A conference seeking ways to deal with the space junk problem is being held in Washington this week. It is sponsored by NASA and DARPA-- two agencies famed for their high tech expertise.
An estimated 300,000 objects of one centimeter across or larger are whizzing around low Earth orbit. They are the core of the problem. Even a tiny piece of debris traveling at several times the speed of a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle could cause great damage to the thin skin and delicate electronics of a satellite, for example. Such debris could also be a real threat to manned spacecraft and astronauts' EVA spacesuits.
There is no shortage of possible technical fixes. The real tough parts of solving the problem may lie elsewhere. For example-- who will pay for the cleanup? There are also legal and national security issues to be worked out. After all, a technology that could take a dead satellite out of orbit could presumably also take a live, important satellite out. Solving that problem and finding effective ways to control the technology central to dealing with larger pieces of debris is key to dealing with the overall issue.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Not Only In America
A steady refrain of space program critics in America is that major NASA programs consistently run way over budget. Those folks, it should be noted, constitute a subset of critics of programs that run over budget across the scope of government activity. NASA is not unique, and could do better if Congress was more concerned about the budgeting needs of highly complex new technology programs. Political calculations, however, too often trump fiscal ones, for NASA, Defense, and a myriad of other government projects.
Budget overruns don't only happen in America, though. Japan's government seems on the verge of canceling a major rocket development program, the GX, because of large budget overruns in a bad economy-- and because Japan's current workhorse rocket is performing exceedingly well.
Watching how the worldwide recession affects space development over the next few years will be interesting. To the extent it makes financing private space companies more difficult, the financial collapse might delay the corporate expansion into space, and put the leadership of the drive into fewer hands. Whether that would be good or bad will be the judgment of future generations to make. Government space efforts will likely be cut back, but the tough economic environment and the need to create good jobs may work to internationalize large space projects. The building of ISS could serve as a model both of how to proceed and what to avoid. Establishing an international lunar base is an obvious example of a reasonable, useful project that has appeal in several major nations.
Budget overruns don't only happen in America, though. Japan's government seems on the verge of canceling a major rocket development program, the GX, because of large budget overruns in a bad economy-- and because Japan's current workhorse rocket is performing exceedingly well.
Watching how the worldwide recession affects space development over the next few years will be interesting. To the extent it makes financing private space companies more difficult, the financial collapse might delay the corporate expansion into space, and put the leadership of the drive into fewer hands. Whether that would be good or bad will be the judgment of future generations to make. Government space efforts will likely be cut back, but the tough economic environment and the need to create good jobs may work to internationalize large space projects. The building of ISS could serve as a model both of how to proceed and what to avoid. Establishing an international lunar base is an obvious example of a reasonable, useful project that has appeal in several major nations.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Milestones
Today marks the thirty-seventh anniversary of the launch of Apollo 17-- the last Apollo mission to the Moon. Tomorrow, December 7, will be the sixty-eighth anniversary of a turning point in modern history, the Japanese attack on the U. S. Navy's Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Far from securing Japanese dominance in the Pacific, the American response to the attack led to the United States achieving superpower status and the American leadership of the Free World in a tense contest with Communist totalitarianism. That contest gave birth to Apollo.
Tomorrow will also see the unveiling of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, which will be the first craft to provide paying custoners suborbital flights to the edge of space. VG plans to commence those commercial flights in 2011, assuming planned test flights go as expected. SpaceShipTwo will carry six passengers and be operated by two pilots. VG already has 250 confirmed customers; at six a pop, that's more than sixty flights already filled. At $200,000 per ticket, VG already has $50 million in ticket sales alone.
SpaceShipTwo will be unveiled in Mojave, California, near America's Pacific Coast.
Tomorrow will also see the unveiling of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, which will be the first craft to provide paying custoners suborbital flights to the edge of space. VG plans to commence those commercial flights in 2011, assuming planned test flights go as expected. SpaceShipTwo will carry six passengers and be operated by two pilots. VG already has 250 confirmed customers; at six a pop, that's more than sixty flights already filled. At $200,000 per ticket, VG already has $50 million in ticket sales alone.
SpaceShipTwo will be unveiled in Mojave, California, near America's Pacific Coast.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Pondering Safety
Congress has begun a process aimed at developing a safety regime that would allow NASA astronauts to fly to orbit aboard commercial spacecraft. Currently, between the retirement of the space shuttle, likely in 2011, and the first flight of Orion, which might be delayed until 2017 because of budget problems, astronauts will have to hitch rides in Russian Soyuz capsules. For various reasons, many people are unhappy about such a Russian monopoly of access to a largely U. S.-built space station.
Of course, at the moment there are no commercial human-rated spacecraft, much less any capable of orbital flight, but there are companies working towards that goal. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences already have contracts with NASA to build cargo ships that will take supplies to ISS, and both are looking at transforming those unmanned vehicles into human-rated capsules. Several other NewSpace companies-- plus, perhaps, Lockheed Martin and Boeing-- are also trying to develop manned spacecraft. One, Interorbital Systems, plans a private orbital flight in 2011.
Before NASA will risk astronauts' lives in such vehicles, however, the craft will have to meet NASA safety requirements. The U. S. House committee with oversight of space policy has held hearings gathering testimony and facts about the safety issue. The committee is urging NASA and the FAA to cooperate in developing safety standards for commercial craft. NASA says it would probably take three years for it to be satisfied that a commercial spaceship was safe enough to fly astronauts. Three years doesn't seem an inordinate amount of time if a new company can get NASA's seal of approval.
Of course, at the moment there are no commercial human-rated spacecraft, much less any capable of orbital flight, but there are companies working towards that goal. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences already have contracts with NASA to build cargo ships that will take supplies to ISS, and both are looking at transforming those unmanned vehicles into human-rated capsules. Several other NewSpace companies-- plus, perhaps, Lockheed Martin and Boeing-- are also trying to develop manned spacecraft. One, Interorbital Systems, plans a private orbital flight in 2011.
Before NASA will risk astronauts' lives in such vehicles, however, the craft will have to meet NASA safety requirements. The U. S. House committee with oversight of space policy has held hearings gathering testimony and facts about the safety issue. The committee is urging NASA and the FAA to cooperate in developing safety standards for commercial craft. NASA says it would probably take three years for it to be satisfied that a commercial spaceship was safe enough to fly astronauts. Three years doesn't seem an inordinate amount of time if a new company can get NASA's seal of approval.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Servicing ISS
Extending the lifetime of ISS beyond its current termination scheduled for 2015 would require cargo flights after 2015, and Europe and Japan are beginning to look at ways to pay for additional flights of the cargo ships they have developed.
The Augustine committee probably reflected the views of many in the space community when it argued ISS should be extended at least through 2020. Taking twenty years to complete the station and using it in its full capability for only four years makes very little sense, yet that is the current U. S. plan.
Europe and Japan both might run into budget constraints as the governments involved try to navigate the current economic downturn. As has happened in the U. S. for decades, when governments want to show they're being fiscally prudent, space budgets seem to be among the first to be slashed. If Europe and Japan fail to get funding, supplying ISS would fall to Russia, and perhaps to U. S. commercial carriers just now developing the necessary craft.
The Augustine committee probably reflected the views of many in the space community when it argued ISS should be extended at least through 2020. Taking twenty years to complete the station and using it in its full capability for only four years makes very little sense, yet that is the current U. S. plan.
Europe and Japan both might run into budget constraints as the governments involved try to navigate the current economic downturn. As has happened in the U. S. for decades, when governments want to show they're being fiscally prudent, space budgets seem to be among the first to be slashed. If Europe and Japan fail to get funding, supplying ISS would fall to Russia, and perhaps to U. S. commercial carriers just now developing the necessary craft.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Space Solar Power
The idea of powering human civilization by collecting energy fron the Sun in huge satellites and beaming it into Earth's electrical grid has been around for decades. If things go right, the concept may finally be tested soon. Japan is studying a plan that would allow that island nation to get a large percentage of its energy from space-based solar by the 2030s. California is looking at a proposal to develop space-based solar as a viable energy alternative in fifteen years, and various other governments and private companies are looking at what's possible.
In a world quickly approaching nine billion humans, with expensive energy and climate damage, getting clean, limitless energy from the Sun is certainly attractive. At some point, the cost of space-based solar will be competitive with, say, oil, as that resource gets harder and harder to develop. Nor does space-based solar have the potential for disaster nuclear plants have. The guts of a SSP system, the huge satellite, would be beyond natural disasters, and would be beyond the reach of terrorist and most military attacks. Indeed, a mature SSP system would be a decentralized system; attacking one satellite would make very little sense.
Getting the energy from space to Earth is still a problem. Microwaves and lasers have been proposed as possible modes of delivery, but their effects on the atmosphere are still unclear. Building huge structures in space and keeping them properly oriented and maintained for decades or longer are still likely engineering feats beyond our capability, too, but that can change. In 1961, putting a man on the Moon and safely returning him to the Earth was utterly beyond any human agency-- but it wasn't by 1969.
In a world quickly approaching nine billion humans, with expensive energy and climate damage, getting clean, limitless energy from the Sun is certainly attractive. At some point, the cost of space-based solar will be competitive with, say, oil, as that resource gets harder and harder to develop. Nor does space-based solar have the potential for disaster nuclear plants have. The guts of a SSP system, the huge satellite, would be beyond natural disasters, and would be beyond the reach of terrorist and most military attacks. Indeed, a mature SSP system would be a decentralized system; attacking one satellite would make very little sense.
Getting the energy from space to Earth is still a problem. Microwaves and lasers have been proposed as possible modes of delivery, but their effects on the atmosphere are still unclear. Building huge structures in space and keeping them properly oriented and maintained for decades or longer are still likely engineering feats beyond our capability, too, but that can change. In 1961, putting a man on the Moon and safely returning him to the Earth was utterly beyond any human agency-- but it wasn't by 1969.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SuperEarths And Life
Harvard astronomy professor Dimitar Sasselov coined the term "SuperEarth" to refer to worlds similar to Earth, but with two to ten times the mass. Now, Sasselov is arguing such worlds might be better able to support life than our own.
He bases his argument principally on increased geologic energy on the more massive planets-- especially more efficient plate tectonics. That's important because tectonic shifts release carbon into the environment, and carbon is essential for life. Sasselov goes on to speculate that most civilizations might, therefore, be found on SuperEarths, and suggests that might explain why Earth hasn't been visited by aliens. Either the aliens haven't developed the technology to allow them to escape the deep gravity well of their home planet, or they see smal worlds like Earth as unikely homes of life.
Not to question a Harvard astronomy professor, but an extremely active planet geologically-- with volcanoes constantly erupting and the surface in a constant state of change-- doesn't seem like a good place for advanced civilization to rise and thrive. Life, perhaps; civilization capable of space travel, maybe not. There is also the matter of that strong gravitational field. Surely such a planet would tend to bring even more comets and asteroids to itself than Earth does, and we know life on Earth could be extinguished under such a bombardment. Increase the number of objects coming in, and the speed with which they hit the surface under the stronger gravity, and sustaining life might be problematical.
He bases his argument principally on increased geologic energy on the more massive planets-- especially more efficient plate tectonics. That's important because tectonic shifts release carbon into the environment, and carbon is essential for life. Sasselov goes on to speculate that most civilizations might, therefore, be found on SuperEarths, and suggests that might explain why Earth hasn't been visited by aliens. Either the aliens haven't developed the technology to allow them to escape the deep gravity well of their home planet, or they see smal worlds like Earth as unikely homes of life.
Not to question a Harvard astronomy professor, but an extremely active planet geologically-- with volcanoes constantly erupting and the surface in a constant state of change-- doesn't seem like a good place for advanced civilization to rise and thrive. Life, perhaps; civilization capable of space travel, maybe not. There is also the matter of that strong gravitational field. Surely such a planet would tend to bring even more comets and asteroids to itself than Earth does, and we know life on Earth could be extinguished under such a bombardment. Increase the number of objects coming in, and the speed with which they hit the surface under the stronger gravity, and sustaining life might be problematical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
