Astronaut John Grusnfeld on the recent Hubble servicing mission. Credit: NASA
Why do we explore? In the days of Magellan, Columbus and da Gama, undoubtedly the average person thought it was foolish to risk lives and spend large amounts of money to find out what was beyond the horizon. Those explorers didn’t find what they expected, but their explorations changed the world.
What drives us to explore and discover is what we don’t know, and the spirit of exploration inspires us to create and invent so that we can go explore and possibly change the world. We don’t know yet exactly what we’ll find if humans ever go to Mars, Europa or beyond, but if we stay in our caves we’ll never find out. Similarly, space probes and telescopes like Hubble, as well as ground-based telescopes have helped us explore remotely and have facilitated the discovery of so many things we didn’t know — and didn’t expect — about our universe.
However, exploration takes money.
The most often-used argument against space exploration is that we should use that money to alleviate problems here on Earth. But that argument fails to realize that NASA doesn’t just pack millions of dollar bills into a rocket and blast them into space. The money NASA uses creates jobs, providing an opportunity for some of the world’s brightest minds to use their talents to, yes, actually benefit humanity. NASA’s exploration spurs inventions that we use everyday, many which save lives and improve the quality of life. Plus, we’re expanding our horizons and feeding our curiosity, while learning so, so much and attempting to answer really big questions about ourselves and the cosmos.
NASA’s annual budget for fiscal year 2009 is $17.2 billion. The proposed budget for FY 2010 would raise it to about $18.7 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but let’s put it in perspective. The US annual budget is almost $3 trillion and NASA’s cut of the US budget is less than 1%, which isn’t big enough to create even a single line on this pie chart. A few other things to put NASA’s budget in perspective:
Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin mentioned recently that US consumers spend more on pizza ($27 billion) than NASA’s budget. (Head nod to Ian O’Neill)
Miles O’Brien recently brought it to our attention that the amount of money Bernie Maddof scammed with his Ponzi scheme ($50 billion) is way bigger than NASA’s budget.
Americans spend a lot of money on some pretty ridiculous things. Returning to that oft-used phrase about spending the money used in space to solve the problems on Earth, consider this: *
Annually, Americans spend about $88.8 billion on tobacco products and another $97 billion on alcohol. $313 billion is spent each year in America for treatment of tobacco and alcohol related medical problems.
Likewise, people in the US spend about $64 billion on illegal drugs, and $114.2 billion for health-related care of drug use.
Americans also spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. Italian’s also spend quite a bit – according to Stranieri, in 2011 gamblers in Italy spent more than 100 billion euros on gambling!
It’s possible we could give up some other things to help alleviate the problems in our country without having to give up the spirit of exploration.
*the numbers used here are from various years, depending on what was readily available, but range from the years 2000 and 2008.
Peter Smith feels pretty certain we’ll be finding life on Mars within the next decade.
Smith, the University of Arizona professor who led NASA’s Phoenix Mars Mission, made his predictions to a spellbound audience during a lecture at the University of Delaware earlier this month, and he discussed his ideas by phone on Thursday. He carries a “sense of optimism” about finding life on Mars, he said, because of the tantalizing clues Phoenix sent to Earth.
“Finding life on Mars would be one of the great discoveries of all time,” he said. “We’re not that far away. The next mission could be the one.”
Phoenix launched in August of 2007 and spent five months in one spot, controlled by Smith and his Tucson-based crew who directed it to dig and analyze soil samples from an area about the size of a couch.
Mars’ closest corollary on Earth is the Dry Valleys of Antarctica, Smith said. Although no life was discovered on Mars by Phoenix, tiny organisms inhabit the soils of Antarctica’s Dry Valleys, including a predatory nematode about a sixteenth of an inch long.
“Phoenix got me excited because it’s really the next step beyond the Dry Valleys of Antarctica. In the coldest places in the Dry Valleys … nobody thought anything would live there.”
Last week, scientists announced the discovery of a biological community living in dark, oxygen-deprived briny pool beneath a glacier near Dry Valleys.
“The idea is on Mars, it’s probably much too cold right now, but in the recent past, the climate has been different,” he said. “It might have been closer to the Dry Valleys during those times. We’re looking at a situation where this may be a periodically habitable zone.”
Some of the Phoenix team members believe liquid water was photographed on the lander’s legs, but Smith isn’t one of them. Still, he admits that Phoenix sent back hints of life that have him on the edge of his seat.
“Martian soil is really sticky and clumpy,” Smith said, noting that the probe would get a scoop of soil to pour into its ovens for chemistry experiments, but it would take four days of shaking to get the soil through the screens.
“Many times it takes liquid water to make the soils clumpy like that,” he said, adding the clumpiness could be a result of electrostatic forces.
Phoenix found calcium carbonate in the Martian soil, which typically requires liquid water in its formation process. It saw clouds and falling snow.
Another experiment, the HiRise camera aboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, spotted near-surface ice as far as 40 degrees latitude, “whereas we thought it was cutting off around 60 degrees,” he said.
And Smith pointed out the recent discovery of methane on Mars. “Where in the heck does methane come from?” he mused. “On Earth, it’s linked with biological functions.”
Besides active volcanoes — which are not known to exist on Mars — another terrestrial source of methane is a mineralization process that happens at tectonic plate boundaries. But he said that doesn’t match what we know about Martian geology either.
On the other hand, “If you had fractures in the soil, and the fractures went down to a wet environment, you could have a biological community down there,” Smith said.
The Phoenix mission was a collaboration of numerous agencies and academic institutions besides the University of Arizona, including NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver and scientific institutes in Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Switzerland.
The mission outlasted its expected time limits by several months, but went into a possibly permanent “Sleeping Beauty” mode when Martian winter hit. It won’t awaken until October if it awakens at all.
Smith said the next mission, the Mars Science Laboratory, will include a large rover the size of a MINI-Cooper, with big tires, that would last at least five years and land near an area of high interest, such as the edge of a canyon.
“I think the next decade is a very active time for searching for signatures on Mars,” he said, “and my personal belief is we’ll find them.”
Sources: Eurekalert and an interview with Peter Smith
The Senate Budget Committee has given the green light to fund NASA’s shuttle program past the end of 2010, when the program is set to retire.
But NASA isn’t asking for an extension.
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson requested the $2.5 billion provision, which was included in the broader five-year spending plan that passed committee Monday afternoon. His office argues that launching nine missions in 18 months puts too much pressure on the agency, and could compromise safety.
NASA is preparing to launch the shuttle Atlantis on May 12 for a servicing mission of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the eight remaining missions are dedicated to completing the International Space Station.
“We are confident that we can fly out the shuttle manifest before the end of 2010,” said John Yembrick, a spokesman out of NASA’s Washington headquarters.
Nelson’s office isn’t as optimistic.
“Given that there are roughly only 18 months but nine flights left, we have a concern that may be unrealistic,” said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Nelson’s office. He cited the Challenger and Columbia accidents, where “the investigation board in both cases identified scheduling pressure as a contributing factor to those accidents.”
Artist's rendering of the next-generation Orion crew exploration vehicle docked to a lunar lander in lunar orbit. (Obsolete configuration.) Credit: Lockheed Martin Corp.
In the past, NASA has been “overly optimistic about schedules for shuttle missions,” McLaughlin said. But in reality, the agency has gotten four or five launches off the ground in each of the past several years. “It doesn’t take but a bad hurricane season and the best laid plans can fall apart. Could NASA do it? Yeah. But a lot of things would have to go right.”
The $2.5 billion provision, if it passes the full Senate and House, would alleviate the pressure, Nelson thinks, by opening up the possibility for additional funding in 2011 — and allow NASA to proceed with safety as a first concern. The measure would soften a firm line both the Bush and Obama administrations have taken on retiring the program by the end of 2010.
The Budget Committee’s decision sends a strong signal that the shuttle shouldn’t be retired on a date-certain, but only when all the missions are completed, Nelson reportedly said immediately after the Thursday vote.
Concept of Ares I, left, the crew launch vehicle and Ares V, the cargo launch vehicle. Credit: NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
Meanwhile, NASA is looking forward to the next generation of launch vehicles, Orion (above, concept credit Lockheed Martin Corp.) and the Ares series. The vehicles are designed to return people to the moon — and perhaps even Mars — to live and explore. The first Ares test flight is planned for later this year.
The gap between the planned shuttle retirement in 2010, and the availability of the next generation launch vehicles, will be five years. During that time the United States is likely to partner with Russia to use Soyuz launch vehicles for low-orbit work and as the space station’s docked emergency vehicle — which is part of the astronauts’ escape plan in the event of debris hits or other dangers aboard the ISS.
It is also possible that commercial vehicles could rise to the challenge before 2015, NASA’s Yembrick said. NASA has awarded two contracts to companies that will deliver cargo to the space station after the retirement of the space shuttle: Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Virginia, and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California.
“Once they’ve proven that they can successfully deliver cargo, we also may one day look at purchasing crew services,” Yembrick said. “We don’t want to speculate when that may occur.”
Sources: Spaceref, interviews with Dan McLaughlin and John Yembrick.
How ironic. Not content with searching for life on Mars, the Russian space agency and the US-based Planetary Society will soon be sending terrestrial life to the Martian moon Phobos. The mini-interplanetary travellers will consist of bacteria, spores, seeds, crustaceans, insects and fungi. Why? To see how biological life, in various forms, deals with space travel spanning three years.
So if you thought that a human (or monkey) would be the first of Earth’s ambassadors to land on Mars or one of its moons, you’d be very mistaken…
The Phobos-Grunt mission profileRussia has been carrying out a variety of biological space tests to see how life deals with the hazards of spaceflight recently. In one experiment carried out in collaboration with Japanese scientists, a mosquito was attached to the hull of the International Space Station (ISS) to see… what would happen.
The mosquito was a part of the Biorisk project, and the scientists knew the insect had the ability to drop into a “suspended animation” during times of draught in Africa. The African mosquito can turn its bodily water into tricallosa sugar, slowing its functions nearly to a stop. When the rain returns, the crystallised creature is rehydrated and it can carry on its lifecycle. The Biorisk mosquito however survived 18 months with no sustenance, exposed to temperatures ranging from -150°C to +60°C. When returned to Earth, Russian scientists gave the hardy mozzie a health check, declaring:
“We brought him back to Earth. He is alive, and his feet are moving.” — Anatoly Grigoryev, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
So that’s the idea behind sending creatures into space: we need to understand how animals and plants deal with space travel. This will aid the understanding of how humans will cope in space for long periods, plus we need to understand if there are any harmful effects from growing foodstuffs away from our planet. This is why the Russian space agency wants to go one step further when it launches its Phobos-Grunt mission next year, to send biological specimens on a voyage of a lifetime. A return trip to the Martian moon Phobos.
Say hello to our interplanetary ambassador, the tardigrade (FUNCRYPTA)On board, it is hoped the US-based Planetary Society will be able to send a small package filled with 10 different species including tardigrades (“water bears”), seeds and bacteria. The main purpose of this experiment will be to test the panspermia hypothesis, where it is thought that life may travel from planet to planet, hitching a ride on fragments of planetary material. Most of the biological samples will be in a dormant state (i.e. the plant spores), and tests will be carried out when Phobos-Grunt returns to Earth to see if the bacteria survived, seeds germinate and spores… do what ever spores do.
Russia on the other hand has far loftier goals; the space agency will attach a small petting zoo. Inside the Russian experiment will include crustaceans, mosquito larvae (already proven to be enthusiastic space travellers), bacteria and fungi. The Russian experiment will specifically look at how cosmic radiation can effect these different types of life during an interplanetary trip (essential ahead of any manned attempt to the Red Planet).
Naturally, there are some concerns about contamination to the moon (if Phobos-Grunt doesn’t do the “return” part of the mission), but the chances of any extraterrestrial life being harboured on this tiny piece of airless rock are low. Having said that, we just don’t know, so the mission scientists will have to be very careful to ensure containment. Besides, there’s something unsettling about infecting an alien world with our bacteria before we’ve even had the chance to get there ourselves…
Small digger/loader on the Moon. Creidt: Astrobotic Technology
[/caption]
A new type of lunar robots is being designed which could help prepare locations on the Moon for human outposts and landing pads. With supervised autonomy, small robots the size of riding mowers and weighing 300 kg or less could prepare a site in about 6 months, says a new study by Astrobotic Technology Inc. in cooperation with Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute.
Anyone else having visions of Wall-E on the Moon?
Using small robots would offer an alternative to bringing large loaders to the Moon, as Caterpillar, Inc. has proposed, and is working on details with NASA of using a big skid steer loader on the Moon (see previous UT article, “Heavy Construction on the Moon.”)
“NASA faces a challenge in planning the layout for its outpost, which is expected to begin operations in 2020,” said William “Red” Whittaker, chairman and chief technical officer of Astrobotic and a Carnegie Mellon professor of robotics. “For efficient cargo transfer, the landing site needs to be close to the outpost’s crew quarters and laboratories. Each rocket landing and takeoff, however, will accelerate lunar grit outwards from the pad. With no atmosphere to slow it down, the dry soil would sandblast the outpost.”
The research examined two potential solutions: 1) construction of a berm around the landing site, and 2) creation of a hard-surface landing pad using indigenous materials.
In the first solution, researchers found that two rovers weighing 330 pounds each would take less than six months to build a berm around a landing site to block the sandblasting effect. A berm 8.5 feet tall in a 160-foot semi-circle would require moving 2.6 million pounds of lunar dirt. Robots this size can be sent to NASA’s planned polar outpost site in advance of human expeditions. Astrobotic Technology Inc. has proposed that landing site preparation be provided by commercial ventures.
In the second solution, researchers showed how small robots could comb the lunar soil for rocks, gathering them to pave a durable grit-free landing pad, said John Kohut, Astrobotic’s chief executive officer. “This might reduce the need to build protective berms. To discern the best approach, early robotic scouting missions need to gather on-site information about the soil’s cohesion levels and whether rocks and gravel of the right size can be found at the site.” Astrobotic's plan for lunar rover for Google Lunar X-PRIZE. Credit: Astrobotic Tech
Whittaker is directing the development of Astrobotic’s first lunar robot, which is vying to win the $20 million Google Lunar X-PRIZE by visiting the Apollo 11 landing site and transmitting high-definition video to Earth. They are looking to launch in December 2010. The robot has been undergoing field trials for several months.
Details of the study are available at www.astrobotictech.com.
Why has "one small step for man" turned into "one giant leap backward" for NASA? (NASA)
[/caption]It reads like the annual progress report from my first year in university. He lacks direction, he’s not motivated and he has filled his time with extra-curricular activities, causing a lack of concentration in lectures. However, it shouldn’t read like an 18 year-old’s passage through the first year of freedom; it should read like a successful, optimistic and inspirational prediction about NASA’s future in space.
What am I referring to? It turns out that the Houston university where President John F. Kennedy gave his historic “We go to the Moon” speech back in 1962 has commissioned a report, recommending that NASA should give up its quest for returning to the Moon and focus more on environmental and energy projects. The reactions of several astronauts from the Mercury, Apollo and Shuttle eras have now been published. The conclusions in the Rice University report may have been controversial, but the reactions of the six ex-astronauts went well beyond that. They summed up the concern and frustration they feel for a space agency they once risked their lives for.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to how we interpret the importance of space exploration. Is it an unnecessary expense, or is it part of scientific endeavour where the technological spin-offs are more important than we think?
John F. Kennedy speaking at Rice University in 1962. How times have changed (NASA)The article published in the Houston Chronicle website (Chron.com) talks about the “surprising reactions” by the six former astronauts questioned about Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy recommendation for NASA. However, I’d argue that much of what they say is not surprising in the slightest. These men and women were active in the US space agency during some of the most profound and exciting times in space flight history, it is little wonder that they may be a little exacerbated by the current spaceflight problems that are besieging NASA. The suggestion that NASA should give up the Moon for more terrestrial pursuits is a tough pill to swallow, especially for these pioneers of spaceflight.
It is widely accepted that NASA is underfunded, mismanaged and falling short of its promises. Many would argue that this is a symptom of an old cumbersome government department that has lost its way. This could be down to institutional failings, lack of investment or loss of vision, but the situation is getting worse for NASA. Regardless, something isn’t right and now we are faced with a five year gap in US manned spaceflight capability, forcing NASA to buy Russian Soyuz flights. The Shuttle replacement, the Constellation Program, has even been written off by many before it has even carried out the first test launch.
So, from their unique perspective, what do these retired astronauts think of the situation? It turns out that some agree with the report, others are strongly opposed to it, whereas all voice concern for the future of NASA.
Kathryn Thornton, before a Shuttle mission (NASA)Walt Cunningham flew aboard Apollo 7 in 1968. It was the first manned mission in the Apollo Program. At an age of 76, Cunningham sees no urgency in going back to the Moon but he is also believes the concerns about global warming are “a great big scam.” His feelings about global warming may be misplaced, but he is acutely aware of the funding issue facing NASA, concerned the agency will “keep sliding downhill” if nothing is done.
Four-time Shuttle astronaut Kathryn Thornton, agrees that the agency is underfunded and overstretched and dubious about the Institute’s recommendation that NASA should focus all its attention on environmental issues for four years. “I find it hard to believe we would be finished with the energy and environment issues in four years. If you talk about a re-direction, I think you talk about a permanent re-direction,” Thornton added.
Gene Cernan, commander of the 1972 Apollo 17 mission, believes that space exploration is essential to inspire the young and invigorate the educational system. He is shocked by the Institute’s recommendation to pull back on space exploration. The 74 year old was the last human to walk on the Moon and he believes NASA shouldn’t be focused on ways to save the planet, other agencies and businesses can do that.
“It just blows my mind what they would do to an organization like NASA that was designed and built to explore the unknown.” — Gene Cernan
Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan covered with moondust (NASA)John Glenn, first US astronaut to orbit the Earth and former senator, is appalled at the suggestion of abandoning projects such as the International Space Station. Although Glenn, now 87, agrees with many of the points argued in the report, he said, “We have a $115 billion investment in the most unique laboratory ever put together, and we are cutting out the ability to do research that may have enormous value to everybody right here on the Earth? This is folly.”
Sally Ride, 57, a physicist and the first American woman to fly into space believes the risky option of extending the life of the Shuttle should be considered to allow US manned access to the space station to continue. The greater risk of being frozen out of the outpost simply is not an option. However, she advocates the report’s suggestion that NASA should also focus on finding solutions to climate change. “It will take us awhile to dig ourselves out,” she said. “But the long-term challenge we have is solving the predicament we have put ourselves in with energy and the environment.”
Franklin Chang Diaz, who shares world’s record for the most spaceflights (seven), believes that NASA has been given a very bad deal. He agrees with many of the report’s recommendations, not because the space agency should turn its back on space exploration, it’s because the agency has been put in an impossible situation.
“NASA has moved away from being at the edge of high tech and innovation,” said Chang Diaz. “That’s a predicament NASA has found itself in because it had to carry out a mission to return humans to the moon by a certain time (2020) and within a budget ($17.3 billion for 2008). It’s not possible.”
In Conclusion
This discussion reminds me of a recent debate not about space exploration, but another science and engineering endeavour here on Earth. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has its critics who will argue that this $5 billion piece of kit is not worth the effort, where the money spent on accelerating particles could be better spent on finding solutions for climate change, or a cure for cancer.
You did NOT just say that! Brian Cox's expression says it all... (still from the BBC's Newsnight program) In a September 2008 UK televised debate on BBC Newsnight between Sir David King (former Chief Scientific Advisor for the UK government) and particle physicist Professor Brian Cox, King questioned the the importance of the science behind the LHC. By his limited reasoning, the LHC was more “navel-searching”, “curiosity-driven” research with little bearing on the advancement of mankind. In King’s view the money would be better spent on finding solutions to known problems, such as climate change. It is fortunate Brian Cox was there to set the records straight.
Prof. Cox explained that the science behind the LHC is “part of a journey” where the technological spin-offs and the knowledge gained from such a complex experiment cannot be predicted before embarking on scientific endeavour. Indeed, advanced medical technologies are being developed as a result of LHC research; the Internet may be revolutionized by new techniques being derived from work at the LHC; even the cooling system for the LHC accelerator electromagnets can be adapted for use in fusion reactors.
The point is that we may never fully comprehend what technologies, science or knowledge we may gain from huge experiments such as the LHC, and we certainly don’t know what spin-offs we can derive from continued advancement of space travel technology. Space exploration can only enhance our knowledge and scientific understanding.
If NASA starts pulling back on endeavours in space, taking a more introverted view of finding specific solutions to particular problems (such as finding a solution to climate change at the detriment to space exploration, as suggested by the Rice University report), we may never fully realise our potential as a race, and many of the problems here on Earth will never be solved…
Phoenix's descent captured by HiRISE. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona
[/caption]
I’ve been meaning to put together an article highlighting the best space and astronomy pictures of 2008, but I see time is slowly slipping away from me to get this out before 2008 turns into 2009. However, I’m in luck! A few people have already done the work for me, and so I’ll just link to them. First, of course, is Phil Plait over at the Bad Astronomy Blog, who does his annual Top Ten Astronomy Pictures, and this year’s choices by the BA were excellent. Next, Dave Mosher over at Discovery Space has just put together a slideshow of his picks for the Best Space and Astronomy Pictures of 2008. Nice job, Dave! And this just in (update 8:10 pm) — Emily Lakdawalla at the Planetary Society Blog has a great selection of The Year in Pictures 2008. Thanks Emily!
There are more links below, but I know if I would have done a list myself, the image above would have been my #1 pick. This shot by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’sHiRISE Camera of the Phoenix lander descending through Mars’ atmosphere is truly outstanding. It’s an unbelievable shot, and I’ll always remember how my jaw dropped in disbelief when I first saw it.
And now back to everyone else’s best pics of 2008 lists:
I recently came across this site from and television station in India that put together a list of the 50 (wow! 50!) Best Astronomy Pictures of 2008.
The Boston Globe’s The Big Picture put together an “Advent Calendar” of 25 pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope that is well worth the trip if you haven’t already browsed through the nice and roomy images. I think my favorite is #9.
SpaceX DragonLab™ - a free-flying, fully-recoverable, reusable spacecraft capable of hosting pressurized and unpressurized payloads. Credit: SpaceX
[/caption]
Two upstart commercial space companies have been awarded contracts by NASA for commercial cargo resupply services to the International Space Station. SpaceX, also known as Space Exploration Technologies received a contract for $1.6 billion while Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va. has a contract valued at $1.9 billion. NASA has ordered 12 flights from SpaceX and eight from Orbital. In October, at this year’s International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight, SpaceX Vice President of Marketing and Communications Diane Murphy said that the six- year-old company has it in their sights to be able to fly to the space station by 2009. For now, the contract is for cargo only, however SpaceX’s Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 rocket are human rated, and would be capable of delivering up to 7 crew members to the station. The Dragon could also be used as an escape vehicle. If SpaceX and Orbital can be successful in cargo re-supply, it could pave the way for a potential solution to the gap between the shuttle retirement in 2010 and when the Constellation program would be ready to fly, hopefully by 2015.
“The SpaceX team is honored to have been selected by NASA as the winner of the Cargo Resupply Services contract,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO, SpaceX. “This is a tremendous responsibility, given the swiftly approaching retirement of the Space Shuttle and the significant future needs of the Space Station. This also demonstrates the success of the NASA COTS program, which has opened a new era for NASA in US Commercial spaceflight.” Orbital's Cygnus module will be used for ISS resupply. Credit: Orbital
“We are very appreciative of the trust NASA has placed with us to provide commercial cargo transportation services to and from the International Space Station, beginning with our demonstration flight scheduled in late 2010,” said Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “The CRS program will serve as a showcase for the types of commercial services U.S. space companies can offer NASA, allowing the space agency to devote a greater proportion of its resources for the challenges of human spaceflight, deep space exploration and scientific investigations of our planet and the universe in which we live.”
Orbital will use their module called Cygnus to deliver cargo, launched on their Taurus rocket.
These fixed-price indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts will begin Jan. 1, 2009, and are effective through Dec. 31, 2016. The contracts each call for the delivery of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station. The contracts also call for delivery of non-standard services in support of the cargo resupply, including analysis and special tasks as the government determines are necessary.
NASA has set production milestones and reviews on the contracts to monitor progress toward providing services. The maximum potential value of each contract is about $3.1 billion. Based on known requirements, the value of both contracts combined is projected at $3.5 billion.
These agreements do fulfill NASA’s need to for cargo delivery to the space station after the retirement of the space shuttle.
[/caption]
A coalition of leaders working on the concept of a space elevator has joined forces to form the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC). The new independent group is designed to promote standards and foster research relating to the construction of an Elevator to Space at the global level. Founding members of ISEC include the Spaceward Foundation, the Space Elevator Reference, the Space Elevator Blog, EuroSpaceward and the Japan Space Elevator Association. Heading the new organization is Ted Semon of the Space Elevator Blog, who will serve as president. Michael Laine, president of the space elevator company Liftport is excited about the consortium. “I think it’s a great thing,” he said. “This has been in the works for months, and the need to bring the different organizations under one roof has been long overdue. All five of the major organizations have been acting independently, which made sense in the beginning, but now we need coordination and cooperation.”
“The Space Elevator is a project whose time has come,” said Semon. “With the challenges facing today’s global economy, it is clear that new industries and new ideas are needed to help our planet in the 21st Century. The Space Elevator can be a key positive contributor, from providing inexpensive nanotechnology material science breakthroughs that will make your car stronger and lighter, to the creation of new industries that offer opportunities for investment and job creation. The International Space Elevator Consortium devoted to its development can make this happen.”
According to the Consortium, the goal of ISEC is to promote the development, construction and operation of the Space Elevator as a revolutionary and efficient way to space for all humanity. The group will accomplish this through these key areas:
• Development of a unified plan and roadmap for the Space Elevator and the coordinated assignment of specific research topics
• Funding of research on technologies relevant to the Space Elevator
• Development of the international legal framework necessary for the operation of the Space Elevator
• Global public outreach and central information exchange on Space Elevator activities
“In the past, some things fell through the cracks because no one knew what anyone else was working on,” said Laine. “Some needed tasks didn’t get done because everyone assumed that someone else was working on it. What we’re going to do with the consortium is refine the tasks, and have a better coordinated effort.”
Laine is very excited about upcoming projects for the consortium, to be announced in the next few weeks. “They’ve got some good things coming,” he said. ISEC will be unveiling additional plans and details, including a board of directors, technical journals, university and industry relationships, research opportunities and scholarships. Memberships will be available on the individual, corporate, academic and governmental levels.
The ISEC is headquartered in the Los Angeles area, a center of the aerospace industry. The consortium is a non-profit organization devoted to the research and construction of an elevator to space. See the ISEC website for more information.
Apollo 8's famous Earthrise picture. Would you like to have this view? Credit: NASA
[/caption]
The Apollo 8 mission was a seminal moment not in only the history of spaceflight, but in human history as well. The mission came during a time when the US and the world were divided by war and racial issues. It’s been said that Apollo 8 “saved” 1968 from being an otherwise divisive and disheartening year, and because of the success of the mission – in terms of both technical and philosophical matters — the Apollo 8 crew of Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders were named “Men of the Year” by Time Magazine. Apollo 8 was the first human mission to orbit the moon, but it wasn’t supposed to be. And the mission was responsible for one of the most iconic images of our time.
Read more about Apollo 8 and watch an excellent video NASA put together to commemorate the mission on its 40th anniversary
Originally the mission was slated to test the lunar lander hardware in Earth orbit. But the lunar lander wasn’t ready and then other political issues came into play. NASA was told, incorrectly it turned out, by the CIA that the Soviet Union was preparing its own manned lunar mission and was ready to launch. As NASA wanted to be first to the moon and also fulfill President John Kennedy’s call for a US manned lunar landing by the end of the decade, they took a gamble and designated Apollo 8 to go and orbit the moon.
The decision was controversial. NASA’s giant Saturn V rocket, the only rocket capable of taking humans to the Moon, had been fraught with problems and instrument failures on its two test flights. Also, fresh in everyone’s minds was the fire in 1967 in which killed three astronauts – Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee – during a ground test of an Apollo capsule. Apollo 8 launch. Credit: NASA
Yes, it was a gamble, but it paid off. The crew launched on December 21, and it was the first manned launch of the Saturn V rocket. It went well, although Anders tells the story how he felt severe vibrations during the first moments of launch, and feeling almost like a bug on top of a car antenna, vibrating back and forth. But the giant rocket, 363 feet tall and weighing 6.25 million pounds performed well and following a rocket burn for trans-lunar injection, the astronauts were on their way to the moon.
Early on Christmas Eve, Apollo 8 reached its destination. The astronauts fired the propulsion system to slow the rocket, putting them into lunar orbit. For its first three obits, the astronauts kept its windows pointing down towards the Moon and frantically filmed the craters and mountains below. One of their main tasks was to do reconnaissance for the future Apollo landings.
It was not until Apollo 8 was on its fourth orbit that Borman decided to roll the craft away from the Moon and to point its windows towards the horizon in order to get a navigational fix. A few minutes later, he spotted a blue-and-white object coming over the horizon. Transcripts of the Apollo 8 mission reveal the astronauts’ wonder and amazement at what they were seeing: Earth, from a quarter of million miles away, rising from behind the Moon. “Oh my God! Look at the picture over there. Here’s the Earth coming up,” Borman shouted. This was followed by a flurry of exclamations by Anders and Lovell and a scramble to find a camera. Anders found one first and the first image he took was black-and-white, showing Earth just peeping over the horizon. Then Anders found a roll of 70mm color film for the Hasselblad camera, and he took the photograph of Earthrise that became an icon of 20th-century, portraying technological advances and heightening ecological awareness. Apollo 8 crew. Credit: NASA
This was the way humans first recorded their home planet from another world. “It was the most beautiful, heart-catching sight of my life,” Borman said later, “one that sent a torrent of nostalgia, of sheer homesickness, surging through me. It was the only thing in space that had any color to it. Everything else was either black or white. But not the Earth.”
Jim Lovell said that Earth was “a grand oasis in the vast loneliness of space.”
The three astronauts agree the most important thing they brought back from the mission was the photography, not only of the moon, but of Earth.
To commemorate the 40th anniversary of Apollo 8, the crew of the International Space Station’s Expedition 18, Commander Mike Fincke and Flight Engineers Sandy Magnus and Yury Lonchakov will send a message to be aired on a message that will air on NASA Television as part of the daily Video File, beginning at 11 a.m. CST, Friday, Dec. 19. The video also will be broadcast in high definition on the NASA TV HD channel at 10
a.m., noon and 3 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 19, and Tuesday, Dec. 23.
