SPACE: FINAL FRONTIER, NEW COMMERCIAL DESTINATION? (PART 2)
The first two essays in this summer's series are a two-part look at aspects of NASA, the nation's space programs/policy, and
how politics, changing federal budget priorities, the end of the space shuttle era, technological advances and other factors are leading to a nascent commercial space industry in the U.S. Call it a transition,
a "fork in the road," or a new chapter in the Space Age, but recent changes in policy and practice mean that the U.S. may soon be looking back at an era when space was the exclusive domain of governments and looking ahead to an
era of greater commercial involvement in space transport, travel and/or exploration.
As with past essays, the story will be interactive in the sense that visitors may simply read the text or instead follow
links, watch videos or look over photos and diagrams to gain a more in-depth understanding of the topics presented. Footnotes and a bibliography will be included at
the end of the essay, and a link to a glossary of space-related terminology is available for use as necessary. (CLICK HERE to reach the glossary.) Comments, corrections or other
input from visitors from within the local aerospace industry (or anyone else!) are welcome and may be e-mailed to
spaceessay@dorothyswebsite.org.
Despite the fact that a human has yet to be ferried into space as a passenger on a commercial spacecraft, distinct sectors of the commercial spaceflight industry have begun to
emerge. Though until now commercial space activities have been defined primarily by the satellite and space launch industries, a host of potential new sectors, collectively dubbed "New Space," are taking shape. Some, like space tourism, are set
to "lift off" in the near future, possibly by the end of this year; others, like satellite repair and space debris removal, have longer-term potential. The end of the Shuttle era and the completion of the
International Space Station (ISS) have served as catalysts for some of this activity; changes in technology combined with the spirit of "exploration and entrepreneurship" cited in the quote at the end of
the July essay have driven others.
In the next five years it is likely that several significant industry events will take place, including the launch of the first commercial space vehicles carrying crew members to
the ISS and/or other destinations in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), the beginning of full-scale suborbital space tourism flights, the completion of the Google Lunar X Prize competition, and the promulgation of the
first set of U.S. laws/regulations governing U.S. commercial space activities. If so, ten years from now today's nascent commercial space industries may be transformed into what some are calling a new multi-billion dollar
"Second Space Age."
To be sure, there is still a significant amount of speculative activity based around concepts or technologies which have yet to be proven. But
the reality is also that a greater emphasis on commercial space activities may lead to growing opportunities for business, investment and employment as well. This second part of the summer essay
series will provide information on current commercial space-related activities and companies (focusing, when possible on entities with ties to Southern California), beginning where the July essay left off -
with NASA's efforts to provide cargo and crew transportation to the ISS.
NASA Commercial Cargo and Crew Development
Following the signing of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services/Commercial Resupply Service (COTS/CRS) agreements with Orbital Sciences and Space Exploration Technologies (Space X),
NASA began the process of making funds available for the development of solutions for U.S. crew transportation. Two rounds of Commercial Crew Development funding (CCDev and CCDev2) have been completed, with various levels of funding awarded to a number of
different companies. The base period for agreements in the current round of funding, under the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, runs through May of 2014 (with recent indication that this might
be extended through August of 2014). In this stage of funding, NASA has partnered with three companies, The Sierra Nevada
Corporation (SNC), Boeing and Space X (discussed at greater length below), to mature the design and development of crew transportation systems including crew capsules/vehicles, launch vehicles and associated
ground systems. By using the non-traditional partnerships/Space Act Agreements (SAA) approach, NASA says it is "facilitating the development of several designs of spacecraft, enabling NASA to choose which ones it
wants to use to send astronauts into space. The end result could be multiple systems providing safe, reliable and affordable access to space. [The process] integrates
industry's innovative capabilities to advance technology with NASA's five decades of human spaceflight experience." (n1) The chart below details the amount of funding at
different stages and the companies receiving the funds.
How do the agreements work? Since the principal goal (as per the Space Act) of the CCiCap is to seek and encourage the fullest commercial
use of space, "participants in CCiCap retain maximum intellectual property (IP) rights permitted by law. NASA does not obtain rights to use . . . a partner's proprietary data unless special
circumstances arise, such as the termination of the SAA for the partner's default or [the] partner's failure to make commercial use of the technology developed under the SAA . . . NASA has determined
that title to all tangible property acquired by the participant[s] under the CCiCap agreement will remain with the participant[s]. Unlike a procurement contract, the purpose . . . is not to
obtain property for NASA. Instead, it is to stimulate the commercial partner's efforts." (n2) In other words, if, for example, one of the three CCiCap partners is not selected to
transport U.S. astronauts to/from the ISS, the company would still be free to sell crew transportation services to other customers. General information about the stages of the development process and
content of the agreements can be found at http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov.
Two other questions tend to be raised about the SAA model for competitive development of commercial crew capabilities. The first has to
do with how the process is beneficial to the taxpayer. "In a traditional program with a single prime contractor from the start using a cost-plus contract, NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) cost estimates are approximately
$8 - 11 billion for the development of an ISS crew transportation capability. Using the current . . . approach, . . . NASA estimates being able to cut development costs" (n3) by about half,
delivering an ISS capability for around $5 billion. (n4) A second, and more important, question has to do with ensuring the safety of crew members aboard transportation systems developed
under CCiCap agreements, since the SAAs are not subject to the same conditions as other government contracts. In responding to questions about crew safety at a recent Congressional hearing, NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden said, "In order to ensure safety is not compromised for the Commercial Crew Program, NASA plans to transition to a Federal Aquisition Regulation (FAR) - based contract for certification of commercial
systems prior to flying crew on these systems. NASA intends to structure the certification phase following the CCiCap effort to permit the Agency to fully evaluate the proposed systems and accommmodate any
necessary redesign to ensure compliance with NASA safety, performance and mission success requirements. The provider[s] awarded a certification contract will not only be required to meet the NASA requirements
in order to fly NASA personnel, but they will also have to show verified compliance of how the design and hardware will meet these requirements." (n5)
As indicated in the chart above, Certification Product Contracts (CPCs) of $10 million have been issued to each of the three CCiCap
companies. Activities conducted under the contracts "will enable future certification of commercial spacecraft as safe to carry NASA astronauts to the ISS, [and] advances made . . . during [this] first
contract phase . . . will begin the process of ensuring [that] integrated crew transportation systems will meet agency safety requirements and standards." (n6) The NASA home page for
Commercial Crew activites can be found at www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html.
Requirements for crew transportation systems include "delivering four astronaut crew members and equipment to the space station and
returning them to earth at least twice a year, . . . [and assuring] crew safety in the event of an emergency on the launch pad, during launch and ascent to orbit. The spacecraft must [also be able to]
serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space and be able to stay docked to the station for at least 210 days." (n7) Each of the three companies involved in the CCiCap
phase is approaching crew transportation in a different way. (An interactive page describing some of the commercial crew activities, and from which some of the information below is drawn, can be found at
www.nasa.gov/externalflash/commercializingspace.) However, systems under development all have an Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV), or the
single-use rocket used to launch the payload (method of transporting cargo or people), and an in-space transportation/re-entry vehicle (used to carry crew members and designed to return to earth intact).
The three systems under development are as follows:
Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC, Nevada- www.spacedev.com): SNC's Dream Chaser Space System features a reusable lifting-body spacecraft that can carry up to seven crew and cargo.
The Dream Chaser launches vertically on a United Launch Alliance (ULA, www.ulalaunch.com, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin ) Atlas V Launch Vehicle and lands horizontally on a conventional runway, much as the Space
Shuttle did. To view a "concept of operations" video for the Dream Chaser, click on the link below.
Boeing (Texas - www.boeing.com): Boeing's spacecraft, the CST-100, launches vertically on an Atlas V launch vehicle
and is capable of carrying four astronauts or equivalent crew and cargo. The CST-100 touches back down on earth on land. Boeing has an extensive presence in Southern California, and has played an important role in the local
aerospace industry, but operations for CCiCap project development are primarily taking place in Texas.
Space X (Hawthorne, CA - www.spacex.com): Space X's spacecraft, the Dragon, launches vertically on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The Dragon
can carry seven astronauts and is reusable. Landings upon re-entry initially will take place in the ocean, then on the ground. Space X has a major local presence, employing more than 3,000 workers in its Hawthorne headquarters (pictured below), plus offices
in Texas, Virginia and Washington DC. The company also has launch facilities at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, plus a rocket development facility in Texas.
Left: Space X headquarters building in Hawthorne. Right: Space X engineers working on the Dragon spacecraft at Space X headquarters. Photos courtesy of Space X.
Space X bills itself as a company which "designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 [by Elon Musk (PayPal, Tesla)] to
revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets." (n8) Among the accomplishments the company cites to date are its May 2012 Dragon docking to the ISS in which cargo
payloads were exchanged prior to the Dragon returning to Earth. Since that time the company has delivered cargo to and from the ISS twice. In addition to its ISS-related activities, Space X is the "world's fastest-growing provider
of launch services," with 50 upcoming launches on its manifest representing close to $5 billion in contracts (the manifest can be viewed on the company's website). The company is currently developing the Falcon Heavy, which
will be the "world's most powerful rocket" and is working toward the goal of developing reusable rockets. (n9)
An example of how the intended programs may be working toward a commercial space presence for a variety of companies may be found in an item on the Space X launch manifest for 2015
with a company called Bigelow Aerospace (www.bigelowaerospace.com). According to the Bigelow Aerospace website, company "founder and President Robert T. Bigelow is a Las Vegas native who for
nearly forty years has operated as a general contractor and [real estate] developer in the Southwest United States . . . Mr. Bigelow created Bigelow Aerospace with the express purpose of revolutionizing space commerce via the development of affordable,
reliable and expandable space habitats." (n10) "In December of 2012, NASA awarded Bigelow Aerospace a $17.8 million contract to develop the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which will launch on the eighth
Space X CRS flight in 2015. The BEAM (something like a spare room which will be carried to the ISS, docked and then 'inflated' to what in the future could be an active working/living space) is scheduled for a nominal two-year technology demonstration period, wherein ISS crewmembers will gather
performance data on the performance of the module." (n11) The company also plans on having orbiting expandable space modules which could be leased for a broad array of activities, and "Bigelow Aerospace and Space X
agreed to conduct a joint marketing effort to offer rides on Space X's Dragon and Falcon 9 launch vehicle to carry passengers to Bigelow habitats orbiting the Earth." (n12) To view further company information on the BEAM, visit
www.bigelowaerospace.com/beam_media_brief.php, and to read a Washington Post article on the BEAM docking with the ISS,
click here.
In addition to the three CCiCap companies, about 100 aerospace providers/suppliers in 33 states are working on getting American astronauts back in space on U.S.-led spacecraft and
rockets. An interactive map of "Development Partners and Suppliers" through which state-by-state listings of companies involved in the effort can be viewed at
www.nasa.gov/externalflash/CCPInteractiveMap.
Regulating Commercial Space
In 2004, shortly after SpaceShipOne successfully launched the suborbital flights which won the Ansari X-Prize mentioned in the July essay, Congress passed H.R. 5382. the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, which
authorized the Secretary of Transportation to license and regulate commercial human space flight. That legislation prohibited federal regulation of commercial human space flight companies through 2012, a ban which was subsequently extended through
October 1, 2015. Of the three types of space launches, national, civil and commercial, NASA and Department of Defense (DOD) payloads do not require licenses. Today, the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST, www.faa.gov/go/ast) licenses and regulates commercial space launches and re-entries (which require licenses), as well as the operation of non-federal/commercial launch
and re-entry sites, also referred to as "spaceports." AST officials have said that "Operational safety oversight of human spaceflight will require developing technical expertise in several new areas including environmental control, life support and crew
survivability. To date AST's launch safety oversight experience and authority has been primarily focused on uncrewed launches of satellites into orbit using expendable launch vehicles. Regulatory standards governing human spaceflight will evolve as
the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle technology development nor expose crew or spaceflight participants to avoidable risks." (n13)
Since commercial human space flight operations (either orbital or suborbital) have yet to commence, it is impossible to speculate what form or
direction future regulations will take. Among other considerations, the AST will be working with the FAA "to ensure that future commercial space transportation requirements are integrated into the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen, www.faa.gov/nextgen)," and that "commercial space flight operations (both orbital and suborbital) are safely integrated with the National
Air Space System." (n14) Of greater significance in the near term, however, may be operations surrounding the facilities referred to as "spaceports."
As indicated in the chart below, the AST currently licenses operations of eight non-federal commercial launch sites: Spaceport Florida at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the
Cecil Field Spaceport in Jacksonville, Florida, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, Virginia, the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska, Spaceport America in New Mexico, the Oklahoma Spaceport, and in California,
the California Spaceport at the Vandenberg Air Force Base and the Mojave Air and Space Port. In addition to being launch sites, the sites are positioned to become centers for commercial space-related industry, tourism and related
activities.
Source: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), February 2013
The Mojave Air and Space Port (www.mojaveairport.com), for example, is currently home to more than 50 companies "engaged in flight development to
light industrial to highly advanced aerospace design." (n15) It was the location of the 2004 Ansari X Prize suborbital flights and is the current testing ground for Virgin Galactic's suborbital flights. Tenants at Mojave include
Masten Space Systems (www.masten-space.com), Orbital Sciences Corporation (www.orbital.com), Scaled Composites (www.scaled.com),
Virgin Galactic (www.virgingalactic.com), and XCOR Aerospace (www.xcor.com). In New Mexico, Spaceport America
(www.spaceportamerica.com, about 45 miles north of Las Cruces) is "the world's first purpose-built commercial spaceport (meaning built specifically for commercial space-related activity) designed to enable affordable,
efficient and effective space access and unlock the potential of space for everyone." (n16) It has attracted particular attention since it will be the operational base for the world's first suborbital commercial passenger spaceline company,
Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. Spaceports exist in other countries as well, and links to some of the global spaceports can be found on the Commercial Spaceflight Federation's (CSF) website, www.commercialspaceflight.org,
in the CSF Spaceport Council section.
"Virgin" Astronauts
According to information received from Virgin Galactic, "There are currently approximately 620 future astronauts (Virgin Galactic refers to
passengers as astronauts) with reservations for . . . flights. To date, the company has accepted more than $80 million in deposits." (n17) The current price for booking a suborbital flight on Virgin
Galactic is $250,000. So what is Virgin Galactic?
In 2005, after the Ansari X Prize victory, "Scaled Composites and [Sir Richard Branson's] Virgin Group [Virgin Records, Virgin Airlines, etc.] formed a partnership called
The Spaceship Company, which licensed the [Ansari X Prize-winning] SS1-related technology . . . This partnership enabled financing for the design, construction and delivery of a fleet of SpaceShipTwo (SS2) vehicles, based on SS1, and their
carrier aircraft, called WhiteKnightTwo . . . SS2 is a spacecraft [a Reusable Launch Vehicle, or RLV, meaning a vehicle which accesses outer space, operates within that environment, and returns safely to be used again] physically similar
to the SS1 except in size . . . SS2 is designed to carry six passengers and two crew members. It will be powered by a single hybrid solid rocket engine, called Rocket Motor Two, developed by Scaled Composites
and the Sierra Nevada Corporation. SS2 is designed to reach a [suborbital flight] altitude of 110 kilmeters (68 miles)." (n18)
Test flights for the SS2 (named the VSS Enterprise) and WhiteKnightTwo (named VMS Eve, after Sir Richard Branson's mother), are taking place at
the Mojave Air and Space Port. In April of this year, a milestone was reached with the first rocket-powered flight of SpaceShipTwo. When asked when the company forsees carrying its first crew of paying passengers,
company representatives responded by saying, "Depending on the progress of the last portion of the experimental test flight program and the FAA licensing process, Virgin Galactic hopes to be undertaking full space test flights around the end
of 2013 and . . . commercial operations within a relatively short period thereafter." (n19) Flights will be "brokered by Virgin Galactic, [also] a subsidiary of Virgin Group, [and] will launch from Spaceport America." (n20)
Above: WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShipTwo take off from Mojave. Photo credit: Mark Greenberg. WhiteKnightTwo provides the high-altitude launch platform for SpaceShipTwo (center) to achieve suborbital flight. Below: At an
altitude of about 50,000 feet, SpaceShipTwo (which the company says can be thought of as an air-launched glider with a hybrid rocket motor) is released from White Knight Two and begins its rocket-powered ascent. Further details on design specifics and safety-related
information can be found at www.virgingalactic.com/overview/spaceships and
www.virgingalactic.com/overview/safety. Photos courtesy of Virgin Galactic.
Once commercial operations begin in New Mexico, Virgin Galactic's passengers, or "astronauts," as the
company refers to them, will arrive early at Spaceport America for a couple of days of training prior to the flight. After SpaceShipTwo's release at 50,000 feet, the rocket-powered ascent begins, reaching a speed of about 3000 miles per hour, or nearly four times the speed
of sound. At the peak of the ascent, the rocket engine shuts down and passengers will experience weightlessness, or zero-G, before beginning the gliding descent back to earth. A full brochure on the flights can be downloaded
at www.virgingalactic.com/assets/downloads/ Virgin_Galactic_Brochure.pdf(n21).
Virgin Galactic is not the only company intending to run commercial suborbital flights. XCOR Aerospace is a company planning to offer suborbital flights on its Lynx space vehicles from the Mojave Air and Space Port. The flight
profile for the Lynx is different from that of the SS2, and it can be viewed at www.xcor.com/lynxprofile/index.html.
Commercial suborbital flights have yet to commence, so it is not possible to say at this point what the distant future may hold in store for these companies and others which are
likely to follow. However, perhaps it is not inconceivable to wonder if some of these companies, in conjunction with a series of domestic and international spaceports, might be establishing the
groundwork for a future space-based transportation system. When asked if New Mexico would be its sole base of operations, Virgin Galactic representatives responded by
saying, "Virgin Galactic's first priority is to get operations started at Spaceport America and make a success of that . . . Once they’ve proven operations there and flown many missions from the Gateway to Space, they may
consider the commercial case for operational campaigns elsewhere – licenses permitting. However, they plan for Spaceport America to remain the principle base of operations. Virgin Galactic's tenure at Spaceport America is subject
to a 20-year lease. They are also supporting a partner, aabar Investments, in their ambitions to establish a center for commercial space activities in Abu Dhabi. If and when Virgin Galactic does move to other countries, their first location
will be Abu Dhabi." (n22) XCOR Aerospace has worked with the U.S. Department of State on agreements to provide services to the South Korea-based Yecheon Astro Space Center using the Lynx Mark II, and the company also has held
discussions with Space Experience Curacao (SXC) of the Netherlands Antilles to allow use of the Lynx in Curacao, (n23) where a spaceport may become operational in 2014 (www.caribbeanspaceport.com/about.html). To date,
companies indicating plans for suborbital flights do so with flights launching from and landing at the same location. However, with additional spaceports proposed within the U.S. and existing in other countries including Sweden,
Scotland and Spain, it is not difficult to wonder exactly what shape the future of human space travel - even on earth-bound trajectories - might take.
A Galaxy of "New Space" Entities
In addition to the companies already mentioned, the list below is a small sampling of a wide variety other space-related entites (outside of the better-known, long-standing aerospace and defense contractors/companies such as Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, SAIC,
Space Systems/Loral, etc.) which have been established:
Blue Origin: Blue Origin (www.blueorigin.com), a company involved in two of the commercial crew development rounds, is a privately-funded aerospace company set up by
Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos to enable private human access to space.
Space Adventures: Space Adventures (www.spaceadventures.com), founded in 1998, calls itself the "world's premier space exploration company and the only company currently providing
opportunities for actual private space flight and space tourism." The company has booked private passengers for visits to the ISS and says that their clients "have cumulatively spent close to three months in
space and traveled over 36 million miles."
Orbital Outfitters: Orbital Outfitters (www.orbitaloutfitters.com), a company which developed spacesuits for XCOR Aerospace, says its "core competency is the development
of space and pressure suits for the commercial spaceflight industry."
NanoRacks: NanoRacks (www.nanoracks.com) works with small satellite deployment, also with microgravity research for two research platforms permanently installed
on the U.S. National Laboratory aboard the ISS which support standardized research modules.
Golden Spike: Golden Spike (www.goldenspikecompany.com), a commercial space company formed by former NASA engineers, program managers, Agency executives and others, is hoping
to provide affordably priced orbital and surface expeditions to the Moon.
Space Angels Network: Space Angels Network (www.spaceangelsnetwork.com), founded in 2006, is a global network encouraging investment in aerospace and aviation startups. Companies
listed on its website as investments include Nanoracks, Magellan Aerospace, Space Adventures, Zero G and XCOR Aerospace.
Planetary Resources, Inc.: Planetary Resources, Inc. (www.planetaryresources.com) hopes to be involved in asteroid mining, sending low-cost robotic spacecraft to explore and return resources
from the thousands of resource-rich asteroids within reach of Earth.
Mars One: Mars One (www.mars-one.com/en) is a not-for-profit organization founded by Bas Lansdorp which hopes to establish a permanent settlement on Mars and take humans to
Mars in 2023.
Space Tech Expo: Space Tech Expo (www.spacetechexpo.com) is included here because the organization holds an annual conference in Southern California. The 2013 Space Tech Conference, called "The Business
Case for Space," was held May 21 - 23 at the Long Beach Convention Center. The event will be held again in Long Beach in 2014. In addition to the paid portion of the conference, organizers allow free public access to conference exhibits and a certain limited number of lecture/seminars.
Satellites and Space Debris
About 55 years ago, the world's entry into the modern space age was prompted by the launch of the 184-pound Soviet satellite Sputnik. Since that time,
a good portion of what has been considered the commercial space industry has involved launching modern satellites into a variety of orbits around the earth. (Before continuing, those wishing to learn more about satellites in a quick tutorial may begin
at http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite1.htm.) The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS, www.uscusa.org) maintains what it refers to as "the only free,
comprehensive compilation of active satellites in an easy to manipulate, commonly used database format." That database
(which can be found at www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_ security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html) contains data on over 1000 operating
satellites, of which 459 are U.S. satellites. The database contains "24 types of data for each satellite, including technical information about each satellite (mass, power, launch date, expected lifetime) and its orbit (apogee, perigee, inclination and period), as well as what the
satellite is used for and who owns, operates and built" it. (n24) A database summary shows that 59 percent of the satellites are used in communications, while others are used for
earth observation/remote sensing (9 percent), navigation (8 percent), military surveillance (7 percent), astrophysics/space science (5 percent), earth science/meteorology (4 percent), and other purposes
(7 percent). (n25)
As mentioned earlier, increased opportunities for commercial crewed and/or robotic launches may open up an entirely new market for satellite
repair services. According to the FAA/AST, "Space insurance is typically the third largest cost component of a commercial satellite system, after the cost of the satellite and launch services. The space
insurance market is characterized by low frequency and high severity of losses, a small number of insured events, highly complex technical underwriting and claims handling, unique risks and exposures, manuscript policy wordings, and
volatile underwriting results. As a result, the number of insurance companies willing to commit capital to space insurance has always been limited – there are currently about 35 companies worldwide providing such insurance." (n26) The ability
to repair damaged or non-operational satellites may come to be a means of salvaging multi-million dollar investments which would otherwise need to be written off as losses.
On first glance, one might think that the graphic above illustrates the position of satellites around the earth. It does not. The image, from the NASA Orbital Debris Program
Office (http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/index.html), shows the position of space debris in orbit, a growing problem in outer space. NASA defines orbital debris as "all man-made objects in orbit about the Earth which no longer serve a useful purpose . . . [which includes] derelict spacecraft and upper stages of launch vehicles, carriers for multiple payloads, debris intentionally released during spacecraft separation
from its launch vehicle or during mission operations, debris created as a result of spacecraft or upper stage explosions or collisions, solid rocket motor effluents, and tiny flecks of paint released by thermal stress or small particle impacts. [At this time], more than 21,000 orbital debris [objects] larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of
particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is approximately 500,000, [and] the number of particles smaller than 1 cm exceeds 100 million." (n27) The impact from collisions with space debris can cause substantial damage to orbiting spacecraft and satellites.
According to many sources, "the level of global debris generation was fairly stable prior to a 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite mission test. As a result of the destruction of the Chinese satellite and a collision between Iridium and Cosmos satellites in the low Earth
orbit [the] debris population doubled." (n28) Technologies and procedures for the removal of existing debris have not been developed and again may provide future opportunities in commercial space operations. The U.S. and other nations currently are implementing debris mitigation regulations and
policies to limit the generation of new space debris.
Conclusion
Though a final pronouncement is still premature, indications to date are that private sector/commercial entities will be able to meet the challenge of
sending humans into space to LEO destinations such as the ISS. Will that capability extend to sending humans to the moon, possibly allowing NASA and other agencies to procure crew transportation to lunar destinations when necessary,
much as is being done with the ISS? Only time will tell. Would a commercial lunar landing capability make a difference for NASA and the goals of U.S. human spaceflight and space exploration policy? Perhaps.
Current literature concerning NASA and U.S. space policy is filled with quotes like the following from a National Academies document entitled "NASA's Strategic Direction
and the Need for a National Consensus":
Throughout its storied history, NASA has often assumed - not always deliberately - a flagship role for the United States, demonstrating U.S.
technological, scientific, and innovative capabilities in space and aeronautics on the world stage . . . NASA is now an agency at a transitional point. The agency faces challenges in nearly all of its primary endeavors - human spaceflight, Earth and space
science, and aeronautics - and these challenges largely stem from a lack of consensus on the scope of NASA's broad missions for the nation's future. While human spaceflight
has been the most visible of NASA’s accomplishments over many decades, there is no consensus on the next destination for humans beyond LEO, and thus on the required technological developments for launch systems, spacecraft, and
related technologies. Beyond human spaceflight and operations, robotic space exploration, Earth and space science, and aeronautics all contribute in important ways to the nation's science and technology advancement,
but the available funding for support of all of these mission areas will likely be inadequate for the foreseeable future . . . A clear consensus for the agency’s broad mission and a carefully crafted, ambitious, yet technically realistic set of strategic priorities will be
essential for NASA to remain the engine of discovery of which the United States will continue to be justifiably proud." (n29)
In that same document it is also stated that "other than the long-range goal of sending humans to Mars, there is no strong, compelling national vision for the human spaceflight program;" (n30) also that
there is "little evidence that a current stated goal for NASA's human spaceflight program - namely, to visit an asteroid by 2025 - has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by NASA’s own workforce, by the nation as
a whole, or by the international community. On the international front there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission, although there is both U.S. and international interest in robotic missions to asteroids." (n31) This is
in apparent contradiction to the first guideline for civil space science, exploration and discovery set out by President Obama in the 2010 Space Policy of the United States which directs the NASA administrator to, by 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including
sending humans to an asteroid. (n32)
Though in nearly all scenarios Mars is considered the ultimate destination with learning from the ISS/LEO as a start, the heart of the debate appears to focus on the better of two methods of having
humans reach Mars - starting with a mission to an asteroid or with a mission to the moon. The two scenarios "differ primarily with regard to the sequence of sending humans to the Moon and asteroids, and each reflects a stepwise development and demonstration of the capabilities
ultimately required for human exploration of Mars." (33) The pathways and requirements for both are outlined quite clearly in a "Roadmap" compiled by the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, an group including representatives of NASA and thirteen
other international space agencies. That document, "The Global Exploration Roadmap," can be found at and downloaded from www.nasa.gov/pdf/591067main_GER_2011_small_single.pdf. While it is beyond the scope of this
essay to delve into the advantages and disadvantages of either path, it is perhaps possible to ask why we - as a nation - even explore to begin with?
From a legislative standpoint, the answer might be to meet the mandates of the 1958 Space Act. NASA provides an entire segment of its website tailored to answering the question from a human and scientific standpoint,
beginning at the page www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/why_we_explore_main.html. The explanation on the page begins by stating that ". . . Humans are driven to explore the unknown, discover new worlds, push the boundaries of our scientific and technical limits, and then push further. The
intangible desire to explore and challenge the boundaries of what we know and where we have been has provided benefits to our society for centuries. Human space exploration helps to
address fundamental questions about our place in the Universe and the history of our solar system. Through addressing the challenges related to human space exploration we expand technology, create new industries, and help to foster a peaceful connection
with other nations. Curiosity and exploration are vital to the human spirit . . ." It continues by offering information on the three prongs of current U.S. Space Policy, translunar space, asteriods and Mars. The section on Mars explains that "A mission to our nearest planetary neighbor provides the best opportunity to
demonstrate that humans can live for extended, even permanent, stays beyond low Earth orbit. The technology and space systems required to transport and sustain explorers will drive innovation and encourage creative ways to address challenges." But for an outsider to the industry trying to understand what the "national consensus" on NASA's
future missions should be, the explanation becomes somewhat confusing.
Why? Anyone wanting to delve into the question a bit further could, at the the time this article was written, click on a box in the right column of the page under "Related Sites" with the title "Concept Maps Show Why We Explore," with the
explained by saying that "This site lets you explore and understand the many reasons we journey beyond Earth." Clicking on the title leads to a gateway page (www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/cmap.html) for CMaps, or concept maps, developed
by NASA and the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) to understand the question "Why do we explore space?" As explained on the page, "The research for this effort focused on human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The knowledge of space experts is provided through easy-to-navigate concept maps
with links to hundreds of videos, images, and Web pages." A subsequent page allows the viewer to access the "concept maps" containing scientific justification for further exploration of the moon (http://spaceexp.ihmc.us/resource/1J205X95K-1BCR4LS-2188),
asteroids (http://spaceexp.ihmc.us/resource/1J205X95H-ZCH55L-215Z) and Mars
(http://spaceexp.ihmc.us/resource/1J205X95H-ZCH55L-215Z). Of those three pages, only one, the moon page, cites anything to do with
human life beyond the bounds of the earth. On that page, the stated science goal of lunar exploration emphasizes learning how to live and work on the moon, using moon-based resources and focusing on the science of human health and productivity off-planet [Earth]. According to
the map, this in turn also involves determining how low gravity affects astronauts, the physiological and psychological effects of long stays, and radiation tolerance and counter measures. No mention of any of this is given on the asteroid or
Mars pages. What is not explained is if sufficient knowledge in these areas is being gained from the nation's experience with the ISS, or if by 2025 the nation should expect that commercial entities will have completed this type of lunar research on their own
or in conjunction with NASA.
A further question which might be asked is what is the role of government? One answer might be to establish and maintain infrastructure, which on earth includes roads, bridges, highways and
the like. The Apollo era established the infrastructure of the U.S. space program (an infrastructure, which by some accounts, is in need of updating). The Shuttle era, in its most remarkable accomplishment, the construction of the International Space
Station, established what might be considered as infrastructure in space - a place from which to conduct further research and experiments and gain greater knowledge of LEO environments. But the ISS, which took about 30 years from concept to operation, isn't
slated to last forever. If current operations end in 2020 as scheduled, what happens over the five-year period (2025) before a visit to an asteroid is suggested? NASA already knows it can reach Mars with a robotic explorer, but the journey for humans is certain to
be much more complex. Are the "roads" to Mars certain for human travel, or is there any "infrastructure" which can be or needs to be built along the way to make the journey easier (and perhaps more accessible for future generations)? If so what would that be?
Until the era of commercial human spaceflight actually begins, much of this is just speculation. But the transition, the "fork in the road" for humans' access to suborbital space, LEO and destinations
beyond, is certain to be an interesting one.
FOOTNOTES
- The following are the footnotes indicated in the text in parentheses
with the letter "n" and a number. If you click the asterisk at the end of
the footnote, it will take you back to the paragraph where you left
off.
n1 - NASA Facts, Commercial Crew Program, 2013 NASA Fact Sheet, available online at www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCP-3.pdf, p. 1, viewed August 2013. (*)
n2 - Bolden, Charles F., Jr., responses to hearing questions in An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, hearing before the Commmittee on Science,
Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, March 7, 2012, Serial No. 112-68, Washington D.C.: US GPO, 2012, pp. 78- 79. (*)
n10 - Bigelow Aerospace company information. Viewed online August 2012 at www.bigelowaerospace.com/introduction.php. (*)
n11 - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)/COMSTAC, 2013 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, Washington D.C.: FAA-AST/COMSTAC,
May 2013, pp. 58 - 59. (*)
n12 - Bigelow Aerospace company information. Viewed online August 2012 at www.bigelowaerospace.com/introduction.php. (*)
n13 - Nield, Dr. George, statement in An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, March 20, 2012, Serial No. 112-70, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO 2012, p. 21. (*)
n15 - Mojave Air and Space Port website description. Viewed online August 2013 at www.mojaveairport.com. (*)
n16 - Spaceport America facility description. Viewed online August 2013 at www.spaceportamerica.com. (*)
n17 - Response sent from Virgin Galactic representatives to e-mailed questions. Response received August 2013. (*)
n18 - FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 2011 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and
Spaceports, Washington D.C.: FAA-AST, January 2011, pp. 27 - 28. (*)
n19 - Response sent from Virgin Galactic representatives to e-mailed questions. Response received August 2013. (*)
n20 - FAA-AST, 2011 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts, p. 29. (*)
n21 - Virgin Galactic company brochure describing flight information/passenger experience. Downloaded August 2013 from
www.virgingalactic.com/assets/downloads/ Virgin_Galactic_Brochure.pdf. (*)
n22 - Response sent from Virgin Galactic representatives to e-mailed questions. Response received August 2013. (*)
n23 - FAA-AST, 2011 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts, p. 30. (*)
n24 - Union of Concerned Scientists, online satellite database description, facts and chart information. Viewed online August 2013 at
www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html. (*)
n26 - FAA-AST/COMSTAC, 2013 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, p. 29. (*)
n27 - NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, Orbital Debris FAQs. Viewed online August 2013 at http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/faqs.html. (*)
n28 - Nield, Dr. George, responses to questions for the record in An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Budget for Fiscal
Year 2013, p. 45. (*)
n29 - Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies. NASA's Strategic Direction and the
Need for a National Consensus. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012, p. 51. Available online at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18248. (*)
n32 - White House, National Space Policy of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.: White House, June 28, 2010,
p. 11. (*)
n33 - NASA/International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG), The Global Exploration Roadmap, NP-2011-09-766-HQ, 8-504986, Washington, D.C.: NASA, 2011, p. 3.
Available online (viewed August 2013) at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/591067main_GER_2011_small_single.pdf. (*)
LINKS LIST - The following is a list of links found in the essay.
1. NASA Glossary Link - http://science.nasa.gov/glossary
2. NASA Commercial Crew Agreements/Background Information - http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov
3. NASA Commercial Crew Home Page - www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html
4. NASA Interactive "Commercial Space" page - www.nasa.gov/externalflash/commercializingspace
5. Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) - www.spacedev.com
6. United Launch Alliance (ULA) - www.ulalaunch.com
7. SNC You Tube "Dream Chaser" videos - www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7yPVaNdGBw and www.youtube.com/sncspacesystems
8. Boeing - www.boeing.com
9. Space X - www.spacex.com
10. Bigelow Aerospace - www.bigelowaerospace.com
11. Bigelow Aerospace "BEAM" media brief - www.bigelowaerospace.com/beam_media_brief.php
12. "BEAM" Washington Post article - www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/international-space-station-to-receive-inflatable-module/2013/01/16/8a102712-5ffc-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html
BIBLIOGRAPHY - The Bibliography for the August essay is included below.
An Overview of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, hearing before the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, March 7, 2012, Serial No. 112-68, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2012.
An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on
Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, Serial No. 112-70, Background Information, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO
2012, pp. 25 - 30.
Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies. NASA's Strategic Direction and the
Need for a National Consensus. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18248.
Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, Space Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies.
Visions and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013 - 2022. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2011. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117.
Examining NASA's Development on the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule. Hearing before the Subcomittee on Space and Aerospace, Committee on
Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 2nd Session, September 12, 2012, Serial No. 112-102, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2012.
Exploring Mars and Beyond: What's Next for U.S. Planetary Science?. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 1st Session, November 15, 2011, Serial No. 112-51, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2011.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 2011 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies and
Spaceports, Washington D.C.: FAA-AST, January 2011.
FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)/COMSTAC, 2013 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, Washington D.C.: FAA-AST/COMSTAC,
May 2013.
NASA. NASA Facts, Commercial Crew Program, 2013 NASA Fact Sheet, available online at www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCP-3.pdf
NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present and Future: Where do We Go From Here?, hearing before the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, 112th Congress, 1st Session, September 22, 2011, Serial No. 112-038, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2011.
NASA/International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG). The Global Exploration Roadmap, NP-2011-09-766-HQ, 8-504986, Washington, D.C.: NASA, 2011. Available online (viewed July 2013) at
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/591067main_GER_2011_small_single.pdf or at http://www.globalspaceexploration.org.
Space Foundation. Overview, The Space Report 2013, Colorado Springs, Colorado/Washington D.C.: Space Foundation, 2013. Viewed August 2013 at
www.spacefoundation.org.
Steering Committee for NASA Technology Roadmaps, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the
National Academies. NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities: Paving the Way for a New Era in Space, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012. Available online (Viewed July 2013) at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13354.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). NASA: Assessments of Large-Scale Projects, GAO-13-276SP, Washington, D.C.: U.S. GAO, April 2013.
White House. National Space Policy of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.: White House, June 28, 2010.
Despite the fact that a human has yet to be ferried into space as a passenger on a commercial spacecraft, distinct sectors of the commercial spaceflight industry have begun to
emerge. Though until now commercial space activities have been defined primarily by the satellite and space launch industries, a host of potential new sectors, collectively dubbed "New Space," are taking shape. Some, like space tourism, are set
to "lift off" in the near future, possibly by the end of this year; others, like satellite repair and space debris removal, have longer-term potential. The end of the Shuttle era and the completion of the
International Space Station (ISS) have served as catalysts for some of this activity; changes in technology combined with the spirit of "exploration and entrepreneurship" cited in the quote at the end of
the July essay have driven others.
Though a final pronouncement is still premature, indications to date are that private sector/commercial entities will be able to meet the challenge of
sending humans into space to LEO destinations such as the ISS. Will that capability extend to sending humans to the moon, possibly allowing NASA and other agencies to procure crew transportation to lunar destinations when necessary,
much as is being done with the ISS? Only time will tell. Would a commercial lunar landing capability make a difference for NASA and the goals of U.S. human spaceflight and space exploration policy? Perhaps.
