Improved space safety for astronauts

The 2003 Columbia accident demonstrated that spaceflight remains a risky and dangerous human endeavor, yet there have been few ‘unofficial’ investigations into astronaut safety. This report summarizes the findings of one such study by George Washington University's Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute—e.g. that simplicity of design may be better than complexity, that cargo missions would be better carried out robotically and that all new space transportation systems should be developed to common international standards—before examining ways that international cooperation can advance the cause of space safety. In establishing future space safety standards input from a wider range of participants (industry, universities and private research institutes, as well as space agencies, etc.) will need to be sought.     

But what is the true rationale for human spaceflight?

Human interest in spaceflight is ancient. It is therefore ironic that, at a time when humans finally have the capability to travel in space, the notion that we should do so is being questioned. The author analyses the reasons for this — the historical/political and technological contingency of the Space Age and the sudden falling away of the conditions which drove space activity — and in the process provides a critique of the forgoing article and the tendency to search for utilitarian justifications of human spaceflight. He argues rather that space programmes will thrive only when driven by non-material cultural and political forces. US-Russian cooperation, which has principally been undertaken for geopolitical reasons is a model for the future.     

The return of the American military to crewed spaceflight: Hypersonic and other visions

Since the 1950s, crewed spaceflight has been the province of NASA, a decision reaffirmed in the 1960s with the cancellation of all military projects which might have competed. That understanding has driven American space policy since that time despite the fact that the military has not given up its dream of crewed spaceflight. Over the past decade, that division of labor has begun to break down in part due to the military's heightened awareness of the usefulness of space as operational location. The Air Force, the service most committed to this vision of military space, has in its planning for the next generation returned to the concept of military space activities across the spectrum. In essence, the implied social contract which drove American crewed spaceflight since the sixties is now undergoing revision and possible reversal. Given the political climate, NASA may be particularly vulnerable to such challenges. The impact of such a change upon the world wide human spaceflight effort is unknown but likely to be extremely disruptive as military considerations move to the fore. The debate is ongoing, the major limitation remains budget so that any agreed upon changes are likely to be slow to occur.     

Taking stock of Europe's developing space policy: from the European space policy workshops to the European space policy forum

A series of workshops designed to make up for the lack of high-level, informal discussion of European space policy has been running—with a gap during formulation of the EC Green/White Paper on this subject—since September 2002. In view of the progress made in establishing a coherent European strategy, and of various other recent events, such as China's entry into the human spaceflight field, the organizers intend not only to continue the series but also to establish a more permanent, research-oriented European Space Policy Foundation (ESPF). Following a report on the proceedings of the third workshop, held in September 2003, which covered developing an overall European policy, new applications (Galileo and GMES) and human spaceflight, the authors set out a proposal for an ESPF and present the six major research themes it would aim to investigate.     

Management dynamics of NASA''s human spaceflight programs

The public management dynamics of human spaceflight at NASA in the post-Apollo era—Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and the United States national vision for space exploration—are examined. A number of variables are applied to assess this. Public management processes are identified as a function of political accountability, organizational decision-making and cultures, and technical aspects directed at high reliability and safety of the large-scale, complex, and high-risk technologies that characterize NASA's human spaceflight programs. The findings indicate that these variables are causally linked to management outcomes through dynamics of centralized and decentralized organizational approaches. The success or failure of NASA's human spaceflight programs are linked to organizational management based on dynamics between centralized aspects of management, like controls over cost and schedule, and decentralized aspects, such as engineering authority over technical development.     

Space and modernity: 50 years on

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the start of spaceflight and of the initiation of European integration, both these symbols of modernity seem to have stalled. We have learnt that some forms of modernity bore a heavy price, such as environmental issues. The social value of ‘progress’ has changed; this affects the types of programme that publics support. Although prestige may still be important to new spacefaring nations, it is the utility of space technology in solving terrestrial problems that is most important, while economic changes, which have made government funding tighter, have opened the door to private initiatives. As we enter the 21st century, we can still be proud of our achievements in space, but we must understand that the reasons we pursue such activity has changed.     

Stepping stones to the future: Achieving a sustainable lunar outpost

The current emphasis in the US and internationally on lunar robotic missions is generally viewed as a precursor to possible future human missions to the Moon. As initially framed, the implementation of high level policies such as the US Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) might have been limited to either human lunar sortie missions, or to the testing at the Moon of concepts-of-operations and systems for eventual human missions to Mars [White House, Vision for Space Exploration, Washington, DC, 14 January, 2004. [1]]. However, recently announced (December 2006) US goals go much further: these plans now place at the center of future US—and perhaps international—human spaceflight activities a long-term commitment to an outpost on the Moon.Based on available documents, a human lunar outpost could be emplaced as early as the 2020–2025 timeframe, and would involve numerous novel systems, new technologies and unique operations requirements. As such, substantial investments in research and development (R&D) will be necessary prior to, during, and following the deployment of such an outpost. It seems possible that such an outpost will be an international endeavor, not just the undertaking of a single country—and the US has actively courted partners in the VSE. However, critical questions remain concerning an international lunar outpost. What might such an outpost accomplish? To what extent will “sustainability” be built into the outpost? And, most importantly, what will be the outpost's life cycle cost (LCC)?This paper will explore these issues with a view toward informing key policy and program decisions that must be made during the next several years. The paper will (1) describe a high-level analytical model of a modest lunar outpost, (2) examine (using this model) the parametric characteristics of the outpost in terms of the three critical questions indicated above, and (3) present rough estimates of the relationships of outpost goals and “sustainability” to LCC. The paper will also consider possible outpost requirements for near-term investments in enabling research in light of experiences in past advanced technology programs.     

Planning the post-Apollo space program: Are there lessons for the present?

The current debate over the future of human spaceflight in the USA has been a fascinating, and troubling, exercise in futility for those inextricably committed to an expansive vision of human exploration and development of space. The retirement of the Space Shuttle, originally set for the end of 2010 but later extended into 2011, the technical and funding problems of the Constellation follow-on program that led to its cancellation in 2009, and the emergence of commercial vendors who might be able to offer human access to Earth orbit have all complicated the current environment. In view of this situation, the question may be legitimately asked: what might we learn from earlier efforts to develop a human spaceflight capability the last time such a transition took place? Using the post-Apollo transition from the ballistic capsule to a winged, reusable vehicle as a case study, this article seeks to illuminate the planning, decision-making, economic, and political issues that have arisen in this policy debate. It suggests that a web of interlocking issues—only one of which was technical—affected the course taken. Instead, politics, economics, social and cultural priorities, values, and institutional considerations all helped to frame the debate and shape the decision.     

Space life and biomedical sciences in support of the global exploration roadmap and societal development

The human exploration of space is pushing the boundaries of what is technically feasible. The space industry is preparing for the New Space era, the momentum for which will emanate from the commercial human spaceflight sector, and will be buttressed by international solar system exploration endeavours. With many distinctive technical challenges to be overcome, human spaceflight requires that numerous biological and physical systems be examined under exceptional circumstances for progress to be made. To effectively tackle such an undertaking significant intra- and international coordination and collaboration is required. Space life and biomedical science research and development (R & D) will support the Global Exploration Roadmap (GER) by enabling humans to ‘endure’ the extreme activity that is long duration human spaceflight. In so doing the field will discover solutions to some of our most difficult human health issues, and as a consequence benefit society as a whole. This space-specific R&D will drive a significant amount of terrestrial biomedical research and as a result the international community will not only gain benefits in the form of improved healthcare in space and on Earth, but also through the growth of its science base and industry.     

The biosphere 2 project and its potential role in assisting space exploration

Space Biospheres Ventures is developing technologies for its Biosphere 2 project — a 3 acre materially closed ecological system with human habitat, intensive agriculture and five wilderness biomes — and other life-support testbeds for space habitats in microgravity and the Moon and Mars, as well as for ecological research pertinent to the biosphere of Earth. These include soil bed reactors for air purification and biomass production; aquatic waste processing systems; real-time analytic systems; and computer systems of control and management. A space policy pursuing joint Earth and ‘space biospheres’ objectives and implications is discussed.     

A code of ethics for conducting business in outer space

The aim to increase commercial economic activity in space will be facilitated by the introduction of a code of ethics for the businesses involved, something that is now commonplace on Earth. A proposed such code—comprising 12 principles—is presented below. It covers areas such as environmental stewardship of space, the promotion of honest dealings, making safety an important concern, ensuring a free-market economy and disclosure of conflicts of interest or political contributions.     

What next for China in space after Shenzhou?

This article discusses China's ambitions in space now that it seems set to pursue human spaceflight. It suggests that, after sending its astronauts into space, completing orbital rendezvous-docking operations and placing a space lab in orbit, China will focus on the Moon with its Chang’e project. As an emerging space power, China will play a more active role in the international space community through collaboration in areas such as lunar exploration, science operations on the International Space Station, the Galileo Global Navigation Satellite System and the International Geosphere–Biosphere Program (IGBP). In particular, China will vigorously explore new opportunities to expand its cooperation with Russia and ESA to counteract Washington's attempt at containment. Meanwhile, Beijing will continue to follow its self-reliance principle to go its own way in space.     

Meeting the needs of the new millennium: passenger space travel and world economic growth

Without doubt, humans’ most urgent need at the start of the new millennium is the continuation of economic growth, which is the only means by which the great majority of the world population can lift themselves out of the poverty in which they live. A sine qua non for continuing economic growth is for the rich countries to continue to develop new industries—as they did throughout the 20th century, thereby creating high-productivity employment for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Arguably the most significant of these thus far is the development of passenger air travel from zero in 1900 to 1.5 billion passengers per year by 2000. It is becoming clear that passenger space travel could grow to reach a similar economic scale—and that no other space activity has comparable potential. The paper describes the potential contribution to world economic growth of passenger space travel; the failure of government space agencies either to aid its development or to make a contribution to economic growth commensurate to their cost; and the value for economic policy of prioritising the realisation of passenger space travel. The faster passenger space travel services grow, the more the space industry will contribute to “Meeting the Needs of the New Millennium”.     

SPS — time for a pilot plant

Scientists have expended much energy researching SPS but their theories have never yet been realistically tested. It is time for this to change and SPS 2000 — a Japanese-sponsored project to construct and operate a pilot plant to supply electricity to residents of equatorial zones — could provide the means. The project and its benefits are described and the political—economic imperatives for undertaking it presented. The author argues that there are cogent — and practical — reasons for funding a pilot plant, especially given the vast sums spent on other space activities, and on nuclear power, although the latter has never lived up to expectations.     

“Space superiority”: Wernher von Braun's campaign for a nuclear-armed space station, 1946–1956

The literature on the history of spaceflight has depicted the early 1950s Collier’s articles mostly as a forerunner to the peaceful and scientific exploration of space. Yet the centerpiece of Wernher von Braun's plan was a manned space station that would serve as reconnaissance platform and orbiting battle station for achieving “space superiority” over the USSR. One its roles could be the launching of nuclear missiles. When challenged as to the station's defensibility, von Braun even posited pre-emptive atomic strikes from space as a response to the development of a hostile anti-satellite capability.     

Reconstituting the US space programme

This response to Alex Roland's article, ‘Priorities in space for the USA’, argues that his analysis and conclusions are based on shaky historical evidence. Professor Roland's interpretation of NASA's priorities since 1959 is challenged, and it is pointed out that the manned spaceflight programme has widespread support in the USA. The most important issue, raised by the article but not treated extensively enough, is whether the pursuit of the widely accepted emphasis on manned spaceflight is a large-scale societal mistake.     

The essential role of human spaceflight

The question is: should the United States and nations at large pursue a human spaceflight program (and if so, why)? I offer an unwavering positive answer to this question, and state the reasons for it while considering the broad challenges and benefits of (human) spaceflight. Space exploration is a human activity that is intrinsically forward-looking, and as such, has positive potential. Both national and international space programs can galvanize the population, inspire the youth, foster job-creation, and motivate the existing workforce. The nature of the enterprises involved—their scale, novelty, and complexity—requires a steady and continuous upward progression toward greater societal, scientific and technological development. That is, in order to overcome the challenges of human spaceflight, progress is required. More to the point, the survival of humanity depends on expanding beyond the confines of our planet. Human spaceflight, in short, presents us with an opportunity to significantly advance the nation and the global community.     

Space commercialization and the law

This article examines the current legal status of commercial activities in space and describes the legislation — both national and international — existing for their regulation. The question of who is responsible for the action of non-governmental entities is thoroughly discussed, as is the notion of freedom of enterprise. Finally the author looks at the most commercialized areas of space activities — telecommunications and Earth observations — before drawing some conclusions on likely future trends in the privitization and regulation of space activities.     

Surreal estate: addressing the issue of ‘Immovable Property Rights on the Moon’

At a time when scientific and commercial interest in the Moon is being reinvigorated it is becoming fashionable for ordinary individuals to ‘buy’ plots on the lunar surface, with the ‘vendors’ arguing that an absence of specific prohibition of individual private activity in space makes such action legal. It is therefore time for the legal community to address this situation by investigating just how legal such activity is—and bringing their findings to the attention of governments. This can be done through an examination of the relationship between national law and international space law, of the provisions of international space law—especially Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty—and by answering any claims to private ownership of immovable property. Aside from the fact that individuals appear to be being duped, the pursuit of property claims on the Moon could impede future activities aimed at benefiting society.     

Redefining safety in commercial space: Understanding debates over the safety of private human spaceflight initiatives in the United States

In 2009 President Obama proposed a budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that canceled the Constellation program and included the development of commercial crew transportation systems into low Earth orbit. This significant move to shift human spaceflight into the private sector sparked political debate, but much of the discourse has focused on impacts to “safety.” Although no one disputes the importance of keeping astronauts safe, strategies for defining safety reveal contrasting visions for the space program and opposing values regarding the privatization of U.S. space exploration. In other words, the debate over commercial control has largely become encoded in arguments over safety. Specifically, proponents of using commercial options for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) argue that commercial vehicles would be safe for astronauts, while proponents of NASA control argue that commercial vehicles would be unsafe, or at least not as safe as NASA vehicles. The cost of the spaceflight program, the technical requirements for designing a vehicle, the track record of the launch vehicle, and the experience of the launch provider are all incorporated into what defines safety in human spaceflight. This paper analyzes these contested criteria through conceptual lenses provided by fields of science and technology policy (STP) and science, technology, and society (STS). We ultimately contend that these differences in definition result not merely from ambiguous understandings of safety, but from intentional and strategic choices guided by normative positions on the commercialization of human spaceflight. The debate over safety is better considered a proxy debate for the partisan preferences embedded within the dispute over public or private spaceflight.