison, Todd. [Internet]. csis.org. Why we need a Space Force. 03 Oct 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 24]. Available from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ why-we-need-space-force 18. Johnson, Kaitlyn. [Internet]. csis.org. Why a Space Force can wait. 03 Oct 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 27]. Available from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ why-space-force-can-wait 19. Staff. [Internet]. abc15.com. Space Force and Air Force will be ‘separate but equal’ branches, President Trump says. 18 Jun 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 27]. Available from: https://www.abc15.com/news/trump-says-pentagon-directedto-launch-space-force-branch-of-military 20. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. Trump’s Space Force push reopens arguments about military in space. 20 Jun 2018. [cited 2020 Feb 27]. Available from: https://www.space.com/40942-trump-space-force-reopens-militarydebate.html 21. Erwin, Sandra. [Internet]. spacenews.com. House appropriators deny Space Force funding, call on DoD to study alternatives. 19 May 2019. [cited 2020 Feb 27]. Available from: https://spacenews.com/house-appropriators-do-notapprove-space-force-request-call-on-dod-to-study-alternatives/ 22. Seck, Hope Hodge. [Internet]. military.com. Here’s who will get the first chance to transfer into Space Force. 05 Mar 2020. [cited 2020 May 15]. Available from: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/05/hereswho-will-get-first-chance-transfer-space-force.html 23. Mizokami, Kyle. [Internet]. popularmechanics.com. Everything we know about the Air Force’s secret X-37B Spaceplane. 30 Jul 2019. [cited 2020 May 15]. Available from: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/ a28543381/x-37b/ 24. Malik, Tariq. [Internet] Watch how the Space Force will launch an X-37B space plane on a secret mission Saturday. 15 May 2020. [cited 2020 May 15]. Available from: https://www.space.com/space-force-x-37b-space-plane-otv6-launch-animation.html

7 The Science and Dangers of Outer Space

Robot: “It sounds like old Morse code.” Will Robinson: “What does it say?” Robot: “Danger, Will Robinson, danger!” Lost in Space, 1998 Lost in Space Anyone who has watched a space-related science fiction movie knows that outer space is a dangerous and unforgiving place. In older films, humans exposed to the vacuum of space because of a malfunction or rip in their spacesuit experience a series of horrific events, including eyeballs bulging and popping out, the body swelling, blood boiling, and the head exploding, eventually ending in blood squirting everywhere. Today, scientists have a better understanding of what exposure to the airless void of space would mean to a human body, based primarily on research on animals exposed to a vacuum and better scientific knowledge of the space environment. Beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere (approximately 62 miles, or 100 km, altitude above Earth), space cannot support human life. Some more modern science fiction movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey more accurately depict the result of exposure when astronaut Bowman goes outside of the spacecraft without a helmet to save a colleague. He is exposed to 14 seconds of the vacuum of space before he can close the airlock and pressurize the chamber. Previous research on chimpanzees in the 1960s by the U.S. Air Force demonstrated that someone could survive the 14 seconds, but it would likely be unpleasant and could result in a loss of consciousness. Survival might be possible for about 90 seconds of exposure.1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_7

125

126  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space While exposed to no pressure, air would be expelled out of the body. Reduced pressure would also result in nitrogen dissolved in the blood to form bubbles known as the divers’ condition called the “bends.” Brain asphyxiation results because oxygen is not reaching the brain and is being expelled out of the blood, working in reverse of normal. Some of the effects would be similar to high altitude exposure such as impaired judgment and loss of vision. If exposure continues, unconsciousness, paralysis, convulsions and death would occur. Water vapor forming in soft tissue would cause the body to swell to as much as twice the normal volume. Heart rate slows, blood pressure drops and blood circulation stops within the first minute.2 Thus far, no accident has resulted in any human experiencing these symptoms or dying from exposure to the vacuum of space, but understanding this environment is important for research in space medicine. Because humans cannot survive outside of a spacesuit or spacecraft for longer than a few seconds, scientists and engineers understand and appreciate the importance of backup systems and the ability to provide complete protection of humans traveling long term through space. This chapter identifies the major issues that affect space exploration and the scientific challenges associated with addressing them. The Space Environment Humans on Earth live in a safe and supportive environment with an atmosphere that protects them from the extremes of outer space. They live in comfortable temperatures, acceptable pressures with breathable air and a gravitational force that keeps them attached to Earth’s surface. As human beings step outside of Earth’s protective atmosphere, all that disappears. Spacecraft with artificial environments are necessary to support human life. Spacesuits are required to step outside of the spacecraft. If either the spacesuit or spacecraft is compromised, a backup solution for providing life support is needed immediately. Unsupported human life cannot exist in outer space. Outer space is defined as the void that lies beyond Earth’s atmosphere, starting at 62 miles (100 km) above Earth’s surface. The void has no gas molecules, making it a vacuum. In other words, outer space is its own environment, with an atmospheric pressure of zero along with extreme temperatures. On the sunlit side of an object at Earth’s distance from the Sun it would be over 120 °C (248 °F), while the shaded side would plunge to –100 °C (–148 °F). There are waves that flow freely through space, for example, radiation and light. The gravitational pull of Earth on a spacecraft becomes less and less until microgravity or near-zero gravity is experienced. The prefix micro is added because the actual gravity measurement is not exactly zero. Astronauts in Earth

The Dangers of Spaceflight 127 orbit experience microgravity because of the complex balance of falling towards Earth due to the pull of Earth’s gravity while traveling fast enough to match the curvature of Earth. Microgravity has a significant effect on bodily functions, both short and long term, and how daily activities are performed. If a human being were to be left unprotected in outer space, air in the lungs would rush out into the vacuum of space, skin would expand, bubbles would form in the bloodstream, and fragile tissues would rupture. Add deprivation of oxygen to the brain, and unconsciousness would occur in less than 15 seconds.3 Because of the extremes found in outer space, humans and their spacecraft have to be protected at all times. Spacecraft have to be constructed from materials that can withstand the harsh environment, including extreme temperatures and radiation, and manned missions have to have backup systems in place to protect the crews. The focus in this chapter is on manned missions and the hazards on humans encountered in outer space and during deep space exploration. The Dangers of Spaceflight Earth is a protective bubble providing a safe and protective environment for human survival. As soon as we step outside of that bubble, a myriad of challenges and dangers exist. Most of them are due to the harsh environment of space, but a few are due to our own technical shortcomings or are the result of a lack of foresight over the past decades, such as the accumulation of space debris in Earth orbit. Risks for future spaceflight, including the uncertainties of new technologies and propulsion systems, navigation and guidance accuracies, and an inhospitable space environment will affect both the spacecraft and any humans aboard. The general public understands that risk is necessary to achieve scientific goals and to explore the unknown, much like the ancient explorers who discovered a new world. Generations have been waiting for the next bold step beyond stepping foot on the Moon. Interest grows and wanes periodically (dictated in part by funding and politics), with always a core group of people worldwide who advocate for space endeavors, accepting the risks as challenges. The purpose of this chapter is to detail the major environmental risks encountered when exploring outer space. Technological challenges will be discussed in a later chapter. In the early manned space programs of the United States and the USSR, very little was known about the detrimental effects of the space environment on both the spacecraft and human crews. Some of the greatest unknowns were whether or not a human could survive the acceleration required to be launched into space and back, the effects of microgravity on the human body, and whether the heat shield technology could protect the body from the extreme heat of re-entry.

128  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space Microgravity Issues Gravitational forces (g’s or g-loads) on an animal or human launched into space were considered to be similar to the forces experiences by the accelerations experienced by a jet pilot performing acrobatic maneuvers. A g-load or force is the effect of Earth’s gravitational acceleration on the mass of an object on the surface of Earth and directed inward toward Earth’s center. A single g-load results in the weight of our body, which keeps us attached to Earth’s surface. Multiple g- forces result in multiples of our weight, which pushes down on the entire body, resulting in possible blackout situations caused by the heart not pumping enough blood to the head. Acceleration of a vehicle into space and deceleration returning to Earth’s atmosphere results in g-loads several times that which occurs from the normal acceleration due to gravity. An animal or a human would then weigh several times its normal weight on Earth, putting a strain on body organs. After entering orbit, microgravity would be experienced, which feels essentially the same as no gravity, releasing all of the pressure that previously was pushing down on the body. After some period of time in this state, the spacecraft would begin deceleration through Earth’s atmosphere in order to de-orbit. The body would then experience high deceleration forces after spending a period of time (hours or days) in weightlessness. Research on g-forces began decades ago during the early stages of aviation medicine. Initial Mercury testing was performed aboard a spacecraft capable of parabolic maneuvers that would result in short periods of time of zero gravity followed by increased acceleration. Other testing was accomplished on the ground using a rocket-powered impact sled, which showed that animals and humans could experience extremely high g’s for a fraction of a second. Human tolerance using this device was estimated to be 83 g’s for deceleration (experienced for only 0.04 of a second). Another important testing device was a centrifuge, which looked at the limits of human endurance for both acceleration and deceleration. The centrifuge was a large mechanical arm with a seat at the end of the rotating arm to carry a human or animal. The arm would be rotated at high angular velocities, gradually building up g-forces. Reactions to the increased forces were chest pain, shortness of breath, and even blackout. Human subjects could tolerate a level of 3 g’s for almost 10 minutes and 10 g’s for 2 minutes. Prolonged exposure to high g’s were found to be damaging to the human body or even fatal. It was determined that 8 g’s represented an acceptable safety limit for a human in space.4 Alan Shepard experienced a maximum acceleration of 6.5 g’s during launch and endured a maximum deceleration of 11.6 g’s coming back into the atmosphere. His training had including up to 12 g’s prior to flight.5 G-force testing continued using new methods and devices. Results from spaceflights contributed to spacecraft design, positioning, and design of astronaut seating, and mission design of an optimum re-entry angle. Designs were geared towards a maximum of 9 g’s.6

Protein Concentrations 129 As space missions became longer, human physiology under various gravity conditions were studied more extensively. In addition, new technologies limited severe accelerations. The Space Shuttle design relied on controllers to keep the acceleration of the vehicle lower, no greater than three g’s to minimize stress on astronauts, eliminating the high g-force issues. Now, the main issue became the human physiology in microgravity for extended periods of time. The U.S. and Russian space programs have decades of data regarding the effects of an almost zero gravity environment on the human body. It has long been known that if humans spend an extensive amount of time without gravity, there will be significant effects on human organs, muscles, blood flow and bones. Living and working in microgravity is mentally as well as physically challenging. Gravity on Earth works our muscles to support our bodies, to move, and do physical work. Without gravity, astronauts can experience muscle atrophy, bone degradation, and acceleration of some age-related body changes. However, it was found that many of these effects are essentially reversible a short time after returning to Earth. If humans live in a low gravity environment while they establish a colony, the long-­ term effects on them are difficult to predict. And, if a human lives out his life on another planet that has low gravity, we will need to know how other planetary conditions affect reproduction, growth, disease, and death. NASA and other space companies require more studies on long term effects of the issues described here to give them more confidence going forward with deep space mission planning. In March 2015, NASA astronaut Scott Kelly arrived at the International Space Station (ISS) to begin a year-long mission and provide an opportunity for scientists to track long-term bodily changes resulting from a microgravity environment. Scott has a twin brother, Mark, a four-time shuttle astronaut, and someone whose physiology can be compared directly to Scott’s. “Months in space are known to cause loss of bone and muscle mass, weakened immune systems and impaired vision, but the upcoming mission will track those health impacts over time, with better medical technology than Russia’s previous year-plus missions,” USA Today reported.7 Changes to the human body due to microgravity concern scientists trying to determine how to keep humans healthy in space and upon return to earth. Let’s examine a few ways that the body is affected by a lack of gravity over time. Protein Concentrations The levels of protein concentrations in the body is one way to examine some of the bigger changes that take place during long-term spaceflight. For example, researchers found that nearly all the proteins affected by spaceflight were related to certain processes in the body, such as immunity, blood clotting, and fat metabolism. In a 2017 Scientific Reports study, researchers from Canada and Russia found that spaceflight lowered the concentrations of certain proteins in the body, and that

130  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space some of those proteins were slower to return to their pre-spaceflight levels than others. Professor Evgeny Nikolaev, of the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology in Russia, stated, “in weightlessness, the immune system acts like it does when the body is infected because the human body doesn’t know what to do and tries to turn on all possible defense systems.” To study the effects of spaceflight on proteins in the body, scientists took blood-­ plasma samples from 18 Russian cosmonauts before and after long-duration missions to the International Space Station. The concentrations of 125 different proteins in the cosmonauts’ blood plasma were analyzed. About 15% of the proteins were measured at different concentrations immediately after the cosmonauts’ return to Earth, compared with pre-spaceflight levels. Concentrations of several proteins were lower immediately after spaceflight but returned to pre-flight levels within seven days. Other proteins were at similar concentrations to pre-spaceflight levels immediately after landing, but then, possibly as an adjustment to Earth’s gravity, either increased or decreased in the following days. Two of the proteins, which are involved in transporting fat and iron through the blood, were at significantly lower levels both immediately after the cosmonauts’ return from space and seven days later, suggesting that the body had adapted to spaceflight. The researchers wrote in the study: “Weightlessness for humans is completely new in evolutionary terms, being an environmental factor [that] our species has not faced during the course of evolution.” One conclusion is that the ways that humans adapt to weightlessness are not predictable. The results support the hypothesis that adaptation to the conditions of space flight takes place in all of the major types of human cells, tissues, and organs. Also, the results show the adaptive changes induced by spaceflight in the concentration of proteins. Weightlessness is an environmental factor that humans have not faced before in the evolutionary process. Adapting to this environment is not predictable. More research needs to be conducted to focus on the set of proteins affected by weightlessness and their adaptive mechanisms.8 Muscle Atrophy Muscle atrophy is a deterioration of the muscle mass from lack of gravity which is similar to muscle loss from disuse when someone is disabled or incapacitated. The loss of muscle mass affects strength and endurance, more often than not, in the lower body. These changes in muscle performance can affect the astronauts’ ability to perform demanding activities, putting them at a greater risk of injury and fatigue. Even on short spaceflights, lasting 5–11 days, studies show that astronauts can experience up to a 20% loss of muscle mass.9 In past missions, these negative effects were counteracted by spending an extensive time exercising with special equipment. Astronauts on the ISS spend two and a half hours a day exercising to keep their muscles active and strong. Even though muscle mass and strength can be regained once astronauts have returned to Earth,

Bone Loss 131 maintaining muscle in space is a concern, especially for long-duration space missions. Currently, the only known way to alleviate muscle atrophy in space is through intensive resistance training, aerobic exercise, along with a good diet.10 Bone Loss Humans on Earth normally experience a loss of bone mass at a rate of 2–5% a year.11 Studies show that some women, after menopause, experience bone loss at a rate of 1–2% higher than normal.12 In space, however, the loss caused by living in microgravity occurs at a rate of 1–2% a month. To make the matter worse, the rate of bone production also decreases in space. Some areas, such as the pelvic region, experience more severe bone loss and decreased strength. These issues are linked to increased bone fractures. Studies also suggest that the healing process is diminished under microgravity conditions.13 After returning to Earth, much of the bone loss is reversible, however, it depends on the amount of time spent in microgravity. So how does this apply to colonization or does it? Researchers are working on small devices that simulate gravity. This will hopefully disclose how cells and tissues respond in microgravity. In addition, there is a focus on developing drugs that can decrease the bone loss and/or build up bones.14 Studies have also shown that bone loss caused by microgravity can lead to an increased risk for kidney stones, due to an increased amount of calcium emission. There may be other issues contributing to the kidney stone formation, such as decreased urine output and urine acidity. Potassium citrate supplements have been shown to help prevent kidney stone development.15 Due to a lack of stress from gravity or muscles, the spine can become misaligned, and discs can swell, having taken on increased water. These changes can cause injuries to the discs after the person returns to Earth. Under normal gravity conditions, when standing, the spine is vertical, and gravity compresses the discs, squeezing out the water. When sleeping, the gravity load is removed, and the discs rehydrate and take on water again. This cycle is important to maintain a healthy spine. Several astronauts have reported increased back pain both during and after a flight. During a flight, their spinal discs continue to swell, resulting in an increase in height because there is no counteracting gravity part of the cycle. The spine becomes stiff, increasing the back pain. Disk herniation is a possiblity upon a return to Earth. Spinal issues have been studied by Jeffrey Lotz, Ph.D., professor and director of the Bioengineering Lab at the University of California. He was funded by NASA to study spinal changes in twelve crew members who have spent 6 months on the ISS. He hopes to apply the study results to a Mars mission.16 Lotz said: The take-home message is that microgravity is a fairly significant exposure that changes the biomechanics and biology of the spine. We will be learning a lot about how these changes may relate to back pain symptoms and disc herniation risk. Hopefully this study will lead to countermeasures that prevent back problems from long-duration spaceflight and also help develop treatments for people on Earth.17

132  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space Radiation Human beings are all exposed to some level of radiation every day: being close to power lines, using our cell phones, even sitting in the Sun. On Earth, the low dosage effects are repaired by the cells in the body. Extreme dosages were caused by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan to end World War II. Radiation in space falls somewhere in the middle of these two examples and affects not only humans but the spacecraft itself, often interfering with communications and interacting with electronic circuitry. Radiation is excess energy that comes from the breakdown of unstable atoms. This energy travels at very high speed, most at the speed of light, in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves or photons. There are two types of radiation: non-ionizing (low energy) and ionizing (high energy). Non-ionizing radiation includes harmless waves such as visible light, heat, radio waves, microwaves, or radar, which exist all around us. This type of radiation passes through matter without disturbing or breaking bonds or removing electrons from atoms. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to remove electrons from atoms, resulting in charged particles. This process can create a highly unstable atom if electrons are removed from the innermost orbit of the atom. Examples of ionizing radiation are X-rays and cosmic rays (particles that collide with Earth from anywhere outside of the atmosphere). Radiation in space is the ionizing radiation type, which includes the solar wind and its solar particles, gamma rays, X-rays, cosmic radiation (high energy sub-particles possibly originating from supernovae), and trapped radiation in the Van Allen belts.18 The effect of radiation on humans is a complex issue and, therefore, remains an ongoing area of research. What happens to human cells depends on several things: the intensity of the exposure, the particle energy, the time of exposure, and possibly even the person’s current physical condition and gender. Extended exposure to ionizing radiation can damage cells, altering its DNA molecules or other important components of cells in control of replication or other cell functions. Cells can die or mutate because of this damage and affect tissues and organs throughout the body, resulting in illness and, in some cases, cancer. Communication between cells can also be altered, promoting behavior that doesn’t normally occur, such as accelerated growth of cancerous tumors. Time spent in outer space exposes high levels of radiation to humans and their spacecraft. A comparison of levels of radiation for different activities on Earth compared to time spent in outer space is shown in Figure 7.1. A Sievert is a measurement unit of radiation exposure to biological tissue. Measurements were taken with the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD) on NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover during its flight to Mars and on the surface of Mars. RAD measurements inside shielding provided by the spacecraft show that such a mission would result in a radiation exposure of about 1 sievert.

Radiation 133

Fig. 7.1  Comparison of amount of radiation for activities on Earth and time spent in space measured by Curiosity Mars rover (2013). Image credit: NASA/JPL

Radiation symptoms can range from nausea to vomiting, hair loss, fatigue, and death depending on the time between exposures and the severity of the dosage. In addition, ionizing radiation exposure can affect electronic equipment by causing a build-up of static charge over time which could be released and cause damage or failure. For the most part, Earth is shielded from harmful radiation in outer space by a mysterious force field, much like the fictional Star Trek shield that worked to block alien weapons from hitting the starship. Molten iron at Earth’s core that spins with the Earth generates a strong enough magnetic field to deflect the flow of particles from us for nearly all of the dangerous forms of radiation. The charges are trapped in two large areas surrounding Earth called the Van Allen belts.

134  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space The belts were discovered in 1958, but much of their behavior is still mysterious. During a solar event, the surrounding area outside of the Van Allen belts becomes saturated with high energy charged particles. Solar events, such as a solar storm resulting from solar flares and coronal mass ejections, causes a solar wind of charged particles that can bombard Earth’s magnetic field. It produces a beautiful light show, or stronger events can interrupt electrical grids and damage satellites, even causing satellite phones to go quiet. In 2012, observations from the Van Allen probes showed that a third belt can sometimes appear. In Fig. 7.2 the radiation is shown in yellow, with green representing the spaces between the belts.19

Fig. 7.2  The Van Allen belts surround Earth. Image credit: NASA GSFC

Traveling through the Van Allen belts into outer space may be a problem due to the high concentration of charged particles in some regions. The altitudes of the belts vary. The center of the inner belt is approximately 1860 miles (3000 km) above Earth’s surface, and the center of the outer belt is approximately 9300– 12,400 miles (15,000–20,000 km) above Earth, although some estimates extend out to 23,700 miles (38,000 km). Most of the low-Earth orbit activities are well outside of this range. The ISS is stationed at approximately 240 miles (390 km) from Earth, well below the lower altitude, and the Space Shuttle missions varied between 155 miles (249 km) to as high as 600 miles (965 km) from Earth based on mission requirements. Geosynchronous (approximately 22,236 miles, or 35,786 km) communications satellites orbit just inside the outer edge of this radiation belt.20

Radiation and Space Missions 135 Professor James Van Allen and Space Travel Professor James Van Allen, a brilliant physicist interested in cosmic rays (high energy particles originating outside of the Solar System) known to exist since the 1930s, first started studying cosmic particles from within the atmosphere using sounding rockets and small rockets launched from balloons. In 1955 he was asked to design instruments to be carried on America’s first Earth satellites during the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958). This timeline coincided with peak solar activity. Van Allen initiated cosmic ray and radiation investigations as the first research goals for Earth satellites. Little was known about cosmic rays; however, the increasing levels of radiation with altitude suggested serious hazards for humans in space. Professor Van Allen put instrumentation onboard early generation satellites (such as Explorer 1 and Pioneer 3) to measure energized particles before they enter the atmosphere. After many satellite studies and extensive analysis, Van Allen verified that clouds of a particular shape composed of high energy particles existed near Earth. The clouds were thickest at the equator and thinner at the poles. The Explorer satellites equipped with shielded instruments (Geiger counters) mapped out two belts of high radiation. These belts that circle Earth were named after Van Allen. They exist in the beautiful auroras in the sky. More importantly, the belts were an important piece of the puzzle in solving how to deal with the hazards of human travel in space. Van Allen then played a major role in designing scientific satellites for NASA. He was awarded the NASA medal of achievement in 1974 plus other prestigious awards, including the Governor’s Science Medal, National Medal of Science, and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, for his scientific discoveries. He died at age 91 in 2006.21 In 2012, a third radiation belt was measured with probes launched by NASA. These data are leading to a new understanding of the Van Allen belts and their behavior over time.22 Radiation and Space Missions The first missions to travel outside of low-Earth orbit and fly near or through the Van Allen belts were the Apollo missions to the Moon. After their discovery, it was thought that travel through the belts would be problematic and dangerous. NASA needed more information about the radiation belts and their locations to be able to determine the best trajectory for a spacecraft to take to and from the Moon. Van Allen worked with Werner Von Braun (director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle) on the hazard of extended manned missions, concentrating specifically on Apollo. It was determined that Apollo could choose orbits that would avoid the strongest levels of

136  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space radiation and that would allow the spacecraft to quickly travel through the radiation from Earth to the Moon, eliminating any long-term effects. These preventative measures kept the radiation doses low. Additional studies were done on the consequences of a solar flare (a brief and intense eruption of high energy radiation from the surface of the Sun) during missions that would increase the charged particle flux. The astronauts were issued handheld Geiger counters to assist them in determining the best place in the command module for shielding in case of a solar flare. No significant solar events occurred during the Apollo missions.23 Radiation for long-term missions such as the mission to Mars represents a bigger challenge for human exposure. Data collected by the Curiosity rover mission measured daily excessive radiation exposure equivalent to a 5% increase in fatal cancer risk. This didn’t include a long-term stay on the planet.24 Astronauts on a Mars mission would exceed their lifetime radiation exposure limits at 18 months to 2 years of travel in space. This increases the radiation threat and the urgency for a solution within a decade.25 Some variations in the solar cycles can be predicted by scientists helping in the planning of a mission timeline. In addition, some types of medicines could help prevent cell damage from cosmic rays. However, the unknowns in terms of how much radiation is too much are still being studied. In space, the high energy particles are everywhere and moving so fast that it is difficult to stop them by shielding, even though this is an obvious solution to prevent particles from reaching the human body. Wave radiation traveling at high speeds in outer space requires thick shielding. Thick could mean dense and heavy, making such materials difficult or too expensive to transport or create a spacecraft out of. In order to shield space vehicles and other structures, new technologies or materials have to be developed in order to protect against the ionizing effect of space radiation. NASA awarded prize money in April of 2015 to five physicists to develop innovative ways of protecting crews from dangerous radiation exposure on the journey to Mars. The mission to Mars requires crews to be exposed for 500 to more than 1000 days. Shielding human life has become a NASA priority on long duration missions and exposure to galactic cosmic rays. The goal of this award is to produce methods to reduce crew members total radiation dosage by at least a factor of four. There will be a second challenge asking for ideas to provide maximum protection to shield the crew. Ideas include using magnetic or electrostatic fields to deflect harmful radiation or using layered material to shield the crew.26 In December 2014, NASA completed a test flight of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, a deep-space exploration capsule designed to carry crews to or beyond low-Earth orbit eventually atop the Space Launch System. Twice during the test flight, Orion traveled through the Van Allen belt, measuring the effect of deep-space radiation on its onboard electronics, which are designed to be radiation tolerant. The military has extensive experience designing equipment to be radiation hardened in case of proximity to bomb detonations. This experience has

Cardiovascular Effects 137 proved invaluable to space travel, where there is extensive exposure to highly charged particles traveling at high speeds.27 Additional discoveries are on the horizon with regard to materials that could block harmful radiation. Measurements taken onboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (which has been circling the Moon since 2009) have shown that plastic shielding reduces the radiation dosage from galactic cosmic rays. These discoveries would confirm previous ideas that lightweight materials such as plastic can be as or more effective for blocking cosmic radiation than other materials such as aluminum.28 Long-duration missions in space will only be possible with extensive developments in radiation shielding. Passive shielding, currently the only method available, is the use of materials that physically block the energetic particles, for example, by using sheets of aluminum. A greater thickness yields more protection at the expense of increased mass. Active shielding is a popular idea that has not matured enough for spaceflight. The first human mission to Mars will require a combination of active and passive methods of shielding and mission planning that focuses on an optimal choice of trajectory for the least amount of radiation exposure. It will require a propulsion system that can deliver faster transit. It could be that a combination of thermal and electric nuclear power might be the answer, but that technology hasn’t fully matured.29 Cardiovascular Effects The human circulatory system works against gravity. Gravity pulls blood down to the lower half of the body, and the heart works to pull it back up to the upper half of the body. When there is almost no gravity, the heart doesn’t need to work as hard to send blood to the upper body, including the brain. You would think this was a good thing, but in fact it causes the blood to accumulate in the upper body. In this case, the system sends a different set of signals to control and adapt to the new environment. These changes in fluid distribution result in modifications to blood pressure and the amount of blood pumped by the heart with each beat. Since the body doesn’t have to work as hard, the heart becomes less efficient and generates slightly highly systolic and diastolic pressures because some of the muscle groups, like the lower legs, are less active and not sending signals for more blood. In addition, inefficiency causes some blood to remain in the heart, leading to a slight increase in the relaxation phase pressure, the diastole. The end result is that the amount of blood pumped out of the heart, referred to as the stroke volume, decreases, and as time goes on, this causes the changes to become more pronounced and possibly affect other bodily functions. It could even result in permanent changes to the way blood vessels and some organs behave. Similar to counteracting muscle atrophy, the astronauts can engage in activities after returning to Earth in order to re-condition the cardiovascular system and help return it to normal.30

138  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space Aging Aging is the decline over time of the human physiology. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease are common age related illness. Treatments to prevent, delay, alleviate or even reverse age-related diseases have not had a major effect on maximum lifespan. Space research is generating some knowledge on ways to mitigate or prevent age-related diseases. Spaceflight opens new opportunities to learn about capabilities of the human body that could not be studied on Earth. Microgravity experienced in spaceflight is known to affect the cardiovascular system and cause muscle and bone atrophy. How the microgravity environment affects aging is not well understood. A Scientific Reports study published in 2019 details an experiment conducted on a selection of healthy astronauts aboard the ISS. The results begin to catalog measurable components of aging, and indicate possible ways to slow down or even reverse the aging process. Magnetic field measurements were taken during the study and considered to be a possible contributing factor. Life on Earth is protected by the atmosphere and the magnetic field. Contributing aging indices were affected by magnetic activity, specifically anti-aging indices significantly increased on days of high magnetic activity. Spaceflight is responsible for changes that are similar to aging, such as muscle and bone atrophy, or coordination and balance problems. Most can be reversed after a period of time after returning to the influence of gravity back on Earth. The results of this study deliver a starting point for a catalog of measurable factors of aging, and identify possible ways to slow down or even reverse the aging process.31 Changes to the Human Mind in Space It has long been thought that there could be some overwhelming “madness” that might occur if a human were left to experience long periods of microgravity and isolation on a long-term space mission. This hasn’t occurred yet, but new problems could appear in future long-term and long-distance space missions. Living in space is demanding and stressful. Mental stresses, such as worries about family or friends or being alone and distant from Earth, can adversely affect a crew member’s health, work performance, and overall welfare. Astronauts are subjected to extensive psychological testing prior to their selection process, and going forward, this process will be beneficial in minimizing the chances of behavioral problems and psychiatric disorders in space. Thus far, the only documented issues involved mood and personality conflicts among crew members in space were specifically observed on the ISS where both American and Russian crewmembers interacted with each other. Some of the issues were determined to be the result of cultural differences and others resulted from program dissimilarities and the way that daily mission activities are carried

Space Debris 139 out. Yuri Gagarin, cosmonaut and first man in space observed: “Without a doubt, in our country it is much easier to form a crew for a long-duration space mission than in capitalist countries. [We] are collectivists by nature.” 32 It is also thought that the psychological issues identified on the ISS would be magnified for a longer mission such as the mission to Mars. Longer term missions would lack the structured communication to mission control and would provide the additional mental stress in the knowledge of being far away from Earth and contact with family, friends, and colleagues. Watching Earth become smaller and smaller could increase feelings of isolation and anxiety. Some of these reactions are difficult to simulate prior to the mission. The only steps that can be taken are to take as many precautions as possible to ensure the most stable candidates are chosen for long term missions.33 Radiation exposure has been associated with a rise in physical ailments, but long term exposure to radiation can also have an effect on mental diseases. Studies show that increased levels of radiation, such as the level of exposure that would be experienced on a mission to Mars, could cause problems with reasoning and accelerate the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s is a neurodegenerative disease that is enhanced by the effects of ionizing radiation. Astronauts can be shielded from radiation associated with solar flares given warning, but other forms of cosmic radiation cannot be blocked at this time due to lack of available materials (use of lead walls result in very heavy spacecraft). Studies are still being conducted to investigate both the biological and cognitive effects of ionizing radiation on the brain.34 If a disease like Alzheimer’s can be accelerated due to ionizing radiation, it is logical to think that parts of the brain could be damaged due to radiation exposure. Results from studies have indicated that long term exposure to charged particles may result in a decay of brain functioning, which in turn could affect decision making and severely impact the success of a space mission. Recent evidence shows that radiation has the capability to compromise the integrity of neurons throughout the brain, contributing to degenerative functioning. More studies are being conducted to further study the effects on brain functioning.35 Space Debris If you use one of your sky guide apps on your phone and hold it up to the night sky, you can see manmade space junk identified as it moves across the sky. Space debris also includes both natural objects such as meteoroids in orbit about the Sun. Most artificial or manmade debris is in orbit around Earth. These objects are commonly referred to as orbital debris or space junk. Satellites have been propelled into space by the hundreds for decades, and when they become inoperative, they are left as space garbage, starting with Sputnik in 1957. The collection of space debris also includes the remains of past missions, such as depleted rocket stages, lost astronaut equipment, even a stray glove

140  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space floating in orbit after left behind by an astronaut working in space. It is estimated that more than 500,000 pieces of debris can be tracked orbiting Earth.36 They are all traveling at a minimum speed of 17,500 mph, which is the minimum speed for an orbiting object and certainly fast enough to damage or destroy a passing spacecraft or satellite. At that speed, even a half-inch piece of debris would have the kinetic force of a bowling ball thrown 300 miles per hour, according to NASA.37 Significant threats of collisions between satellites or spacecraft have been reported, but actual collisions of spacecraft with space debris have not yet happened to the extent shown in the movie Gravity, where a large amount of debris from a collision destroys a spacecraft leaving its crewmembers either dead or stranded. However, in real life, there has been property damage and potential threats to human life. “There are up to 200 threats a day identified for orbiting satellites,” said Trevor Thomas, a Lockheed Martin spokesman. “Most satellites can sustain some damage, but little bits of junk hit satellites every day, and each [satellite], on average, is worth around $500 million.”38 Orbiting in an environment with little atmosphere and only a small amount of gravitational pull, any spacecraft, even those deemed inoperative, can remain in space for many years. At an altitude of under 500 miles (805 km) there is sufficient atmospheric drag to eventually pull the spacecraft back to Earth, but only after many years, even decades. Until then, unless there is an onboard mechanism for initiating a de-orbit burn, the craft remains as an unusable piece of space junk. Up to 75% of all debris is located in low-Earth orbit, the most popular regions for satellites and manned spacecraft (the region containing altitudes from about 99 miles, or 160 km, to 1200 miles, or 2000 km) above Earth’s surface.39 Anything below that altitude will quickly decay due to Earth’s gravity and atmosphere and be pulled back toward Earth. Figure 7.3 shows the number of debris objects by altitude for the year 2012. Two spikes occur in the peak associated with the majority of satellites located close to an 800 km orbit. These spikes are associated with events that resulted in a large number of small debris particles. One of the events identified was the result of a collision between two communication satellites over northern Siberia on Feb. 10, 2009. The impact of the Iridium 33 (U.S.) satellite and a non-working Soviet Union-era satellite (Cosmos 2251) resulted in hundreds of thousands of fragments, most of which will eventually decay back to Earth but remain factors in potential impacts with other spacecraft for decades.40 The second event was the breakup of the non-operational Chinese meteorological satellite Fengyun-1C on January 11, 2007, as it flew over central China, which was intentionally destroyed by a ballistic missile kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) launched from the Xichang Space Launch Center. The KKV travels through space at over 32,000 km/hour following a ballistic arc rather than enter into orbit. The destruction created thousands of pieces of debris, again much of it that will remain

Space Debris 141

Fig. 7.3  Growth of the number of orbiting space objects including debris. Image Credit: NASA

in orbit for decades. These particles resulted in a ring of debris in a similar orbit as the destroyed satellite, traveling in the same direction and velocity. This became the largest debris cloud ever generated by a single event in orbit (Fig. 7.4).41 In late March 2016, the Japan Aerospace Agency (JAXA) lost contact with its $273 million satellite (Hitomi) only a month after it had been launched. The high-­ tech X-ray observatory was developed in partnership with NASA to observe and collect data on some of the biggest mysteries of the universe, primarily high energy particles that emanate from black holes, supernovae, and exploding stars. The U.S. Joint Space Operations Center identified and tracked five objects at the satellite’s location when it lost contact with Earth, indicating that the craft broke up or was hit.42 The rising number of objects in orbit increases the danger to all space vehicles, including the ISS and other human occupied spacecraft, as well as private and government satellites providing vital communication and surveillance services. Disruption of these services becomes a real possibility as the probability of collisions increases. In addition, damage to satellites is generally impossible to repair now that the Space Shuttle orbiter is not available to rendezvous with the wounded craft and repair it. In addition, manned spacecraft are difficult to repair and involve the ability to do spacewalks to patch or fix damaged areas and equipment. The preference is to avoid the threat if possible or take defensive measures to protect

142  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space

Fig. 7.4  Space debris density by altitude above Earth. Image credit: NASA

the spacecraft. Advanced warning helps to determine a course of action to save a spacecraft or a life. The space debris problem can become politically complex when it appears that space collisions happen intentionally, such as China’s 2007 missile test that destroyed an old satellite. After this event, Chinese officials said they would not conduct further tests; however, similar tests were conducted in 2010 and 2013 under the description of missile defense. It has been determined that China has made significant developments in their capabilities to disable or destroy satellites, which is of concern to U.S. officials and other countries with space programs that have an interest in investing in spacecraft for low-Earth orbit.43 Monitoring space debris is a huge and complex task. The U.S. Air Force Space Surveillance, a radar system known as the “Space Fence,” was operational from 1961 to 2013, when it needed a technological upgrade. The system could detect space objects, meteors, and debris about the size of a basketball at 30,000 km. Objects were cataloged and used if necessary for collision avoidance. The Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) at Vandenberg Air Force Base maintains the U.S. space catalog and combines and analyzes data from other sources to integrate the overall view of Earth orbiting spacecraft. There has been some concern about the capability of tracking objects during the period of time when the Space Fence

Space Debris 143 is not operational. Stopgap measures include radar surveillance systems that seem to be performing adequately in the interim.44 The new Space Fence are became operational in 2017. In 2014 Lockheed Martin Corp. was awarded a nearly billion dollar contract by the U.S. Air Force to develop the new technology space surveillance system. This system will have the capability of tracking as many as 200,000 pieces of orbiting debris circling in low-­ Earth orbit. The adapted technology uses optical and laser tracking first tested on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to locate debris moving at speeds of 17,500 mph (28,200 km/hour).45 “Previously, the Air Force could only track and identify items the size of a basketball,” said Dana Whalley, the government’s program manager. “With the new system, we’ll be able to identify items down to the size of a softball. This will significantly increase our capability.” Researchers have categorized more than 23,000 items of the size bigger than a basketball, the tracking system’s current resolution capability. In addition, it was estimated that there are thousands of pieces of debris smaller than the size of a baseball that could still damage a functioning spacecraft because of their significant speeds. “The greatest risk to space missions comes from non-trackable debris,” said Nicholas Johnson, NASA chief scientist for orbital debris in a statement.46 It is estimated that at least nine collisions between non-classified satellites have occurred in the past fifty years. This does not seem like a high number, but the potential risks are growing every year. Every collision results in thousands of small particles that can damage other spacecraft. The number of total objects to track has almost tripled to over 15,000 in 30 years, and with new technology able to detect smaller objects, there will be an increased number of objects to track and catalog. The new Space Fence program will track objects in low to medium Earth orbit and will operate in the shorter wavelength S-band frequency range, replacing the old system using VHF.  The architecture will be modernized as well, bringing the detection and analysis to a new level. An estimated 100,000 space objects previously not able to be tracked by the past radar system will be able to be seen with this wider band capability. In addition, better locations around the world for the network sensors will allow a wider region to be scanned.47 Warnings for proximity alerts for space debris are issued regularly to the ISS. In July 2015, three astronauts took refuge in an escape capsule (a Soyuz spacecraft) docked to the station in order to protect themselves from a possible collision with a piece of space junk. Luckily, the debris passed by about a mile and a half away. This type of precaution has only been required three other times, and, thus far, no major collisions have been recorded. The ISS is capable of moving out of the way to avoid a collision, but it takes more than a day’s time to plan and carry out the evasive maneuvers. As was done in 2015, if an imminent collision is only a few hours away, the best plan of action is to protect the crew inside of escape vehicles.48

144  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space NASA has developed a set of guidelines used to assess whether the proximity of orbital debris to a spacecraft is sufficient to perform evasive actions or safety measures for a crew. These guidelines draw a “pizza box” shape around the spacecraft, about 30 miles across by 30 miles long by about a mile deep by (1.5 × 50 × 50 km), with the vehicle in the center. If analysis predicts that debris will pass close enough for concern and the quality of the tracking data is deemed sufficiently accurate, Mission Control centers in Houston and Moscow work together to develop a course of action. The analysis is based on the calculation of the probability of a collision based on the miss distance and an uncertainty provided by JSpOC. In making this critical decision, JSpOC would collect additional tracking data on the threat to improve accuracy in the prediction. If a maneuver is necessary, NASA provides JSpOC data regarding the new orbit for future predictions.49 To deal with minor debris, the ISS is fitted with a thin shield called a Whipple bumper. The shields were first invented by Fred Whipple in 1946, who called it a “meteor bumper.” It works in a similar way as a car bumper in that a thin outer shield, such as thin sheet of aluminum, is separated from the spacecraft by an open space and works to shield the craft and cause the small pieces of debris to explode when they strike the surface. The shields have also been stuffed with layers of material that can absorb shock in a similar way that crash walls are constructed on race tracks. Many types of shields have been designed and are used on all types of spacecraft. The ISS alone used two hundred Whipple-type shields to protect from impacts.50 Collision avoidance and bumpers are not the only methods being considered as preventative measures for orbiting space debris lasers are being explored as a means of slowing objects down so they return back to Earth, burning up on the way. There is even an idea being considered to outfit the ISS with a type of laser cannon developed by Tokyo researchers. Plans for its testing were recently released in May 2015. The high-powered laser, which could be considered a weapon, would eventually be able to push debris back into Earth’s atmosphere.51 Shooting lasers into space has its own risks, and questions might arise regarding the nature and purpose of the laser as well as the legality of shooting an object that officially belongs to someone else. Other proposed methods include a spacecraft that would be deployed as sort of a garbage truck, picking up smaller pieces of debris and non-working satellites. The Space Shuttle orbiter would have been a good candidate for this type of mission, but now that the program has been canceled, there is no similar American vehicle at this time. Russia has proposed using a nuclear powered spacecraft for long duration missions to pick up or destroy objects. However, more powerful nuclear propulsion systems have not yet been developed and tested and would be potentially dangerous if something went wrong. The positive attributes would be the ability to change orbits and do a variety of work, pulling rocket stages or satellites to lower orbits and clearing debris.52

Space Debris 145 Japan’s Aerospace Agency’s (JAXA) has a strong interest in orbital debris removal. One recent idea was the use of a magnetic net to attract and catch metal junk. Japan has joined with a fishing equipment company to create a unique net that will be used to catch some of the orbiting space junk, which is primarily metal. The electrified net, made of ultra-thin stainless steel and aluminum, would first catch and then slow down the debris so it will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. A test launch in early 2015 sent a satellite into space that unraveled the 980 foot (300 m) net into space. The net will be operational in Earth’s orbit for about a year, when it will be pulled back to the surface by gravity, incinerating the space garbage on the descent.53 During its first orbital test, a 700-meter (2,300 ft) tether should have unfolded from a space station resupply vehicle that was returning to Earth. The tether was supposed to grab onto a piece of debris and and pull it down into the atmosphere. According to JAXA scientists, however, the system appears to have faltered and the tether wasn’t released. More research and testing will be required. 54 Another Japanese venture involves the space debris removal and orbital sustainability company Astroscale Holdings Inc. In January 2020 the company was granted $4.5 million (U.S.) from the Japanese government to develop a plan for commercializing debris removal services. Its first debris removal mission will focus on collecting the large fuselage from a Japanese rocket. The first part of the mission will launch an experimental satellite in 2022 to collect data and inspect the fuselage. Astroscale plans to demonstrate on a Soyuz mission in the first half of 2020, looking to commercialization in 2025.55 Each of these methods has both positive and negative aspects, but it is at least encouraging that a significant amount of effort is going into the development of space junk removal methods. In addition to the removal of space debris, limiting the amount of orbiting debris and making each country or company responsible for its own spacecraft in orbit is equally important. There is the issue of enforcement and making sure countries have agreed to the necessary guidelines as outlined in the Space Treaty of 1967, where it states “States shall be responsible for their national activities in outer space, whether carried on by governmental or non-governmental entities.” In addition, “States shall avoid the harmful contamination of outer space.”56 However, removing space debris today would have to be agreed on by interested parties internationally, and there is some doubt as to whether countries are willing to cooperate in this effort and to what extent. There are several countries interested in protecting their space interests and addressing space debris issues. China has recently established an agency to track and deal with space debris due to the increasing threat to their orbiting space assets.57 In 2008, after the Iridium-Russian satellite collision, UN member countries adopted a resolution outlining space debris guidelines that call for the removal of non-working spacecraft from low-Earth orbit.58 The success of the agreement depends on which nations support the proposal as well as the means to enforce the

146  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space agreement. “The prompt implementation of appropriate space debris mitigation measures is in humanity’s common interest, particularly if we are to preserve the outer space environment for future generations,” says Mazlan Othman, director of the U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).59 The first step is an international consensus to formulate guidelines to create the sustainable use of outer space and prevent pollution of the space environment. Reaching an agreement on these guidelines makes a statement about how important the issue of space debris is to the international community, not only scientists. The UN guidelines outline mitigation measures that involve all phases of spacecraft, including planning, design, manufacture, and operations. Of importance is limiting the longevity of spacecraft remaining in low-Earth orbit well past their mission has ended and removing them from this congested region.60 Again, to date, these are voluntary guidelines with no enforcement attached to them. Some scientists feel that we are approaching the Kessler syndrome, a theory proposed by a NASA scientist of the same name in 1978. Essentially, the theory states that two objects that randomly collide in space generate more debris that collides with other objects, creating more projectiles causing more random collisions until low-Earth orbit is so full of debris that passage through it becomes impossible.61 Final Thoughts on the Dangers of Outer Space In the early manned space programs of the United States and the USSR, very little was known about the detrimental effects of the space environment on both spacecraft and human crews. In particular, one of the greatest unknowns was whether or not a human could survive extreme accelerations and the re-entry conditions. Once it was determined that humans could survive spaceflight and explore and work in space, attention focused on long-term issues. Going to Mars can take three months. Additionally, Mars gravity is only 38% of Earth’s surface gravity. A trip to Mars will involve extended periods of time exposed to almost zero gravity conditions. One question that we might ask is whether someone born in a microgravity environment could live in a gravity environment? Specifically, what happens if an astronaut conceives and gives birth on a Mars mission? Would that baby have to remain in the microgravity environment or risk debilitation or worse by returning to Earth? These questions are important to address prior to future human colonization or any long-term exploration missions. In addition to environmental issues, we have seen that orbital debris and asteroid fragments in outer space can destroy spacecraft while at the same time create more debris. Future challenges include addressing the removal of orbital debris and making spacecraft safe from collisions. Human space exploration requires a commitment to address and solve the issues that put human beings at risk on long-term missions. The hazards of manned

Final Thoughts on the Dangers of Outer Space 147 space flight provide new challenges that will be met with future scientific and technological achievements. Also, a commitment to a peaceful and sustainable space environment can only be achieved with the cooperation of international and commercial partnerships. Notes 1. Bioastronautics Data Book. 1965. Aerospace Medicine. 36:9:890–&. 2. Whitman, Justine. Aerospace Web. [Internet]. Aerospaceweb.org. c2012. Human exposure to the vacuum of space; Jan 28, 2007 [cited 2015 Aug 15]. Available from: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0291. shtml 3. NASA Quest. NASA. [Internet]. Quest.nasa.gov. The outer space environment; Feb 28, 2013 [cited 2015 July 23]. Available from: http://quest.nasa. gov/space/teachers/suited/3outer.html 4. HQ.NASA. [Internet]. history. nasa.gov. Multiple G; c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 14]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm 5. White, J. Terry. The flight of Freedom 7. Seattle PI. 2010 May 03. 6. HQ.NASA. [Internet]. history.nasa.gov. Multiple G; c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 14]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm 7. Kelsey D. New mission to space offers special opportunity to track astronaut health. Deseret News. 2015 Mar 28. 8. Larina, I.M., Percy, A.J., Yang, J. et al. Protein expression changes caused by spaceflight as measured for 18 Russian cosmonauts. Sci Rep 7, 8142 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08432-w 9. NASA Information, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Muscle atrophy. 10. Sutton, Jeffrey. Mar 2015. Celestial Influence. Scientific American. 312:3. 11. NASA, [Internet]. Science.nasa.gov; c2011. Bones; Oct 01, 2001 [cited 2016 Feb 02]. Available from: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/scienceat-nasa/2001/ast01oct_1/ 12. NIH: [Internet]. NIH.gov. Osteoporosis and related bone diseases national resource center. Aug 2014. [cited 2016 Feb 12]. Available from: http://www. niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Bone/Osteoporosis/osteoporosis_hoh.asp 13. Sutton, Jeffrey. Aug 15 2005. How does spending prolonged time in microgravity affect the bodies of astronauts? Scientific American. 290:1. pp. 109–109. 14. Faulk K. Crew’s health a concern on long mars trip/muscle and bone loss, cataracts during 30 months away from earth studied by NASA.  Houston Chronicle. 2007 Jan 14; Sect. 3. 15. NASA: International Space Station—expedition; three science operations status report for the week ending Aug. 15, 2001. M2 Presswire. 2001 Aug 15; Sect. 1.

148  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space 16. Sayson, et  al. May 2013. Back pain in space and post-flight spine injury: Mechanisms and countermeasure development. Acta Astronautica. 86: pp. 24–38. 17. Healio. Spine Surgery Today. [Internet]. Healio.gov; c2014. Microgravity negatively affects vertebral disks of astronauts during space flight; May/ June 2014 [cited 2015 July 16]. Available from: http://www.healio.com/ spine-surgery/disc-biology/news/print/spine-surgery-today/%7Be2cd0249e4df-4e78-8ec2-e743bf77ea3e%7D/microgravity-negatively-affects-vertebral-discs-of-astronauts-during-space-flight 18. Teodorescu, H. & Globus, A. 2005. Radiation passive shield analysis and design for space applications. SAE Technical Paper 114:179–188. 19. NASA Science. Science News. [Internet]. Science.nasa.gov; c2014. Van Allen probes discover new radiation belt; Feb 28, 2013 [cited 2015 July 09]. Available from: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/ 28feb_thirdbelt/ 20. Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Internet]. Britannica.com; c2014. Van Allen radiation belt; [cited 2015 July 09]. Available from: http:// www.britannica.com/science/Van-Allen-radiation-belt 21. Tucker A. Obituary: James Van Allen: Pioneering physicist who discovered the asteroid belts that bear his name and played a key role in US space exploration. The Guardian. 2006 Aug 11; Sect. 38. 22. NASA Science. Science News. [Internet]. Science.nasa.gov; c2014. Van Allen probes discover new radiation belt; Feb 28, 2013 [cited 2015 July 09]. Available from: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/ 28feb_thirdbelt/ 23. Earl Lane. Newsday. Scientists studying space radiation, ways to fight effects. Las Vegas Review—Journal. 1991 Dec 29; Sect. 10c. 24. Allen, Kate. [Internet]. thestar.com; c2013. Another hitch on the way to Mars: too much radiation; May 30, 2013 [cited 2015 July 11]. Available from: http:// www.thestar.com/news/the_world_daily/2013/05/another-hitch-on-the-wayto-mars-too-much-radiation.html 25. NASA Fact Sheet. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Understanding space radiation. FS-2002-10-080-JSC. Oct 2002. 26. NASA awards radiation challenge winners, launches next round to seek ideas for protecting humans on the journey to mars. PR Newswire. 2015 Apr 16. 27. Howard, Courtney. Averting on-orbit million failure. Military & Aerospace Electronics. May 2015. 26:5:20–30. 28. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. Space.com; c2014. Plastic could protect astronauts from deep-space radiation; June 14, 2013 [cited 2015 July 23]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/21561-space-exploration-radiation-protection-plastic.html 29. Durante, Marco. Space radiation protection: Destination Mars. Life Sciences in Space Research. Jan 2014. 1:2–9. 30. NASA Educational & Texas Instruments. Microgravity effects on human physiology: circulatory system. 2011.

Final Thoughts on the Dangers of Outer Space 149 31. Otsuka, K., Cornelissen, G., Kubo, Y. et al. Anti-aging effects of long-term space missions, estimated by heart rate variability. Sci Rep 9, 8995 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45387-6 32. Ritsher, Jennifer Boyd. 2005 Cultural factors and the international space station. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 76(6), 135–144. 33. Kanas, et al. Apr 2007. Psychosocial interactions during ISS missions. Acta Astronautica. 60:pp. 329–335. 34. Begum, et al. Nov 2012. Does ionizing radiation influence Alzheimer’s disease risk? Journal of Radiation Research. 1:53(6):815–822. 35. Parihar, et al. May 2015. What happens to your brain on the way to Mars? Cognitive Neuroscience. 1:4:e1400256. 36. NASA, [Internet]. Science.nasa.gov; c2014. Space debris and human spacecraft; Sep 26, 2013 [cited 2015 July 26]. Available from: http://www.nasa. gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html 37. Zenko, Macah. FP. [Internet]. Foreignpolicy.com; c2014. 135 million pieces of junk are orbiting Earth at 18,000 mph—and U.S. space dominance is in danger of being ripped to shreds.; 21 Apr 2014 [cited 2015 July 27]. Available from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/21/waste-of-space/ 38. Taylor R. Space junk: New tactics to curb risk. The Wall Street Journal Asia [Hong Kong]. 27 Aug 2014:1. 39. Zenko, Macah. FP. [Internet]. Foreignpolicy.com; c2014. 135 million pieces of junk are orbiting Earth at 18,000 mph—and U.S. space dominance is in danger of being ripped to shreds.; 21 Apr 2014 [cited 2015 July 27]. Available from: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/04/21/waste-of-space/ 40. David, Leonard. [Internet]. Space.com; c2014. Effects of worst satellite breakups in history still felt today; June 28, 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 15]. Available from: http://www.space.com/19450-space-junk-worst-events-anniversaries.html 41. Johnson, Nicholas et al. [Internet]. NASA.gov archives. The characteristics and consequences of the break-up of the Fengyun-1C spacecraft. 2007. IAC07-A6.3.01 [cited 2016 Feb 15]. Available from: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/ nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070007324.pdf 42. Calderone, Julia. Japan has lost a recently launched space satellite. Where could it be? The X-ray satellite, Hitomi, is the third in a series of ill-fated space observatories. The Christian Science Monitor. 28 Mar 2016. 43. Truong K. Wayward space junk prompts astronauts to shelter in cosmic lifeboat. The Christian Science Monitor. 16 Jul 2015. 44. Defense Industry Daily Staff. Don’t touch their junk: USAF’s SSA tracking space debis. Defense Industry Daily. 26 Aug 2014. 45. Hennigan WJ. Watching over a cosmic minefield; Lockheed’s ‘space fence’ surveillance system will track debris orbiting earth. Los Angeles Times. 05 Jul 2014. 46. Truong K. Wayward space junk prompts astronauts to shelter in cosmic lifeboat. The Christian Science Monitor. 16 Jul 2015.

150  The Science and Dangers of Outer Space 47. Defense Industry Daily Staff. Don’t touch their junk: USAF’s SSA tracking space debis. Defense Industry Daily. 26 Aug 2014. 48. Truong K. Wayward space junk prompts astronauts to shelter in cosmic lifeboat. The Christian Science Monitor. 16 Jul 2015. 49. NASA, [Internet]. Science.nasa.gov; c2014. Space debris and human spacecraft; Sep 26, 2013 [cited 2015 Aug 09]. Available from: http://www.nasa. gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html 50. Innovators. The Ottawa Citizen. 02 Jan 2005; Sect. C14. 51. Prigg, Mark & O’Callaghan, Jonathan. [Internet]. Dailymail.co.UK; c2015. The real Death Star! International Space Station to get a laser cannon to shoot away orbiting junk.; May 19, 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 07]. Available from: http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3088370/The-REAL-Death-StarInternational-Space-Station-laser-cannon-shoot-away-orbiting-junk.html 52. Anonymous. ‘Space towboats’ to have nuclear engines. Interfax: Russia & CIS general newswire [Moscow]. 11 Feb 2010. 53. McCurry J. In space, no one can hear you clean: The Guardian. 2014 Feb 28; Sect. 25. 54. O’Neill, Ian. [Internet]. space.com. 01 Feb 2017. [cited 2020 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.space.com/35543-space-junk-japan-tetherexperiment-space-station-htv.html 55. Chaturvedi, Aditya. [Internet]. geospatialworld.net. 12 Nov 2019. Japanese space firm cleans up space debris to ensure orbital sustainability. [cited 2020 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/japanesespace-debris-orbital-sustainability/ 56. Zenko, Micah. [Internet]. Foreignpolicycom; c2015. Waste of space.; April 21, 2014 [cited 2015 Aug 08]. Available from: http://foreignpolicy. com/2014/04/21/waste-of-space/ 57. Zhao L. Agency set to track, deal with space junk. China Daily (Hong Kong ed.). 2015 Jun 10; Sect. 4. 58. Robin McKie and MD.  National: Warning of catastrophe from mass of ‘space junk’: Failure to act would be folly, says report to UN. The Observer. 2008 Feb 24; Sect. 25. 59. United Nations, [Internet]. un.org; c2015. Space debris: orbiting debris threatens sustainable use of outer space.; 2008 [cited 2015 Aug 09]. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/events/tenstories/08/spacedebris.shtml 60. United Nations, [Internet]. un.org; c2015. Space debris: orbiting debris threatens sustainable use of outer space; 2008 [cited 2015 Aug 09]. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/events/tenstories/08/spacedebris.shtml 61. Sommer M. UB researcher studying space junk. Buffalo News. 2014 Jan 19.

8 Politics and the Space Race

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” –President Kennedy (Rice University, 1961) Scientific discoveries often result from research funded by government organizations, universities, private enterprise, or non-profit organizations. In the request for funding, scientists and engineers have to defend the purpose and application of their proposed efforts or how it will further research in a particular field. Topics of national interest representing economic, military or cultural goals are more often funded than research in other disciplines. Enduring topics that are consistently funded include the health, security, and quality of life of Americans. What is troubling to many is that the determination of the most important topics of national interest are decided through the political channels involving proposals pitched by supporters, lobbying style. Some organizations without sufficiently strong supporters run the risk of losing funding to other more aggressive and even celebrity representation. The current budget of 2016 is funding NASA and space-­related scientific endeavors at a higher rate in general than was requested. A number of astronauts past and present were quite vocal, appearing before Congress presenting strong cases for the development of transportation spacecraft to the International Space Station while depicting a bleak reality of delaying missions to Mars by years if funding is cut for critical development projects. The result was positive for space science at least in the short term. However, it is disconcerting that funding for the future of space exploration is so dependent on political support and party affiliation and its focus. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_8

151

152  Politics and the Space Race Many Americans believe that space exploration is a challenging and a fascinating pursuit worthy of American government resources. However, there are just as many who believe the opposite—that funding should be expended on other national priorities such as terrorism, the military, environmental issues, and clean energy. Space supporters believe that outer space pursuits distinguish the United States as a global leader and serve to further scientific knowledge critical to understanding the universe and the developing of innovative technologies to be used on Earth for the betterment of our citizens. There are certain scientific topics that are consistently at the forefront in a U.S. national debate on funding priorities. Climate change and space exploration are two such topics. Scientists continually have to present evidence to support funding for initiatives that not everyone favors or easily understands. Often, the emphasis in national funding is tied to political trends and to the party in control. In order to make funding more stable, consistent public support would help define resources going forward. Grassroots efforts to emphasize scientific discoveries and the benefits of exploring outer space would be one way to get legislators’ attention. Recently, a number of expert scientists have been very publicly debating the merits of NASA and the funding of space exploration, both manned and unmanned programs. There also seems to be a renewal of space awareness and enthusiasm due to a variety of new privately funded space ventures and a resurgence of science fiction books and movies. This chapter examines the national and international politics of space exploration in the early years of space exploration, often referred to as the Space Race. The main thread throughout this chapter is how funding, politics, and scientific advancement remain closely connected and can negatively affect the future of manned space exploration. An Introduction to Modern Rocketry The French novelist Jules Verne inspired generations with his creative writing and forward-thinking visions of outer space. His 1865 novel From the Earth to the Moon foretold the lunar expedition that became a reality a century later. The story was more than science fiction. In fact most of the dialog is scientific and technical, and many aspects of the Moon mission became reality in the Apollo program.1 Many scientists worldwide were looking to the stars and developing ways of achieving the dream of leaving Earth and traveling into space. The focus early was rocket development. The key pioneering rocket scientists were the Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857–1935), the German Hermann Oberth (1894–1989), and the American Robert Goddard (1882–1945). All contributed to both the theoretical and practical development of rockets. Tsiolkovsky

Robert Goddard, the Father of American Rocketry 153 published the rocket equation, defining the relationship between rocket speed and mass and later, a theory of multistage rockets. Hermann Oberth was instrumental in his work on multistage rockets and by contributions to the V-2 rocket for Nazi Germany, bridging the gap to the military uses of rockets. Robert Goddard’s focus was on reaching beyond Earth’s atmosphere with his development and testing of a liquid-fueled rocket. He also proposed using multistage rockets with solid fuel in addition to liquid fuels. He became the father of modern rocketry in America, but never saw his vision become a reality.2 His story is told here. Robert Goddard, the Father of American Rocketry Dr. Robert Goddard is considered to be the father of modern rocket propulsion. He was a brilliant engineer, physicist, and inventor, growing up dreaming of launching rockets into space. As the story goes, he was inspired by the H. G. Wells’ science fiction classic War of the Worlds, a work that fueled his fascination with spaceflight. He wrote in his autobiography about his inspiration as a boy: “I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars.”3 As a student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, he experimented on a gunpowder-fueled rocket in the basement of the physics building. He attracted enough attention to receive support from his professors. After graduating, Goddard began teaching physics in 1914 at Clark University in Worcester. By 1914, he had already received two patents for his work—one for a liquid-fueled rocket and the other one for a multistage rocket using the liquid fuel as the first stage propellant and solid fuel for the second or third stage. Both were significant milestones for future spaceflight. Goddard continued his theoretical work, predicting the behavior of rockets in the vacuum of space, proposing that air wasn’t required for a rocket to produce thrust. In 1919 he published a paper entitled “A Method for Reaching Extreme Altitudes,” which became one of the classic texts of twentieth-century rocket science, including the mathematical theories of rocket propulsion.4 Dr. Goddard successfully launched the first liquid-fueled rocket (named “Nell”) from his Aunt Effie’s farm in Auburn, Massachusetts, on March 16, 1926. For greater stability, the heavy rocket motor was placed on top of the rocket with lines to the oxygen and gasoline fuel tanks at the bottom.5 The rocket reached a maximum of only 41 feet (12.5 m), lasting about two and a half seconds and traveling about 60 mph (96.6 km/hour). This was significant, but not enough to impress government officials to secure funding. In fact, even the press ridiculed his work. After this test flight, a New York Times editorial described his work as foolish. Goddard responded to a reporter’s question, saying “Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace (Fig. 8.1).”6

154  Politics and the Space Race

Fig. 8.1  Robert Goddard and “Nell,” his first liquid-fueled rocket. Image credit: NASA

A small amount of funding from the Smithsonian Institution, made possible in part by the support of Charles Lindbergh, allowed Goddard to continue his research. In 1930 he moved to New Mexico along with some of his colleagues to continue working away from the public eye. Goddard and his team launched rockets that achieved altitudes up to 1.7 miles (2.7 km) with speeds faster than the sound barrier at 550 mph (885 km/hour). He successfully achieved three-axis steerable thrust to the rockets to control the direction of rocket flight. One of his rocket flights in 1929 carried the first scientific payload, a barometer, and a camera. By the time he died in 1945, he was awarded over 200 patents in rocketry although his propulsion research was not widely recognized during his lifetime.7 Goddard also worked with the U.S. military to create and build the bazooka, an antitank weapon. His theories were expanded on by both German and American scientists to further develop missiles and rockets.8 Today, Robert Goddard is referred to as the father of modern rocketry, and finally his significant achievements in rocket propulsion have been acknowledged.

Wernher Von Braun, the Father of Space Travel 155 Unfortunately, he didn’t live to see his vision of traveling into space become a reality. One of NASA’s facilities, the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, was named to honor his scientific achievements. Rocket Development During World War II Rocket development moved into a military phase during World War II.  Missile capability became an important military advantage, allowing for the delivery of destructive weapons. The technology required for space exploration turned out to be a hard sell for funding when the world situation demanded a more aggressive approach to weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction. Eventually, the military needs turned out to be the impetus for developing the required space technology. The Germans first adapted Goddard’s rocket theories and testing to advance their missile development, including rocket thrust control, all of which were instrumental in the success of the V-2 program. Following World War II, German rocket scientists working at the rocket development site at Peenemünde emigrated to both the United States and the Soviet Union to eventually contribute to the Space Race of the 1960s. One of the premier German rocket scientists was Werner Von Braun. His story is chronicled next. Wernher Von Braun, the Father of Space Travel Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912–1977) was one of the most important rocket scientists of the modern era and the man who steered the American space program to the Moon. A brilliant engineer, physicist, and inventor, he grew up dreaming of launching rockets into space. As a young man, he was inspired by Herman Oberth’s The Rocket into Interplanetary Space. When Von Braun studied mechanical engineering and physics in Berlin, he assisted Oberth in his testing of liquid-fueled rockets.9 Because of the nature of his work, Von Braun was noticed by the German government, who provided him with research funding. In 1937 he became the technical director of the famous rocket facility located at Peenemünde.10 Impressed with von Braun and his work, Nazi leadership supported his development of a long-­ range ballistic missile. The A-4 became the most advanced rocket produced under his leadership. The Nazis changed the A-4’s name in 1944 to V-2 (V for Vergeltung, the German word for “vengeance”), and they began targeting the rockets to launch toward London and Antwerp. The V-2, fueled by liquid ethanol, could deliver a 1-ton (900 kg) warhead to a target as far as 200 miles (322 km) away, traveling faster than 3500 mph (5633 km/hour) and reaching altitudes as high as 6 miles

156  Politics and the Space Race (~10 km). The Germans launched more than 1300 V-2s c and hundreds more toward Belgium and France.11 The V-2 was outfitted with an automatic guidance system that used gyroscopes to track the position of the rocket and adjust the trajectory by changing the position of the rudders attached to the fins without having to control the rocket from the ground.12 The V-2s, although successful, were developed too late to make a significant difference in the ending of the war. Following World War II, German rocket scientists working at Peenemünde surrendered and were sent to either the United States or the Soviet Union. Von Braun still had faith in his dream and wrote: “It was the space station we sought and we still seek it wherever we may be. We desire to open the planetary world to mankind.”13 Dr. Von Braun and over 125 key German rocket scientists surrendered to the Americans in 1945 and were transferred to the custody of the U.S. Army. They were sent to Fort Bliss, Texas, where Von Braun was named technical advisor of the White Sands Proving Grounds. His group re-­ assembled rocket parts from Germany, and in 1946 the V-2 was launched once again, this time with scientific purposes, using instrumentation to study Earth’s upper atmosphere. In 1950, von Braun and his team, including American scientists and engineers were transferred to Huntsville, Alabama. Von Braun, still interested in manned space travel, was thwarted again due to the outbreak of the Korean War. The military focus was again on ballistic missile development. Von Braun directed the army ballistic weapons program and focused his efforts on developing the medium-­range Redstone ballistic missile and the intermediate-range Jupiter ballistic missile. Both rockets ended up being vital to the success of the Mercury and Gemini programs. In 1955, von Braun became a U.S. citizen.14 As a response to the Soviet Union’s launch of the satellite Sputnik 4 months earlier, Von Braun’s team put Explorer-1, the first American satellite, into Earth orbit in late January 1958. Von Braun’s visions and accomplishments became key to helping America enter the space age.15 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was formed in 1958. Von Braun became director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief designer of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the rocket that would take Americans to the Moon (Fig. 8.2).16 Werhner von Braun became a prominent spokesperson for space exploration in the 1950s through the Apollo program. He was present for the launch of the Apollo 11 mission using the Saturn V rockets that carried the first astronauts to the Moon. He retired from NASA in 1972. Von Braun stayed active in his conceptual designs, including futuristic permanent wheel-shaped lunar space stations that rotated to generate artificial gravity. Von Braun is given credit for the rocket technology that took America to the Moon, winning the Space Race against the Soviet Union.

The Early History of Space Politics 157

Fig. 8.2  Wernher von Braun standing in front of the Saturn V’s F1 engines. Image credit: NASA

The Early History of Space Politics It is impossible to tell the story of manned spaceflight without a discussion of worldwide politics that accelerated the development of the technology, making space travel possible in what many consider a shortened timeframe. Political priorities determine how government funding is disbursed. In the early days of the Space Race, being first in the world meant military, scientific, and political supremacy for both the United States and the Soviet Union. The story of spaceflight started in the 1950s with the political conflict known as the Cold War, which brought the United States to the brink of nuclear war with the communist Soviet Union (USSR). The Soviet Union was an ally to America during World War II, along with Britain and France, when they were united against their common enemy, Nazi Germany. The relationship of the USSR and the Allies began to strain under the rule of Stalin. In 1943, Stalin wanted the Allies to help him set up a second war front because he felt that the Soviet Union was taking on the brunt of

158  Politics and the Space Race the fight against Germany. Once the fighting was over, Stalin thought his country would be weakened, leaving the Allies in a superior position. The Allies disagreed, causing a rift in the relationship. In early 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin agreed to post-war conditions for the countries under Nazi rule and the creation of a UN organization to promote international peace. Stalin’s communist viewpoints, not adopted by the Allies, created tensions even as Nazi Germany surrendered. When the United States used atomic bombs to end the war against Japan, Stalin became aware that the Soviet Union was lagging behind in weapons capability despite their overwhelming manpower. By the end of 1945, the Cold War had begun.17 Over the next several years, both the United States and the Soviet Union independently developed their military capabilities, which included nuclear bombs and missile delivery systems, much of this work done in secrecy. Tensions increased due to number of provocative events and postures taken by the Soviet Union at this time. Both countries had scientists interested and capable of putting a satellite into Earth orbit. Focus on military advantage took priority over scientific space endeavors. As early as the mid-1940s, American proposals to launch a satellite into orbit were discussed but received only mild enthusiasm. In 1946, the U.S. Army Air Corps funded the Douglas Aircraft Company’s Project RAND (Research and Development) for a feasibility study on the design and military uses of an Earth orbiting satellite.18 The resulting report predicted that “The achievement of a satellite craft by the United States would inflame the imagination of mankind, and would probably produce repercussions in the world comparable to the explosion of the atomic bomb.”19 Despite interest expressed by both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army Air Force in satellite development for military purposes, President Truman had little interest in space systems, preferring aeronautical research. Without presidential interest or focus, the RAND Corporation could only work to further define the military use of satellites and the possibilities of future space exploration. Nothing followed the Project RAND study, leaving the United States lagging behind the Soviet Union who secretly was working on developing an Earth-orbiting satellite and a missile derived launch system.20 After the surrender of scientists and engineers at Peenemünde, the Soviet Union ballistic missile program initially took a path similar to the United States. It is generally accepted that the cream of the crop of the engineers ended up in America; however, a large group of Germans went to the USSR to engage in their military and space efforts. A physicist, Helmut Gröttrup, agreed to work with the Soviet Union missile program, hoping to become a leader and separate himself from Von Braun. Remaining in Germany, he began working with colleagues to re-start the production of the V-2, using some of the missile salvage left behind. In 1946, the Soviet government decided to transfer this work back to the USSR, transporting hundreds of scientists and engineers and their families. The Germans would now work with Soviet rocket engineers going forward. Sergei Korolev, who would lead

The Early History of Space Politics 159 the Soviet space achievements in the 1950s and 1960s, did not welcome the German participation until he learned that the German group’s rocket development had actually progressed further than the Russians. Eventually Korolev’s plans were abandoned in favor of the development of a V-2 replica. The first launches of the remade V-2s occurred in 1947. Often the Soviet engineers shut out the Germans despite their proposed improvements for the V-2 as well as plans for a new guided missile. The Russians found it difficult to give the Germans credit, causing a rift between the two groups of scientists. The Germans were sent to work and live at a remote location and could not collaborate with the Russians or test their concepts. Eventually, they were told that their services were no longer needed and were going to be sent back home to Germany. For most of them, the result was devastating. By 1951, they were allowed to return to East Germany, although the Gröttrups remained until late 1953. Some Germans with particular expertise, such as guidance experts, were transferred to Moscow to work with the Russian scientists.21 Korolev received very little support for his satellite work. The Russian focus was now on ballistic missile development and gaining military advantage similar to the United States at that time. Satellite development in both countries would have limped along indefinitely except for international interest among some famous scientists who wanted to study Earth’s upper atmosphere. In the early 1950s, American scientists led by James van Allen discussed setting up an international program to study the upper atmosphere and the edge of outer space using sounding rockets, balloons, or ground observations. The U.S. Department of Defense was pursuing research in rocketry and upper atmospheric sciences in order to maintain national leadership in science and technology. The upcoming period of intense solar activity from July 1957 to the end of December 1958 (named the International Geophysical Year, or IGY) provided the perfect opportunity for the cooperative study of the space environment by scientists of 67 nations. In October 1954, the United States submitted a proposal to orbit an artificial satellite during the IGY. Up to that time, the Soviet participants did not have any submissions but were clearly surprised by the U.S. satellite proposal. Shortly afterward, the Soviets began to look at space exploration with a new and more urgent perspective. The Soviet Union established a commission in 1955 in response to the American satellite announcement. It stated that “One of the immediate tasks of the Commission is to organize work concerning building an automatic laboratory for scientific research in space.”22 Proposals for scientific experiments that could be mounted on satellites were specifically called for. Although this group did not work directly with the Soviet missile and space program, it provided a way for Korolev’s satellite efforts to be connected with the IGY. At the end of July 1955, President Eisenhower’s office announced that the United States would launch “small Earth-circling satellites” as part of its

160  Politics and the Space Race participation in the IGY. The Soviets soon announced their intention to launch an artificial Earth satellite within two years. Both announcements brought a lot of attention worldwide.23 Korolev was front and center again for Soviet satellite development. Similar to Von Braun, Korolev was more interested in space exploration than weapons of mass destruction. In the early 1950s, he even wrote a technical report on the possibility of sending a probe to the Moon. Korolev’s story is below. Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, the Founder of the Soviet Space Program Sergei Pavlovich Korolev (1907–1966) was the most significant figure in the Soviet space program. In the era following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Sergei became interested in aviation, most likely influenced by his stepfather who was an engineer. In 1924 he attended the Kiev Polytechnic Institute and became involved with gliders as a hobby. Two years later, he transferred to Moscow’s Bauman High Technical School, considered to be the best engineering college in Russia. After graduation, he joined the joined the Central Aero and Hydrodynamics Institute and was soon appointed as chief of the Jet Propulsion Research Group, where he led the development of cruise missiles and a manned rocket-powered glider. In 1933, he launched the first liquid-fueled rocket in the USSR and seemed to be rewarded for his hard work and loyalty to the system. Life in the USSR under Stalin’s rule (1929–1953) took on a new dimension. Stalin decided that the use of forced labor would speed up the Soviet Union’s modern industrialization and military power from essentially a peasant society. He accomplished this by terrorizing the country, putting millions of people into forced labor camps, called gulags. In mid-1938, Korolev was arrested and sent to a concentration camp in Siberia but later returned in 1940 to a Moscow prison. Due to trumped up charges of sabotage, he was sentenced to 10 years in labor camps. In prison, he was fortunate enough to be connected with one of the “design” bureaus, led by Andrei Tupolev. Here Korolev helped develop the Tu-2 bomber, an important aircraft for the Soviet Air Force in World War II.  Released from prison in mid-1944, he was made a colonel in the Red Army in 1945 and sent to Germany to evaluate the restoration of the V-2.24 Korolev was surprised with the sophisticated design of the V-2’s guidance systems and engines. He also knew that some of the best German engineers had gone to the United States with several V-2’s intact, along with a lot of plans and salvage parts. Korolev successfully reproduced the V-2 but had his own ideas for a better design. By August 1957, he launched the Soviet R-7 booster, the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile that could travel over 4000 miles. He beat the United States by over a year. Korolev still had a passion for space exploration and a loyalty to a system that treated him so poorly.

Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, the Founder of the Soviet Space Program 161 In 1957, his dreams became fulfilled with the successful launch of Sputnik 1 on top of a modified R-7 booster. He was then instrumental in putting into space the first dog, the first two-man crew, the first woman, and the first three-man crew. He directed the first walk in space, created the first Soviet spy satellite and communication satellite, built launch vehicles, and flew spacecraft towards the Moon, Venus, and Mars. Finally, the launch of the first man into space (Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin) ensured Korolev his place in history. His family of R-7 space boosters launched Russian cosmonauts into orbit for decades (Fig. 8.3).25

Fig. 8.3  Sergei Korolev (on the right) with Yuri Gagarin, the first human to fly in space, taken at the Gargarin Museum, Star City, Russia (1961). Image credit: NASA

Sergei Korolev displayed incredible intelligence, energy, and an unwavering belief in spaceflight. He turned the weapons of the Soviet Union into peaceful instruments of space exploration, forever labeling his country as the first nation to travel in space. Before his death in January 1966, he was developing the N1 Moon rocket while under political pressures much the same as Von Braun’s team. Korolev’s accomplishments were only recognized by Soviet authorities after his death.26 Korolev proposed modifying his original R-7 booster to launch a series of satellites into Earth orbit. He had a specific timetable in mind, which he secretly shared with his colleagues. He had hoped to begin the first launches in April–July 1957, before the start of the International Geophysical Year. The official go-ahead on the project had not yet been issued, and there still existed mixed feelings on what was perceived as a civilian effort as compared to military operations. Approved as a scientific endeavor, this was still not considered a top priority.

162  Politics and the Space Race Korolev decided to launch a simpler and lighter satellite into orbit instead of a more sophisticated scientific laboratory that weighed more than a half of a ton. Korolev proposed two small satellites, each with a mass of 40–50 kg, to be launched in the period of time immediately prior to the IGY. However, the first three launches were all failures, and the pressure on Korolev and his team was immense. It was known that the United States planned to launch an artificial satellite under the name Vanguard, using a three-stage missile developed by the Naval Research Laboratory. In September 1956, the first American attempt to launch a satellite failed. Several additional test launches were scheduled, and it was felt that there was still time to meet the IGY deadline. Korolev successfully launched the next two R-7’s in August and September of 1957, and the stage was set for the launch of Sputnik.27 The Space Race Heats Up Political posturing had continued between the United States and the USSR through the mid-1950s. Nikita Khrushchev, a rising political star in the Communist Party, was looked on with favor by Stalin and held a number of high ranking positions in the party, including First Secretary of the USSR in 1953. After Stalin’s death in 1953, Khrushchev built up his political support and used his influence to get his nominee (Nikolay Bulganin) elected as premier in 1955. Khrushchev, seen as the man with the real power, eventually became premier himself in 1958.28 The Soviet Union hoped to achieve communist domination of the world and was willing to take aggressive steps to achieve that goal, short of war. Because both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, Khrushchev decided that the best choice would be peaceful coexistence. Other than military achievements, both countries became aware that advancements in science and technology and space exploration would be a clear demonstration of the superiority and capabilities of each nation. As the end of 1957 approached, neither nation had achieved success in launching an artificial satellite. But then, before a third Vanguard test launch could occur, on October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik I (see Figure  8.4). Upon hearing the news, the rest of the world was shocked, surprised, in disbelief, or dismissive of the importance of the event. Americans felt that they were dealt a psychological blow. Scientists were devastated that they were one step behind the Soviets in achieving an event of this significance. In addition, the Soviet capability of putting a satellite into orbit also meant they had the capability of launching ballistic missiles carrying nuclear or conventional weapons to attack other countries. The world changed forever. The satellite’s signal, a recognizable beep-beep-beep, heard around the world, reminded Americas that they could no longer claim their capitalist system was superior to the communist Soviet Union.29 Before long, in early November, the Soviets launched Sputnik II, carrying a heavier payload that included a dog named Laika.

The Space Race Heats Up 163

Fig. 8.4  A mockup of Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite, launched on October 4, 1957. Image credit: NASA

U.S. government officials evaluated Sputnik in light of past political policy and changes made going forward. The Eisenhower Administration found itself criticized for not focusing on the importance of space and dismissing its significance in lieu of military advancements. President Eisenhower thought that Sputnik was a trick of sorts, without any real substance to follow. Decades later, some analysis reveals that prior to Sputnik, Eisenhower’s focus was on missile and military satellite technologies that he thought would contribute to national security in the future. After Sputnik, Eisenhower was forced to re-examine his approaches to achieve American superiority. The fact that the United States, at least in the eyes of Americans, now trailed the Soviet Union was an image that was difficult to confront and would challenge Eisenhower’s leadership.30 The U.S. Defense Department awarded funding for a simultaneous project to Vanguard and to Werhner von Braun’s Army Redstone Arsenal team to begin

164  Politics and the Space Race work on the Explorer project. In a very short period of time, by the end of January 1958, the United States successfully launched Explorer I, a rocket carrying a satellite with a small scientific payload to measure magnetic radiation in space. The Explorer program continued on with a series of scientific experiments. On October 1, 1958, Congress created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies.31 The governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were now focused and invested in space-related missions. Scientific and space achievements were happening on an accelerated timeline. President Eisenhower was interested in pursuing cooperative space initiatives with the Soviets, thinking that this alliance would ensure space would be used for peaceful purposes. Khrushchev, not interested, instead made military demands. The United States pursued a legal framework for peaceful space activities that eventually led to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The Soviet space program expressed an interest in sending probes toward the Moon. In January 1959 Luna 1 became the first manmade object to orbit the Sun, leading to Luna 2, which impacted the Moon in September and Luna 3, which orbited the Moon and photographed the surface in October. The U.S. Pioneer 4 had a successful Moon flyby in March 1959. Eisenhower’s viewpoint remained unchanged; he thought that space projects didn’t add any value to the nation’s security and that they were costly without obvious reward. He supported scientific experimentation with specific objectives instead of voyages of exploration.32 Soon after the creation of NASA in October of 1958, several organizational changes were made to focus more on a manned space program called Project Mercury, which would test a person’s ability to survive and work in space. NASA’s long-term planning for the Moon missions was being done simultaneously along with Project Mercury. Government reorganization resulted in the military efforts of Pioneer and Vanguard as well as the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, with its Saturn rocket programs being placed under the guidance of NASA. Military missile and space rocket development efforts would be more efficient if integrated. Over 50 years later, it is widely thought that support for the space program in the late 1950s was widespread, when in fact many scientists actually opposed the fast and furious approach that the Space Race was requiring. A 1958 report to the president from his Science Advisory Committee stated that some of the most distinguished scientists in America were more interested in the importance of science related to Earth rather than space ambitions. The fear that pursuing space science might weaken scientific efforts in other areas promoted a more balanced effort between science and technology. Because of the escalation of events by the Soviets, the balanced science budget never happened.33 In April, NASA selected seven astronauts for the manned space program called Mercury. Meanwhile, Korolev was launching a series of Vostok spacecraft capable of launching the first humans into orbit by 1961.34

Yuri Gagarin, the First Man in Space 165 John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, Eisenhower’s vice president, in the presidential election of November 1960. Despite Eisenhower’s lack of enthusiasm for costly space efforts, the organizational structure under NASA, already in place when Kennedy took office, made the upcoming accelerated race to the Moon go much smoother. The Cold War and the Space Race led to a lot of secrecy on both sides. Some of Eisenhower’s efforts for cooperative military and space efforts were not achieved because of political events, such as the downing of a U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union in May 1960. President Kennedy also tried to achieve space cooperation with the Soviets. In his inaugural speech, he said “Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars.” The Soviet Union had no interest in cooperation at first, only in achieving firsts. On April 12, 1961, the cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to be launched into space and orbit Earth. 35 Yuri Gagarin, the First Man in Space Americans had hoped that they would celebrate the day that one of the Mercury astronauts would be the first human launched into space. Delays and safety precautions pushed the launch date back multiple times for extra testing. On April 12, 1961, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin lifted off from the Baikonur cosmodrome in the Soviet Union, becoming the first man in space and the first to orbit the Earth. America and especially Alan Shepard, the astronaut chosen to be the first man in space, were crushed with disappointment. Yuri Gagarin was born in a Russian farming village about 200 km outside of Moscow in 1934. His parents worked on a collective farm, his father as a carpenter and his mother as a dairy farmer. The Gagarin family suffered during the Nazi occupation of the Soviet Union during World War II. The Germans took over the Gagarin house and the family was forced to live in a small mud hut at the edge of the property. At 16, Yuri became an apprentice in Moscow to a metal worker before transferring to a technical school in Saratov. Gagarin joined a flying club which eventually led to his graduation from the Soviet Air Force cadet school in 1957 as a fighter pilot. He married his wife, Valentina that same year and went on to have two daughters. In 1960, Gagarin was selected for the Soviet space program. The finalists chosen to make the first flight in space were Gagarin and fellow test pilot Gherman Titov. Gagarin made the cut and would soon become the beloved hero of the Soviet Union. 36 Yuri Gagarin, launched aboard the Vostok 1 spacecraft on April 12, 1961 (see Fig. 8.5), became the first human in space as well as the first human to make a single orbit around Earth. The flight lasted 108 minutes. Gagarin ejected from the spacecraft and landed by parachute, unlike the early U.S. human spaceflights

166  Politics and the Space Race where the astronauts landed inside of the capsule. There were some issues during reentry but Gagarin landed safely near the Volga River. 37

Fig. 8.5  Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Union was the first human launched into space aboard the Vostok I rocket (April 12, 1961). Image credit: NASA

Gagarin became an instant international celebrity. He toured the world and was given a variety of honors from the Soviet Union including the Order of Lenin. He never flew again although he was chosen as the backup pilot for the Soyuz 1 mission, which ended in tragedy as Yuri’s friend Vladimir Komarov died when his parachutes failed to open on re-entry in April 1967. Less than a year later, on March 27, 1968, Gagarin was killed when a MiG-15 fighter jet he was flying in with Vladimir Seryogin crashed during a routine training flight near Moscow. Gagarin’s ashes were placed in the Kremlin wall, while his hometown of Gzhatsk was renamed Gagarin in his honor. Mystery surrounded the reason for the crash. An official investigation concluded that Gagarin tried to avoid a foreign object, sending the plane into a spin that ended with its crashing into the ground. However, experts dismissed the conclusion, and rumors surrounding the crash continue to this day, even suggesting there was some kind of conspiracy. Yuri remains to this day one of the most celebrated Soviet heroes who sadly left this Earth too soon. 38 His accomplishments are celebrated in America and throughout the world, particularly each year on April 12th as Yuri’s Day. This fun holiday started in the year 2001 to be a yearly commemoration of the anniversary of the first human flight in space. As such, it has become a space exploration festival in honor of all human ventures into space.

Alan Shepard, the First American in Space 167 Gagarin’s triumph was a painful setback to the U.S. space program. Furthermore, an American astronaut was not able to match Gagarin’s feat of orbiting the Earth until February 1962, when astronaut John Glenn made three orbits in Friendship 7. By that time, cosmonaut Titov had already become the second Soviet to make it to space, making 17 orbits of Earth over 25 hours in Vostok 2 in August 1961. 39 Alan Shepard, the First American in Space Alan Shepard anxiously awaited his chance to launch into space and was becoming increasingly frustrated at the delays and additional tests for technical and safety concerns. After yet another delay, Shepard, along with the world, watched on April 12, 1961 as Yuri Gagarin lifted off from the Soviet Union, becoming the first human in outer space. Alan had his moment on May 2 when he was launched from Cape Canaveral Florida to become the first American in space (Fig. 8.6).

Fig. 8.6  Alan Shepard was launched aboard the Freedom 7 Mercury capsule for a 15 minute suborbital flight (May 5, 1961). Image credit: NASA

168  Politics and the Space Race Alan Shepard was born in 1923 in New Hampshire. Shepard graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1944 and served on a destroyer in the Pacific during the World War II. After the war, he trained to be a pilot. As a test pilot, Shepard flew several types of experimental airplanes as well as becoming a test pilot educator. In 1959, he became one of the first seven Mercury program astronauts. He was selected to be the first American in space and had hoped he would be the first human to be launched into outer space but that hope was crushed by Gagarin’s flight. Finally, on May 5, 1961, after about four hours of delays, Shepard was launched aboard a Redstone rocket for a sub-orbital 15 minute mission. Shepard’s vehicle parachuted down in the Atlantic close to the Bahamas where he was picked up by an aircraft carrier and then flew by helicopter where his first words were: “Boy, what a ride!” As he re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere, the experienced test pilot was subjected to 11 times the force of gravity, traveling over 5,000 mph but reported that he was “OK.” Following his flight, Shepard was grounded due to an inner ear problem for almost a decade. He did finally get his wish to fly again in 1971, chosen for the Apollo 14 mission to the moon. In this assignment, Shepard became the fifth man to walk on the moon, as well as the first to play golf on its surface. Shepard died in California in 1998, following an extended battle with leukemia. 40 Next Steps in Space John Glenn’s orbital flight was on Feb. 20, 1962 when he was launched into orbit aboard the capsule Friendship 7 (Fig. 8.7). Glenn was also one of seven astronauts in the Mercury program. Glenn launched from Cape Canaveral, orbiting Earth three times, with a flight lasting over 88 minutes. After Glenn’s orbiting flight, Khrushchev indicated some willingness to cooperate, an agreement that eventually led to the exchange of weather data from satellites, coordinated launches of meteorological satellites, a joint scientific effort to map the geomagnetic field of Earth, and cooperation in the relay of communications data.41 The American space program continued one step behind Russia for several years, missing out on a number of firsts after the first human in space—first human in orbit, first animal in orbit, first woman in space, multi-person mission, first commercially used satellite, first simultaneous flight of multi-person spacecraft, first extravehicular activity, first probe to orbit the Moon, first probe to land on the Moon, first automated (crewless) rendezvous and docking, first docking between crewed spacecraft, and so on. The Soviets claimed many firsts in their race to land on the Moon, but also hid the number of accidents and lives lost in their pursuit.42 Shortly after Alan Shepard’s flight, in his first State of the Union address, President John F. Kennedy accelerated the space program, setting a goal for the United States to land a man on the Moon before the end of the decade. He was

Next Steps in Space 169

Fig. 8.7  Astronaut John H. GLenn Jr, pilot of the mercury Atlas 6 spaceflight, poses for a photo with the Friendship 7 spacecraft (flew Feb. 20, 1962). Image credit: NASA

motivated to inspire Americans to catch up and overtake the Soviets in the Space Race. A political embarrassment from the Bay of Pigs disaster in mid-April and a sense of urgency to prevent communism from spreading further motivated Kennedy. The events leading to the landing on the Moon cannot be examined and understood without looking through the lens of the Cold War. Kennedy’s speech set the stage for the challenge: I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.43 Kennedy’s bold political statement to land a man on the Moon and return him to Earth in the 1960s decade surprised even NASA and all involved in space exploration. Funding and resources for this endeavor would not be issues, but it

170  Politics and the Space Race would be a huge and risky undertaking, the likes of which were not experienced since the Manhattan Project during World War II, when the atom bomb was developed. The Soviets were put on notice. NASA’s efforts from that day forward would continue to use Kennedy’s speech as a guide. Project Mercury would blend into the multi-crew Gemini program, and finally the Apollo program would land a crew on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. During this time, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union increased, due to significant world events, including the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the outbreak of the war in Southeast Asia. Both countries moved toward nuclear war on more than one occasion. The political events became the backdrop for the all-important race to the Moon. A sense of urgency existed to fulfill the Kennedy dream, especially after his assassination in November 1963. Lyndon Johnson, sworn in as president, took over the reins and worked toward Kennedy’s Moon landing goal. In January 1967 in a routine ground test in the newly developed Apollo capsule, the crew of Apollo 1 died strapped into their seats on top of the Saturn V rocket. The program halted to investigate the causes of the accident and the successful landing on the Moon before the end of the decade was very much in jeopardy. Krushchev led the Soviet Union as its premier until 1964. He was a complex political figure, who in the end chose peaceful coexistence with America over nuclear war. He was responsible for provocative behavior such as putting nuclear weapons just off of Florida coast in the Cuban Missile Crisis and constructing the Berlin Wall, which separated East and West Berlin. The end of the Space Race occurred on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon’s surface. The feeling in the Soviet Union most likely mirrored the American feeling when Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space. Information in the Soviet Union was not easily disseminated, and even if it was, there was a significant amount of propaganda associated with the news. National pride was at a high in America. Final Thoughts on the Politics of the Space Race Because the Space Race and the Cold War were so intertwined, it is difficult to analyze the politics of space exploration without involving the possibility of a nuclear war at that time. Fear of war became intertwined with the hopes of landing on the Moon before the enemy. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed on both sides of the conflict, and all parties lived to see another day. The U.S. had advanced outside of Earth’s atmosphere and landed on the Moon, achieving an amazing scientific and technological achievement. It was not without cost. Three astronauts lost their lives in the Apollo spacecraft testing. It is not known how many cosmonauts lost

Final Thoughts on the Politics of the Space Race 171 their lives at that time because their program was shrouded in so much secrecy. The Soyuz 1 capsule crashed into Russian soil in 1967, killing the first man in space. Similar to the problems with the Apollo 1 capsule, sources say the Russians knew that the capsule would fail, but leadership ignored the warnings. A Soviet launch pad explosion in 1960 killed over 125 people in a horrific fire.44 Looking back on the Space Race, it’s hard not to think about the contributions made by the German Peenemünde scientists and engineers involved in both the American and the Soviet space programs. The Germans didn’t design Sputnik or its rocket, but their ideas influenced the designs and speeded up the effort. Wernher von Braun and his team answered Sputnik with the satellite Explorer 1 and the development of rocket launch systems including the Saturn V. Clearly, they were leaders in the field of missiles and rocketry. Finally, politics clearly played a role in the Space Race. Never was there a time that more clearly illustrated how space research and exploration were interconnected with political events and how space was representative of military power and scientific achievement. After the Apollo 11 Moon landing, the tension dissipated, and a new era in space exploration began. Notes 1. Gioia, Ted. [Internet]. Conceptualfiction.com; c2015. From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne; [cited 2015 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.conceptualfiction.com/from_earth_to_moon.html 2. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. Space.com; c2014. Rockets: a history; May 02, 2015 [cited 2015 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.space.com/29295rocket-history.html 3. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2007. Robert Goddard: a man and his rocket; Mar 09, 2004 [cited 2015 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.nasa. gov/missions/research/f_goddard.html 4. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2007. Robert Goddard: a man and his rocket; Mar 09, 2004 [cited 2015 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.nasa. gov/missions/research/f_goddard.html 5. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; Mar 16, 2001 [cited 2015 Sep 01]. Available from: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010316.html 6. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2007. Robert Goddard: a man and his rocket; Mar 09, 2004 [cited 2015 Aug 28]. Available from: http://www.nasa. gov/missions/research/f_goddard.html 7. NASA Fact Sheet. Goddard Space Flight Center. Robert H.  Goddard: American rocket pioneer. FS-2001-03-017-GSFC. 2001. 8. Lehigh University. [Internet] ei.lehigh.edu; Robert Goddard; [cited 2015 Sep 01]. Available from: http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/energy/readings/people_energy.pdf

172  Politics and the Space Race 9. M  SFC History office. [Internet] NASA.gov; Recollections of childhood: early exp.eriences in rocketry as told by Werner Von Braun 1963. [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbraun/recollectchildhood.html 10. National Aviation Hall of Fame. [Internet] nationalaviation.org; c2011. Wernher Von Braun. [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.nationalaviation.org/von-braun-wernher/ 11. History.com Staff. [Internet] History.com; c2009. Germany conducts first successful V-2 rocket test; 2009 [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-conducts-firstsuccessful-v-2-rocket-test 12. Hollingham, Richard. [Internet] Bbc.com; c2014. V2: the Nazi rocket that launched the space age; Sep 8, 2014 [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140905-the-nazis-space-age-rocket 13. National Aviation Hall of Fame. [Internet] nationalaviation.org; c2011. Wernher Von Braun. [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.nationalaviation.org/von-braun-wernher/ 14. National Aviation Hall of Fame. [Internet] nationalaviation.org; c2011. Wernher Von Braun. [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.nationalaviation.org/von-braun-wernher/ 15. Wilford, John N.  Remembering when U.S. finally (and really) joined the Space Race. The New York Times. 29 Jan 2008. 16. History.com Staff. [Internet] History.com; c2010. Von Braun moves to NASA; 2010 [cited 2015 Sep 02]. Available from: http://www.history.com/this-dayin-history/von-braun-moves-to-nasa 17. Historylearning.com Staff. [Internet] Historylearningsite.co.uk; c2015. 1945– 1950; [cited 2015 Sep 05]. Available from: http://www.historylearningsite. co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/the-cold-war/1945-1950/ 18. Kalic, Sean N.  US presidents and the militarization of space, 1946–1967. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press; 2012. 224 p. 19. Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Forging the future of space science: the next 60 years. National Research Council; 2010. 166p. 20. Kalic, Sean N.  US presidents and the militarization of space, 1946–1967. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press; 2012. 224 p. 21. Zak, Anatoly. Sep 2003. The rest of the rocket scientists. Air & Space Magazine. 22. Siddiqi, Asif A. [Internet] History.NASA.gov; c2015. Korolev, Sputnik, and the International Geophysical Year; [cited 2015 Sep 07]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/siddiqi.html 23. Siddiqi, Asif A. [Internet] History.NASA.gov; c2015. Korolev, Sputnik, and the International Geophysical Year; [cited 2015 Sep 07]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/siddiqi.html

Final Thoughts on the Politics of the Space Race 173 24. Russian Space Web Staff. [Internet] History.NASA.gov; c2015. Korolev; [cited 2015 Sep 07]. Available from: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ korolev.html 25. Flashback to sputnik launch. 2007. Irish Times; 15. 26. Rodgers P. 2011. The man who fell to earth. The Independent on Sunday; 18. 27. Siddiqi, Asif A. [Internet] History.NASA.gov; c2015. Korolev, Sputnik, and the International Geophysical Year; [cited 2015 Sep 07]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/siddiqi.html 28. Global Security Staff. [Internet] globalsecurity.org; c2015. 1955–1964— Kruschev; [cited 2015 Sep 08]. Available from: http://www.globalsecurity. org/military/world/russia/khrushchev.htm 29. Chalmers M. Roberts, Staff Reporter. 1957. Sputnik healthily destroyed some illusions. The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954–1959); 1. 30. Mieczkowski, Yanek. Eisenhower’s Sputnik moment: the race for space and world prestige. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press; 2013. 368p. 31. Coldwar Org Staff. [Internet] coldwar.org; c2015. Sputnik; [cited 2015 Sep 08]. Available from: http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/sputnik.asp 32. Planetary Staff. [Internet] planetary.org; c2015. Sputnik; [cited 2015 Sep 08]. Available from: http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-missions/missions-to-the-moon.html#pioneerp3 33. Madrigal, Alexis. [Internet]. theatlantic.com; c2015. Moondoggle: the forgotten opposition to the Apollo program. Sep 12, 2012. The Atlantic—Technology. [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://www. theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moondoggle-the-forgottenopposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/ 34. Au.af.mil Staff. [Internet] Au.af.mil; c2015. Eisenhower years: 1953–1960; [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ au-18/au18003c.htm 35. Sagdeev, Roald & Eisenhower, Susan. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2008; United States-Soviet space cooperation during the Cold War. [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp. html 36. Pruitt, Sarah. [Internet]. history.com. What really happened to Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space? 12 Apr 2016. [cited 2020 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.history.com/news/what-really-happened-to-yuri-gagarin-thefirst-man-in-space 37. NASA.gov. [Internet]. April 1961 – first human entered space. 07 Sept 2018. NASA.gov. [cited 2020 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/images/history/April1961.html 38. Pruitt, Sarah. [Internet]. history.com. What really happened to Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space? 12 Apr 2016. [cited 2020 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.history.com/news/what-really-happened-to-yuri-gagarin-the-firstman-in-space

174  Politics and the Space Race 39. Shah, Anees. Yuri Gagarin: the first man to travel in space. 12 Nov 2018. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 17]. Available from:https://everydayscience.blog/ yuri-gagarin-first-man-to-orbit-the-earth-travel-in-space/ 40. famousbiographies.org. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 19]. Available from: https://famousbiographies.org/alan-shepard-biography/ 41. Sagdeev, Roald & Eisenhower, Susan. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2008; United States-Soviet space cooperation during the Cold War. [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp. html 42. Braeunig, Robert. [Internet] Braeunig.us; c2011. Manned space flights; [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://www.braeunig.us/space/manned.htm 43. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; c2014. NASA—excerpt from the ‘special message to the congress on urgent national needs’; [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/jfk_speech_text. html#.VfDorxFVhBc 44. Smolchenko, Anna. [Internet] phys.org; c2010. Russia marks 50 years since horrific space launch disaster; Oct 24, 2010; [cited 2015 Sep 09]. Available from: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-russia-years-space-disaster.html

9 The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era

“And as we know now, and as I pointed out many times, the great plume of fire at the bottom of the Space Shuttle is actually dollar bills burning, and the most efficient method of destroying American dollar bills as has ever been devised by man.” –Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics (1997) The national mood in the United States after Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon was one of relief and pride. America had accomplished what had seemed impossible. The promise of safely landing a man on the Moon by the end of the 1960s had been realized, despite President Kennedy’s assassination. The United States had beaten the Soviet Union to the Moon and somehow the world felt a lot safer. Lives were lost on both sides (in the American and Soviet space programs), and yet all of the sacrifices made contributed to the higher purpose of landing and walking on the Moon and returning safely. But almost as quickly as the anticipation and excitement that had built up to the Moon landing, it dissipated. People went on with their daily lives. Ratings for broadcasts for launches and Moon walks after Apollo 11 were so low that they were taken off of the air. Oddly, the only mission that drew any interest was Apollo 13, but only after its in-flight accident and the near deaths of the astronauts. The average public was not in tune with the specifics of scientific experiments conducted on the surface of the Moon. Each moon landing, no matter how adventurous or dangerous, eventually became commonplace. In fact, with no evidence of life on the Moon, there was little interest in knowing more about the Moon and how this knowledge could benefit humans on Earth.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_9

175

176  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era This chapter examines the politics of space exploration both nationally and internationally in the years following the space race up through the Space Shuttle era and the development of the International Space Station. Post-Apollo Space Exploration Politics Apollo 11 was a huge success, both scientifically and politically. NASA’s original plans included lunar missions through Apollo 20. Apollo 13 ended prematurely due to an almost fatal explosion that challenged the technology and NASA engineers to solve a life-threatening situation. The public became interested in the survival of the crew, but once the astronauts returned safely back to Earth, life returned to normal, focused on Earth-related events. Occasionally, there would be a televised moonwalk, showing off the rover capabilities to transport the astronauts away from the lunar lander to perform experiments and collect samples. But, as exciting as these ventures were to the scientists and engineers, the general public and the government were focused on other priorities—the Vietnam War and domestic issues associated with diversity and equality. John F. Kennedy’s Moon landing promise was accomplished during the administration of Richard Nixon, who succeeded President Johnson in January 1969. By 1970, NASA was already looking to it post-Apollo objectives, which included the Skylab space station and a reusable shuttle. Apollo 20 was canceled to save a Saturn V rocket assembly that would be used to carry a Skylab module into Earth orbit. Because Apollo 13 never landed on the Moon, its mission activities were reassigned to Apollo 14. NASA decided that Apollo 17 would be the last Moon flight, marking the end of an era. President Nixon expressed interest in canceling Apollo 16 and 17  in order to move more quickly on to Skylab and the Space Shuttle. Fortunately, that didn’t happen. However, the three canceled missions could have revealed more about the Moon, landing at three additional locations and performing important scientific experiments.1 In 1975, there was one final Apollo mission. NASA launched the Apollo part of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, a U.S.-Soviet demonstration of peace and cooperation between the two nations. It was the first spaceflight that included two countries working together using their own national spacecraft. The Apollo command module rendezvoused with a Soyuz spacecraft. The event featured symbolic handshakes between three astronauts and two cosmonauts. This powerful gesture indicated that the space race was over and that the two nations could work together on future collaborations in space. However, the reality was that the Skylab mission occurred in Earth orbit and was unrelated to a Moon mission.2 The primary reasons for the Apollo cuts were budgetary restrictions imposed by Congress and the Nixon Administration. NASA’s budget had risen to an all-­time high in the 1960s, but after the primary goal of landing on the Moon was achieved,

Post-Apollo Space Exploration Politics 177 there was no longer the same urgency to continue travel to the Moon. The relationship between the United States and Soviet Union had settled down, and nuclear war had been averted. Just after the Moon landing in July 1969, NASA’s workforce dropped from 400,000 employees and contractors to less than 200,000  in just 6 months. NASA had plans for more cuts as well.3 There was a declining interest in lunar missions along with a desire to move on to other space exploration goals rather than continue to fund additional manned missions to the Moon that carried a high amount of risk. Apollo 13 had reminded everyone of the dangers of spaceflight. NASA’s twin priorities of developing a manned orbital laboratory and a reusable space vehicle were competing for resources. Wernher von Braun became concerned about the direction NASA was taking. “The legacy of Apollo has spoiled the people at NASA. They believe that we are entitled to this kind of a thing forever, which I gravely doubt. I believe that there may be too many people in NASA who at the moment are waiting for a miracle, just waiting for another man on a white horse to come and offer us another plan, like President Kennedy.”4 Von Braun felt that the Apollo program exhausted all of the resources, and when the vision was gone, the feeling was to quit. Shortly after Richard Nixon became president (February 1969) he established a Space Task Force, an ad hoc committee formed to examine the future of space exploration and outline a number of objectives and priorities. This committee was historically confused with the Space Task Group formed in 1958 to manage manned spaceflight programs. President Nixon was interested in developing some options for a post-Apollo space program that could be associated with his legacy in a similar way to President Kennedy and the Moon landing. The recommendations were positive in their approach: to continue space exploration for peaceful purposes and to include manned space missions as an important component for certain scientific endeavors. The Task Force thought that a strong personal identification for manned space efforts still existed, and, in order to capture the public interest again, it was important to continue these efforts in addition to unmanned missions. The Space Task Group concluded there could be a successful manned Mars mission in 15 years, but it would require a total focus of funds at the expense of other objectives. The recommendation was to land a crew on Mars by the end of the twentieth century. This timeframe came and went, with only unmanned missions and probes sent to Mars. Other recommendations included unmanned and a select few manned programs to advance science and engineering and international relations for Earth’s benefit, the enhancement of national security without provoking other nations, the achievement of scientific and technological returns from space investments that included a better understanding of the universe, and the development of a low-cost, reliable, reusable, operational space station. This space station could be used for a long time in the future to study Earth and outer space and to supply smaller modular space stations. International cooperation and interests would be part of this last objective. Recommendations seemed to overlap government policy goals and objectives for the future of space flight.5

178  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era President Nixon overall responded favorably to the recommendations of the report. He outlined six main objectives for NASA going forward. • Continue to explore the Moon, maximizing scientific discovery and ensuring the safety of the crews. Decisions on future missions would depend on the results of previous missions. • Launch a series of satellites in Earth orbit to study Earth, the universe, and the Solar System as well as sending unmanned spacecraft to all planets of the Solar System, including landing an unmanned vehicle on Mars. The major long-range goal in this objective was to send humans to explore Mars. • Reduce the cost of space exploration and operations by developing less expensive multi-use, reusable transportation such as Space Shuttles. • Expand the study of the human capability to live and work in space for extended periods of time. This would be accomplished in part through a large Earth orbiting laboratory called the Experimental Space Station. The major long-range goal in this objective would be to develop a multi-purpose platform that would serve the purpose of a steppingstone for interplanetary flight. • Expand the applications of space technology such as using satellite platforms to assess Earth’s environment and resources. In addition, develop space-related technology to include applications of meteorology, navigation, national defense, and communications. • Encourage extensive international cooperation in space in order to achieve progress faster and contribute resources for the benefits of multiple nations.6 Nixon’s overriding message, however, was to cut back on large-scale space projects. Shortly after Nixon’s response, Apollos 18 through 20 were canceled. The only remaining Apollo-related mission that survived was Skylab, the space station that hosted three crews of three astronauts. Nixon ended up endorsing the Space Shuttle project. There was resistance in Congress to fund expensive space projects, but the president rightly concluded that the United States could not afford to not have a space program. Ending manned spaceflight entirely would have destroyed America’s aerospace industry. The Space Shuttle provided a perfect balance of manned scientific missions that would provide a practical benefit for the space program. The cost of space travel was projected to be lower by using a mostly reusable spacecraft. Future space missions, such as a space station, would become more feasible with payloads transported by a Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was barely approved by Congress in 1972. NASA had lobbied for an aggressive approach to maintain superiority in space. That included the development of a reusable Space Shuttle, a permanently manned space station, and a manned mission to Mars. The ultimate decisions made for the future of space exploration essentially followed a complex series of prioritizations made by President Nixon. Nixon decided that the space program should be considered on the same level as other domestic needs with no privilege. He also decided not to pursue human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit because of the required financial investment and a lack of desire to revisit the funding levels of

Post-Apollo Space Exploration Politics 179 the Apollo years. No other lofty human spaceflight goal such as landing a human on Mars should be pursued for the foreseeable future. The primary post-Apollo NASA program would focus on the development of the Space Shuttle. However, the specific goals and long-term strategy for the shuttle was unclear. During the Nixon Administration, NASA was categorized as one of many domestic programs, and NASA’s manned space program was confined to below low-Earth orbit, restricting more ambitious missions. There was increased international participation in manned programs, although this was primarily seen by Nixon as foreign astronauts flying on U.S. spacecraft. NASA had additional interests in technology and hardware contributions from other nations.7 It is thought by some that President Nixon’s decisions concerning the future of space exploration had a greater impact on NASA than John F. Kennedy’s vision to land on the Moon. Nixon’s “space doctrine,” illustrated in a speech by Nixon in March 1970, detailed the policies that have remained at the core of U.S. space policy to this day. His thoughts on the future of NASA: We must think of [space activities] as part of a continuing process… and not as a series of separate leaps, each requiring a massive concentration of energy. Space expenditures must take their proper place within a rigorous system of national priorities.…What we do in space from here on in must become a normal and regular part of our national life and must therefore be planned in conjunction with all of the other undertakings which are important to us.8 Nixon’s focus was to pull back overspending and fund low-cost research efforts and space projects. In addition, NASA funding would compete against other national programs for government resources. In 1972, Nixon met with Dr. James Fletcher, NASA administrator, and shortly afterward announced the funding of the shuttle program, setting the path for the future of space exploration. President Nixon described the possibilities that the Space Shuttle would bring: Economy in space will be further served by the Space Shuttle, which is presently under development. It will enable us to ferry space research hardware into orbit without requiring the full expenditure of a launch vehicle, as is necessary today. It will permit us to place that hardware in space accurately, and to service or retrieve it when necessary instead of simply writing it off in the event it malfunctions or fails. In addition, the shuttle will provide such routine access to space that for the first time personnel other than trained astronauts will be able to participate and contribute in space as will nations once excluded for economic reasons.9 Once again, it was a series of presidential decisions that guided the future of the U.S. space program. This time, these decisions were focused on the development of the Space Shuttle. After the Apollo program, there were no compelling arguments for big manned missions, no political or pressing scientific reasons for a human to go to Mars. Scientists were satisfied sending probes and rovers to discover things about the Martian surface.

180  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era President Nixon did not treat the space program as a pressing special interest need. Lack of vision guided the space program for decades to come. Space ambitions for human travel outside of Earth’s orbit and to Mars were shelved for another 40+ years due to insufficient resources and focus to achieve those goals. In addition, public opinion was lacking and maybe uninformed. If there were strong reasons for a human Mars mission, they were not lobbied in order to gain national support. In the absence of that, the future was guided by presidential leadership.10 Space Stations Although the decision for manned lunar missions was expensive and all-­ encompassing for NASA, there was still room left to discuss future efforts, one of which was a space station. The original vision, however, would have to be modified, be less complex and smaller in order to be affordable. In the early 1960s, at Marshall Space Flight Center, Wernher von Braun lobbied for a large Earth orbiting station from which spacecraft traveling to the Moon could be launched, with surrounding orbital tankers that could fuel the vehicles (Fig. 9.1).

Fig. 9.1  Early concept of Von Braun’s envisioned rotating wheel space station. Image credit: Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA

The U.S. Air Force vs. NASA 181 In mid-1962, NASA decided that Apollo would use a lunar orbit rendezvous, cutting off Earth orbiting operations. From that time forward, space stations were relegated for future studies to identify their place in the space program. NASA was so heavily invested in the Apollo program that most of this futuristic work paid by the government ($70 million for over 140 contracts) was allocated to aerospace contractors (12 companies).11 The contracts dealt with all types of future missions, both manned and unmanned, as well as the requirements for rockets and the spacecraft required to carry out the experiments in low-Earth orbit, as well as explorations to other planets. It was thought that this was an appropriate time to think about the future of space exploration beyond reaching the Moon. A variety of space station designs were proposed, some of them big and complex, generating artificial gravity by rotating the station. Von Braun was an advocate of the rotating station that could be launched on the Saturn V and assembled in space within four years. Von Braun’s team at Marshall Space Flight Center proposed that the station’s purpose be an Earth orbiting base for manned flights to Mars. NASA defined the purpose and plans for an Earth orbiting laboratory by the middle of 1963. The early missions would study humans working and living in space for long periods of time under weightless conditions. An on-board manned laboratory would be used for research and experiments that would look back toward Earth and out into space. To the extent possible, vehicles and equipment from Gemini and Apollo would be used to outfit the station.12 To Von Braun’s disappointment, the proposals for large and/or rotating space stations were determined to be too expensive, and there were no convincing reasons for a station that big. Von Braun was outspoken about NASA’s dependence on the support of Congress. He expressed concern that NASA was less interested in planning for long-term space exploration and more interested in doing what fit into smaller objectives without specific long-range goals. As funding changed, NASA had to respond with changes in future plans. As NASA’s budget was reduced in 1964, the future of a medium or larger size space station was in jeopardy. The vision would have to be restricted to an extension of the Apollo program as an Earth-orbiting laboratory. At this time, the U.S. Air Force also began showing interest in an orbiting laboratory that would be viewed as Skylab’s competitor.13 The U.S. Air Force vs. NASA The U.S. Air Force showed interest in the construction of a Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), a top secret project, in the mid to late 1960s. The Dyna Soar project, involving the design of a piloted reusable space vehicle, was canceled in 1963. The Air Force, eager to participate in the development of a space station

182  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era laboratory, also proposed that up to four military crewmembers work and stay in a space module for extended periods of time working on military related activities. The orbiting laboratory’s use was outwardly proposed as scientific research, but the agenda was clearly to provide a reconnaissance window to Soviet activities as well as to study military applications in space. The pressurized module the size of a van would be connected to a modified Gemini capsule and launched into lowEarth orbit using a military Titan III rocket.14 The Air Force was willing for NASA to be responsible for the design and development work needed to fly the military astronauts to the MOL. NASA pushed back, citing the fact that they were a civilian agency with the goal of the peaceful uses of space. The compromise in early 1964 stated that NASA would provide support but the Air Force would develop most of the project. There were three modules planned—for earth science study, astronomy, and testing space systems such as solar panels. A Gemini capsule attached to the module would be used for the astronauts to return to Earth. Problems existed for the MOL. It had an equatorial orbit that would keep it from passing over the Soviet Union that eliminated the reconnaissance part of the mission unless orbital changes were made. Studies were conducted on how to optimize the MOL for NASA as well as military objectives. As the MOL was gaining momentum, the cost of President Johnson’s domestic programs as well as the Vietnam War took priority in the budget. The Air Force 1968 budget to develop the station was slashed. After Nixon was elected president at the end of 1968, the budget numbers became worse for the MOL. The United States went into a recession, and the amount of available money dropped again. Secretary of Defense McNamara, a strong supporter of the MOL, was replaced. In addition, the war continued to use up the military budget, so future space-related programs couldn’t survive. The new Secretary of Defense Laird canceled the MOL program altogether. NASA administrator, Tom Paine, was now supporting a new spaceplane to follow the Apollo program. His plan was approved under the condition that the MOL’s missions could be combined somehow with the Space Shuttle’s plans.15 Skylab In the early 1960s, NASA was planning a smaller, more efficient space station in low-Earth orbit that could utilize surplus rockets and space hardware from Gemini and Apollo missions. The “Apollo Applications Project” would use a hollowed Saturn V upper stage as a small module that Apollo command modules could dock with. The space station could be used for studying Earth while testing the long-­ term effects of space travel. The station would be called Skylab. In mid-1965, the

Skylab 183 Skylab program office was established by NASA headquarters. For the next four years, the design evolved. Skylab took a back seat to Apollo until at least the first Moon landing was completed. It was obvious that the space program wouldn’t have the same high level of funding as Apollo, however, it was still important to look beyond the Moon and to future projects that could benefit America and preserve the country’s leadership in space. Political forces and domestic needs would drive the NASA budget and the scope of the future projects in space exploration. Even though national support dwindled after the Moon landing, NASA still felt that Skylab would provide a way of maintaining a presence in manned spaceflight while learning about living and working in space. The next generation of hardware and mission objectives could be formulated while Skylab was performing its experiments. But congress wasn’t interested in funding Skylab.16 The Air Force came to the rescue for NASA. It was already working on the MOL that would use the upper stage from a Titan II rocket and a modified Gemini space capsule as an orbiting spy station, carrying out long-term surveillance missions on the Soviet Union using cameras, infrared sensors, and radar. The NASA Skylab plans offered a much larger platform with more sophisticated equipment, so it was thought that the MOL and Skylab could be combined, and Skylab was given the go-ahead. By 1971, the Air Force decided that its spy cameras and surveillance equipment would be more flexible if deployed on unmanned satellites that could operate permanently in polar orbits. The MOL program was canceled, and most of its “spy” astronauts were folded into NASA. Skylab continued without military funding and was launched in May, 1973. There were some issues with the solar panels at the start, but once that was addressed, Skylab continued operating successfully for several years before it was deliberately de-orbited with a re-entry burn over the Australian outback (Fig. 9.2).17 With the success of the Skylab missions, NASA thought that Skylab could be turned into a much larger permanently manned space station, which could be resupplied by the newly planned Space Shuttle. The proposed space station could serve as a steppingstone to explore Mars. Once again, politics affected this plan. In 1972, President Nixon announced that the Space Shuttle would be funded, but the space station would not (leaving the Space Shuttle without a clear mission, a political handicap that would affect its future for the next four decades). It was intended that the first shuttle missions, planned for the mid 70s, would be used to resupply Skylab, and install an external booster rocket to push the station to a higher orbit, giving the station another five years of life. However, the Space Shuttle was delayed, the booster was never installed, and Skylab fell back to Earth. Skylab became another example of a time when progress was halted due to short-­ sighted thinking.18

184  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era

Fig. 9.2  1972 artist’s illustration of a Skylab cutaway. Image credit: NASA

The Space Shuttle After the Moon landing, NASA’s focus in the late 1960s was to keep America as a leader in space. A reusable Space Shuttle vehicle was proposed as a low-cost manned transportation vehicle that would operate between the surface of Earth and low-Earth orbit, docking with a manned space station (an updated, bigger, and more permanent version of Skylab). The space station’s primary goal was to be able to provide the next step into outer space. As stated previously, the ultimate decision to go forward with the shuttle program followed a series of changing priorities made by congress and President Nixon. It became obvious during 1970 that NASA would not be funded for both the shuttle and a space station. NASA thought that the Space Shuttle would have a better chance of being funding over a space station, so the focus during the 70s was the development of the shuttle program. NASA was asked to justify the shuttle development by identifying its future roles, applications, and users, including

The Visions of Max Faget 185 the Department of Defense, commercial users, and other countries. The emphasis was on a financial justification rather than technical reasons for space exploration in the long term and how to accomplish those goals. The future of space exploration was in jeopardy and restricted by available funding. The allotted budget in 1971 was set and restricted for the duration of the program ($3.2 billion for the duration despite the high required operational costs). Design was now tied to cost estimates, and some radical changes had to be made to afford the program. Finally, in early 1972, President Nixon and government advisers approved the development of the Space Shuttle as a means to remain a leader in space for both manned and unmanned missions throughout the 1980s and beyond. The budget was restricted, limiting the shuttle’s capabilities. The original goal of having a vehicle system that was 100% reusable was never achieved. (Although the solid rocket boosters were refurbished and reused, the external fuel tank was jettisoned into the ocean and not recovered.) NASA’s space exploration goals and government funding became tied together. Each line item became a bargaining chip for political favors and compromise. The result was a Space Shuttle program that has been criticized for its lack of vision. NASA’s original priority was to build one or more large manned space stations that would conduct scientific research focused down toward Earth and out into outer space. The International Space Station (ISS) was also envisioned to be the steppingstone to other planets. The Space Shuttle was to be created as the transport system to support the ISS. Without the space station existing until the end of the shuttle era, the vision was out of sequence. When the ISS was finally built, the shuttle program ended, and the United States was left to depend on Soviet spacecraft to transport crews to and from the ISS.19 The shuttle operated for 30 years, from 1981 until 2011. The orbiter design was first envisioned by Max Faget whose life and accomplishments are discussed next. The Visions of Max Faget Maxime A. Faget (1921–2004) was an aerospace research scientist working for NASA Langley as far back as 1946. He was a designer and a visionary, transforming aerodynamic theory into practical aircraft and spacecraft designs. He was a member of the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division, focusing on high speed flight. In 1954, he took part in an initial feasibility study that led to the design of the X-15, the first hypersonic aircraft. He designed and proposed the original one-man capsule used in Project Mercury and contributed to the designs of every U.S. manned spacecraft up through the Space Shuttle.20 “Without Max Faget’s innovative designs and thoughtful approach to problem solving, America’s space program would have had trouble getting off the ground,” said NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe reflecting on Dr. Faget’s contributions.21

186  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era In 1958 he became part of the Space Task Group, the newly formulated NASA group focused on manned spaceflight that later became the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Faget led the team doing the initial designs and feasibility studies to fly to the Moon. Working with a longtime associate, Caldwell Johnson, Faget devised a blunt shape for Project Mercury. His Mercury capsule took shape as a cone, with its broad end forward and covered with a thick layer of material to provide thermal protection. He came to Houston as a founding member of the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC), where he became Director of Research and Engineering. He also adapted his basic shape to provide capsules for Gemini and Apollo. “Max Faget was truly a legend of the manned space flight program,” said Christopher C. Kraft, former Johnson Space Center director. “He was a true icon of the space program. There is no one in space flight history in this or any other country who has had a larger impact on man’s quest in space exploration. He was a colleague and a friend I regarded with the highest esteem. History will remember him as one of the really great scientists of the twentieth century.”22 Faget led the original feasibility study for the Space Shuttle design. Shuttle design studies in the late 1960s were focused on a Lockheed space place design developed by Maxwell Hunter called the Star Clipper. Faget worked on his own configuration at the Manned Spacecraft Center. His turned out to be a methodical approach that changed the future of the Space Shuttle program. Other design participants were focusing on whether the vehicle system would be fully or partially reusable rather than focusing on a specific design. Faget started with the concept of a two-stage fully reusable shuttle that eventually gained popularity even in the debate over its specifics. As the debate continued, Faget was able to fine tune and optimize his design, shutting out competitors. The design was not revolutionary. He admits “My history has always been to take the most conservative approach.” He was not a fan of the popular lifting body designs that could lead to aerodynamic interference between the wing and the body. However, a practical shuttle design would have to be a compromise between Faget’s ideas and the lifting body capabilities. The aerodynamic challenges of the lifting bodies were that they had high drag and low lift and would come in to land at a very high speed. The body itself did the work of a wing. A small wing addition to the craft helped somewhat but was really a quick fix to a bigger problem.23 Lifting bodies were tested extensively by NASA with some success but had some very unstable flying characteristics. Some aspects would fit well with the Space Shuttle configuration, being able to fly like an airplane with sufficient lift to land as a glider. Re-entry into the atmosphere would require a blunt body nose with high drag and thermal protection underneath the body and wings. “With extremely high drag,” he says, “you throw a big shock wave in front of you, and all the energy goes into that shock.” The airplane would experience drag through friction with the atmosphere that would transfer heat to its surface. His design was fine-tuned into the shuttle design that was accepted and developed by NASA (Fig. 9.3).24

The Accomplishments of the Space Shuttle System… 187

Fig. 9.3  Max Faget’s Space Shuttle concept design. Image credit: NASA

Max Faget retired from NASA in 1981, after the second shuttle mission, and founded one of the earliest private space companies, Space Industries Inc. One of his projects, a small orbiting platform called an “industrial space facility,” demonstrated the capability to process materials in a vacuum but was never utilized in commercial efforts. His contributions in spacecraft design, however, had contributed greatly to the success of the manned space program.25 He was a visionary with the technical expertise to apply those visions to specific goals with a practical approach.  he Accomplishments of the Space Shuttle System and the Future in Space T Transportation There were six orbiter vehicles built, one flown only in Earth’s atmosphere (Enterprise). Columbia flew the first five shuttle Earth-orbiting missions with extended length missions as long as 16 days. In the first three and a half years,

188  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era only 24 missions were flown, well below the initial estimate for turnaround. In 30 years, there were 119 shuttle launches, two ending in the loss of the crew and the destruction of the vehicles.26 Since the shuttle era ended in 2011, there have been mixed reactions to its legacy as well as a controversial decision to end the program prior to developing another vehicle able to transport astronauts to the ISS, leaving only Russian vehicles as transporters. It is important to reflect on what the Space Shuttle accomplished and what challenges are left for the next transport and delivery vehicle. The primary accomplishment for the shuttle system was to prove a design to launch at least a partially reusable vehicle with the ability to enter orbit, perform routine space tasks such as delivering and repairing satellites, and have the capability to rendezvous with the ISS in order to deliver astronauts and supplies. All of these tasks were complex feats and accomplished successfully throughout the shuttle’s lifespan. The shuttle never achieved the vision of a low-cost space “truck” with the original estimate of a quick turnaround of a couple of weeks between missions. However, the orbiter Discovery was launched nine times in 1 year,27 and the shuttle system became the most cost-effective transportation system for launching payloads into Earth orbit. The Space Shuttle built the ISS, one piece at a time over a span of several years, starting in 1998. The ISS is discussed later in this chapter. Some of the Space Shuttles most significant accomplishments during its 30 year history include: • • • • • •

Three decades and 135 flights. 2300 experiments flown aboard to be tested in microgravity. Over 3.5 million pounds of cargo were launched into orbit. Almost 200,000 man-hours spent in space. Over 1300 days in space. 355 individual astronauts and cosmonauts flown, hailing from 16 different countries. • 180 satellites and other payloads deployed (including components of the ISS) (Fig. 9.4).28 Although the Space Shuttle’s mission was never designated as being primarily scientific, it provided a laboratory in space to perform scientific research in a number of disciplines, including microgravity. Further research could then be performed on a much larger scale on the ISS.  The importance of experimentation without gravity is similar to experimentation without air molecules (a vacuum). Experiments are created in vacuums on Earth to study processes without Earth’s atmosphere. Research using vacuums and manipulation of air pressure led to the development of the light bulb, integrated circuits, freeze-dried foods, electron microscopes, particle accelerators, weather forecasting, and knowledge of human flight in air and space.29 Research in a vacuum on Earth doesn’t completely simulate the space environment. As discussed previously, the ISS and the Space Shuttle

The Accomplishments of the Space Shuttle System… 189

Fig. 9.4  STS-1, the first Space Shuttle launch (April 12, 1981). Image credit: NASA

experience nearly zero gravity due to their free fall in orbit around Earth. It is important to study the long-term effects of no gravity in order to overcome challenges associated with human body responses for extended missions. Additional studies into the effects of space radiation on DNA and cells contributed to our

190  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era knowledge of the long-term effects of humans traveling in outer space for extended periods of time. The Space Shuttle opened up studying disciplines previously limited in space. Research into biology and materials science expanded the knowledge of cell and crystal growth that advanced medical science and technology. Microgravity research was conducted on Skylab, continued on the Space Shuttle missions, and expanded on the ISS along with other experimentation. ISS research will be detailed in a later chapter. Space Shuttle research was conducted primarily on the Spacelab module or other Spacelab experimental units placed in the orbiter payload bay. The Spacelab Module “Shakespeare once wrote: ‘Thoughts are but dreams ‘til their effects be tried.’ With Spacelab we have transformed the thoughts and dreams of thousands into reality.” –James M.  Beggs, NASA administrator, at the ceremony for Spacelab’s arrival from Europe at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, February 5, 1982.30 In the late 1960s, Dr. Thomas Paine, the NASA administrator at the time, traveled to 19 countries to assess levels of interest in cooperating both scientifically and financially with the United States in space endeavors. NASA was looking at possibilities for post-Apollo programs, but all of the programs seriously considered were very expensive. One way to accomplish these projects was to make them worldwide cooperative efforts with international sharing of technology and funding.31 The Spacelab concept originated with the Space Task Group that was commissioned by President Nixon and chaired by Vice President Agnew. The group was directed to investigate the best ways of carrying out scientific objectives in space in the coming decades. Of the options presented, the Space Shuttle was chosen by President Nixon as the project he wanted to focus on. In addition, the Space Task Group made a strong recommendation to internationalize the space program.32 NASA’s disappointment over its first bid for a space station in the early 1970s gave birth to the alternative concept of the Spacelab module. NASA immediately modified the Research and Applications Modules (RAM), which would enter orbit in the payload bay of the Space Shuttle, perform their functions as a stand-alone laboratory module, and return to Earth at the end of the shuttle mission. Robert Lohman, NASA’s chief of Spacelab development, said: “Once that decision was made in 1972, a lot of us were appalled that there was nothing left in the plan for space science. So we took the idea of these RAM’S [Research and Applications Modules, intended to be carried up and attached to the space station

The Spacelab Module 191 by the shuttle], and started to look at using them in the shuttle instead of for ‘sortie’ missions.”33 NASA offered European countries the opportunity to partner in a Spacelab venture, who were enthusiastic about this idea. Discussions began between NASA and the two European space agencies of that time—the European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) and the European Space Research Organization (ESRO). Both organizations were merged in 1975 into the European Space Agency (ESA) . Discussions continued over several years and ended in an agreement for the European nations to develop a unique module/space laboratory that would utilize the shuttle’s capacity to carry out scientific research. Both the technology and funding required were within ESA’s means. The international agreement was signed by ten European partners in August 1973 (nine partners initially with Austria signing later). In addition, details about the overall Spacelab program operations were established between all partners. This was called the Spacelab Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This agreement represented the first international technical and scientific cooperative agreement of this magnitude. It gave Europe the right to fund, design, build, and deliver Spacelab in exchange for a shared first mission aboard the Space Shuttle. In June 1974, the European Space Agency (ESA) selected an industrial consortium to develop the modular pieces to fit inside Spacelab, including a pressurized laboratory. The laboratory would provide the opportunities for businesses and universities to conduct a variety of research activities. Congress was already encouraging NASA to branch out into privatization and international partnerships to achieve common goals.34 The Spacelab project required detailed task delineation between all parties and complex management procedures. The first Spacelab flight was planned to be a cooperative mission, with NASA and ESA both flying experiments of equivalent magnitudes. There would also be a European scientist onboard as a crew member. Politics played a big role in establishing the conditions and criteria for the international team agreements and responsibilities.35 Unlike Skylab, the first U.S. space station, which had been built mostly from existing Apollo hardware, Spacelab was a new construction offering a much wider range of applications. Spacelab was designed to fit into the shuttle cargo bay and connect with the crew compartment, allowing scientists to work in a pressurized laboratory in a shirt-sleeve environment (see Fig. 9.5). In addition, unpressurized external pallets would provide research platforms for external data collection and research in fields of astronomy, studies of Earth’s atmosphere, and other observations. The lab was adaptable and reusable and was used in 26 missions over 16 years (1983–1998), conducting hundreds of experiments in the microgravity environment of low-Earth orbit. Space research took an important step into “handson” experimentation previously limited aboard Skylab or remotely via rockets or satellites controlled from Earth.36

192  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era

Fig. 9.5  Diagram of the Space Shuttle with the Spacelab cargo in payload bay. Image credit: NASA/GSFC

The first flight of Spacelab took place aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia in November 1983. It was the first time a citizen of another country flew as an astronaut on the US spacecraft.37 Spacelab turned out to be one of the most important and most frequently flown shuttle payload systems. Spacelab became an intermediate step in the development of the ISS, allowing NASA to achieve several scientific objectives with the financial backing of ESA. By 1972, NASA had already postponed the development of a large space station due to the inability to fund both the Space Shuttle and a space station. Spacelab provided the opportunity to conduct space experiments in the interim. NASA, specifically the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, was responsible for the overall program planning and management of Spacelab

Legacy of the Space Shuttle 193 while ESA designed and developed the module and pallets. Marshall was the logical choice to manage the project, having previously conducted a study to design a module suitable for short-duration flights and capable of Earth observation astronomy. Marshall became experienced in international space partnerships and missions and looked forward to planning similar modules for an ISS.38 Research accomplished in Spacelab through the shuttle resulted in major discoveries in astronomy, biology, and crystallography. These experiments paved the way for more in-depth experimentation aboard the ISS, discussed later. Legacy of the Space Shuttle Over the years, the Space Shuttle demonstrated its capabilities over the years to serve as a launch, delivery, and recovery system. It launched, recovered, and refurbished satellites, delivered space station modules, and transported supplies and crews to the ISS. In addition, the shuttle served as a platform for complex spacewalks and robotics work, observing both Earth and the universe with cutting-edge scientific payloads. The shuttle provided sufficient lifting power with additional flexibility and versatility. It was an accessible classroom in space, teaching us that living and working in space could be a reality. The orbiter fleet demonstrated the vital skills of orbital repair, outpost construction, precision rendezvous and docking, complex EVA, and intense, round-the-clock scientific operations. Its technical problems and challenges will help build safer and more efficient vehicles in the future. One of the most important achievements of the Space Shuttle was its role in launching and repairing the Hubble Space Telescope, the most sophisticated instrumentation yet developed to learn about the universe. The technical difficulties that occurred early on with the Hubble required the shuttle to perform a challenging technical repair in space. The successful in-orbit repair made it possible for the space telescope to capture incredible images of the universe for many more years, unfolding secrets of outer space never before seen from outside of Earth’s atmosphere. Estimates for the cost of the shuttle program and individual launches vary, but NASA claims that each launch cost $450 million, with others saying that it could be more like $1–$1.5 billion. This is estimated to be much more expensive than Russia’s Proton rockets that provided a comparable transport system but at about a quarter of the cost because the rockets were older (60s) technology and expendable.39 NASA’s budget for the past 60 years is shown in Fig. 9.6. The biggest spike in terms of percent of the federal budget understandably occurred during the Cold War (4.4% at the peak). The budget dropped dramatically after that and flattened

194  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era

Fig. 9.6 NASA budget 1959–2019. Image courtesy of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

out at a level much lower level for the last 20+ years (close to 0.5 % of the budget). With priorities being placed elsewhere, there is not a lot of federal monies available today for NASA and outer space travel. One criticism of the shuttle program was that it was short sighted, because it didn’t plan for manned missions outside of low-Earth orbit. “It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path,” then-NASA chief Michael Griffin told USA Today in 2005, referring to the low orbit activities. “We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can.”40 However, the new path that Griffin referred to was President George W.  Bush’s Moon mission called Constellation, which was subsequently canceled by President Obama as being too costly during a time of Middle Eastern wartime expenditures. The Space Shuttle was a great national accomplishment for the United States, furthering scientific research in microgravity and the effects of extended periods in space on the human body. The shuttle was, without dispute, an important part of American space exploration goals. However, rather than moving along with consistent goals and development of propulsion and travel vehicles, the space program became a line item under the discretion of short-sighted politicians and partisanship. This political partnership became both a benefit in the space race and a curse later on, when specific goals and planning were required to move into the next phase of space exploration, going to Mars. Now, decades after landing on the Moon, preparations for a trip to Mars are requiring all new technology and transport systems.

The Military Influence on Space Shuttle Operations 195 Once again, it is obvious that any organization must have consistent planning and funding to achieve its goals over time, and NASA, shepherding the future of the space program, is no exception. The space program requires more than federal budgeting; it requires a groundswell of interest in space exploration, lending support for increased spending for space exploration as well as inspiring more private enterprise to explore outer space. The Military Influence on Space Shuttle Operations The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) took a strong interest in the mission applications for the Space Shuttle. The air force was tasked to work with NASA in developing the shuttle system. The cargo bay of the shuttle was designed to hold spy satellites, and up until the Challenger disaster, the military was using the shuttle’s payload bay to transport surveillance equipment. Although NASA promoted the Space Shuttle as a civilian vehicle, DOD agreed to support and partner with NASA as a means for military operations in space. The immediate need was to deploy and use reconnaissance and national security payloads in low-Earth orbits. Design modifications were required to support the military space program, otherwise the DOD could have withheld political and financial support for the project. To gain this support, NASA focused on accommodating military missions. Having DOD support was critical to overall government support and funding. The shuttle was pitched to President Nixon as an essential part of national security. Since the Cold War and the space race, outer space was considered to be a competitive environment for military operations, including surveillance and communications. A space transportation system fit well into low orbit satellite operations while providing a platform for prototype systems, perhaps even weapons. For the DOD, the Space Shuttle was a win-win. The shuttle would provide cheaper and more flexible options for military space operations. The deployment, repair, and retrieval of satellites were attractive capabilities to achieve efficient performance in communication and navigation systems. Proposed military missions would require deployment of satellites on occasion to high inclination orbits for surveillance of certain regions on Earth. Military launch facilities at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base would be overhauled and fitted for these missions. The base location was perfect for launching shuttles over the ocean to reach polar orbit, the destination for surveillance and imaging satellites. Reaching that type of orbit would not be possible from Florida’s Cape Canaveral because it would require the shuttle to fly over populated land after launch. The U.S. Air Force Space Shuttle era was supposed to begin in 1986 with astronaut and commander Bob Crippen (first crew of the Space Shuttle) to be

196  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era commander of the maiden mission to polar orbit carrying the Teal Ruby experimental satellite along with long range sensors in the payload bay. Expectations for the shuttle to be an integral part of military space operations were high. To prepare for this, between 1979 and 1986, DOD trained 32 navy and air force officers as military astronauts. In 1986, the DOD started a Military Man-in-Space Program to make sure that a human military presence remained in space. It was believed that an experienced military astronaut’s judgment would be necessary when dealing with complex situations. Soon after the shuttle’s first launch, it became clear that there would be problems with easy turnarounds and multiple launches per year. The military looked more closely at their plan to use the shuttle for military operations. The cost advantage was re-evaluated over expendable launch vehicles, and it no longer seemed viable to depend on the Space Shuttle to transport military systems into space. Unmanned booster operations were continued until it was shown that the shuttle could meet the demands of the military. A top ranking military official (Under Secretary of the Air Force Edward “Pete” Aldridge) was chosen to fly aboard the first Vandenberg shuttle mission. After the Challenger explosion, the Vandenberg shuttle missions were canceled, and the Pentagon focused on developing expendable rockets for their payload needs. Only payloads requiring astronaut assistance would fly aboard the shuttle.41 The DOD began work along with NASA in the 1980s on a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle for military purposes. It appeared that the Space Shuttle was not able to deliver on its expectations, and so the DOD proposed the development of a hypersonic space plane that could take off, fly into orbit, perform its mission, and return like an airplane. A proposal was submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and funded as a secret program between 1983 and 1985. The Reagan administration announced it as the National Aerospace Plane, designated as the X-30. The design was sophisticated and challenging. After billions were spent, the project ended in 1994 amid scoreless technical difficulties. However, the concepts of this program and this type of vehicle remain today as an important component in military space defense and aggressive war capabilities. A military presence in space was still considered to be part of a strategy essential for national security.42 There were a few shuttle missions that were classified. Between 1982 and 1992, NASA launched 11 classified payloads, utilizing changes requested by the military of the cargo bay. Of all of the military astronauts, only one made it to orbit, Gary Payton, who became the deputy undersecretary of the air force for space. He recalls the tension that existed between NASA and the military. The military astronauts were payload specialists, engineers, or scientists who focused on a particular experiment or satellite and typically flew only once. They didn’t bridge the gap between NASA and the military. Despite differences, military payloads were flown and launched successfully and individual mission requirements were satisfied.43

The Military Influence on Space Shuttle Operations 197 Notes 1. Silber, Kenneth. 16 July 2009. Down to Earth: the Apollo Moon missions that never were. Scientific American. 2. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet] Space.com; c2013. Apollo-Soyuz test project: Russians, Americans meet in space; April 25, 2013 [cited 2015 Sep 21]. Available from: http://www.space.com/20833-apollo-soyuz.html. 3. Silber, Kenneth. 16 July 2009. Down to Earth: the Apollo Moon missions that never were. Scientific American. 4. Neufeld, Michael J.  Von Braun; dreamer of space, engineer of war. UK: Vintage; 2012. 624 p. 5. Space Task Group (US). [Internet]. hq.nasa.gov. The Post-Apollo space program: directions for the future. History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; 1969 [cited 2015 Sep 21]. Available from: http://www.hq. nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html. 6. Whittington, Mark. [Internet] Examiner.com. The 1969 space task group and why it failed to chart a post-Apollo space program. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-1969-space-task-groupand-why-it-failed-to-chart-a-post-apollo-space-program. 7. Logsdon, John M. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program. NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 368 p. 8. Barber, Chris. [Internet] Nixonlegacy.org. The dawn of the Space Shuttle. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.nixonlegacy.org/the-newnixon/2016/1/dawn-space-shuttle. 9. Logsdon, John M. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program. NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 368 p. 10. Logsdon, John M. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program. NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 368 p. 11. Compton, W.  David and Benson, Charles D.  The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; SP-4208 Living and working in space: a history of Skylab; [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ ch1.htm. 12. Compton, W.  David and Benson, Charles D.  The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; SP-4208 Living and working in space: a history of Skylab; [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ ch1.htm. 13. Compton, W.  David and Benson, Charles D.  The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; SP-4208 Living and working in space: a history of Skylab; 1983 [cited 2015 Sep 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/ SP-4208/ch1.htm. 14. Dorr, Robert F. [Internet]. Defensemedianetwork.com; Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) astronauts would have conducted surveillance

198  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era and scientific research; Oct 19, 2011 [cited 2015 Sep 23]. Available from: http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/what-might-have-been-mannedorbiting-laboratory-mol/. 15. Wordpress Staff. [Internet] wordpress.com; False steps: the Space Race as it might have been; the manned orbiting laboratory: a USAF space station; July 15, 2012 [cited 2015 Sep 24]. Available from: https://falsesteps. wordpress. com/2012/07/15/the-manned-orbiting-laboratory-a-usaf-space-station/. 16. Compton, W.  David and Benson, Charles D.  The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; SP-4208 Living and working in space: a history of Skylab; 1983 [cited 2015 Sep 24]. Available from: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/NASSP/4208//0000001,004.html. 17. Flank, Lenny. [Internet] Dailykos.com; The sky is falling: the life and death of Skylab; Apr 16, 2014 [cited 2015 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www. dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1250880/-The-Sky-is-Falling-The-Life-andDeath-of-Skylab. 18. Flank, Lenny. [Internet] Dailykos.com; The sky is falling: the life and death of Skylab; Apr 16, 2014 [cited 2015 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/16/1250880/-The-Sky-is-Falling-The-Life-and-Deathof-Skylab. 19. Logsdon, John M.  May 1986. The decision to develop the Space Shuttle. Space Policy. 2:2:103–119. 20. History.NASA.gov. [Internet] History.NASA.gov; Oct 15, 2004 [cited 2015 Oct 05]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/faget.html. 21. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; Oct 10, 2004 [cited 2015 Oct 01]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/faget_obit_prt.htm. 22. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; Oct 10, 2004 [cited 2015 Oct 01]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/faget_obit_prt.htm. 23. History.NASA.gov. SP-4221 The Space Shuttle decision [Internet] History. NASA.gov; [cited 2015 Oct 05]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/ SP-4221/ch5.htm. 24. History.NASA.gov. SP-4221 The Space Shuttle decision [Internet] History. NASA.gov; [cited 2015 Oct 05]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/ SP-4221/ch5.htm. 25. Fox, Margalit P. 2004. Maxime Faget, 83; Pioneering aerospace engineer designed Mercury capsule. The New York Times; 8. 26. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; Oct 10, 2004 [cited 2015 Nov 11]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Spacelab_ Collection_140117a.pdf. 27. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. Space.com; c2012. Space Shuttle Discovery: 5 surprising facts about NASA’s oldest orbiter; April 19, 2012 [cited 2015 Nov 16]. Available from: http://www.space.com/15330-space-shuttle-discovery-5-surprising-facts.html.

The Military Influence on Space Shuttle Operations 199 28. CBS.news. [Internet]cbsnews.com; Space Shuttle: 30 years of fascinating facts. July 21, 2011; [cited 2015 Nov 15]. Available from: http://www. cbsnews.com/news/space-shuttle-30-years-of-fascinating-facts/. 29. Witze, Alexandra, Kenneth. 18 June 2011. Good-bye Shuttle: looking back at the space plane’s scientific legacy. Science News Vol. 179. No. 13, pp. 20–21. 30. Walter Froehlich. The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; EP-165 Spacelab: Chapter seven: Spacelab: its birth, its impact, its future living and working in space: a history of Skylab; 1983 [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/EP-165/ch7.htm. 31. Space.com Staff. [Internet]; space.com; c2012. Timeline: 50 years of spaceflight. September 28 2012; [cited Feb 22 2016]. Available from: http://www. space.com/4422-timeline-50-years-spaceflight.html. 32. Walter Froehlich. The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; EP-165 Spacelab: Chapter 7: Spacelab: its birth, its impact, its future living and working in space: a history of Skylab; 1983 [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/EP-165/ch7.htm. 33. Waldrop, M.  Mitchell. AAAS Science Archives 1983–1985. [Internet] Spacelab: science on the shuttle. [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http:// www.ganino.com/games/Science/Science%201983-1985/root/data/ Science_1983-1985/pdf/1983_v222_n4622/p4622_0405.pdf. 34. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 29]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Spacelab. 35. Walter Froehlich. The NASA History Series. [Internet] history.nasa.gov; EP-165 Spacelab: Chapter 7 : Spacelab: its birth, its impact, its future living and working in space: a history of Skylab; 1983 [cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/EP-165/ch7.htm. 36. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 29]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Spacelab_Collection_140117a. pdf. 37. Wilford, John Noble. 29 Nov 1983. Columbia carries spacelab to orbit with 6-man crew. The New York Times. [Internet] [cited 2016 Feb 23]. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/29/us/columbia-carries-spacelab-toorbit-with-6-man-crew.html?pagewanted=all. 38. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 29]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Spacelab_Collection_140117a. pdf. 39. The Economist (London, England), The Space Shuttle, into the sunset, July 02, 2011; p. 9; Issue 8740. 40. Wall, Mike. [Internet]. Space.com; c2011. NASA’s Shuttle program cost $209 billion—was it worth it?; July 05, 2011 [cited 2015 Nov 11]. Available from: http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html.

200  The Post-Apollo and Space Shuttle Era 41. Ray, Justin. [Internet]. Space.com; c2011. From Shuttles to rockets: long history for California launch pad; January 19, 2011 [cited 2015 Dec 30]. Available from: http://www.space.com/10644-california-launch-pad-history-shuttlesrockets.html. 42. Launius, Roger. [Internet]. wordpress.com; c2012. NASA’s Space Shuttle and the department of defense; Nov 12, 2012 [cited 2015 Dec 30]. Available from: https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/nasas-space-shuttle-and-thedepartment-of-defense/. 43. Cassutt, Michael. Air & Space Magazine, Secret Space Shuttles, August, 2009.

10 Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise

“During the next 50 years, in countless cycles, in countless entrepreneurial companies, this ‘let’s just go and do it’ mentality will help us final get off the planet and irreversibly open the space frontier. The capital and tools are finally being placed into the hands of those willing to risk, willing to fail, willing to follow the dreams.” –Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation, “The Next 50 Years in Space,” Aviation Week online, March 14, 2007 As we discussed earlier, the Space Shuttle program demonstrated the ability to transport payloads and humans into space and to land safely back on Earth. The public was initially very excited about the new space technology used to develop a multi-use manned reusable spacecraft. All of the shuttle’s activities and research occurred in low-Earth orbit. But once again, the initial excitement of humans returning to space started to dwindle in the eyes of the public after several successful missions. Inevitably, routine activities conducted in space fell into the background of American daily life. Often, the only time that the public took notice was when a crisis occurred in the program. Despite this, NASA had enough foresight to plan and finance the development of the ISS. With the help from politicians acting as salesmen for NASA, the United States acquired international partners that made the design and development of the station possible. This chapter will examine the politics of the U.S. space program both nationally and internationally in the years following the Space Shuttle era. The development of the ISS is addressed as well as private enterprise’s emergence as a vital component in the future of American space exploration. The ISS’s role in continuing the success of the space program is known and appreciated by scientists and others who understand the research necessary to © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_10

201

202  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise learn about human physiology in microgravity and the challenges of long-term space missions. The public is generally not well informed about scientific discoveries associated with space exploration. Only a small percentage of the population even realize that there are astronauts and cosmonauts continually working and living in the space, much less appreciate the importance of the research being conducted on a continual basis. Why is the lack of knowledge and lack of appreciation of these efforts on the public’s part important? Let’s remember the premise that public groundswell support for publicly funded efforts could provide an important rationale for the government’s prioritization of funding. In times of financial stagnation or economic depression, some efforts can and do suffer a loss of support. But, if powerful interest groups for one research area, such as climate change, are loud enough, they can and will influence government sources of funding through strong debate and public show of support. Increased support during the Space Shuttle era was met by private industry and entrepreneurial activities that focused on missions for transport to and exploitation of low-Earth orbit and beyond. We are now poised and prepared to make the next big leap in space travel. International Space Station Politics The ISS is arguably one of the greatest technological achievements of humankind. It demonstrated what could be accomplished with international cooperation. Led by the United States, the ISS program began in 1982, with assembly beginning in 1998, requiring over 30 space missions and about 15 years to complete. It is a shining example of how different space agencies can plan and coordinate the operations of a very complex system. The history of the priorities set by the Space Task Group and the resulting decisions made by President Nixon were outlined earlier. The recommendations from this group, to continue to explore space for peaceful purposes and to include manned space missions as an important component of the pursuit of certain scientific objectives, included gaining a better understanding of the universe. Another objective, the development of a low-cost, reusable space transportation system that would study Earth and space and supply a modular space station created with international cooperation and interests,1 was chosen by President Nixon to develop the Space Shuttle and remain in low-Earth orbit, abandoning the other recommendations as too expensive and far-reaching.2 Once the Space Shuttle was developed and operational in 1982, NASA started a conceptual design for a large manned space station which would be built over time from individual components. It would utilize the capabilities of the Space Shuttle and serve as an intermediate base for further exploration of the Moon and other planets. The aim was to develop the project with international cooperation, both technical and financial. And so, NASA invited Canada and U.S.-friendly European countries to participate in the project. In addition, NASA’s director

International Space Station Politics 203 Beggs invited Japan to participate. Canada had already partnered with NASA’s shuttle program to develop the remote manipulator arm mounted in the payload bay of the orbiter to perform tasks such as deploying and rescuing satellites. In addition, ESA, a consortium of European countries dedicated to space research and developing space systems, was also interested in a long-term project for space observations and experiments. They had already participated in the development of Spacelab, the manned space laboratory module that fit into the shuttle cargo bay and performed a number of experiments on several shuttle flights. President Reagan declared his support for the construction of a permanently manned Earth orbiting space station in his State of the Union address in 1984: America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic and scientific gain. Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade.3 The manned space station was promoted as a technological achievement that could strengthen the economy, perform cutting-edge scientific research, and improve the quality of life. By 1985, Japan, the European space program, and Canada had decided to participate. The ISS went through a design process that included the concept of using it as an intermediate base for the exploration of other space and as a repair facility for satellites. The space station, named Freedom and initially approved, was never completed as originally designed and went through several cutbacks before evolving into the current ISS. In 1989, through the Space Exploration Initiative, President George H. W. Bush outlined the construction of the space station Freedom, plans to return humans back to the Moon, as well as future plans for manned missions to Mars. He framed the vision in a similar way to how the space race had begun in 1961. However, the Apollo successful landing on the Moon had government and public support, due to the Russian progress in space and the added political tensions. The President said that he was inspired to seize an opportunity rather than respond to a crisis. The new plans, estimated to cost approximately $500 billion, spread over 20–30 years, was opposed by the White House and Congress primarily due to the cost. President Bush sought out international partners, but the program proved to be too expensive even with international support. After Congress rejected the expensive proposal in 1990, the President established the Advisory Committee on the Future of Space program to make recommendations about how NASA should proceed. The committee felt that NASA should focus on Earth and space science using robotic methods, essentially ending the development of any new manned missions indefinitely. President Bush ordered NASA to go ahead with these recommendations. Dan Goldin was brought in as the new administrator, following the new philosophy of no human exploration beyond Earth orbit, and low-cost methods were applied to robotic missions. In

204  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise 1996, President Clinton’s National Space Policy removed human exploration from the U.S. national agenda.4 Although the far-reaching plans were scrapped, strong interest in a low Earth orbit manned space station remained strong. Several designs were studied before the final configuration was chosen and the future missions and experiments defined. In 1993, President Clinton’s administration partnered with Russia to help with the ISS construction and transport of support items to the station.5 This collaboration was essential for the project to move forward. The Russians were able to help both financially and technically. They supplied several modules as well as the spacecraft required to transport the crew and cargo into orbit. In addition, the Russian space program could progress without taking on the sole financial burden of building its own space station. Soyuz spacecraft would transport crews, but the Space Shuttle was key to delivering the modules, using the robotic arm to help connect the modules. A Russian rocket launched the first piece of the ISS, and 2 years later, in 2000, the first crew arrived. Humans have occupied the space station ever since that time. The U.S. relationship with Russia or, previously, the Soviet Union, had been tense through the Cold War and the space race. After the United States landed on the Moon, the Russians started to focus more on studying humans working and living in space. With tensions eased between the two countries, there was increased cooperation and interest in sharing at least a symbolic moment ending the space race. This was accomplished in 1975 with the docking of an Apollo vehicle with a Soyuz vehicle in low Earth orbit. Several years passed before joint activities between the two nations would resume. In 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, President George H.  Bush renewed the cooperative space efforts with agreements to launch a cosmonaut on the Space Shuttle while sending an American astronaut to Russia’s space station MIR. Within a couple of years, shared activities would also include training of U.S. astronauts in Russia.6 When President Bill Clinton took office, he directed NASA to once again redesign the space station, replacing Freedom with a less expensive ISS. Millions had been spent on Freedom, with little to show for it. Congress voted to support the ISS by a narrow margin. Clinton arranged for Russia to participate as a partner, not just a supplier of parts, boosting both their commitment and their financial support to the effort. The number of joint missions between the nations expanded, resulting in a perceived merging of the two space programs. It is thought that in addition to financial and scientific support, Clinton’s purpose of including Russia as an essential player in the ISS construction also had its roots in foreign policy. At the time, there was concern about Russia’s position on ballistic missile proliferation. Russia’s agreement on the proliferation policy happened at almost the same time that an announcement was made that they would become partners in the ISS operation and construction.7 There were opponents (U.S. scientists, astronauts, and public and industry leaders) to Russia’s increased profile in the U.S. space program. As it turned out, they were justified in having

International Space Station Politics 205 doubts when Russia had difficulties fulfilling their financial commitments. The Russian module was the essential critical module of the station. The Russian progress was so delayed that NASA had decided to build its own makeshift component that could be put into place and allow the station plans to go forward. The delayed Russian module was to provide life support for crews as well as propulsion and control for the orbital complex; so technically, it was very important to the life of the ISS. Eventually all the issues were resolved. Projects of this scope always seem to expand, and this one grew both in vision and cost. The ISS was an incredibly ambitious project, the structure as big as a football field with connecting modules providing a livable environment for astronauts (see Fig. 10.1). There were many issues that were unable to be predicted or estimated both in time and financial commitment, and cost overruns were inevitable. The station progressed in stages, years passed, and construction wasn’t completed until 2011. Construction was delayed for two and a half years when the Space Shuttle was grounded after the shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry early in 2003. Aside from this period, the construction continued to completion.

Fig. 10.1  Artist’s rendering compares the size of the International Space Station to an American football field. Image credit: NASA

Having reached the original design milestone—15 years of continuous operation—the ISS faced another budget hurdle and decision whether to extend its operations into 2024. President Obama announced that the ISS would extend operations, and NASA would continue spending upwards of $4 billion per year to keep the station functioning. Financial support by the international partners would be uncertain at best. In addition, the viability of all critical systems would

206  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise have to be evaluated and determined if and what upgrades would be required. Astronauts routinely conducted spacewalks to fix critical components. Issues with degrading solar arrays affected the ability to generate power and could be a problem with increased longevity. Most importantly, the retirement of the Space Shuttle limited the U.S. ability to deliver supplies, larger replacement parts as well as transporting and replacing crew members. U.S. astronauts were ferried by the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, a controversial decision for NASA. It would cost upwards of $70 million to transport an astronaut to the ISS on the Soyuz, which amounted to a big expense when exchanging four astronauts. Political tensions increased between the two nations as Putin postured and intimidated nearby countries during his administration as Russia’s prime minister. Eventually, the situation calmed down, and in early 2015, the two countries once again agreed to partner to build a new space station after the ISS finished its extended life in 2024. Other international partnerships would be solicited before that next milestone. In addition to the space station agreement, Russia and the United States started to plan for a joint mission to Mars. NASA’s Chief Charles Boden confirmed the partnership: “Our area of cooperation will be Mars. We are discussing how best to use the resources, the finance, we are settling time frames and distributing efforts in order to avoid duplication.” 8 Politics continues to limit NASA’s objectives and future planning in space. The most significant difference today is the emergence of private enterprise in space, and NASA contracting out the task of transporting crew and cargo to private companies. These efforts will bring out new faces and support for deep space exploration that is not as dependent on national funding. The Legacy of the International Space Station The first step in launching the ISS began in 1998 with the launch of a Russian Proton rocket from Kazakhstan with an ISS module called Dawn (Zarya), which was funded by the United States and built by Russia. Only two weeks later, the Space Shuttle Endeavor delivered the U.S.-built Unity module into space, connecting it with Dawn. ISS construction had begun. The international cooperation required to build the ISS cannot be underestimated. It was very difficult to have so many nations cooperate on such a large project and maintain the common goals. The ISS presented the perfect opportunity to combine resources to construct a low orbit long-term space station devoted primarily to peaceful scientific objectives. It became the most expensive manmade structure ever, with a cost estimated close to $150 billion.9 The planning, building, and operation of the station was a logistical success, although it was not always an easy road to completion. Its construction demonstrated the ability to build and connect modules in the hazardous environment of outer space (Fig. 10.2).

The Legacy of the International Space Station  207

Fig. 10.2  The ISS photographed by an STS-134 crew member on the Space Shuttle Endeavour after separation (May 29, 2011). Image credit: NASA

The challenge of a project of this magnitude was multi-faceted given that there were enormous technical and logistical difficulties but also national and international political tensions that could affect funding. Because of the enormity of these challenges, one might wonder why a project of this magnitude was pursued, and why a manned space station such as the ISS was so important. These reasons are nearly the same today as they were at the start. A low-Earth orbit space station is an accessible laboratory on the edge of space with research that can improve life on Earth. There have been results from experiments in medical studies, physical science, and the development of new materials as well as the ability to provide an opportunity for the long-term study of humans in zero gravity. The ISS has proven its ability to deliver results in all these areas. As an intermediate testing ground for missions into deep space, the ISS provides an important easily accessible location for evaluating equipment for use in long-term manned or unmanned missions. Lastly, the ISS can be a destination for new spacecraft from other countries and private companies as previously mentioned. Eventually, the ISS will be de-orbited safely after being in continuous orbit for almost three decades. Research on human physiology and living and working in space will give scientists a strong basis for preparing to explore deep space.

208  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise Post-International Space Station Politics NASA lost its ability to transport astronauts into space after the Space Shuttle retired in July of 2011. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle will be the next NASA transport spacecraft, but it won’t be ready for crewed missions until after 2021 (see Fig. 10.3). In the interim, NASA’s only option for ferrying crews is to pay for rides aboard the Russia’s Soyuz capsule. Private firms expressed interest and began development to provide this capability. Both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won contracts through NASA to transport cargo to the ISS and provide low-Earth orbit access for a lower cost. NASA could now focus on deep space exploration and more far-reaching objectives. In 2014, NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced that Boeing and SpaceX would build the first private vehicles (Boeing CST-100 and SpaceX Dragon V2) for the purpose of launching American astronauts to the ISS, restoring the capability to launch crews from American soil for the first time since 2011.10 Both companies developed their crewed vehicles and began testing. The CST-100 had some software problems that held back its development. SpaceX continued with a series of successes. On May 30, 2020 the Dragon V2 was launched on top of the Falcon 9 rocket and within 19 hours docked with the ISS. Historically, most of NASA’s budget was paid to private contractors, to design and build space vehicles, rockets, and other equipment. NASA provided oversight, management, and operations of the overall projects. Today, NASA has moved to privatize some of the operations that focus on transport and low-Earth activities. This shift is an important one, affecting the future capabilities of NASA and the focus of future deep space exploration. In some ways, the future is uncertain, and some experts debate whether private industry can handle the complexity and safety of manned spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. What is certain is that the future of space exploration will be supported by a number of different resources. The public and NASA has realized that future missions, both manned and unmanned, will need to access resources from private sources and international partners, in addition to the traditional government channels. Another certainty is the public interest in space activities as evidenced through an increase of science fiction writing and movies and the numbers of private industry companies devoted to both manned and unmanned exploration of space. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the next couple of decades. The ISS is now beyond its original lifetime extensions that took it beyond 2016, then to 2020, and finally through 2024. NASA hopes that other countries and private companies will take over operating its modules, however, it looks like NASA funding will come to an end in 2025. The contributing nations of the ISS modules might think that the operating expenses are too expensive ($3-4 billion a year) and might think that the space station has run its course. One alternative to keeping it functioning would be to break it apart into individual modules sold off to private companies. Another alternative would be to allow the station to fall into Earth’s atmosphere and burn up.

Post-International Space Station Politics 209

Fig. 10.3  An Orion model awaits recovery in Johnson Space Center's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory. Image credit: NASA

210  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise The Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway will be our next station. It is going to be being developed by NASA and other space agencies, including the European Space Agency (ESA) and Russia’s Roscosmos. The platform will be within 3,200 km of the lunar surface compared to the ISS orbiting in a low-Earth orbit (400 km). The platform is also much smaller than the ISS, with space for only four crew members (Fig. 10.4). There are reports that Russia wants to detach and reconfigure some of its recently added ISS modules to create a new station in low-­Earth orbit.11 China also has plans to build a space station similar in size to the ISS. In 2011, a space lab (Tiangong-1) was launched which ended service in 2016 and then its successor (Tiangong-2) was launched within the same year. Both stations have served as testbeds for its primary goal to build a much bigger modular station. China plans to send four crewed space missions to complete work on its permanent space station within the next couple of years. This would fortify China's ambitions to rival the U.S., Europe, Russia and private companies in outer space exploration.12

Fig. 10.4 NASA’s Phase 1 Gateway includes a Power and Propulsion Element, Habitation and Logistics Outpost and logistic supply. Image credit: NASA

Some businesses are also interested in independently building their own space stations. As an example, Bigelow Aerospace, has an expandable module, BEAM, that was attached to the ISS in 2016 (see Fig. 10.5). Bigelow will launch larger inflatable modules which will be available for commercial exploits and travelers in the future. 13 Another company, Orion Span of Houston, plans to offer tourists a luxury vacation aboard its Aurora Station sometime after 2022. The trip to

Post-International Space Station Politics 211 low-­Earth orbit would cost about $9.5 million. The experience will start with a three-­ month training plan to learn about spacecraft systems and experience weightlessness. During the 12 day flight, visitors will be able to experience zero gravity, see the aurora borealis and grow food.14

Fig. 10.5  BEAM, the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, is shown installed to the ISS Tranquility module. (April 16, 2017). Image credit: NASA

Notes 1. Space Task Group (US). The Post-Apollo space program: directions for the future. [Internet]. History Office, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC; 1969 [cited 2015 Sep 21]. Available from: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ pao/History/taskgrp.html 2. Logsdon, John M. After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program. NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. 368 p. 3. Scimemi, Sam. NASA and the legacy of the International Space Station. NASA Advisory Council HEO Committee; July 29, 2013. 4. Dick, Steve. Summary of space exploration initiative. [cited 2016 Jan 18]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm 5. Smith, Marcia S. NASA’s space station program: evolution and current status: Testimony before the house science committee; Apr 4, 2001 [cited 2016 Jan 18]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/isstestimony2001.pdf 6. Smith, Marcia S. NASA’s space station program: evolution and current status: Testimony before the house science committee; Apr 4, 2001 [cited 2016 Jan 18]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/isstestimony2001.pdf

212  Politics, the ISS, and Private Enterprise 7. JAXA. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. May, 1999 [cited 2016 Jan 18]. Available from: http://iss.jaxa.jp/iss/history/index_e.html 8. rt.com news. Russia & UW agree to build new space station after ISS, work on joint Mars project. 28 Mar 2015 [cited 2016 Jan 18]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/244797-russia-us-new-space-station/ 9. LaFleur, Claude. Costs of US piloted programs. The Space Review. 2010 March 8. 10. Kremer, Ken. Boeing and SpaceX win NASA’s ‘space taxi’ contracts for space station flights. 17 Sep 2014 [cited 2016 Feb 25]. Available from: http:// www.universetoday.com/114247/boeing-and-spacex-win-nasas-space-taxicontracts-for-space-station-flights/ 11. Ridgway, Andy. After the International Space Station – what comes next? 19 Nov 2018. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/after-the-international-space-station-what-comes-next/ 12. Associated Press. China plans to complete space station by 2022. 05 May 2020. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://news.yahoo. com/china-plans-complete-space-station-051009645.html 13. Ridgway, Andy. After the International Space Station – what comes next? 19 Nov 2018. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/after-the-international-space-station-what-comes-next/ 14. Ridgway, Andy. After the International Space Station – what comes next? 19 Nov 2018. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/after-the-international-space-station-what-comes-next/

11 Politics and Commercial Space Activities

“Private enterprise can never lead a space frontier. It’s not possible because a space frontier is expensive, it has unknown risks and it has unquantified risks.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson 1 Increased support for space exploration activities during and after the Space Shuttle era was bolstered primarily by NASA partnerships with private industry that focused on missions for transport to and the exploitation of low-Earth orbit and beyond. We are now poised and prepared to make the next big leap in space travel. This chapter focuses on commercial space activities and the politics of the U.S. space program both nationally and internationally in the years following the Space Shuttle era. The development of the ISS is addressed, as well as private enterprise’s emergence as a vital component in the future of American space exploration. Government Policy of Commercial Space Activities Commercial activities can be defined as money-making business pursuits provided by private sector businesses. When applied to outer space ventures, there is the additional factor of risk, which is absorbed primarily by the company’s own capital along with the responsibility for the activity. In this definition, the companies provide goods or services primarily to other private sector businesses or consumers rather than to the government, with examples being home satellite television or Internet services. Extending the definition slightly, the may government own the equipment, like a satellite, but consumer users benefit from the © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_11

213

214  Politics and Commercial Space Activities satellite output, such as cell phones and automobile navigation systems. The satellite signal from the Global Positioning System (GPS) is provided by the Department of Defense free of charge. A broader definition of commercial activity might include a company providing services to government customers. The government provides revenue and takes on the majority of the company risk. An example of this is the Boeing-Lockheed Martin United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin providing payload launch services using Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. The government defines policies for commercial space activities in several ways, setting regulations for all types of business dealings between the private sector and government partners and providing services to consumers. President Barack Obama’s 2010 National Space Policy directive supplies leadership for all space activities, extending to commercial ventures that support U.S. business interests. This policy expanded guidelines in support of U.S. business interests further than any previous space policy had done. The policy states: The United States is committed to encouraging and facilitating the growth of a U.S. commercial space sector that supports U.S. needs, is globally competitive, and advances U.S. leadership in the generation of new markets and innovation-driven entrepreneurship. President Donald Trump amended parts of the directives, but the remainder of the policy remains intact. In 2013, Obama issued a National Space Transportation Policy that provides direction for the development and use of space transportation systems, both government and commercial. The policy promotes U.S. commercial ventures, including human spaceflight. A competitive market was developed in order to transport humans and supplies back and forth from the International Space Station. The policy also aims to improve U.S. capabilities to explore low-­ Earth orbit into deep space (Fig.  11.1). In order to accomplish this goal, more robust, cost effective, and innovative launch systems need to be developed. 2 President Obama recommended a dramatic change to the U.S. human spaceflight program in his 2011 NASA budget request. He proposed subsidizing private companies to develop commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft in order to take astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit and the ISS. He also recommended cancelling the Constellation program, which was developing new launch vehicles and the Orion spacecraft to transport astronauts back to the Moon and beyond. NASA would then have additional resources that could be used to develop technologies and systems to take astronauts to beyond low-Earth orbit. President Obama did not see a need for American astronauts to return to the Moon, but landing people on Mars remained the eventual goal. To that end, NASA would focus on sending astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 and then putting them in Mars orbit (without landing) in the 2030s. The proposal was controversial and debated in Congress.

Government Policy of Commercial Space Activities 215 The 2010 NASA Authorization Act was a compromise. NASA was directed to develop its own space transportation system, the Space Launch System (SLS) and a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), in addition to funding the commercial crew concept. NASA selected the Orion spacecraft that was already being developed in the Constellation program as the MPCV. The system was referred to as SLS/Orion. Congress made it clear that SLS/Orion was the priority, not commercial crew. 3

Fig. 11.1  NASA artist concept of Lunar exploration activities. EVA Astronauts working at Lunar South Pole crater. NASA artist concept of Lunar exploration activities. Image credit: NASA

In 2015, President Obama issued the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which opened the door for U.S. private companies to make a profit in space. The Space Act aims to expand the U.S. space industry by allowing private enterprise to launch missions with the purpose of exploring and collecting space materials for commercial purposes. Accord to the bill’s text, the Office of Space Commercialization created by the act must: …foster the conditions for the economic growth and technological advancement of the U.S. space commerce industry; coordinate space commerce policy issues and actions within Commerce; represent Commerce in the development of U.S. policies and in negotiations with foreign countries to promote U.S. space commerce; promote the advancement of U.S. geospatial technologies related to space commerce in cooperation with relevant interagency working groups; and support federal government organizations working on Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing policy.” 4

216  Politics and Commercial Space Activities It’s important to note that this act affects only U.S. business space ventures and has no effect on other nations looking to make a profit from outer space resources. However, the act can be interpreted to mean that companies that can afford to launch a private mission to excavate in space could, in theory, mine asteroids for precious minerals (Fig.  11.2). Some see this in direct opposition to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which sets the ground rules for ensuring the peaceful exploration of space and how nations should interact with each other’s property in Earth orbit and beyond. The most important aspect of the treaty states that outer space is free for all nations to explore and enjoy and that space activities should be for the benefit of all nations and humans. Sovereign claims cannot be made for a celestial body and weapons of mass destruction are not allowed anywhere in outer space. In addition, individual nations or their citizens are responsible to clean up and pay for any damage they might cause to other property. The U.S. Commercial Act of 2015 opened the door for American companies to earn a profit from outer space ventures. 5

Fig. 11.2  Artist’s concept of asteroid mining concept. Image credit: NASA

Government Policy of Commercial Space Activities 217 With a new administration, priorities changed again. Since taking office, President Trump has taken steps to refocus NASA on its core mission of space exploration. In December 2017, he said, “This time we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps someday to many worlds beyond.” 6 The Trump administration is focused on commercial ventures in outer space and America becoming a leader in space commerce. He signed the Space Policy Directive 1 (SPD-1) in 2017 directing the NASA Administrator to lead an innovative space exploration program, with a plan to send American astronauts back to the Moon, establish a base settlement, and eventually travel to Mars. He issued the Space Policy Directive 2 (SPD-2) in 2018, designating the Department of Commerce as the central organization for outer space regulations and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation as the office focused on commercial space activities. 7 On April 6, 2020, President Trump signed an executive order that formally recognizes the rights of private interests to claim resources in space. The order is titled: “Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources.” It builds on the SD-1 signed into law in 2017. The intent was to end the debate about the commercial activities in outer space as defined by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and to encourage international support for the recovery and use of space resources.8 After the Artemis program successfully lands humans (at least one woman and man) on the Moon’s surface, NASA’s plans will focus on creating a sustainable base camp for scientific exploration and possibly as a launching point to other locations such as Mars. The required elements to accomplish these goals include a Lunar Gateway (an orbiting habitable station) as well as a lunar base camp, including a research station constructed on the surface of the Moon. These two habitats and research stations will allow for extended stays on the Moon. With the use of an array of lunar vehicles such as reusable landers, rovers, and robotic construction equipment, regular trips to the Moon will be possible at reduced costs. Automated building technologies will make building structures on the Moon or Mars possible prior to crews arriving, and at a significantly reduced construction cost (see Fig. 11.3). 9 Finally, the Space Force was established as part of the U.S. Air Force in the National Defense Authorization Act in 2020. The Trump administration is concerned about national security and has focused on the development of those defenses.

218  Politics and Commercial Space Activities

Fig. 11.3.  Robotic construction technologies for Lunar and Martian infrastructures. Image credit: NASA

Successful NASA Partnerships A partnership between the public and private sectors is an agreement between a public body or agency at the federal, state or local level and a private company to deliver a product or service to be used for the benefit of the public. There is a shared risk and reward between the parties. Developing this connection is vital for the future success of space exploration. The expertise and innovation presented by private enterprise can be utilized to promote government needs. At the same time, the burden of cost is shared and NASA is able to manage several projects within the umbrella of their space policy goals.10

Successful NASA Partnerships 219 Two of the most successful business partners with NASA have been SpaceX and Boeing, previously discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. They are both currently in the final stages of the race to build and demonstrate the Commercial Crew vehicle. The purpose of the Commercial Crew program is to shift responsibility to the private sector for certain low-Earth-orbit missions and beyond. The race to build and demonstrate the Commercial Crew vehicle began in 2014 when NASA selected the two private companies to build spacecraft that it can utilize to transport humans and other payloads, instead of owning, operating and maintaining its own spacecraft. Boeing has been a part of every U.S. human spaceflight program, including the Apollo and Shuttle programs. SpaceX already had a cargo version of its Dragon capsule that docked with the ISS multiple times (see Fig. 11.4). The integrated spacecrafts from both companies include rockets and associated systems to transport a minimum of four astronauts to the space station and beyond. 11 After several successful tests, the SpaceX Dragon 2 was launched on May 30, 2020, docking with the ISS within 19 hours. SpaceX had won the race with Boeing, but more work needs to be done.

Fig. 11.4  SpaceX’s Dragon cargo capsule docked to the Earth facing port of the Harmony module on one of its commercial resupply missions to the International Space Station (5/13/2015). Image credit: NASA

220  Politics and Commercial Space Activities Boeing has been making progress on its Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 Starliner spacecraft (see Fig. 11.5). The Starliner was designed to accommodate up to seven passengers, or a mix of crew and cargo, for missions to low-Earth orbit. The weldless structure of the Starliner is state-of-the-art and is reusable for up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time. In addition, the capsule will land on the ground back on Earth rather than in the ocean, which is a first for a U.S. crew capsule. This has contributed to the scheduling delays in the development of the spacecraft. 12

Fig. 11.5  A full-scale test article of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner is dropped into NASA Langley’s 20-foot-deep Hydro Impact Basin. Boeing is testing the Starliner’s systems in water in the unlikely event of an emergency during launch or ascent. Image credit: NASA

Boeing and SpaceX have been facing significant technical challenges with the development of parachutes, propulsion, and launch abort systems. All of that needs to be resolved prior to NASA authorization to transport crew to and from the ISS.

Additional NASA Partnerships with Private Enterprise 221 Additional NASA Partnerships with Private Enterprise NASA is partnering with several U.S. companies to develop small spacecraft and launch vehicle technologies to benefit both NASA and the commercial market. In 2016, NASA sent out a request for proposal entitled Utilizing Public-Private Partnerships to Advance Tipping Point Technologies. This solicitation was the second round of opportunities for private enterprise to develop commercial space technologies to benefit future NASA missions. The agency, entitled Small Launch Vehicle Technology, focuses on small spacecraft for low-Earth orbit applications or to explore deep space. A few of these businesses and their applications are: • Masten Space Systems, Inc., Mojave, California Develop an engine that incorporates advanced manufacturing techniques and will be used to provide a lower-cost reusable launch service for the growing CubeSat and small satellite launch market. • Ventions, LLC, San Francisco Will provide a full launch vehicle integration of a two-stage launch vehicle. The launch vehicle will be capable of on-demand ground launch of small payloads to low-Earth orbit. • Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, Inc., Irvine, California Will produce a commercial micro-avionics platform, which supports launch vehicles and microsatellites. • HRL Laboratories, LLC, Malibu, California Will develop additively manufactured high-temperature materials applicable to rocket engine components. This technology can be applied to small and large engines for launch vehicles. • UP Aerospace, Inc., Littleton, Colorado Will demonstrate several subsystems for a launch vehicle currently under development. The subsystems include a Guidance, Navigation & Control (GN&C) system, nose-fairing separation system, and lightweight staging system. In addition, a ground test will be conducted for the Stage 1 rocket engine. The launch vehicle will be capable of launching small nanosatellites to low-Earth orbit. • Orbital Sciences Corporation, Dulles, Virginia Will incorporate advanced materials for dampening into flight structures to reduce dynamic loads during flight. It will build sub-scale and full-scale flight structures and complete end-to-end ground and flight testing. If successful, this technology has the potential to increase the payload capability and reduce costs for launch vehicles.

222  Politics and Commercial Space Activities NASA is partnering with the following companies to advance small spacecraft capabilities through flight demonstrations, with an aggressive schedule and cost targets: • Trans Astronautica Corporation, Lake View Terrace, California Addressing a potential need for increased space situational awareness, this orbital demonstration mission seeks to use a new technique to detect small, fast-moving, and/or dimly lit near-Earth asteroids and orbital debris. Working with Deep Space Industries of Moffett Field, California, and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Trans Astronautica will test a synthetic tracking system that detects objects streaking though its field of view and then, working in a way analogous to HDR imagery, builds a composite image of the object. • ExoTerra Resource, Littleton, Colorado Opportunities to launch as secondary payloads offer an affordable way to get small spacecraft into orbit, but safety restrictions on launching with energetic and pressurized materials often prevents those spacecraft from carrying significant propulsion capabilities. ExoTerra will flight test a 300-­ watt solar electric propulsion system that uses iodine in place of xenon gas. Iodine can be launched as an inert solid and then vaporized into an ionized gas once in orbit, which removes the risk to the launch vehicle. Launching as a dense solid instead of a gas also increases the amount of propellant that can be stored in the same volume on the spacecraft. ExoTerra’s demonstration mission will attempt a flyby of a near-Earth asteroid with an instrumentation payload provided by Deep Space Industries of Moffett Field, California. These fixed-priced contracts include milestone payments tied to technical progress and require a minimum 25% industry contribution, though all awards are contingent on the availability of appropriated funding. The contracts are worth a combined total of approximately $17 million, and each have an approximate two-­ year performance period culminating in a small spacecraft orbital demonstration mission or the maturation of small launch vehicle technologies.13 The Politics of Future Commercial Exploits As President Trump signed executive orders that gave commercial exploits the green light for mining and extracting resources on other celestial bodies, there is pushback from other countries, such as Russia and China. Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, made an official statement comparing it to colonialism. Sergey Saveliev, Roscosmos’ Deputy Director-General on international cooperation, issued a statement:

The Politics of Future Commercial Exploits 223 Attempts to expropriate outer space and aggressive plans to actually seize territories of other planets hardly set the countries (on course for) fruitful cooperation. There have already been examples in history when one country decided to start seizing territories in its interest—everyone remembers what came of it. Russia could be feeling the pressure of not being first in this endeavour. But, with additional funding, it is capable of catching us, as are other countries such as China and India. So far, outer space is available to be exploited by all countries and corporations and one day, there might be billionaire sponsors from other countries with a similar focus on exploiting space. Last year, Dr. Victor Shammas of the Work Research Institute at Oslo Metropolitan University and independent scholar Tomas Holen produced a study asserting that the commercial exploitation of space will benefit human beings disproportionately. Billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are looking to expand their wealth while taking advantage of the fact that there is little to no oversight in this area. They wrote, “In this regard, SpaceX and related ventures are not so very different from maritime colonialists and the trader-exploiters of the British East India Company.”14 We are entering a new world of commercialization without regulations or boundaries. This provides private enterprise with big opportunities for making money, which could result in disagreements about property and resources. Business practices are not necessarily in the game for the humanitarian benefit of all mankind. It will be interesting to see what the future of space colonization will bring. Notes 1. Wagstaff, Keith. [Internet]. techland.time.com. Neil deGrasse Tyson on the future of U.S. space exploration after curiosity. 01 Aug 2012. [cited 2020 Jun 10] Available from: https://techland.time.com/2012/08/01/ neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-future-of-u-s-space-exploration-after-curiosity/. 2. Office of Space Commerce: National Space Policy. ©2020 [Internet] space. commerce.gov. [cited 2020 Mar 23] Available from: https://www.space.commerce.gov/policy/national-space-policy/. 3. Spacepolicyonline.com. [Internet] Commercial space activities. 29 Dec 2019. [cited 2020 Mar 25] Available from: https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/ commercial-space-activities/. 4. Rowley, Liz. [Internet]. news.yahoo.com. What is the Space Act of 2015? Private space flight gets boost from Congress. 18 Nov 2015. [cited 2020 Mar 23] Available from: https://news.yahoo.com/space-act-2015-privatespace-201851912.html.

224  Politics and Commercial Space Activities 5. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. Who owns the Moon? Space law & outer space treaties. 27 Oct 2017. [cited 2020 Mar 23] Available from: https:// www.space.com/33440-space-law.html. 6. Spacepolicyonline.com. [Internet] Commercial space activities. 29 Dec 2019. [cited 2020 Mar 22] Available from: https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/ commercial-space-activities/. 7. Smith, Marcia. [Internet] Text of President Trump’s Space Policy Directive 2. 24 May 2018. [cited 2020 Mar 22] Available from: https://spacepolicyonline. com/news/text-of-president-trumps-space-policy-directive-2-may-24-2018/. 8. Whitehouse.gov. [Internet]. Executive order on encouraging international support for the recovery and use of space resources: infrastructure & technology. 06 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Jun 23] Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-encouraging-internationalsupport-recovery-use-space-resources/. 9. Williams, Matt. [Internet]. Trump signs an executive order allowing mining the moon and asteroids. 13 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Mar 24] Available from: https://phys.org/news/2020-04-trump-moon-asteroids.html. 10. Jones, Karen. Public-private partnerships stimulating innovation in the space sector. Apr 2018. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 24] Available from: https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/Partnerships_Rev_5-4-18.pdf. 11. Spacepolicyonline.com. Commercial space activities. 29 Dec 2019. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 25] Available from: https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/ commercial-space-activities/. 12. Joy, Rachael. SpaceX, Boeing compete to launch astronauts to International Space Station. 14 Jan 2020. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 26] Available from: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/01/14/ spacexs-flight-abort-test-final-milestone-before-crewed-flight/2835391001/. 13. NASA.gov. NASA establishes new public-private partnerships to advance U.S. commercial space capabilities. 22 Feb 2017. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 24] Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-establishesnew-public-private-partnerships-to-advance-us-commercial-space. 14. Williams, Matt. [Internet]. Trump signs an executive order allowing mining the moon and asteroids. 13 Apr 2020. [cited 2020 Mar 24] Available from: https://phys.org/news/2020-04-trump-moon-asteroids.html.

12 Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties “We fooled ourselves into thinking this thing wouldn’t crash. When I was in astronaut training I asked, ‘What is the likelihood of another accident?’ The answer I got was: one in 10,000, with an asterisk. The asterisk meant, ‘we don’t know.’” –Bryan O’Connor, Former Astronaut and Deputy Associate Administrator for the Space Shuttle, 1996 Every manned space disaster is a tragic and expensive loss. We feel a connection with human explorers who leave this planet to travel into the unknown of outer space. When something goes terribly wrong, it affects those of us who want to solve the mysteries of space and to discover clues to our own existence and origins. Poignant and terrifying moments recorded during past tragedies expose the danger and risk of space travel—the horrific screams of the Apollo 1 astronauts as they were consumed by fire, followed by silence; the final “uh oh” uttered by Challenger pilot Michael Smith just prior to the shuttle explosion; and the video of the Columbia crew performing normal activities prior to its disastrous breakup on re-entry. With horror and fascination, we watched these events and tried to process what had just happened and what it meant to the future of the space program. Each accident investigation involved design and decision regrets and the eventual assessment and redesign. Spaceflight is difficult, risky, and very expensive. Human spaceflight requires multiple backup systems in addition to the ability to return home safely along with rescue or abort plans. America has lost 17 astronauts in spacecraft while in the line of duty. Several more cosmonauts have been lost in the Russian space program. Risk exists every time a rocket or space plane is launched. More lives will be lost © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_12

225

226  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties in the future as we move forward to Mars missions, private enterprise endeavors, and space tourism. Human exploratory endeavors are inherently dangerous on their own. Add to that, new technologies, explosive fuels, and a hostile environment, and it seems amazing that so few lives have been lost. In his retirement speech in 1997, John Glenn said “I guess the question I’m asked the most often is: ‘When you were sitting in that capsule listening to the countdown, how did you feel?’ Well, the answer to that one is easy. I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of two million parts—all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.”1 It is probably inevitable that human errors, either in manufacturing or decision-making, will occur in some aspect of the design or build procedures. Putting crew safety first requires extra levels of scrutiny, rigorous testing, and oversight that can be costly and cause delays in flights. At some point, decisions are made on a high level that say 90% or 95% safe is good enough. Unmanned mission failures are also significant to those who have invested in the scientific result of their efforts. In addition, the success of manned missions often depends on unmanned missions, such as ones scouting landing areas and supplying provisions. The result of unmanned mission failures can be program delays, financial setbacks, and risk to humans that those missions are supporting. Recent failures include a SpaceX rocket explosion during launch, a vehicle that was bringing supplies and experiments to the ISS.  An Antares rocket built by Orbital Sciences blew up shortly after lifting off from a NASA launch facility on the shores of Virginia. It also carried a vital payload to the ISS. Even the future of space tourism has suffered setbacks. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo crashed during a test flight over California, killing one of the two pilots aboard. In this chapter, the perils of space travel are described in terms of technological challenges and risks. Understanding the risks involved is an important piece to telling the story of current and future space exploration. Technological Risks of Spaceflight Scientists and engineers design spacecraft and spacesuits using the most current materials and technology available. Unfortunately, by the time the craft is launched or the object is in use, the technology is already several years old. Computer systems, technology, and materials change rapidly over time. The Space Shuttle’s General Purpose Computer (GPC) was originally designed in early 1972 as a state-of-the-art flight computer, similar to those used on the F-16 fighter.2 When the shuttle was launched in the 1980s, the computer systems were considered aging technology and were not upgraded to more advanced capabilities until 1990.3 Because technology changes so rapidly, it is difficult for manned spaceflight to maintain the most sophisticated and robust systems. Every

Apollo 1 (January 27, 1967) 227 technological risk is evaluated by the government or company organization in charge of that system, so it is fair to say that all of these systems and decisions that result are subject to human error. The most explosive systems on space vehicles are related to fuels and launch systems. Rocket propulsion has not changed very much since the birth of space exploration. Solid rocket boosters are the simplest and are considered safe enough to use by hobbyists and their model rockets. Solid fuel contains a mixture of fuel and oxidizer that is burned until completion, releasing hot gases from a nozzle producing thrust. The fuel is an inert solid until ignited. Liquid fuels are volatile not only once mixed and combusted but also in storage tanks. The fuel burns when combined with an oxidizer, a substance that releases oxygen. The systems are complex, but the flow of propellant can be controlled or stopped. Hazards exist in the storage and transport of these chemicals. Going forward, new propulsion systems involving hydrogen or nuclear-generated fuels will still have similar safety and control issues. All of the fatal accidents in the U.S. space program resulted from mechanical or technological failures, but the systems and mission plans were designed by humans. • The Apollo 1 capsule was destroyed after a spark ignited some material inside of the capsule, leading to a fire that consumed the capsule and exploded in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. This occurred during a ground test prior to launch. • The Challenger Space Shuttle explosion was caused by a solid rocket booster O-ring leak. • The Columbia Space Shuttle accident upon re-entry was caused by a failure of the heat-resistant tiles on the wing, which were compromised by a piece of insulation foam striking them during launch. NASA’s investigation into these accidents exposed a number of system failures, poor engineering, and a lack of judgment. It is worthwhile to review a summary of these fatal accidents in order to look at how and if risk evaluation has changed in the current space program, including commercial pursuits. Apollo 1 (January 27, 1967) Historical Context Due to increased funding and publicity, NASA was on track to land on the Moon by the end of the 1960s as promised by President Kennedy. During this time, however, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had increased due to significant events—the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and the outbreak of war in southeast Asia. There was a

228  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties sense of urgency to fulfill the dream, especially after Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963. Everyone knew that spaceflight to the Moon was risky, utilizing advanced technology and new spacecraft designs with accelerated development schedules. Recent successes increased the national self-confidence. Frustrations developed when systems didn’t work properly, but no one could have predicted what happened early on in the Apollo program. On January 27, 1967, the crew of Apollo 1 was strapped into their seats inside the newly built Apollo capsule for a routine ground test while on top of the Saturn V rocket. An uncontrollable fire caused an explosion that killed all three astronauts, who were unable to escape the capsule. The program halted for an undetermined length of time to investigate the causes of the accident. The country was in shock, never imagining that American astronauts could die under NASA’s watchful eye. Accident Analysis The Apollo Command and Service Module, going through a routine test of the internal power systems, required a fully pressurized cabin with 100% oxygen. Three astronauts (Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee) were onboard the capsule. The crew reported a fire inside of the spacecraft, and less than 20 seconds, later the fire consumed the spacecraft, killing the astronauts (Fig. 12.1). Prior to the accident, multiple issues associated with the capsule design were identified by technicians and astronauts. Gus Grissom reportedly hung a lemon on the spacecraft, making a statement about its many flaws. The day of the test, when the communications system broke up transmissions, Grissom said: “How are we going to get to the Moon if we can’t talk between two or three buildings?”4. An investigation board concluded that the fire was caused by an electrical spark igniting flammable materials, exacerbated by the high pressure, pure oxygen environment. To make matters worse, the astronauts couldn’t exit the hatch from the inside—something that was on the list of things to fix. The analysis tells a story of human failures, not only in design flaws but also in decisions to continue testing with known problems. Crew rescue and safety issues were ultimately set aside in lieu of the bigger race to the Moon. In looking at the accident report and analysis, it is almost unbelievable to read how the most basic issues of engineering design were violated and how none of the great minds of NASA identified the problems that led to the tragedy. Pure oxygen had been used since the start of NASA’s space program. The spacecraft is designed to have a higher pressure inside than outside. In space, a spacecraft can operate at low pressure because outside, the vacuum of space has zero pressure. In a ground test, the spacecraft needed to operate at a higher pressure than standard atmospheric pressure, which meant that the cabin would have to be pressurized. A 100% oxygen environment that is safe at a low pressure becomes volatile at a high pressure. Despite efforts to make sure that there would be no spark inside the cabin, a spark ignited.

Apollo 1 (January 27, 1967) 229

Fig. 12.1  Apollo 1 module after fire. Image credit: NASA

Recommendations included an engineering redesign of the module and its systems. In addition, it was recommended that management and decision procedures be revised to improve quality control.5

230  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties The Space Shuttle Challenger (January 28, 1986) Historical Context The shuttle program had been extremely successful since its first launch in 1981. A few small technical issues had been identified on the vehicle and were either redesigned or disregarded as not significant problems. In addition, certain components and technical expertise were parceled out to contractors in a similar way as during the previous space programs. This method relies on a close-knit community with flawless communication processes to analyze risk. The Apollo 1 accident had occurred almost 20 years ago—all but forgotten in the age of the Space Shuttle successes. After nine successful missions, however, the public was losing interest in the program. A new campaign was started to bolster enthusiasm, which centered on launching the first American civilian into space. Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher, was selected to train with the astronauts, and was going to teach lessons from space. The mission attracted a lot of publicity but was plagued with several delays, which resulted in a certain amount of pressure to launch sooner rather than later. On a very cold morning, the Challenger was given a go for launch. The vehicle broke up 73 seconds after liftoff, bringing a shocking ending to the shuttle’s tenth mission and the loss of seven lives onboard (Fig. 12.2). Accident Analysis The Shuttle program was halted until an investigation could be completed by an independent commission. The data revealed that, due to excessively low temperatures, two rubber O-rings that sealed the joints on one of the solid rocket boosters became brittle and failed. The failure resulted in flames leaking out of the solid booster, igniting other parts of the vehicle, including the fuel tank, and causing an explosion 73 seconds after launch. The non-technical reasons were just as important in the analysis. The commission focused on issues related to NASA culture and poor management decision-­ making processes. Scheduling pressures relating to increasing costs led to an override of vehicle and crew safety. These factors led to a decision to launch the rocket even when it was thought by some to be potentially dangerous. It was thought that NASA relied on past successes rather than sound engineering analysis. Commissioner and physicist Richard Feynman thought that the communication and decision-making between managers and engineers at NASA and Morton-­ Thiokol, the solid rocket booster contractor, were very different. Engineers evaluated risk statistically, whereas managers were more qualitative and at times dismissive of the detailed analyses that the engineers presented in order to move

The Space Shuttle Challenger (January 28, 1986) 231

Fig. 12.2  The Space Shuttle Challenger explosion Jan. 28, 1986. Image credit: NASA

the scheduled launches along. He stated that NASA managers needed to understand the risk analysis in detail because “for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”6

232  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties A House Committee on Science and Technology held hearings on the Challenger accident during the same year but only after the commission report was made public. They interviewed members of the commission, NASA and Morton Thiokol managers, astronauts, scientists, and engineers. The committee results supported the commission’s findings but felt that rather than poor communication methods, the problem was inadequate technical decision-making over several years to solve problems such as the solid rocket booster joints. NASA stopped the Space Shuttle program for more than two years while it redesigned a number of systems. Recommendations included a redesign of the solid rocket booster joints plus a change in the shuttle management structure to include astronauts in the organizational structure and have them participate in the final decision to launch a vehicle. Also included were improved safety measures and communication between all parts of the organization. At first, it was thought that the Challenger crew was killed instantly, but after further investigation and the recovery of the crew cabin from the bottom of the ocean, it was discovered that the crew most likely lived more than two minutes past the separation from the solid rocket boosters. The crew cabin was intact until impact with the ocean—the only thing that could be certain was that the impact with the ocean would have been fatal. By analysis of flight data, it was determined that the Challenger broke apart at 48,000 feet above the ocean, arced to 65,000 feet before beginning its flight downward. Evidence showed that the reserve oxygen packs had been turned on, and the g-forces were survivable. All seven astronauts were most likely alive and conscious during most of those terrifying last 165 seconds, trying to save themselves as the cabin plunged into the ocean. This part of the story needed to be told. There was no point in sanitizing the event. Nevertheless, the official NASA report concluded, “The cause of death of the Challenger astronauts cannot be positively determined.”7 It is important to reflect on these facts to understand the choices that NASA made concerning crew safety. An emergency escape module with a parachute system was proposed along with other escape systems, but it was thought that none of the systems would have been capable of saving the Challenger crew. In addition, escape systems added significant weight to the launch vehicle and affected the shuttle’s capacity to carry payloads, so they weren’t considered viable options. The reality was that there were no options in place for the survival of crew members during powered ascent.

The Space Shuttle Columbia (February 1, 2003) 233 The Space Shuttle Columbia (February 1, 2003) Historical Context The shuttle program made a successful return after the Challenger accident. Some systems were upgraded, and significant changes were made in the organizational structure and decision-making process. Some technical issues that existed since the first shuttle flight, though, were never addressed because of the significant cost to change the design or the expected low risk of failure. Columbia was the first orbiter vehicle in the Space Shuttle fleet, with its initial launch on April 12, 1981. It was in service for over 22 years and had completed 27 missions before nearing the end of its 28th mission, STS-107 on February 1, 2003.8 The Columbia flight was delayed a number of times over a two year period. While re-entering the atmosphere over Texas and only a few minutes before landing at Kennedy Space Center, the Columbia broke apart, killing all seven crew members aboard (debris found shown in Figure 12.3). The Columbia was the second tragedy in the Space Shuttle program following the Challenger explosion.

Fig. 12.3  Looking down at identified main fuselage debris located in the Columbia reconstruction hangar at JSC (March 3, 2003). Image credit: NASA.

234  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties Accident Analysis The shuttle program was halted until an investigation could be completed by an independent commission. The investigation revealed that the re-entry disaster was caused by a problem that occurred at launch almost two weeks before. At about 80 seconds into the launch, a piece of foam insulation broke off from the shuttle’s propellant tank and damaged the edge of the left wing of the orbiter vehicle.9 This was not an unusual event. Even on the first Space Shuttle flight, a small piece of foam came off of the external tank and hit the tiles on the underside of the orbiter vehicle. The ceramic tiles, or Thermal Protection System (TPS), used on the underside of the orbiter vehicle, are heat resistant but fragile and can break or chip easily. The main concern during the first shuttle flight was whether the chipped or fragmented tiles compromised the re-entry capability of the tiles as a heat shield. It was thought that a loss of specific tiles or damage in the leading edge of a wing on the orbiter would allow severe heat to enter the wing cavity and produce a zipper effect, causing other tiles to be removed by increased aerodynamic pressure. On the first shuttle flight and a number of subsequent flights, the damage incurred wasn’t significant. The same situation existed for the doomed Columbia flight. In an area of severe wind buffeting, fuel tank foam debris hit the underside of the orbiter, damaging some tiles. Management decided not to tell the crew about it because there was little to be done to fix the problem. The vehicle was not equipped to dock with the International Space Station, and a maneuver to a higher altitude would have used up a great amount of fuel. It was unclear whether a crewed space walk would have revealed important information without significant risk to the astronauts. The shuttle program manager also decided that taking satellite imagery to inspect the damage was not going to be helpful. There was no tile repair kit that was workable at that time. The investigation board revealed that it actually would have been possible for the crew to repair the tile damage or for the crew to be rescued from the Columbia by the launch of the shuttle Atlantis, which could have helped repair the tiles or taken the crew onboard. The Space Shuttle program was grounded for over two years to implement some of the recommendations of the board. Many of the same issues, such as organizational causes and flawed decision-making processes instrumental in the Challenger explosion, were still to be blamed for the Columbia disaster. Some of the reasons why it happened were also similar—a need to gain approval and publicity for public enthusiasm along with the lack of national vision and commitment to the space program, decreasing resources, changing priorities, and schedule pressures. When the shuttle program resumed, the ability to take pictures of the underside of the orbiter for visual analysis of affected tiles and repair tiles using a kit and an EVA had been introduced. These items were tested but never required for the remainder of the program.

Lessons Learned from NASA Space Disasters 235 Lessons Learned from NASA Space Disasters There are some obvious similarities between all three NASA investigation recommendations, particularly in the process of decision-making. Communication between managers and engineers and among contractors in any business can be challenging. Most poorly constructed decisions don’t result in a disastrous loss of life, but NASA’s pervasive culture of success or even arrogance contributed to questionable decisions concerning crew safety and risk. All three investigations recognized a growing separation of management and engineering, which is problematic if managers do not understand the technical aspects of risk. A number of technical issues were not addressed for long periods of time, despite reports from scientists and engineers, both at NASA and from contractors. The fact that these problems were not properly addressed on a regular basis contributed to each fatal event. Why they were not attended to had patterns as well: addressing technical issues in depth and implementing solutions could put a program at risk due to financial requirements and schedule delays. It was thought that engineers wanted everything perfect, and if each item got the detailed attention and time requested, no one would ever have been launched into space. With the managers and engineers not communicating effectively, the concerns could easily be overlooked and not factored into important decisions. All of the accidents were caused by problems already identified as potentially dangerous, and yet no solutions were implemented because no adverse events had occurred up until the point of failure. Engineering problems that had not caused failures were put into the category of acceptable rather than into a database of subjects of concern. Lack of disaster was accepted as success. A sigh of relief when a mission was completed translated into no further testing or analysis on the items in question. A blind spot was created with respect to a number of technical issues that merited additional testing. What is disturbing is that, after decades of NASA space missions, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) reported that the NASA culture hadn’t changed much since the Challenger disaster and stated that the space agency lacked “effective checks and balances, does not have an independent safety program and has not demonstrated the characteristics of a learning organization.” The report continued, “these repeating patterns mean that flawed practices embedded in NASA’s organizational system continued for 20 years and made substantial contributions to both accidents.”10 It was thought that NASA might never get this aspect of organizational communication right and maybe was destined to face another tragic event. One of the most powerful conclusions in the report said that NASA had recreated an attitude and culture that they had vowed would never return—one in which “engineers had to produce evidence that the system was unsafe rather than prove it was safe.”11 It was clear that progress had to be made in terms of safety and communication going forward.

236  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties The Space Shuttle program retired successfully in 2011 after returning to flight in 2005. One significant change that demonstrated NASA’s commitment to safety going forward was the establishment of the NASA Engineering Safety Center and a Chief Safety Officer for the Space Shuttle program. The CAIB recommended several changes, and although several of its members thought the shuttle should be retired, it was not the board’s official recommendation. The report described the shuttle program as “a complex and risky system.”12 The decision was made in 2004 to retire the shuttle and rely on the Soyuz vehicles to transfer US crews to the ISS. NASA had planned for the shuttle to retire several times over the years but kept it going due to its success overall and the delayed status for a replacement. The shuttle would still be needed for ferrying astronauts and supplies to the ISS until 2020. The CAIB recommended a vehicle recertification on all levels to ensure flight safety if the shuttle was to be used beyond 2010. The 2010 date was chosen because the ISS was supposed to be completed by that date, and shuttle use beyond that date was not anticipated. Soon after, NASA set 2010 as the retirement date.13 The shuttle was retired 2011. It is thought that, despite past evidence to the contrary, NASA is the safest U.S. organization to oversee space exploration. With the emergence of private enterprise, the safety of space exploration is being questioned. It is a valid question, considering the challenges that NASA has had over the past several decades. However, there is some benefit to having a smaller organization, which has control over all systems and mission planning, but being small doesn’t necessarily guarantee success. Lessons can be learned from these fatal events. SpaceShipTwo Crash (October 31, 2014) Historical Context Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson joined forces to design and build the first commercial spacecraft. Burt Rutan had already launched SpaceShipOne, the first private manned rocket into space. Virgin Galactic was founded in 2005 with the goal of developing a space tourism industry. It designed and built SpaceShipOne and a space hub in New Mexico for Virgin Galactic flights. An explosion in the testing of one of their rocket engines in July 2007 killed three technicians, injuring other employees.14 Undaunted by this event, the company moved forward and developed SpaceShipTwo, a six-passenger space plane with two pilots (Fig. 12.4). The craft would be carried underneath a carrier vehicle to a high altitude, and then released to start its own rocket engine and fly into space beyond Earth’s atmosphere. On a test flight on the last day of October in 2014, the vehicle manned by the two pilots was carried by the WhiteKnightTwo vehicle to an altitude of about

SpaceShipTwo Crash (October 31, 2014) 237 45,000 feet over the California’s Mojave Desert and released. The rocket engines started, and the vehicle started to accelerate to a higher altitude when it exploded, splitting into pieces and falling back to Earth, killing one of the pilots. 15

Fig. 12.4  Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo will carry six passengers and two pilots. Image credit: NASA

Accident Analysis The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash of SpaceShipTwo was caused by a combination of human error and inadequate safety procedures. The pilot who died in the crash prematurely unlocked what was called the feathering system, a device that is used to reduce speed on descent. A possible reason for the early deployment of the device was to prevent the flight from being aborted. Because this event wasn’t anticipated, there were no built-in safeguards to prevent it. The NTSB suggested some new safety procedures, including a modification to the feathering lock system. Sir Richard Branson was still resolved to go forward with commercial space tourism.16

238  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties SpaceX Explosion (June 28, 2015) Historical Context SpaceX, founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk, produced the first private spacecraft to dock with the ISS and deliver supplies under a NASA resupply contract. The company wants to replace the Russian Soyuz rocket as a transport for American astronauts to the ISS, a necessity after the Space Shuttle retired in 2011. It also wants to develop the technologies necessary for a reusable launch system, reducing space transportation costs considerably. Long-term goals for SpaceX include the colonization of Mars. On June 28, 2015, one of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets experienced an overpressure event just over 2 minutes into flight, resulting in a loss of the mission.17 The rocket was loaded with two tons of food and supplies for the ISS and was the worst failure in the company’s history, although no lives were lost (Fig. 12.5).

Fig. 12.5  A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket (CRS-7) lifts off on June 28, 2015 from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. After liftoff, an anomaly occurred. (Image courtesy of NASA)

Risks in the Commercial Launch Vehicle Industry 239 Accident Analysis NASA’s independent review team investigation identified a single piece of hardware that failed, causing the overpressure event. The piece that broke was a steel strut, 2 feet long, manufactured by a supplier. The strut was holding down one of many helium bottles on the rocket’s second stage.18 Interestingly, Elon Musk believed that SpaceX employees may have become too relaxed as a result of their numerous successes in recent years, causing quality control to suffer. “Most people at the company today have only ever seen success,” Musk said. “When you’ve only ever seen success, you don’t fear failure quite as much.”19 Musk said that parachutes onboard the cargo ship could be designed to deploy by software in an emergency, saving its cargo. This fix would be added to future missions. Scheduling delays of several months costs millions of dollars. However, SpaceX came roaring back in six months, launching eleven small satellites in orbit aboard a Falcon rocket. In addition, it accomplished its first mission to land a booster back to Earth, an amazing engineering accomplishment. Risks in the Commercial Launch Vehicle Industry Risk exists in both government and commercial space activities. NASA has had its share of problems and disasters some resulting in loss of life. Commercial flight has also had some problems, but the only loss of life has been in a crash of the Virgin Galactic Spaceship Two during a test flight over the Mojave Desert in California, not in outer space. Most commercial ventures have been focused on satellite or payload delivery along with demonstrations of reusable parts of spacecraft. There have not been regular commercial crewed space flights yet, but soon there will be private ventures as well as government partnerships for manned missions. There is a sense of optimism and excitement about the commercial space industry. It is possible that the enthusiasm can cause investors to overlook business practices and make decisions tainted by emotion, unfairly judging one company over another for contract awards. The risks and uncertainties associated with a project may not be able to be quantitatively measured until a difficulty arises. Management and communication problems led to NASA’s problems, which were not evaluated as problematic until a disaster occurred, and many of which were repeated and led to another disaster. Some traits of the space launch industry could cause financial difficulties and challenges as the industry progresses to manned space missions. One is that most of the industry up to now is heavily dependent on government resources and objectives. The U.S. government still launches a majority of the launch activities. If a company isn’t granted a contract or if funding is terminated and the company is unable to survive, the industry as a whole could be affected. Only a handful of companies are independent in their funding. The federal government’s demand for

240  Technological Risks of Space Flights and Human Casualties suppliers is determined by the budget and the long-term goals for the nation. It is difficult to keep the demand higher for launches and spacecraft development if the government is limited by its budget. Launch vehicles are expensive and heavy-lift vehicles are complex, causing considerable time between launches. One way to increase the launch rate is to reduce the safety requirements for unmanned flights. Government payloads have more stringent safety requirements than commercial payloads, which leads to them being more expensive. Reliability and safety requirements could be lowered for unmanned missions to reduce cost. This would free up the federal government to release more space resources and increase launch frequency. Increased launch frequency will also boost the research and development of more reliable launch vehicles, which in turn reduces cost. Of course, the cost of schedule delays or a failure adds up, so it becomes a balance of safety and reliability versus pressure to launch. 20 NASA’s history has been one of great triumphs despite inconsistent support from Congress and each administraton. U.S. space policy is moving toward a commercial future, but NASA will continue to be a key factor as we move out beyond Earth’s orbit. Doing that safely must be a prime driver for the agency despite pressures to move more quickly. Lessons Learned from Commercial Space Disasters A constant throughout almost all of the fatal accidents related to space travel is either human error or insufficient attention to safety. An overseeing safety officer and rigorous quality control was recommended in each of these accidents. Complacency was mentioned by Elon Musk as a possible reason for the lapse in focus on safety. This is very similar to the NASA culture referred to in all fatal accidents. Maybe it is just human nature to drop your guard when you have experienced many successes. And if so, some procedures to prevent this from happening will need to be put in place. Notes 1. Historicwings.com Staff. [Internet] history.com. Columbia disaster; c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 23]. Available from: http://www.historicwings.com/features98/mercury/seven-left-bottom.html. 2. Chien, Philip. Space Shuttle technology. Compute!. 1991 Aug; 132: p. 92. 3. NASA, [Internet]. Spaceflight.nasa.gov; c2002. General-purpose computers; [cited 2015 Aug 15]. Available from: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/orbiter/avionics/dps/gpc.html. 4. Howell, Elizabeth. Space.com Contributor. 28 Aug 2012. Apollo 1: The Fatal Fire. [Internet] [cited 2015 Aug 19]. Available from: http://www.space. com/17338-apollo-1.html.

Lessons Learned from Commercial Space Disasters 241 5. Moskowitz, Clara. [Internet] Space.com. 27 Jan 2012: How the Apollo 1 fire changed spaceship design forever; c2016 [cited 2016 Jun 18]. http://www. space.com/14379-apollo1-fire-space-capsule-safety-improvements.html. 6. Brown, Alexander. [Internet] history.nasa.gov. Chapter 12: accidents, engineering, and history at NASA; c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 19]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-2006-4702/chapters/chapter12.pdf. 7. Harwood, William. [Internet] Space-shuttle.com. The fate of challenger’s crew; c2010 [cited 2015 Aug 21]. Available from: http://www.space-shuttle. com/challenger1.htm. 8. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet] Space.com. 16 Jan 2013: Columbia: first shuttle in space; c2016 [cited 2016 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/02/space-shuttle-columbia-a-new-beginning-and-vision/. 9. History.com Staff. 2010. [Internet] history.com. Columbia disaster; c2015 [cited 2015 Aug 19]. Available from: http://www.history.com/topics/ columbia-disaster. 10. Lessons unlearned: NASA is to blame for the Columbia disaster. Pittsburgh Post—Gazette. 2003 Sep 02. 11. Report blames flawed NASA culture for tragedy; in broad indictment of practices, Shuttle panel says safety suffered. The Washington Post. 2003 Aug 27. 12. Lessons unlearned: NASA is to blame for the Columbia disaster. Pittsburgh Post—Gazette. 2003 Sep 02. 13. Day, Dwayne A. The decision to retire the Space Shuttle. The Space Review. 2011 July 18. 14. Chang, Alicia. Virgin Galactic keeps low profile after explosion. USA Today. 2007 Aug 26. 15. Mail FS. 03 Nov 2014. Moment Virgin Galactic spaceship exploded at 45,000 ft. Daily Mail. [London (UK)]: 13:17. 16. Gajanan M.  Virgin galactic crash: Co-pilot unlocked braking system too early, inquiry finds. The Guardian. 2015 Jul 29; Sect. 11. 17. Petersen M. SpaceX loss blamed on faulty strut; the snapping of a steel rod caused the rocket to explode after liftoff, says founder Elon Musk. Los Angeles Times. 2015 Jul 21. 18. Strut may be cause of SpaceX accident. Chicago Tribune. 2015 Jul 21; Sect. 11. 19. Petersen M.  SpaceX founder Elon Musk blames rocket failure on shoddy part. Los Angeles Times. 2015 Jul 20. 20. Kim, Moon. New Space Vol. 6, No. 2. Voices of the new space generation. 01 Jun 2018. https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2017.0029.

13 New Technology and Deep Space

“To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.” -Star Trek The introductory line from the “Star Trek” TV show and movies is bold and inspiring. Actually, part of this speech delivered by Captain James T. Kirk can be found in a 1958 document entitled “Introduction to Outer Space:”: “…the compelling urge of man to explore and to discover, the thrust of curiosity that leads men to try to go where no one has gone before.”1 The document was produced by President Eisenhower’s Science Advisory Committee as a brief, non-technical promotional document outlining the reasons why America should pursue a space program. Decades later, we can still relate to the same factors identified in this report as we look to further human exploration into deep space. First, the desire to explore the unknown seems to be as popular now as it was over 50 years ago. Second, having a military advantage in the use of outer space remains an issue with all countries who are major players in world politics. Third, the national prestige that comes as a result of demonstrating the capability to launch space vehicles or satellites is still a prominent reason for many countries to develop a space program. Finally, it is still accepted that the scientific observations and experiments away from Earth will expand our knowledge of the universe. The report included a brief discussion about the development of space technology at the cutting edge of our capability, and that uncertainties and failures are expected in its implementation. Today, we have a realistic perspective on these issues, and having lost several lives in the space program, we approach the next adventures cautiously— maybe too cautiously for many.2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_13

242

Deep Space Exploration Technological Challenges 243 Almost 60 years after this report was released, we still view humans traveling in futuristic spaceships at warp speeds (or even fast speeds) to far-off planets as science fiction. That doesn’t stop us from dreaming about the possibilities that await us, and we are always hoping it happens in our lifetime. We support the notions in current books and in movies such as The Martian, which portrays an astronaut marooned on Mars, using his scientific knowledge and creativity to survive. The movie Interstellar projects a bleak future for a dying Earth, as NASA sends a former astronaut through a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy in order to find another habitable planet to colonize. Our fascination with futuristic concepts and travel through space has been a constant for decades. Our own space program hasn’t met this desire yet, and other than our missions to the Moon, manned missions have been stuck in low-Earth orbit for decades. We are anxious to break away from Earth and explore deep space, but we are limited by technological developments. This chapter address the challenges that keep Star Trek fiction instead of reality. Deep Space Exploration Technological Challenges The only spacecraft that have traveled to the outer reaches of our Solar System are unmanned vehicles that no longer communicate with Earth. In August 2012, transmitted data provided evidence of NASA’s Voyager 1 (launched in 1977) as the first manmade object to go past the heliosphere, the magnetic boundary at the outer edges of the Solar System.3 We will never hear from Voyager again, so we don’t know what it will encounter because it is beyond our capabilities to hear its transmissions. There is interest in human travel to other planets and beyond, but we have to meet the technological challenges that are delaying this travel. First of all, these destinations involve incredibly long distances, and our current methods of propulsion would require long periods of time (many, many years) to get to even the nearest of these locations, so we need to develop newer, faster propulsion methods. We don’t have the ability to travel at “warp” speed (faster than the speed of light), and so each mission requires that humans be transported with water and food or the ability to make water and food for very long periods of time. Add to that the limitations in communication and rescue, and the missions become extremely dangerous. Currently, NASA is planning on manned missions to the Moon by 2024 in preparation of a journey to Mars in the 2030s.4 Mars is about 36 million miles from Earth (about 58 million km). Using our current methods of propulsion, similar to what was used to go to the Moon, Mars is reachable within 1.6 years at Earth’s closest approach. However, if we wanted to visit the nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, the distance increases to over 21 trillion miles (almost 40 trillion km) and lies well beyond our imagination and technological development.5 Voyager travels at 3.6 Astronomical Units (AU) per year. (AU is the average distance between Earth and the Sun, which is about 93 million miles or 150 million km.) At this speed, it would take over 75,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri.6

244  New Technology and Deep Space The issues of speed and distance affect an unmanned spacecraft. If human travel is considered, as previously discussed, we have to address the other complications and issues of space travel that affect humans, including protection against long-term exposure to radiation and counteracting long term effects of microgravity. Basic requirements of food and water as well as communication with Earth on a regular basis are huge challenges. NASA is in the early stages of development for a number of new technologies that will be useful for deep space travel. In 2012, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon’s research and development branch, awarded $500,000  in seed money to the Dorothy Jamison Foundation for Excellence to form the 100 Year Starship (100YSS), an independent, non-­ government initiative that will call on experts from a variety of fields, from artists to engineers, in order to develop the capabilities for human interstellar flight “as soon as possible, and definitely within the next 100 years.” Dr. Mae Jamison, a former NASA astronaut and the creator and leader of the organization granted the winning proposal, said: “Yes, it can be done. Our current technology arc is sufficient …100 Year Starship is about building the tools we need to travel to another star system in the next 100 years.” The first year of the ambitious project will involve searching for investors, establishing membership opportunities, encouraging public participation in research projects, and developing the visions for interstellar exploration.7 The 100YSS is a long-range project created to ensure that humans reach the stars within a 100 years. The seed funding is only sufficient to provide some kind of business plan for the future and to support research toward the creation of a starship within 100 years. In looking at the shorter term, NASA scientists and others are working on technological developments that can meet the challenges of deep space travel. In 2015, as part of NASA’s Space Technology Research Grants Program, eight academic proposals were awarded with grants of approximately $200,000 to study technologies currently at an early stage of development, such as solar cells that operate at high temperatures, extremely strong and lightweight structures, and synthetic biology applications for recycling human waste.8 In addition, at about the same time, NASA funded new space technologies under the NextSTEP program (Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships). This program established partnerships with ten aerospace companies and one university to develop expertise the three major areas: advanced electric propulsion, human habitation, and small satellites. “Commercial partners were selected for their technical ability to mature key technologies and their commitment to the potential applications both for government and private-sector uses,” William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA headquarters, said in a statement. “This work ultimately will inform the strategy to move human presence further into the Solar System.”9

Ion Propulsion 245 Now we shall investigate a few of the technologies that are key to making manned deep space travel possible. Methods of Propulsion One of the constraining factors for manned spaceflight is the capability of our propulsions systems. Our current systems have limited speed, including the amount and type of fuel required to transport. The most challenging part of a space journey is escaping Earth’s gravitational pull. Huge multi-stage rockets were used to project a small lander and human capsule to the Moon. Each stage was used to push the vehicle faster and higher. When depleted, each stage fell away, and the lighter vehicle continued on its trajectory. Right now, these types of rockets are our only option for getting vehicles into orbit or for travel beyond Earth. The amount of fuel and the oversized rockets themselves are very expensive and most of it non-recoverable. Once a spacecraft is out of the planet’s gravitational pull, there are other means of propulsion that are efficient but not particularly fast. If a rocket could be launched from a platform outside of Earth’s gravity or on the Moon, the required fuel and power would be considerably less. However, the vehicles are still limited by the technology to travel long distances into deep space. Some of the ideas for fueling the next generation of spacecraft seems like something out of science fiction. In a meeting of the American Astronautical Society in 2016, NASA engineer Ronald Litchford recommended research to improve chemical rockets, electrothermal engines and ion drives. He also recommended investing in in research into more advanced technology. Here’s a rundown of the kinds of technologies that NASA is looking at to propel the next generation of spacecraft. 10 Ion Propulsion Ion propulsion is one method used frequently in science fiction for manned flight, but in reality it is currently used to keep satellites in their proper orbits (station-­keeping) and to send probes on long journeys into deep space. NASA began researching the use of ion propulsion as early as the 1950s. In 1998, ion propulsion was successfully used as the main propulsion system for the Deep Space 1 mission. Deep Space 1 (1998–2001) was the first spacecraft to use almost entirely ion propulsion to travel over 163 million miles and fly by asteroid Braille and comet Borelly. Currently, ion thrusters are used to keep more than 100 geosynchronous Earth orbit communication satellites in their desired locations. In addition, ion thrusters are propelling the Dawn spacecraft (launched 2007) to travel inside the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter and orbit two celestial bodies called Vesta and Ceres.11

246  New Technology and Deep Space Ion thrusters generate only a small amount of thrust. They have high specific impulses, which represent the ratio of thrust to the rate of propellant consumption. This means that they need less propellant (5–10 times less fuel) than a more traditional chemical propulsion system. In addition, they can achieve very high speeds (theorized up to 200,000 mph) but only after operating a very long time prior to that high speed. Acceleration is small, but if sustained will become quite large. The ion thruster ionizes propellant, producing ions by adding or removing electrons. The gas produced, called plasma, contains both positive ions and negative electrons of equal proportions and, therefore, has no resulting charge. The plasma acts like any gas but is affected by electric and magnetic fields, much like the material inside fluorescent light bulbs. The most common propellant used in this application is xenon, which is easily ionized and inert, with a high storage density well suited for storing on spacecraft.12 Future missions require faster propulsion than what the ion thruster currently provides within a reasonable timeframe. One of the companies that NASA selected in 2015 to develop technology using a NextSTEP grant was the Ad Astra Rocket Company in Texas. The company is developing the Vasimr engine, which uses plasma as a propellant. This engine has been advertised as being able to propel a spacecraft to Mars in 39 days. Over a three-year period, starting in 2015, NASA will award Ad Astra with $10 million to develop a flight-ready version of the successful prototype.13 A competing design, also funded by the NextSTEP program, is a small thruster called “X3” (XR-100), developed by Alec Gallimore of the University of Michigan. The XR-100 also uses plasma ejected out of the back of the spacecraft as propellant, which accelerates the vehicle to very high speeds. In this design, a current of electrons travels through a circular channel, the spiraling motion building an electric field that pulls the gas ions out of the exhaust at the end of the channel.14 NASA is also involved in the development of two different ion thrusters: the NASA Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) and the Annular Engine. NEXT is a high-power design to reduce mission cost and trip time. NASA Glenn recently awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne to fabricate two NEXT flight systems (thrusters and power processors) for use on future NASA science missions and to develop the NEXT technology to produce increased power and thrust-to-power to be used for a broad range of commercial, NASA, and defense applications (Fig. 13.1).15 A Hall effect thruster (HET) is a type of ion thruster where the low density plasma propellant is accelerated by an electric field that utilizes a powerful magnetic field to product thrust. An inert gas, such as xenon or krypton, is used as a propellant. These thrusters provide a much lower thrust than chemical rockets but can eventually reach about 50,000 meters per second (112,000 mph), however, it could take weeks or months to attain this speed (Fig. 13.2).

Fig. 13.1  NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) Project's seven-kilowatt ion. Image Credit: NASA

Fig. 13.2  Shown here is a 13-kilowatt Hall thruster being evaluated at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. It uses ten times less propellant than equivalent chemical rockets. Image Credit: NASA

248  New Technology and Deep Space Solar Sails One of the more unusual, although promising ideas is to equip spacecraft with giant sails designed to capture solar energy and use it for propulsion. Light is made up of tiny particles called photons, which in some ways behave like atomic particles. When these photons strike a mirror-like surface, they are reflected straight back. In this process, they transmit their momentum to the surface, pushing it forward ever so slightly. One advantage of a solar sail would be similar to that of an ion thruster; it would cause a spacecraft to steadily accelerate so that the craft eventually would reach an extremely high rate of speed. One drawback is that a sail would have to be many times larger than that spacecraft in order to provide the force necessary to propel the spacecraft forward. These types of sails might actually have to be built in space (Fig. 13.3).16

Fig. 13.3  NanoSail-D is made of extremely lightweight gossamer fabric designed to glide into space. Image Credit: NASA

Thermal Fission A conventional fission reactor could heat a propellant to extremely high temperatures to generate thrust. Although no nuclear thermal rocket has yet flown, the concept was investigated in the 1960s and 1970s, with several designs built and tested on the ground in the U.S. The Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) was deemed ready for integration into a spacecraft, before the Nixon administration shelved the idea of sending people to Mars and decimated the project's funding. 17

Habitat Technology 249 Habitat Technology Another major challenge for deep space manned flight is being able to set up habitats, most likely prior to a crew actually arriving on the planet or celestial body. NextSTEP habitat projects are focused on developing modules to add onto the Orion space capsule, which is designed to support a four-person crew for up to three weeks in deep space. NASA wants to increase that capability to 60 days, with the potential for increased capability for a mission to Mars. Modular systems are the most popular concept for easy assembly. The seven NextSTEP habitat projects will have initial performance periods of up to 12 months, with a funding of $400,000 to $1 million for the study and development efforts. Some of the selected companies are Bigelow Aerospace, the Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and Orbital Technologies Corporation (Fig. 10.3).18 The Orion spacecraft that will take astronauts to Mars has a diameter close to 16 feet—not a lot of space when you consider the journey to Mars will take at least six months. The astronauts will need a larger place to live with private quarters and exercise equipment. NASA envisions the Orion capsule linking up to a habitation module in space, which has yet to be designed. A government spending bill, part of the Exploration Research and Development funding at the end of 2015, allocated at least $55 million to develop a habitation module for deep space exploration, including a prototype ready by 2018. This is the time when NASA plans to test its new space habitat around the Moon in the 2020s before sending it to Mars in the 2030s. The government clearly designated the focus to be on the habitat module, an important component for future long-term missions (Fig. 13.4). 19

Fig. 13.4  Artist’s concept of a deep space habitat. Image Credit: NASA

250  New Technology and Deep Space Radiation Protection Technology We have previously discussed the dangers of long-term exposure to radiation. It’s important to look at advancements in this area and what new technologies exist for this challenge for extended manned spaceflight. Scientists at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) have announced they are working on a solution to this very problem. In collaboration with the European Space Radiation Superconducting Shield (SR2S) project, CERN is developing a superconducting magnetic shield that can protect a spacecraft and its crew from cosmic rays during deep-space missions. The shield will generate a field strong enough to stop the harmful rays from penetrating spacecraft and harming crewmembers and equipment. The cosmic radiation issues are estimated to be solved within 3 years. The goal of the SR2S project is to create a magnetic field that is 3000 times stronger than Earth’s own magnetic field, with a 10-meter diameter that would protect crews inside or just outside a spacecraft.20 In a press release, Roberto Battiston, project coordinator of SR2S said: This situation is critical. According to our present knowledge, only a very small fraction of NASA’s active astronauts are suitable to stay on the ISS for a 1-year mission regardless of the fact that the exposure to radiation is two times less than the exposure during deep space travel. The next exploration challenges, deep space travel to near Earth asteroids and long-duration stay on Mars and on the Moon, require an effective way to actively shield astronauts.21 Communication Technology The ability to communicate with Earth is essential for a long duration, deep-space manned mission. The transmission of data over long distances in a timely fashion is also a major challenge. “If you can’t communicate with the ship, then you don’t know what the results are of your mission,” Andreas Tziolas, a former research fellow at NASA who now heads Project Icarus, a private-sector effort to develop interstellar technology.22 Early space communications were radio-based, with significant time delays. These methods are challenged by needs for significantly higher data rates with less mass and power, also critical to any spacecraft. Newer technology has almost eliminated delays in telecommunications on Earth, but they still occur for long-­distance space transmissions and can be significant to transmit to Mars (over 30 minutes). This can impact mission objectives and the safety of the crew. NASA is currently funding the Laser Communications Relay demonstration, which uses laser beams to transfer data between spacecraft and relay stations on Earth at 10–100 times the current speeds and several times faster than the average broadband Internet connect. Images would take longer to transmit, going from Mars to Earth in about five minutes.23 The wavelength of laser light is orders of magnitude shorter than radio

Food Crops for Deep Space Applications 251 waves, which makes the energy more focused and less wasteful as it travels through space. In addition, the shorter wavelength allows for significantly more bandwidth available for transmissions. High-resolution measurements and image transmission will help looking at Earth’s own climate and environmental changes as well as studying new planets. Technical challenges with the laser communications instrument as well as integration issues with the spacecraft hosting the device (Department of Defense’s Space Test Program 3 satellite, STEPSat-6) have resulted in an increase of nearly $50 million, or 18%, for the project’s budget. The launch date has been delayed from late 2019 to January 2021.24 Enhanced Power Technology Future deep space missions will require solar arrays that can operate under very low temperature conditions and exposed to high radiation. The development of a new generation of solar power technology to address these issues is critical to improve mission performance and increase power output as well as solar array life in the harsh environment of deep space. NASA’s Game Changing Development (GCD) program has selected four proposals to develop solar array technologies that will aid spacecraft in exploring destinations well beyond low-Earth orbit, including Mars: “These awards will greatly enhance our ability to further develop and enhance LILT [low-intensity low temperature] performance by employing new solar cell designs,” said Lanetra Tate, the GCD program executive in NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate. “The ultimate goal of increasing end of life performance and enhanced space power applications will greatly impact how we execute extended missions, especially to the outer planets.” 25 Four proposals for solar array development (from John Hopkins University, the Boeing Company, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and ATK Space Systems) were selected for contract negotiations, focusing on the development of solar arrays for extreme environments. Initial awards are as much as $400,000, funding for about nine months of system design, component testing, and analysis, at which time NASA would award additional money ($1.25 million) to develop and test the hardware. A winner would be selected to develop the final design.26 Food Crops for Deep Space Applications One critical capability for human survival in long-distance manned missions in deep space is the ability to produce food. NASA is preparing for its mission to Mars and the necessity of growing food crops in controlled environments for long-­ duration manned missions. Dr. Ray Wheeler is doing research into growing food in a chamber.

252  New Technology and Deep Space Dr. Wheeler, a NASA plant physiologist, talks about the challenge of growing food on a planet with an extreme environment: “The Martian movie and book conveyed a lot of issues regarding growing food and surviving on a planet far from Earth. It’s brought plants back into the equation”27 (Fig. 13.5).

Fig. 13.5  A variety of red potatoes, called Norland, were grown in the Biomass Production Chamber inside Hangar L at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida during a research study in 1992. Image Credit: NASA

Fictional astronaut Mark Watney from the movie The Martian and the real-life Dr. Wheeler are both botanists. Wheeler, however, is the lead for Advanced Life Support Research activities in the Exploration Research and Technology Program at Kennedy Space Center, working on real plant research. Wheeler and his colleagues, including plant scientists, have been studying ways to grow safe, fresh food crops efficiently off Earth. Most recently, astronauts on the International Space Station harvested and ate a variety of red romaine lettuce that they activated and grew in a plant growth system called Veggie. Wheeler was among the plant scientists and others who helped get the Veggie unit tested and certified for use on the ISS. The unit requires a chamber with low power requirements and low mass.28

Food Crops for Deep Space Applications 253 Water, light, and soil, along with some nutrients, are also necessary for growing potatoes or sweet potatoes, as an example. Other crops such as wheat and soybeans would also work in the chamber, providing carbohydrates and protein. In addition, potatoes are tubers, storing their edible biomass in underground structures. Wheeler said potatoes could produce twice the amount of food as some seed crops when given equivalent light. After salad crops that are now being studied, they are the next category of minimally processed food crops and could be consumed raw. “You could begin to grow potatoes, wheat and soybeans, things like that, and along with the salad crops, you could provide more of a complete diet. Providing food is a complex issue,” Wheeler said. “We have to think about nutritional issues, what’s acceptable and what tastes good. If nobody wants to eat it, that won’t work.”29 In the movie, the character chooses to use the regolith, or Martian soil, to grow the plants. In reality, the soil on Mars is essentially broken rock material and lacks most of the nutrients needed to sustain plant growth. Much of what Wheeler did in his potato studies involved growing the plants in shallow, tilted trays using a hydroponic system. “With potatoes, it was a little bit more interesting in the sense that you can’t use systems that require a lot of standing or deep water—potatoes don’t like to be submerged,” Wheeler said, “and we kept the nutrient water film very thin.”30 They did very well, as do many crops grown this way, according to Wheeler. But traveling in a spacecraft to another planet will put constraints on the quantity and weight of commodities that could be brought along. You can’t pack everything you need for a long-duration spaceflight. Some resources will need to be recycled, acquired, or produced at the destination, a process called in-situ resource utilization. Plants could be grown hydroponically in a protected environment on deep space trips. Later, on the surface of the planet, Martian soils could be used as the growing systems need to expand. Out in space, there is no direct sunlight for plant growth, so sufficient light has to be provided artificially such as high intensity and efficient LED lights used on the ISS. It is estimated that Mars receives less than 50% of the sunlight that Earth does, but many areas receive much less light due to low latitudes. In addition, Mars frequently has dust storms that could block sunlight for a long period of time. In addition to all of the other challenges, food crops would most likely need to be protected from ultraviolet radiation, expanding chamber requirements to be pressurized with adequate nutrients and appropriate lighting along with and protection against extreme temperatures. Food needs to be regenerated, or obviously it will be depleted over time. Potato tubers that contain at least one bud or eye can be replanted and produce new

254  New Technology and Deep Space plants. As plants grow, they would utilize carbon dioxide and generate oxygen through photosynthesis, making the environment better for humans. And, as odd as it sounds, using wastewater, or even urine, as a source of nutrients for plant growth could be an option. Aboard the ISS, U.S. astronauts use the Environmental Control and Life Support System —a system that collects and recycles used water, wastewater, and urine.31 Water: A Precious Resource Water is necessary to sustain life. It is also very heavy and expensive to transport. Early manned space missions lasted hours or a few days. Now, ISS missions can last months, and it can take two years for a mission to Mars. Humans generate a lot of waste, which turns out to be one of the most valuable commodities in space. It can be recycled and turned into wastewater, carbon dioxide, organic solid waste, and heat. For long-term missions, it is beneficial and economical to completely recycle wastewater. Since 2009, the ISS has had a water recycling system on the level of approximately 85% water recovery. The system uses distillation technology to treat urine, flush water, and condensate water to generate usable water.32 A mission to Mars would be unable to carry resupply goods such as water filters, and it is expensive to bring along spare parts to fix any possible equipment failures. NASA is currently researching a variety of water recycling technologies to adapt for use on long-term missions. One example of a solution is the Sabatier system, originally developed by the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Paul Sabatier in the early 1900s. The process produces water and methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, both byproducts of life-supporting systems on the ISS. This system has been used to provide water to the ISS at the critical stage after the shuttle was retired.33 Resources recycled while traveling to a celestial body only addresses part of the problem for a manned exploration or colonization effort. It is a bonus if water or other resources are accessible at the destination. As an example, it was discovered that liquid water seems to flow intermittently currently on Mars. New data from NASA’s Mars reconnaissance Orbiter is providing strong evidence of streaks on slopes at several locations that appear to change over time. New findings from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter provide strong evidence that liquid water flows intermittently currently on Mars. “Our quest on Mars has been to ‘follow the water’ in our search for life in the universe, and now we have convincing science that validates what we’ve long suspected,” said John Grunsfeld, astronaut and associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “This is a significant development, as it appears to confirm that water—albeit briny—is flowing today on the surface of Mars.”34

New Technology and the Road to Deep Space 255 If that water is accessible, it can be used for making propellant, sustaining human life, and growing crops. The water will not be pure and will be “salty” and contain perchlorates, and other impurities known to exist on Mars, so it would need to be purified before use.35 New Technology and the Road to Deep Space One of the most exciting aspects of the future of space exploration is the cutting-­ edge aspect of the technology required to successfully travel into deep space. These technologies include propulsion, communication, guidance and navigation, and the recycling of resources to sustain life. Even in The Martian, the astronaut’s survival was dependent on his creativity and expertise in order to solve problems that were not foreseen. He could utilize existing equipment but had to apply it in a unique way. This is a statement about the power of a human being to solve problems. Almost certainly, a robot could not have conducted as many sophisticated tasks as those required in this science fiction survival story. Clearly, there are places for both human beings and high-tech equipment, including complex robots, in the quest for deep space exploration. The requirements defined for successful missions to outer space and possible colonization of another celestial body include demonstrations of scientific concepts and use of materials possibly not yet discovered. Many of these efforts will be conducted through a combination of NASA, private enterprise, and international partnerships. Speaking for space enthusiasts, we are impatient to see the results. Notes 1. History.NASA.gov. President’s Science Advisory Committee, “Introduction to Outer Space,” [Internet] History.NASA.gov; March 26, 1958 [cited 2016 Mar 10]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/16.html. 2. History.NASA.gov. President’s Science Advisory Committee, “Introduction to Outer Space,” [Internet] History.NASA.gov; March 26, 1958. [cited 2016 Mar 10]. Available from: http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/16.html. 3. Landau, Elizabeth. CNN news. [Internet] cnn.com; Voyager 1 becomes first human-made object to leave solar system. Oct 2, 2013; [cited 2016 Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/tech/innovation/voyagersolar-system/. 4. NASA.gov. [Internet] NASA.gov; 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 11]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars. 5. Science channel. [Internet] sciencechannel.com; 10 technology innovations needed for deep space exploration. 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.sciencechannel.com/topics/aliens-space/10-technologyinnovations-needed-for-deep-space-exploration/.

256  New Technology and Deep Space 6. NASA.gov. Voyager forges a new frontier. 2011 [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 11]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/deepspace/ voyager_prt.htm. 7. David, Leonard. NASA’s 100-year starship project sets sights on interstellar travel. 23 Mar 2011. [Internet] [cited 2016 Mar 11]. Available from: http:// www.space.com/11200-nasa-100-year-starship-interstellar-travel.html. 8. Buck, Joshua. NASA awards grants for technologies that could transform space exploration. 14 Aug 2015. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-grants-fortechnologies-that-could-transform-space-exploration. 9. Venturespring. NASA funds 12 deep-space exploration technologies. 2 Apr 2015. [Internet] venture-spring.com; [cited 2016 Mar 14]. Available from: http://venture-spring.com/news/?p=64. 10. Cosmomagazine.com. Antimatter to ion drives: NASA’s plans for deep space propulsion. 18 Mar 2016. [Internet] [cited 2020 Mar 29]. Available from: https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/antimatter-ion-drives-nasasplans-deep-space-propulsion. 11. NASA.gov. NASA—ion propulsion. 11 Jan 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/ about/fs21grc.html. 12. Hicks, Kenneth. Ion propulsion might carry spacecraft far, wide. 17 Jan 2016. Columbus Dispatch. News—Science: 3H. 13. Aa Cihan News Agency. NASA selects companies to develop super-fast deep space engine. April 2, 2015. 14. Mirror Publications. New thruster to propel future Mars mission. 20 Feb 2016. 15. NASA.gov. NASA—ion propulsion. 11 Jan 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/ about/fs21grc.html. 16. Wall, Mike. Space.com Staff Writer. 27 May 2014. Are solar sails the future of space travel. [Internet] [cited 2016 March 14]. Available from: http://www. space.com/26011-solar-sail-tech-space-exploration. html. 17. https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/antimatter-ion-drives-nasas-plansdeep-space-propulsion 3-3-20. 18. Foust, Jeff. Spending bill to accelerate NASA habitation module work. 28 Dec 2015. [Internet] [cited 2016 March 14]. Available from: http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/. 19. Foust, Jeff. Spending bill to accelerate NASA habitation module work. 28 Dec 2015. [Internet] [cited 2016 March 14]. Available from: http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/.

New Technology and the Road to Deep Space 257 20. Dockrill, Peter. Science Alert. Scientists are developing a shield to protect astronauts form cosmic radiation. 6 Aug 2015. [Internet] [cited 2016 March 14]. Available from: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developinga-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiation. 21. Dockrill, Peter. Science Alert. Scientists are developing a shield to protect astronauts form cosmic radiation. 6 Aug 2015. [Internet] [cited 2016 March 14]. Available from: http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-developinga-magnetic-shield-to-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-radiation. 22. Science channel. [Internet] sciencechannel.com; 10 technology innovations needed for deep space exploration. 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.sciencechannel.com/topics/aliens-space/9-super-high-speedoptical-communication/. 23. Science channel. [Internet] sciencechannel.com; 10 technology innovations needed for deep space exploration. 2015 [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.sciencechannel.com/topics/aliens-space/9-super-high-speedoptical-communication/. 24. Messier, Doug. NASA laser communications project running behind schedule, over budget. 03 Jun 2020. parabolicarc.com. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2020 Jun 29]. Available from: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2020/06/03/ nasa-laser-communications-project-running-behind-schedule-over-budget. 25. NASA.gov. NASA selects proposals to build better solar technologies for deep space missions. RELEASE 16-032. 14 Mar 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ nasa-selects-proposals-to-build-better-solar-technologies-for-deep-spacemissions. 26. NASA.gov. NASA selects proposals to build better solar technologies for deep space missions. RELEASE 16-032. 14 Mar 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ nasa-selects-proposals-to-build-better-solar-technologies-for-deep-spacemissions. 27. Herridge, Linda. NASA.gov. NASA plant researchers explore question of deep-space food crops. 17 Feb 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-plant-researchersexplore-question-of-deep-space-food-crops. 28. Herridge, Linda. NASA plant researchers explore question of deep-space food crops. 17 Feb 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-plant-researchers-explore-questionof-deep-space-food-crops. 29. Herridge, Linda. NASA plant researchers explore question of deep-space food crops. 17 Feb 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-plant-researchers-explore-questionof-deep-space-food-crops.

258  New Technology and Deep Space 30. Herridge, Linda. NASA.gov. NASA plant researchers explore question of deep-space food crops. 17 Feb 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-plant-researchersexplore-question-of-deep-space-food-crops. 31. Herridge, Linda. NASA.gov. NASA plant researchers explore question of deep-space food crops. 17 Feb 2016. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-plant-researchersexplore-question-of-deep-space-food-crops. 32. Water-recycling technology in space evolves. 10 Apr 2013. [Internet] news. weg.org; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http://news.wef.org/ water-recycling-technology-in-space-evolves/. 33. Nasa.gov. The Sabatier system: producing water on the space station. 12 May 2011. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 15]. Available from: http:// www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/sabatier.html. 34. Nasa.gov. NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today’s Mars. Release 15-195. 28 Sep 2015. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidencethat-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars. 35. Nasa.gov. NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today’s Mars. Release 15-195. 28 Sep 2015. [Internet] NASA.gov; [cited 2016 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidencethat-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars.

14 Future Topics in Space

“Mankind will not remain on Earth forever, but in its quest for light and space will at first timidly penetrate beyond the confines of the atmosphere, and later will conquer for itself all the space near the Sun.” - Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, father of cosmonautics1 Future Human Space Exploration NASA’s future will be consistent with its mission created in 1958. Human exploration, technology, and science will be front and center. Going back to the Moon is identified as a vital link to learn more about the required technology and habitat to support human missions to Mars and beyond. NASA plans to build on the community of international partnerships already established in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). Commercial companies will expand their role to develop and launch rockets and satellites, transport cargo and crew, and commercialize low-Earth orbit activities. NASA is building the biggest rocket ever built, the Space Launch System (SLS) as well as the Orion spacecraft and the Gateway lunar command module. Along with its partners, NASA will use the Gateway platform to support missions for astronauts to further explore the lunar surface and test the technology required for missions to Mars. In addition, for the first time, space exploration will not just be a reality for trained astronauts or cosmonauts. Space transportation will be available for the average person for a price. Looking further ahead in time, Elon Musk is interested in establishing a permanent settlement colony on Mars. Other companies are pursuing profit by mining asteroids or resources to extract from the Moon. The variety of exploits are

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1_14

259

260  Future Topics in Space endless. We are just at the beginning of the second adventure, over 50 years after astronauts walked on the Moon. This chapter explores some of the future endeavours and issues involved with traveling beyond our planet. Space Tourism The interest in space exploration, both real and fantasy, has skyrocketed in the past ten years. Fascination with space travel, other worlds, discovery, survival, even aliens have fueled interest in outer space as a travel destination or at least an out-­of-­ this world experience. Several companies are poised to offer space flights, including SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin. There have been seven paying space tourists that traveled on missions to the International Space Station through the company Space Adventures. The average cost has been over $26 million per person.2 Space tourism was the focus of Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Galactic (2004). He was hopeful that he could sell tickets for roundtrip suborbital flights for about $250,000. Although costly, the flight was seen as affordable for a certain group of space enthusiasts. At this time, the cremated remains of customers traveling one-way to eject into outer space seem more popular. More than 600 pseudo-­ astronauts paid the $50,000 deposit to reserve a seat on a flight prior to Virgin stopping the sales in 2018. Passengers will then travel into outer space (360,000 ft or 110 km) to look back at Earth and out to the stars in the vast unknown before returning to Earth. Total time of the flight being approximately two hours.3 Virgin had a big setback after losing one of their aircraft on a test flight in 2014. After several years of examining and reworking the issues, the SpaceShipTwo launched in December 2019, becoming the first U.S. commercial human spaceflight since the Space Shuttle program ended in 2011. SpaceShipTwo, the suborbital spacecraft, dropped from a carrier airplane called White Knight Two, traveled near the edge of space at just over 50 miles, going nearly three times the speed of sound. Since this successful test flight, Virgin Galactic received approximately 8,000 online reservations. It is moving toward operations at Spaceport America in southern New Mexico, launch date to be determined.4 Another company interested in space tourism is Blue Origin, established by Jeff Bezos (also the founder of Amazon). Short trips into space, comparable to Virgin Atlantic’s flights, are predicted to cost between $200,000 and $300,000 at least in the beginning stages. The spacecraft named New Shepard has had several successful test flights and hopes to launch humans within a couple of years in preparation for a lunar launch in 2024.5 Elon Musk’s SpaceX has successfully launched its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets over the past decade, performing resupply missions to the ISS several times a year. The company was founded with the purpose of transporting humans to Mars and creating a living outpost there. Musk also announced the company’s plans to take commercial passengers on a trip around the moon and back in the near future. In 2018, SpaceX and the company Space Adventures announced the

Space Tourism 261 dearMoon project with Japanese billionaire Yusaka Maezawa. The agreement calls for Space Adventures to sell four tickets for a trip aboard SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule for an Earth orbital flight planned for 2023.6 Space Adventures of Virginia is the only company that has actually coordinated selling tickets to space tourists. Since 2001, seven individuals flew aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to dock with the ISS and spend some time on the station. Each paid between $20 and $30 million. However, over time, it has become more difficult to rent space on the Soyuz spacecraft primarily because NASA astronauts have needed transport since the Space Shuttle was retired (2011). Space Adventures has announced plans to launch a suborbital space tourist program with a price tag closer to $100,000. The company also has an interest in offering space walks and lunar orbiting missions. The Soyuz capsule requires extensive modifications in order to prepare it for lunar flight. In addition, it is difficult to rely on Russia for business dealings and control over the spacecraft changes. SpaceX is probably ahead of Space Adventures because its Dragon spacecraft needs fewer changes to travel to the moon, according to Musk.7 Martin Lo, an engineer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, visualized an interplanetary superhighway around the Sun and planets as a connection of winding tunnels around the Sun and planets, a pathway designed to decrease the amount of fuel required for future space missions (Fig. 14.1). It helped design NASA’s

Fig. 14.1  Artist’s concept of interplanetary superhighway. Image credit: NASA/JPL

262  Future Topics in Space Genesis mission (launched 2001) that used this path on its mission to collect solar wind particles for return to Earth. Lo's concept takes advantage of the Sun’s pull on the planets or a planet’s pull on its nearby moons in addition to the way gravity pulls on a spacecraft when it swings by a body such as a planet or moon. Forces from many directions nearly cancel each other out, leaving paths through the gravity fields in which a spacecraft can travel using less fuel.8 Interplanetary Contamination Interplanetary contamination refers to biological contamination of a planetary body by a space probe or spacecraft, either deliberate or unintentional. There can be two types of interplanetary contamination. Forward contamination is the transfer of contamination from Earth to another celestial body by spacecraft or humans. Reverse contamination is contamination brought back to Earth by similar means. Contamination that enters a spacecraft can interfere with its normal working operations. It can also migrate into outer space from the exterior of a spacecraft or if a collision occurs. If life existed on another world, our world’s bacteria or a harmful parasite could threaten that native life. Infecting other planets with lifeforms indigenous to Earth is something that is taken very seriously by NASA and other space agencies, especially when probes are being sent to other worlds that might harbor primordial (or fossilized) bacteria or microbes, such as Mars or any of the Galilean moons. Before anything is sent into space, technicians ensure the equipment is cleaned thoroughly and freed of all biological contaminants. However, spacecraft and humans returning to Earth could carry some contamination which is usually dealt with by solitary confinement for a period of time. The Reality of Deep Space For almost 20 years, humans have lived beyond Earth’s surface. The ISS has provided a habitat where humans can live and work for extended periods of time. If a crew member were to fall seriously ill, he or she could make the return trip back to Earth in a matter of hours. As soon as you move beyond low-Earth orbit, you are away from easy access back home if a problem happens. The two manned missions planned in the near future will be to Earth’s Moon and Mars. It takes about three days for a spacecraft to reach the Moon. However, a manned mission to Mars will take at least one year depending on the travel route chosen. A longer mission can only succeed if all spacecraft systems work properly for the duration or can be fixed if a problem arises. Anticipating system failures and employing preventative measures ensures that no anomalies adversely affect

The Search for Alien Life 263 the outcome. That includes the crew. If a doctor is not onboard, the crew has to be autonomous and well-prepared for health emergencies. To assist in systems, both technical and biological, humans in the future will work side-by-side with robots and smart devices. On missions that move away from Earth in time and space, it benefits humans to be assisted by artificial brains and logical systems. Reality will approach science fiction for the first time in history. Logical systems and humans will work together to make deep space missions successful. The only navigation tool for space is a network of antenna arrays in California, Australia, and Spain called the Deep Space Network. The spacecraft’s position is determined by a precise atomic clock on Earth determining how long it takes for a signal to go from the network to a spacecraft and back. This method becomes less reliable the farther a spacecraft travels from Earth, as transmissions could take hours. A deep-space positioning system (DPS) is being developed that could use nearby objects to triangulate a spaceship’s coordinates. Atomic clocks on the spacecrafts themselves can cut transmission time in half, making distance calculations possible with a single downlink. Higher bandwidth lasers will be able to transmit larger data packages including photos or video messages.9 The Search for Alien Life Many people are excited and anxious to discover alien life forms. We are hopeful that it will be a peaceful and beneficial first encounter. However, in his documentary titled Into the Universe With Stephen Hawking, the late physicist Stephen Hawking said that intelligent alien life forms exist but warned that communicating with them could be dangerous. We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet, Hawking said. “I imagine they might exist in massive ships ... having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”10 Hawking agrees with the majority of scientists that alien life is more likely to be similar to microbes, which were thought to exist near water that trickled down below the Martian surface. However, there is currently no direct evidence of any type of life on Mars. Similarly, it is thought that there could be marine creatures living in large bodies of water beneath the surface layer of ice on Europa, a moon of Jupiter. Many scientists are focused on a more complex alien life form that is intelligent and capable of communication. The Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI) involves scientific searches for intelligent alien life forms using various methods such as monitoring signs of transmissions from other worlds. The SETI Institute

264  Future Topics in Space is an organization focused on exploring and understanding the origins of life in the universe and the evolution of intelligence. The SETI Institute began operations in 1985 as a California non-profit organization that grew out of a small NASA funded project to search for alien life. The group focused on research and education that centered around the factors of the Drake Equation. Frank Drake was a radio astronomer interested in discovering evidence of intelligent alien life. In 1961, he developed an equation to estimate the number of communicating civilizations in outer space, a measure of intelligest life. The equation is:

N = R ∗ fp n e fl fi fc L



where N = the number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic transmissions are detectable. The factors that this number depends on include: R* the rate of formation of Sun type stars suitable to support intelligent life fp the fraction of those stars that form with existing planets ne the number of Earth-like worlds for each planetary system fl the fraction of those Earth-like planets that have developed life forms fi the fraction of those Earth-like planets where intelligence develops fc the fraction of those planets that develop the technology of electromagnetic communications to transmit signals L the estimated lifespan of communicating civilizations Dr. Drake’s own solution estimates that 10,000 intelligent civilizations exist in the Milky Way. The challenge with using the equation is that each factor is a rough estimate, but even if it only yields one civilization capable of communicating with Earth, that would be exciting.11 SETI has been working tirelessly to record alien communications through a variety of methods that survey the sky. One of its most famous projects was SETI@Home, an experiment where public citizens could participate in the sky search by donating idle computing time to combine with others to analyze radio telescope data. After 21 years, the program was terminated at the end of March, 2020. Work will continue on looking for conclusions from the data collected.12 Reflections on the Future of Space Exploration and Colonization We’ve come a long way on our journey to explore space. Yet, in a span of over 50 years, many of us thought that we would be further along in our trek to the unknown. It seems incredible that we didn’t make it yet to Mars by 2020. Yet, through science fiction, we dream about those far off places that we might not reach in our lifetimes. We are still limited by so many things— propulsion, human hibernation, understanding of outer space phenomenons such as black holes, pulsars, other planets and stars beyond our own system.

Reflections on the Future of Space Exploration and Colonization 265 Government policy is no longer completely dictacting the future of U.S. space exploration now that billionaires like Elon Musk who have their own resources and dreams for space exploration can pursue their own interests. In an interview in 2006, the late renowned physicist Stephen Hawking said that civilization must start the process of colonizing planets in other solar systems in case of an asteroid collision or nuclear war. In the 1970s, NASA began to examine the viability of colonizing space but soon realized that an exorbitant amount of money would be required to transport the freight, habitat, and of course the people (Fig. 14.2). In addition to resources, advanced propulsion technology would be required to make travel to another solar system possible. Advances in theoretical physics are necessary to transform space travel, making it possible to journey to distant worlds. In the world of Star Trek, a warp drive takes you to your destination quickly, however, by scientific law, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Other methods could achieve velocities close to the speed of light, making a journey to the next star possible in about six years. In spite of these challenges, some view a resettlement into space essential to human survival.13

Fig. 14.2  An artist’s depiction of a future space colony somewhere between the Earth and the Moon. Image credit: NASA/JPL

266  Future Topics in Space Settlements on other planets or celestial bodies can bring about issues of competition for resources. There could be conflict between private enterprises interested in profit versus scientists twho are interested in research and preserving the planet. In addition, there would have to be some form of a government system in order to regulate the colony and the interactions with commercial enterprise. These issues would be complex, and it would be difficult to maintain equity and order in power struggle situations. The situation could easily turn into one similar on Earth today, with large conglomerates and corporations having a big influence on policy decisions and environmental issues. We will have to see how this all turns out. Elon Musk is interested in a Mars settlement where humans would stay for a lifetime, not returning to Earth (See Fig. 14.3). There are a lot of issues to deal with in setting up the first colony, including medical assistance, construction and engineering, and social activities and interactions. The first settlement will be an experiment and a baseline for other colonies. Think of the new outposts that were established by the colonists in America, and you can start to visualize the issues involved. Mars is a hostile environment with a lot of unknowns. It would be the greatest adventure and challenge of humankind so far. The challenges await us and we are anxious and excited to see life on another planet.

Fig. 14.3  An artist’s concept of a Mars colony. Image credit: NASA

Reflections on the Future of Space Exploration and Colonization 267 Notes 1. Space Quotes http://www.spaceacts.com/STARSHIP/seh/quotes.html. 2. Pegler, James. [Internet]. outwardon.com. The present and f uture of space tourism. 01 Sept 2017. [cite 2020 Apr 02] Available from: http://www.outwardon.com/article/space-tourism/. 3. Lewinski, John Scott. [Internet]. insidehook.com. Will Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic space flights take off soon? 04 Mar 2020. [cite 2020 Apr 02] Available from: https://www.insidehook.com/article/travel/virgin-galacticreview-new-mexico. 4. Durkin, Erin. [Internet]. theguardian.com. Virgin Galactic launches SpaceShipTwo to the edge of space. 13 Dec 2018. [cite 2020 Apr 02] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/13/ virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-launch-california-edge-of-space. 5. O’Callaghan, Jonathan. [Internet]. forbes.com. Blue Origin launches its first space tourism rocket in seven months – and hopes to take humans to space in 2020. 11 Dec 2019. [cite 2020 Apr 03] Available from: https://www.forbes. com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/12/11/blue-origin-launches-first-spacetourism-rocket-in-seven-months-ahead-of-planned-human-flights-in2020/#714445105afe. 6. Stimac, Valerie. [Internet]. forbes.com. SpaceX and Space Adventures team up to expand space tourism offerings. 18 Feb 2020. [cite 2020 Apr 03] Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/valeriestimac/2020/02/18/ spacex%2D%2Dspace-adventures-team-up-to-expand-space-tourismofferings/#5ef7aa8b6bec. 7. Jones, Michelle. [Internet]. valuewalk.com. Space Adventures was a step ahead of SpaceX, but not anymore. 02 Mar 2017. [cite 2020 Apr 04] Available from: https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/03/space-adventures-vs-spacex/. 8. NASA.gov. [Internet]. Interplanetary superhighway makes space travel simpler. 17 Jul 2002. [cite 2020 Apr 03] Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/ mission_pages/genesis/media/jpl-release-071702.html. 9. Staff. [Internet] wired.com. The 12 greatest challenges for space exploration. 16 02 2016. [cite 2020 Apr 05] Available from: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/ space-is-cold-vast-and-deadly-humans-will-explore-it-anyway/. 10. Einsel, Dave. [Internet] nbcnews.com. Astrophysicist says extraterrestrials likely exist, but could be dangerous. 25 Apr 2010. [cite 2020 Apr 05] Available from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36769422/ns/technology_and_sciencespace/t/hawking-aliens-may-pose-risks-earth/#.XopGk25FwuU. 11. Howell, Elizabeth. [Internet]. space.com. Drake Equation: estimating the odds of finding E.T. 06 Apr 2020. [cite 2020 May 05] Available from: https:// www.space.com/25219-drake-equation.html.

268  Future Topics in Space 12. Cooper, Daniel. [Internet]. engadget.com. SETI@Home ends its crowdsourced search for alien life after 21 years. 04 Mar 2020. [cite 2020 Apr 05] Available from: https://www.engadget.com/2020-03-04-seti-home-stops-fornow.html. 13. Reuters. [Internet]. Hawking: humans must colonize other planets. 30 Nov 2006. [cite 2020 Jun 05] Available from: http://www.nbcnews.com/ id/15970232/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/hawking-humans-mustcolonize-other-planets/#.XuU9A7ySkuU.

Index

0-9, and Symbols 100 Year Starship (100YSS), 244 A Ad Astra Rocket Company, 246 Advanced Life Support Research, 252 Aerojet Rocketdyne, 246 Aldrin, Buzz, 77, 79, 83–90, 92–94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 108 Alzheimer’s disease, 139 Antares rocket built by Orbital Sciences, 226 Apollo, 70–72, 77, 83, 98, 102, 135, 136, 152, 156, 170, 171, 175–188, 190–196, 203, 204, 225, 227–230 Apollo 1, 170, 171 Apollo Command and Service Module, 176, 182 Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), 73, 101 Astrobotic Technology Inc., 78 B Blue Origin, 21, 43, 44 Boeing CST-100, 43, 45, 208 Bolden, Charles, 45, 73, 208 C CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), 250 Challenger, 195, 196, 225, 227, 230, 232–235 China, 2, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 69, 77, 78, 140, 142, 145 Christopher C. Kraft, 186 Cold War, 70, 78, 157, 165, 169, 170, 193, 195, 204

Columbia, 187, 192, 205, 225, 227, 233, 234 Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), 235, 236 Commercial Crew Program (CCP), 42 Communism, 169 Constellation Moon, 72 Cuban Missile Crisis, 170, 227 D Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 196, 244 Department of Defense, 3, 159, 185, 195 Douglas Aircraft Company’s Project RAND (Research and Development), 158 Dream Chaser, 42, 44, 45, 55, 56 Dr. Jeffrey Lotz, 131 Dr. Mae Jamison, 244 Dr. Ray Wheeler, 251–253 E Ed White, 228 Eisenhower, 159, 163–165, 242 Elon Musk, 21, 40, 50–52, 90, 91, 238–240 Enhanced Power Technology, 251 Environmental Control and Life Support System, 254 European Space Agency (ESA), 9, 19, 42, 71, 91, 191, 192, 203 European Space Radiation Superconducting Shield (SR2S) project, 250 Exploration Research and Technology Program, 252

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Dawson, The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration, Springer Praxis Books, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56835-1

269

270  Index F Falcon 9, 44, 50, 52, 90, 102, 104, 238 Father of modern rocketry, 153, 154 G Game Changing Development (GCD) program, 251 Gemini, 59, 156, 170, 181–183, 186 George W. Bush, 72, 194 George W. S. Abbey, 73 Geosynchronous, 51, 102, 104, 245 G forces, 232 Google Lunar X Prize, 41 Gravity, 140 Gus Grissom, 228 H Habitat Technology, 249 Helmut Gröttrup, 158 Hermann Oberth, 152 Hohmann transfer, 96, 98 Hubble Space Telescope, 193 I In-situ resource utilization, 253 International Geophysical Year (IGY), 135, 159–162 International Space Station (ISS), 13, 16, 20, 40, 42, 44, 45, 87, 90, 104, 129, 131, 138, 151, 176, 185, 188, 193, 201–204, 206, 208, 234, 252 Interstellar, 243 Ionizing effects, 136 J James Fletcher, 179 James Van Allen, 135 Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), 42, 71 John F. Kennedy, 151, 165, 168, 176, 177, 179, 227 John Glenn, 168, 226 John Grunsfeld, 254 Joint Space Operations Center (JspOC), 141, 142, 144 K Kessler syndrome, 146 Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 152

L Laika, 162 Lanetra Tate, 251 Life Support System (LSS), 42, 254 Liquid-fueled rocket, 153, 154, 160 Lockheed Martin, 43, 89, 140, 143, 249 Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD), 101 Luna, 164 Lunar CATALYST Initiative, 78 Lyndon Johnson, 170, 176, 182 M Magnetic net—for space debris, 145 Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), 181–183 Mariner spacecraft, 92 Mars, 2, 6, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 45, 50, 67–69, 71, 73, 77, 78, 83–103, 105, 108, 131, 136, 137, 139, 146, 151, 153, 161, 177–181, 183, 194, 203, 206, 225, 238, 243, 245, 246, 249–251, 253–255 Marshall Space Center, 135, 156, 180, 181, 192 Mars One, 87, 89, 95, 102, 105 Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), 84, 85 Martian atmosphere, 84, 98 Masten Space Systems Inc., 78 Max Faget, 185–187 Mazlan Othman, 146 Mercury, 128, 156, 164, 170, 185, 186 Meteor bumper, 144 Michael Griffin, 194 Michael Smith, 225 Microgravity, 56, 126–129, 131, 138, 146, 188, 191, 194, 201, 244 Moon Express Inc., 78 Morton-Thiokol, 232 Muscle atrophy, 129, 131, 137 N NASA’s Mars reconnaissance Orbiter, 254 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), 164 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2, 3, 6, 13, 15, 39–45, 49–51, 53–55, 67, 69, 72, 73, 77, 78, 84–87, 89–97, 99–102, 104, 108, 129, 131, 133–137, 140–144, 146, 151, 152, 154–157, 161, 164–166, 169, 170, 175–187, 189–196, 201–211, 215, 216, 218–220, 226–230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 240, 243–246, 249–252, 254, 255, 261, 265

Index   271 NextSTEP habitat projects, 249 Nikita Khrushchev, 162, 164, 168 O Opportunity spacecraft, 41, 92, 159, 192 Orbital ATK, 44, 45 Orbital Sciences, 42, 102, 208 O-ring, 227, 230 Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, 136, 208 Orion spacecraft, 93, 98, 249 P Paragon Space Development Corp, 43 Paul Sabatier, 254 Peenemünde, 155, 156, 158, 171 President Clinton, 204 President George H.W. Bush, 203 President George W. Bush, 72 President John F. Kennedy, 151, 165, 175, 177, 227 President Nixon’s, 179 President Reagan, 203 R Radiation, 86, 88, 94, 99, 126, 127, 132–137, 139, 164, 189, 244, 250, 251, 253 Radiation Protection Technology, 250 Rare Earth elements (scandium, lanthanum, cerium), 68 Richard Nixon, 165, 176, 177 Robert Goddard, 152–154 Roberto Battiston, 250 Roger Chaffee, 228 Rover spacecraft, 41, 84–86, 88 Rutan, Burt, 39, 40, 236 S Sabatier system, 254 Saturn V rocket, 99, 100, 102, 135, 156, 157, 170, 171, 176, 181, 182, 228 Sergei Korolev, 158–161, 164 Shepard, Alan, 128, 167, 168 Shielding, 136, 137 Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), 54, 55 Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicle, 196 Sir Richard Branson, 40, 236, 237 Skycrane maneuver, 98 Skylab, 176, 178, 181–184, 190, 191 Smart-1, 71 Solar array development, 251

Solar arrays, 206, 251 Space Act Agreements (SAA), 44 Space debris, 127, 139, 140, 142–146 Space doctrine, 179 Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), 71, 203 Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), 15, 21, 44, 45, 50–52, 90, 102, 104, 208, 226, 238, 239 Space Fence, 142, 143 Spacelab, 190–193, 203 Space Launch System (SLS), 93, 98–102, 104, 136 Space race, 21, 73, 152, 155–157, 164, 165, 169–171, 176, 194, 195, 203, 204 Space Shuttle, 40, 41, 44, 51, 55, 72, 90, 99, 100, 104, 134, 141, 144, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182–193, 195, 196, 201, 202, 204–206, 208, 213, 225–227, 230, 233, 234, 236, 238 Space Station, 71, 178, 183 Space station Freedom, 203 Space Task Force, 177 Space Task Group, 177, 186, 190, 202 Space Treaty of 1967, 145, 164 SpaceX Dragon V2, 208 SpaceX Falcon, 52, 102 SpaceX FH lift rocket, 104 SpaceX’s Dragon, 45 Spirit spacecraft, 92 Sputnik, 91, 139, 156, 161–163, 171 Star Clipper, 186 Supersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (SIAD), 101 T The Martian, 13, 87, 243, 252, 255 Thermal Protection System (TPS), 234 U United Launch Alliance (ULA), 43 V Vacuum, 68, 125–127, 153, 187, 188, 228 Van Allen Belts, 132–135 Vandenberg Air Force Base, 142, 195 Vanguard rocket, 162–164 Vasimr engine, 246 Viking probe, 92 Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, 226 Vostok spacecraft, 164 V-2 rocket, 153

272  Index W Werner Von Braun, 135, 155 Whalley, Dana, 143 Whipple, Fred, 144 Whipple shields, 144 WhiteKnightTwo, 236 William Gerstenmaier, 244 X X-30, 196 XPRIZE, 40, 41

Y Yuri Gagarin, 39, 139, 161, 165, 170 Z Zipper effect, 234 Zubrin, 89, 91