tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/space-shuttle-240/articlesSpace Shuttle – The Conversation2024-02-08T13:21:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2223072024-02-08T13:21:28Z2024-02-08T13:21:28ZA new generation of spaceplanes is taking advantage of the latest in technology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572455/original/file-20240131-25-t35ou5.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C1911%2C1281&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Dream Chaser would ferry cargo, and eventually crew, to low-Earth orbit.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.nasa.gov/details/AFRC2017-0124-015">Ken Ulbrich / NASA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.nasa.gov/space-shuttle/">Nasa’s space shuttle</a> operated in low-Earth orbit for 30 years before its retirement in 2011. However, the US space agency’s <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/orion-spacecraft/">replacement for this vehicle, Orion</a>, returned to the conical capsule design familiar from the Apollo missions. This was because Nasa intended that this newer craft be used for exploring targets in deep space, such as the Moon.</p>
<p>But in recent years, we have seen a return of the spaceplane design. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8601172.stm">Since 2010</a>, the US Space Force (and formerly the US Air Force) has been <a href="https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3628417/united-states-space-force-launches-seventh-x-37b-mission/#:%7E:text=KENNEDY%20SPACE%20CENTER%2C%20Fla.,Space%20Center%20Launch%20Complex%2039A.">launching a robotic spaceplane called the X-37B</a> into low Earth orbit on classified missions. China has its own <a href="https://www.space.com/china-space-plane-depoyed-mystery-objects">military spaceplane called Shenlong</a>. </p>
<p>This year could see a test flight of the company Sierra Space’s <a href="https://www.sierraspace.com/dream-chaser-spaceplane/">Dream Chaser</a> – the first commercial spaceplane capable of orbital flight. If all goes well, the vehicle could be used to resupply the International Space Station (ISS) with cargo and, eventually, crew. </p>
<p>Spaceplanes can fly or glide in the Earth’s atmosphere and land on runways rather than using parachutes to land in water or flat ground like capsules. They’re also more manoeuvrable as the spacecraft reenters the atmosphere, increasing the area of the Earth’s surface where landing is possible from a specific re-entry point. </p>
<p>Spaceplanes also allow a gentler but longer flight path during re-entry and a softer landing, which is easier on crew and cargo than capsules, which can land with a thump. A runway also allows ground support crews and infrastructure to be ready at the landing location.</p>
<h2>Cost and complexity</h2>
<p>But spaceplanes are more complex and heavier than an equivalent capsule. The winged body shape poses a particular challenge for designing thermal protection systems (TPS) – the heat-resistant materials that protect the craft from scorching temperatures on re-entry. These additional costs mean it’s impractical to design a spaceplane for a single flight. They need to be used again and again to be viable.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="X-37B." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/572489/original/file-20240131-27-2o63f0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The US Space Force’s X-37B carries no crew, and its missions are classified.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.spaceforce.mil/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2003113618/">Staff Sgt. Adam Shanks / US Space Force</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has been interest in spaceplanes from the earliest days of human spaceflight. A military spaceplane project called <a href="https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA303832">Dyna-Soar</a> was started in the US in 1957, then cancelled just after construction started. The vehicle was sophisticated for its time, built using a metal alloy that is able to withstand high temperatures and featuring a heat shield on the front that could be detached after it returned from space, so that the pilot could see clearly as he was landing.</p>
<p>The space shuttle, which entered service in 1981, was the first operational spaceplane. It was supposed to launch more often than it did and have <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a36304153/nasa-space-shuttle/">greater reusability</a> but it turned out that extensive refurbishment was required between launches. It did, however, demonstrate the ability to return astronauts and large cargo from orbit.</p>
<p>Other space agencies invested in the 1980s and 1990s, in Europe, with <a href="https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_history/History_Hermes_spaceplane_1987">the Hermes spaceplane</a>, and Japan, with <a href="https://www.flightglobal.com/japan-stops-work-on-hope-x-spaceplane-/33798.article">the HOPE vehicle</a>. Both programmes were cancelled in large part because of cost. The Soviet Union developed its own <a href="https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/soviet-buran-shuttle-one-flight-long-history">shuttle-like vehicle called Buran</a>, which successfully flew to space once in 1988. The programme was cancelled after the collapse of the Soviet Union.</p>
<h2>Feeling the heat</h2>
<p>Spaceplanes have specific requirements for the final part of their journeys – as they return from space. <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/III.4.1.7_Returning_from_Space.pdf">During atmospheric re-entry</a>, they are heated to over one thousand degrees Celsius as they travel at hypersonic speeds of over seven kilometres per second – more than 20 times the speed of sound. A blunt nose design (where the edge of the spacecraft is rounded) is an ideal shape because it reduces build-up of heat at the foremost part of the vehicle.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Space shuttle, STS-132" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573023/original/file-20240202-19-du1hll.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On launch, the space shuttle was attached to the side of a large external propellant tank.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.nasa.gov/details/sts132-s-047">NASA / JSC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even so, the expected temperatures experienced by the craft can still be as high as 1600°C, necessitating a thermal protection system on the outside of the vehicle. <a href="https://www.centennialofflight.net/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/TPS/Tech41.htm">The space shuttle TPS</a> included ceramic tiles that were especially heat resistant and a reinforced carbon-carbon matrix that was capable of withstanding temperatures as high as 2400°C. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/history/20-years-ago-remembering-columbia-and-her-crew/">loss of the Columbia shuttle</a> during re-entry in 2003, causing the deaths of seven astronauts, was the result of a breach in the TPS on the leading edge of the wing. This resulted from a piece of insulating foam flying off the shuttle’s external tank during Columbia’s launch and hitting the wing. </p>
<p>This foam issue was recurrent with the shuttle because of the way it launched on the side of the external propellant tank. But newer spaceplane designs will fly atop conventional rockets, where falling foam isn’t a problem.</p>
<p>An effective TPS remains vital for the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2015_nasa_technology_roadmaps_ta_9_entry_descent_landing_final.pdf">future success of spaceplanes</a>, as are systems that monitor the TPS performance in real time.</p>
<h2>Current vehicles</h2>
<p>There are currently two operating spaceplanes, one Chinese and one American, that can reach orbit. Little information is available on China’s Shenlong, but <a href="https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-systems/x37b">the US military’s X-37B</a> is better known. Weighing close to five tonnes at launch, the nine metre-long, uncrewed vehicle is launched using a conventional rocket and lands autonomously on a runway at the end of its mission. </p>
<p>The X-37B’s TPS uses tiles similar to the shuttle over the lower surface with a lower-cost alternative to reinforced <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_carbon%E2%80%93carbon">carbon-carbon</a> called Tufroc, developed for the X37B, on the nose and leading edges.</p>
<p>They should soon be joined by Dream Chaser, which was was developed by the company to carry both cargo and astronauts, but Nasa wants to prove its safety before carrying people by using it to carry cargo to the space station first. The ability to return comparatively fragile cargo to the surface because of a softer landing is a key capability. The tiles that protect Dream Chaser are made from silica, and <a href="https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/09/dream-chaser-tps/">each has a unique shape</a> matched to the area on the vehicle they are designed to protect.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Dream Chaser" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573027/original/file-20240202-27-ml7rkh.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dream Chaser undergoing evaluation at Nasa’s Neil Armstrong Test Facility.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://twitter.com/NASAglenn/status/1753108059004825754/photo/1">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Future developments</h2>
<p>There is continued interest in spaceplanes because of their ability to return crew and cargo to a runway. The demand for this capability is limited now. But if the costs of launching to space continue falling and an expansion of industry in space raises demand, they will become an increasingly viable alternative to capsules.</p>
<p>Longer term, there is also potential for spaceplanes capable of reaching orbit after taking off from a runway. The challenges of developing these single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles is considerable. However, <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/faculty/kantha/sites/default/files/attached-files/70494-96876_-_kyle_borg_-_may_8_2015_853_am_-_borg_matula_skylon_report.pdf">concepts such as the Skylon vehicle</a> are leading to technical developments that could eventually support development of an SSTO craft.</p>
<p>For the foreseeable future, spaceplanes look promising for the following reasons: new design techniques, improved materials for the TPS, advanced computer modelling and simulation tools for optimising different aspects of design and flight parameters and continuous improvements in propulsion systems. </p>
<p>Given that several governments, space agencies, and private companies worldwide are investing heavily in spaceplane research and development, we could see a future where flights with these vehicles become routine.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/222307/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Spaceplanes seemed out of favour when the shuttle was retired in 2011; they now seem to be making a comeback.Oluwamayokun Adetoro, Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Brunel University LondonJames Campbell, Reader, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1935042022-11-14T13:27:22Z2022-11-14T13:27:22ZArtemis launch delay is the latest of many NASA scrubs and comes from hard lessons on crew safety<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494754/original/file-20221110-19-3rys3g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C49%2C2479%2C1778&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The space shuttle Atlantis was one of the last major launches aboard a NASA rocket.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=47195">NASA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I love a good space launch, and I have been eagerly awaiting NASA’s powerful new <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/index.html">Space Launch System</a> rocket to take off as the first part of NASA’s ambitious Artemis Mission to put U.S. astronauts back on the Moon. But this launch has already been <a href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/">pushed back four times this year</a> – twice due to <a href="https://www.space.com/artemis-1-launch-scrub-hydrogen-leak">technical issues</a> and once apiece for a <a href="https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/09/24/nasa-delays-the-artemis-1-moon-mission-for-third-time-tropical-storm-approaches">tropical storm</a> and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/artemis-launch-delay-nasa-tropical-storm-hurricane-nicole-florida/">a hurricane</a>.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://und.edu/directory/michael.s.dodge">professor of space studies</a> who teaches courses in space law and history. One lesson I’ve learned is that as successful as the U.S. and other nations have been at launching rockets into space over the decades, a huge number of launches get delayed due to weather or safety concerns. Of <a href="https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/space-shuttle-missions-summary.pdf">NASA’s 135 Space Shuttle missions</a>, only about <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-space-shuttle-delays-are-typical/">40% launched on time</a>. </p>
<p>While Artemis 1 is continuing the long tradition of delayed NASA launches, there are good reasons for the high level of caution that underlies these delays. But as private space launch activities continue to grow, the odds of watching an on-time launch are slowly improving.</p>
<h2>Delays, scrubs and safety</h2>
<p>Launches that don’t go off on time are classified as either postponements, scrubs or delays. Postponements refer to pushing a planned launch date back to a later date. <a href="https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/space-shuttle-missions-summary.pdf">Scrubs</a> are when a mission is halted on the day the launch is supposed to occur and rescheduled for a later date. Scrubs are usually a last-minute decision triggered by bad weather or mechanical issues causing safety concerns. A delay is when a <a href="https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/space-shuttle-missions-summary.pdf">launch occurs later in a day</a> than originally planned, but does happen in the same day.</p>
<p>The ill-fated launch of the space shuttle Challenger in January 1986 experienced all of these hold-ups. First, the mission experienced two postponements for a total of three days to accommodate the landing of the space shuttle Columbia. The launch was also scrubbed twice due to weather and technical problems, and finally the mission experienced two delays on the day of the actual launch. Sadly, the shuttle and astronauts aboard were <a href="https://time.com/3685686/1986-challenger-disaster/">lost in an explosion 74 seconds after launch</a>. </p>
<p>This first Artemis launch has experienced both postponements and scrubs, but part of the reason there have been such long stretches of time between launch attempts is due to the concept of <a href="https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_a_launch_window">launch windows</a>. Due to the rotation of the Earth and position of the Moon, launching a rocket at certain times requires substantially less fuel than launching at other times. If a launch misses its window, you usually can’t simply launch again the next day.</p>
<p>While the repeated postponements and scrubs of Artemis 1 are disheartening, these delays are for good reason. NASA wants to ensure a safe and successful mission.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bz-meWefjk4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Artemis 1 launch scheduled for Sept. 3, 2022, was scrubbed after the team spotted a hydrogen leak while fueling the rocket on the launch pad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A culture of safety</h2>
<p>Postponements, scrubs and delays tend to occur due to bad weather conditions, mechanical issues or health concerns of the crew – any of which could threaten the safety of the craft and the people aboard. NASA has learned the hard way to be cautious of these scenarios. </p>
<p>The first lesson came in January 1967, during a test for the Apollo 1 mission. The rocket in question was meant to go on an early test flight for the first U.S. missions to the Moon. Astronauts Ed White, Roger Chaffee and Gus Grissom were all killed when a <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo1info.html">fire started in the crew cabin</a> during a launch pad test. After the tragedy, NASA created its <a href="https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/response.html">Office of Flight Safety</a>.</p>
<p>Most of NASA’s launches went well after the Challenger disaster. But the <a href="https://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html">breakup of shuttle Columbia after entering the Earth’s atmosphere</a> in February 2003 was a notable exception that killed all seven astronauts onboard. That disaster in particular caused NASA to pause operations and take stock of its launch strategies. In a <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html">truly stinging report</a> from an internal investigation, NASA highlighted its own “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/08/27/nasas-broken-safety-culture/2befb939-3e22-41e8-9376-b548f685a821/">broken safety culture</a>” and a failure to learn from the mistakes of the Challenger disaster. </p>
<p>In the years since, NASA has demonstrated a concerted effort to learn from the mistakes of the past. It’s not surprising that it will delay launches if there is a need to check on the safety of craft or crew. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Two rockets on launch pads in the distance." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/494753/original/file-20221110-13-nbypli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">NASA’s Space Launch System in the distance and a SpaceX Falcon9 in the foreground represent two sides of modern spaceflight: a large, long-term project and a small, efficient, reusable workhorse.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/51986745354/">NASA/Joel Kowsky</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Contemporary trends</h2>
<p>Space launches are happening more frequently every year. This increase is mostly driven by the rise of private space companies like SpaceX serving as <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station/">re-suppliers for the International Space Station</a> and <a href="https://www.spacex.com/launches/sl4-31/">carrying satellites into orbit</a>. All signs suggest that the <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/587630-2021-more-space-launches-than-any-year-in-history-since-sputnik/">upward trend in launches will continue</a>.</p>
<p>Unlike government agencies, private launch companies have a strong profit motive to launch frequently. While specific data on private industry’s launch schedules is hard to come by, it does seem that, more often than not, SpaceX launches, for example, go off on time. This may be due to the fact that the high volume of launches using the Falcon9 rocket – around <a href="https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7017">50 this year alone</a> – has given the company’s engineers plenty of time to iron out mechanical issues. While other companies trail SpaceX in volume, they are catching up. Blue Origin, for example, completed its <a href="https://www.blueorigin.com/news/ns-22-mission-updates/">22nd mission to space in August 2022, carrying six passengers</a>.</p>
<p>Despite their general success, private companies are not immune to technical issues, weather or health concerns that can lead to postponements, scrubs or delays. In early October 2022, SpaceX scrubbed a launch of one of its Falcon9 rockets <a href="https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/10/06/spacex-scrubs-falcon-9-liftoff-after-automatic-abort/8137920001/">to allow for additional vehicle inspections</a>. SpaceX also postponed a launch due to the same hurricane that has <a href="https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/11/07/subtropical-storm-nicole-delays-spacex-launch-artemis-1-moon-rocket-stays-on-launch-pad/">pushed back Artemis again</a>. And in 2021, a launch was delayed when a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/nasa-delays-launch-spacex-mission-citing-medical-issue-with-1-4-crew-members-2021-11-01/">medical issue came up with one of the NASA astronauts</a> that was bound for the International Space Station.</p>
<p>As more rockets get lined up for both governmental and private needs, delays and scrubs for launches will continue to be a fact of life for anyone launching rockets to space. The feeling of tension, frustration and excitement that I feel when waiting to see that brilliant flash of ignition and a rocket headed to the heavens is a feeling many have endured. During the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/freedom7.html">long delay for the 1961 Freedom 7 Mercury mission</a>, astronaut Alan Shepard was strapped in his capsule with little to do but wait for several hours. Eventually he got fed up and told NASA to “fix your little problem and light this candle.” After a while, NASA gave the go-ahead, and <a href="https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/alan-shepard-freedom-7">Shepard became the first American to fly to space</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Dodge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After its fourth delay, the Artemis 1 launch is now scheduled for Nov. 16, 2022. NASA has a history of missing launch deadlines, but the private sector is slowly making launches more reliable.Michael Dodge, Associate Professor of Space Studies, University of North DakotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1895042022-08-30T17:50:24Z2022-08-30T17:50:24ZWho is Artemis? NASA’s latest mission to the Moon is named after an ancient lunar goddess turned feminist icon<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481419/original/file-20220828-49487-qajm6m.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C23%2C2592%2C1901&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Diana by Augustus Saint Gaudens, 1928, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Diana_by_Augustus_Saint-Gaudens_02.jpg">Postdlf via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>NASA <a href="https://qz.com/artemis-1-moon-launch-1849788717">launched the Artemis I moon rocket</a> on the morning of Nov. 16, 2022, after several delays earlier this year. This first flight is without a crew and expected to last four to six weeks. The program aims to increase women’s participation in space exploration – <a href="https://www.unr.edu/nevada-today/blogs/2021/the-artemis-program-women-going-to-the-moon">30% of its engineers are women</a>. In addition, the Artemis I mission is carrying two mannequins designed to study the effects <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/orion-passengers-on-artemis-i-to-test-radiation-vest-for-deep-space-missions">of radiation on women’s bodies</a> so that NASA can learn how to protect female astronauts better.</p>
<p>Female astronauts are currently less likely to be selected for missions than men because their bodies tend to hit NASA’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02293-8">maximum acceptable threshold of radiation</a> earlier. NASA expects to bring the first woman and person of color to the Moon on <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/">Artemis III</a> sometime after 2024.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://as.tufts.edu/classicalstudies/people/faculty/marie-claire-beaulieu">scholar of Greek mythology</a>, I find the name of the mission quite evocative: The Greeks and Romans associated Artemis <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0472.phi001.perseus-eng2:34">with the Moon</a>, and she has also become a modern-day feminist icon.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="Greek goddess Artemis with a mass of curls along her face that flow down her neck." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481421/original/file-20220828-10694-hfrglg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=888&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bust of Artemis with crescent moon headband.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://collections.mfa.org/objects/180369/oval-gem-with-bust-of-artemis?ctx=51a2d53b-11bc-4547-891c-21b0c8389732&idx=0">Museum of Fine Arts, Boston </a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Artemis was a major deity in ancient Greece, worshiped at least as early as the <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/F/bo14317059.html">beginning of the first millennium B.C., or even earlier</a>. She was a daughter of Zeus, the chief god of the Olympians, who ruled the world from the summit of Mount Olympus. She was also the twin sister of Apollo, god of the Sun and oracles.</p>
<p>Artemis was a virgin goddess of the wilderness and hunting. Her independence and strength have long inspired women in a wide range of activities. For example, in a poem titled “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44978722">Artemis</a>,” author <a href="https://www.ohioswallow.com/author/Allison+Eir+Jenks">Allison Eir Jenks</a> writes: “I’m no longer your god-mother … your chef, your bus-stop, your therapist, your junk-drawer,” emphasizing women’s freedom and autonomy.</p>
<p>As the goddess of animals and the wilderness, Artemis has also inspired <a href="https://artemis.nwf.org/">environmental conservancy programs</a>, in which the goddess is viewed as an example of a woman exercising her power by caring for the planet.</p>
<p>However, while the Greek Artemis was strong and courageous, she wasn’t always kind and caring, even toward women. Her rashness was used to explain a <a href="http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0012.tlg002.perseus-eng1:11.138-11.179">woman’s sudden death</a>, especially while giving birth. This aspect of the goddess has faded away with time. With the rise of feminism, Artemis has become an icon of feminine power and self-reliance.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A black vase from 470 B.C. showing two figures, one turning toward a hunter to shoot him with her bow." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=485&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481626/original/file-20220829-6503-phq2k6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=609&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mixing bowl showing Artemis killing the hunter Actaeon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://collections.mfa.org/objects/153654/mixing-bowl-bell-krater-with-the-death-of-aktaion-and-a-pu?ctx=3953ce93-11da-4ac3-957b-4242cc63cb7c&idx=9">Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Bradford Huntington James Fund and Museum purchase with funds donated by contribution</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4402.pdf">NASA has a long history</a> of naming its missions after mythological figures. Starting in the 1950s, many rockets and launch systems were named after Greek sky deities, like <a href="https://science.nasa.gov/missions/atlas">Atlas</a> and <a href="https://spacecenter.org/exhibits-and-experiences/nasa-tram-tour/saturn-v-at-rocket-park/">Saturn</a>, whose Greek name is Cronos.</p>
<p>Atlas and Saturn weren’t just gods, they were Titans. In Greek mythology, Titans represent the untamed, primordial forces of nature, and so they evoke the prodigious vastness of space exploration. Although the Titans were known for their immense strength and power, they were also rebellious and dangerous and were eventually defeated by the Olympians, who represent civilization in Greek mythology.</p>
<p>Following the advent of human space flight, NASA began naming missions after children of Zeus who are associated with the sky. The <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mercury/missions/program-toc.html">Mercury program</a>, active from 1958 to 1963, was named after Hermes’ Roman counterpart, the messenger god who flies between Olympus, Earth and the underworld with his winged sandals. </p>
<p>Starting in 1963, the three-year-long <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/specials/gemini_gallery/">Gemini program</a> featured a capsule designed for two astronauts and was named after the twin sons of Zeus – Castor and Pollux, known as the Dioscuri in Greek – who were cast in the stars as the <a href="https://topostext.org/work/207">constellation of Gemini</a>. They were regularly represented with a star above their heads in Greek and Roman art.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/index.html">space shuttle program</a>, which lasted from 1981 to 2011, diverted from mythological monikers, and the names Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour were meant to evoke a spirit of innovation. </p>
<p>With Artemis, NASA is nodding back to the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/index.html">Apollo program</a>, which lasted from 1963 to 1972 and put the first men on the Moon in 1969. Over 50 years later, Artemis picks up where her twin brother left off, ushering in a more diverse era of human space flight.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A bronze coin showing two engraved faces." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/481424/original/file-20220828-30736-t3iovl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A coin showing the Dioscuri, also known as the Gemini in Latin (Castor and Pollux) with a star above their heads.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.8104">American Numismatic Society, Bequest of E.T. Newell</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>This piece has been updated to include the date of the launch.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marie-Claire Beaulieu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A scholar of Greek mythology explains the naming of NASA’s missions after mythological figures and why the name Artemis is indicative of a more diverse era of space exploration.Marie-Claire Beaulieu, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1387652020-05-22T12:21:23Z2020-05-22T12:21:23ZSpaceX reaches for milestone in spaceflight – a private company launches astronauts into orbit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336822/original/file-20200521-102637-1cyg1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=18%2C27%2C1964%2C2016&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with the company’s Crew Dragon spacecraft onboard is raised into a vertical position on the launch pad at Launch Complex 39A. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/wp-content/uploads/sites/230/2020/05/NHQ202005210007.jpg"> NASA/Bill Ingalls</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On May 27, two American astronauts, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/robert-l-behnken/biography">Robert L. Behnken</a> and <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/douglas-g-hurley">Douglas G. Hurley</a>, are planning to launch from the Kennedy Space Center on a mission to the International Space Station. If successful, this will mark the first time in nine years that American astronauts will launch into space from American soil. What’s even more remarkable is they will not be launched by NASA but by a private company, SpaceX.</p>
<p>Human spaceflight is incredibly difficult and expensive; the rockets must be reliable and the vehicle must be built with expensive life support systems and a certain level of redundancy. To date, only three countries – Russia, the United States and China – have achieved this feat.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=list_works&gmla=AJsN-F4V7EkQ7lmG9AIVxq7tkq1SjY1VeEh4bCQxvtOBJhDKGQqSmfCwSFFXtxMhfXOJWUg6pn4pqWcsfGttVtqhBn6b2AaaNA&user=PxIOz7cAAAAJ">a space policy expert</a>, I find it hard to overstate the significance for both SpaceX and spaceflight in general. For SpaceX, it’s another step on their road to Mars, but more generally, it demonstrates that spaceflight need not be reserved for only the most powerful of states.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336825/original/file-20200521-102671-ptevan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=620&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Astronauts Douglas Hurley (left) and Robert Behnken before boarding the Gulfstream jet that will carry them to Kennedy Space Center in Florida.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/wp-content/uploads/sites/230/2020/05/jsc2020e023069_crop.jpg">NASA/James Blair</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A dream and an opening</h2>
<p>In many ways, SpaceX’s achievement is due not only to technological advances, but opportunity brought about by disaster. The breakup of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003 led <a href="https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm">the Bush administration to decide</a> to end the shuttle program by 2010. They directed NASA to develop a replacement, <a href="https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/vse.htm">Project Constellation</a>, but due to budget cuts and other problems, NASA failed to make significant progress. As a result, in 2010, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964610001189?via%3Dihub">the Obama administration directed NASA</a> to refocus its efforts on deep space missions and rely on private companies to provide access to the ISS and low Earth orbit.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336827/original/file-20200521-102628-1bv3jpo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft is designed to carry up to seven passengers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/category/spacex/">NASA/Kim Shiflett</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Enter SpaceX. Dreaming of colonization of Mars but frustrated with the slow pace at which it was coming, Elon Musk founded SpaceX in 2002. To get to Mars, he decided that spaceflight would first need to be made cheaper. His philosophy was to devise a rocket system that could be used again and again with minimal refurbishment between flights. Over the next decade, SpaceX designed, built and tested its Falcon series of rockets. It signed <a href="https://www.spacex.com/press/2012/12/19/spacex-wins-nasa-cots-contract-demonstrate-cargo-delivery-space-station">contracts with NASA</a> to provide cargo services to the ISS and with other companies and the U.S. military to provide general launch services. Perhaps most importantly, SpaceX has demonstrated that its rockets can be reused, with the core stages flying their way back to Earth to land themselves.</p>
<p>The 2010 shift in American space policy gave SpaceX an opportunity to build on its early successes. By 2014, both <a href="https://spacenews.com/41891nasa-selects-boeing-and-spacex-for-commercial-crew-contracts/">SpaceX and Boeing were given contracts</a> from NASA to provide commercial crew launch services. And it appears, so far, that SpaceX has made good on its promise of reducing the cost of human spaceflight. Compared to an average <a href="https://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html">space shuttle mission that cost US$1.6 billion</a>, <a href="https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html">NASA is paying only $55 million</a> per seat for SpaceX’s upcoming ISS flights.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/336832/original/file-20200521-102637-hrrxv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A picture taken June 13, 2007 in Paris shows the inside part of the mock-up of the future tourism plane-rocket, made by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS Astrium branch.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/astrium-prepare-un-avion-fusee-pour-developper-le-tourisme-news-photo/74588306?adppopup=true">OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tourists in space?</h2>
<p>This massive reduction in cost made possible through reusable rockets is contributing to several developments in spaceflight. First, it provides NASA a means of access to the ISS without relying on the Russian Soyuz. Since 2011, the <a href="https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html">U.S. has been paying Russia</a> upwards of $86 million per seat for flights to the space station. </p>
<p>Second, with SpaceX and Boeing providing access to the ISS, NASA can concentrate on <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artemis">Project Artemis</a>, which intends to return humans to the Moon by 2024. They are also leveraging new commercial capabilities from SpaceX, Blue Origin and others to further reduce costs to get there.</p>
<p>If SpaceX is successful, it could also mean the opening of space to tourism. Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are planning to offer <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/high-space-tourism-demand-for-blue-origin-and-virgin-galactic-ceo-says.html">brief suborbital launches</a> that don’t enter Earth orbit. SpaceX, on the other hand, is already <a href="https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-will-fly-space-tourists.html">signing up passengers</a> for several-day trips to space at $35 million a seat. Even <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2020/05/06/tom-cruise-nasa-and-elon-musks-spacex-prepare-to-shoot-a-movie-in-space/#6a2c8f5b673f">Tom Cruise is looking to fly</a> on SpaceX and film a movie aboard the ISS. While space companies have long predicted opportunities for space tourism, SpaceX’s Dragon brings that possibility closer to reality.</p>
<p>More broadly, adding tourists to the mix in low Earth orbit may even help make space safer. Debris in orbit is a growing problem, along with increasing tensions between the U.S., China and Russia in space. Both of those things make operating in space more difficult, dangerous and costlier. </p>
<p>For the space economy to really take off, countries will need to put in place regulations that ensure safety and reliability in several areas, including vehicle safety and debris mitigation. And, as I suggest <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Privatizing-Peace-Commerce-Reduce-Conflict-dp-0367337835/dp/0367337835/">in my new book</a>, having more humans in space might force countries to think twice before taking potentially dangerous actions in space. While orbital space tourism might still be far off for the average American, SpaceX’s crew launch brings us closer to the day when an extraordinary event is a normal occurrence.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Whitman Cobb is affiliated with the US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Her views are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.</span></em></p>SpaceX’s launch of astronauts to the International Space Station will make it the first private company to launch humans to space. The effort has ramifications for NASA and spaceflight in general.Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1379672020-05-20T12:15:15Z2020-05-20T12:15:15ZTo safely explore the solar system and beyond, spaceships need to go faster – nuclear-powered rockets may be the answer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335879/original/file-20200518-83367-yrk119.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C17%2C3952%2C3119&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Over the last 50 years, a lot has changed in rocketry. The fuel that powers spaceflight might finally be changing too. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/rocket-orbiting-the-earth-royalty-free-illustration/533327609?adppopup=true">CSA-Printstock/DIgital Vision Vectors via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With dreams of Mars on the minds <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway">of both NASA</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/11/2/18053424/elon-musk-tesla-spacex-boring-company-self-driving-cars-saudi-twitter-kara-swisher-decode-podcast">Elon Musk</a>, long-distance crewed missions through space are coming. But you might be surprised to learn that modern rockets don’t go all that much faster than the rockets of the past.</p>
<p>There are a lot of reasons that a faster spaceship is a better one, and nuclear-powered rockets are a way to do this. They offer many benefits over traditional fuel-burning rockets or modern solar-powered electric rockets, but there have been only <a href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/space-power-systems/next-generation-radioisotope-generators">eight U.S. space launches</a> carrying nuclear reactors in the last 40 years.</p>
<p>However, in 2019 the <a href="https://www.space.com/trump-nuclear-spacecraft-launch-guidelines.html">laws regulating nuclear space flights changed</a> and work has already begun on this next generation of rockets. </p>
<h2>Why the need for speed?</h2>
<p>The first step of a space journey involves the use of launch rockets to get a ship into orbit. These are the large fuel-burning engines people imagine when they think of rocket launches and are not likely to go away in the foreseeable future due to the constraints of gravity.</p>
<p>It is once a ship reaches space that things get interesting. To escape Earth’s gravity and reach deep space destinations, ships need additional acceleration. This is where nuclear systems come into play. If astronauts want to explore anything farther than the Moon and perhaps Mars, they are going to need to be going very very fast. Space is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy7NzjCmUf0&t=178s">massive</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR3Igc3Rhfg">everything is far away</a>.</p>
<p>There are two reasons faster rockets are better for long-distance space travel: safety and time.</p>
<p>Astronauts on a trip to Mars would be <a href="https://www.space.com/41887-mars-radiation-too-much-for-astronauts.html">exposed to very high levels of radiation</a> which can cause serious <a href="https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/sciences/osm/radiation.asp">long-term health problems such as cancer and sterility</a>. Radiation shielding can help, but it is extremely heavy, and the longer the mission, the more shielding is needed. A better way to reduce radiation exposure is to simply get where you are going quicker.</p>
<p>But human safety isn’t the only benefit. As space agencies probe farther out into space, it is important to get data from unmanned missions as soon as possible. It took <a href="https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/science/neptune/">Voyager-2 12 years just to reach Neptune</a>, where it snapped some incredible photos as it flew by. If Voyager-2 had a faster propulsion system, astronomers could have had those photos and the information they contained years earlier. </p>
<p>Speed is good. But why are nuclear systems faster?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335875/original/file-20200518-83367-1x6b8r7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=613&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Saturn V rocket was 363 feet tall and mostly just a gas tank.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://heroicrelics.org/info/saturn-v/saturn-v-general.html">Mike Jetzer/heroicrelics.org</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Systems of today</h2>
<p>Once a ship has escaped Earth’s gravity, there are three important aspects to consider when comparing any propulsion system:</p>
<ul>
<li>Thrust – how fast a system can accelerate a ship</li>
<li>Mass efficiency – how much thrust a system can produce for a given amount of fuel</li>
<li>Energy density – how much energy a given amount of fuel can produce</li>
</ul>
<p>Today, the most common propulsion systems in use are chemical propulsion – that is, regular fuel-burning rockets – and solar-powered electric propulsion systems.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rocket.html">Chemical propulsion systems</a> provide a lot of thrust, but chemical rockets aren’t particularly efficient, and rocket fuel isn’t that energy-dense. The Saturn V rocket that took astronauts to the Moon produced <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#cite_note-30">35 million Newtons of force</a> at liftoff and <a href="https://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html">carried 950,000 gallons of fuel</a>. While most of the fuel was used in getting the rocket into orbit, the limitations are apparent: It takes a lot of heavy fuel to get anywhere.</p>
<p>Electric propulsion systems generate thrust using electricity produced from solar panels. The most common way to do this is to use an electrical field to accelerate ions, such as in the <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/hall/overview/overview.htm">Hall thruster</a>. These devices are <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/501329main_TA02-ID_rev3-NRC-wTASR.pdf">commonly used to power satellites</a> and can have more than five times higher mass efficiency than chemical systems. But they produce much less thrust – <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/hall/overview/overview.htm">about three Newtons</a>, or only enough to accelerate a car from 0-60 mph in about two and a half hours. The energy source – the Sun – is essentially infinite but becomes less useful the farther away from the Sun the ship gets.</p>
<p>One of the reasons nuclear-powered rockets are promising is because they offer incredible energy density. The uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors has an energy density that is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density">4 million times higher</a> than hydrazine, a typical chemical rocket propellant. It is much easier to get a small amount of uranium to space than hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel.</p>
<p>So what about thrust and mass efficiency?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335877/original/file-20200518-83348-1mwpqh4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The first nuclear thermal rocket was built in 1967 and is seen in the background. In the foreground is the protective casing that would hold the reactor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/File:NERVA_XE_nuclear_rocket_engine_being_transported_to_test_stand_-_GPN-2002-000143.jpg">NASA/Wikipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Two options for nuclear</h2>
<p>Engineers have designed two main types of nuclear systems for space travel. </p>
<p>The first is called <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_development/Nuclear_Thermal_Propulsion_Deep_Space_Exploration">nuclear thermal propulsion</a>. These systems are very powerful and moderately efficient. They use a small nuclear fission reactor – similar to those found in nuclear submarines – to heat a gas, such as hydrogen, and that gas is then accelerated through a rocket nozzle to provide thrust. Engineers from NASA estimate that a mission to Mars powered by nuclear thermal propulsion would be <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a18345717/nasa-ntp-nuclear-engines-mars/">20%-25% shorter than a trip on a chemical-powered rocket</a>. </p>
<p>Nuclear thermal propulsion systems are more than <a href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/6-things-you-should-know-about-nuclear-thermal-propulsion">twice as efficient as chemical propulsion systems</a> – meaning they generate twice as much thrust using the same amount of propellant mass – and can deliver <a href="https://gameon.nasa.gov/gcd/files/2018/02/FS_NTP_180213.pdf">100,000 Newtons of thrust</a>. That’s enough force to get a car from 0-60 mph in about a quarter of a second.</p>
<p>The second nuclear-based rocket system is called nuclear electric propulsion. <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2019_Phase_I_Phase_II/SPEAR_Probe/">No nuclear electric systems have been built yet</a>, but the idea is to use a high-power fission reactor to generate electricity that would then power an electrical propulsion system like a Hall thruster. This would be very efficient, about <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a18345717/nasa-ntp-nuclear-engines-mars/">three times better than a nuclear thermal propulsion system</a>. Since the nuclear reactor could create a lot of power, many individual electric thrusters could be operated simultaneously to generate a good amount of thrust. </p>
<p>Nuclear electric systems would be the best choice for extremely long-range missions because they don’t require solar energy, have very high efficiency and can give relatively high thrust. But while nuclear electric rockets are extremely promising, there are still a lot of <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2019_Phase_I_Phase_II/SPEAR_Probe/">technical problems to solve</a> before they are put into use. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/335876/original/file-20200518-83393-1ygu5b7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An artist’s impression of what a nuclear thermal ship built to take humans to Mars could look like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket#/media/File:Orion_docked_to_Mars_Transfer_Vehicle.jpg">John Frassanito & Associates/Wikipedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why aren’t there nuclear powered rockets yet?</h2>
<p>Nuclear thermal propulsion systems have been studied since the 1960s but have not yet flown in space. </p>
<p><a href="https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/NSC-25-Scientific-or-Technological-Experiements-with-Possible-Large-Scale-Adverse-Environmental-Effects-and-Launch-of-Nuclear-Weapons-into-Space.pdf">Regulations</a> first imposed in the U.S. in the 1970s essentially required case-by-case examination and approval of any nuclear space project from multiple government agencies and explicit approval from the president. Along with a <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-trump-administrations-new-memorandum-mean-nuclear-powered-space-missions">lack of funding for nuclear rocket system research</a>, this environment prevented further improvement of nuclear reactors for use in space. </p>
<p>That all changed when the Trump administration issued a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-launch-spacecraft-containing-space-nuclear-systems/">presidential memorandum</a> in August 2019. While upholding the need to keep nuclear launches as safe as possible, the new directive allows for nuclear missions with lower amounts of nuclear material to <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-trump-administrations-new-memorandum-mean-nuclear-powered-space-missions">skip the multi-agency approval process</a>. Only the sponsoring agency, like NASA, for example, needs to certify that the mission meets safety recommendations. Larger nuclear missions would go through the same process as before.</p>
<p>Along with this revision of regulations, <a href="https://spacenews.com/final-fiscal-year-2019-budget-bill-secures-21-5-billion-for-nasa/">NASA received US$100 million in the 2019 budget</a> to develop nuclear thermal propulsion. DARPA is also developing a <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/darpa-doubles-dough-for-nuclear-powered-cislunar-rocket/">space nuclear thermal propulsion system</a> to enable national security operations beyond Earth orbit. </p>
<p>After 60 years of stagnation, it’s possible a nuclear-powered rocket will be heading to space within a decade. This exciting achievement will usher in a new era of space exploration. People will go to Mars and science experiments will make new discoveries all across our solar system and beyond.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re too busy to read everything. We get it. That’s why we’ve got a weekly newsletter.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybusy">Sign up for good Sunday reading.</a> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137967/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain Boyd receives funding from the following sources, none of it is related to space propulsion:
Office of Naval Research
Lockheed-Martin
Northrop-Grumman
L3-Harris</span></em></p>An update of 50-year-old regulations has kickstarted research into the next generation of rockets. Powered by nuclear fission, these new systems could be the key to faster, safer exploration of space.Iain Boyd, Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1324812020-02-26T18:41:23Z2020-02-26T18:41:23Z7 lessons from ‘Hidden Figures’ NASA mathematician Katherine Johnson’s life and career<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317156/original/file-20200225-24651-1ycuoe1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Katherine Johnson spoke at the Oscars about her work depicted in the 2016 film 'Hidden Figures.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Obit-Katherine-Johnson/097812c7068146cea1d45677a622ea4a/8/0">AP Photo/Chris Pizzello</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Katherine Johnson, an African-American <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2020/02/25/katherine-johnson-won-the-space-race-with-the-power-of-math/#28e755fb32ab">mathematician who made critical contributions to the space program</a> at NASA, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/24/nation/katherine-johnson-mathematician-portrayed-film-hidden-figures-has-died/">died Feb. 24</a> at the age of 101.</p>
<p>Johnson became a household name thanks to the celebrated book “<a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B0166JFFD0&tag=bing08-20&linkCode=kpp&reshareId=QEF42CYT5N6A75EKRZVQ&reshareChannel=system">Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians who Helped Win the Space Race</a>,” which <a href="https://family.foxmovies.com/movies/hidden-figures">later became a movie</a>. Her legacy provides lessons for supporting <a href="https://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/">women and other underrepresented groups</a> in mathematics and science. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2033818006_Della_Dumbaugh">historian of mathematics</a>, I have studied women in that field and use the book “Hidden Figures” in my classroom. I can point to some contemporary ideas we can all benefit from when examining Johnson’s life.</p>
<h2>1. Mentors make a difference</h2>
<p>Early in her life, Johnson’s parents fostered her intellectual prowess.</p>
<p>Because there was <a href="https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201903/rnoti-p324.pdf">no high school for African-American children</a> in their hometown of White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, the family relocated to Institute, West Virginia, during the school year. Johnson <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography">entered West Virginia State College High School</a> as a preteen and enrolled at the age of 14.</p>
<p>While at West Virginia State, Johnson took classes with <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=wP5Nm-XbEaEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jeannette+brown+african+american+women+chemists&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilrLWKvprSAhWq1IMKHVOKDwsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=angie%20turner%20king&f=false">Angie Turner King</a>. King taught at the laboratory high school while she worked to become one of the first African-American women to earn masters degrees in math and chemistry. She would go on to earn a Ph.D. in math education in 1955.</p>
<p>King taught Johnson geometry and encouraged her mathematical pursuits. Thirteen years older than Johnson, she modeled a life of possibility.</p>
<p>Johnson graduated from West Virginia State College <a href="https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/wv-native-nasa-mathematician-to-receive-presidential-medal-of-freedom/article_2e43c823-8252-5c47-811d-315575e5ffaf.html">at the age of 18</a>. While there, she had the good fortune to learn from <a href="http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/PEEPS/claytor_wschieffelin.html">W. W. Schieffelin Claytor</a>, the third African American to earn a Ph.D. in mathematics in America. Claytor encouraged Katherine to become a research mathematician. In the 1930s, a little <a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B0166JFFD0&tag=bing08-20&linkCode=kpp&reshareId=QEF42CYT5N6A75EKRZVQ&reshareChannel=system">over 100 American women counted themselves as professional mathematicians</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317152/original/file-20200225-24685-1os04g9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Barack Obama awarded Katherine Johnson the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Obit-Katherine-Johnson/71db6548f5f245fd825b5029c392c227/1/0">AP Photo/Evan Vucci</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>2. High school mathematics adds up</h2>
<p>Once Johnson completed the standard mathematics curriculum at West Virginia State College, Claytor created <a href="https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/west-virginian-of-the-year-katherine-g-johnson/article_a8da210c-3071-5a8b-ab5e-c6d345591e32.html">advanced classes just for her</a>, including a course on analytic geometry.</p>
<p>Mathematics concepts build on one another and the mathematics she learned in this class helped her in her work at NASA many years later. She used these analytical skills to <a href="https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201903/rnoti-p324.pdf">verify the computer calculations for John Glenn’s orbit</a> around the earth and to help determine the trajectory for the 1969 Apollo 11 flight to the moon, among others.</p>
<h2>3. Grit matters</h2>
<p>Long before psychologist <a href="https://angeladuckworth.com/grit-book/">Angela Duckworth</a> called attention to the power of passion and perseverance in the form of grit, Katherine Johnson modeled this stalwart characteristic.</p>
<p>In 1940, she agreed to serve as one of three carefully selected students to <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/305/337/">desegregate West Virginia University’s graduate program</a>. She also had to be “assertive and aggressive” about receiving credit for her contributions to research at NASA.</p>
<p><a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=All&Ntt=T%20H%20Skopinski%20and%20Katherine%20G%20Johnson%2C%20Determination%20of%20Azimuth%20Angle%20at%20Burnout%20for%20Placing%20a%20Satellite%20over%20a%20Select&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial&Nm=123%7CCollection%7CNASA%20STI%7C%7C17%7CCollection%7CNACA">In 1960</a>, her efforts helped her become the first African-American and the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/katherine-johnson-biography">first woman to have her name on a NASA research report</a>. Currently, the <a href="https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sci/reports">NASA archives</a> contain more than 25 scientific reports on space flight history authored or co-authored by Johnson, the largest number by any African-American or woman.</p>
<h2>4. The power of advocating for yourself</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=757&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317158/original/file-20200225-24676-1dd57t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Katherine Johnson worked at NASA in 1966.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson#/media/File:Katherine_Johnson_at_NASA,_in_1966.jpg">NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When <a href="https://www.history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html">NASA was formed in 1958</a>, women were <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=75bnncOVqEIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wini+warren+black+women&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz24X525rSAhVL_4MKHQp6C-gQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=katherine%20goble%20johnson&f=false">still not allowed to attend the Test Flight briefings</a>.</p>
<p>Initially, Johnson would ask questions about the briefings and “listen and listen.” Eventually, she asked if she could attend. Apparently, the men grew tired of her questions and <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=75bnncOVqEIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wini+warren+black+women&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz24X525rSAhVL_4MKHQp6C-gQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=katherine%20goble%20johnson&f=false">finally allowed her to attend the briefings</a>.</p>
<h2>5. The power of a team</h2>
<p>In 1940, Johnson found herself among the <a href="https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/black-gender-gap-college/">2% of all African-American women who had earned a college degree</a>. At that time, she was among the <a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B0166JFFD0&tag=bing08-20&linkCode=kpp&reshareId=QEF42CYT5N6A75EKRZVQ&reshareChannel=system">nearly 60% of those women who had become teachers</a>.</p>
<p>Later, she joined the West Computing Group at Langley Research Center where women “<a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/readouts/hidden-figures-the-american-dream-and-the-untold-story-of-the-black-women-mathematicians-who-helped-win-the-space-race-2/">found jobs and each other</a>.” They checked each other’s work and made sure nothing left the office with an error. They worked together to advance each other individually and collectively as they performed calculations for space missions and aviation research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/317154/original/file-20200225-24694-sy8aga.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Katherine Johnson was at the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton, Va. in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Katherine-Johnson/b3b19c5f53f74e339ecec4b27cd382f8/28/0">AP Photo/NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>6. The power of women advocating for women</h2>
<p>Although Johnson started as a human computer in the West Computing Group, after two weeks she moved to the Maneuver Load Branch of the Flight Research Division under the direction of Henry Pearson.</p>
<p>When it was time to make this position permanent after her <a href="https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B0166JFFD0&tag=bing08-20&linkCode=kpp&reshareId=QEF42CYT5N6A75EKRZVQ&reshareChannel=system">six month probationary period,</a>
Dorothy Vaughan, then the West Computing department head and Johnson’s former boss, told Pearson to “<a href="http://wise.nautil.us/feature/415/the-woman-the-mercury-astronauts-couldnt-do-without">either give her a raise or send her back to me</a>.” Pearson subsequently offered Johnson the position and the raise.</p>
<h2>7. The legacy of possibility</h2>
<p>In March of 2014, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0317642/">Donna Gigliotti</a>, producer of Shakespeare in Love and The Reader, received a 55-page nonfiction proposal about African-American women mathematicians at NASA in Hampton, Virginia.</p>
<p>“<a href="https://www.producersguild.org/blogpost/1537650/264534/DO-THE-MATH--An-Amazing-True-Story-Plus-A-Dedicated-Team-Adds-Up-To-Hidden-Figures">I kind of couldn’t get over the fact that this was a true story and I didn’t know anything about it</a>,” Gigliotti confessed. “I thought well, this is a movie.” Gigliotti’s hunch ultimately led to the movie “Hidden Figures” and an entire generation of <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/01/08/508842213/hidden-figures-a-hit-with-young-women-of-color-interested-in-stem">young people learning</a> about the possibilities of math and science.</p>
<p>The U.S. State Department showed Hidden Figures throughout the developing world <a href="https://www.themarysue.com/hidden-figures-state-department/">to encourage girls and women to consider the possibilities of careers in math and science</a>. Mattel created a <a href="https://barbie.mattel.com/shop/en-us/ba/inspiring-women-series/barbie-inspiring-women-series-katherine-johnson-doll-fjh63">Katherine Johnson Barbie</a> in its “Inspiring Women” series to celebrate “the achievements of a pioneer who broke through the barriers of race and gender.”</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Della Dumbaugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>NASA scientist Katherine Johnson was instrumental in getting people to the moon. Here are some of the lessons one mathematics professor believes she taught us all.Della Dumbaugh, Professor of Mathematics, University of RichmondLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181082019-07-15T13:11:01Z2019-07-15T13:11:01ZYoung Americans deserve a 21st-century Moonshot to Mars<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279858/original/file-20190617-118510-1gkwopi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mars should be the next destination for humankind.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-astronauts-space-suits-confidently-walking-1049625074?src=qgb9c7XOvpL9NzUs0JEbbQ-1-26&studio=1">Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340/">“Hidden Figures”</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213641/">“First Man”</a> were arguably the most inspirational space-themed movies of the last several years. Both, though, had to reach back to the glory days of John Glenn and Neil Armstrong. The faces of my children after watching these movies was the surest sign of a missed opportunity, of a generation raised without a Moonshot. </p>
<p>Back on July 20, 1969, around the globe, millions sat glued to their black-and-white television sets, waiting for history to be made. “<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/62283main_landing.wav">Houston, Tranquility Base here… the Eagle has landed</a>” marked not just a successful Moon landing but much more. It was the culmination of a Moonshot begun with <a href="https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm">John F. Kennedy’s famous speech in 1962</a>, an endeavor that set the U.S.’s sights on winning the space race. Fifty years on, I believe the United States needs another “<a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/moonshot">Moonshot</a>,” a seemingly impossible task that rallies everyone from engineers and scientists to teachers and generations of students toward that goal. This Moonshot is necessary not because more flags need to be planted and more footsteps left behind on a distant world, but because of the need to inspire present and future generations as mine was with the advent of the Space Age.</p>
<p>The Apollo program, the Moonshot of my generation, inspired me to earn a Ph.D. in physics and carry out <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=vahe+peroomian&btnG=">several decades of research in space science</a>, with an ever-increasing passion for teaching. Now, each time I step into my astronomy classroom, it’s my own sense of wonder, the sense of exploration I felt as a child, that I try to instill in my students.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279875/original/file-20190617-118526-9nadct.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Japanese family watches their TV screen as President Richard Nixon is superimposed on a live TV broadcast of the Apollo 11 astronauts’ salute from the Moon, July 21, 1969.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-Associated-Press-International-News-Japa-/e3119eb892c946cc88360c7d7470a39a/14/0">AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Growing up in the Space Age</h2>
<p>At four years of age and living in Tehran, Iran, I wasn’t old enough to stay up late to watch the first Moon landing, as it occurred just before midnight, local time. But I was old enough to remember the craze that swept the planet, the pride everyone felt for humankind, and the crowds that showed up to greet the astronauts on their world tour, an awestruck four-year-old among them.</p>
<p>I was the perfect age. I was old enough to grow up with the Moon landings, the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/rocketpark/saturn_v.html">Saturn V rocket</a>, the <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C">Lunar Module</a> and the bulky spacesuits of the astronauts to hijack my imagination, for my drawings to be exclusively of space adventures and for the games I played with my younger brother based on the exploration of imaginary Moonscapes. By the time the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo17.html">Apollo 17 mission</a> returned from the Moon in December 1972, I had already been captivated by the brave astronauts. Like many in my generation, I aspired to be an astronaut when I grew up. The successful Moonshot defined our generation as no peaceful world event ever had. </p>
<p>Over the years, I breathlessly watched the <a href="https://mars.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/past/viking/">Viking spacecraft</a> land on Mars. I held my breath as <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-1.html">Space Shuttle Columbia</a> blasted off to space in 1981, rushed over to Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert to watch as the very same spacecraft gracefully glided to a perfect landing and cried my heart out when <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE">Space Shuttle Challenger exploded</a> soon after liftoff. Every sci-fi TV show and movie I watched as an adolescent and young adult, and I watched plenty, portrayed Moon bases and human exploration of the solar system by the turn of the 21st century. </p>
<p>I wonder, what is the Moonshot of this generation? What is the event that can inspire them with the sense of wonder that the Apollo Moon landings did for my generation? Nowadays, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/12/14/what-kids-in-2015-want-to-be-when-they-grow-up/#133b0645460f">becoming a pro athlete is the top dream career</a> of kids of all ages, and being an astronaut has been booted out of the top 10. How did we get here?</p>
<h2>Excuses aplenty</h2>
<p>For the last 50 years, every argument has been made against human exploration of the solar system. <a href="https://qz.com/1432303/first-man-shows-that-many-americans-opposed-nasas-moon-mission/">The Apollo program was too costly</a>. <a href="https://www.wired.com/2012/04/space-humans-vs-robots/">Robotic spacecraft can do the job</a>. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46364179">Sending astronauts to Mars and beyond is dangerous</a>. </p>
<p>And so, in my opinion, today’s space enthusiasts have wallowed in the menial and mundane successes of the astronauts on board the International Space Station. Those of us arguing for a return of human exploration of the solar system have pinned our hopes of returning to the Moon and sending humans to Mars not on a well-planned space program, but on <a href="https://www.ccn.com/race-to-dominate-space-billionaires-bezos-musk/">a space race driven by the egos</a> of the <a href="https://singularityhub.com/2019/05/24/the-next-space-race-bezos-vs-musk/">nouveau-billionaires of the 21st century</a>. </p>
<p>Sure, NASA has spent these decades notching success after success, landing rovers on Mars and visiting every planet in our solar system. Which of these events did a four-, seven- or 10-year-old child watch or even remember? Which of these glued an entire planet to their TV sets? Which of these trained an entire generation as engineers, scientists and leaders? </p>
<p>None of these, of course. </p>
<p>One may argue that Moonshots are a thing of the past. Perhaps it’s better that kids today are more grounded and less prone to lofty ideals. But I disagree. I look at the effect the space race had on not just my generation, but on those that worked to make the Moon landing a reality: the thousands of scientists and engineers who were trained for that singular goal, and the millions after that were inspired by these deeds. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/282558/original/file-20190703-126360-zbb9wc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New York City welcomes the Apollo 11 crew. Pictured in the lead car, from the right, are astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/images/apollo_image_13a.html">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Moonshot as inspiration</h2>
<p>I then see the <a href="https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/02/the-decline-of-american-science-and-engineering/">decline in scientific education in the U.S.</a>, the decline in <a href="https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/New-Research-Shows-Declining-Interest-in-STEM.html">interest in the sciences</a> and statistic after statistic showing American high school students ranking below the international average in <a href="https://hechingerreport.org/u-s-now-ranks-near-bottom-among-35-industrialized-nations-math/">mathematics</a> and <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/">science</a> proficiency. Is it surprising, then, that NASA is having trouble in every step of its meager plan for landing humans on the Moon again?</p>
<p>I cannot help but think that all this would change should the U.S. challenge itself with a Moonshot once again. And no, a return to the Moon won’t do. A real Moonshot isn’t a single mission, but a decades-long plan that educates generations, challenges its scientists and engineers, ignites the imagination and aspirations of its children, and once again glues the eyes of humanity on the livestream of that first footstep on Mars.</p>
<p>The Moonshot we need will have humanity establishing its first off-world colonies. It will send the first spacecraft to the distant stars. It will, more importantly, restore the United States to the forefront of science and technology. Fifty years after that first giant leap for mankind, it is finally time to take not just the second leap, but each and every leap that we’ve prevented ourselves from taking for five long decades.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118108/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vahe Peroomian has, in the past, received basic research funding from NASA and the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Americans need a new multi-decade Moonshot that will inspire several generations to shoot for the stars and pursue careers in space engineering and exploration.Vahe Peroomian, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1113482019-03-29T10:43:53Z2019-03-29T10:43:53ZAre astronauts worth tens of billions of dollars in extra costs to go to Mars?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263170/original/file-20190311-86699-1hangup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What makes more sense: Sending a human or a robot to Mars?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/astronaut-on-mars-background-rover-elements-337149524">Juergen Faelchle/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As society contemplates going to the moon or Mars, there’s a rising debate as to whether it’s worth spending billions of dollars to send humans to other planets if a robot or rover can perform the necessary science. </p>
<p>I think NASA needs to send both humans and machines. Let me explain why.</p>
<p>I started off my 28-year career at NASA as an engineer on the shuttle training aircraft – an airborne simulator of the space shuttle. During my 17 years as an astronaut, I flew on three space missions. Two of those were shuttle missions, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts117/main/index.html">STS-117</a> and <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/main/index.html">STS-119</a>, to the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263769/original/file-20190313-123545-1ucmyo2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expedition 39 Flight Engineer Steve Swanson of NASA works out on the Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) in the U.S. lab Destiny of the International Space Station.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/steve-swanson-works-out-on-the-cevis">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The main goal of both of these missions was to build the actual ISS, leaving little time for actual experiments. However, our mission was fulfilling because we were building a science laboratory in space. During my third mission, ISS <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition39/index.html">Expedition 39</a> <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition40/index.html">and 40</a>, I spent five and a half months on the ISS. </p>
<p>While we were on board, my crewmates and I performed more than 300 different experiments. Some we did not touch, like the alpha magnetic spectrometer that scans the universe for antimatter. Others we set up and the mission controls then took over. For other experiments we set them up and performed the experiment. In some, we astronauts were the guinea pigs.</p>
<p>Hence, we used our time to squeeze the most science out of our ISS visit by collaborating with the scientists on the ground. Through this mix of human and automated experiments, NASA increased the amount of science being conducted on the ISS.</p>
<h2>Apollo 17 versus Curiosity</h2>
<p>To try to compare scientific output between a crewed and a robotic mission, let me contrast the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo17.html">Apollo 17</a> – the last moon mission of December 1972, in which Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt spent 75 hours on the lunar surface – with the Mars <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html">Curiosity rover</a> with respect to three variables: distance traveled, cost and soil samples taken. While these two missions are distinctly different – the former being lunar and the latter on Mars – there are similarities that help us compare their productivity. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=827&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=827&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=827&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1039&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1039&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264724/original/file-20190319-60969-1yodkv3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1039&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This self-portrait of NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover shows the vehicle at the Big Sky site, where its drill collected the mission’s fifth taste of Mount Sharp.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Curiosity_Self-Portrait_at_%27Big_Sky%27_Drilling_Site.jpg">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When it comes to distance covered, the humans won. The two Apollo 17 astronauts drove a distance of 35 kilometers on the moon in the span of three days – that’s approximately 11.6 kilometers per day. As of February 2019, Curiosity had traveled 20.16 kilometers on Mars - an average of 9 meters per day since it began its journey on Mars in August 2012. </p>
<p>Now I’m not knocking Curiosity or its team. But executing a task is extremely difficult when dealing with a rover 55 to 400 million kilometers away, depending upon the relative positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits. If the Earth-based Curiosity team issues the wrong commands to the rover, it could jeopardize or even end the mission. Hence, they have to move slowly and verify every step. That means that something a human could accomplish in a couple of hours – like taking multiple rock samples – make take a robot weeks.</p>
<p>During Apollo 17 the astronauts collected <a href="https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/samples/">741 rock and soil samples</a>, including a deep-drill core sample 3 meters long. This amounts to 247 samples each day. I had some difficulty finding the equivalent information for Curiosity. What I did discover was that as of Jan. 15, 2019, <a href="https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/22273/curiositys-selfie-at-rock-hall/">Curiosity had drilled 19 sites</a> and had taken two samples without drilling. So Curiosity has taken at most 30 soil samples while on Mars. That is, on average, 0.013 soil samples per day – which shows how difficult it is to operate a piece of machinery remotely. When equipment such as a drill malfunctions, which it has on Curiosity, there is nobody there to repair it. So the team must find workarounds to the problems for them to continue to get science.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263957/original/file-20190314-28471-1ms1vxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Apollo 17 mission commander Eugene Cernan drives the lunar roving vehicle during the early part of the first moonwalk at the Taurus-Littrow landing site. The lunar module is in the background.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/apollo-17-mission-commander-eugene-cernan-drives-lunar-roving-vehicle">NASA/Harrison Schmitt</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cost of Apollo versus Curiosity</h2>
<p>In 2015 dollars, each of the seven lunar Apollo missions cost about US$20 billion. The cost of Curiosity was about $2.5 billion in 2015. </p>
<p>Yes, I am comparing a lunar mission to a Mars mission, which isn’t exactly fair. So, let’s use an estimate of what a human mission to Mars is expected to cost – the number ranges from around $100 billion to <a href="https://spacenews.com/op-ed-mars-for-only-1-5-trillion/">$500 billion per mission.</a> I imagine it is going to be closer to the $500 billion or more given that the <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1">ISS alone cost more around $150 billion</a>. </p>
<p>If we assume $500 billion per mission – a figure that would hopefully decrease with multiple missions – then a manned mission would yield a better return on the investment. From the ballpark estimates above, we can say a crew of four would be at least 500 times more productive in performing science than a rover, although the cost would be about 200 times greater. </p>
<h2>Space exploration needs both</h2>
<p>Now I admit there is a large margin of error in these quick calculations. However, I’m trying to underscore the benefits from human involvement. Consequently, I think the most cost-effective solution is to use humans and rovers together. This is how we boosted science output on the ISS. </p>
<p>For Mars we could have teams at mission controls around the world running the experiments using rovers as they do now – but the teams could do the science much more quickly. That’s because there would always be a human nearby to help out if the rover got stuck or malfunctioned. </p>
<p>Yes, it is more expensive to send humans to space than probes and rovers, but we can’t disregard that humans can rapidly adapt to unanticipated situations and repair and modify equipment, which in the end boosts the likelihood of success. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264727/original/file-20190319-60990-1fc6icp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">NASA astronaut Steve Swanson during a spacewalk to replace a failed backup computer relay box on the International Space Station on April 22, 2014.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/content/steve-swanson-replaces-failed-backup-computer-0">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A human perspective</h2>
<p>There is also so much we can learn about a new world that sensors just can’t tell us. What does it feel like? Look like? Smell like? This is how most people on Earth will relate to space exploration. So having this human perspective is vital for generating enthusiasm. </p>
<p>For example, one of the first questions I get from people when we talk about space is simply, “What was it like?” And they wanted to know all the details, from brushing your teeth to doing a spacewalk. I would always add that we never knew how our day was going, because most of our tasks, be it science or maintenance, ran into problems that needed a human fix.</p>
<p>I agree the rovers on Mars have done wonders and helped get people excited about planetary exploration, but I’m sure the excitement of humans going to Mars would be much greater.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Swanson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As commercial spaceflight companies lower the cost of reaching space, nations can launch more missions. But while astronauts are great for whipping up enthusiasm, is a manned mission worth the cost?Steve Swanson, Distinguished Educator in Residence, Boise State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/988782018-06-27T08:49:36Z2018-06-27T08:49:36ZEight ethical questions about exploring outer space that need answers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224917/original/file-20180626-112604-ieul2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Blast off. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/space-exploration-background-mixed-media-519472267?src=Wf2opYG55d1aspAIUgTwwA-1-1">Sergey Nivens</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Metallic shrapnel flying faster than bullets; the Space Shuttle smashed to pieces; astronauts killed or ejected into space. The culprit? Space debris – remnants of a Russian satellite blown up by a Russian missile. The one survivor, Ryan Stone, has to find her way back to Earth with oxygen supplies failing and the nearest viable spacecraft hundreds of miles away. </p>
<p>Over on Mars, 20 years in the future, an exploration mission from Earth is going wrong. An epic dust storm forces the crew to abandon the planet, leaving behind an astronaut, Mark Watney, who is presumed dead. He has to figure out how to grow food while awaiting rescue.</p>
<p>Hollywood knows how to terrify and inspire us about outer space. Movies like <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/">Gravity</a> (2013) and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/">The Martian</a> (2015), present space as hostile and unpredictable – spelling danger for any intrepid human who dares to venture outside Earth’s hospitable confines.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224919/original/file-20180626-112641-pvqd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Matt Damon is …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/san-francisco-november-4-2017-martian-748233988?src=0VXU797DRwWxNbcR53RzEg-1-24">Pe3k</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is only part of the story, however – the bit with people centre stage. Sure, no one wants to see astronauts killed or stranded in space. And we all want to enjoy the fruits of successful planetary science, like determining <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-do-you-find-exoplanets-24153">which planets</a> could host human life or simply whether we’re alone in the universe. </p>
<h2>Valuing space</h2>
<p>But should we care about the universe beyond how it affects us as humans? That is the big question – call it question #1 of extraterrestrial environmental ethics, a field too many people have ignored for too long. I’m one of a <a href="http://ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/research-projects/exoplanet-ethics/">group of researchers</a> at the University of St Andrews trying to change that. How we ought to value the universe depends on two other intriguing philosophical questions:</p>
<p>Question #2: the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-we-are-to-find-life-beyond-earth-we-need-to-be-explorers-not-hunters-45001">kind of life</a> we are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-hunt-for-life-on-mars-new-findings-on-rock-chimneys-could-hold-key-to-success-97998">most likely</a> to discover elsewhere is <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-rover-could-discover-life-on-mars-heres-what-it-would-take-to-prove-it-89625">microbial</a> – so how should we view this lifeform? Most people would accept that all humans have intrinsic value, and matter not only in relation to their usefulness to someone else. Accept this and it follows that ethics places limits on how we may treat them and their living spaces. </p>
<p>People are <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/historical-timeline-of-animal-rights-movement-127594">starting to</a> accept that the same is true of mammals, birds and other animals. So what about microbial beings? Some philosophers like Albert Schweitzer and Paul Taylor <a href="https://study.com/academy/lesson/biocentrism-in-environmental-ethics.html">have previously argued</a> that all living things have a value in themselves, which would obviously include microbes. Philosophy as a whole has not reached a consensus, however, on whether it agrees with this so-called biocentrism. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224920/original/file-20180626-112604-o8mju1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘What do we want, rights for microbes …’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/abstract-background-germs-microorganism-cells-under-678600079?src=bXyBmuHE2IFDaxJmHHuiGw-1-72">Who is Danny</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Question #3: for planets and other places not hospitable to life, what value should we place on their environment? Arguably we care about our environment on Earth primarily because it supports the species that live here. If so, we might extend the same thinking to other planets and moons that can support life. </p>
<p>But this doesn’t work for “dead” planets. Some <a href="https://www.sdcity.edu/Portals/0/CollegeServices/StudentSupportResources/learning-communities/Philosophical%20Problems%20for%20Environmentalism.pdf">have proposed</a> an idea called aesthetic value, that certain things should be treasured not because they are useful but because they are aesthetically wonderful. They have applied this not only to great artistic works like Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa and Beethoven’s Fifth, but also to parts of the Earth’s environment, such as the Grand Canyon. Could that apply to other planets?</p>
<h2>Alien environments</h2>
<p>Supposing we could answer these theoretical questions, we could proceed to four important practical questions about space exploration:</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224918/original/file-20180626-112598-wvw5he.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yip yip.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/airchinapilot/2976214346/in/photolist-5wZSQs-qwJXQw-jYhDZD-cUYaNo-9QLmcN-7Vp7gb-23rEPi6-pQsDne-e3jsXd-VVYcwy-HcbizT-aoyaja-aJfUvX-66F8Tb-4dFQWN-dfXGfd-dp8Q91-qLiH9e-7r8xkd-SBMDFe-aqYtky-88ydwt-u9PMJ9-qPiace-7Hdepi-pqa8Zf-71HcCo-8AReey-dPDrfQ-6RJSzV-TARcNo-5uuE5g-7BSzXq-9t292n-7FT2fV-bxxLKZ-suCumU-qvowFh-hE8nH3-dWCUsD-4MHChw-e6PhBG-65VZtc-Wk4V1N-23FUTEF-a6RkqQ-26t2Xsa-5QwbXY-tk4yk4-aJfVjp">Keith Loh</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Question #4: is there a duty to protect the environment on other planets? When it comes to sending astronauts, instruments or robots to other worlds, there are clearly important scientific reasons for <a href="https://theconversation.com/mars-contamination-planetary-protection-and-the-search-for-life-48363">making sure</a> they don’t take terrestrial organisms with them and wind up depositing them there. </p>
<p>Otherwise, if we discovered life, we wouldn’t know whether it was indigenous – not to mention the risk of wiping it out entirely. But is scientific clarity all that matters, or do we need to start thinking about galactic environmental protection?</p>
<p>Question #5: what, besides biological contamination, would count as violating such an obligation to treat that planet’s environment with respect? Drilling for core samples, perhaps, or leaving instruments behind, or putting tyre tracks in the dirt? </p>
<p>Question #6: what about asteroids? The race is well underway to develop technology to harvest the untold trillions of pounds of mineral wealth presumed to exist on asteroids, as <a href="https://theconversation.com/mining-asteroids-could-unlock-untold-wealth-heres-how-to-get-started-95675">already reported</a> in The Conversation. It helps that no one seems to think of asteroids as environments we need to protect. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224922/original/file-20180626-112598-duxifc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gold in them craters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/asteroidal-landscape-strewn-rubble-starfield-horizon-3139158?src=wdDSfgAAOu05zbhRux2QBg-1-98">Jan Kaliciak</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same goes for empty space. The movie Gravity gave us some human-centred reasons to be worried about the buildup of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-clean-up-space-debris-using-game-theory-50347">debris in space</a>, but might there be other reasons to object? If so, would our obligation be to merely create less debris, or something stronger – like not producing any new debris or even cleaning up what we’ve left already?</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more: <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-seven-most-extreme-planets-ever-discovered-78959">The seven most extreme planets ever discovered</a></strong></em> </p>
<hr>
<p>Question #7: what considerations might offset arguments in favour of behaving ethically in space? Of the various reasons for going there – intellectual/scientific, utilitarian, profit-driven – are any strong enough to override our obligations? </p>
<p>We also need to factor in the inevitable risks and uncertainties here. We can’t know what benefits space missions will have. We can’t be certain of not biologically contaminating the planets we visit. What risk/reward trade-offs should we be willing to undertake?</p>
<h2>Terra-ism</h2>
<p>Discussions about outer space have the advantage that we have very little attachment to anything out there. These ethical questions might therefore be some of the only ones humans can address with a large measure of emotional distance. For this reason, answering them might help us to make progress with Earth-bound issues like global warming, mass extinction and nuclear waste disposal. </p>
<p>Space exploration also directly raises questions about our relationship to Earth – once we overcome the technological puzzles preventing <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/113346/how-do-we-terraform-mars/">the terraforming</a> of a planet like Mars, or find ways of reaching habitable exoplanets. I’ll leave you with one extremely important one for the future: </p>
<p>Question #8: given that the Earth is not the only potential home for human beings, what reasons for protecting its environment would remain once we can realistically go somewhere else?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98878/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Sachs receives funding from the Royal Society of Edinburgh.</span></em></p>Nearly 50 years since the first man walked on the moon, our morals are still stranded on Earth.Benjamin Sachs-Cobbe, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/973712018-06-18T10:44:04Z2018-06-18T10:44:04ZAstronaut Sally K. Ride’s legacy – encouraging young women to embrace science and engineering<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223449/original/file-20180616-85849-c4eytm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mission specialist Sally Ride became the first American woman to fly in space. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/history/this-week-in-nasa-history-sally-ride-becomes-first-american-woman-in-space-june-18.html">NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On June 24, 1983, 35 years ago, Sally Ride returned to earth after becoming the first American woman to fly into space, riding Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-7 along with four other crew members. Only five years earlier, in 1978, she had been selected to the first class of 35 astronauts – including six women – who would fly on the Space Shuttle. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223451/original/file-20180616-85840-o0l9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=548&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sally’s first ride, with her STS-7 crewmates. In addition to launching America’s first female astronaut, it was also the first mission with a five-member crew. Front row, left to right: Ride, commander Bob Crippen, pilot Frederick Hauck. Back row, left to right: John Fabian, Norm Thagard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/topics/people/galleries/ride2.html">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Much has happened in the intervening years. During the span of three decades, the shuttles flew 135 times carrying hundreds of American and international astronauts into space before they were retired in 2011. The International Space Station began to fly in 1998 and has been continuously occupied since 2001, orbiting the Earth once every 90 minutes. More than 50 women have now flown into space, most of them Americans. One of these women, Dr. Peggy Whitson, became chief of the Astronaut Office and holds the American record for number of hours in space.</p>
<h2>The Space Shuttle democratized spaceflight</h2>
<p>The Space Shuttle was an amazing flight vehicle: It launched like a rocket into Low Earth Orbit in only eight minutes, and landed softly like a glider after its mission. What is not well known is that the Space Shuttle was an equalizer and enabler, opening up space exploration to a wider population of people from planet Earth. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223486/original/file-20180617-85845-k9veqr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">STS-50 Crew photo with commander Richard N. Richards and pilot Kenneth D. Bowersox, mission specialists Bonnie J. Dunbar, Ellen S. Baker and Carl J. Meade, and payload specialists Lawrence J. DeLucas and Eugene H. Trinh. The photo was taken in front of the Columbia Shuttle, which Dunbar helped to build.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-50.html">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This inclusive approach began in 1972 when Congress and the president approved the Space Shuttle budget and contract. Spacesuits, seats and all crew equipment were initially designed for a larger range of sizes to fit all body types, and the waste management system was modified for females. Unlike earlier vehicles, the Space Shuttle could carry up to eight astronauts at a time. It had a design more similar to an airplane than a small capsule, with two decks, sleeping berths, large laboratories and a galley. It also provided privacy.</p>
<p>I graduated with an engineering degree from the University of Washington in 1971 and, by 1976, I was a young engineer working on the first Space Shuttle, Columbia, with Rockwell International at Edwards Air Force Base, in California. I helped to design and produce the thermal protection system – those heat resistant ceramic tiles – which allowed the shuttle to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere for up to 100 flights. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223487/original/file-20180617-85845-14hb8cp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mike Anderson and Bonnie Dunbar flew together on STS-89 in 1998. They both graduated from University of Washington. Anderson was killed in the Columbia accident, in 2003.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was a heady time; a new space vehicle could carry large crews and “cargo,” including space laboratories and the Hubble Space Telescope. The Shuttle also had a robotic arm, which was critical for the assembly of the International Space Station, and an “airlock” for space walks, and enabled us to build the International Space Station. </p>
<p>I knew from my first day at Rockwell that this vehicle had been designed for both men and women. A NASA engineer at the Langley Research Center gave me a very early “heads up” in 1973 that they would eventually select women astronauts for the Space Shuttle. In the 1970s there were visionary men and women in NASA, government and in the general public, who saw a future for more women in science and engineering, and for flying into space. Women were not beating down the door to be included in the Space Shuttle program, we were being invited to be an integral part of a larger grand design for exploring space.</p>
<h2>1978: Becoming an astronaut</h2>
<p>The selection process for the first class of Space Shuttle astronauts, to include women, opened in 1977. NASA approached the recruitment process with a large and innovative publicity campaign encouraging men and women of all ethnic backgrounds to apply. One of NASA’s recruiters was actress Nichelle Nichols who played Lt. Ohura on the “Star Trek” series, which was popular at the time. Sally learned about NASA’s astronaut recruitment drive through an announcement, possibly on a job bulletin board, somewhere at Stanford University. Sally had been a talented nationally ranked tennis player, but her passion was physics. The opportunity to fly into space intrigued her and looked like a challenge and rewarding career she could embrace.</p>
<p>Sally and I arrived at NASA at the same time in 1978 – she as part of the “TFNG” (“Thirty-Five New Guys”) astronaut class and I as a newly minted mission controller, training to support the Space Shuttle. I had already been in the aerospace industry for several years and had made my choice for “space” at the age of 9 on a cattle ranch in Washington state. I also applied for the 1978 astronaut class, but was not selected until 1980.</p>
<p>Sally and I connected on the Flight Crew Operations co-ed softball team. We both played softball from an early age and were both private pilots, flying our small planes together around southeast Texas. We also often discussed our perspectives on career selection, and how fortunate we were to have teachers and parents and other mentors who encouraged us to study math and science in school – the enabling subjects for becoming an astronaut.</p>
<h2>STS-7: June 18 1983</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223450/original/file-20180616-85849-lu59w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In January 1978, NASA selected six women into the class of 35 new astronauts to fly on the Space Shuttle. From left to right are Shannon W. Lucid, Ph.D., Margaret Rhea Seddon, M.D., Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., Judith A. Resnik, Ph.D., Anna L. Fisher, M.D., and Sally K. Ride, Ph.D.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1624.html">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although Sally was one of six women in the 1978 class, she preferred to be considered one of 35 new astronauts – and to be judged by merit, not gender. It was important to all the women that the bar be as high as it was for the men. From an operational and safety point of view, that was also equally important. In an emergency, there are no special allowances for gender or ethnicity: Everyone had to pull their own weight. In fact, it has been said that those first six women were not just qualified, they were more than qualified. </p>
<p>While Sally was honored to be picked as the first woman from her class to fly, she shied away from the limelight. She believed that she flew for all Americans, regardless of gender, but she also understood the expectations on her for being selected “first.” As she flew on STS-7, she paid tribute to those who made it possible for her to be there: to her family and teachers, to those who made and operated the Space Shuttle, to her crewmates, and to all of her astronaut classmates including Dr. Kathy Sullivan, Dr. Rhea Seddon, Dr. Anna Fisher, Dr. Shannon Lucid, and Dr. Judy Resnick (who lost her life on Challenger). With all of the attention, Sally was a gracious “first.” And the launch of STS-7 had a unique celebratory flair. Signs around Kennedy Space Center said “Fly Sally Fly,” and John Denver gave a special concert the night before the launch, not far from the launch pad.</p>
<h2>Continuing the momentum</h2>
<p>One of the topics that Sally and I discussed frequently was why so few young girls were entering into math, technology, science and engineering – which became known as STEM careers in the late 1990s. Both of us had been encouraged and pushed by male and female mentors and “cheerleaders.” By 1972, <a href="https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/statutes/eo11246.htm">companies with federal contracts were actively recruiting women engineers</a>. NASA had opened up spaceflight to women in 1978, and was proud of the fact that they were recruiting and training women as astronauts and employing them in engineering and the sciences.</p>
<p>National needs for STEM talent and supportive employment laws were creating an environment such that if a young woman wished to become an aerospace engineer, a physicist, a chemist, a medical doctor, an astronomer or an astrophysicist, they could. One might have thought that Sally’s legendary flight, and those of other women astronauts over the last 35 years might have inspired a wave of young women (and men) into STEM careers. For example, when Sally flew into space in 1983, a 12-year-old middle school girl back then would now be 47. If she had a daughter, that daughter might be 25. After two generations, we might have expected that there would be large bow wave of young energized women entering into the STEM careers. <a href="https://nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/engineering-01.html">But this hasn’t happened</a>. </p>
<p>Rather, we have a <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/11463/chapter/1">growing national shortage</a> <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12999/rising-above-the-gathering-storm-revisited-rapidly-approaching-category-5">of engineers and research scientists</a> <a href="https://nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/2a--Prepare_and_Inspire--PCAST.pdf">in this nation</a>, which threatens our prosperity and national security. <a href="https://nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/workforce-07.html">The numbers of women graduating in engineering grew from 1 percent in 1971 to about 20 percent in 35 years</a>. But women make up 50 percent of the population, so there is room for growth. So what are the “root causes” for this lack of growth? </p>
<h2>K-12 STEM education</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stemreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NRC_STEM_2.pdf">Many</a> <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/21740/chapter/3">reports</a> have cited deficient K-12 math and science education as contributing to the relatively stagnant graduation rates in STEM careers. </p>
<p>Completing four years of math in high school, as well as physics, chemistry and biology is correlated with later success in science, mathematics and engineering in college. Without this preparation, career options are reduced significantly. Even though I graduated from a small school in rural Washington state, I was able to study algebra, geometry, trigonometry, math analysis, biology, chemistry and physics by the time I graduated. Those were all prerequisites for entry into the University of Washington College of Engineering. Sally had the same preparation before she entered into physics. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223453/original/file-20180616-85845-1e2q1al.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As part of NASA’s commitment to the next generation of explorers, NASA Ames collaborated with Sally Ride Science to sponsor and host the Sally Ride Science Festival at the NASA Research Park. Hundreds of San Francisco Bay Area girls, their teachers and parents enjoy a fun-filled interactive exploration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics on Sept. 27, 2008.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/2008/sally_ride/sally_ride6.html">NASA Ames Research Center / Dominic Hart</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although we have many great K-12 schools in the nation, too many schools now <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/health/teacher-shortage-data-trnd/index.html">struggle to find</a> qualified mathematics and physics teachers. Inspiring an interest in these topics is also key to retention and success. Being excited about a particular subject matter can keep a student engaged even through the tough times. Participation in “<a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12190/learning-science-in-informal-environments-people-places-and-pursuits">informal science education</a>” at museums and camps is becoming instrumental for recruiting students into STEM careers, especially as teachers struggle to find the time in a cramped curriculum to teach math and science. </p>
<p>Research has shown that middle school is a critical period for young boys and girls to establish their <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1s474j0">attitudes toward math and science</a>, to acquire fundamental skills that form the basis for progression into algebra, geometry and trigonometry, and to develop positive attitudes toward the pursuit of STEM careers. When Dr. Sally Ride retired from NASA, she understood this, and founded Imaginary Lines and, later, <a href="https://sallyridescience.ucsd.edu">Sally Ride Science</a>, to influence career aspirations for middle school girls. She hosted science camps throughout the nation, exposing young women and their parents to a variety of STEM career options. Sally Ride Science continues its outreach through the University of California at San Diego. </p>
<h2>Challenging old stereotypes and honoring Sally’s legacy</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223488/original/file-20180617-85822-1ljgbho.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sally Ride and Bonnie Dunbar are fighting outdated stereotypes that women are not good at STEM subjects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/111948635?size=huge_jpg">Creativa Images/shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, there are still challenges, especially in this social media-steeped society. I and other practicing women engineers have observed that young girls are often influenced by what they perceive “society thinks” of them. </p>
<p>In a recent discussion with an all-girl robotics team competing at NASA, I asked the high school girls if they had support from teachers and parents, and they all said “yes.” But then, they asked, “Why doesn’t society support us?” I was puzzled and asked them what they meant. They then directed me to the internet where searches on engineering careers returned a story after story of describing “hostile work environments.” </p>
<p>Sadly, most of these stories are very old and are often from studies with very small populations. The positive news, from companies, government, universities and such organizations as the <a href="https://www.engineergirl.org/">National Academy of Engineers</a>, <a href="http://physicsgirl.org/">Physics Girl</a> and <a href="http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/">Society of Women Engineers</a>, rarely rises to the top of the search results. Currently, companies and laboratories in the U.S. are desperate to employ STEM qualified and inspired women. But many of our young women continue to “opt out.”</p>
<p>Young women are influenced by the media images they see every day. We continue to see decades-old negative stereotypes and poor <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/12187/chapter/2">images of engineers and scientists on television programs and in the movies</a>. </p>
<p>Popular TV celebrities continue to boast on air that they either didn’t like math or struggled with it. Sally Ride Science helps to combat misconceptions and dispel myths by bringing practicing scientists and engineers directly to the students. However, in order to make a more substantial difference, this program and others like it require help from the media organizations. The nation depends upon the technology and science produced by our scientists and engineers, but social media, TV hosts, writers and movie script developers rarely reflect this reality. So it may be, that in addition to K-12 challenges in our educational system, the “outdated stererotypes” portrayed in the media are also discouraging our young women from entering science and engineering careers.</p>
<h2>Unlimited opportunities in science and engineering</h2>
<p>The reality? More companies than ever are creating family-friendly work environments and competing for female talent. In fact, there is a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/drop-foreign-applicants-worries-us-engineering-schools">higher demand from business, government and graduate schools in the U.S.</a> for <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-and-yes.htm">women engineers and scientists than can be met by the universities</a>. </p>
<p>Both Sally and I had wonderful careers supported by both men and women. NASA was a great work environment and continues to be – the last two astronaut classes have been about 50 percent female. </p>
<p>I think that Sally would be proud of how far the nation has come with respect to women in space, but would also want us to focus on the future challenges for recruiting more women into science and engineering, and to reignite the passion for exploring space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bonnie J. Dunbar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>35 years ago Sally Ride became the first American woman in space. But rather than focus on her own extraordinary achievements, her passion became boosting the number of girls pursuing STEM. Another pioneering astronaut remembers her friend and colleague.Bonnie J. Dunbar, NASA astronaut (Ret) and TEES Distinguished Research Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/534282016-03-11T11:12:28Z2016-03-11T11:12:28ZNever mind SpaceX’s Falcon 9, where’s my Millennium Falcon?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114511/original/image-20160309-13737-1t4s1zb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The only way to fly the friendly skies – or dark voids of space.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/randar/15077384076/in/photolist-oYkwZS-dcY7hJ-8sgZtx-aaddRC-5q8sJL-242ND7-MYG5-k8zSxZ-h7Tq5b-242MX9-gT7yb9-NeQ97-oWJXyH-5q46d4-2g5UYM-4akH1f-oH3dJc-oNrXv9-7y9T9a-242GPS-23Xn2T-aaddm5-23XmPV-ouDNLA-96z3r5-prPwgr-4JbVsW-23Xhm8-eLQBkX-6UvbYb-6kkDbT-r9vrfV-4C7DXi-4Vs1Az-4XSKYi-oEwbUj-bStmrT-aaap8Z-7nVwd-6G2k3f-peqegv-cQKnsW-eM2ZLy-pNXq8V-oXbT8e-7ujr4Y-94aCXi-oMnHU3-7NWXu9-8CpBHg">Tom Simpson/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week, <a href="http://www.spacex.com">SpaceX</a> held another successful launch of its Falcon 9 rocket. Unfortunately, its landing <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-idUKKCN0W62RE">was not quite as successful</a> as the one in <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10640306/spacex-elon-musk-rocket-landing-success">December</a> (it crashed into the ocean). </p>
<p>SpaceX isn’t alone in trying to develop reusable launch vehicles. Other private companies such as <a href="https://www.blueorigin.com">Blue Origin</a> and <a href="http://www.virgingalactic.com">Virgin Galactic</a> are also in the race to achieve the dream of consistently landing a rocket after hurtling it into the heavens. Each success – and failure – gets us a little closer.</p>
<p>But how significant is the creation of reusable rockets? And where will we go from here? Are we finally close to the future once promised by the Jetson’s FX-Atmos “flying car” or Han Solo’s Millennium Falcon: a world of personal, space-bound transports that can leave your garage, reach orbit and beyond, and return home in time for dinner? </p>
<p>What else stands in the way?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e8SC6bny1SA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>The final frontier</h2>
<p>The “<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/space/2015-04-20/democratization-space">democratization of space exploration</a>,” spurred by NASA encouraging private companies to develop and manage complete launch systems, is igniting a new age of space development and awakening a spirit of exploration and technology innovation that’s been absent from our culture for far too long.</p>
<p>This resurgence of interest is reflected in NASA’s latest call for astronaut applications: <a href="http://www.space.com/31987-nasa-astronaut-applications-smash-record.html">18,300 hopefuls applied</a> for just 14 positions.</p>
<p>And in the private sector, venture capitalists are showing the same enthusiasm by investing <a href="http://www.moneytimes.com/articles/12780/20160224/venture-capital-investment-in-space-startups-surged-in-2015.htm">US$1.8 billion in space startups</a> in 2015, compared with an average of $193 million a year over the previous 15 years. The increased demand for space access is further spurring on private companies to develop more efficient reusable rocket launch systems.</p>
<p>Today’s space companies aren’t the first to set their sights on such a rocket. This great feat of engineering was originally achieved in 1993, when McDonald Douglass tested the <a href="http://www.space.com/22391-reusable-rocket-nasa-dc-x-anniversary.html">Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X)</a>, a prototype single-stage launch vehicle. NASA later canceled the project.</p>
<p>Now, it seems, the conditions are ripe once again to pick up where the DC-X left off. The private sector has started to take up this challenge, and the race is on to enhance all our lives with cheap space travel.</p>
<p>This future begins with the reusable rocket. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ANv5UfZsvZQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What does a reusable launch vehicle get us?</h2>
<p>Imagine what life would be like if, after each trip to Grandma’s, we had to throw away the car. Even with the benefits of mass production, the cost to an individual would be prohibitive, especially if there exist reasonable alternatives like horses or walking. Such automobiles could be employed only by governments, extremely wealthy enthusiasts or perhaps by a few skilled specialists who lived for the challenge. </p>
<p>This is pretty much the situation with current spacecraft technology. Not even the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html">Space Shuttle program</a> achieved the lofty goal of reliable reusability, although it tried very hard. The shuttle was such a complicated system that every time it returned to Earth, intense maintenance had to be performed and systems rebuilt or overhauled, making it three times as expensive as that of an expendable rocket. For example, a shuttle launch cost <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/472038d.html">$450 million to $1.5 billion</a>, compared with <a href="http://spacenews.com/ils-may-pitch-proton-cost-saver-over-soyuz-galileo-satellites/">$110 million</a> for a Russian Proton rocket with about the same lift capacity. </p>
<p>Truly reusable launch vehicles would significantly reduce the cost of getting material and people into orbit and enable new uses of space with far-reaching socioeconomic consequences that will ultimately reduce our impact on Earth’s environment, such as <a href="http://exhttp://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/nrg/projects/SPS.htmlample.com/">space-based energy collection</a>, <a href="http://www.wired.com/2012/04/planetary-resources-asteroid-mining/">mining</a> and <a href="http://www.space.com/27870-3d-printer-made-in-space-op-ed.html">manufacturing</a>.</p>
<p>In order to get an idea of the savings, the retail price of a Falcon 9 rocket is around <a href="http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities">$60 million to build and launch</a> (including fuel). Given its total lift capacity of 13,150 kilograms to low-Earth orbit, this translates into a price tag of about $400,000 to ferry a 90-kilogram (198-pound) person into space. But if you had to pay only for fuel, about $300,000 a launch, the price tag drops drastically to just $2,000 for the same person. That’s not far from the <a href="http://www.hopper.com/flights/from-JFK/to-SYD/guide.html">cost of flying from New York to Sydney</a>, which makes a future family vacation to a <a href="http://bigelowaerospace.com/b330">Bigelow B330 Space Habitat</a> a viable alternative to Disney World.</p>
<p>At the pace things are going, we project that within 10 years the space industry will achieve the goal of a fully reusable launch vehicle. <a href="https://deepspaceindustries.com/silicon-valley-startups-enter-the-space-race/">Companies</a> and <a href="http://www.khou.com/story/tech/2015/06/30/approval-of-houston-spaceport-to-be-announced-tuesday/29501495/">municipalities</a>, small and big, are all starting to look into ways of taking advantage of this complete disruption in, or better yet creation of, the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2014/07/02/space-industry-mega-trends-seriously-congested-contested-and-an-industry-of-growth-for-the-future/#30abc5fc70dd">commercial space market</a>.</p>
<p>So our next question is this: what do we need to make the <a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Millennium_Falcon">Millennium Falcon</a> – that is, a single-stage-to-orbit completely reusable spacecraft – a reality? </p>
<p>A little physics can help us see exactly what needs to happen and exactly how far we are from this goal. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114733/original/image-20160310-26261-xgoujn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Shuttle came close to being reusable, but it still required expendable rockets to get into space and significant maintenance after every use.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Space Shuttle via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rocket Science 101</h2>
<p>Space travel is all about speed. The old adage, “What goes up must come down,” is true only to a point. If you throw something up fast enough, it won’t come back down; it will have escaped Earth’s gravity. The question is, exactly how fast is fast enough? </p>
<p>A simple application of Newtonian gravity theory tells us that if we achieve a speed of 11 kilometers per second – the equivalent of a plane flying 25,000 mph straight up – we are not going to fall back to Earth. Scientists and engineers refer to this speed, which depends on the physical properties of the Earth, as our planet’s <a href="http://www.britannica.com/science/escape-velocity">escape velocity</a>. </p>
<p>A rocket tries to achieve that speed by taking mass and throwing it out the back as fast as possible. Thanks to <a href="http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law">Newton’s third law</a> – which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction – this propels the rocket forward. </p>
<p>The ratio between the change in velocity needed to escape the Earth’s pull (known as delta-v) and the speed at which the rocket sends stuff out the back (exhaust velocity) is the most important number in <a href="https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktpow.html">rocket science</a>. It determines how much mass needs to be expelled and how much energy is necessary to get to space. The smaller we can make the ratio, the better. </p>
<p>In addition, the propellants and fuels are themselves massive, and the rocket needs to carry these things with itself, making it heaver and harder to accelerate. </p>
<p>So we need propellants and fuels with a high energy content and low mass. </p>
<p>Now we can begin to appreciate the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-reusable-rockets-are-so-hard-to-make-36036">enormous feat</a> of engineering that private companies and governments have achieved by not only launching a rocket but learning to land it as well. </p>
<p>The maximum achievable exhaust velocities for the rockets we’ve been using since the dawn of space travel are much less than the Earth’s escape velocity (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion#Table_of_methods">about 4 km/s or 9,000 mph</a>), forcing us to come up with ingenious and costly multistage launch techniques to get even a modest payload into space.</p>
<p>In summary, in order to leave the surface of the Earth with the grace and apparent effortlessness of the Millennium Falcon, we need to achieve speeds in excess of the escape velocity, 11 km/s. In order to do that without carrying a fuel tank that far exceeds the size of our ship, we need to achieve exhaust speeds significantly higher than the escape velocity, something not possible with the chemical fuels we use. </p>
<h2>So where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>So in order to make the Millennium Falcon a reality, we need a new type of fuel, as chemical-based engines are severely limiting. </p>
<p>Thanks to Albert Einstein, we know that there is energy stored in mass itself. Using his famous E = mc² equation, we know that exhaust speeds up to the speed of light are achievable, and way more than necessary to escape Earth’s gravity.</p>
<p>A sustainable exhaust speed of 1,000 km/s, less than 1 percent of the speed of light, would pretty much enable our dream ship. Its fuel-to-mass ratio would be about the same as that of your typical car.</p>
<p>The next question is: how do we get access to the energy stored in the mass (fuel and propellant) sufficient to achieve those speeds? The answer lies in nuclear reactions or, better yet, <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/antimatter_spaceship.html">matter-antimatter</a> reactions. In short, we need to put a mass reactor, nuclear or matter-antimatter, on board our ship. Think of the Enterprise’s “warp core,” for all those Star Trek fans out there. </p>
<p>Nuclear rockets may seem farfetched, but various versions have already been proposed and prototypes have even been built. The <a href="http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story4full.shtml">Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA)</a> project, a joint NASA-Atomic Energy Commission program, developed a flight-certified nuclear-based rocket engine that meets all the requirements for a manned mission to Mars. </p>
<p>What is interesting, and perhaps a little sad, is that this was done in 1968, over four decades ago! The NERVA engine achieved exhaust velocities pretty close to Earth’s escape velocity, around 10 km/s. The program was tied to NASA’s manned Mars exploration program and, since it was unable to justify the expense of going to Mars, was scrapped in 1972. </p>
<p>More recently, NASA has been developing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrically_powered_spacecraft_propulsion">electric propulsion systems</a> that can generate large effective exhaust velocities that are limited only through the strength of the electric field. Effective exhaust velocities of <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/Ion_Propulsion1.html">90 km/s are already achievable</a>. But this is just the propulsion part. The solar panels, batteries or fuel cells that are currently used as power sources for these engines limit their usefulness. Electricity generated from nuclear power could solve this problem.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/114735/original/image-20160310-26271-dnzjr4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who needs Disney World? How about a trip to a space station?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Space station via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Back to the future</h2>
<p>With the renewed interest in space exploration and innovation, we challenge inventors and entrepreneurs to consider looking at advanced nuclear/antimatter-powered rocket systems. This could enable us to achieve the dream of a space car in our garages in half a century. </p>
<p>The key to all the recent advances in space exploration technology has been combining older proven technologies with modern computing capabilities, materials and fabrication processes. NASA’s push to get <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-offers-licenses-of-patented-technologies-to-start-up-companies">technologies into private hands</a> will accelerate this process. </p>
<p>Back in 1972, we were at 1 percent of the needed exhaust speed. It’s not too much of a stretch to propose that, after 40 years of advances, we need only revisit the designs with fresh and entrepreneurial eyes to make it possible for a Han Solo – or, to be more contemporary, Rey Skywalker – to jump into the Falcon and speed off to somewhere far, far away.</p>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53428/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fredrick Jenet is the creator/director of both the Center for Advanced Radio Astronomy at UT Rio Grande Valley and the STARGATE program, a public/private partnership with SpaceX. He works for UT Rio Grande Valley. He receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Volker Quetschke is the Chair of Technology of the Center for Advanced Radio Astronomy at UT Rio Grande Valley and the STARGATE program. He receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD)</span></em></p>We’re on the cusp of being able to consistently launch and land rockets, greatly reducing the cost of space travel. But how long before there’s a Millennium Falcon in every garage?Fredrick Jenet, Associate Professor, University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyVolker Quetschke, Associate Professor, University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/527742016-02-09T15:31:50Z2016-02-09T15:31:50ZHow to unleash the wisdom of crowds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110195/original/image-20160203-5826-plju5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2048%2C1364&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bright Bunch.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/11271506886/in/photolist-ib2qiC-dptitE-epEW9-pSuBFc-snswAz-D6bkR-4z5wrn-nBAssu-4z9Kkf-sasXwh-29RVSQ-qNvk35-58q8ah-rhfPud-knkntv-hmiMnM-5kQ2qB-2Ygnw8-5ePpuR-pbe8Tg-sayXss-9ac5NE-a1GRJJ-ajkdyA-sqwwKh-eiyjgM-kqVK48-ag7khm-7VtkuP-hLFgsE-8vsCQR-e42ATy-f9eH1f-bDCd8n-pSMqRU-gNiGxC-oVf1rr-8vwHnS-nxiAfu-81JzLb-jUGF8P-9S4SKZ-qobLfN-58cc25-b6tXoZ-eTPVby-rR2sdd-5BjgFW-okDcyH-qF2ksg">Thomas Hawk</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The great Victorian polymath, <a href="http://www.galton.org/">Sir Francis Galton</a> was at a country fair in 1906, so the story goes, and came across a competition where you had to guess the weight of an ox. Once the competition was over Galton, an explorer, meteorologist, scientist and statistician, took the 787 guesses and calculated the average, which came to 1,197 pounds. The actual weight of the ox was 1,198 pounds. In effect, the crowd had provided a near perfect answer. Galton would later <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/075450a0">publish this insight in Nature</a>.</p>
<p>This phenomenon, where collective wisdom is better than most, if not all of the individuals in the crowd has become known as the Wisdom of Crowds. The authoritative take on it <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/68143.The_Wisdom_of_Crowds">came from James Surowiecki</a>. A more up-to-date example is the “Ask the Audience” part of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3620109/Always-ask-the-audience.html">Who Wants to be a Millionaire</a>, where the studio audience are polled and the most popular answer is the correct answer 91% of the time.</p>
<p>Even if there is a better individual guess, you face the problem of deciding which individual’s guess to select. If you choose the crowd’s guess, the decision is made for you and there is every opportunity that you will get a good answer, certainly better than choosing randomly from the other guesses. The technique has practical uses beyond the quiz show.</p>
<iframe src="https://embed-ssl.ted.com/talks/james_surowiecki_on_the_turning_point_for_social_media.html" width="100%" height="360" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<h2>Understanding the Challenger Disaster</h2>
<p>On January 28 1986 the space shuttle <a href="https://theconversation.com/thirty-years-on-what-the-challenger-disaster-meant-for-our-race-into-space-53194">Challenger</a> broke up 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven astronauts on board. The disaster has been well reported in the intervening 30 years, but one intriguing aspect of it may have passed you by.</p>
<p>Almost immediately after the explosion, investors started selling stocks of the four main contractors involved in the Challenger launch – Lockheed, Rockwell International, Martin Marietta and Morton Thiokol. Of the four companies Morton Thiokol fell the most, almost 12% by the end of trading on that day, compared to about 3% for the other three companies. </p>
<p>This was a sign that the stock market felt that Morton Thiokol was to blame for the disaster but without having any firm evidence to hand. </p>
<p>In any case, six months later, the market was proven to be right. The O-ring seals on the booster rockets made by Thiokol were the cause of the problem. Richard Feynman, the renowned physicist, famously presented his findings to the Rogers Commission showing how the seals had failed.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8qAi_9quzUY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It is still not quite clear how the wisdom of crowds managed to identify the company that was to blame for the disaster within minutes of it happening. Markets always weigh up a variety of factors and it’s hard to unpick the rationales at play. It’s just about possible that a few investors caught wind of whispers from before the launch <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/01/27/reporters-remember-challenger-coverage/">about engineers’ concerns</a>.</p>
<h2>Finding the Scorpion submarine</h2>
<p>On May 22 1968 the US navy lost one of its submarines and wanted to find the wreckage, but the intelligence it had was not able to provide an area that was small enough to effectively search. John Craven a naval officer, <a href="http://wisdomofcrowds.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/introduction-part-v.html">decided to harness the wisdom of crowds</a>. </p>
<p>He asked a wide group of individuals, drawn from diverse backgrounds ranging from mathematicians to salvage experts to guess the submarine’s location. The group’s average guess was just 220 yards from the location where the Scorpion was eventually found.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NJWHiPSvzh8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>What makes it work?</h2>
<p>The wisdom of crowds might seem like an easy way to to get answers. Simply ask a lot of people want they think, and aggregate the answers. If the method could find the Scorpion submarine, then a missing plane should be just as easy? Well, no.</p>
<p>As yet, nobody has been able to find the Malaysia Airlines plane MH370 that went missing in March 2014. Almost two years on and the crash site – assuming it crashed – <a href="http://gpsworld.com/post-mortem-on-flight-mh370-crowdsource-search/">has not been found</a>. That’s despite a massive crowdsourcing effort to identify the location of the aircraft, which was detailed in <a href="https://theconversation.com/crowdsourcing-hunt-for-mh370-extends-to-millions-of-sq-miles-24494">an article on The Conversation</a>. But this was a case of searching for pieces of debris, not making educated guesses about location. And it leads us in to the key rules to follow if you want to use the wisdom of crowds to your advantage.</p>
<p>Four criteria are important in making this an effective tool.</p>
<ol>
<li><p><strong>Independence</strong>: The various guesses have to be independent of one another. That is, each person must guess without the knowledge of what other people have guessed.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Diversity</strong>: It is important to have a diverse set of guesses. In the guess the weight of the ox example, the people making the guesses ranged from farmers, butchers, livestock experts, housewives etc. That is, some people would be considered experts, while others would be considered as people with just a passing interest.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Decentralisation</strong>: The people making the guesses should be able to draw on their private, local knowledge. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Aggregation</strong>: There must be some way of aggregating the guesses into a single collective guess. In the guess the weight of the ox example, this was done by taking the average guess. This is a common method, but others may also be used.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Philip Ball, in <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong">this BBC article</a>, highlighted flaws in the theory when studies ignore the rules. Remove independence and people start to gravitate towards a consensus which veers away from the accurate answer. Reduce diversity and respondents rely on shared biases, like a room full of football fans predicting results while burdened with the knowledge of which teams are the favourites. In other words, it helps to deploy a bit of wisdom when choosing your crowd.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52774/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Kendall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you want the best tool for making educated guesses, then you’d better get the basics right.Graham Kendall, Professor of Operations Research and Vice-Provost, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/531942016-01-27T14:49:13Z2016-01-27T14:49:13ZThirty years on: what the Challenger disaster meant for our race into space<p>It was one of those moments you’ll never forget. Thirty years ago, the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-51L.html">Challenger space shuttle</a> exploded 73 seconds after launch. In an instant, a dream became a tragedy – and all because a small, simple seal had failed in the right solid rocket booster.</p>
<p>I remember the event well. I had a dark cubbyhole of an office overlooking a doorway that was a short-cut between our offices and the bar, where there was a television. At just after five o’clock, when I was thinking of packing up for the day, a colleague banged on my window. “The shuttle has exploded,” he said. “We’re going to see if there’s any news on TV”. </p>
<p>He had heard a news bulletin on his radio and wanted to find out what had happened. It’s all too easy to forget now that in those days you couldn’t just do a quick internet search or flick over to the news channel. The news was broadcast at specific times – and the BBC evening news was not on until 6pm. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/09CFfnkjGhM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I saw the first film footage of the disaster on the children’s news programme, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09CFfnkjGhM">Newsround</a> – appropriate since the mission was the first to have a teacher, Christa McAuliffe, on board, and Newsround had been following the build-up to the launch. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j4JOjcDFtBE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Like millions of others, I hoped that the appearance of several streaks from the shuttle signified that the seven-strong crew had escaped and would soon be rescued from the Atlantic Ocean. But, as is well-known, that was not the case – and the subsequent <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm">Rogers Commission</a> found that Sharon Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judith A. Resnik, Francis R. (Dick) Scobee, Ronald E. McNair, Mike J. Smith and Ellison S. Onizuka were likely to have either died from hypoxia during their return through the atmosphere, or on impact with the water surface. They were the first American astronauts to die in flight.</p>
<p>Since then, there have been advances in communication that have changed the world almost beyond recognition. We no longer have to wait for a news bulletin to receive information, or go to a specific location to watch footage of an event. We carry the news with us – mobile phones and social media give 24/7 access to world events, relaying images and commentary from one side of the globe to the other almost instantly. But has space travel changed that much? </p>
<h2>A global calamity</h2>
<p>That Challenger mission was the 25th to take off as part of the main Shuttle Transportation System (STS) program. Its launch came at a time when almost every launch was a mission “first”, whether it featured the first American woman, the first African-American, the first European, the first politician. Interest in STS-51-L was particularly high, because school students had followed selection of Christa McAuliffe from 11,000 applicants as part of the Teacher in Space Project. US president Ronald Reagan’s subsequent speech – paraphrasing John Gillespie Magee’s poem <a href="http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/poetry/john-magee.html">High Flight</a> – expressed the enormity of the calamity.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God’.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gEjXjfxoNXM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">President Ronald Reagan’s Challenger speech.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/the_shuttle/">shuttle program</a> was suspended for almost three years and, following its re-introduction, flew 88 successful missions in 14 years, most of which were to build and supply the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station (ISS)</a>. The <a href="http://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html">Columbia disaster of February 2003</a>, when the shuttle disintegrated on re-entry, killing all seven crew, again halted the program. One of the most damning findings of the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html">Columbia Accident Investigation Board</a> was the criticism of NASA’s decision-making, its risk assessment procedures and its organisational structures – concluding that NASA had failed to learn many of the lessons from Challenger.</p>
<p>The shuttle program ended in 2011, at first leaving supply of the ISS dependent on the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-the-soyuz-spacecraft-k-4">Russian Soyuz</a> and European <a href="http://www.arianespace.com">Ariane</a> rockets. Latterly, the private companies SpaceX and Orbital Sciences have also been contracted to transport cargo to and from the ISS. </p>
<h2>Where next?</h2>
<p>So what is the legacy of Challenger? Have we taken on board all the advanced safety requirements that followed the two shuttle disasters? Have the recommendations on organisational change been followed? Sadly, until there is another disaster, we probably won’t know. But with every successful launch that takes place, we can be more certain that spaceflight – at least unmanned spaceflight – is becoming more routine. </p>
<p>On the other hand, human spaceflight as a regular, accepted mode of travel is seemingly as far away as it was in 1986. The arrival of private companies on the scene has given more impetus to the idea that space travel for pleasure is achievable – but the crash of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/28/virgin-galactic-spaceshiptwo-crash-cause">Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two</a> in November 2014 again questioned the safety of such enterprises.</p>
<p>There is a <a href="http://www.globalspaceexploration.org/wordpress/">Global Space Exploration Programme</a> and NASA has reaffirmed its commitment to <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/journey-to-mars-next-steps-20151008_508.pdf">human exploration of Mars</a>. Meanwhile, ESA’s director-general, Johann-Dietrich Woerner, has declared that he wants to build a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150712-should-we-build-a-village-on-the-moon">village on the Moon</a>, probably using 3D printer technology, and that it should be a global village for all nations. But the truth is that many of the documents associated with these ventures are aspirational rather than realistic. </p>
<p>Future visions of human space exploration are either inspiring or laughable, depending where you sit on the optimism-pessimism scale. But they do give us something to strive for – and surely that is the best lesson to take from Challenger, and a fitting tribute to those who have lost their lives in space. Never give up, we’ll get there in the end. And the views will be breathtaking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53194/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Grady receives funding from the STFC and is a Trustee of Lunar Mission One.</span></em></p>We should honour the dead by striving to go further.Monica Grady, Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/355232015-01-22T10:41:44Z2015-01-22T10:41:44ZIf Earth falls, will interstellar space travel be our salvation?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69707/original/image-20150122-29832-17j22fj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is this how space travel will look some day? 'Sulu, punch it!' </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some climatologists argue it may be too late to reverse climate change, and it’s just a matter of time before the Earth becomes uninhabitable – if hundreds of years from now. The recent movie Interstellar raised the notion that we may one day have to escape a dying planet. As astrophysicists <em>and</em> avid science fiction fans, we naturally find the prospect of interstellar colonization intriguing and exciting. But is it practical, or even possible? Or is there a better solution?</p>
<p>Science fiction has painted a certain picture of space travel in popular culture. Drawing on stories of exploration from an age of tall ships, with a good helping of anachronisms and fantastical science, space exploration is often depicted in a romantic style: a crew of human travelers in high-tech ships wandering the Galaxy, making discoveries and reporting back home. Perhaps they even find habitable words, some teeming with life (typically humans with different-colored skin), and they trade, colonize, conquer or are conquered. Pretty much, they do as humans have always done since the dawn of their time on Earth.</p>
<p>How close do these ideas resemble what we may be able to achieve in the next few hundred years? The laws of physics and the principles of engineering will go a long way to helping us answer this question.</p>
<h2>Nature’s speed limit</h2>
<p>Nature has given us a speed limit. We call it the speed of light – about 186,000 miles per second – because we first noticed this phenomenon by studying the properties of light, but it is a hard upper limit on all relative speeds. So, if it takes light one year to get somewhere, we can’t possibly get there sooner than one year. </p>
<p>There is also the fact that the universe is big, really big. It takes light about eight minutes to get to our Sun, three years to get to the next-nearest star, 27,000 years to get to the center of our own Galaxy and more than 2,000,000 years to get to the next galaxy. The amazing thing about these distances is that, as far as the universe is concerned, this is all in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>The vast distances between solar systems combined with the speed-of-light limit puts severe constraints on the realities of space travel. Every space-based science fiction writer has to decide early on how to deal with this white elephant standing proudly in the room. Much of the more recent science fiction employs some form of “worm hole” or “warping space”: bending the four-dimensional structure of space and time to create shortcuts between two spatial locations in the universe. </p>
<p>Such possibilities have been analyzed with some <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204022">mathematical rigor</a>, and although the studies are tantalizing, they show that these methods cannot work unless we discover a form of matter that behaves very differently than anything we have ever seen.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69708/original/image-20150122-29842-jl8w4n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nature’s speed limit – light – means it’s unlikely we’ll be able to hop in a space ship and roam the galaxy. Until we develop ‘warp’ technology, that is.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Limits of propulsion</h2>
<p>Practical space propulsion systems available today and for the foreseeable future are based on Newton’s laws. In order to move forward, we have to throw something backwards or get hit by something moving forward. It turns out that even using the best propulsion systems available, there is not enough mass in the <em>entire Universe</em> to propel even a single human being up to half the speed of light. Even relative speeds of 0.01% of the speed of light start to get prohibitively expensive.</p>
<p>Things look slightly better with advanced propulsion concepts such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion">thermonuclear propulsion</a>, but optimistic near-future designs still top out at a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29#Interstellar_missions">few percent</a> of the speed of light.</p>
<h2>Finding a habitat for humanity</h2>
<p>Large distances combined with low speeds means that exploration is going to take time. Astrobiologists tell us that our galaxy has no shortage of habitable worlds: estimates range from at least <a href="http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=11625">1 every 10,000 stars</a> to as many as <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-009-0081-z">1 every 10 stars</a>. Even so, given the vast distances between stars and the low speeds achievable by realistic spacecraft, you should plan on voyages between worlds taking centuries to millennia.</p>
<p>Consider also what is meant by a “habitable world.” To an astrobiologist, this means a planet with water oceans orbiting a sun-like star. But habitability <em>by humans</em> requires more than just water, and the chances that ordinary humans could simply step out and populate such a world is slim. The atmosphere and living ecosystem of Earth is the result of its own unique evolutionary history, one that is unlikely to occur coincidentally on any other planet. </p>
<p>Despite its current problems, the Earth is still far closer to the ideal that our species grew up in than any world we are likely to discover out in the Galaxy. Climatologists warn us of the devastation that could result from increasing the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere by less than a tenth of a percent. Compared to that, another living world, with its own unique ecology, would most likely have an environment that is unbreathable and infertile at best, lethally toxic at worst. </p>
<p><em>Terraforming</em>, or modifying such a world to be habitable to humans, would require reconstructing its atmosphere and biosphere practically from scratch, eradicating any native ecosystem. This would be a task orders of magnitude more challenging than the relatively minor tweaks needed to restore the Earth’s environment to a pristine state.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69709/original/image-20150122-29885-11ts45z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are there habitable worlds in this cloud of stars? Or at least ones we could make livable via terraforming?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Artificial worlds</h2>
<p>Perhaps a more fundamental question, then, is <em>why</em> humans would wish to colonize other worlds. Given the centuries-long treks between stars, interstellar voyagers would necessarily have moved beyond the <em>need</em> for a planet to support their lifestyle: their vessels would be their habitat, autonomous and self-sufficient. They would not have to seek out new homes, they would <em>build</em> them.</p>
<p>From an economic standpoint, this would be vastly more resource-efficient than converting entire planets. NASA-sponsored researchers have developed <a href="http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt4.html">detailed plans</a> for spinning habitats that could accommodate tens or hundreds of thousands of inhabitants, from material that could be mined on site from an asteroid a few hundred meters across. This type of construction would avoid one of the major expenses of space colonization: the cost of lifting millions of tons of building materials into space. </p>
<p>Since our Solar system contains <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid#Size_distribution">millions of such asteroids</a>, they could support a population many times that of Earth, in air-conditioned comfort, with a fraction of the effort and none of the exotic technologies envisioned to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Proposed_methods_and_strategies">terraform Mars</a>, for example.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69719/original/image-20150122-27517-10fm4v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clean and green: an interior rendering of the Torus, an artificial world imagined by scientists at NASA and Stanford.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69720/original/image-20150122-27526-1yh3let.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=589&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The torus, first conceived in 1975, consists of a doughnut-shaped ring, rotates once per minute to provide artificial gravity and could support 10,000 people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>So why travel the stars?</h2>
<p>Ultimately, travel to other stars and colonization of other planets will be driven not by need, but by desire: the intellectual impulse to explore strange new worlds, and perhaps an aesthetic preference for “natural” (albeit engineered) environments.</p>
<p>Where do we go now? The commercialization of space flight promises to bring the cost of space travel down considerably, from tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram to just hundreds of dollars per kilogram, through economies of scale and reusable rockets. This means that space will be more accessible to more and more people.</p>
<p>Already the lure of asteroid resources has fueled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining#Proposed_mining_projects">commercial competition</a>. A single kilometer-sized metallic asteroid could supply <em>hundreds</em> of times the total known worldwide reserves of nickel, gold and other valuable metals. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power">Space-based solar power</a> could provide limitless renewable energy – once the cost of construction in space becomes manageable.</p>
<p>The hyper-exponential growth that we have seen in other areas like automobiles and computers can now take place for space technology. The physical realities described above paint a very clear picture of the near future: orbital habitats perfectly designed for our lifestyle using resources obtained from our Sun, Earth, and the asteroids. </p>
<p>So if Earth ever become uninhabitable, we won’t need to traverse the stars to find a new home. Orbital habitats will require a significant expansion of space industry, but this will happen soon enough, especially if we are forced to leave the planet for a little while so it can recover from our mistreatment.</p>
<p>Of course, if we discover warp drive, the picture will be entirely different.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35523/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fredrick Jenet is the creator/director of both the Center for Advanced Radio Astronomy at UT Brownsville and STARGATE, a public/private partnership with SpaceX. He works for UT Brownsville. He receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Teviet Creighton is a professor in the Center for Advanced Radio Astronomy at UT Brownsville and STARGATE, a public/private partnership with SpaceX. He works for UT Brownsville. He receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD).</span></em></p>Some climatologists argue it may be too late to reverse climate change, and it’s just a matter of time before the Earth becomes uninhabitable – if hundreds of years from now. The recent movie Interstellar…Fredrick Jenet, Associate professor, University of Texas at BrownsvilleTeviet Creighton, Associate professor, University of Texas at BrownsvilleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/337112014-11-03T15:39:56Z2014-11-03T15:39:56ZPrivate spaceflight will survive Virgin tragedy because we choose to dream big<p>This week, I can predict with a high degree of accuracy that more than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year">50,000 car accidents</a> will occur in the US, over 500 of which will involve fatalities. Last week was no different. Is social media alive with discussions on the future of the automotive industry due to these incidents? Have the “Big Three” seen major losses in stock prices? Are people now afraid to get into their cars because of this? The answer is a resounding no.</p>
<p>So, why is it when something happens in the aerospace industry, private or public, we get all up in arms about it? Yes, space travel is a risky business and extremely difficult. But, in the entire history of human space travel, there have only been 18 in-flight fatalities, as compared to the more than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year">3 million car related deaths</a> since the creation of the automobile. </p>
<p>A few failures are not going to stop private space flight, just as a few crashes are not going to stop the automobile industry. There may be some bumps in the road along the way, but we should be ashamed if mishaps cause us to run away from a challenge. Where would we be if the Wright brothers decided not to pursue aviation because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Lilienthal">Otto Lilienthal</a>, a pioneer of aviation, was killed in a glider accident? Failure is a necessary part of great success. In our efforts to travel to the moon during the golden age of space travel, there were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon">55 mission failures and only 41 successes</a>. One of the most famous innovators of all times, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanfurr/2011/06/09/how-failure-taught-edison-to-repeatedly-innovate/">Thomas Edison, knew that failure was intimately tied to success</a>. When developing the electric light bulb, he reportedly failed over 10,000 times before getting it right.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63460/original/fymmwzq3-1414972124.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Virgin Galactic’s Branson said he would learn why SpaceShipTwo crashed so they could move forward and continue to “push the boundaries of human endeavor.”</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although I would not be so bold as to put words in other people’s mouths, I think its safe to say that today’s visionary leaders of private spaceflight such as Elon Musk and Richard Branson fully understand the risks involved and will not be deterred by failures. Nor should any of us. Of course, it would be a huge mistake not to understand the causes of these failures and learn how to prevent them in the future. </p>
<p>Like it or not, modern life depends on spaceflight. We rely heavily on global communication, weather prediction, and GPS navigation, each of which is enabled by assets in space. The exploration of space opens our minds to new ways of thinking and solving problems. NASA has counted more than <a href="http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinfaq.htm">1,800 spinoff technologies</a> that have enhanced many aspects of our daily lives including health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, energy, the environment, information technology, and industrial productivity. There is clearly a need in our society for a strong space program. Private spaceflight companies are capitalizing on this need and taking us to the next stage in the evolution of space exploration. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/63462/original/s92ndj7n-1414972778.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=637&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is a visionary who fully understands the risks involved in pursuing spaceflight and will not be deterred by incidents like the Virgin crash.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/7369205774">NASA/Flickr via CC BY-NC</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was only three and a half years ago that NASA retired the space shuttle program and opened the doors for private industry. This is allowing for many different companies to innovate with different technologies under the pressures of commercial viability and competition. This will ultimately lower the costs of space access for everyone, but, since we are just getting started, we have to be patient. </p>
<p>Ultimately, we have two choices. We can play it safe, stifle creativity by being totally risk averse, and resign ourselves to being stuck on Earth for the rest of eternity. Or, we allow ourselves to dream big, take on huge challenges and claim a space for ourselves among the stars. I have no doubt that we will decide to pursue the second choice. But, be ready for more crashes, explosions and, unfortunately, fatalities. These failures signify that we are once again pursuing great things, things that are going to define who we are as a human race, and take us to a future where we explore and shape the galaxy and the universe beyond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33711/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fredrick Jenet is the creator/director of both the Center for Advanced Radio Astronomy at UT Brownsville and STARGATE, a public/private partnership with SpaceX. He works for UT Brownsville. He receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Department of Defense (DoD). </span></em></p>This week, I can predict with a high degree of accuracy that more than 50,000 car accidents will occur in the US, over 500 of which will involve fatalities. Last week was no different. Is social media…Fredrick Jenet, Associate professor, University of Texas at BrownsvilleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318032014-09-18T15:55:35Z2014-09-18T15:55:35ZIf space race is to return, we must ensure conflicts on Earth do not continue in space<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59460/original/3rvb8xwj-1411054494.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">SpaceX's Dragon capsule docked with the ISS in 2012, the first commercial flight to do so.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SpaceX</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is three years since the final flight of the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html">US space shuttle programme</a>, during which time NASA has had to rely on the Russians, its allies, in space at least, to ferry astronauts and supplies between the International Space Station (<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/">ISS</a>) and Earth. </p>
<p>NASA has been the major partner and driving force behind the ISS since it was first proposed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. When it became apparent that the ageing space shuttle fleet, designed and built in the 1970s, could not be kept in service until a replacement was ready, the US had to rely on the Russian fleet of <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/">Soyuz launchers</a>.</p>
<p>Funding cutbacks and technical issues in the US delayed the continuation of its human spaceflight programme that began over 50 years ago. The Space Age, following from the launch of <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/">Sputnik</a> in 1957, rapidly transformed into the space race between the US and the Soviet Union, paralleling the Cold War that was simultaneously being waged.</p>
<p>Fortunately, and mainly through the growth of the European Space Agency (ESA), space missions have brought the US and Russia much closer together. That space exploration has remained a mostly collaborative venture despite often disintegrating relationships between nations is one of the most heartening and inspirational aspects of space exploration today. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, idealism has to take a back seat to the reality of budgets and votes. Escalation of the crisis in Ukraine has to some extent moved NASA’s lack of in-house human spaceflight capability up the US political agenda. Now, NASA’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/16/nasa-boeing-spacex-contracts-manned-flights">announcement</a> that it has selected two of three competing companies to carry forward development of a seven-seat re-usable flight capsule has again highlighted the shortcomings of NASA’s human spaceflight programme. </p>
<p>The new vehicle is not scheduled to enter service until 2017 at the earliest, leaving NASA reliant on Russian transport for at least three more years. At a cost of around US$70m per astronaut seat, this is an aggravation that the US government could do without.</p>
<p>The selection of the company <a href="http://www.spacex.com/">SpaceX</a>, even though it was awarded less funding than the second company to be chosen, aerospace giant Boeing, is a vote of confidence in this upstart, independent company and its family of <a href="http://www.spacex.com/dragon">Dragon spaceship capsules</a>. SpaceX was established in 2002, with the bold aim to “revolutionise space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets”. </p>
<p>SpaceX is certainly achieving the first part of its mission: in 2012, its <a href="http://www.spacex.com/falcon9">Falcon 9 rocket </a> carried a Dragon capsule in to space to dock with the ISS – the first private company ever to do so. Since then, two additional flights have been made. The current tranche of NASA funding will take SpaceX even closer to achieving its ultimate goal, as further development of Dragon to carry astronauts is an important step on the path toward human exploration of the solar system. </p>
<p>A second private company, <a>Sierra Nevada Corporation</a>, was also in the running but was dropped by NASA due to budgetary constraints. The company has always maintained that it is not reliant on NASA funding to continue its human spaceflight ambitions, and will pursue development of its <a href="http://www.sncspace.com/ss_space_exploration.php">Dream Chaser</a> spacecraft.</p>
<p>The significance of NASA’s announcement is not just a renewed commitment to human spaceflight. It is also recognition that the space race is no longer solely a governmental concern. Private companies are equally capable of launching spacecraft into low Earth orbit. It is clear that in the very near future, human spaceflight will also become a commercial enterprise. </p>
<p>This leads to many more questions. Once several companies start to fly into space, who regulates them? Where does government influence stop and private endeavour take over? As NASA starts the next stage of its human spaceflight programme, wider issues than the <a href="http://rt.com/news/188324-space-moon-tourism-soyuz/">price of an astronaut’s ticket</a> have to be considered. Further human exploration of space must be preceded by the discussion and creation of appropriate governance, as we must ensure that the all-too-frequent conflicts on Earth are not carried upwards to become conflicts in space.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31803/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica Grady receives funding from the STFC and the UK Space Agency, and has consulted for ESA and NASA</span></em></p>It is three years since the final flight of the US space shuttle programme, during which time NASA has had to rely on the Russians, its allies, in space at least, to ferry astronauts and supplies between…Monica Grady, Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/224422014-02-06T06:40:23Z2014-02-06T06:40:23ZThe sub-prime crisis was predictable, and we’re making the same mistakes again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40476/original/hq3sndkm-1391420191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C9%2C3245%2C2170&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lessons to learn for housing policy</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Carlson/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The US has wasted its “sub-prime” mortgage crisis. The story of how and why this has happened is of interest not only for its own sake, but for the broader themes it reveals. </p>
<p>I am a theoretically trained economist who started investigating US housing finance markets more than 20 years ago. Nobel laureate <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2013/shiller-facts.html">Robert Shiller</a> and I separately made proposals to reduce systemic risk in the market. Yet our reform efforts went nowhere during the good times. We could not grab scarce public, press, or political attention with the claim that an apparently well-functioning system was profoundly flawed. </p>
<p>Naïvely as it turned out, we each believed that the housing finance crash might finally cause more fundamental questions to be asked. After all, our ideas on risk sharing were directly relevant and would have lessened the impact of the crash. We each made specific proposals to speed recovery from the crash. For a while it seemed as if there would be real progress. </p>
<p>Our hope was short-lived. Nothing positive has come out of the “sub-prime” crisis. The changes that have been made treat the name and ignore the illness. The US housing finance system is in worse shape than ever. The policy reform process is broken, and there is no quick fix in sight. </p>
<p>The breakdown of the reform process is as simple to understand as it is tragic. Public servants can all too easily prevent experts from judging their performance. This leaves an inexpert press and a readily distracted public as the only sources of reformist pressure. The press commentates on policy responses based on ideological mandates from an ideological readership. The public tweets approval. Unexamined, institutions and opinions continue to ossify. Why change what may or may not be broken? </p>
<p>To understand how deep and broad the problems are, consider an apparently more effective reform effort in the aftermath of the Challenger crash. In that case, unlike in the case of housing finance, the <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm">Rogers Commission</a> was given a broad mandate and in Richard Feynman it included one particularly profound and independent expert. He identified an “O-ring” seal as the immediate cause of the crash. The press conveyed these expert findings to the public, which pressured policymakers into reforming NASA. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40657/original/btgtcdfd-1391524735.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Richard Feynman makes a point at the Challenger hearing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dennis Cook/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even in the case of Challenger, resistance to expert input reared its head. In fact Chairman Rogers sought to exclude <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCLgRyKvfp0">Feynman’s criticisms of NASA</a>, whereupon Feynman refused to sign the report. In his personal observations, Feynman expressed his attitude to NASA management. He noted that Challenger was mission 25, yet that management claimed to believe that the odds of a crash were 1 in 100,000. He <a href="http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt">famously stated</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources. For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Spin cycle</h2>
<p>That NASA is not alone in putting PR ahead of reality is witnessed by the behaviour of the <a href="http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-189">Federal Housing Administration (FHA)</a> in the post-crash period. </p>
<p>This is an institution that issues risky mortgages with just 3.5% down payment. Each year it is required to report back to Congress on its performance, and make projections for the year ahead. Projection errors are assessed in the ensuing report.</p>
<p>From 2005-2009, actual performance fell short of projections by amounts ranging from US$681m to US$5.1 billion: the news was apparently all bad. </p>
<p>From 2010-2013, actual performance fell short of projections by amounts ranging from US$2.7 billion to US$22.8 billion. Apparently the news was worse. </p>
<p>After years of denial, in late 2013 FHA ran out of funds and went to treasury <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/usa-housing-bailout-idUSW1N0G702P20130927">for its first bail-out</a>.</p>
<p>The problems with the review were evident to concerned experts. A 2010 paper “<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w15802">Reassessing FHA Risk</a>” identified several biases in risk assessment all giving rise to under-estimation of losses. I <a href="http://128.122.11.92/caplin/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/FHA-Congressional-Testimony-20101.pdf">personally testified</a> to Congress on the most egregious error:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The problems in the actuarial review first came to our attention when Joseph Tracy, Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, noticed that FHA prepayment behaviour changed radically in 2009. Many mortgages that were significantly under water, which traditionally do not prepay, suddenly started to prepay. It is as if a group of particularly sick patients at a hospital suddenly appeared cured.</p>
<p>The cause of this apparent miracle cure turns out to be poor record keeping when one FHA mortgage is “streamline-refinanced” into another. To use the hospital analogy, it is as if very sick patients had been moved to a new room for treatment, yet were recorded as having been cured and discharged from the hospital… With this form of record-keeping, a hospital could boost its apparent success rate by moving patients frequently between rooms.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joe Tracy requested linkage data to do the calculations correctly, but his request was met with silence.</p>
<h2>Closed shop</h2>
<p>The difficulties are far deeper than this. Policymakers control not only the data that they provide but also the reform process. Consider <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v6exsumm.htm">NASA’s announcement of its overhaul</a> in the wake of the Challenger crash: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sweeping personnel and organisational changes begun immediately after the accident are now complete… Special attention is being given to the critical issues of management isolation and the tendency toward technical complacency, which, combined with schedule pressure, led to an erosion in flight safety.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fast forward less than 15 years to January 16, 2003, and mission 113. Space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry over Texas. </p>
<p>The subsequent investigation <a href="http://www.space.com/19475-space-shuttle-columbia-disaster-investigation-report.html">identified the same flaws in NASA’s culture</a> that Feynman had earlier pinpointed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This culture… acted over time to resist externally imposed change. By the eve of the Columbia accident, institutional practices that were in effect at the time of the Challenger accident—such as inadequate concern over deviations from expected performance, a silent safety program, and schedule pressure—had returned to NASA.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/40634/original/w5p95t39-1391510523.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A familiar cycle…</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Uttam Grandh/Andrew Caplin</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem is deep and pervasive. Many policymakers have much to fear from exposing their activities to experts who might attract public attention to their failings. Without experts, their performance simply cannot be assessed. This liberates spinners, which is a positive for most in the press, whose technical training leaves them unable to sort through the competing claims of knowledgeable experts and less knowledgeable policymakers and pundits. Even when reform is called for, it is not possible to effectively monitor implementation when experts are kept at arms’ length. </p>
<p>Let me return briefly to the case of US housing finance policy. One must predict that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA will survive unscathed. Without fundamental re-thinking, risks will be allowed to multiply unseen. The seeds are even now being sown for the housing crash of 2025-35 and the bailout of 2027-37 (I am no Nostradamus, and nor was he). </p>
<p>How many other disasters are brewing in distinct policy areas due to this fundamental breakdown of the reform process?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Caplin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The US has wasted its “sub-prime” mortgage crisis. The story of how and why this has happened is of interest not only for its own sake, but for the broader themes it reveals. I am a theoretically trained…Andrew Caplin, Professor of Economics, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/97882012-10-04T20:29:27Z2012-10-04T20:29:27ZThe best of human spaceflight won’t happen in our lifetimes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15865/original/5wxn3xn3-1348632699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C113%2C1278%2C628&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If you're expecting the next few decades to yield many crewed space missions, you shouldn't hold your breath.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">pasukaru76</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recent passing of <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/armstrong-na.html">Neil Armstrong</a> – the first human to step foot on the moon – combined with recent Russian <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48986976/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/russia-must-shoot-moon-base-deputy-pm/">plans to build a base on the moon</a>, provides a good opportunity to pause and consider the future of human spaceflight.</p>
<p>I am old enough, like many of my “baby boomer” counterparts, to remember where I was when that fateful “small step for <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/neil_armstrong_s_moon_landing_quote_did_he_say_one_small_step_for_a_man_.html">[a]</a> man/giant step for mankind” was taken. </p>
<p>I watched the scratchy image on a TV set in a common room at La Trobe University and recall thinking this really was a crowning moment for human ingenuity.</p>
<p>I also recall thinking: “But why?”</p>
<h2>Apollo’s legacy</h2>
<p>Like the rest of the world, I soon came to take manned (and it <em>was</em> decidedly male-dominated) spaceflight, to the moon at least, as a given – as just another milestone in human mastery of Earth’s environment. But looking back, what did the <a href="http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html">Apollo program</a> actually achieve? What is its enduring legacy?</p>
<p>There are three points worth considering:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The Apollo program persuaded the superpowers (the US and the USSR at the time), and others with aspirations to join the exclusive club of space-faring nations, that space ventures were expensive and long-haul activities.</p></li>
<li><p>The program was portrayed as a significant victory for the ideology of democracy and the spirit of free enterprise. The moon landings scored important points for the US in its Cold War with the USSR. They also underscored the technical prowess of the US.</p></li>
<li><p>Most importantly, with the full impacts and implications yet to be realised, the Apollo program allowed humans to look back to Earth from a vantage point that challenged all of humanity to think of our planet as a complex but single entity.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Our blue planet, with the moon in the foreground and the darkness and vastness of space behind, really is alone. There is no lifeboat.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/15821/original/skvqxtfn-1348534291.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beyond Apollo</h2>
<p>Between 1969 and 1972 there were six Apollo missions to the moon and no human has returned to the moon since. Quickly the exceptional became routine and politicians and the broader public began to question the point of the exercise.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War">Vietnam War</a> was in full swing and the US was facing challenges closer to home as well – not least growing domestic opposition to the war and a civil rights movement that was increasingly confident in demanding a voice for Afro-Americans.</p>
<p>The Apollo program had been hailed as an achievement of science and engineering, the larger political and strategic purposes had been met and the national monument – the <a href="http://airandspace.si.edu/">National Air and Space Museum</a> – was built on the Mall in Washington next to the Capitol – a powerful and enduring symbol of American dominance of space.</p>
<h2>A stake in the future</h2>
<p>After Apollo came the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station (ISS)</a> and its primary support vehicle, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/space-shuttle">Space Shuttle</a>.</p>
<p>Future historians may look back on these programs as twin white elephants. For huge outlays, little has been gained in the way of new science or technology and much of what has been achieved one suspects could have been done by unmanned and robotic missions at a fraction of the expense.</p>
<p>The conclusion is hard to avoid that the ISS, the rhetoric around the program notwithstanding, is really about a small number of countries maintaining a presence in space as a stake against the day those interests, some of which have become increasingly vital from a national security perspective – especially for the USA – may need to be defended.</p>
<p>The profoundly “dual use” nature of space – military and civilian – compels the spacefaring nations to “hide” their classified military ambitions and developments in open view by offering the global public an acceptable and legitimate reason for particular types of experiments and activities.</p>
<p>A good example of this idea concerns the management and mitigation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/space-junk">space debris</a> which has proliferated in the <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMU4QS1VED_index_0.html">Low Earth Orbits (LEO)</a> typically between 300 and 1,000km above Earth.</p>
<p>Satellites in LEO, including the ISS, are under constant risk of colliding with space debris, with almost certain catastrophic consequences should such an event occur.</p>
<p>The civil community has recognised the problem and is beginning an international conversation to determine what might be done. The in-principle difficulty is that what one nation sees as a space garbage truck may very well be seen by another as a space weapon.</p>
<p>Expressed differently, legal norms and policies that build confidence and some minimum level of trust among nations will be just as important, if not more so, than the technologies developed to solve the problem.</p>
<p>While there are <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition33/index.html">six souls hurtling around the Earth</a> every 90 minutes or so on board the ISS, the interests of all spacefaring nations, and humanity more generally, are served by doing what we can to ensure their safe passage and safe return to Earth. The ISS’s mere presence in space serves as a brake on unilateral bad behaviour.</p>
<h2>Rhethoric or reality?</h2>
<p>In recent times, <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-30/asia/world_asia_china-space-program_1_space-exploration-jiao-weixin-space-program?_s=PM:ASIA">China</a> and <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Russias+Space+Plans+Include+Spacecraft+to+Moon+Jupiter+Mars+Venus+by+2030/article24250.htm">Russia</a> have both announced ambitious plans to increase their commitment to human spaceflight. The preferred phrase is “space exploration” – a phrase that’s misleading, disingenuous and worthy of some discussion.</p>
<p>The word “exploration” links, by association, cosmonauts, astronauts and taikonauts with the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_da_Gama">Vasco de Gama</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_cook">James Cook La Perouse</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_and_Clark_Expedition">Lewis and Clark</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Livingstone">Dr Livingstone</a>. Beyond being involved in inherently dangerous activities there are no similarities.</p>
<p>Those who explored Earth had considerable latitude in their travels and a great deal of discretion because they were out of touch and out of reach more or less as soon as they were out of sight. In marked contrast, all human activity in space is pre-planned, carefully scripted and monitored with great care in as near real-time as possible. </p>
<p>Little discretion rests with the on-scene commander and we are all familiar with the famous line from the Apollo 13 mission: “Houston, we have a problem”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hE6NoPjWCLo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In space, as soon as something goes wrong, it’s the army of engineers and technicians back on Earth who are called on to figure out what to do. In system terms, Earth exploration is a loosely coupled and relatively uncomplicated activity. In space it is tightly coupled and highly complex.</p>
<h2>Breaking free</h2>
<p>Getting into space is difficult, expensive and dangerous. The fundamental limitation on human activity in space, especially any program involving placing humans in space, is the difficulty of breaking free of the Earth’s gravitational field.</p>
<p>Until the costs of gaining access to space are reduced by several <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude">orders of magnitude</a>, no matter what method is used, the ambitions of nations and others who dream of colonies on the moon (and later Mars), are likely to remain unfulfilled.</p>
<p>In the case of human spaceflight, there is also a presumption that those who travel into space should be able to return to Earth. Return, using current technologies, is just as difficult and dangerous as launch as the crew module plunges through the upper atmosphere as a fiery ball until it slows sufficiently for parachutes to be deployed allowing for a safe landing.</p>
<h2>Destination: Mars?</h2>
<p>If humans venture to Mars, which is a stated <a href="https://theconversation.com/space-race-reloaded-will-russia-send-cosmonauts-to-the-moon-5910">ambition of Russia</a>, there is every possibility those who make the trip <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-brother-on-mars-reality-tv-thats-out-of-this-world-7847">may never return to Earth</a>.</p>
<p>Leaving aside the travel hazards, Mars is a dangerous place for humans, not least because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays">cosmic rays</a> – which can kill – bombard the Martian surface. Any humans living on Mars will have to quickly move underground and live like moles or construct very solid structures on the surface.</p>
<p>Both options will require a lot of earth to me moved and structures to be built. Quite how this will be done and paid for nobody can say. I suspect nations will find more pressing demands on their treasuries closer to home: energy, water and food security, health and educational services, transport infrastructure, as well as defence forces come to mind.</p>
<p>Some people dream about an approaching golden age of human activity in space. For my money the laws of physics, the facts of life as we know it and the logic of money will work together to keep that golden age well beyond the life horizons of any person walking on Earth today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9788/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brett Biddington is Chair of the Space Industry Association of Australia. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not reflect those of the Association. </span></em></p>The recent passing of Neil Armstrong – the first human to step foot on the moon – combined with recent Russian plans to build a base on the moon, provides a good opportunity to pause and consider the future…Brett Biddington, Adjunct Professor, School of Computer and Security Science, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/59102012-04-30T03:01:35Z2012-04-30T03:01:35ZSpace Race reloaded: will Russia send cosmonauts to the moon?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/9849/original/hjxsdh5d-1335157212.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Russia is no stranger to ambitious space exploration – and has produced several notable firsts.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maxim Shipenkov/ EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, the Soviet Union was a major player in the exploration of space, famously locking horns with the US in the “<a href="http://www.history.com/topics/space-race">Space Race</a>” – a competition for orbital supremacy and solar system exploration throughout the mid to late 20th century.</p>
<p>Now, Russia appears to have plans to recover its past glory. According to a <a href="http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120313/172134725.html">leaked document</a> from the national space agency Roscosmos to the country’s government, Russia is planning to develop a network of research facilities on Mars, a manned mission to the moon and probes to Venus and Jupiter, all by the year 2030. The plan is to increase the country’s share of the global space market, from 0.5% last year to 10% by 2030.</p>
<p>Achieving all of these aims in less than two decades would seem to be an ambitious undertaking, but it’s worth remembering Russia is no stranger to ambitious space projects.</p>
<p>Sure, your first thoughts of space exploration are probably of NASA missions but let’s not forget the USSR had several significant victories throughout the Space Race.</p>
<h2>Russian firsts</h2>
<p>The USSR launched the very first satellite – <a href="http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal100/sputnik.html">Sputnik</a> – in 1957, and launched the first person into space – Yuri Gargarin aboard <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1">Vostok 1</a> – in 1961. </p>
<p>During the 1970s the Soviet Union succeeded brilliantly with robotic missions to the moon, managing to return samples to Earth. And in 1975, the Soviet satellite <a href="http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Venera_09">Venera 9</a> returned the first image of the surface of Venus.</p>
<p>But all of these successes were arguably trumped by NASA with its far-bolder, more scientifically successful manned missions – especially the <a href="http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html">Apollo program</a>.</p>
<p>It must be galling for Russians that their nation’s past successes are obscured behind more recent achievements by the USA.</p>
<p>But it’s not all bad news for the Russians. Were it not for cosmonauts, there would be no crew access to the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station</a> – a US-dominated endeavour. And no other nation has the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle">heavy-lift rockets</a> required to return to the moon. </p>
<h2>Space on standby</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/global-financial-crisis">global financial crisis</a> crippled the NASA exploration program, with <a href="http://optics.org/news/3/2/23">long-planned missions to Mars</a> cancelled.</p>
<p>Gone is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars">planned 2018 mission</a> that could have told us whether the methane in the Martian atmosphere is an indicator of life beyond Earth.</p>
<p>Gone is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample_return_mission">2022 mission</a> that would have returned samples from the surface of Mars – long the goal of geologists such as myself.</p>
<p>As well as frustrating the scientific community, these cancellations have angered the <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html">European Space Agency</a> (ESA) with which these missions were jointly planned. </p>
<p>But space exploration enthusiasts shouldn’t despair. For a start, the above missions might still go ahead, albeit without US involvement.</p>
<p>Also, pro-space lobbyists in the US are influential. The <a href="http://www.planetary.org/home/">Planetary Society</a> can mobilise thousands of people worldwide. More significantly, the US aerospace industry can point to economic benefits, employment and national prestige – worthy aims, with a side-effect of helping the re-election chances of politicians whose electorates comprise this and other related industries.</p>
<p>It <a href="http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/">has been said</a> that every dollar invested in space exploration returns US$8 of economic benefit. It is impossible for mere mortals to verify such calculations, but one hopes they are correct.</p>
<h2>Back to the moon?</h2>
<p>One of the most interesting aspects of Russia’s leaked plans is the apparent desire to head to the moon. Why, after so many years, would the Russians want to return to the moon?</p>
<p>Well, for a start, there is a strong scientific case.</p>
<p>The moon provides us with a real insight into the history of our solar system. The cratering history of the moon is calibrated primarily by dates determined on samples returned by the Apollo astronauts.</p>
<p>From there, crater counts on the rocky planets allow estimations of the age of planetary landscapes. Determining planetary history relies on those estimates. </p>
<p>But this whole edifice is shaky because there are few dated samples and it is not clear whether these samples are representative of the moon as a whole. </p>
<p>In other words, the clock is dodgy. More samples could help immeasurably.</p>
<p>There are other good reasons for a return to the moon:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>it would be great to have radio and optical telescopes on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon">dark side of the moon</a>, away from earthly interference (such as city lights) and from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_contamination">interference of our atmosphere</a> (known as “telluric contamination”).</p></li>
<li><p>we should prepare for travel to Mars by returning to the moon. We could even use the moon as a way-station to Mars.</p></li>
<li><p>we could mine the moon for <a href="http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/guardian-discovers-3he.html">Helium-3</a>, which could <a href="http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html">theoretically be used</a> for fusion power.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Another intriguing possibility is that there might be rocks on the surface of the moon, ejected from Earth by asteroid impacts more than four billion years ago.</p>
<p>No such rocks have survived on Earth, as far as we know, because plate tectonics and mountain building have reworked and destroyed such ancient rocks. As a result we know little about the first half-billion years of our planet’s history. We might find that remaining history on the moon.</p>
<p>Will the plans outlined in the leaked Roscosmos document come to fruition? Who knows – but the benefits of space exploration, whichever country leads it, are huge: inspiration, discovery and knowledge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/5910/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm Walter has received funding from NASA. He is Director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology which is a formal Associate of NASA's Astrobiology Institute.</span></em></p>For decades, the Soviet Union was a major player in the exploration of space, famously locking horns with the US in the “Space Race” – a competition for orbital supremacy and solar system exploration throughout…Malcolm Walter, Professor of Astrobiology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26242011-08-02T05:19:46Z2011-08-02T05:19:46ZNASA astronaut Greg Chamitoff: ‘Disneyland rides are much worse than the Shuttle launch’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2609/original/walterchamitoff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Walter talks space, science and NASA's future with Dr Greg Chamitoff.</span> </figcaption></figure><p> <span><em><a href="http://soundcloud.com/user5094389/in-conversation-malcolm-walter">Download the full interview with Dr Chamitoff as a podcast by clicking here.</a></em></span></p>
<p>For the latest in our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/in-conversation">In Conversation</a> series, <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/malcolm-walter-216">Malcolm Walter</a>, Professor of Astrobiology at the University of New South Wales interviewed NASA astronaut and adjunct professor at the University of Sydney, <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/chamitoff.html">Dr Greg Chamitoff</a>.</p>
<p>In May, Dr Chamitoff was a Mission Specialist on the penultimate mission in the Space Shuttle program – the <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-shuttle-launch-delayed-but-still-worth-the-endeavour-1056">final flight of Endeavour</a>. </p>
<p>To date, he has spent nearly 200 days in space.</p>
<p>He is in Australia as a guest of the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Engineering and Information Technologies.</p>
<p>This candid, in-depth interview took place yesterday in the Mechanical Engineering building at the University of Sydney, and touches on several themes, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>Becoming an astronaut</li>
<li>The end of NASA’s Shuttle Program, and resultant loss of jobs</li>
<li>Future manned and unmanned missions</li>
<li>The need for a commercial space sector</li>
<li>The scientific potential of the International Space Station</li>
<li>International collaboration in future space endeavours</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p><strong>Malcolm Walter:</strong> How is it that you became an astronaut in the first place – is it something you always dreamed about doing?</p>
<p><strong>Greg Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, it is. My kids right now are six and I now have a concept of what’s in the mind of a six-year-old. I was six years old when I decided I wanted to do this, and that was at the time of Apollo 11.</p>
<p>My family took a summer vacation down to Florida, and it just so happened that the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Yd-GxJ_QM&feature=related">Apollo 11 launch</a> happened while we were there, so I got to see that up-close.</p>
<p>I grew up with a dad who was a space fanatic – we watched Star Trek together all the time and it was a funny thing because William Shatner – Captain Kirk – is from Montreal, as I am, and was from the same district, according to William Shatner, who I finally got to speak to at one point.</p>
<p>So my dad knew of him, which was really strange because as I kid I was like “well, there’s this Star Trek thing and I know it’s a story but, hang on a second, my dad knows that guy!”. So there was something real about it.</p>
<p>Dad was very fascinated by the whole space program. I remember seeing mission control, and thinking “how do people get those jobs, they would have to be the coolest jobs in the world”.</p>
<p>So I grew up with my father’s enthusiasm for the space program and then I saw the launch of Apollo 11 and that was it: I had to do that.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> That would have been amazing to see. I saw the Apollo 11 launch on television – I stayed up all night to watch it, but I was a bit older than you …</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> The next leap from there was the first launch of the Shuttle [in 1981]. I was in college – a freshman, first year – and I saw the launch and thought to myself: </p>
<p>“I’m at the beginning of college – now’s the time to figure out what to do, if I’m really serious about this”, and so I called NASA and asked them: “What do I have to do to do that?”</p>
<p>It’s amazing because many years later the same person I spoke to that day was on the interview board for astronaut selection.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> You say you called NASA but NASA’s a vast organisation. You don’t just pick up the phone and call NASA …</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Nowadays it would take you two seconds on the internet to work out who to call but back then you had to do a little bit of hunting to figure out who to speak to.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> It worked, obviously. </p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> One more thing that was really neat and unexpected was at university graduation. The graduation speaker turned out to be <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/gibson.html">Hoot Gibson</a>, a Shuttle pilot, and I didn’t know that was coming.</p>
<p>I got to walk up to the front to receive some award and, you know how they have the dignitaries sitting there? </p>
<p>I walked from the podium in the wrong direction, toward those folks to shake Gibson’s hand and I got to remind him of that while being interviewed many years later.</p>
<p>That was one of those inspirational points that got me on track.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But then you went to graduate school at <a href="http://web.mit.edu/">MIT</a>, didn’t you?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, so I was an undergraduate at California Polytechnic, a state school, and then I did a year at <a href="http://www.caltech.edu/">CalTech</a> for a masters and then I went to MIT for graduate work after that.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> … and that was Astronautics and Aeronautics?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Aeronautics and Astronautics, and that department had a history of people going from there to the astronaut program.</p>
<p>I was just excited about space and in those days there were only a few places where you could study spacecraft systems, and just the list of courses alone was inspiring: spacecraft altitude dynamics and control … I saw that course and thought: “I’ve got to go to a place that teaches that”. </p>
<p>There were a lot of great classes but now, of course, those courses are available in many more places.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/27179785" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">“When you’re up at eight Gs and they back it down to three, it’s like: "Thank God”.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> And you’ve continued that sort of work: robotics, automation of various systems – you’ve used that expertise since then.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah. I came to Sydney for a couple years – 1993 to 1995 – and I taught flight mechanics and flight control. </p>
<p>After that, I went to Houston and worked in mission control for three years, on the mission control system for the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station</a> (ISS).</p>
<p>There were students I worked with on thesis projects, just as I did at Sydney Uni, but as a technical adviser rather than an academic advisor, and that was great. I was able to keep my head in the academic work.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So you were at Sydney University full-time were you, for two years?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, that’s right. In this very building.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> There’s still a lot of work going on in the <a href="http://www.acfr.usyd.edu.au/">Robotics Centre</a> here, which is a very big organisation and very highly regarded.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It is. One thing I was able to do on the Space Station, that I was actually a co-investigator for, was space robotics. </p>
<p>There was some automatic path-finding optimisation with avoiding obstacles that we did here, in Sydney, when we were trying to work on autonomous aircraft, autonomous vehicles.</p>
<p>We decided to apply that strategy and those algorithms to free-flying space robots, and so I got to do that while up in the Space Station, working with the people that built them. So that was pretty cool.</p>
<h2>Preparing for launch</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Tell us what it’s like sitting in the Shuttle, waiting for the launch. Most of us would find it impossible to imagine, and even harder to cope with. </p>
<p>What’s the feeling like when you’re up there at the pointy end, ready to go?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It’s very emotional. It’s a dream come true – for most people there it’s a lifetime dream come true and it’s amazing because it comes true in a moment.</p>
<p>There’s a moment that you’re not sure you’re going, and then there’s a moment where, yes you are. </p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> And it’s too late to do anything about it.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> And that “too late” is several days before that. There’s this machinery there – and I hope we see a day with that kind of machinery again – but there’s this huge machinery where everything moves to the launch; and, as you can imagine, the details and the different things that all have to happen … </p>
<p>You feel like you’re on a train and you’re not getting off at that point – it’s many weeks before the launch that you’re already on the train and you can’t get off. </p>
<p>And you think to yourself: “OK, the decision was made a long time ago – there’s no turning back now”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KZrFC988Thc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Time-lapse footage of the Space Shuttle Discovery being prepared for launch in April 2010.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But when you’re sitting there on that rocket it’s a very substantial kick when the rocket boosters go. </p>
<p>I always joke around about it because there are Disneyland rides like that, and they’re much worse, because they’re trying to impress you with all the shaking and the rocking and rolling, whereas the Shuttle is trying to do it as smoothly as possible.</p>
<p>There’s a certain amount of shaking but actually, it’s quite smooth compared to what I expected.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Is it hard to breathe?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> At some points you go up to three Gs but you’re on your back – the force is this direction, through your chest – and that’s not a problem. </p>
<p>It’s only difficult because it’s for several minutes, so you have to work hard to breathe but we do <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Astronaut_Training_Timeline.html">training</a> up to eight Gs in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9YtD1jw_Qw&feature=related">centrifuges</a>, for Russian training anyway – compared to that, it’s nothing.</p>
<p>When you’re up at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT2WuKERUJY&feature=related">eight Gs</a> and they back it down to three, it’s like: “Thank God” – you feel great. Three Gs really isn’t that bad.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> It takes about eight minutes to get to orbit doesn’t it? It’s not long.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> About eight and a half minutes. It doesn’t seem like it’s enough. You feel the acceleration and you know you’re speeding up but it doesn’t seem like that would be enough to get to <a href="http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/InnaSokolyanskaya1.shtml">that sort of speed</a>. But obviously the maths works out.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> I’ve only seen one launch and that was <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/">Return to Flight</a> and <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/thomas-a.html">Andy Thomas</a> invited me to go and watch that and that was awesome, in the original meaning of the word. </p>
<p>Just amazing to watch and very emotional even to watch, particularly if you know somebody who’s up there.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I knew somebody that was on that launch and that was a very emotional time for everybody involved.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> I can imagine. Many astronauts come into the program after some other career don’t they? I’m thinking of Andy Thomas for example: he came from <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.com/">Lockheed Martin</a>, where he’d been working for years.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I would say that I’m midrange in that regard. There are pilots, there are medical specialists, scientists and engineers.</p>
<p>I was in the engineering category and those who don’t already have a PhD would have to have had many years of work experience before they would be qualified.</p>
<p>I had three years of work experience, one year after the PhD in Houston, working at <a href="http://www.draper.com/">Draper Laboratory</a> – it’s a guidance and control company that’s an offshoot of MIT and we were working on the control system for the Space Station, actually, so before I came to Sydney to teach, that’s what I was doing.</p>
<p>And I also worked earlier for them. They supported my graduate work so I was with them for seven years. </p>
<p>So it’s not like I just finished my PhD because – it was a research position that went on for 30 hours a week for seven years, plus the two years here, so it was actually ten years in the field, and then I went to Houston.</p>
<p>I had already applied and I had already been interviewed and I spent three years working in mission control as a flight controller. </p>
<p>At that point the Space Station was brand new – it wasn’t flying yet, so we were developing the tools and the displays and the controls to work out: “How are we going to operate this thing?”; “What data do we need to see?”; “What commands do we need?”; and “How are we going to coordinate all of that?”</p>
<p>So we were building all that when I got there so I had three years of mission operations experience before I got selected.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> A lot of astronauts have doctoral degrees, don’t they?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> A lot of them do. It’s not the path for a pilot obviously – they were selected because they are amazing pilots and for their leadership skills and other things they are recognised for in the military. </p>
<p>There are some who are flight engineer types who are also from the military, and then the doctors and scientists are MDs or PhDs typically, and most engineers are PhDs unless they were flight engineers.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Sbxguzogm1Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">G-force centrifuge training is a part of the astronaut training regime.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So you’ve flown four times?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It’s actually twice but it looks like four –</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> – because of your long stay on the ISS?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah. You know that movie, Shrek? We call ourselves SHRECs: Shuttle Rotating Expedition Crew Members. </p>
<p>So if you got to fly up on one Shuttle and come back on another, and since you weren’t part of the normal <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/index.html">Russian Soyuz</a> rotation, that meant you were split across two expeditions. </p>
<p>So it looks like I was on more missions than I was, but it’s the time that matters I think. On my first flight I had 183 days up there and that was a long time – plenty of time.</p>
<h2>Caretaking Kibo</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So on the Shuttle what was your role, on your two flights?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> On the first flight I was baggage. They were bringing me to the Station to stay as a station crew member so I joined the flight late – probably in the last three months before they flew – but I’m joking about being baggage.</p>
<p>We were installing the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/jem.html">Japanese Experimental Module Kibo</a> and I was really the one fully trained on it because I was going to be the first caretaker of what the Japanese saw, and see, as their first human space vehicle. </p>
<p>It’s very important to them culturally, as well as technically, and it’s unfortunate that it wasn’t a Japanese astronaut that was there first.</p>
<p>I did my best to make up for the fact I wasn’t a Japanese astronaut taking care of their spaceship.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But Japanese astronauts have flown …</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yep, after me there was one, but for the first six months of the Module’s existence I was its caretaker and I took it from an empty shell to installing all the scientific equipment, getting it up and running, testing it all, running some basic science through it initially to commission, so that it was ready for the full-blown science program.</p>
<p>That was a big part of what I did up there. During the Shuttle mission, we installed the Module. </p>
<p>I was trained on everything so that if something happened and the Shuttle had to leave, as long as the Module was attached and they could go, and it might take me longer but I could get everything done – I could finish it from there. </p>
<p>That was a great experience and a great responsibility. </p>
<p>I tried to learn a bit of Japanese so at the end of the day I could congratulate them on what we’d accomplished each day and that was one third of it because the <a href="http://www.eusoc.upm.es/en/e-usoc/infrastructure/columbus.html">European Research Module</a> had come up with Columbus just a few months before – this was in May of 2008 – and the difference is Columbus, because it is smaller, came up fully equipped, ready to start the science right away.</p>
<p>And so I came and worked on their science program immediately – I didn’t have to build the apparatus, unpack it, assemble it. </p>
<p>And of course the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/destiny.html">US Laboratory </a> already had its science program up and running so I was with two Russians, but I was running all of the American, Japanese and European science.</p>
<p>I wasn’t the commander, but the commander left and they let me take care of the science and they helped when they were asked to.</p>
<p>But for a long time there, whenever there was a conversation in English, for the first four and a half months until we had a change of crew, I felt a lot of responsibility for quite a lot that was going on.</p>
<p>Four and half months into it there was a Soyuz that arrived and up came a private astronaut, <a href="http://www.richardgarriott.com/biography/">Richard Garriott</a>, who is an outstanding person in many ways, and he was there for a nine-day handover.</p>
<p>But the two Russians I was with returned to Earth and one American and another Russian came up. The American was <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/fincke.html">Mike Fincke</a>, who became the commander, so for the last part of my stay there were two Americans and one Russian.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> What do you do to stay sane when you’re up there for that long, away from the family and all those home comforts?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> The language thing is funny. The language goes with the majority: if there’s two Russians and one American, dinner conversation is in Russian, and so I did my best to hold my own.</p>
<p>I had lots of training and practice, immersion training and whatever, but the commander at that time, his English was pretty good, so if I really needed to communicate something I knew it was going to be possible.</p>
<p>But it was funny because I didn’t realise how much I missed speaking English to somebody in proximity, so when Mike [Fincke] came up I realised I was following him around and talking his ear off: “Mike, am I bothering you?”</p>
<p>It was just nice to have another English-speaking person on board.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But what about your down-time? You couldn’t have worked all the time?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> We actually dedicate a lot of that down-time to trying to get science done, because at that time, it was part of the assembly stage at the Station and, with only three on board, it’s a lot of work – logistics work and assembly work, rearranging and installing systems and racks … That took a lot of time and there was plenty of science to do, but very little time in the schedule to do it.</p>
<p>Saturdays were supposedly a day off – well, you’re there. You’re on the Space Station, you have nothing better to do. </p>
<p>You might need a sleep-in once in a while to get a break, but you’re there and you want to make the most of that time.</p>
<p>So we regularly gave our whole weekend to science and then Sunday there might be some medical or house-cleaning things we needed to do anyway, but the days were full because of that. But we still had movie night.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Yeah?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, on a Friday night the Russians would come on over and I’d introduce my Russian colleagues to a lot of our science-fiction movies. </p>
<p>The first one we watched turned out to be 2001: A Space Odyssey, and they had never seen it.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uU4TQ1NTo50?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Imagine watching Stanley Kubrick’s classic film … in space.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So there were a few light moments as well.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, they were great guys. We had a great time.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> And of course you played chess while you were on the Space Station, too …</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, that hadn’t been done before. First I was going to play chess against the control centres and the handicap for them was that they had to take turns moving. </p>
<p>So Houston, Huntsville, Moscow, Munich and Tsukuba, Japan, and also Toulouse, France, all had to take turns moving. That didn’t work out so well for them.</p>
<p>The Russians were very upset because they thought the Japanese were screwing up their game.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> That sort of thing could get out of hand when you’re stuck up in space.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> The follow up to that was on the <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-shuttle-launch-delayed-but-still-worth-the-endeavour-1056">Shuttle flight</a> I just came back from. </p>
<p>Even though the flight was so short, there was so much public outreach that was positive from the chess that they wanted to have an Earth vs. space match on the Shuttle flight. </p>
<p>So one of my <a href="http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/johnson-gh.html">crewmates</a> tried to keep up with a game, twice a day and played until we had to shut down the computers and land. At the point the deal was that Earth would vote on who the winner would have been.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> And?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Well they [Earth] voted that they won, but there’s dispute about that. Maybe the majority thought that but some of the masters thought they would have picked our side if they’d had to keep playing the game.</p>
<h2>Munchies</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> The other thing that people wonder about is food. Does that get pretty boring?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> There’s a cycle of food that repeats every two weeks or so but the variety within that cycle is really huge nowadays.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Does it taste like what you’d eat on Earth?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It’s good, it’s really good. There’s a lot of variety. There are certain things the Russians have that are really good. </p>
<p>If you want a really good piece of meat – it’s actually canned meat but it’s really good – the Russians have that. </p>
<p>A lot of people eat the Russian fish too, but meat and potatoes – that’s the Russian meal.</p>
<p>We have a much more balanced selection: vegetables and all that kind of thing. But there’s Italian, Mexican, Chinese, all kinds of dishes – it’s actually quite good.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> You’d be a bit short on salads though, wouldn’t you?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, that’s right. But there are a few things, such as the fruit cocktail – it goes a long way to making you feel like you’ve had fruit. </p>
<p>But when a supply ship comes up and brings fresh fruit, that’s a great moment.</p>
<p>There was one point I remember when <a href="http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/cosmonauts/english/volkov_sergei.htm">Sergei Volkov</a>, who was the commander, throwing me an apple through several hatches and that was a really nice thing to bite into after a while.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So do you think you’ll be going back to the Space Station, aboard a Soyuz this time?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I don’t know. As far as I know I’m still eligible for a long-duration flight, but there’s a period after a flight where you sort of don’t worry about it. </p>
<p>It’s a time to share our mission with the public, to travel around and talk about it, and I’m in that phase now. </p>
<p>Also, now that all the flights will be long-duration, the time between them is greater – they’ve got flights signed up through almost 2014 now. </p>
<p>The next one assignable will be in a six-month increment and they don’t need to assign that many people any more – it’s a few people every six months.</p>
<p>Now that I have kids that are six years old the training is very difficult in that you spend half your time for three or four years travelling and training in other countries, so that’s definitely hard on a family.</p>
<p>I’m hoping not to worry about it for a year, and then we’ll see.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> There’s a <a href="http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=114190&extra=page%3D1">story</a> going around at the moment that the Russians are talking about not servicing the Space Station after 2020. Any truth to that?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It’s kind of a misquote from something that was said. What they <em>are</em> planning to do is service it until 2020. </p>
<p>We’ve kind of made that agreement that we’re going to maintain the station until at least 2020, but given it’s such a huge investment from all the countries involved – 15 countries – nobody wants to stop all of sudden in 2020 if we’re still able to use it do meaningful research.</p>
<p>The thing we did in our flight – STS-134, the final flight of Endeavour – we put the last touches on and we’re now able to say: “The Space Station is now complete after 12 years of work.”</p>
<p>It’s got a six-person crew, it’s science-programmed in full now. Instead of trying to run a bus schedule while you’re building the bus terminal – now it’s ready and it’s almost a factor of ten in hours we’re able to dedicate to research now, compared to what it was when I was there.</p>
<p>So we want to see that science getting done for as long as we can, certainly until 2020 … but now they’re talking about 2028. </p>
<p>Unless there are system problems and we get into some kind of situation where we can’t fix something, there’s no reason we have to stop in 2020.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So the situation is that with continual servicing it could keep going for decades yet.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Absolutely. It’s one of the amazing things about those massive solar panels. Every orbit you can count on that solar energy, as long as the solar panels are working … and there’s plenty of redundancy – we have much more than we need to maintain the station. </p>
<p>If we’re running a full science complement and there’s a problem with energy we might have to back off on something, but as long as the solar panels are working, in fact if <em>half</em> of them are working, the station will be fine.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/27179888" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The fear of being overtaken by other space programs should be a motivating factor for the US.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Winning</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> You mentioned the science program. Is there something that stands out as a highlight in terms of science achievements for the ISS and Shuttle Program?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> There are a few things that stand out. There’s been a change in focus from the NASA perspective to do science on the station that’s going to enable us to go beyond low-earth orbit: the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/slsd/about/divisions/hacd/education/slssi.html">human physiology</a> aspects, the <a href="http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/zerog/">zero-gravity</a>, the <a href="http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.html">radiation</a>, the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/Subregional_Bone.html">bone-loss</a>. </p>
<p>Some of those things have applications on Earth, the bone-loss in particular – the topic’s always been there, it’s obvious, and there’s been a lot of time now to look at different countermeasures and what works and what doesn’t, and there are certainly applications for osteoporosis here on Earth and there’s been some interesting results.</p>
<p>One of them, around about the time I was there, was that there seems to be a sodium uptake that’s higher in zero-G and they don’t know exactly why. </p>
<p>It turns out that it looks like the body’s trying to control the <a href="http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/184ph.html">pH</a> in the blood and demineralising the bone to do so.</p>
<p>We do two hours of exercise a day up there, but even if you did ten hours of exercise every day, if the body’s fighting to control the pH in the blood, that’s a factor they suddenly realise is there.</p>
<p>So now there are more studies to look at that in depth. </p>
<p>Another one that’s somewhat recent is that they’ve been looking at organisms and their response to zero-G and it’s really surprising. Sometimes you think of bacteria in a fluid: “Why would they care which way the gravity vector is? They’re in a fluid anyway.” </p>
<p>But defining the behaviours of bacteria and gene expression is very different without gravity. </p>
<p>And things you just wouldn’t think zero-gravity would have an effect on. Salmonella was a good example.</p>
<p>They found over 160 genes that express themselves differently in zero-G and the result was a much more virulent organism. </p>
<p>I’m not a biologist so I don’t really understand the details but by recognising the genes that were causing the change, they were able to work on a vaccine against salmonella to attack those particular genes. </p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> One of the things I’m really interested in is the physical limits of life and life can stand and, in that context, it might include the transfer of bacteria from Mars to Earth or vice versa aboard meteorites. </p>
<p>I’m not talking about contamination of spacecraft or anything like that, but it’s a respectable thing these days to think about the possibility that life might have started on Mars and transferred here on meteorites. </p>
<p>We do have meteorites from Mars that we know about, here on Earth, and there will be Earth meteorites on Mars. </p>
<p>You just can’t rule out that possibility now, so what you’re talking about would feed into that science as well.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Well there’s another example, and maybe it’s very recent, but there was a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11039206">recent result</a> from a study where some organisms were placed outside the ISS on platforms we have for that purpose – exposing everything from circuitry, solar panels, materials, paints, protective layers, all of these things; to expose them to the radiation of space, the vacuum of space, the thermal cycle, the micrometeorite environment, to see how well they perform.</p>
<p>One of the European exposure facilities had some cells and they found they were still alive after being exposed to the total vacuum of space and to radiation for a prolonged time.</p>
<p>So that’s a new result and it validates your theory. It was the first time that was ever seen. The cells were brought back down to Earth and were still alive.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Those little bugs are hard to kill, and we know that from our hospitals – <a href="http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Golden_Staph">golden staph</a>, and all that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Do you think the pace of basic research and development will pick up now that the Station is physically complete?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Absolutely. There’s been success with muscular dystrophy and other things where they’ve been able to look at a protein and understand the 3D structure because of crystallography, and that’s an ongoing thing – looking and trying to understand the 3D chemistry of proteins and things like that.</p>
<h2>A worthwhile enterprise?</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> As you’d know, there’s been a lot of scepticism about the Space Station and the Shuttle Program – has it been worth $40 billion?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> You could say $100 billion from beginning to end split across 15 countries – that’s a good round number. </p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> That’s a lot of money.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It is. If you’re looking for a specific result, in a specific area applied to a specific problem on Earth, then that’s a certain lens to look through. </p>
<p>I think the other way to look at it is this: the ISS is a unique facility in a unique environment and we now have laboratory facilities up there to look at materials science, fluid physics, biology, human physiology, exposure to space environment and Earth observations.</p>
<p>There’s clearly a lot we can learn there. There have been more than 1,000 investigations, hundreds of publications, and now we’re going to crank up to a much higher percentage of our time dedicated to science. </p>
<p>Undoubtedly there are going to be some very interesting and meaningful results.</p>
<p>And whether it solves a particular problem on Earth or enables us to live on Mars and colonise Mars, it’s going to be significant.</p>
<p>I want to mention the one experiment we brought up because on our flight we brought up the <a href="http://ams.nasa.gov/">Alpha-magnetic Spectrometer</a>. </p>
<p>Now that’s a world-class observatory and it’s looking at cosmic rays instead of light, which is unique among the observatories.</p>
<p>There are a lot of unknowns in <a href="http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html">Big Bang theory</a>, how much matter and <a href="http://press.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/">anti-matter</a> there is, and where it is, and where’s all the matter in the universe – we see the motions of the galaxies but the matter <a href="http://theconversation.com/new-chatter-on-dark-matter-19">doesn’t match up to the motion that we see</a>.</p>
<p>So it’s looking specifically for dark matter and for anti-matter, but at the same time it’s going to be characterising the spectrum of the radiation – we don’t have that characterisation yet, and that characterisation will help to protect crews and hardware on future missions. </p>
<p>It’s a very fundamental science program but it’s going to have practical applications too.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/27179828" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Plans to return to the moon have been put on hold.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Future missions</h2>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Well, let’s talk about <a href="http://theconversation.com/2011-a-space-odyssey-what-comes-after-the-shuttle-program-1532">future missions</a>. The plan was to go back to the moon–</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> <em>Was</em></p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Is <em>“was”</em> correct?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Officially, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm">what we had going was cancelled</a> for a new plan. Unfortunately, right now we’re waiting to find out what the new plan is still. But there were good reasons for cancelling the return to the moon.</p>
<p>Obama <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf">had a commission review what was going on</a> and that was headed up by <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/augustine_bio.html">Norm Augustine</a>, so you can’t fault the selection of who was on that review committee. </p>
<p>The recommendations made a lot of sense. We needed more money to accomplish what we were trying to accomplish and this vision for <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf">space exploration plan started in 2004</a>.</p>
<p>It was underfunded and we ran into some problems, so the idea that we either need more money or change the direction – there was nothing wrong with that conclusion.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the retirement of the Shuttle was supposed to be timed with the development of the next spacecraft, but those things got disconnected. </p>
<p>So now the Shuttle has been retired and we weren’t ready to launch the new vehicle on the next day, and we should have been.</p>
<p>So that’s where we are now. But are three prongs to where we are now. One is the Space Station: we’re still going to fly there, we’ll launch from Russia. We want to use that facility [the ISS] to the maximum and make it available to the academic and commercial industry.</p>
<p>We also want to develop a <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/what-will-get-nasa-to-space-next">heavy-lift vehicle</a> because that’s what we need to get beyond low-earth orbit – that’s a major priority. </p>
<p>Deciding on which vehicle we build, soon – before we lose all of our technical capability, because we’re <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080402-AP-nasa.html">laying people off</a> by the thousands – that’s the major problem.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> A lot of that technical capability went with the end of the <a href="http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/Introduction.pdf">Saturn V</a>, I suppose?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Exactly. And the other thing is the commercial space. I don’t think anybody would disagree with the idea that the real explosion of humanity into space, and off to Mars and <a href="http://theconversation.com/manned-mission-to-mars-is-ok-but-lets-go-back-to-the-moon-first-296">colonising Mars</a> and being able to do science on other planets – that’s all going to happen when it becomes commercially viable to operate in space.</p>
<p>So the idea of feeding the commercial space industry to provide us with access to low-earth orbit and access to the Space Station, there’s nothing wrong with that – it’s a good idea. </p>
<p>The only problem is stopping the Shuttle program while we wait for that. Now we’re grounded and waiting.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Until when, do you think?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> They’re saying three-to-five years. The one milestone in the short-term is the <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/07/first-private-spacecraft-set-t.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news">launch of SpaceX in November</a>, taking cargo to the Space Station. </p>
<p>That will be great if it happens – a great first step – but I think three years is very optimistic. I think it’s probably more like five-to-seven years.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But it’d be the same vehicle but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-rating_certification">human-rated</a>?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> That’s the idea, and then there are other concepts out there. One perspective is that we had a very capable space ship [the Shuttle] for getting us to low-earth orbit, to the Space Station.</p>
<p>It could do amazing work to upgrade, repair, fix, maintain, supply and bring stuff down from the Space Station, scientific down-mass as well as hardware.</p>
<p>We’re not going to have a down-mass capability like that for a long time and we’re now waiting for the commercial sector to get us back to low-earth orbit. </p>
<p>We were already going to low-earth orbit for 30 years and the commercial sector has to get there first, then we have to go <em>beyond</em> it.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> So there’s going to be a hold-up in ever getting back to the moon as a result?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> That’s right – we’re really waiting for the commercial sector. In the meantime we’ll work on a heavy-lift vehicle.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Is that happening now?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, and I think we’re just waiting for a decision as to which way that’s going to go – which design are we going to go with for the heavy-lift space launch system. </p>
<p>If we get that decision made relatively soon, a lot of the workforce that was recently laid off, they will come back – they’re dying to come back and work on the next program.</p>
<p>If it takes too long to materialise, we’re going to lose a lot of the talent, and that’s the problem: it’s such an amazingly skilled workforce. </p>
<p>To see the Shuttle being processed before the launch, it’s just unbelievable. To stand there in the cargo bay you go: “This is an amazing spaceship”.</p>
<p>And we know everything about how to do it.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But you’re losing people, as of now?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> We’ve lost thousands already. That doesn’t mean they’ve moved on, but soon they will.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> There’s a tension between robotic exploration of further space and human exploration of space, a tension between Johnson versus JPL [<a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/">Jet Propulsion Lab</a>] – that sort of thing that people talk about. </p>
<p>I’ve always thought there’s an inspiration factor there in human space exploration that robotics, as brilliant as they are and as unquestionably amazing as they obviously are, just don’t quite create. </p>
<p>For anyone that saw us first step onto the moon, its something they’ll never forget and I’ve heard it said that the <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/apollo.html">Apollo program</a> would never have been supported by the American people if it were a robotic program – wouldn’t have been supported for so long, anyway.</p>
<p>Do you think that’s true?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I agree with you, but I think the tension is artificial. I don’t think there’s anyone in the human space exploration side of it that isn’t absolutely thrilled about everything that’s happening in unmanned exploration – they’re just as excited. </p>
<p>When the <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-spirit-of-exploration">Rovers landed on Mars</a>, anyone at the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/index.html">Johnson Space Centre</a> was just as teary-eyed as anyone at JPL. </p>
<p>But I think there’s always going to be a balance – I think you always want the robotics to go out first and go out further and we have a long way to go in robotics. </p>
<p>For example, if we build a facility on Mars, it’s going to be a mixture of robotics and humans working together and we’re getting a lot of experience with that already. We do it all the time on the Space Station. </p>
<p>We have a lot of robotics, we have humans in the loop, we also have automatic aspects to that.</p>
<p>As a side-note, there are new surgery tools being built based on the operation experience we have on the Station – it’s a robot but it’s being controlled by a human in the loop. That’s all developing and I think it all goes hand-in-hand.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> If you look at it from a public point of view without knowing all of the inside workings, that’s where I think the inspiration comes into it and ultimately where the public support comes from.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah. Well there’s no story to tell of a robot on the way to Mars. There’s a story to tell when it lands and when it discovers something, but if humans were on their way to Mars, there’d be a story every day.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Is there a public perception in the US that your country might be overtaken by China or Japan or India or Europe if you don’t keep up the momentum?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, I think that threat is healthy – healthy to keep the focus.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> And to keep the dollars flowing?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I think so. The amount that NASA has been able to spend on the space program is very small compared to other programs. Recently I saw that the air conditioning in Afghanistan for troops was <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning">more than all</a> of NASA. The percentages and priorities are maybe not what people think they are.</p>
<p>But still, it’s more than other countries have been able to spend and I hope we can use those resources in a meaningful way, to keep leading the way. </p>
<p>The International Space Station was a really good example because one of the things that came out the review that looked at the space program was that we can’t afford to do the whole thing we were planning to do on our own.</p>
<p>And we didn’t build the Space Station on our own – it was very much an international, cooperative venture from beginning to end.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> But very clearly led by the US, particularly in the early days.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yes, although the perspective from Russia would probably be different. We think we led, they think they led, and now there are three Russians on board and three others, two of which are American and one is often, or usually, from one of our other international partners. </p>
<p>But there are always three Russians on board, so I don’t know who’s in charge.</p>
<p>But it was very much an international effort and I think that’s a good model for peace, cooperation and for going further. </p>
<p>I don’t think the US should be thinking of doing it on its own – I think collaboration is a really good model.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> I think it’s a really good model as well and it’s often non-diplomats – scientists, engineers and medical scientists – that keep channels of communication open internationally when times are tough.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, no matter what’s going on politically, the scientists and engineers are still meeting and they’re colleagues and friends. </p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/27179936" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">We already have the technological ability to get to Mars. We just need the will and the finances.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Do you foresee any Chinese involvement in collaborative exploration projects or Space Station projects?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I definitely think it’s possible. Unfortunately it’s not a decision that can be made at the NASA level – I think if it was, we’d already be talking to them more. </p>
<p>It’s at the congressional level that it has to be allowed and then that will trickle down.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> The Chinese seem intent on ramping up their space program as fast as possible and it’s easy to imagine them going to the moon in a few years time.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Yeah, and the number of engineers they are graduating compared to the rest of the world is just staggering, and they’re hard-working, they’re goal-driven.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Things have gone a little bit quiet in Japan perhaps, but the Indians are ploughing ahead. In a way, there’s a bit of a space race again isn’t there?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I hope so. I hope there’s a space race and I hope it’s cooperative and I hope industry gains a foothold, too.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Going back to one of my key interests, Mars exploration, the great plan of geologists like me is to bring samples back from Mars. </p>
<p>I think the joint ESA [<a href="http://www.esa.int/">European Space Agency</a>] and NASA mission to do just that might be launched in 2018, all going well. That sort of collaboration would just be wonderful.</p>
<p>It’s often said, and I don’t know if this is true, that it just couldn’t be done without that collaboration – it’s just too expensive to be supported by one nation at one moment.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Hopefully we’ll see that soon and not too long after that we’ll see someone like you, a geologist, on Mars, hammering on the rocks yourself. </p>
<p>As you know, Mars is amazing in terms of sites of scientific interest and the ability to use resources there.</p>
<p>We already have a reactor on the Space Station that utilises the carbon dioxide in Mars’s atmosphere and gets the oxygen back and makes methane which we could use for fuel on Mars but we waste on the Space Station. </p>
<p>We already have these recycling processes that could utilise the atmosphere on Mars, in place, already working in space and of course there’s water everywhere on Mars – in some soil, definitely in ice at the poles.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> It’s a very exciting planet to explore from my point of view. We’ve learnt a lot about the formation of the solar system and I think there’s a very good chance that there is life on Mars, or at least was.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> And that would be one of the most important finds in human history if we found life of any kind, or fossil evidence of life on another planet.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> That’s what I tell my students. I just hope I’ll live long enough to see it happen.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> Me too, and it happens to be the closest planet too, at least away from the sun – the direction you want to, you don’t want to go the other way.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> It’s feasible to go there now isn’t it? It’s only a six-month trip.</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> It is feasible and that’s the thing: there are really no showstoppers technologically. We can start building ships to go to Mars now – we already know how to do that. </p>
<p>There are some claims that radiation would be a problem but you can use water as your shield, using your water tanks in a way that protects the ship and crew.</p>
<p>There’s really no technological hurdles that would stop us from starting to build the hardware now so it’s really just commitment and finances.</p>
<p><strong>Walter:</strong> Do you think you’re going to live long enough to see astronauts on Mars?</p>
<p><strong>Chamitoff:</strong> I hope so. I had hoped I was going to be one of them but the day I realised that wasn’t to happen was 9/11. </p>
<p>When that happened I thought that the focus and resources in the US was going to shift too much to have Mars as a focus and keep it within my career-span.</p>
<p>The only way for me to get to Mars now is to win the lottery and buy a ticket 20 years from now.</p>
<p><em>Dr Greg Chamitoff is delivering a <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=2&newsstoryid=7393">guest lecture</a> at the University of Sydney this evening, Tuesday August 2. Minor edits have been made to this transcript in order to preserve fluency.</em></p>
<p><em>Please leave your comments on this interview, and any of the issues it covers, below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm Walter has previously received research grants from NASA and the Australian Space Research Program.</span></em></p>Download the full interview with Dr Chamitoff as a podcast by clicking here. For the latest in our In Conversation series, Malcolm Walter, Professor of Astrobiology at the University of New South Wales…Malcolm Walter, Professor of Astrobiology, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/15322011-07-07T21:09:13Z2011-07-07T21:09:13Z2011, a space odyssey – what comes after the Shuttle program?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2167/original/2001.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could Stanley Kubrick's classic offer direction for the future of space travel?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">slagheap</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tomorrow morning (AEST), weather depending, the Space Shuttle Atlantis will blast off from Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, marking the end of NASA’s 30-year-old Space Transportation System.</p>
<p>But as the curtain closes on an era of manned space flight – with <a href="http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/07/04/space-shuttle-program-end-mean-loss-of-space-coast-jobs/">thousands of estimated job losses</a> – what’s next for NASA? What will space flight look like in a post-Shuttle era?</p>
<p>Well, we could do worse than to look to Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.</p>
<p>In between the mind-bending visual effects and the classical music, this cinematic classic includes some beautiful and intriguing images of a possible future for human space flight.</p>
<p>Early in the film we follow an American scientist into Earth orbit and then to the moon, to investigate the finding of an alien artefact. He travels to an orbiting space station on a commercial spaceliner (Pan American, no less), in much the same way we might fly across the Pacific with Qantas today.</p>
<p>Once he arrives at the station, which is spinning very slowly to create an <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/artificial-gravity-0415.html">artificial gravity</a>, he goes to the Hilton – Space Station, next door to the Howard Johnson Space Hotel. </p>
<p>So at this stage in our “future” (the year 2001 in the movie), travel to Earth orbit is a completely commercial affair.</p>
<p>In 2011, and in real life, NASA is taking the first steps towards something like this.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bUwCkKIYY80?wmode=transparent&start=50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In 2009, the Obama administration commissioned the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/384767main_SUMMARY%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL.pdf">Augustine Report</a> to map out possible scenarios for the United States’s future in space. There were many issues to deal with: </p>
<ul>
<li>The space shuttles were reaching the end of their operational life.<br></li>
<li>The new system for transporting both astronauts and cargo to <a href="http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/satellite/4/4a/4a.1.html">low Earth orbit</a> was well behind schedule. </li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html">exploration program put in place by the Bush administration</a> to go back to the moon as a precursor to manned flights to Mars had not been properly budgeted for.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Augustine Committee that authored this report (chaired by Norman Augustine, <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/augustine_bio.html">former CEO of Lockheed Martin</a>) delved into these issues in a very forthright and open-minded way.</p>
<p>The essence of their finding was that NASA’s future exploration plan was both scientifically meaningful and inspiring, but that it was severely underfunded. </p>
<p>If the US wanted NASA to conduct such a program, then a major increase in funding was required over a period of at least two decades. Without this extra funding, the program was considered dysfunctional and doomed to failure.</p>
<p>With the US economy reeling from the global financial crisis, there were only two possible responses the Obama administration could have:</p>
<p>1) Cancel the ambitious exploration program and significantly curtail NASA’s activities.
2) Find a more efficient way to continue to explore space.</p>
<p>While it’s still not completely clear exactly what the future US space program will be, some tentative first steps towards reducing the cost of space exploration have been made.</p>
<p>This has involved embracing, for the first time, the emergence of commercial carriers for lifting both cargo and astronauts to low Earth orbit. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kvalg9kBA9Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In the 1920s <a href="http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/coming%20of%20age/air%20mail.htm">the US Government stimulated the growth of the commercial airline industry</a> by awarding a series of guaranteed contracts for carrying airmail.</p>
<p>It was suggested in the Augustine Report that NASA could do a similar thing for a range of space-related activities, such as taking cargo to the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station</a>, or lifting fuel to low Earth orbit for use in deep space missions.</p>
<p>They also raised the possibility that astronauts could be taken to the International Space Station by commercial carriers. </p>
<p>The inherent assumption behind this suggestion is that competition between emerging companies would drive the cost of getting to low Earth orbit significantly lower than it is today.</p>
<p>One great benefit of this approach is that it would also allow NASA to concentrate on the more challenging role of exploring space well beyond low Earth orbit, a role much more suited to a government agency.</p>
<p>Giving up the capability to get to low Earth orbit might be the hardest thing that NASA could do. But it could be the only thing that will allow NASA and the US Space Program to thrive well into the future. </p>
<p>Maybe then you and I could fly to orbit with Qantas in, say, 2031?</p>
<p><em><strong>What would you like to see NASA do next? Leave your thoughts below.</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1532/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Smart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tomorrow morning (AEST), weather depending, the Space Shuttle Atlantis will blast off from Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, marking the end of NASA’s 30-year-old Space Transportation System. But as the…Michael Smart, Professor of Hypersonic Aerodynamics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/10822011-07-06T21:15:51Z2011-07-06T21:15:51ZThe final countdown: bidding farewell to the Space Shuttle program<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2127/original/space-shuttle-endeavour-20110521000319514619-conversation.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Has NASA's 30-year space experiment been worth it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/NASA TV</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>All going well, the final Space Shuttle mission will be launched from the Kennedy Space Centre early on Saturday morning (AEST). This flight, being made by the Space Shuttle Atlantis, will be the 135th trip in NASA’s Space Shuttle Program and marks the end of an era.</p>
<p>The first Shuttle launch took place in April 1981 and in 30 years of operation the fleet of five shuttles (Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour), officially known as the <a href="http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/">Space Transportation System (STS)</a>, has:</p>
<ul>
<li>completed more than 20,000 orbits of Earth</li>
<li>docked at the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station (ISS)</a> 35 times</li>
<li>supported 29 <a href="http://www.spacelab.com.au/">Spacelab</a> experiments in fields such as astronomy, microgravity, radar, space physics and biology</li>
<li>conducted five servicing missions to the <a href="http://hubblesite.org/">Hubble Space Telescope</a></li>
<li>transported hundreds of humans into space</li>
</ul>
<p>The Shuttle program – until Saturday at least – is one of three manned spaceflight programs around the world currently in operation. The other two are the Russian <a href="http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html">Soyuz program</a>, which will continue to transport astronauts to the ISS after the conclusion of the Shuttle program, and the Chinese <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_spacecraft">Shenzhou program</a>. </p>
<p>Unlike these other human spaceflight programs, the clear distinction of the Shuttle missions has been the emphasis on outreach and education, with NASA using space exploration <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2011/04/13/21SMD_EPO_Guide3_April08_TAGGED.pdf">to inspire students and the general public</a>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, non-NASA personnel have often flown in the Shuttle to work on specific “payloads”, including scientific experiments or a particular piece of equipment.</p>
<p>The scientific and educational accomplishments of the Shuttle Program cannot be denied.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GE_USPTmYXM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately the destruction of the <a href="http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spaceshuttle/challenger_disaster.html">Challenger</a> (1986) and <a href="http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spaceshuttle/columbia_disaster.html">Columbia</a> (2003) shuttles dealt a blow to the entire premise of the program: a fleet of reusable spacecraft that would blast humans into space and ensure their safe return to Earth. </p>
<p>This, and the evident failure of the program to keep the costs of space travel down, has spelt <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt3pGeEqc6A&feature=related">the end</a> of the Shuttle program. </p>
<p>But is this necessarily a bad thing?</p>
<p><a href="http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/">Lawrence M. Krauss</a>, Foundation Professor and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-the-dream">wrote in the April 2011 issue of Scientific American</a>, that the discoveries made by the Hubble Space Telescope observing the far reaches of the universe have fired our imagination much more than the details of daily life aboard the ISS. </p>
<p>I agree with this suggestion. </p>
<p>The shuttles were designed for lower-orbit travel. The ISS orbits at a distance of approximately 400 kilometres from the surface of the earth. </p>
<p>The Hubble Space Telescope orbits Earth at a distance of approximately 600 kilometres. The furthest from Earth humans have ever travelled still remains the Moon – 1,000 times further away than the ISS. </p>
<p>It has already been 39 years since a human travelled that distance and walked on the Moon (1972: Apollo 17).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H8rHarp1GEE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>For those of us who lived during the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/">Apollo 11–17 missions</a>, the idea of space exploration is inevitably linked to humans landing on other planets and travelling to the far reaches of the solar system (and possibly beyond).</p>
<p>However significant, the achievements of the Space Shuttle program simply cannot rival the enormously inspiring concept of human travel to other planets. </p>
<p>The Shuttle program provided a platform for experimentation with materials, technologies, and the investigation of the reaction of human physiology to prolonged periods without gravity. </p>
<p>It is now time for all the knowledge gained from the experiments of the past 30 years to be used to plan and achieve the next stage of space exploration, one that will hopefully include deep-space human travel. </p>
<p>There’s only so much motivation, curiosity and scientific inspiration that can be gained by endlessly orbiting Earth – unless you do it while you’re on the moon. </p>
<p><em><strong>Do you have stand-out memories from the Space Shuttle era? What would you like to see next? Leave your comments below.</strong></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1082/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graziella Caprarelli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All going well, the final Space Shuttle mission will be launched from the Kennedy Space Centre early on Saturday morning (AEST). This flight, being made by the Space Shuttle Atlantis, will be the 135th…Graziella Caprarelli, Doctor; Senior Lecturer in Earth Sciences, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/21872011-07-06T00:09:05Z2011-07-06T00:09:05ZSpace junk and the environment: it’s a very dark picture indeed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2110/original/aapone-20090212000154539144-us-space-accident-satellite-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A computer-generated artists impression of the thousands of objects in orbit around Earth.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Since the launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957 – the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 – countries around the world have been putting satellites and spacecraft into Earth orbit.</em></p>
<p><em>While the majority of objects return to Earth, there are still more than 20,000 trackable pieces of “space junk” orbiting our planet, posing a collision risk for further ventures.</em></p>
<p><em>Professor Fred Watson is the Astronomer-in-Charge of the Australian Astronomical Observatory near Coonabarabran in New South Wales.</em> </p>
<p><em>In this interview he steers us through the world of space junk and discusses decades-old tensions between space scientists and environmentalists.</em></p>
<p><strong>We’ve been throwing spacecraft into orbit and beyond for more than 50 years. How many defunct spacecraft and pieces of space debris are still up there?</strong></p>
<p>There are around 800 active spacecraft in orbit around Earth. They’re the ones that are currently working – doing jobs, whatever they’re supposed to do, including communications and surveillance.</p>
<p>But on top of that there’s a huge amount of debris. Something like 22,000 pieces of space junk bigger than 100 millimetres across are tracked by various authorities, most notably the Americans.</p>
<p>This includes everything from spent rocket bodies to things not much bigger than a bolt or a bracket. One of those small pieces <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/space-junk-sends-astronauts-scrambling-for-safety-20110629-1gpl6.html">caused a bit of a flurry last week</a> and sent the International Space Station into panic mode. </p>
<p>In the end everything was OK, but the junk got within 250 metres.</p>
<p>Then there’s the stuff we don’t know about – this ranges from 100 millimetres in length down to the size of fleck of paint and those fragments probably number in the hundreds of millions if not billions.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of space out there, but nevertheless it’s quite badly populated by this junk. Furthermore, the amount of junk is also currently increasing due to phenomena such as the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7885051.stm">accidental collision</a> that happened in 2009 when a defunct Russian satellite hit an American communications satellite. </p>
<p>There’s an almost constant rain of this stuff coming back through the atmosphere, where it burns up harmlessly – for the most part. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/43ac9gmR3fA?wmode=transparent&start=16" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Is it possible to remove any of this junk from orbit?</strong></p>
<p>That’s not really feasible – no technology at the moment would allow us to vacuum up this stuff to clean up space. </p>
<p>So it’s a bit of a waiting game. Hopefully the smaller bits of debris will continue to be braked by the atmosphere and burn up on the way back down but that only works for junk in orbits of perhaps 300 or 400 kilometres. </p>
<p>The high stuff could take centuries to come down.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most crowded bit of space is the <a href="http://the-info-zone.info/what-is-a-geostationary-orbit/">“geostationary zone”</a> where you’ve got communication satellites which orbit the earth in the same length of time that it takes the earth to complete one rotation – that’s at a distance of 36,000 kilometres from Earth.</p>
<p>There was a Russian plan <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-11/23/c_13619286.htm">announced a year ago</a> to send something up that would target these satellites and de-orbit them, including the defunct ones, all in the name of cleaning up space and making more space available.</p>
<p><strong>What impact have the space sciences had on the environment?</strong></p>
<p>It’s important to recognise that astronomy and space sciences don’t come without an environmental impact. But astronomers regard the planet very much as that <a href="http://www.bigskyastroclub.org/pale_blue_dot.html">“pale blue dot” that Carl Sagan mentioned</a> and so we are, at heart, very concerned about the environment because we know it’s all we’ve got.</p>
<p>But astronomers have fallen foul of environmentalists in the past, with the <a href="http://ag.arizona.edu/research/redsquirrel/">Mt. Graham squirrels</a> case being one of the most pertinent examples.</p>
<p>The Mt. Graham squirrel is an endangered species that is unique to the <a href="http://ag.arizona.edu/research/redsquirrel/pinaleno.html">Pinaleño Mountains in southern Arizona</a> and in particular, this one species of squirrel lives only on Mt. Graham.</p>
<p>Mt. Graham is a very good site for astronomy and it’s owned by the University of Arizona and in the late 1980s the university wanted to develop a major international observatory there, a plan which culminated in <a href="http://mgpc3.as.arizona.edu/">one of the biggest telescopes in the world</a>.</p>
<p>Even though the slopes of the mountain had been developed quite extensively for things such as camping holidays and trekking, the summit was fairly pristine.</p>
<p>It was felt that the number of these endangered squirrels on the mountain was sufficiently low (around 400 individuals) and the mere act of building a new telescope would actually jeopardise the survival of the species.</p>
<p>It’s recognised now that, actually, the survival of the species is more dependent on natural events – such as the cone crop in the pine forest, the temperature and, in particular, forest fires – rather than just the construction of the telescope. </p>
<p><strong>You have previously suggested that, despite clashes between space scientists and environmentalists in the past, the space sciences have had a net positive effect …</strong></p>
<p>We agree that the space sciences have been hard on the environment in a number of fairly limited places. But what you have to balance that against is the benefits that come from it.</p>
<p>One of the places that’s really taken a beating from the activities of space scientists is a place called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai_Republic">Altai Republic</a> which is to the east of the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/baikonur.html">Baikonur Cosmodrome</a>, where Russian rockets are launched.</p>
<p>Several times a month the farmers in that region find bits of space debris raining down on them, and these are blazing rocket bodies – the boosters from [Proton rockets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4pcceZ4VG7M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Proton rockets are the workhorse of the Russian space program – they date from the Cold War era – but they use very toxic materials in their fuel. The stuff raining down on these farmers has killed livestock and has probably caused some illness among the population.</p>
<p>The people of the Altai Republic are really on the frontline of what’s happening with regards to space science’s impact on the environment.</p>
<p>But you only have to look at any kind of remote sensing that takes place on Earth from space to recognise we’ve had huge benefits from space science in terms of our understanding of Earth’s resources, the state of the climate, the state of the earth’s crust. </p>
<p>All of these things are monitored now from space so there’s a very positive side, but one of the biggest positives is what we’ve learned about Mars.</p>
<p>What we now know about Mars and the history of Mars over the last 3 or 4 billion years really gives us an insight into the understanding of our own planet.</p>
<p><strong>The last Shuttle launch is happening later this week. What do you think will be the future of space exploration in the post-Shuttle era and what steps will be taken to ensure any future exploration has as little effect on the environment as possible?</strong></p>
<p>It’s clearly now part of the requisite for any new launch vehicle that you make it as clean as possible in terms of impact on the atmosphere.</p>
<p>The problem with space junk raining down on farmers in Kazakhstan of course doesn’t exist with the American space program – they’ve got the Atlantic Ocean to the east. It’s certainly not ideal to drop things in the ocean, but it’s better than it landing on farms.</p>
<p>The US space program generally uses liquid oxygen and kerosene for fuel, which is a much cleaner in terms of toxicity than some of the things the Russians use.</p>
<p>The US is certainly developing new launch vehicles because for the next two years they will have to rely on Proton rockets and launching from Baikonur. </p>
<p>Clearly its very embarrassing for the Americans not to have their own human launch vehicle available.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fred Watson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Since the launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957 – the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 – countries around the world have been putting satellites and spacecraft into Earth orbit. While the majority of…Fred Watson, Professor; Astronomer-in-Charge, Anglo-Australian Observatory, Australian Astronomical ObservatoryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/10562011-05-03T21:04:31Z2011-05-03T21:04:31ZThe shuttle launch: delayed (but still worth the Endeavour)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/837/original/aapone-20110429000314943374-topshots-us-space-shuttle-endeavour-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Keeping the space shuttle together is a tremendous feat of engineering.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stan Honda/AFP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/multimedia/endeavour/gallery-index.html">Space Shuttle Endeavour</a>, one of the most complex machines ever created, is about to take its last trip into space. </p>
<p>But not just yet.</p>
<p>The countdown to Endeavour’s final flight began a few days ago, and it progressed well until around 12:30pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on April 29 (the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts134/index.html">planned launch time</a> was 3:47pm EDT). </p>
<p>The tanks were full, the astronauts were all suited up and on their way to the launch pad when the word came – the launch was to be delayed.</p>
<p>Over the years, the shuttle has seen many launch delays, and the current one involves issues with what are called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit">Auxiliary Power Units</a> (APUs in NASA speak). </p>
<p>The APUs power the hydraulic systems that control the flight direction of the shuttle, and are essential for launch. </p>
<p>It easy to be critical of these delays, but we must remind ourselves the tremendous complexity of this machine, which is part aircraft and part spacecraft. </p>
<p>Despite the fact that most of us nowadays have more computing power on our desk than it takes to operate a shuttle, the technology involved is still pretty impressive.</p>
<p>One example of this is the temperature changes the shuttle must withstand. When the shuttle sits on the launch pad it gets filled will thousands of litres of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. </p>
<p>These propellants must be kept at temperatures hundreds of degrees Celsius below zero, otherwise the tanks will explode. </p>
<p>So after launch, as it races to orbit with its skin blistering hot from friction with the air, these gases must remain cool. </p>
<p>When any material is heated it expands (i.e. extends in length) and the opposite is true when materials are cooled. So before launch the tanks inside the space shuttle try to contract, while after launch the outer skin of the shuttle wants to grow.</p>
<p>It’s a major engineering feat just to keep the whole space vehicle together.</p>
<p>Endeavour will be visiting the <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html">International Space Station</a> on the upcoming flight, and it will deliver an important piece of scientific equipment called the <a href="http://ams.nasa.gov/">Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer</a>. </p>
<p>This equipment will remain on the Space Station for many years to come, analysing sub-atomic particles in an effort to better understand the structure of the universe. </p>
<p>Similar experiments on Earth can only examine particles that can make it through our atmosphere.</p>
<p>Placing the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the Space Station means that many more particles can be observed, some of which may not have been observed before.</p>
<p>The first <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt6Bt1pZ4Is&feature=related">Space Shuttle flew in 1981</a>, and since then the five vehicles (Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour) have flown more than 130 times into orbit. Endeavour’s upcoming flight is it’s last, and the second last for the entire program.</p>
<p>The latest word from NASA is that Endeavour will not launch before next Tuesday, May 10. US President Obama plans to attend the launch, along with tens of thousands of visitors to <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/home/index.html">NASA’s Kennedy Space Center</a>. </p>
<p>As we get <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428128main_2011.04.13_Remaining_Shuttle_Missions.pdf">closer to the last flight</a>, it’s only natural our fondness for this amazing vehicle grows stronger.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1056/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Smart is affiliated with the Hyshot Group and is the Chair of Hypersonic Propulsion. Michael Smart is a former employee of NASA.</span></em></p>The Space Shuttle Endeavour, one of the most complex machines ever created, is about to take its last trip into space. But not just yet. The countdown to Endeavour’s final flight began a few days ago…Michael Smart, Professor of Hypersonic Aerodynamics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.