Commercial Space Gateway

Moon Capital: A Commercial Gateway to the Moon

Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:50:24 GMT

Dr. Marc M. Cohen, our 2nd "Guest Author-Analyst" is the former Lead Human Systems Integration Engineer for Space Systems at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems is a licensed architect who has been practicing Space Architecture for three decades. His publications that provide a foundation for the new field of Space Architecture appear on the website of the AIAA Space Architecture Technical Committee, hwww.spacearchitect.org. Marc continues to advocate for the design of systems to support Space Crew Productivity, Habitability, and Space Human Factors. He believes that commercial providers will emerge as the most capable purveyors of Space Living and Working Environments.

On 21 September 2010, the Moon Capital Competition will accept entries for the architectural design of an international and commercial lunar habitation. The prime sponsors of the competition who are putting up the prize money are:

The Boston Society of Architects (American Institute of Architects) and
The New England Council of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Other sponsors include:

Draper Laboratory,
Google Lunar X Prize,
AIAA Space Architecture Technical Committee, and
The Boston Center for the Arts

The competition is open to all comers, although its slant is largely toward space architects and architects who may become inspired to design in space. The website is at: http://www.shiftboston.org/competitions.html and contains rich background content. Under Documents, the Category 1 Architectural Design Program describes the commercial dimension of the Moon Capital. A novel aspect of this competition is that it has two submission categories one called "Let's Get Serious" and the other "Let's Have Fun".

Moon Capital consists of the planning and design of a Second Generation Habitation on the Moon to support a resident staff of 60 people. The groundbreaking on the Moon will occur July 20, 2069, to mark the 100^th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. Second Generation means that a prior lunar base exists that can serve as the construction camp and the assembly point for building Moon Capital. This assumption means that the project designers do not need to address the means of delivering materials and construction equipment to the site; the technology and transportation capability exists to assure these deliveries proximate to the construction site.

The primary purpose of Moon Capital is to provide a permanent commercial, science, and technology development facility on the Moon. Up to now, scientists and engineers have conducted lunar research almost exclusively from Earth. Certainly, the Apollo Astronauts returned over 300kg of lunar materials to Earth, which have provided a subject for study for over 40 years. However, lunar science goes far beyond picking up rocks for return to Earth; and lunar technology development has barely begun. The scientific and technological disciplines have matured to where they can be far more productive and serendipitous if these professionals can do their work directly on the Moon.

Moon Capital arises from a concept of the evolution of lunar Habitation and Space Architecture. The First Generation Habitation will take the form of a largely government-driven lunar base that currently appears on the NASA exploration timeline for a construction start in the 2030s or later. This base will provide habitation elements that include rigid, pre‐integrated modules, deployable or inflatable structures, and the reuse of lunar lander parts.

The first generation base can provide some manufacturing and assembly of modules and components for the Second Generation Habitation: Moon Capital. However, mass delivered out of the gravity well of Earth is always at a premium in space, so any design decisions that reduce landed payload‐mass and mass that the construction process must move will contribute to the success of the project.

As the Second Generation Habitation, Moon Capital represents an international and commercial effort to build a permanent human community on the moon. This community intends to achieve a much broader scope of endeavor than the First Generation base. It will support an entrepreneurial and commercial activity that can become the forerunner of a true in‐space economy. Moon Capital will be much more advanced in achieving self‐sufficiency such as food production and regenerative life support. By placing the Habitat Core underground with all the living accommodations, Moon Capital will provide superior protection from the extreme and unforgiving lunar environment. The habitat core will provide common labs for science and engineering that all crewmembers can use and share. On the lunar surface, the commercial modules cluster around the Surface Access Units to which they can make a pressurized connection.

Second Generation also means that Moon Capital will serve a multigenerational population; the staff can come with their families. Co‐locating children with their parents at a lunar base becomes an essential step toward truly breaking the bonds of Earth and becoming a space‐faring species.

The commercial activities that Moon Capital will support include:

Excavation and construction for the Moon Capital habitation,
Deployment and operation of scientific facilities such as a far-side radio telescope or a north-pole far-infrared telescope.
Supporting scientific surveys of the surface by providing transportation, field habitats, and operations,
Prospecting for minerals,
Extraction of resources such as water from polar ice or oxygen from regolith
Provision of fuel for surface rovers, lunar ascent vehicles, and interplanetary spacecraft.
Growing food,
Operating recycling processes and systems,
Manufacturing equipment for other commercial entities to use in their proprietary labs modules.

This compilation is just a start. Once people settle and live permanently on the moon, the pioneers will think of many more beneficial and profitable activities that they can undertake on Earth’s only natural satellite.

Do NASA and NewSpace Need Destinations and Deadlines?

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:46:33 GMT

Original written, 11 February 2010

Since the recent announcement of NASA's new direction as seen in President Obama's FY2011 budget, there has been some concern about the lack of milestones, deadlines, and destinations. Just how necessary are these, is the need the same for the profit-funded NewSpace industry and publicly-funded NASA programs, and how should they be determined?

Let's begin with milestones and deadlines. In this weeks' issue of Space News in an Op-Ed entitled "Change Springs Eternal," it is correctly pointed out that "The most useful innovations tend to be developed in response to specific mission requirements; history shows that pushing technology in hopes that a future application will reveal itself is more likely than not to waste money." But there is an important caveat to this statement; this may be true for most government funded and managed programs, but it doesn't necessarily apply to private sector innovation where development dollars aren't spent to meet politically derived and driven "mission requirements."

In the private sector there is only one mission requirement; generate positive cash flow and return a profit on the investment. In the private sector, there is only one deadline; get the product to market, preferably before the competition. All product development milestones are greatly influenced by this, and well-managed companies understand that success or failure in the marketplace is the sole determinant of whether or not to continue with a product's development. Like any other industry, this is how the NewSpace industry will need to operate if it is to survive and then thrive, and NASA will be just one of its markets.

Viewing suborbital and Earth-LEO transportation within this context is a radical departure, and a very scary proposition for many. But if the industry is successful at identifying and serving its markets, we will succeed beyond anything that NASA could ever accomplish on its own. NewSpace must determine and set its own milestones and deadlines within this context, rather than within our dysfunctional traditional government approach to space transportation.

As for NASA, should it have milestones and deadlines for its future R&D efforts? Certainly, but only if tied to real budgets and wisely considered and defined goals, and it is the goals that are the key. If NASA is going to develop new deep-space propulsion systems and heavy-lift launchers, how should the deadlines be determined? An arbitrary date by which the current or future President feels we should go to Mars? A date mandated by Congress by when we should visit an asteroid? I believe these approaches are wrong. All milestones, deadlines, and goals should be focused on one endeavor; the creation of an economically viable (profitable) space transportation system, regardless of where we want to go in the solar system.

Which brings us to the question of the need for declaring a destination (which is also part of the deadline issue). I've seen many calls for specific destinations like the Moon, Mars, and asteroids, and yet this is the wrong argument. There is but one destination that encompasses all other destinations; the solar system. But the only way to have it all is to proceed incrementally in our development of Earth-space transportation infrastructure. First we get it working... profitably... in sub-orbital flight, then to LEO, and then beyond. Will it take longer to return to the Moon, visit asteroids, and explore Mars and the distant planetary moons if we do it this way? Perhaps, but I don't think so. If we unleash the profit motive and combine it with focused government R&D for technology development, nothing can stop us. For all the worry about China planting its flag on the Moon before the U.S. returns there, they cannot beat America's private sector if we use it wisely in our space endeavors. A NASA sprint to the Moon or Mars is not sustainable and is unrealistic to expect when you consider our current fiscal situation.

The Cold War necessitated a fear-driven politically mandated deadline and destination, but that era is long gone. If we lose the solar system, it will not be for lack of deadlines and declared destinations. It will be because even as we segue to NewSpace for our short-term needs, we continue to behave as if government-determined deadlines and destinations are still the only way to drive our long-term desires.

Let's Stop Pretending We Can Establish Human Outposts Beyond Earth Orbit

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:20:44 GMT

We regularly see articles lamenting the fact that we’re stuck in Earth orbit and how with the Space Shuttle retirement approaching, we’ll soon have to pay others to even get there. These frustrated writers seem to suggest that if we were just able to advocate more effectively for the funding, we could travel to the Moon on the first available big rocket and establish human outposts there. Even John Noble Wilford, the Pulitzer-Prize winning space and science writer, notes in the New York Times that “humans remain stalled in low orbit”. With Obama’s proposed deferral of large rocket development and the human return to the Moon, Wilford asks, “Can Measured Beat Bold?". harkening back to Apollo when we took the boldest step of all. Wilford’s reference to “Measured” acknowledges Obama’s current approach to invest in advanced technology, robotics, and new infrastructure that will allow us to effectively use the International Space Station (ISS) that’s nearing completion, and conduct lunar missions without humans onboard.

Obama anticipates that new and cheaper solutions to accessing space will emerge from partnering with the private sector, and is urging NASA to focus more on our many national challenges such as climate change monitoring, disaster mitigation, and non-carbon energy advances along with exploring space. Good evidence indicates that it is what the broad public has been seeking for some time now, and considering current economic conditions and NASA’s urgent need for public support, it should be embraced. Wilford, in his last paragraph, wisely and elegantly notes that, “Even if robotic surrogates can go farther and make discoveries at less cost, the Obama space plan, if nothing else, reminds us that banked fires still burn and may yet light the way to distant shores. Humans will probably not rest until they again ride their technologies themselves.”

Now, while giving Obama a break, it’s really important for us to remember that we’re “stuck” in low Earth orbit for more reasons than lack of rockets or funds – a fact that always gets lost in the political battles that haunt human space exploration. The Moon lies well outside the Van Allen Belts surrounding Earth that protect us and space platforms in low Earth orbit like the ISS, against the worst kinds of cosmic radiation. We always have crew rescue vehicles attached to the ISS for a quick return to Earth if an on-orbit disaster like a meteorite impact occurs. Also, we transport food and water, supplies, equipment repair kits, replacement crews and much more, regularly to the ISS from Earth. We remain in Earth orbit in part because we are not yet prepared to establish human outposts on the far distant Moon and we have much work left to do there .

Have we forgotten that one of the main rationales for building the ISS was as a stepping stone to exploration beyond Earth orbit? We’re just finishing its construction now and have major research to do not just on human adaptation to living “off Earth” but also on developing reliable life support and recycling systems needed to eventually support and sustain human habitation for long durations, far from Earth. Research of this kind has not been consistently funded and needs to be pursued over the next decade of ISS operations, preferably in collaboration with our international partners.

We also need to add artificial gravity systems to the ISS that will allow us to simulate for research animals and humans, the effects of Earth gravity (1 g), and gravity on the Moon (1/6th g) and Mars (1/3rd g). A large centrifuge facility was one of the key research modules under development for the ISS, but it was very unfortunately cancelled due to funding shortfalls. Interest is growing rapidly among the international partners in bringing this research capability to the ISS for broad use. When we are actually prepared to develop and transport human outposts on the Moon we will have accumulated much new knowledge and technologies that will also allow us to travel to other locations besides the Moon. Bigelow Aerospace, an entrepreneurial space habitat company has already proposed using its expandable modules as human transport systems to sites near the Moon but also as landers and preliminary bases for future human outposts. Such commercial investments can pay off not only for flexible future human exploration, but right here on Earth too by producing profits and hence new careers.

We Need Cheaper Access to Space: Can It Be Done?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:25:17 GMT

The Obama Administration’s first budget includes a revised NASA strategy for human spaceflight that’s considered the path to devastation and ruin by some, and a cause for joy and triumph by others. You could sum up the general response by current NASA funding beneficiaries as, “Change? Absolutely! But, not in my space program.”

The NASA Administrator’s view is that it costs way too much to get into space using our current infrastructure and the usual traditional aerospace contractors to build the launchers, the spacecraft and conduct the continuous ground operations.. Our ongoing need to transport humans adds increased requirements that makes it essential that costs be minimized, and safety uncompromised. Shuttle launches are now estimated to cost almost $1B each. Our launch rate is near an all time low and considering the expense, it should be no surprise. Limited space access is the major barrier to developing a true space economy that could provide down-to-Earth benefits and solutions to some of our major global challenges. Thus significantly cheaper access to space, as has been noted for years, is the fundamental change needed to allow human space exploration, commercial infrastructure development and private sector implementation of associated space services.

The proposed White House changes for NASA include cancellation of the Constellation Program that’s currently tasked with developing a medium-sized rocket and space capsule to transport crew and cargo to the International Space Station and back, when the Space Shuttle retires in 2011. The Program is also tasked with developing a large rocket able to transport crew and a lunar lander/human habitat to the Moon. Cost overruns, technology and safety problems and delays plagued Constellation and its death knell may have been the projected $1B cost per launch and the $50B cost to reach launch capability. There would be a major gap between Shuttle retirement and any U.S. replacement for cargo or crew transport even if Constellation were continued.

Obama proposes that responsibility for cargo transport and crewed spaceflight to Earth orbit be shifted to the private sector. Indeed, the day after Obama’s budget hit the streets, Bolden, the NASA Administrator, introduced what some call the “Merchant 7” consisting of seven companies who, based on competitive proposals, have been seed-funded by NASA (augments private investment funds) to develop new safer launch systems and technologies that can allow us to reach orbital space at much lower costs. The strategies for this could include: launchers that are more reusable; simpler rockets that use smarter, smaller, more lightweight subsystems; expandable, lighter spacecraft; increased competition between launch providers, and more. The new NASA budget also includes deferral of sending humans to the Moon for several years based on not having sufficient budget to develop large launchers, lunar landers, human life support and habitat systems to do so. When the Russians transport our crew to the International Space Station (ISS it costs $50M each, but SpaceX, one of the Mercury 7 group, projects costs of $20M each with their developing Falcon 9 launcher and Dragon capsule. .

As many have reminded us, Obama’s new NASA strategy for major change in our approach to human spaceflight requires congressional review and approval, and it may emerge from that process looking quite different than it went in. Congress will argue that safety for commercial crew transport may be compromised for business profits, and that launcher availability delays caused by the less-experienced companies, are inevitable. NASA selected both new and the old guard aerospace entities for the Merchant 7 and will ensure that safety is validated by design, test, demonstration and certification...and, they will not be certifying themselves for the first time.

Bottom line, however, NASA will not have sufficient budget to pursue building a new human spaceflight program infrastructure and continue support for and increased utilization of the ISS. Human spaceflight to the ISS with increases in onboard microgravity research, including science discovery and technology development for future human space exploration, will now continue through at least 2020. Obama proposes an additional $6B for NASA over 5 years to support the commercial development of crewed spaceflight capabilities and related efforts. Painful though it will surely be, new benefits and options will emerge and hopefully allow many of those negatively affected by these changes to redirect their efforts toward more sustainable space efforts. The U.S. needs a new more efficient infrastructure to maintain the capabilities that we depend on and to create new opportunities to collaborate and compete in the global space economy. Our new exploration direction will be determined as we proceed on this new path and the passion for the pursuit will reemerge again. As Bolden suggests, “lets work together” on this incredibly exciting challenge that we can believe in.

“I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Help”

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:11:28 GMT

This title is a well-worn phrase sometimes used by NASA and other government managers as self-deprecating humor to help loosen up an audience before they give their presentations. It usually draws some laughs, and more than a few groans. But what are its origins, what does it mean, and why should we, who support space commerce, even care?

The phrase was a favorite of President Reagan’s who liked to say that it contained "The nine most terrifying words in the English language.” The cynical but provocative underlying message was that government can’t really help solve problems - it only makes things worse. We all have our favorite examples of government-related failures (Katrina anyone?), but we often forget that in the main, government does work. Most would not agree that the solution to poor government performance is to eliminate it. But we usually agree on the need for better leadership, more public oversight, and direct citizen involvement in the process - and we should balance the budget too.

But how does this classic remnant of “Reaganism” relate to our advocacy goals for government’s support of the commercial space enterprise? Those nine scary words suggest an old style of government that we must pressure to be more open, effective and democratic. This is essential in part because government has a critical role to play in facilitating the emergence of entrepreneurial space commerce.

Only the government can work to ensure that the bureaucratic barriers to space access for U.S. entrepreneurs are low, and also ensure there are reasonable safety guidelines in place. Government can also commit to being a reliable customer for companies who are able to provide good value, but make it known that it expects to be just the first of several customers, as space commerce grows. Government needs multiple commercial providers and doesn’t want to be any industry’s only customer. That’s way too risky for all as has been learned many times over in the aerospace contracting industry.

Looking just at NASA, it has a congressional legislative mandate, and the President’s and NASA Administrator’s strong support to help increase the private sector’s ability to provide lower-cost infrastructure services for more frequent access to space. There is understandable resistance to this by some members of Congress whose regional and state funding might be negatively impacted by the increasing use of emerging commercial space companies. However, the U.S. can no longer afford the higher costs of solely accessing space via government-developed, and contractor-operated and maintained transportation systems. We must utilize and adapt to the new emerging lower-cost more effective options, or lose our ability to compete in the increasingly global space marketplace. There is evidence that some traditional aerospace entities intend to be involved in providing new commercial space services too, which would bring more healthy competition (and some buyouts?).

We will not have cheaper and more reliable access to, and utilization of space unless there is a profit motive driving private investment. Thankfully, NASA is demonstrating the power of government investment in space transport via a public-private partnership with industry termed Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS). NASA ensures that funds are available to industry competition winners for needed infrastructure development only as they meet pre-defined milestones, including the capture of specified private investment funds. The end goal is for the government to be a customer and purchase needed services at a much lower cost and thus save resources and increase reliability and safety driven by market competition. It’s a win-win and U.S. industries can once again become major competitors in the international space access market with many national benefits, including the development and sale of new space infrastructure technologies globally (new jobs).

NASA needs to think like, and learn to be, what I call a “collaborative customer”, a coined phrase that recognizes its dual role in commercial space. As a customer it can buy services from industry such as transport of cargo and eventually astronauts to space, but it also needs to collaborate with the private sector to support its market entry and participation in space infrastructure development, such as systems for automated docking with the ISS. The new NASA Commercial ReUsable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) Program will also allow NASA to be a collaborative customer in support of research in near-space. Changing most things, including government is always hard, but now we must muster it within NASA. Or, as put more directly by a NASA colleague of mine, "If you don't like change in NASA, you'll like irrelevance even less".

Dramatic Improvements Can Be Made in Spaceflight Safety

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:24:54 GMT

Robert Talmage, BSAE, is president of TAAS Company in Acworth, Georgia and our second "Guest" Author-Analyst. He has long been focused on the development of new escape systems and flight testing. His original proposal for a two stage rocket plane was published in Design News, Omni and Popular Mechanics. TAAS Company developed the Aircraft Escape Cabin (AEC) to offer a new option for crew recovery. Talmage recently presented the AEC technology and it’s value in flight testing and new space development at the AIAA International Space Plane Conference and AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference. His goal is to see these crew recovery techniques realized across multiple applications including military aircraft and spaceflight transportation.

Various NASA spokespersons, astronauts and managers are seeking a tenfold increase in flight safety standards for future astronauts. Several of their comments can be seen in “NASA Clamors for Safer Launchers”, by Todd Halvorson and published by Florida Today (November 29, 2009). Wayne Hale, NASA Deputy Administrator for Strategic Partnerships, went even further when speaking to the commercial space industry at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight, (ISPCS) in October this year. Hale suggested that it was highly likely that NASA would require a crew escape system as part of any commercial services they would choose to procure for crew transportation.

Due to the launch dynamics, achieving greatly improved safety levels in vertical launch vehicles will inherently be far more difficult than for horizontal launch vehicles. Crew escape from a vertical launch failure imposes the most significant risks, weight penalties and technical complexities on a rescue system. For example, the Apollo Command Module (CM) carried three crew, at a total mass of 6000 kg. The recovery parachutes and equipment to land the CM on return to Earth weighed 250 kg or 4.2 % of the CM’s total mass. But the Launch Escape System (LES) add-on necessary to lift the CM away from a launch failure weighed 4200 kg. To protect the crew only during launch, the vertical launch Saturn vehicle had to carry the expendable and costly LES, adding weight penalties sixteen times that of the parachutes and recovery systems.

Use of aerodynamics in a horizontal launch vehicle eliminates the need for an escape tower (LES) by employing aircraft style flight safety characteristics. The other risks imposed by rocket propulsion, extreme speeds, very high altitudes and aerodynamic heating during the flight also warrant an escape system as has appropriately been indicated by NASA. Current escape technology for aircraft will not meet the requirements for space flight or accommodate multiple individuals. By satisfying these escape needs for a space plane, we can avoid the severe weight penalties associated with escape towers and fly individuals to space with aircraft style safety and efficiency. Vertical launch vehicles are best suited for un-manned operations.

An Aircraft Escape Cabin (AEC) system has been designed that represents the first new escape technology in a decade. The AEC enables escape and recovery at supersonic speeds and extreme altitudes. In an emergency, the AEC separates and glides to the most appropriate landing site on water or land. Equipped with light weight, simple mechanical devices and parachute technology, the AEC can provide safe recovery of occupants from most all in-flight emergencies.

The AEC’s modular features can also satisfy military crew survival needs and offer the cost-savings and versatility of interchangeable modular sections, such as crewed and un-crewed options. The primary markets for this modular technology are in commercial human spaceflight, military flight operations, and flight test vehicles. Flight research and testing precede the development of new aerospace vehicles; however, no manned supersonic, high altitude, rocket powered, flight test vehicles are yet publically available. Targeting this emerging market with such a viable safety option satisfies an urgent need and offers a valuable service for the development of new vehicles and propulsion systems. A practical escape system would be especially important since space planes have the future goal to evolve from suborbital to the highly-desired orbital phases – a major technical challenge.

The simplicity of the AEC technique enables it to be adapted to an existing aircraft. The TAAS Company in Georgia, teaming with other aerospace companies, proposes to create a prototype AEC demonstrator. Since an AEC is relatively small, without propulsion or landing gear, the projected cost to fabricate and fly one is modest. The prototype demonstrator could subsequently be used with a rocket powered flight test vehicle for a full-up systems test (see above image).

New high speeds and altitude trajectories will soon change aviation as we know it. World transportation will shrink in time from double digits to two hours as global access becomes available. Eventually, with additional speed, crew and passengers will be flying to Earth orbit. Flight testing is the most urgent need for such development, and for this we need new escape technology.

Inside the Big Suborbital Research Tent

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:52:56 GMT

I'm now providing support to a new NASA research program that's collaborating with the commercial suborbital vehicle providers who plan to transport personal spaceflight customers and/or their research payloads to altitudes up to about 100 km. In the process, the vehicle and its contents will be exposed to several minutes of microgravity. This emerging opportunity to research the novel environment inside and the unexplored environment outside the spacecraft in the upper atmosphere, is seen as a game-changer. NASA is developing this program in support of its congressional commercial space utilization mandate to facilitate access to "Near-Space" on private sector vehicles by NASA-sponsored researchers, engineers, technologists, educators and students. As stated in a recent program summary, "The goal of the Commercial ReUsable Suborbital Research Program is to facilitate regular, frequent and predictable access to the edge of space at a reasonable cost with easy recovery of intact payloads". This is incredibly good news. It can be viewed as a major milestone leading to the "Holy Grail" of space exploration, the much lower cost and frequent access to space. Several of the Near-Space companies would like to eventually extend the reach of their reusable suborbital space planes to Earth orbit, no small feat. That goal is foundational to the vision of ultimately creating a true space economy.

I view my support for CRuSR as a "complement of interest" to my role as Editor for the Commercial Space Gateway that advocates for emergence of the multi-stakeholder global commercial space market. That surely includes funding of suborbital vehicle providers for the transport of research payloads and eventually researchers to Near-Space, as well as regular customers. The NASA site for CRuSR provides background, status and objectives for the new Program. .

What I want to spotlight here is the amazingly broad, multi-faceted scope of the emerging suborbital research community, and NASA's important involvement in its growth via the CRUSR Program. I've been involved with NASA research programs for thirty years, but I have never seen an attempt to envision, let alone participate in, such a highly collaborative endeavor. In many ways, to me, CRUSR seems as innovative for a government agency to undertake as transporting payloads and people to Near-Space is for the commercial space industry. NASA's involvement with the international community in building the International Space Station is a contemporary legend. As extraordinary as that has been, it has been mainly a grand collaboration between government entities, albeit one is Russia and another may be China. CRUSR is much broader than just government collaboration and will require all the bridge-building skills NASA and its collaborators can muster. Luckily there are many who are eager to accept the challenge.

The suborbital research community will include many stakeholders such as: NASA Ames Research Center (Level II Ofiice for CRuSR) and other NASA Centers; other government agencies; the emerging suborbital spaceflight industry now represented by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF); the Southwest Research Institute and its key suborbital research advocate, Alan Stern (former NASA); the CSF-sponsored Space Applications Research Group (SARG) that is spearheading recruitment of researchers across many discipline areas; several highly-experienced payload developers who can provide spacecraft integration services, and the emerging Spaceports, the "Teachers in Space" project and the vital space educator entities, space education foundations, and the thousands of associated classrooms across the nation. This is going to be one big tent and CRuSR will need innovative ways to support its communications and collaborations from one end of it to the other. That means, as we all know, leadership that includes the next generation.

So, Let's Talk About It: The NASA Resources Gap

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:55:28 GMT

Norm Augustine and the "Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee" that he Chaired, reputedly worked hard on a fast track, accepting input from most everyone, to define options that would fit inside or fall outside the current and projected NASA budget. It was obviously a tough, thankless job, and we can assume that none sought the assignment by NASA and the Obama Administration. According to their final report, "The Committee was asked to review the program of record [current approved NASA plan] and offer prospective alternatives, not to recommend a specific future course for the human spaceflight program". They deserve our appreciation for this major effort and their well-written report. If you don't agree, I suggest trying to put yourself in their place with their mandate.

The report has some elements that please many, but as a total package seems to please only a few. And it really was not focused on recommendations, but on options, even though they seemed to have some favorite ones (but who wouldn't). What it really nailed down was a fact that many seem to understand, but few want to acknowledge openly, let alone discuss in detail. The first paragraph of the Executive Summary nails it to the door for all to see:

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most demanding and unforgiving ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today."

NASA budget decreases, frozen budgets with no inflation factor included, unfunded White House mandates, and the need to rebuild the aging space infrastructure is forcing very difficult choices and many see some major downside for their particular interests. However, the entrepreneurial commercial space market seems to have emerged from this process with a broad vote of confidence from the Committee, from the NASA Administrator, and the public. There seems to be general agreement that NASA is clearly overextended and desperately needs to lower its costs for support of ongoing human-related flight operations, especially in low Earth orbit, by utilizing commercial solutions, whenever appropriate. If commercial space entities cannot attract sufficient investors or eventually make a profit, they will go out of business, but we all hope that U.S. companies, many of whom are already involved, will compete strongly with their international counterparts. What we need to surely avoid is NASA going out of business, not due to lack of funding, but lack of public confidence and support. Aerospace is one of our best manufacturing and export sectors which we must retain and expand for global competitiveness. Also, our commercial space entities, often in partnership with government, will build new infrastructure elements (launch vehicles, spacecraft, fuel depots, research labs, space services, etc.) that will lower costs, and ultimately increase reliability and expand the space enterprise market. That's a path to both economic vitality and sustainability.

Expansion of commercial space activity in partnership with NASA and DoD inevitably brings some conflict between civil servant and private sector jobs, at least during the initial challenging transition period. This has brought congressional resistance to the fore, especially from the strong NASA-funded mission development focused states such as Florida, Alabama, and Texas. Jeff Foust of The Space Review captured an insightful quote from Jeff Greason, the CEO of XCOR Aerospace and a member of the Augustine Committee. Greason states, "To put it brutally, this trade, to my mind, is a trade between whether we have a space program or a jobs program". And that's a trade that nobody wants to make. Ideally, of course, such transitions, would be done with overlapping government and private sector activity, no gaps in between projects, and evolve so people have some chance to adapt.

Due to the realities of the current economic chaos both in the U.S. and world-wide, change seems to be happening often in hard, disruptive ways. We need our mature workforce and our new workforce in both sectors to work together, especially during this transition period. We can't afford to lose any talent in either category. A new collaborative endeavor by government (NASA and the Air Force Research Lab) and the emerging commercial reusable launch vehicle industry (suborbital and orbital) is emerging, called the "Commercial RLV Technology Roadmap Project". Such public-private partnerships can greatly help to lower the conflict over jobs since both sectors have major roles to play in advancing these technologies to lower space access costs while steadily building an infrastructure that will produce long-term value for the nation. .

It's the REAL THING

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:37:03 GMT

I just returned from the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight (ISPCS). Copies of the presentations will soon be accessible via the New Mexico NASA Space Grant Consortium , the event organizer. However, with the help of a bevy of onsite bloggers, the speakers' comments, reactions to those comments, and comments on those reactions began reverberating throughout the online community even before they had concluded their remarks (HobbySpace.com, CosmicLog.msnbc.msn.com). Therefore, I certainly won't try to summarize the two days of plenary sessions. However, there were some important over-arching developments that can be distilled from the fine panel presentations, and here are my impressions.

-The global sense of expectation that there is a real, emerging commercial space industry is stronger and more widespread than a year ago. Government representatives, large and small industry, universities, workforce development organizations, and spaceport operators uniformly believe that some invisible corner has been turned.

-There is heightened concern over STEM education and where future aerospace workers will come from. Often this was not a formal part of the panelist's presentations, but was verbalized in the questions and comments section after a number of the talks. A similar concern was voiced about transfer of knowledge from the aging, experienced generation to the next generation. There were no concrete suggestions about what to do, but then this was not a workshop about how to solve that problem. There should be one, but that is another story.

-The Augustine report was mentioned often, both in formal presentations and followup comments. Most people saw it as an important signal and driver to accelerate development of commercial space endeavors, and it helps build the idea that there is a commercial space marketplace not just for wealthy joy-riders but for meeting practical needs. On a related front, the question of what constitutes "commercial space" was posed but not answered. The phrase does seem to be code for a shift away from government-centric operations toward a more diversified marketplace of space-related goods and services.

-NASA is grappling with how to fit in this new alignment, but is coming to accept the fact that they are assuming the role of science-based buyers of space access services in many cases, rather than just spaceflight pioneers. Within that, the NASA Administrator is regarded as having the "right stuff" and an open mind, but will take his cues from the White House.

-Representatives from spaceports in Sweden, Florida, Indiana, French New Guinea, and New Mexico were present. Importantly, there was strong vocal agreement that they do not see themselves as competitors with one another for launch business. There was recognition that each spaceport has its own strengths and weaknesses for certain users trying to do particular missions with given types of equipment, and that the term "competition" is pretty much meaningless at this point. They are very desirous of working together to develop point-to-point transportation, and working with the FAA and other authorities on common operational issues to make commercial space flight more routine. This is a good thing.

-There is a need to de-fragment the process of developing standard interactions between various spaceports and the flight systems of anticipated users. No one wants to see a situation where users launching from one spaceport would have to land at a destination with incompatible systems. And no one wants the government in the position of listening to multiple petitioners make their cases about why their specific way of doing launches and returns is safer or more efficient than someone else's. Industry needs to come to the table and jointly lay out a plan and develop standards.

The fact that venture capitalists would show up and talk about their investments and plans for the commercial space industry says something, too. The commercial space industry is real enough to create significant movement by a lot of highly knowledgeable players. Our pathway to the stars is opening up. This is an exciting time to be alive, and to look forward to many "firsts" and rich, new experiences.

To Bold(en)ly Go Where NASA Has Gone Before?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:13:11 GMT

Original written, 04 October 2009

According to a Sept. 10th article in The Wall Street Journal, the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, headed by former Lockheed Martin Corp. Chairman Norman Augustine, "... is recommending that NASA shelve its goal of rapidly returning to the moon and instead focus on nurturing a robust commercial space industry that can handle short-term objectives of the nation's space program, such as ferrying cargo and crew to the international space station."

If you've followed my writing during the last few years, you know that I've long advocated a space exploration/settlement/development schedule that is synchronized with and nurtures the evolving capabilities of the NewSpace industry, rather than attempt to meet a politically mandated deadline.

The four big questions before us are 1) does NASA want to follow the above recommendation, 2) will President Obama direct NASA to do so, 3) will Congress support or interfere with such a directive, and 4) would NASA do what it is told to do if so directed?

Here are my thoughts about the four questions:

1) In a Sept. 25th article in Space News, NASA Administrator Bolden says, “I would be telling you a lie if I told you we’re on board, we’re really excited about this.” And yet, while acknowledging that "Old habits die hard" and "Many of us who have grown up in the traditional space program, you know, we really believe we have all the answers," he does recognize the value of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.

My interpretation: Bolden recognizes that NewSpace is important to NASA's success, yet he knows that there are many powerful NewSpace foes within NASA and Congress that he must either co-opt or crush if NASA and NewSpace are to achieve their full synergistic potential. Whichever path he chooses, it will be a path where NASA has already gone before, as it has already made both half-hearted and sincere efforts to nurture NewSpace, and it has worked hard to crush NewSpace companies such as Mir Corp. Perhaps even worse, it has ignored similar NewSpace advice from the past:

* In 1986, in the wake of the loss of the space shuttle Challenger, Congress created and President Reagan appointed The National Commission on Space. On p. 110 of its report, "Pioneering the Space Frontier," you will find this statement: "The Commission therefore recommends: That next-generation cargo and passenger transport vehicles be designed and developed to be readily operable by commercial firms after the operational phase is reached. The sooner the private sector can assume responsibility for design, specification, development, fabrication, fight test, production, and operation of space vehicles and launch and landing facilities, the sooner the United States can begin to pattern Earth-to-orbit transportation after commercial airline operations."

* In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to a new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" mission and convened the "President's Commission on Implementation of United States Exploration Policy," which presented its recommendations in June 2004. Recommendation 3-1 states, "The Commission recommends NASA recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations with the specific goal of allowing private industry to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit. In NASA decisions, the preferred choice for operational activities must be competitively awarded contracts with private and non-profit organizations and NASA's role must be limited to only those areas where there is irrefutable demonstration that only government can perform the proposed activity."

The results are the bleak options listed in the Augustine Committee report.

2) Among other things, I see in President Obama a manager who sincerely attempts to please all parties who will be affected by his decisions. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes all parties are willing to accept a compromise in which they all benefit more or less than they want. But sometimes a manager needs to crack heads, draw the line, and make it clear that not all parties can be made happy with a decision, and while some may be furious with the decision, that decision will be made in support of the greater good. I do not expect President Obama to dramatically change the status quo by directing NASA to do as reported in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal article.

3) Considering the to-be-expected efforts by Sen. Bill Nelson to save NASA jobs in Florida, and similar efforts by Sen. Richard Shelby, and the political ramifications thereof, I do not expect Congress to support dramatic changes at NASA.

4) Considering all the above, even if the President, Congress, and Administrator Bolden agreed to radically alter NASA's relationship with the NewSpace industry, I expect the "old habits" to which Bolden referred will fight progress every centimeter of the way, thereby continuing to delay, perhaps fatally, NASA's rejuvenation.

When it's all said and done, political inertia to maintain the status quo will over-power the political momentum for change, and the result will be NASA visibly struggling as NewSpace visibly advances.

London Cabby Saves US/Soviet Space Mission

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:43:52 GMT

When we think about what really matters to us in being part of the space enterprise, it usually comes down to people. The impacts can come from long-time colleagues, new collaborators, and international partners, but sometimes people who just cross our paths. This story is about a total stranger to whom I owe a great deal. Please add one of your own stories in the Comment field below to help remind us to appreciate the community that we are part of.

In 1980 I left my research position at the UC Berkeley Environmental Physiology Lab and started working for NASA as a space physiologist. Shortly after, I was asked to lead a three-person US delegation to Moscow to negotiate experiments to be flown on a Soviet biosatellite. The NASA Project Scientist provided me with a Nikon camera to document instrumentation, international equipment shipping forms, copies of existing agreements between the two “sides”, and notes on items to resolve during our three weeks of scheduled meetings. This critical material just fit into a leather briefcase I bought for the trip and intended to guard carefully.

We flew into London from California for an overnight stay with departure the next morning, Sunday, to Moscow. We woke early to breakfast at the hotel and I looked for my briefcase that also contained most of my money, my passport and visa. However, it wasn’t in my room and I panicked. My colleagues reminded me that when we arrived at Victoria Station on the shuttle bus from Heathrow, because the last cab was waiting, we grabbed each other’s bags sitting next to the bus, jumped in, and headed to the hotel. In spite of feeling jet-lagged, we stowed the luggage in our rooms, went right out to dinner and then a late night jazz club, to help shift our biorhythms. But why wasn’t my briefcase in one of their rooms? They didn’t have a clue.

I guessed it must have been left in the cab and ran to the stand outside the hotel and accosted the first in line. Was there a lost and found? Yes. Was it opened on Sunday? No. From where did I catch the cab to the hotel? Victoria Station. In desperation, I told the cabby that if I couldn’t retrieve the briefcase within a half-hour we would not only miss our plane, our entire trip to Moscow to negotiate a joint space flight, would collapse. He pulled me into his cab and headed for Victoria Station. I asked why, but he couldn’t explain. I knew Victoria Station was just a bus-to-cab transfer point in an unoccupied building with no doors. Of what possible use would it be to go there?

The cabby and I sprinted into the waiting room that contained a bare wooden counter. He jumped behind it and started flinging open cupboard doors and then reached in and pulled out my briefcase. I don't know who was more shocked, but we did a quick bear-hug dance of sorts, and ran back to his cab. Tears of relief and joy welled up in our eyes and as we raced back to the hotel, he assembled a likely story. The bus driver removed the briefcase from the back of the bus stowage compartment only after we had hopped into the cab, then he saw it sitting on the sidewalk after everyone had gone and figured someone would come right back to look for it. He had to leave for the airport, so he put it in the cupboard, never thinking it would sit there overnight.

In spite of my protestations, the cabby wouldn’t accept a tip, claiming his reward was to know that the “system” had worked and international cooperation would continue unabated, even between the two Cold Warriors. Whenever I see a black English taxi I feel very thankful for a cabby’s faith in his fellow man. In my experience, working on international collaborative space projects of the sort that also drive global space commerce, such stories emerge whenever people gather to share libations and discuss the incidents that make this work so incredibly addictive.

Future Outposts Beyond LEO Require R&D Now

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:57:20 GMT

Dr. Joan Vernikos, the former Director of NASA's Life Sciences Division is our first "Guest" Author-Analyst. Her books "The G-Connection" and "Stress Fitness for Seniors" provide knowledge gained and useful applications from space medicine to our lives on Earth. Links to these books, one of her NASA patents for a "human-powered artificial-gravity centrifuge", plus a bio are provided on her web site. She continues to be a strong advocate for promoting valuable collaborations between NASA and space commerce entities to develop innovations and products that benefit all.

The Space Age is still emerging. Many will take exception to this statement, but in terms of human space exploration I believe it’s true. We have much to do before we can practically design, develop and ethically attempt to implement human outposts beyond Earth. The recent 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Lunar landing reminds us that, because of the extraordinary confluence of events driven largely by the Soviet Sputnik launch, exploration by astronauts became national policy. However, Apollo’s roughly 10 day round-trip missions with brief 1-3 day periods on the Lunar surface, at low-gravity and high cosmic radiation exposure, provided little motivation to better understand the human response to this unusual environment. During Apollo Program development, the 14-day Gemini VII mission provided an initial glimpse of human adaptation to microgravity in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). But as long as the engineering wizards could design increasingly sophisticated machines, provide Earth-like spacesuit and spacecraft environments, and stock sufficient supplies, the crews performed mostly as expected.

Our commitment to human space exploration evaporated by Apollo 17 before all the planned missions were flown, mostly because of budget concerns and having no plan or capability to gain additional value from extended stays. Wisely, the next step focused on human biomedical research when NASA used a left-over and modified Saturn V rocket to launch SkyLab considered to be the first U.S. space station. SkyLab utilized an evacuated Saturn fuel stage for human habitation and research in microgravity. We knew that humans could survive the rigors of launch, earth-orbit for at least 14 days, a journey to/from and work on the Moon, some romping about in 1/6th G and return to Earth’s 1G, with relatively few physical problems. But there was enough evidence that had emerged to raise concerns for longer missions. SkyLab missions had three-person crews for durations of 28, 54 and 84 days and established a preliminary knowledge base for space medicine research in the U.S. Since then much more has been learned about identifying and attempting to manage microgravity risks as more astronauts experienced durations up to 6 months on Mir and the International Space Station (ISS).

What are human space exploration prospects for the future?

The recent preliminary report of the Commission on Human Space concluded that current NASA goals for human space exploration are unrealistic, based on projected funding. Independent of their view and any decisions that are subsequently made by the current Administration and NASA in this regard, we have important work that can be done now to further these objectives using existing and evolving LEO platforms. We need to conduct more studies on human and biological adaptations to microgravity, and develop more effective countermeasures to that adaptation to ensure human health in space, on return to Earth, and the verification of life support systems that could eventually extend human habitation opportunities to outposts beyond LEO. Demonstrated solutions to these challenges are needed before major decisions on destinations, mission design, and hardware can be made. There are, as the Commission has identified, major opportunities for involvement of the private sector in support of ISS utilization and future expandable space-based habitats.

There is an increased focus now on clarifying the reasons why humans should explore space along with the potential robotic methods for doing so. Cost and human safety challenges demand that we better define and understand the true value of this for support of national and international goals.

What should we do now?

Assuming that human space exploration will remain a national priority even as cost and value issues are addressed and clarified, there are some high-priority options for proceeding with R&D in the near-term.

1) Where there is minimal means for resupply from Earth, the top priority must be a reliable, closed loop, recyclable life support system, proven operational perhaps for up to three years. The first country to have such a system will lead in human space exploration. Russia, Japan and the European Space Agency are working on such systems, but U.S. efforts have at best been intermittent. Yet the potential for advanced technology development and applications is rich. Recycling of oxygen, CO2, and water, and technology to grow fresh food as well as preserve it for long periods must all be developed. How can we minimize waste and packaging? Perhaps we can make some of it edible or recyclable for the construction of habitats or to provide shielding. In situ resource utilization is a nice idea, but only as a fall-back even for the Moon. Advanced sensors, monitors and control systems are needed to operate the system reliably.

2) We need a new generation of light, flexible, and durable space suits that can resist corrosive planetary surface dust and ideally provide radiation shielding as well. A suit and gloves are needed that are comptible wssssith temperature extremes, can be worn all day, every day, and are readily repaired and perhaps made of as yet-to-be discovered materials.

3) Radiation research has progressed, but there is still no practical effective, lightweight shielding material. Unpopular though it may be, new astronaut selection for long missions should include genetic sensitivity screening. Resistance to radiation may be the only ethical basis for crew selection as such procedures become available. Bioengineering to increase resistance to radiation should be pursued with vigor in the next few years. Radioprotective measures must be safe and reliable.

4) Medical operations will require highly-compact effective new systems. Skylab forced NASA to ‘think small’ leading to miniaturization of instrumentation and non-invasive procedure development. Exploration requires shifting to another order of magnitude smaller – probably on the nanoscale. Novel drug delivery, new storage and biotechnology approaches will be needed. Portable brain tissue imaging methods should be refined. Cognitive group and self-evaluation, support procedures and training should be available where communication with home base is impractical.

5) The search for practical effective countermeasures is far from over. Exercise devices should be replaced with simpler, practical, sturdier solutions. As with radiation, genetic sensitivity to and means for developing increased resistance to bone loss must be explored. Methods for minimizing metabolic stress and boosting immunity are crucial. Options for providing artificial gravity must be revisited. For example, a human-powered 'green' centrifuge that is compact, user-friendly, and provides both passive gravity and exercise in gravity, while also generating power instead of draining resources is the type of thinking that is necessary.

As with Gemini and Apollo, innovations will be developed and unimagined discoveries lie in store. New knowledge and technologies will find related uses as they are appropriately commercialized for use in space and on Earth by industry partners. The ability to preserve healthy life is clearly a prerequisite to successful planning for human space exploration in the new Space Age, but the largest beneficiary, as always, will be us.

NASA's Mission: Clear as Mud

Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:13:05 GMT

A provocative, timely article was posted on “The Space Review” site last week written by G. Ryan Faith of the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled, “Giving NASA a Clear Mission" . I generally concur with his insightful analysis of NASA’s historically vague mission definition, and I've provided a very brief summary of it below on which to base my comments. Bottom line, Faith suggests a new exploration mission for NASA that he thinks is clearer and whose goal is the open-ended “expansion of human influence” in space. We respond to this further below.

Let’s review his main points. Faith argues that currently NASA “has no mandate to explore space” and in addition Congress has tasked it with “a number of things that are related to neither space nor exploration”. He notes that the original Space Act of 1958 created NASA to “provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere and for other purposes”. I agree that this was a rather vague and not particularly inspiring goal. It’s interesting to note that Dr. John Logsdon (former Director of the Space Policy Institute at GWU) has written a first-class historical analysis that includes documentation of the chronically tenuous support for human space exploration by NASA, Congress and the general public, that supports Faith’s view.

I also conclude, based on many surveys and reports done over the years, that public support for NASA in general, and human space exploration in particular, is tentative and has not changed significantly from the post-Apollo era to the present. This appears to be true, especially for those born post-Apollo, in spite of President Bush’s 2004 announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration that for the first time, strongly supported the human element. Space advocates, and I count myself among them, generally support human space exploration, but we have yet to convert most taxpayers to our position. The appointment of the Augustine Committee by the Obama Administration to specifically review NASA’s human spaceflight plans is related to the marginal public support and major concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure funding for this significant portion of NASA’s objectives. This challenge appears to be a key element in what has driven Faith to search for a clearer NASA mission.

Faith considers the Apollo Program, initiated by President Kennedy in 1961, to have been a highly focused major research and technology development effort that morphed NASA into a space exploration agency. However, as he notes, the mandate was so specific to the Moon landing that when the Agency accomplished its goal in 1969, it no longer had a clear reason to exist. Thus the Apollo Program’s success and subsequent termination also erased the mandate for exploration. Faith concludes that this returned NASA to being an unfocused research entity and even though the Agency has pursued many of its priorities over the years, it hasn’t sent anyone beyond low Earth orbit since 1972.

Faith’s position is that even the subsequent development of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station were primarily technology-oriented, not capability-oriented goals. And, “once a given technology is developed, maintenance of that technology, rather than further expansion of basic capabilities, becomes paramount”. He proposes that if we expect NASA to pursue exploration again, the Agency must be specifically tasked to do so based on a clearer definition of that goal. And for that definition he proposes that “space exploration is the expansion of human influence in space”, which can also serve as the rationale for capabilities development. For him the key is that “such a mandate compels each step to build on past accomplishments and lay the groundwork for future missions.” That strategy has been a key element of the Russian space program and I think should be more common in the U.S., as well. The result of choosing such a mission, in Faith’s view, would be that, “the mandate for expanding human influence can’t run out”. Importantly, Faith sees this exploration path as creating opportunities for other stakeholders to play key roles, such as the private sector. I completely agree with him on the importance of the human element for increasing entrepreneurial space commerce – indeed, the Augustine Committee and NASA management seemingly are depending on it.

For those who strongly support human space exploration, I expect Faith’s broad goal for increased human influence will resonate strongly. For others who lean toward robotic planetary exploration, classic space science discovery missions like Kepler and the Hubble Telescope, and those who think NASA should align itself more strongly with protecting Earth from what appears to be significant threats from human industrialization, this focus will be too narrow. Many human space exploration advocates see the ultimate goal being human habitation of space beyond Earth, but that is infrequently mentioned within NASA, and even less so in Congress. The promotion of “human influence” in space may be more acceptable than “human settlement”, but if we’re looking for a definition of space exploration, it must include robotic explorers since they are ultimately sent and controlled by humans, and they can be seen as an extension of humans, as Faith agrees.

A recent NAS report titled, “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs” concluded that NASA should more closely link its goals with our national challenges in order to garner public support sufficient to improve its prospects for stable funding and sustainability. I whole-heartedly support this recommendation and think NASA’s goal must include efforts to protect Earth from profound climate changes, damage to the biosphere, killer asteroid impacts, and similar threats. Perhaps this too can be considered part of the “human influence” if its regarded as a stewardship role. Ideally, a return-on-investment focus on “beneficial human influences” can be part of the mission definition that also applies directly to the expansion of space commerce. Faith is going in the right direction in his analysis, but we need to ensure NASA’s focus on space exploration is inclusive and seen as beneficial to humanity in general and our home planet.

Space exploration will receive stronger, more sustainable support from the general public when its mission is perceived as more inspirational, participatory, and clearly beneficial to our planet and our high priority societal needs. Once again, A. Lincoln had it right when he said, “With public sentiment, nothing can fail: without it nothing can succeed.” Space commerce has a special role in helping NASA identify and demonstrate the value that space has, is now, and will continue to provide to all. We need to learn how to better demonstrate and communicate that value at every opportunity.

"Privatization of Space Exploration": A Book Review

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:12:03 GMT

"Solomon Book" Source: Amazon.com

One of the ten Resource Types provided by the Commercial Space Gateway is “Books”. And for each there is a brief description of content with a link to its Amazon.com page for more information. I just read one of these books, by Lewis D. Solomon, titled, “The Privatization of Space Exploration: Business, Technology, Law and Policy” (2008). It was only 120 pages long, but to my surprise it provides a very good overview of the emergence of the entrepreneurial space sector and its broad significance for the commercial space industry and NASA. It integrates several key factors that are both driving and required by these new enterprises in order to succeed. It was a pleasure to read and I commend it to any who would like a quick tour of this emerging market.

The first chapter is “The Rise, Stagnation, and Possible Revitalization of NASA”. Solomon notes that “the iron triangle, consisting of private sector contractors, NASA, and congressional delegations” has controlled space infrastructure development for years. He gives a succinct but insightful analysis of NASA’s evolution and its recent interest in space commerce as a cost-effective option for providing future products and services to lease and/or purchase. NASA needs lower-cost innovative options to augment its decreasing capability to fund development of space infrastructure elements in-house or by using large aerospace contractors. Cheaper access to space is not only better – for NASA it is now essential. Innovative, entrepreneurial low-cost solutions to space transport and operations challenges are needed to leverage NASA’s chronically underfunded obligations.

Solomon identifies three key areas of focus for these "NewSpace" entities, namely: “regularizing suborbital space travel through less-expensive, but reliable and safe launch vehicles; significantly lowering the cost of launching payloads into space; and creating human habitations in space.” He considers winning of the Ansari X Prize in 2004 by Burt Rutan’s firm, teamed with Mojave Aerospace Ventures, by reaching a suborbital altitude of 62.5 miles twice within a two-week period, a major milestone in commercial space history. He likens it to the Wright Brothers successful aircraft flight at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1903. Solomon regards that event as transformational for NASA, the NewSpace sector, and especially, the public’s perception of our future in space.

Solomon describes the Mojave, CA SpacePort where Rutan’s company and several others have gathered as a kind of incubator for entrepreneurial research, development and testing and emerging space enterprises. He profiles four examples of NewSpace companies including: Virgin Galactic (low-cost access for personal flight to the edge of space) Space Adventures (personal space flight broker, spaceports), Space Exploration Technologies Corp. or SpaceX (low-cost, mostly reusable orbital rockets for transport of cargo and humans and free-flyer payloads), and Bigelow Aerospace (orbital space habitats, for research, manufacturing, 30-day habitation).

Solomon’s approach to profiling each of these NewSpace companies is to address a broad set of issues such as: origins/failures/successes; obstacles to overcome; key personnel; technology assets; and financing. This allows the reader to compare and assess the general strengths and weaknesses of these fascinating companies, most of which arose from their founder's expertise in IT/software, not aerospace. He finishes by describing the legal environment faced by these companies and gives a realistic summing up.

The author, like many, sees reliable, safe, frequent, and lower-cost access to space as the key to the future of space commerce. Beginning with suborbital flight, then progressing to orbital free-flyers and transport services to space platforms like the International Space Station, and finally to Bigelow’s expandable habitats, is the evolutionary path often associated with NewSpace companies. The “holy grail” for space commerce would be development of the true, but elusive, Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) that could be flown more than daily. The initial space planes that are being developed for suborbital flight are seen as an initial step in that direction. The goals of these pioneering NewSpace companies can be grand and often go beyond just the profit motive, especially for those who are largely self-funded. As Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX often says, “long-term our ambition is to help humanity become a multiplanet species”. He also claims he’s in it for the long-haul, and that is probably what it will take.

Spacefaring (2): Paths to Realization

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 23:36:35 GMT

"Habot (habitat + robot)" Source: SpaceRef

I didn't envision addressing “spacefaring” again so soon, but events keep driving the issue of “human settlement in space” to front and center since it is the rationale for much of human spaceflight. That, of course, is the focus of the current "Augustine Committee" with a mandate to assess options for the future of human space exploration. They will soon report their formal recommendations to NASA that apparently project a significant delay in human exploration beyond LEO, due primarily to budget limitations. If implemented, that would impact NASA, its contractors, and the entrepreneurial commercial space sector in many ways that are already being discussed. The need for these three sectors to collaborate is increasing in parallel with the likelihood of expanded competition all around. Things may get a bit dicey soon but the NASA committment to increased involvement by entrepreneurial space entities must not falter, now that it is well underway.

But it was John Hickman’s recent Space Review article on “Coping with the Closing: Disempowerment in the Post-Apollo Narratives About the Space Frontier” that convinced me to continue this story. Hickman reminded me of how differently I think about human exploration and habitation than many of those who haven’t actually worked in space research and space infrastructure development. Hickman is a political scientist who is also an advocate for human settlement of space but approaches that from a broad social science viewpoint. Based on my background working with NASA and international space projects for more than 40 years, I can understand his views but see science and technical issues as being just as important as those in the area of strategy and political economy about which he also wrote, a decade ago. However, I do like his reference to the successful completion of the Panama Canal by the U.S. as being a reasonable analog for a first venture in human habitation perhaps leading to future settlement on the Moon. The point being, it will take a major national committment of resources, even if the space commerce sector is heavily involved.

In his recent article Hickman profiles several space advocate “narratives” based on the “emotionally painful truth that the entity [NASA] that briefly opened space as a geographic frontier [Apollo] was also the same entity that closed it [Apollo termination]”. My interpretation of this is quite different. President Kennedy’s view of, and NASA’s strategy on Apollo was driven primarily by perceived Cold War Soviet political threats based on space technology “gaps”, not our intent to open up human frontiers on the Moon. Public opinion on lunar exploration then was similar to what it is now, with about 60% of people seeing it as a worthwhile goal. This story has been well told recently associated with the 50th year anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

The reality is that we were not prepared to continue spending almost 5% of our GDP on NASA in 1969 and our technology, even though superb at accomplishing this goal, was never designed to establish a “frontier” (human outpost or settlement) on the Moon. We didn’t have life support systems to stay more than just a few days even if we had wanted to, and we don’t have them developed yet for even a short-stay return visit. As I wrote recently, we need to do intensive R&D on the effects on humans of chronic microgravity and radiation beyond LEO and on advanced life support systems that are practical, effective and as far as possible closed-loop with an emphasis on using in situ (local) resources. Such research was one of the key rationales for building the ISS, and it is just becoming possible with completion of the ISS, with sufficient equipment, facilities and crew time available to really conduct significant research.

We also, as the Augustine Committee knows so well, need to identify and secure sufficient research funding to support university and commercial space investigators and developers in these endeavors. In many cases, our international partners are better prepared than we to fully activate their ISS research. We need ongoing R&D to determine how to utilize the ISS "outpost" as a path to spacefaring that includes homesteading, while regularly demonstrating to the public and congress the value of doing so for the nation. Luckily several cost-effective entrepreneurial space projects in suborbital space, on orbital free-flyers, and leading to cargo and human transport to/from the ISS will not only help us do this research, but also provide key infrastructure development on the path to spacefaring.

Imagining the Future & Acting Now to Get There

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:15:44 GMT

As Commercial Space Gateway Editor, I’m usually researching and writing about the future as it is envisioned and shaped by federal government policies, public-private funding for commercial space R&D, and entrepreneurial space business development. However, I’m also very interested in NASA’s long involvement in what they now call “GreenSpace” and the potential utilization of these technologies for space commerce.

NASA Ames Research Center spearheaded this recent initiative but other NASA Centers are also now involved. Over its 50 year existance, NASA has by necessity become expert at R&D associated with extreme environments, planetary monitoring, alternative energy production and efficiency, life support and sustainable systems. It’s no accident that Dr. James Hansen, one of the world’s leading experts on climate change works for NASA. Many credit NASA and the Apollo mission’s first photos of “spaceship” Earth in the midst of the black cosmos and the famous “Earthrise” viewed from the Moon as bringing the modern environmental movement into being.

So with this long-held interest, I just read an article in the “New Scientist” titled, “Comment: Why People Don’t Act on Climate Change” which addresses a difficult question we all need to ponder. Apparently climate change scientists find it difficult to modify their business travel behavior even when they will be speaking to their peers in other countries about the need to decrease carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. This tendency to disconnect our ability to imagine the future from current actions to implement change will have major consequences for our future, with implications for space commerce development, as well.

The struggle that others have with this disconnect doesn’t surprise me because I know how hard it is to change my own behavior. Like many, I am recyling more materials, buying more “green” products, eating less meat, driving less, and yes, walking more. But, I’m also flying long distances to conferences as I’ve done for years, without thinking too much about it. Significant changes in behavior seem to happen only when we’re forced to make them or there are financial benefits, and that’s just the way we operate.

Our ancient ancestors probably left their familiar caves to head South only when the temperatures kept dropping and they couldn’t find sufficient food locally. Now, associated with emerging climate changes we need to imagine dramatic changes we can make in how we capture, distribute and save energy, produce and buy food, recycle materials, conserve and reuse water, travel, and much more.

Have we become any better at imagining the future and proactively making changes now so that a better future can be realized? That capability is supposedly one that separates us from other creatures living on our planet. I don’t know about you, but I’m not pleased about having to make any big changes. I like to work on long-term projects and bring things to fruition and then enjoy them for years. My wife, however, a designer by training and inclination, likes nothing better than changing things around, regularly. It’s the change process itself that seems to energize her and I often find her with a paint brush in hand in some corner of the house late at night working away. It’s a good thing there are more like her or we would never adapt to new challenges.

In another article titled,"The Green Summit: 10 X Bigger than Kyoto", Alex Koyfman, posted in The Green Chip Review, profiles several factors that are driving economic changes including major investments. He finds that international agreements and changes in law often drive increased investments that will move us toward changes for a better future. Koyfman notes that, “We've all heard about proposed emissions cuts, gas guzzler taxes, and investor resistance to technologies destined to compete with industries that rely on historically-dominant power sources, such as oil and coal. What few understand today is that climate change is actually one of the most significant drivers of the economy that we're likely to see in our lifetimes.” He contends that, “Where before new sectors opened and prospered in response to technical innovations and the never-ending quest for greater speed, better standardization, and increased volume, we are today — for the first time in history — being influenced by environmental limitations.”

Delegates from 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen this December for an historic summit, and a coordinated multi-national strategy will be drawn up to deal with our environmental challenges. Enormous resources, both monetary and human, have already been committed to what billionaire venture capitalist John Doerr — who helped bring you Google and Amazon — has called "nothing less than the re-industrialization of the whole planet." It’s my contention that this need will also extend to rebuilding our space infrastructure.

I recently wrote an article titled, “Policy Updates: Let’s Build on our Infrastructure” that argues for strong alignment of future space development with major national challenges, including climate change. The involvement of the private sector in developing an updated space infrastructure that can help us address challenges such as global warming, disaster mitigation, off-Earth rare resource mining, and space-based solar power R&D, also requires that we imagine our future in order to shape it. We need to learn to start working on and adapting to changes earlier so that we’re not going to be “driven from our caves”. We need sufficient time to create innovations to reindustrialize both Earth and space since the strong linkage between them is becoming more and more obvious.

Spacefaring: Our Real Prospects for Homesteading Off-Earth?

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:32:45 GMT

"Our Nearest Neighbor" Source: NASA

Judging the prospects for human settlement beyond Earth requires assessment of elements such as; the rationale for, the technical, biological and social readiness for, the political will for, and the funding resources available, for doing so. I focus here primarily on the rationale for and technical and biological capabilities for human settlement. Even that is a large topic. Also, I fully acknowledge the advisability of using, as possible, advanced robotics with the “virtual presence” and remote manipulation they can provide to assist in all aspects of human settlement. It is envisioned that they will be the initial explorers and risk analysis agents that preceed humans. Subsequently, when teamed with humans, they can help create the infrastructure to support people and robots in a very challenging environment and greatly facilitate space commercialization opportunities and applications. However, robotics will have to be addressed later.

A common view within space advocacy groups and the human exploration elements of NASA is that “spacefaring” on a space platform traveling for months beyond Earth, a large asteroid or another planet like the Moon would logically occur in stages which can help us operationally define this vague term. The first would be “sortie” or short visits to demonstrate the feasibility of getting there, briefly living and working there, and coming back. We did that long ago during Apollo. The second would be to establish an “outpost” with imported facilities and supplies sufficient to stay longer and test the limits of people and systems to operate together safely and efficiently. Apollo did none of that except to provide a sporty “lunar buggy” that extended human travel distances for exploration. The third stage would be to establish a permanently occupied “settlement” of facilities, resources and people who would stay for fixed periods and then be replaced as we do now on the International Space Station (ISS). The fourth stage could be called “frontier” where people move to their new home assuming it will have sufficient resources, with ongoing related processing efforts, to provide mostly local “life support” for themselves, and perhaps in the future for a growing population that might start with plants and animals in artificial ecosystems.

This staging when applied to spacefaring on the Moon provides a useful view of the “precursor” phase that has recently begun (remote exploration with lunar orbiters, crash-landing “excavators”, water "scouts", and lots of strategic analyses) and the R&D necessary to allow us to perhaps permanently inhabit the planet “next-door”. Much work would be required, with significant involvement by the entrepreneurial space sector in partnership with the government, to make the Moon habitable for short periods gradually extending in length. Many argue that spacefaring development work must be done in part on the ISS and then the Moon to make the costs and risks even close to being acceptable. There is an emerging view that considering the significant climate, energy, resource and Near-Earth Object (NEO) threats to our planet, the future of the human race may mandate off-Earth settlements. These might function as an alternate artificial ecosystem for humans and hopefully, also as a resource “base” for Earth-focused research, energy production, rare mineral extraction, and more. Along with potential commercial profits from development, this is the basic rationale for spacefaring, and Stephen Hawing and many of the NewSpace entrepreneurs are strong advocates for this view.

While attending the recent NewSpace 2009 Conference sponsored by the Space Frontier Foundation, I experienced a real surprise during a presentation focused on our readiness for human spacefaring.. It was as if a fresh breeze blew away the chronic fog and exposed a hidden reality. The clearer view was represented by James S. Logan, MD, currently an Aerospace & Occupational Medical Officer, at NASA JSC. Reality emerged with his frank assessment of the accumulated biomedical evidence associated with the health risks of long-duration human exposure to spaceflight the space environment on other planets, but his focus was the Moon.

The evidence presented (link is to a very similar presentation by Logan) was not new to me since I’ve been involved in space life sciences research and reporting of mission results for many years. What was truly new for me however, was that this highly-experienced NASA flight surgeon, currently employed by NASA, and a strong advocate for the value of human spaceflight, told the story about what he called, “The Elephant in the Room”. In this case the “elephant” was the infrequently discussed integrated biomedical evidence indicating that the combined dangers of microgravity (or perhaps 1/6th lunar gravity) and radiation exposure during long-duration habitation on a planet like the Moon or Mars, is so dangerous that it would be unethical to expose people to it with our current systems.

In talking with Logan after his presentation he reiterated that he was not speaking for NASA or the government, but only himself as a long-term specialist in this area (Board Certified in Aerospace Medicine, former Chief of Flight Medicine and Crew Surgeon at JSC for many Space Shuttle missions). His motivation is to put the evidence on the table so it can be better understood, discussed, and shared more openly in a constructive manner. He is clearly not trying to cause problems but does feel strongly that these major challenges need to be dealt with effectively. Indeed, for several years he has had a consulting company on the side, Space Medicine Associates, Inc. staffed by a team with human biomedical and healthcare backgrounds. Their current tagline is “ Dedicated to the Health and Safety of the Personal Space Traveler”, so apparently they are also focused on commercial human spaceflight safety.

The obvious question, of course, is why isn’t this story being told by other NASA experts in this field too? After all, “spacefaring” leading to long-term human habitation on other worlds, is the implied, if not often-stated rationale for NASA’s human spaceflight program - is it not?. I expect we can all appreciate that Logan’s frank and open biomedical risk assessment and sharing of that story publically might be discouraged by some in NASA upper-level management. A few might even consider it “career limiting”. It’s my view that NASA can no longer avoid such discussions and expect to maintain its credibility with the space biomedical research community and the informed public. Whatever the astronaut opinions are on this issue they must be highly-constrained since they are in a classic conflict of interest situation. But they surely expect NASA to conttinue focusing on their long-term health and well-being. Logan is an excellent spokesperson and good “bridge-builder” advocating responsible human spacefaring combined with more focus on the research, technical development, and collaborative action that needs to be done.

Logan was asked what he thought was a great question by a listener, during a July 15, 2008 David Livingston interview on “The Space Show”. The listener wanted to know about what enthusiasts for spacefaring could do that would be both responsible and helpful to their cause. Logan indicated that they should face the reality of the large body of biomedical evidence to date and encourage others to become informed too. He thinks that is the first step toward then encouraging NASA to develop appropriate space exploration and development strategies based on what we know. He suggested that it is essential to conduct ongoing biomedical research with animals, plants and humans to better understand countermeasures such as the use of artificial gravity and water and/or lunar regolith shielding from radiation hazards.

A recent article by Jeff Foust on The Space Review with the choice title, “Found Art” highlights the tendency of some spacefaring enthusiasts to blithely ignore these issues to the detriment of all. After the Mars Society recently testified to the Augustine Committee about the importance to the future of spacefaring of sending humans to Mars, one of several signs saying “Mars Direct: Cowards Return to the Moon” was found in a nearby restroom, presumably left behind by an advocate. An equally choice comment on this story was provided by one Malcolm Peterson…"Perhaps the advocates for human trips to Mars should afix an asterisk to their statements such as,...the Surgeon General has determined that human travelers to Mars should assume that they will not survive to return to Earth." Logan is not alone.

The prospects for true spacefaring do not look good right now, but fortunately we have several R&D paths opening up that may help improve them. A new capability to conduct microgravity and/or radiation-related research is emerging on suborbital space planes (4 min micro-g duration), low-cost microsats such as TubeSats, CubeSats, GeneSats are available (weeks in duration), a large free-flyer like the SpaceX Dragon Lab is being developed (controlled variable duration and return of payloads), and the ISS National Lab is receiving much-needed attention from White House and NASA review teams (weeks in duration with access to international research facilities and sufficient crew to do more research). Opportunities for helping humans to eventually live off-Earth are increasing and we need to use them wisely if we hope to truly become more spacefaring.

"Unpopular Science": Will it Impact Space Commerce?

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:34:49 GMT

"Cargo & Human Spaceships" Source: SpaceX

A fascinating but somewhat ominous article titled “Unpopular Science” has just been published. It includes an overview of the reasons for the ongoing decline of professional science journalism in the U.S. This is an important topic, but what relevance does it have to space commerce?

One answer to this question, according to the authors, is that the origins of the space enterprise played a significant role in the expansion of science journalism. Another answer in my view is that space commerce will increasingly involve support for the space research and development infrastructure that is driven by seeking answers to high-priority science questions. Space infrastructure elements that can support science include; launch systems, satellites, robotic systems, telecommunication systems, space data systems, GPS, and ground support systems. In the near-future space commerce will likely support top-level science milestones utilizing these elements to accomplish; research payload transport and orbital insertion, robotic rover transport to planets, satellite monitoring of the environment, planets, moons and asteroids, science data capture and distribution to ground systems and more.

If major science-related challenges associated with space (Earth climate changes, discovery of off-Earth resources and perhaps life, disaster mitigation, development of space-based solar power systems, etc.) are not widely understood, their relevance will be questioned and that can negatively impact space commerce markets, among others. High-quality but accessible science journalism is an important element for the future growth of commercial space for global survival and overall sustainability.

Full disclosure: my background is in space life sciences research and for several years I have been a science and technology writer. I am therefore naturally concerned about this topic but after reading “Unpopular Science” I was struck by the degree to which our space enterprise appears as an undercurrent in the story. The authors note that “science journalism began as a specialized beat in the early twentieth century…[and] the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik was an especially galvanizing event”. “US newspapers ramped up their science content and a generation of writers cut their teeth covering the ‘space race’.” "Another boom came in the late 1970s and early ‘80s when Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series reached 500 million people globally, and fifteen new science magazines, eighteen new newspaper science sections, and seventeen new science TV shows were launched in the fUnited States.”

The beginning of the collapse of science journalism is apparently linked to the deregulation of the media industry that resulted in its mass consolidation. Serious science journalism was produced mainly by well-trained professionals who made good salaries, and the cost-cutting associated with media consolidation eventually began to impact staffing in that area. The deregulation of the broadcast networks was accompanied by a proliferation of cable TV stations and an expansion of channels that were increasingly politicized and much less focused on broad national stories that profiled the relevance of science to our society. Now due to the loss of advertising and younger readers, newspapers are collapsing and their science journalists are being laid off in droves.

Many of the remaining science outlets, including the expanding online news sources, increasingly focus on “hot” topics written by people with minimal science training. Much of this writing and TV coverage now tends to focus on battles between competing viewpoints, not what has been demonstrated to be sound and useful. Several good science-related blogs have arisen, one of special note being ScienceBlogs.com, but they tend to be frequented by those for whom science is a necessary ingredient in their lives, not the broad public that needs to be better informed and from whom space commerce needs support and advocacy.

The departure of journalists like Mark Carreau, the former space reporter of the Houston Chronicle is mentioned. He covered the Johnson Space Center activity for 20 years. Also, a few months ago, CNN cut its entire science, space and technology unit. A prominent member was Miles O’Brien who covered the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster for CNN.

The authors conjecture that production of high-quality science journalism may shift to more nonprofit and university-based entities. They feel that individual scientists may need to become more involved too. One prominent example of this from government is Dr. James Hansen, one of the world experts in climate change within NASA, who speaks and writes often on the topic.

I anticipate that the Commercial Space Gateway and its user community can also help keep science journalism alive, especially as it relates to the future of space commerce, so please send us or point to any of your good finds. The increasing potential importance of microgravity science on the International Space Station and on future commercial suborbital science space plane flights requires general understanding of the associated benefits to companies and society. All the big national questions that relate to space require a basic public understanding of the science issues, and so we must care.

From Apollo To The Space Shuttle... Does NASA Inspire?

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:35:34 GMT

"Space Station Transit of Sun", Source: NASAwatch

Original written, Friday, 17 July 2009

Two events are bringing NASA a great deal of attention, with the added dimension that one looks back to a time of certainty and accomplishment while the other looks forward during a time of uncertainty and delays. The former event is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and the latter is the Senate confirmation of Charles Bolden as the new NASA Administrator and Lori Garver as his deputy. Both events have led to a great deal of commentary, and is frequently the case when discussing the real and perceived value of NASA, supporters proclaim that NASA must be given the resources it needs because one of its missions is to inspire students to become scientists and engineers.

Here are just two examples of the "inspire" mantra:

1. In a June 22nd Op-ed in Space News entitled, "End of Shuttle Era Creates an 'Inspiration Gap'," Challenger Center President Daniel Barstow concludes, "... we can keep alive the spirit of exploration that drives our nation's soul and inspires our young people to dream big dreams,..."

2. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Charles Bolden described one of NASA's four challenges as "Inspire a rising generation... committed to increasing knowledge in the fields of science, technology engineering and math by making NASA and its programs relevant to the American public."

I think "inspire" is as abused as "new and improved" and "easy to use." Here's why:

There is no "I" in NASA; it is not the National Inspiration and Space Administration. In other words, is it really necessary for NASA to formally declare that one of its missions is to inspire? Every time I hear this, I think that if NASA's programs were inspirational in and of themselves then there would be no need to state that one of its missions is to inspire. It would just happen by default, it would be obvious, and you wouldn't need to talk about it as one of your missions. It's like a company's marketing department needing to convince consumers that Product Z cures the common cold and puts that luster back in your hair when it really doesn't do anything of the sort.

During the last few years I've lectured to classes of engineering students at several universities, and very few of them are inspired by NASA or want to work at NASA. What really puts the fire in their eyes are the accomplishments and promise of the NewSpace companies; the successful launches of SpaceX Corp., the two habitat modules placed in orbit by Bigelow Aerospace, the Virgin Galactic test flights, the XCOR Aerospace development of The Lynx, and so forth.

There is no doubt that the Apollo program was inspirational. Can the same claim be made for the space shuttle program after the avoidable loss of two vehicles and the failure to meet the promised flight rate of 55 launches per year and radically lower launch costs? The main inspiration I've seen is the motivation for entrepreneurs to create the companies mentioned above. In other words, the inspiration to do what NASA has not and will never accomplish; regular, cost-effective, and efficient space transportation. If NASA isn't very, very careful, this is the kind of inspiration it will continue to create.

Space Policy Updates?: Let's Build On Our Infrastructure!

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:33:41 GMT

"White House" Source: Gov

It’s space policy review season and time for the new Obama administration and brand new NASA leadership to get aligned and focused on goals, means and methods in order to proceed. The space policy waters are still very choppy and filled with vessels from many government and civil organizations going in all directions without a good map. NASA’s vessel looks particularly precarious since there are some fights underway on deck, and some others are lobbing shells at it.

I can't list the many space policy study group activities. However, I will provide some highlights especially relevant to commercial space, and argue that the updated policy must include clear goals, existing and developing space infrastructure needs, related resource requirements, and anticipated benefits for all stakeholders, especially the public. The Obama administration is understandably urging NASA to provide more “inspiration”, but it’s my view (I’m not alone here) that this can only emerge from the pursuit of challenging goals that directly support high-priority national needs. The Apollo 11 lunar landing, for example, was driven by perceived security threats from the Soviet Union, and the national will to demonstrate our capabilities to tackle tough problems with no known solutions. We landed on the Moon, planted the flag, and soon after shut down Apollo.

Now we need space policies that support major national objectives with success measured by achieving milestones that move us toward sustainable infrastructure capabilities and related benefits. It’s a long-overdue game plan with space commerce as a key element, and it can inspire us all. By building on our "infrastructure" I mean adding to and upgrading all the systems, facilities, tools and resources that are in place such as the Space Shuttle, International Space Station, launch, transport and recovery systems, satellite communication systems, GPS, and ground tracking systems. I also envision that via the emerging entrepreneurial infrastructure we will have access to new systems such as suborbital space planes, free-flyers, and cargo and human transport systems. To pursue any national space vision, we need to be able to depend on and utilize these resources effectively and innovatively.

A new government-wide space policy review has just been initiated at President Obama’s request by Security Adviser James Jones. He is to "review our present policy and decide whether it is in keeping with our vision of the 21st century and where we want to go, and…come up with a coherent space policy into which NASA and our plans fit…”. Again, I vote for aligning our vision and policies with our evolving space infrastructure, not the other way around.

Fortunately, the National Research Council (NRC) just completed their national space policy study and have published “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs” so Jones will have a good head start on his task. The NRC study indicates that it is imperative that the U.S. civil space program be aligned with widely acknowledged national challenges - environmental, economic, and strategic - and if so, will grow in importance. “Coordination across federal agencies, combined with a competent technical work force, effective infrastructure, and investment in technology and innovation, will lay the foundation for a purposeful, strategic U.S. space program that would serve national interests." "The report also recommends revitalizing NASA's advanced technology development program by establishing a DARPA-like organization within NASA to support priority civil and commercial space programs, and development of "dual-use" space technologies, with both civil and defense applications."

Also, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine is heading into the final set of public hearings for the independent review he is leading of human spaceflight options as mandated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA. Augustine's Committee is assessing ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight - one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable. Specific objectives include: a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS); b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO); c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities. Those are great objectives because they are based on intelligently using our current and evolving infrastructure. But, good luck Norm, trying to squeeze that into current budgets.

Dennis Wingo, has recently addressed this issue from the global needs perspective in his article, “Why Space? Why Now? That is the Question." He notes that “recently the World Wildlife Federation proclaimed that it would take the equivalent of two more earth's to provide for the nine billion people that will live on the earth by 2050. Fortunately, with the dozens of Moons, millions of asteroids, and the inexhaustible energy from the Sun, we have more than enough for all.” That's the "long view" of a compelling need that should increasingly be discussed as part of international space collaboration.

In order for U.S. civil space to be supported by the public, from the kids to the greybeards, the alignment of our space infrastructure utilization with national goals is essential. I’m defining “space infrastructure” here in a broad sense and including space commerce as an essential element. The profit motive that drives private sector investment is essential to leverage our highly-constrained government funding. Also, effective collaboration at many levels with our global partners should be standard procedure. The faster we move in this direction, the faster will our economy recover and the more inspired will we all be. I say “three cheers” for these policy reviews! Do you agree?

Big Bet Made on Space Commerce in Vegas

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:06:37 GMT

"Sundancer Cluster" Source: Bigelow Aerospace

Bob Bigelow, a Las Vegas native originally portrayed by the media as someone who shuns interviews, has armed guards throughout his Bigelow Aerospace (BA) facilities, and wants the government to stay out of his business, now seems to have opened up a bit. He has done several interviews and presented his plans publically on how he intends to build and launch inflatable space habitats. His candor in suggesting that his chances of eventually making money in space remain about 50-50 and his humility in claiming that he hasn’t done much yet, is refreshing.

Bigelow is one of the genuine mavericks operating in the world of entrepreneurial space commerce. However, the fact that he knows how to run a profitable business provides him significant credibility. Bigelow’s initial claim to fame was development of the highly successful Budget Suites of America Hotel chain the profits from which in 1999 funded the launch and ongoing development of BA that will be up to the $500M level. This can seem like an odd shift in direction until you understand more of his story.

After first investing in other commercial space ventures that eventually looked weak from a business case standpoint, he thought he could do better. He saw a report on NASA's technology development of a large, inflatable space habitat, called “Transhab” and guessed that the concept could work as a commercial venture. Perhaps for a real estate developer like Bigelow, a habitat is a habitat whether it’s at Earth gravity or inflated in microgravity. In any case, when NASA was directed to halt further development due in part to resource limitations, he was able to license the technology. After further development and making significant improvements, BA built and paid the Russians to launch two currently orbiting prototype spacecraft (Genesis I & II) and now has a third larger module (Sundancer) for human habitation under construction.

The Transhab team had demonstrated the feasibility of creating an inflatable habitat that could meet the vacuum, temperature, durability, radiation, safety, habitability, and useability requirements for the space environment. Their goal was to produce a lightweight, small, collapsible package that’s much cheaper to build and transport but that when pressurized internally for life support in a vacuum environment, would provide a strong, stable, large living and work space that could be attached to the International Space Station (ISS). Some space architects working on the team saw Transhab technology as the basis for the first human habitat designed for long-duration occupancy in space, with options for use on planetary surfaces like the Moon.

BA has a full-time Washington DC-based presence in Mike Gold, who doubles as its space savvy corporate counsel. Bigelow still shuns government funding and continues to place his big bets back home in Las Vegas. He makes periodic small “side bets” in DC trying to hopefully both ease and meet highly restrictive government export control (ITAR) regulations that apply to his technology. By necessity, Bigelow and Gold have become savvy about working the government bureaucracy for purposes of small business survival and interestingly this includes developing good relations with NASA. The question I asked myself, is “why NASA"?

Bigelow and Gold recognize NASA’s recent funding of the public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) project with space businesses as a significant potential benefit to BA. Bigelow, who will soon need low-cost, reliable transport of people and cargo to his on-orbit habitats, can benefit from development of those capabilities by U.S. firms partly funded by COTS.

In a recent ABC News article Bigelow states, “I think NASA is on the verge of being irrelevant, except for deep space exploration”. Making provocative statements is a Bigelow hallmark, but I think he means that NASA should leave support of human space exploration as much as possible to industry and instead focus on robotic spacecraft and exploration systems. Elon Musk’s company SpaceX, one of the COTS partners, is developing a low-cost Falcon 9 rocket and space capsule named Dragon that is on the path to eventual rating for support of human transport. Also the Lockheed Atlas V rocket might be adapted for support of humans and serve Bigelow's purpose. This is the big bet that Bigelow has made on services to be provided by other companies and he knows it may be a long-shot but remains optimistic.

Bigelow’s inflatable habitat concepts have evolved along with the space entrepreneurial market and his current objective is to develop “an office building in space” where “other countries or corporations would be our tenants”. He doesn’t consider space tourists or NASA as his customer targets. He needs a low-cost, reliable way to get passengers and cargo to/from his habitats and considers the future SpaceX Falcon 9 Dragon and Boeing’s Atlas V as good options. Keep your eye on Bigelow too because he’s good at grabbing opportunities and developing relationships with entities that allow him maximum leverage. If NASA can be a reliable customer along the way, I won’t be surprised to see Bigelow there with the right product. It’s easy to picture a large, inflatable docked to the ISS for long-duration human habitat studies, including novel exercises that were developed on the SkyLab space station. Small easy-to-transport packages that can be inflated in a vacuum to make really big habitats can provide new commercial space applications that are driven by innovative visions. Bigelow knows.

July 20, 1969: What Does it All Mean?

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:40:38 GMT

"Earthrise on Moon" Source: NASA

The media is awash in a small tidal wave of Apollo 11 mission analysis and nostalgia for that time, 40 years ago, when an earthling first set foot on the Moon. I watched the Lunar landing on an old black and white TV in a low-budget Berkeley rental with my young family. My teeth were clenched when Neil Armstrong manually took over the controls due to a large field of boulders suddenly appearing in the field of view at the landing site. He veered away from it and finally landed the "Eagle" on a smoother surface with only 17 seconds of fuel left. After the landing I remember comments from Mission Control at Johnson Space Center indicating that many of those sitting at the consoles still looked quite blue, but were slowly recovering. It reminds us of the value of being prepared for most anything, as were the astronauts and mission control operators, and the role of good luck. It seemed so impossible, so surreal, and very hard to grasp even though it was on live TV. Only after some deep breathing could we appreciate the fact that Armstrong, the first to place a foot on the surface, was "our" earthling. It was truly a step for all humankind even though the U.S. budgetary driver was in large part a big bet against the Soviets in the "Space Race". The fact that the Russians never tried to land people there after that is a testament to the race. Nixon's cancellation of the last several Apollo missions is also a clear message that winning the race was the overriding goal.

Color images called "Earthrise" taken from the earlier Apollo 8 mission during lunar orbit and the iconic images of the "pale blue marble" we know as Earth taken enroute to the Moon, had an impact that persists to the present. The contrast of the cratered, dry, grey Moon with the water and cloud-covered Earth clearly showed that we live on a planet that is our global "spacecraft" and provides us critical life support as we move continuously through space. To me that is still a profound realization even though it's now old news. One benefit of having lived for several years pre-Apollo on Earth's surface was that our first "off-Earth" view back home could be so profound.

John Noble Wilford, the renowned NY Times science writer, was at the "Cape" in Florida for several Apollo missions including Apollo 11 when astronauts first landed and he claims it was the biggest story he ever covered. He has now provided us with a special gift by rethinking and retelling his story and assessing the Apollo legacy. He figures he'll never have such a story again unless life is discovered on another planet and he lives to tell about it.

I can't help thinking about our current place in space. We've had twin rovers tooling around Mars for years that continually send images back and get themselves unstuck, when necessary. We've just completed another brain transplant on the Hubble telescope that has allowed us to "see" back to the beginning of the universe and better understand our place in the evolving cosmos. Missions are underway to search for other "Earths" around far-away planets and to monitor Earth's ongoing adaptation to human habitation and climate change. The International Space Station, occupied now for a decade, is nearing completion and hopefully we will be wise and resourceful enough to use it effectively to discover more about living, working and researching while "off-Earth". We need to understand how more of us might do that someday, if/when it's needed because of threats to Earth and our need to access more resources. Our view from space and our foothold there provides us with options for conducting research and feasibility studies that could open the door globally to unlimited, clean space-based solar power. The ISS can provide opportunities for the industrialized and emerging nations to collaborate and participate in the benefits that can accrue from space research and development. This includes significant new opportunities for space commerce and related Earth commerce that the world needs now to help spur a global economic recovery. "Spaceship Earth" needs its human inhabitants to learn how to be better stewards of the life support system since we and all life depend on it. Apollo opened the door to many of these possibilities to utilize space wisely for the benefit of all. Perhaps that's really the answer to what Apollo means - the gateway to a better, more sustainable future.

Why Everyone's Talking Commercial Space

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:15:44 GMT

"Dragon Cargo Capsule" Source: SpaceX

Rarely have I seen NASA, especially its human spaceflight program, in such a difficult and conflicted state and I’ve been involved for 30 years. The two Space Shuttle disasters were shocking and tragic, and after each many thought the Agency might not recover. But after making some technical and procedural changes, the Shuttle returned each time to operational status. Now, our space-related challenges seem more infrastructure and resource-related, and the fixes less obvious. However, it seems increasingly likely that commercial space will have an important role.

NASA is at a major strategic crossroads, and many think it’s in a quagmire of insufficient resources and overwhelming requirements. This is made worse by observing new competitors and several of our traditional international partners pursuing collaborative space development among themselves. To me the most critical needs are 1) for strong Congressional and NASA leadership willing to openly assess our choices and their consequences, and then advocate for and implement difficult resource-related decisions, and 2) for cost-effective improvements in our inadequate space infrastructure. The latter especially relates to the importance of the emerging entrepreneurial commercial space market, the focus of this story.

NASA’s human spaceflight problems have been lining up, ominously like dominos. The short list now includes:
- Budget cuts, cost overruns, schedule delays and technical concerns with the Constellation Program’s development of new crew and cargo transport systems to Low Earth Orbit and “beyond”
- Need to closeout the 30 year old Space Shuttle by 2010 in part because NASA can’t afford to keep the Program going while new transport systems are being developed
- A projected NASA space transport (cargo and crew) gap between 2010 and 2015 (Constellation launcher not yet available) since we will have no way with the Shuttle gone to access Low Earth Orbit except via Russian and/or U.S. commercial spacecraft
- “Reorientation” of most of the microgravity research and development budget from the ISS to Constellation development has reduced the potential science value of the ISS National Lab and our ability to effectively share use of international partner research facilities, thus shrinking the public's return on their major investment

How did this all come about? NASA has been working for years with a relatively fixed budget (about 0.5% of the Federal total), declining purchasing power, an aging workforce, and lessening public support especially from the younger generation who grew up watching Shuttle disasters, not Apollo successes. Having reached its 50th anniversary, NASA is often taken for granted and its ongoing infrastructure maintenance and operations costs are steadily increasing in part because of Agency accomplishments (the unstoppable Mars Rovers, Hubble’s latest new “brain”) and some costly program stretch-outs. Another growing problem is that the traditional NASA way of doing business, with strong dependence on large aerospace companies, has become more costly. One view is that the “space age” has been replaced by the “information age” which is now becoming the “IT/social networking” age and NASA and traditional aerospace are struggling to adapt to the pace. Innovation, collaboration and development of products are now driven by smaller entrepreneurial sci-tech entities of a wide variety that are increasingly important for our global, national, and regional economic vitality and sustainability.

It’s not like NASA hasn’t had many glorious, world-changing successes – it truly has and that will surely continue, if more slowly. Just consider Apollo, the Deep Space Network supporting global satellite communications, Mars Rover Explorations, the Hubble Telescope and its rebirths, the Space Shuttle with about 125 successful missions, planetary exploration across our solar system, and the nearly-completed International Space Station (ISS), continuously occupied and increasingly operational since 2000.   And these are just the most visible peaks on the mountain.

Fortunately, there is also some near-term good news. Beginning around year 2000, a small business space movement of sorts was initiated by several IT billionaires and some others who decided to utilize their resources and business experience in IT and software development to develop more efficient space transportation, a StarTrek-fueled childhood dream for several. They teamed up with some adventuresome innovative space professionals from the space industry, NASA specialists, non-space technology experts and some “fresh-out” engineers to establish what is often collectively called "NewSpace" reflecting an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to providing much lower-cost, predictable and flexible access to space. These companies are focused primarily on providing suborbital access services to new space customers mainly in the public sphere, but some, especially high risk-takers like SpaceX who want to provide orbital access services, see the government as a key customer and partner to help them make that giant technology leap. Complementary collaboration is their goal.

The U.S. government, especially NASA, eventually saw this as an opportunity to collaborate with entrepreneurial commercial space entities via public-private partnerships wherein technical and financial risks are shared. This evolved into one of NASA’s most courageous and savvy accomplishments, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. As Dr. Pete Worden, the Director of NASA Ames Research Center and a long-time advocate for increased industry collaboration with government, puts it, the Agency is now “enabling the private sector to help get us into space by mid-wifing this new approach”.

The emerging entrepreneurial space businesses are mostly small-to-medium size, and include some non-space entities developing products for multiple markets, a smart, perhaps essential business strategy. Several traditional aerospace companies are involved since they can provide deep and broad technical expertise to support these growing small companies and are interested in future merger and acquisition opportunities and marketing their existing and emerging commercial products more broadly. Most of these company leaders, many in Congress, and the space advocacy groups believe, as I do, that lower-cost, reliable access to space will open the door to new space investments, many new space-related products and services, new global business collaborations, and increased public involvement in space, and help provide a “space workforce magnet” via hands-on student participation opportunities.

The projected commercial space-related products and services are too many to list but are envisioned to be within areas such as: satellite servicing/refueling; satellite communications, networking and data delivery; global navigation system applications; transport of human/research payloads to suborbital and human/cargo to orbital destinations; research & manufacturing, and potential space-based solar power systems with 24/7 energy transport to Earth.

We who believe in the value of international collaboration for space development, the utilization of space for monitoring Earth’s environmental health and producing global benefits have an opportunity and responsibility to promote the broad benefits that can accrue from the expansion of the space commerce market. By partnering with NASA the entrepreneurial space community can help solve some of NASA’s problems, capture some government seed funds, and increasingly obtain private sector resources for entrepreneurial space development. This will stimulate entrepreneurial space market development and complement the inevitably constrained NASA budgets. So, keep talking up commercial space!

Branding of Space Commerce is Overdue

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:12:21 GMT

While researching, capturing and developing content as Editor of the Commercial Space Gateway, I try to more clearly define and communicate the “brand” associated with the emerging space commerce market. One definition of a good brand is a memorable image, name or phrase that “promises the value that can be delivered”. A brand thus gains power in proportion to the realization of that promise. Unfortunately, many conclude now that most of the public and the Congress don’t see the value that’s being “delivered” by the overall space enterprise, inevitably including the commercial space subset. Considering that “NASA” is one of most famous brands in the world and the biggest organization operating in space, there must be something going on that's not so obvious.

A professional analysis of this issue titled the “American Perception of Space Exploration” suggests that “NASA does not have a branding problem; it has a communications problem, in that people do not understand the connection between the brand and its current activities”.   The report identifies a disconnect between the public’s perception of the “promised value” and what is “delivered”. Based on my recent experience, commercial space has both a branding and a related communications challenge. But, let’s dig into this a bit further.

In our media-dominated world, many think that branding is essential, for the success of people, products, organizations and yes, even markets. A good brand helps create committed customers who understand and share a sense of the value in making an investment in developing, producing, or buying something. This is a significant issue since defining what’s meant by “space commerce” is not easy in an environment where the standard industry codes still barely recognize “aerospace” as a category. We need to develop branding that promises clear value and ensures, that as the value emerges, it gets delivered and the benefits are communicated effectively to the customer-stakeholders.

For example, commercial human suborbital spaceflights on space planes (initially “space tourism”, then “personal spaceflight”) promise to dramatically lower the cost of access to the edge of space. This will provide value to adventurers who are willing to pay relatively big ticket prices at the emergence of this market. However, as the demand expands the flight rate will increase and the cost/flight will be driven down - competition will ensure that. This price shift can open the door to new customers with fewer resources including researchers who want to accompany their small experiment payloads for 3-4 minute duration multiple exposures to microgravity. This can be provided at a much lower cost than traveling to orbit on the Shuttle or to the International Space Station, sites that should be reserved for research that is sufficiently proven to warrant the larger investment. Thus the market will evolve and lead to another one, and the value proposition will expand, as well.   This is the power of lower-cost space access – it is seen as a primary new market catalyst.

The overall emerging space commerce market needs access to significant business investments for new space infrastructure development, new space applications, and commercialization of many products and services. How can we effectively communicate the projected value of these investments? What would be a powerful brand definition sufficient to clarify the value to stakeholders and get them excited about this industry’s potential?

As we ponder this, we should ask ourselves some questions. Do we agree that it's an appropriate strategy for space commerce to pursue both government and private sector R&D seed money while working to create a new space transportation market? How should our space commerce brand relate to more traditional space business, such as communication, navigation and positioning satellite applications?   The increasingly-used brand name “NewSpace” tends to be applied to the suborbital commercial human spaceflight market. Should it be broadened to apply to entrepreneurial commercial space enterprises of any kind? If so, how can that be accomplished?

We need a memorable brand that recognizes government funding limitations as a customer, opportunities for new private sector investments and innovations, and the prime value of generating business profits and public benefits. Could we use “Bringing it Home: Commercial Benefits from Space”? What about “Space Commerce: Reaping Benefits from Space”? Or maybe “Down-To-Earth: Commercial Benefits from Space”? My last idea is “Real Space Access: Down-To-Earth Benefits”. What do you think of this branding and communications issue and these branding ideas? We need your creative input and we need it now!

Excitement Reigns at Spaceport America

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:22:48 GMT

Reports about the recent groundbreaking at Spaceport America (SA) have understandably focused on the story behind its coming into being and the who, what, and when of the event as it unfolded. As one who was there, I can say all aspects were well handled which made the trip to the remote site near Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, well worth the trek.

What doesn’t come through in most of the news reporting is the extraordinary public excitement and support for this event. For me, the action kicked off when charter buses in Las Cruces began filling with a mixture of residents, press, and dignitaries at 6:15 a.m. Several hundred people, from the same area of New Mexico and who actually knew each other, boarded buses while buzzing with stories of their families, lives, and, of course, their high expectations for the Spaceport. After traveling to Truth or Consequences, they picked up additional passengers, but only after attending an early morning rally there featuring Governor Richardson, among others. He spoke to a large crowd that combined both groundbreaking attendees and those who would remain in “T or C” (as they say) for the day. The applause was loud and heartfelt.

The attendees from Dona Ana County, where the SA offices are located, and Sierra County, where the SA site is located, are the same people who voted to pass a gross receipts tax in order to help fund construction of the Spaceport. And how often do we see that kind of commitment these days? It is truly awesome to realize that you are changing the course of history for future generations in your state, and on June 19th the excitement was humming like a generator from the wee hours of the morning until long after the event ended.

What non-local groundbreaking visitors might not have realized is that, in addition to the support of the superb New Mexico SA staff, many community volunteers pitched in to make sure that plenty of water and refreshments were available for guests. Some may recall the barn-raising scene from the Harrison Ford movie “Witness,” and the tingle they felt at seeing neighbors come together for a common purpose. It was a lot like that: a contagious sense of community engagement and shared pride.

And it is not the first time this has happened, as I can verify. At the May 2, 2009 Educational Launch event, organized by the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium, about 250 people showed up at the high school gymnasium in T or C at 6:00 a.m. to register for bus passes to SA. Many had driven up from Las Cruces, which means they had to arise about 4:30 a.m. to make it. Kids as young as 5 years were jumping up and down with anticipation, asking over and over again when they could board the bus. You had to raise your voice to a person three feet away from you in order to be heard!

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “There is nothing possible or impossible but thinking makes it so.” It is quite clear from the groundbreaking excitement that New Mexico is truly focused on the possible.