roadmap to a space faring civilization

ROADMAP TO A
SPACE FARING CIVILIZATION
Suggestions for the
commercial development of space.
NASA ACADEMY
Goddard Space Flight Center
August 2008
Version 1.0
08.07.08
Dedication
This paper is dedicated to Dr. Gerald Soffen,
for his visionary creation and love of the Academy
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this project.
Ken Davidian
NASA Headquarters
Dr. Joseph DiRienzi
NASA Academy
William Pomerantz
X PRIZE Foundation
Introduction
Exploring and developing new frontiers has been a basis for economic growth and
sustained development in the world throughout history. Private development of these frontiers
has created countless jobs and vast fortunes. The next great frontier is space. Leaving the planet
in search of information, entertainment, and resources will be a driving force in the future of our
economies and will be required to sustain the current standards of living to which so many have
become accustomed. Humankind is capable of exploring and developing space, and this paper
will describe how to accelerate this expansion by facilitating the commercial development of
space.
Definitions
Space faring civilization – A space faring civilization is defined as one with frequent,
safe, reliable, and economically stable transport to space. This would include commercial access
to space for both crew and cargo. The civilization would have a permanent off-planet presence
and would be permanently exploring the solar system with human and robotic missions. Finally
this civilization would utilize resources from space and have mutual commercial trade between
Earth and sites such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, asteroids and beyond.
Commercial development – fostering industrial profits based on the free-market sale and
purchase of space-related products. This industry would serve government and non-government
customers, but ultimately will exist independent of government funding.
Space development – private investment in space technologies, capabilities, and
infrastructure such that commercial entities work in and profit from space.
The Roadmap
Below is an outline of the proposals we have generated to overcome the current and
future hurdles of commercial space development. These topics are explained and detailed in the
Roadmap section of the paper.
I. Commercial Development Policy
1. Make agency-wide policy
2. Continue dialogue with commercial sector
II. Commercial Technology Transfer
1. IPP, SBIR, STTR
a. Sustain/increase funding for programs
b. Promote companies after funding is over
c. Provide technical assistance
d. Monitor and better document economic impact of spin-offs
e. NASA-developed software should be open source when possible
2. Commercial product usage
a. Continue to use when possible
b. Commercial should be first choice when available
III. Infrastructure
1. Launch sites
a. Phase out government funding when private funding is sufficient
b. Expand FAA-AST funding to facilitate licensing of launches/vehicles
2. Launching to LEO
a. Continue to fund COTS
b. Exercise COTS-D option for commercial crew transport
c. Purchase commercial transport when available
3. Orbital refueling
a. Continue verbal support of idea
b. Offer technology demonstration prize for cryogenic on-orbit fuel storage
c. Support private construction by being customer
4. Lunar surface delivery
a. Develop Funded Space Act Agreement
i. Direct cargo delivery
ii. Cargo delivery with automated rendezvous and docking
5. Lunar surface transportation
a. Share dust mitigation and other technologies when possible
b. Self-dependent technology application by other entities
6. Communication and data relay
a. Replace/supplement DSN for lunar operations
i. Earth and lunar orbit relays
ii. Evolvable and updatable satellites
iii. Government regulated, commercially operated
IV. Accelerators
1. Public engagement
a. Facilitate public connection to individual astronauts
b. Create more astronaut-to-public communication (TV, internet, etc.)
c. Engage the public with interaction capabilities
d. Better explain mission objectives
e. Clearly convey the risks of each mission
2. Educational engagement
a. Excite students with long-term destination-driven program
b. Government and private education support
i. Funding to ensure science and math teachers have background in subjects
ii. Educate students about benefits of science and technology
c. Private company engagement
i. Expand internship and co-op programs to train future workforce
3. Start-up companies
a. Organizations such as Space Angels Network should be expanded
b. Companies must show mutual respect for each other
c. Design business plans with milestone technologies to market
d. Engage non-aerospace investment markets (tourism, entertainment, biotech, energy,
etc.)
4. Space based solar power
a. Continue funding in solar cell technology
b. Assign project to specific agency (DoE recommended)
i. Energy Research and Development Organization
c. Initial congressional funding of small $10 million feasibility study
d. NASA should continue to fund and operate Power Beaming Challenge
5. Biotechnology in space
a. Private utilization of International Space Station
i. Federal subsidies for initial ISS research launch costs
ii. Support expanded micro-gravity research
iii. Charge for ISS usage based on timetable as commercial capabilities emerge
6. Prizes
a. NASA must invest more in prizes
b. Proposed lunar environment characterization prizes
i. NASA only pays for successful data
ii. Private companies can generate added income to missions
c. Further prizes proposed for other key technology demonstrations
V. Government Policy
1. Liability
a. Extend launch liability indemnification (Currently expires December 31, 2009)
2. Anchor tenancy
a. Laws and regulations around anchor tenancy must be clarified
b. NASA should sign anchor tenancy agreements with commercial space transportation
companies
i. Definite end date required
3. ITAR
a. Evaluate United States Munitions List to remove technology currently available from
other countries
i. Allow American companies to compete in these markets
b. Streamline licensing process
i. Continue/complete change to electronic licensing system
ii. Provide free training for companies about ITAR compliance
c. Clarify guidelines on ITAR regulations and regulated materials
d. Inform the public and Congress of consequences of legislation on emerging sector
4. Intellectual property rights
a. IP must be protected when private companies work with NASA
i. Continue support of Bayh-Dole Act, Stevenson-Wydler Act, Technology
Transfer Act
ii. NASA Policy should be to grant IP waivers when requested
b. International patent protection is needed
i. Technology development in space must be protected
c. NASA Advisory Council (NAC) role should be expanded
i. Give budget to fund cutting edge research – similar to NACA
ii. Administer funds to appropriate researchers to drive research on specific
technical hurdles
5. Historical Moon
a. Protect historic sites until framework for preservation is in place
i. Leave certain artifacts for on-site observation
ii. Return others for research and Earth-based museums
b. International agreement on preservation is needed
6. Lunar property
a. Legislation should be international among space faring nations
i. Historic sites should be internationally protected
ii. Private ownership should be based on utilization and improvement of area
iii. Moon can no longer be considered ―common heritage of all mankind‖
Conclusions
Other sections of the paper include a look at the feasibility of commercial space as well
as what a successful space faring civilization may look like. These considerations are addressed
to show the context and importance of a robust commercial space sector. Possible benefits might
include new jobs, new technologies, and higher standards of living. NASA could also see direct
benefits from a thriving commercial space sector, which might include cheaper space rated
hardware and access to space as a result of open market competition between providers.
Savings at NASA have the potential to allow the agency to focus more resources on deep space
exploration and cutting edge technology research.
This future is fully realizable and work towards these goals must begin now. Many more
hurdles and suggestions than addressed here will appear. This paper aims to take the next small
step and be the basis for further study. The collective genius of entrepreneurs, inventors, and
innovators will be required to solve the many obstacles that will stand in the way. As past
generations conquered the untamed seas to develop the ―new world‖ or traversed the vast plains
to tame the ―wild west,‖ this one must set out with determination to overcome the shackles of
gravity. It is imperative for the future that free-market capabilities and commercial entities
extend humanity into space.
Table of Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Feasibility of Commercial Space Development ....................................................................3
1.1 Space Industry Overview .............................................................................................3
1.1.1 Performance of the Space Industry to Date..................................................................3
1.1.2 Projections ..................................................................................................................4
1.2 Commercial Space Demands .......................................................................................4
1.3 New Space ......................................................................................................................6
1.4 Catalysts ..........................................................................................................................6
1.4.1 The US Space Exploration Policy ...............................................................................6
1.4.2 NASA‘s Attitude and Actions .....................................................................................7
1.4.3 NASA‘s Budget ..........................................................................................................7
1.4.4 Challenges and Prize Competitions .............................................................................7
1.4.5 Space Angels Network ................................................................................................8
1.4.6 Space Tourism ............................................................................................................8
1.5 Launch Costs ..................................................................................................................8
1.6 Airline Analogue ...........................................................................................................9
1.6.1 Cargo ..........................................................................................................................9
1.6.2 Cargo to People ..........................................................................................................9
1.6.3 Prizes Revitalize the Industry .................................................................................... 10
The Roadmap ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.0 Commercial Development Policy ........................................................................................ 12
3.0 Commercial Technology Transfer ...................................................................................... 14
4.0 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Transportation.............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.1 Launch Sites ............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.2 Transport to Low Earth Orbit .................................................................................... 17
4.1.3 Orbital Re-fueling ..................................................................................................... 17
4.1.4 Lunar Surface Delivery ............................................................................................. 20
4.1.5 Lunar Surface Transportation .................................................................................... 21
4.2 Communications and Data Relay .............................................................................. 22
4.2.1 The Deep Space Network.......................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Communications Systems ......................................................................................... 23
5.0 Accelerating Factors .......................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Engagement .................................................................................................................. 25
5.1.1 Public Engagement ................................................................................................... 25
5.1.2 Education Engagement ............................................................................................. 26
5.2 Start-up Company Investment ................................................................................... 26
5.3 Space Based Solar Power ............................................................................................ 27
5.4 Biotechnology in Space............................................................................................... 29
5.4 Prizes ............................................................................................................................. 31
5.4.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 31
5.4.2 Lunar Characterization Prize Proposal ...................................................................... 31
5.4.3 Potential Future Lunar Prizes: ................................................................................... 32
6.0 Policy .................................................................................................................................. 33
6.1 Liability Indemnification and Anchor Tenancy ...................................................... 33
6.2 International Traffic in Arms Regulations ............................................................... 35
6.2.1 Effects on the Aerospace Industry ............................................................................. 36
6.2.2 ITAR and International Collaboration ....................................................................... 36
6.2.3 Future Work ............................................................................................................. 38
6.2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 39
6.3 Intellectual Property.................................................................................................... 39
6.3.1 NASA and Intellectual Property ................................................................................ 40
6.3.2 Territory Based Intellectual Property ........................................................................ 40
6.3.3 NASA and the Freedom of Information Act .............................................................. 41
6.3.4 Encouraging Private Industry through Government Research .................................... 42
6.3.5 ITAR and Intellectual Property ................................................................................. 43
6.3.6 Conclusions and Future Work ................................................................................... 44
6.4 Historical Moon Preservation .................................................................................... 45
6.5 Lunar Property ............................................................................................................. 45
6.5.1 Antarctic Treaty ........................................................................................................ 46
6.5.2 Outer Space Treaty ................................................................................................... 46
6.5.3 Moon Treaty ............................................................................................................. 47
6.5.4 Future Legislation ..................................................................................................... 47
6.5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 49
7.0 Roadmap Summary ............................................................................................................ 50
8.0 Elements of Success ........................................................................................................... 51
8.1 Terrestrial Benefits of Lunar Colonization .............................................................. 51
8.1.1 Science ..................................................................................................................... 51
8.1.2 Economics ................................................................................................................ 52
8.1.3 Engineering .............................................................................................................. 54
8.1.4 Political .................................................................................................................... 55
8.2 A Typical Day on the Moon ....................................................................................... 57
8.2.1 Near Term Operations ............................................................................................... 57
8.2.2 Mid Term ................................................................................................................. 57
8.2.3 Far Term ................................................................................................................... 58
8.3 A Lunar Society............................................................................................................ 58
8.3.1 Lunar Inhabitants ...................................................................................................... 58
8.3.2 Governance/ Unique Cultural Concerns .................................................................... 58
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... A-3
2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center ............................................. A-3
Appendix B............................................................................................................................ B-2
B.1 – Feasibility of Commercial Space.......................................................................... B-2
B.1.1 - Industry Overview ............................................................................................ B-2
B.1.2 - New Space Companies ..................................................................................... B-6
B.1.3 - Catalysts ............................................................................................................. B-9
B.1.4 - Airline Analogue ................................................................................................. 13
B.2 – Agreements and partnerships ............................................................................ B-16
B.3 - Success case studies .............................................................................................. B-17
B.3.1 – IPP .................................................................................................................... B-17
B.3.2 – SBIR.................................................................................................................. B-17
B.4 - Spacesuit Development : Case study ................................................................. B-19
B.5 – Highway System .................................................................................................. B-25
B.6 – Satellite Cell Phones Case Study ....................................................................... B-27
B.7- ITAR Historical Overview................................................................................... B-28
B.8 - Case Study of European Patent Convention and the European Community
Patent............................................................................................................................... B-30
B.10 - Introduction to life support ............................................................................... B-35
B.10.1 - Crew characteristics ...................................................................................... B-38
B.10.2 - Life Support Subsystems Estimations ......................................................... B-39
B.10.3 - External Interfaces Estimations .................................................................... B-47
Appendix C........................................................................................................................... C-2
C.1 – Space Act Agreement Background ..................................................................... C-2
C.2 - Nonreimbursable COTS Agreements................................................................. C-4
C.3 - COTS Agreement Summary ................................................................................ C-5
C.4 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission – Landing Systems ............... C-7
C.5 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission - Automated Rendezvous and
Docking ........................................................................................................................... C-9
C.6 - Case Study: the Ansari X Prize ...........................................................................C-13
C.7 - NASA Centennial Challenges ............................................................................C-15
C.8 - Prize Development Process .................................................................................C-17
C.9 - Prize Competition Guidelines ............................................................................C-21
C.10 - Sample Prize Development Process .................................................................C-23
C.11 - List of Select Aerospace Prizes .........................................................................C-29
C.12 – Current Characterization Plans ........................................................................C-36
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Projected demand curve for passenger space flight .......................................................5
Figure 2: Budget Comparison - NASA and Biotech Research ................................................... 29
Figure 3 : Diagram of Roadmap from the Moon to Mars ........................................................... 56
Table 1: Revenue of the space industry .......................................................................................3
Table 2: New Space Company Sales/Employees .........................................................................6
Table 3:Large Contractors Company Sales/Employees ................................................................6
Table 4: Approximate Launch Costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). .................................................8
Table 5: Benefits of Orbit Re-Fueling Depot ............................................................................. 18
Table 6 : Element Concentrations in Lunar Regolith and Earth .................................................. 53
Introduction
Since the beginning, humanity has responded to gravity with defiance. We rose up on
two legs to gaze out over the grasslands of Africa and witness the options of our future.
Dissatisfied with limited vision, it is our nature to turn over every rock, traverse the highest
mountain range, see past the blueness of our sky, peer beneath the waves, and chart the planets
beyond our solar system. We prefer to behold the options for our future before they are upon us.
We are planners; without sight of the world beyond, our planning is flawed. We cannot hold
back or contain the physical forces of nature, but we have a well-documented history of
subverting their effects. We create shelters, construct dams, sail the untamed seas, and fly the
open sky. We have never paused in setting forth to defy the physical forces of nature that limit
our expansion and knowledge of the unknown. For the first time in human history, we struggle
to take the next step toward our destiny. We stumble in our journey to understand our origins
and the relationship we have with the infinite variables that comprise our universe.
Nearly forty years have passed since the first human being set foot on the Moon. These
forty years have seen the highest rate of technological advancement in human history. The
question remains: Why haven‘t we set out to inhabit space? Clearly, this goal has been set, the
notion embraced; it is something our culture has come to expect without considering the
investment required for such an achievement. As human beings, it is a function of our species to
wonder and seek. It is intrinsic to our nature to define the unknown.
In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 called for a civilian
agency to exercise control of aeronautical and space activities. The agency‘s purpose, the Act
declares, is the ―expansion of human knowledge of the phenomena in the atmosphere and space.‖
The document is clear: As Americans we are to seek out new ways of understanding the universe
beyond; we are not assigned to understand only the phenomena nearest us. NASA was formed
and delegated the task of defining relevant questions and seeking out the answers regarding all
things from the realm of our atmosphere to the edge of our universe. This is perhaps the most
ambitious and demanding request made by any government in human history. Merely one
government agency, or even an entire government, cannot meet the requirements of such an
achievement. In the past forty years we have learned that in order to meet the goal defined in the
1958 Space Act we must call on private industry. We must be motivated as a people to make the
sterile corners of space habitable. Mankind‘s predisposition to private enterprise and free trade
has led to the exploration of the New World and the domestication of the ―Wild West.‖ History
has shown that a noble cause coupled with free trade can motivate man to achieve anything.
NASA has taken preliminary steps in aiding the creation of the space industry. This industry has
managed to carve out a small foothold. Now is the time to nurture this fledgling industry into a
thriving, productive entity, capable of thrusting the human race into its next phase of evolution.
The next most logical step towards human habitation of space is exploring and
developing the Moon. The reasons why we should press towards this goal are many. Humans
are fragile in the vast vacuum of space. In order to minimize our vulnerability we require life
support, refueling stations, and emergency shelters to shield us from unpredictable space
hazards. It is our ignorance of space phenomena and hazards that make the habitation of our
1
Moon so appealing during this stage of our space readiness. Where better to learn and develop
our abilities in space than our own Moon? It is the only planetary body we have already reached
and arguably the one we have most examined besides our own. Furthermore, it is within
technological reach.
The resources on our Moon have yet to be defined fully. We hope for water, Helium-3,
and metals. Additionally, the Moon as an orbiting body of Earth is a resource in its self. Much
research is currently taking place regarding a lunar solar or nuclear power plant able to beam
electricity back to earth.
Our new understanding of extra-terrestrial hazards such as massive asteroid impacts and
powerful gamma ray bursts highlights our planet‘s vulnerability. These events are bound to
reoccur. In order to increase our likelihood of survival we must diversify our planetary portfolio.
Today, Europeans are storing away millions of seeds within frozen arctic caves. In a worst case
scenario under the extremes of a mass extinction event, we will need a store of life to re-inhabit
an ailing planet. Why limit our store of such importance to our own fragile poles? Our Moon
could serve as an excellent vault for life.
Ultimately, we are desperate to ignore one obvious fact, but it remains and looms over us,
weighing on our psyche. Our precious planet is limited. The fine balance of life nurturing
resources it offers is finite. Our current rate of expansion requires that we seek out or create
resources and alternate hospitable environments soon. It is time we look squarely at our options
as a life form aware of its own mortality. Shall we seek out new places to inhabit or embrace our
destiny as a temporary but rare phenomena confined to a small unique planet? Do we care if our
family called the human race occupies a minuscule portion of universal history? Or, is it our
nature to carve out a presence in the universe that offers influence and perhaps enlightenment to
other life forms we may encounter? Making no decision is a decision in itself. It is time we
throw open the gates to space by calling on the masses. Let us utilize mankind‘s ability to create
habitats in the uninhabitable. The hope for profit and a better life have driven mankind to the
edges of our world. The same hope can drive them to the bounds of our universe.
2
1.0 Feasibility of Commercial Space Development
This section examines the feasibility of the development of commercial space with an
overview of the industry, a survey of the demand in the market and a summary of existing
private new space companies. Also, this section describes the major catalysts that assist with
commercial development and shows that launch costs of commercial vehicles are comparable to
those of government vehicles. Finally a case study has been prepared to show how a parallel
market, commercial airlines, was developed from a government to a private industry.
The space industry will be defined as ―the production, manufacture, support, or operation
of any good, service, facility, vehicle, or piece of equipment in space, or for the testing of spacerelated technology‖ (1).
1.1 Space Industry Overview
1.1.1 Performance of the Space Industry to Date
Four major areas have dominated the space industry: satellite communications, space
transportation, global positioning systems, and remote sensing. In 2000, these contributed
$80.47 billion to the national economy, of which approximately $67 billion came from satellite
communications. Demand for more satellites dropped off steeply and the industry struggled at
the turn of the century; it has since re-stabilized and shown growth in profits. According to the
Space Report 2008, the space industry grew by 11% in 2007, with global revenues over $251
billion. The biggest contributor is commercial satellites (55%), most notably direct-to-home
satellites (26%), which increased by 19% over 2006-2007. Satellite production has been the
groundwork of the industry, flourishing in the past decade from consumer need for GPS, mobile
phones, and satellite TV. As seen in table 1, other major contributors are government spending
and commercial infrastructure. In addition, growth of the workforce in the space industry was
larger than in the overall private sector (2).
Revenue of the Space Industry in 2007
Commercial Satellite Services
Direct-To-Home (DTH)
26%
US Government Spending
22%
Commercial Infrastructure
7%
US Government Spending
Commercial Infrastructure
International Government Spending
Infrastructure Support
Space Commercial Transportation
55% $138.83 B
25%
14%
6%
<1%
<1%
$62.55
$34.35
$14.7
$0.7
$0.04
B
B
B
B
B
Table 1: Revenue of the space industry (2)
.
3
Spaceports have played a minor role in the past but are growing as New Space companies
become better able to launch into orbit and sub-orbit. Between 2006 and 2007, 7 non-federally
funded spaceports opened (3).
It is important to realize that the industry, though dependent on the government as a
customer, is dominated by commercial satellite services. As a whole, it has a basis in
commercial products, showing that commercial space is feasible and that corporations in space
are already a reality.
1.1.2 Projections
The future of the space market is uncertain but appears positive. The activities that have
supported the industry for the past decade, while not projected to rise noticeably, appear to be
stable. NASA‘s budget is projected to remain at approximately $18 billion, with increases only
for inflation. The New Space sector, defined roughly as private startup companies that do not
rely on government contracts, is beginning to grow.
Success by companies like Space
Adventures and Scaled Composites is paving the way for future companies and bringing
investment dollars. New Space companies are developing launch vehicles, landers and even a
space hotel, creating an open market in which anyone who can surmount the high barriers of
entry can participate; no company has a large market share or dominates any services. The
existence of new prizes such as the Google Lunar X PRIZE and the support they have drawn is a
testament to the feasibility of commercial space exploration.
According to Peter Diamandis, ―there are two major markets available today… One is
tourism and the other is entertainment. In the future it will be resources… That will be the
trillion-dollar market‖ (4). There are many possibilities and avenues to successfully profit from
the space industry, although the timeline for commercial space presence is difficult to predict.
1.2 Commercial Space Demands
Demands exist for the private sector in space. The following outlines present and
potential future demands.
Direct demands for commercial space development:
Intellectual curiosity: expansion of human frontiers
o Scientific collaboration with government, non-government exploration
systems
o Education
Entertainment
o Tourism: sub-orbital, eventually orbital or to the Moon
o Artistic activity in space
 Mass media: broadcasts, internet and/or advertising
4
o Sports: in order to maintain health or for recreation
Technology development
Transportation: providing transportation system (see figure 1 (5))
o Management of launch sites for higher launch efficiency/frequency
o Development and operation of transportation vehicles
 i.e. SpaceX outsourcing by NASA
Falcon1 - Small rocket, $7M~8.5M per flight, ~670 kg
payloads to LEO)
Dragon: 7 passengers or 2.5 tons under unmanned flight to ISS,
projected 2009
o Transportation systems on the Moon will be required in future
Communication
o Satellites
 GPS system for Earth, Moon or Mars
 Internet
 Phone: communication tool on Earth or in space
o Non-satellite
 Communication bases in space or on the Moon
Investment / Prizes
Utilizing space resources
o Power/Energy: potential space solar/nuclear power generation systems
o Essential resources
Medical science
o Medical treatment; more effective surgery and/or rehabilitation
o Pharmaceuticals: research or development under space environments
Space structures: fueling stations, rescue systems, orbiting hotels, repair facilities
Insurance: space tourism, production reliability
Pollution management: space debris, waste materials
Figure 1: Projected demand curve for passenger space flight
5
1.3 New Space
The feasibility of using space as a commercial resource is apparent even in today‘s
industry environment. Space offers several applications to private industry, including satellite
TV and radio, Global Positioning System applications, and remote sensing. Additionally, socalled New Space companies, which tend to be privately funded and highly susceptible to costs,
have fared quite well in the market. The following overview offers some examples of such
companies:
New Space company numbers:
2007 Sales
2007 Employees
Blue Origin
XCOR Aerospace
Bigelow Aerospace
$11.9 mil.
$1.1 mil.
$2.7 mil
100
32
40
Table 2: New Space Company Sales/Employees
Contractor numbers:
Boeing
Lockheed
Martin
Northrop
Grumman
2007 Sales
$66.387 bil.
$41.862 bil.
$32.018 bil.
2007
Employees
159,300
European Aeronautic
Defense and Space
Company
$52.025 bil
140,000
122,600
116,805
(2006)
Table 3:Large Contractors Company Sales/Employees
1.4 Catalysts
1.4.1 The US Space Exploration Policy
Perhaps the most visible catalyst to the commercialization of space is President George
W. Bush‘s announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration, which lays out the challenge to
return man to the Moon by 2020. The President encouraged commercial involvement by
creating a commission of private and public sector experts to advise on its implementation (6).
Creating this commission places the private sector at the forefront of the policy and allows it to
have a voice in developing the future of space exploration.
6
1.4.2 NASA’s Attitude and Actions
NASA recently launched a pro space commercialization baseline in their 2006 Strategic
Plan, which established six goals to be followed through the next ten years to meet the Vision,
one of which is to ―Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging
commercial space sector‖ (7).
NASA is also a catalyst because of its current and planned actions, which include:
Centennial Challenges (Prizes)
NASA would like to complete by 2012 at least one prize competition for
―independently designed, developed, launched, and operated missions
related to space science or space exploration‖ (7).
Expand the number of Launch Service Providers to include emerging companies
Intellectual property rights will be awarded for technology and systems
developed (7).
Space Act Agreements
The current Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program which is
to provide transportation for cargo and/or crew to the ISS by 2010
Development of the Innovative Partnerships Program
This program allows NASA to leverage the private sector‘s capabilities for
future mission while fostering the growth of the industry.
1.4.3 NASA’s Budget
During the peak of the Apollo program in 1966, NASA‘s budget was 6% of the annual
federal budget (8). Today, NASA‘s budget makes up approximately .6% of the federal budget.
Furthermore, the Apollo Program made up 34% of NASA‘s annual budget (9), while its
successor, the Constellation Program, receives only 17% of NASA‘s annual budget (10).
NASA‘s inadequate funding requires the commercialization of space to fulfill the Vision.
1.4.4 Challenges and Prize Competitions
Major catalysts for the involvement of private companies are the contests and challenges
presented by the X PRIZE Foundation and NASA. These generate excitement and encourage
investment in the space industry through private investors, universities and small companies.
For example, during the Ansari X- Prize, which had a purse of $10 million, an estimated total of
$100 million was spent by 26 teams (11). The challenges presented allow many new companies
to form and allow small existing companies to develop technology products without having to
compete against well established Aerospace giants.
7
1.4.5 Space Angels Network
A very big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels
Network. The Space Angels Network is an organization whose members promote the
development of aerospace-related industries and technologies with a return on private
investments (12). Space Angels provides a forum for entrepreneurs to present their ideas in front
of early-stage investors (13).
1.4.6 Space Tourism
A final catalyst for the development of the commercial space industry is the growth of the
Space Tourism market. As NASA and other international government agencies continue to
explore space, the public is becoming more interested and intrigued by what lies beyond our
planet. NASA does not have the resources, nor the authority to get the public to space, so in
order to fill this demand private companies must emerge and supply opportunities for Space
Tourism. One present example is the success of Virgin Galactic‘s and Scaled Composites‘ suborbital tourism venture, which has generated around $30 million in registration revenues (14).
1.5 Launch Costs
Approximate Launch Costs for Active Vehicles to LEO
Launch Vehicle
Launch Cost ($ x106) Payload Capacity (kg) Cost
1,2
Ariane 5
211
21000
1,3
Atlas V
147
20520
Delta IV Heavy 4
271
22950
5
*Falcon 9 Heavy
94.5
29610
H-2A 1,6
109
10000
1,7
Long March CZ-2C
30
2400
Long March CZ-2D 1,7
18
3100
Long March CZ-3A 1,7
67
8500
1,7
Long March CZ-3B
85
12000
Long March CZ-4B 1,7
42
4200
1,8
Pegasus
15
450
Proton 1,9
95
22000
Soyuz U 1,10
48
7200
Soyuz ST 1,10
61
7800
11
Space Shuttle
418
28803
Taurus 12
24
1250
* in development
per kg ($/kg)
10048
7164
11808
3191
10900
12500
5806
7882
7083
10000
33333
4318
6667
7821
14512
19200
Table 4: Approximate Launch Costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). All values are
approximate since actual launch costs are dependent on many factors.
8
Sources:
[1] Encyclopedia Astronautica. Cost, price, and the whole darn thing. 2008(July 26),
[2] Arianespace, "Ariane 5 user's manual," November, 2004.
[3] Lockheed Martin Corporation, "Atlas launch system mission planner's guide," 2004
[4] United Launch Alliance, "Delta," 2006.
[5] Space Exploration Technologies, "Falcon 9 Heavy Overview," vol. 2008,
[6] The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, "H series (Japanese rockets)," vol. 2008,
[7] Wikipedia, "Long March Rocket," vol. 2008, July 25. 2008.
[8] Orbital Sciences Corporation, "Pegasus patented air launch system fact sheet," 2008.
[9] Wikipedia, "Proton Rocket," vol. 2008, July 15. 2008.
[10] Encyclopedia Astronautica, "Soyuz," vol. 2008, 2008.
[11] Futron Corporation, "Space transportation costs: Trends in price per pound to orbit 1990-2000," September 6,
2002.
[12] Delft University of Technology - Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, "MiMiR mission for Moon ice research
final REport," June, 2001.
As seen in table 1, the cost of commercial launches is comparable to that of government launch
vehicles. Note that if development continues as expected, SpaceX‘s Falcon 9 Heavy – a
commercially developed rocket – will be the cheapest available launch vehicle.
1.6 Airline Analogue
The pervasive presence of the government in the current space industry has led many to
question the feasibility of commercial space endeavors. However, by looking at aviation, which
successfully made a similar leap from experimental government endeavors to a significant
business market, the questions surrounding a commercial space industry are answered.
1.6.1 Cargo
Large-scale peace time aviation use began primarily as mail service through the Army for
the United States government. Once the feasibility of airmail was firmly established, through
government contracts and phased transition, the government transferred airmail service to the
private sector by way of competitive bids (15). A similar transition could potentially be seen with
space cargo. Currently the United States uses government operated systems in the form of the
Shuttle and Russian programs to transport cargo to the ISS. Programs like COTS have the
opportunity to see the same success as the airmail endeavors.
1.6.2 Cargo to People
Once commercial airmail proved successful, airlines moved to passenger flight, with the
first real success being Henry Ford‘s ―Tin Goose,‖ trusted because of the Ford name (15). Other
airlines quickly followed and passenger numbers soared. A similar surge of public acceptance of
commercial human space flight is potentially possible if companies like SpaceX garner enough
respect to establish a trust with flyers.
9
1.6.3 Prizes Revitalize the Industry
Charles Lindbergh‘s famous trans-Atlantic flight took aviation from a fledgling endeavor
to a booming industry practically overnight. Made possible by the Orteig Prize, the flight
spurred U.S. airline passenger numbers to grow between 1926 and 1929 by 3,000%, from 5,782
to 173,405 (16). Prizes like the X PRIZE, already seen to be successful in many respects, have
the potential to create similar effects on the space industry. See [Appendix C] for the Prizes case
study.
10
The Roadmap
The Roadmap aims to initiate discussion on potential difficulties and proposed
suggestions related to the commercial development of space. It is important to note that NASA is
not capable of removing all the barriers faced by commercial space. NASA is positioned as the
trailblazer that has helped to initialize off-planet endeavors, but it does not have the power,
resources, or legal authority to be solely responsible for developing an industry to exploit this
new frontier. The capabilities added by commercial activity in space have the potential to lower
operational costs to NASA and facilitate its exploration of the solar system.
11
2.0 Commercial Development Policy
As the current world leader in space activities, NASA plays a vital role in fostering
commercial involvement and economic expansion into space. This responsibility was
recognized in the 2006 strategic vision: ―NASA will engage in collaborations that will help
expand the commercial space sector in order to support NASA‘s mission: to pioneer the future in
space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research‖ (17). The most effective way
NASA can assist in the commercial development of space is to be a good collaborator and
customer to private enterprise.
In support of NASA‘s strategic goal to encourage partnerships with the commercial
sector, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) created the ESMD Commercial
Development Policy (ECDP), which consists of a set of policy elements that will create a
positive feedback relationship between both sectors in regards to the development and support of
commercial space capabilities. This policy addresses the standards that the commercial sector
should fulfill to maintain a successful partnership with NASA, a relationship that will allow them
to gain certain benefits such as intellectual property ownership, market share and involvement in
NASA‘s exploration architectures. ECDP‘s main objective is the development of the
commercial space industry to make it capable of accomplishing NASA exploration mission goals
at lower costs, ideally through fixed price contracts. The policy relies on the market to determine
which commercial sectors are viable and should receive government support. In the future,
ECDP will be used throughout the agency as an evaluation criteria for any relevant program,
project, or activity that requests funding or concurrence.
In an effort to better address the potential issues, ECDP lays out targeted barriers to entry.
The first is initial funding required for commercial space companies. ECDP proposes to address
this issue with direct investments in the form of Funded Space Act Agreements (FSAA), general
encouragement of commercial space companies, and prizes. A second barrier mentioned is the
production of commercial space goods and services. The proposed solution provides companies
access to NASA‘s assets. Third is the issue of demand for commercial space goods and services.
ECDP proposes to establish demand through ―funded agreements that provide positive incentives
to the company to attract a customer base that is separate from NASA‖ (17).
To accomplish the task of overcoming these barriers, ECDP lays out several policy
elements. In order to mitigate the risks associated with traditional FSAAs, ECDP proposes a
multiphase implementation of prizes, FSAAs, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12
contracts to narrow down the proposed investments. Once contracts are made, ESMD will
attempt to ―conduct business with its contractual partners within private sector business norms‖
(17). ECDP proposes a commercial applications selection criteria in Small Business Innovations
Research (SBIR), and similar proposals, for the evaluation process preceding NASA-business
agreements. And finally, ECDP proposes non-tangible support of commercial space in the form
of attendance and involvement in meetings and conferences to symbolize the agency‘s interest in
this sector.
ECDP outlines an evaluation method for proposed programs: The effectiveness and
feasibility of the proposal, both from the standpoint of ―meeting a NASA goal‖ and ―meeting a
12
real business goal‖ (17), will be examined. In addition to cost-benefit and supply-demand
analysis, ECDP will also consider the potential of a project with respect to leveraging
collaboration between NASA and the private sector.
Finally, ECDP will also look at the possibility of initiating changes in laws and
regulations that impede the goals of ECDP. At the very least, it will seek to understand the laws
in order to best facilitate a smooth cooperation between the private sector and NASA.
13
3.0 Commercial Technology Transfer
This section will address how NASA can be a good business partner by examining
multiple programs and opportunities for cooperation. NASA is known as one of the largest
organizations to innovate, develop and utilize new technology. Long-term exploration missions
will require cooperation between the private sector and NASA, which will in turn foster an
industry more equipped and willing to support space exploration.
Recognizing the usefulness of the commercial sector in the development of space, NASA
has developed systems for sharing technology with the private sector. These include ‗spin-offs,‘
and the Innovative Partnership Program (IPP).
The IPP encourages NASA innovators to participate in sharing their technology, thereby
expanding the applications of the new technology while increasing the efficiency and quality of
the development process. An efficient development of technology is crucial to successful and
sustainable space ventures.
Thus far, the IPP office has had relative success in achieving technology transfer. In FY
2006 over 200 partnerships were established, more than 50 license agreements for applications
and 750 new technologies were submitted and evaluated, and more than 400 agreements for
commercial application of NASA developed software were completed (18).
See Appendix B.3.1 for detailed explanations of how the IPP works.
Other programs that play a role in technology transfer are the Small Business Innovation
Research program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR). These
were created to stimulate technological innovation in the private sector. They provide
opportunities for small companies and other research institutions to participate in governmentsponsored research efforts to contribute to NASA missions and offer potential commercial
applications. Currently all ten NASA centers participate in SBIR and STTR programs. Between
1983 and 2000 there were 6,957 SBIR contracts awarded nationally. It has been determined that
the SBIR/STTR programs have provided a stable revenue stream in research and development,
where the problem of shrinking discretionary funds is profound. Funding for SBIR contracts in
2005 was $107.5 million, with STTR programs receiving another $12.9 million (19).
Despite the successes of these programs (see RSFC-B RM-2), there exists room for
improvement. NASA should be more proactive with alumni companies and should help to
open additional financial and marketing doors for these companies. Many of these companies
possess technical expertise but have limited experience in marketing and distribution. D. A.
Comstock has suggested that NASA could help such companies by:
Establishing relationships with the companies by providing opportunities for these to
exhibit their products at open houses, workshops, and trade fairs.
Being available as a broker and financial ―matchmaker.‖
Being available for assistance in technical needs
14
In regards to the medical and life sciences companies, NASA should be in the position to
investigate complaints and mediate settlements between the companies and other
government agencies such as:
o The NIH - for joint research ventures purposes.
o The FDA-in order to help speed-up the regulatory approval
o Other agencies that purchase life sciences goods and services (the Department of
Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs)
NASA should not establish a formal new program to implement these recommendations.
It has been suggested that there should be a change in the working dynamic between government
and industry, which would require the following governmental actions:
Being proactive with companies that perform research and development in order to
encourage commercial development.
Monitoring the development of commercial spin-offs.
o Better documenting/publishing the economic impact of spin-off technologies
Proving through actions its availability to the industry in order to aid in developing joint
ventures, providing assistance in technical needs, and providing services to the
companies after the formal funding has ended.
(20)
15
4.0 Infrastructure
4.1 Transportation
One general requirement for a space faring civilization is the ability to get to and from
space. Focusing on the Moon, transportation can be broken into three parts: transportation to
low earth orbit (LEO), transport from LEO to the lunar surface, and transportation on the lunar
surface. Facilitating these three parts will be the topic of the following section. Presently,
getting to LEO is one of the most challenging and expensive aspects of space activity, but there
are several other aspects that must be considered in transportation.
4.1.1 Launch Sites
The location of a launch site dictates the cost of insurance, constraints on debris and
stages falling back to the Earth, as well as the cost of fuel and launch vehicle transport. Launch
facilities must be able to track the vehicle after it has launched and, in the U.S., must also obtain
permission from the FAA to launch. All of these limit the availability of launch sites to very
specialized locations, requiring significant infrastructure investment.
The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation lists 15 active launch sites under
American supervision. There are seven federal spaceports, eight non-federal spaceports and
eight proposed non-federal space ports. Among the proposed non-federal spaceports is
Spaceport America in New Mexico, which will be used by Virgin Galactic as its world
headquarters. Additionally, Lockheed Martin has committed to continued rocket testing at the
site. Sierra County, New Mexico voted to raise taxes in order to fund the construction of
Spaceport America (21). Two economic impact studies for the long and short term forecast
Spaceport America‘s economic activity to reach $552,780,000, creating 4,320 jobs, by 2020.
The facility is designed for the commercial space industry and integrates space tourism as a key
component (22).
Other Commercial Spaceports (23):
Mojave Civilian Aerospace Test Center, Mojave, California
Southwest Regional Spaceport, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island
California Spaceport, Western Commercial Spaceport, Lompoc, California
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Wallops Island, Virginia
Spaceport Florida Authority, Cape Canaveral, Florida
16
4.1.2 Transport to Low Earth Orbit
Transport from Earth to LEO is perhaps the most challenging step in space travel. While
the Ansari X PRIZE sparked increased research and commercial investment in sub-orbital
transportation, orbital transportation still lacks any major catalysts to drive investment and
competition to lower costs. One major problem is the low demand for such services and the
level of government control. The current outward-looking architecture is very good for orbital
launch companies as it presents a possible privately-managed market in which private companies
will not have to compete with the government.
To help increase the development of orbital transportation, NASA created the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program. This agreement provides
financial and technical assistance to both Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital
Sciences Corporation. SpaceX received $278 million, while Orbital Sciences Corporation
received $170 million (24). The COTS program consists of four specific service areas (25) :
Capability A: External cargo delivery and disposal - delivers cargo (payloads) that
operate directly in the space environment to a LEO test bed and provides for its safe
disposal.
Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal - delivers cargo (payloads) that
operates within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed
and provides for its safe disposal.
Capability C: Internal cargo delivery and return - delivers cargo (payloads) that operate
within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed and
provides for its safe return to Earth.
Capability D (Option): Crew transportation - delivers crew to a LEO test bed and
provides for safe return to Earth.
This is a revolutionary program for jump-starting an orbital transportation market.
NASA is allowing commercial industry an opportunity to be the agency‘s primary transport
carrier to orbit so that it can focus on leaving LEO and going on to the Moon.
4.1.3 Orbital Re-fueling
Once in orbit, additional fuel is needed to travel from the Earth to the Moon. This fuel
historically has been carried up with the same vehicle that was required to travel to LEO, travel
to the Moon, travel down to the lunar surface, and travel back from the lunar surface to the Earth.
Even considering a destination of geosynchronous orbit (GEO), a large amount of fuel is
required to transit from LEO. It has been stated that approximately 72% of the cost of a lunar
voyage involves getting to LEO (26). To reduce these costs it is proposed that an orbital refueling station be constructed. While a LEO station would be the likely first step, stations in
17
GEO, lunar orbit, or on the surface of the Moon are also reasonable. These are long-term
projects that would be more appropriate for commercial development, with NASA as a costumer.
Initially it is expected that fuel will be launched from Earth. The benefit of a fueling
station would thus come from the ability to leverage rockets that are much cheaper than NASA
launch systems. It would be possible to launch numerous cheaper vehicles to fuel the station and
deliver the fuel for less than the estimated $10,000/kg it would cost to launch it on a NASA
launch system.
A Boeing presentation made the feasibility case for an orbital fuel depot and also
quantified the possible benefits of such a system: At a low government price of $10,000/kg in
LEO, 250 MT of fuel for two missions per year is worth $2.5 billion. Boeing‘s plan is to build
the depot by pieces with modules based on the upper stage of the Delta launch vehicle. Two
depots would provide redundancy, each one with a total capacity of 175 tons of liquid
oxygen/liquid hydrogen (25 tons for the lander, 125 for the rocket, with margins for boil-off and
other contingencies). And while a few of the necessary parts and operations still have to be
developed and matured, they are plausible—and critical for other applications as well (27) (28).
Current
Lunar Missions
Landed Mass:
Lunar Surface Payload:
Sorties (with ESAS landed mass):
GTO Mission (167kn x 35,788 kn x 27º)
Delta IV H:
Atlas V 551:
GSO Mission
Delta IV H:
Atlas V 551:
Interplanetary Injection (C3 = 0)
Delta IV H:
Atlas V 551:
With Depot
18t
2t
1
51t
35t
2
13t
9t
35t
23t
6t
4t
18t
10t
10t
7t
20t
15t
Table 5: Benefits of Orbit Re-Fueling Depot (28)
The proposal also identified the risk of building such architecture:
Cryo fluid management technology not matured
SpaceX fails to successfully deploy Falcon 9
Other customers fail to materialize
Unable to sign long-term purchase agreement
Lunar missions cancelled, delayed or reduced rate
Maximum LEO price less than required for minimum Return on Investment
(ROI)
18
NASA opts to use Ares V as tanker; accepts less capability per mission and
forgoes two-sortie mission.
Another interesting proposal is to categorize launches by their payload. Propellant, air,
water, and food are worth many thousands of dollars per kilogram in orbit but can be obtained at
rates of around a dollar per kilogram on Earth. The Aquarius System proposes that these
consumables be launched alone in a vehicle much cheaper than those required to launch highvalue, irreplaceable payloads. Conventional studies show that allowing launch reliability to be
reduced significantly; to between 0.67 and 0.8, would result in reduced launch costs of an order
of magnitude. While this success rate may seem low from traditional launch safety perspectives,
it is routinely accepted in terrestrial low-cost delivery systems. Aqueducts and high-tension
power lines, for example, routinely lose one-third of their payload en route, yet they are highly
successful and commonly used. The Aquarius launcher concept is a simple, low-margin,
pressure-fed, floating-launched vehicle. Its design strategy allows mission reliability reduction
to the extent that net delivery cost to orbit is minimized proportionally with the low value of its
one-ton payloads. Such a vehicle could supply a depot in orbit and would benefit space
businesses by reducing launch cost and risk for other missions which would no longer need to
carry extra fuel.
Primary technical issues that exist for a fuel depot include dealing with the zero-gravity
environment and cryogenic liquid fuel storage. The surface tension of cryogenic fuels presents a
problem in tanks. Cryogenic liquid fuels also must be cooled to remain cryogenic. This is a
challenging thermal controls problem in orbit. Additionally, the liquid in the tanks is continually
floating around and thus presents controls issues. To begin to alleviate these issues it was
suggested by NASA that a $5 million prize be offered for demonstrating cryogenic fluid
management technologies for liquid hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks in orbit. Developing a
high-efficiency cryogenic fluid storage and transfer system could significantly lower the cost and
complexity of space exploration missions and enable new commercial space markets. It is
highly suggested that a prize such as this be offered in the near future. [Appendix C]
One other suggestion, from Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., involves a public-private
partnership to develop ‗trade-routes,‘ consisting of space hubs where cargo and fuel can be
transferred from vehicle to vehicle. These stations might be placed in LEO, GEO, and/or the
Lagrange points, as well as in orbit around the Moon. LTS‘s proposal introduces the idea of
having a system of vehicles with differing specialized capabilities. If the possibility of
purchasing space aboard rockets that would deliver cargo to LEO and then transferring to a
lower-cost/lower-speed ―tug‖ vehicle were available, commercialization of space and the Moon
could happen incrementally and would therefore be more realistic. In other words, the private
sector might begin by managing transportation to station infrastructure at LEO or the Lagrange
points as mentioned above, and move towards the Moon at a slower pace than NASA, in a
supporting role.
19
4.1.4 Lunar Surface Delivery
The next step after LEO is to transfer to the Moon. Current NASA plans are to establish
a long-term lunar base. Going on this assumption it is proposed that NASA develop a Space Act
Agreement for a lunar cargo delivery demonstration flight. The justification of a commercial
cargo delivery system for the lunar surface is similar to that of the Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services program for the International Space Station. It is hoped that services
provided by the commercial sector will provide a cheaper cargo delivery alternative for a
potential lunar base. A Space Act Agreement for a cargo delivery demonstration mission would
also enhance the capabilities of the American aerospace industry. With commercial lunar cargo
delivery available, new markets have the chance to emerge. As a commercial cargo provider
begins providing services to entities other than NASA, it is possible that the cost of each
individual flight will go down or stabilize.
Following a procurement plan similar to that of NASA‘s Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS) program would seem like a logical step for commercial cargo
delivery to the lunar surface. A lunar transportation system would be inherently less concerned
with cargo disposal than its orbital counterpart. Any waste from a lunar establishment could be
stored in nearby. Not only does this decrease technical requirements for a transportation system,
but this waste could eventually be utilized in some way.
The concept of pressurized cargo versus unpressurized cargo is also inherently different
in commercial lunar cargo delivery. Cargo will have to be transported from landing zones to
habitation zones. The cargo delivery vehicle will not dock directly to the lunar habitat. Instead,
the commercial cargo delivery system could transport removable pressurized modules that could
be transported to a lunar settlement. Initially, the cargo will mainly be consumables, such as
oxygen, food and water.
The challenges of such a Space Act Agreement would include developing a commercial
polar landing capability, an autonomous landing system, and as a potential option in the SAA the
ability to perform automated rendezvous and docking. The ability to land is quite clear, but a
polar landing would likely be required to service the proposed lunar base at the lunar south pole.
Automated rendezvous and docking (ARD) would be an option necessary to dock with an orbital
fuel or transport depot. This prize and all of its associated technical challenges, requirements,
and options are detailed in Appendix C.4.
If an economic, privately-owned lunar transportation system was developed, this could be
immediately applicable to a commercial space industry. Eventually, if this program is successful,
NASA should enter Space Act agreements for cargo return and human crew demonstration
missions. All of these demonstration missions should be followed by contracts for cargo
delivery/return or crew transfer. Not only could this system provide economical access to a lunar
settlement for NASA, but the very existence of such a system will allow for the accelerated
commercial development of the lunar surface.
20
4.1.5 Lunar Surface Transportation
Once transportation to the Moon has been accomplished, whether solely by NASA and its
Constellation vehicles or by a combination of NASA and commercial vehicles, the next issue
with both robotic and human activities is how supplies, resources, people, etc. are transported
around the surface. As lunar resources begin to be exploited this transportation issue will be
particularly important. In the development of a transportation infrastructure the mitigation of
negative lunar environmental effects must be considered. Such an infrastructure or technology,
once developed, could be offered to other agencies or private companies to reduce the cost of
lunar operations.
A fully-fledged lunar surface transportation infrastructure will be a very long-term
project, and is at present far out of the scope of NASA‘s Exploration Policy. However, there are
several proposals on the subject, including dust mitigation techniques that might increase
transport possibilities, as well as vehicle longevity and performance.
One such suggestion involves implementing the discovery that due to the high
concentrations of nano-phase Fe0, the lunar soil can be melted at around 12000C, more quickly
than the time it takes to boil water using a standard microwave oven. The suggested applications
include a ―paving‖ vehicle that melts the soil into glass-like surfaces using microwaves, to make
roads that could be used by other vehicles. Alternatively, the microwaves could be equipped by
all lunar surface vehicles as a single-user mitigation device. The technology, if successful, could
be additionally applied to the creation of landing pads, large-scale antenna dishes, as well as the
production of glass and oxygen (29) (30).
NASA has also begun research on a pseudo-infrastructure system for In-Situ Resource
Utilization (ISRU), which includes research into the development of regolith excavation and
transport vehicles for the production of oxygen and hydrogen (31). Such a system would be
necessary if NASA is to support its own lunar base, but might also be used by other agencies or
companies to commercially develop such resources. Additional ideas that exclude the use of
wheeled or purely surface vehicles include implementing vertical take-off and landing vehicles
and the necessary launch and landing pads to control dust dispersion, as well as a very long-term
project that would involve a lunar ―cable-car,‖ completely avoiding contact with the ground and
thereby preventing any direct dust disturbance.
A proper transportation infrastructure on the lunar surface is a long-term project that
ought to be considered in preparation for the Exploration Policy, but cannot be expected in the
form of a complicated system such as a cable-car, especially if it were to be funded by NASA. A
much more plausible system for transportation would indeed be the implementation of dust
mitigation techniques, perhaps one of those mentioned previously. NASA has begun
development of surface vehicles for its programs including ISRU, but it would be unreasonable
to expect that such vehicles would be available for public use. The technology, however, should
be shared in some way with others on the Moon to prevent wasteful spending on the part of other
agencies or private companies.
21
Similarly, demanding that NASA dedicate time and money to building lunar roads for the
private sector to use would be economically unfeasible and entirely inefficient, as well as
restrictive to commercial activities. Some elementary dust-mitigation infrastructure developed
around landing and resource sites might be reasonable, but in the early stages of lunar
development transportation and exploration by private companies must be self-dependent,
potentially including government-provided technologies, with the possibility of a governmentrun surface infrastructure available in the long-term. Current transportation infrastructure efforts
should focus more on Earth launch systems to LEO and the Moon, especially considering
NASA‘s limited budget.
4.2 Communications and Data Relay
Communication and data relay capabilities are very important to any lunar mission,
governmental or otherwise. As NASA prepares to begin mission for its Exploration Policy, a
reliable system of communication must be considered and implemented. The Deep Space
Network (DSN) is currently used by all sorts of spacecraft and scientific missions, and its largest
antennas are prioritized for missions that travel much farther than the Moon (the first, and
arguably most important, destination of the Policy), and so would make a poor choice for
dedicated and permanent Earth-Moon communication.
4.2.1 The Deep Space Network
The Deep Space Network, NASA‘s Apollo Mission communications and navigations
provider, began under contract to the U.S. Army with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which
was transferred to NASA in 1958. The DSN provided communications and tracking for
remotely controlled Moon missions as well as the Apollo missions, and was made into a separate
system of communications that is managed and operated independently. To avoid the need for a
separate communications system to be developed for every posterior spacecraft mission, the
DSN was made to accommodate and provide communications to all deep space missions. To
support this responsibility, the DSN was given its own research and development accountability.
It has thus been successful in the development of large parabolic antennas and is currently a
leader of tracking, communication, telemetry, navigation and signal processing. The DSN,
which currently consists of three facilities worldwide, is an ―international network of antennas
that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar astronomy observations for
the exploration of the solar system and the universe. The network also supports selected Earthorbiting missions‖ (32).
The DSN sells its services through proposals. However, its resources are limited, and the
number of missions requiring reliable Earth to deep space communication grows every year.
The growth of the DSN is limited due to being governmentally run, and its resources and future
requirements no longer meet. Additionally, the hardware infrastructure is reaching the end of its
life, and competitiveness with legacy, or extended, missions disconcerts current mission
22
proponents. Looking forward, the DSN‘s crucial role in space exploration is mired by
inefficiency and ineffectiveness, as well as government agency bureaucracy.
4.2.2 Communications Systems
A number of ideas regarding the implementation of an Earth-Moon communications
infrastructure have been formulated, most from very technical perspectives (33) (34) (35). These
ideas suggest the use of Low, Medium, and Geosynchronous Earth Orbits (LEO, MEO, GEO,
respectively) as well as of the Lagrange points or lunar polar orbits for placement of satellite
constellations for transmitting data. It is suggested that two satellites in Earth-Moon Lagrange
points 1 and 2 would suffice to provide nearly 100% coverage of the Moon for communication
on both the near- and far-sides (33).
An important consideration for this infrastructure is that it be evolvable, such that
technology and hardware advancement be easily incorporated to quickly improve functionality
and capability. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) infrastructure
proposal (34) suggests initially three satellites in lunar polar orbit, and assumes also the use of
the DSN as a terrestrial receiver, with the possibility of using other ground stations presented as
viable. Finally, it is also suggested that infrastructure implementation happen over time with
long-term goals in mind, and through opportunistic or auxiliary rather than dedicated launches.
It should be noted that these proposals suggest technological strategies for a communications
infrastructure that seem to assume the total responsibility of NASA.
A communications and data relay infrastructure is most plausible using a combination of
existing technologies and ground receivers, such as the DSN, that will be replaced over time, and
an evolvable constellation of satellites. However, this infrastructure, although regulated by
either the U.S. government or an international governing body should be developed and/or
maintained either partially or entirely by the private sector. Additionally, the use of the
infrastructure should not be limited to use by NASA, or international space agencies, but rather
open to the public based on a proposal and/or auctioning system. Long-term planning should
include complete privatization in the future. The DSN should be employed minimally, optimally
as simply a stepping-stone for the first generation of lunar communication satellites, and should
be quickly replaced for more effective and resource-efficient use.
While initially the most robust economic support for lunar satellite development may be
governmentally driven in form of research orbiters, short-term consumer driven economic
opportunities are likely especially as various teams and millions of dollars are invested in the
Google Lunar X PRIZE. Public demand for space imagery and science is historically high.
Video games and entertainment industry demand for imagery may be the largest source of nongovernmental revenue in the short term for lunar enterprises. Additionally, the imagery from
such satellites, if properly positioned by a commercial entity, could generate large internet traffic
and possible revenue from ad sales on internet sites. Academic purchasing of lunar satellite
imagery and rover/lander data is also highly probable.
23
Historically, government investment in both communication and transportation
infrastructure has been quite significant, from the government subsidized trans-Atlantic telegraph
lines to the U.S. Interstate Highway system [Appendix B.5]. Governments have laid the
groundwork for commercial development in the past, and governmental support of the
aforementioned systems will help in the inclusion of the Moon and space in the Earth‘s
economic sphere of influence. If the suggestions presented here are followed, it is hoped that
this development will be accelerated.
24
5.0 Accelerating Factors
The following section will focus on hurdles and suggestions related specifically to
funding and business opportunities for the commercial development of space. All space
activities are risky and require large investments, and no matter if this investment is made by
government or private sources, the outcome must be beneficial for the funding to be sustained.
In a commercial sense, success is almost always defined as a monetary return on investment and
such success leads to more funding and growth of the industry. For government programs, the
return is not always monetary, but a return must still be shown.
5.1 Engagement
5.1.1 Public Engagement
NASA funding depends on political and public support for NASA‘s activities, and
funding will be sustained only if public support is sustained. The challenge is how to excite the
public and congressional representatives so that spending in space is not only maintained, but
increased. In the past, foreign influences such as the Soviet Union‘s launch of Sputnik, were the
drivers for increased spending. Currently, broad, exciting, and long-term stimulation must come
from within.
The current exploration policy of NASA has potential to excite the public. Returning to
the Moon with a clear objective to do more than leave flags and footprints will generate great
interest in the program. In order to increase support, the public will need to be informed and
engaged in the space program. Two examples of this that simultaneously engaged and excited
the public were the X PRIZE Cup and NASA‘s presence at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival.
This report proposes two very broad but important suggestions. During the Apollo
program, the public‘s connection with individual astronauts combined with the knowledge of the
extreme risks of space travel generated great public interest. This same model should be used
today.
Engaging the public is difficult, and this paper provides suggestions to help overcome the
challenge. One suggestion is to stream online data directly from missions so that viewers can
pick the camera angle or the data feeds that they want to see. This will allow younger users to
build their own mission control. Hands on engagement can be achieved through activities such
as creating lunar rover models that people can test drive. Even low-fidelity working models will
excite the public. More suggestions are summarized as follows:
Allow for more ISS and Shuttle in-flight astronaut-to-public communication beyond
NASA TV (television interviews, webcasts, etc.)
Engage the public – give opportunities to interact
Help the public to get to know the astronauts as people
Better explain the reasons behind each mission
25
Better convey the extreme risks that go along with each mission
The return on investment for the government‘s engagement has potential to be seen
through increased NASA budgets. Since NASA fosters the commercial development of space in
many ways, such an increase in the budget could help to accelerate these activities.
5.1.2 Education Engagement
Another major impact of public engagement is focused almost entirely on the nation‘s
youth. The Apollo program shows that if young people are engaged by a robust, destination
driven space program, they are more likely to choose a technical field of study.
Since the commercial development of space requires a skilled and motivated workforce,
outreach and student engagement are extremely important. All private companies should engage
youths in their space activities. Both government and private funding should be expanded to
ensure that math and science courses are taught by instructors with true math and science
backgrounds. Students should study math and science because they see the benefits and the cool
things that it can be used for, not because they need to know it for a test. High school graduates
who have chosen a technical field should be engaged as early as possible as interns and co-ops so
that they are better prepared for industry when they graduate. Without the proper investment, a
future workforce will not exist.
5.2 Start-up Company Investment
One major obstacle to the commercialization of the space industry is the lack of
financing, funding and investment for new companies. All companies that are trying to break
into the space industry need a tremendous amount of capital. Currently much of this is being
provided by personal fortunes which are capable of making initial investments of anywhere from
half a million dollars to several billion dollars (36). In recent years corporate billionaires, such
as John Carmack, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk, have invested hundreds of millions, which has
created the beginnings of a New Space market. Other companies started by people without a
personal fortune must seek private investment and funding. These companies also need long
term, low cost financing in order to have a chance to be successful (37).
Currently the demand for space products is not high enough to drive an entire industry,
but to ride the back of the bio-tech, energy, tourism, or entertainment industries would help fuel
investment and need. Space companies focusing on areas that investors can relate to will help
bring in new investments. As the industry stands, investors and angels are weary of spending
money in what has been seen as an unreliable and untested new arena. Many banks and
investors are unwilling to give large amounts of capital and funding to space start-up companies
because there is no successful model for comparison (37). Investors are also hesitant because of
the steep risk-reward ratio. Investors will be forced to wait for years for what is currently a
modest and often uncertain return. It is much safer for any venture capitalist to invest in a more
26
well known and understood industry where the risk can be easily calculated and where the return
will come quickly (37). Finally, people are very hesitant to invest in the industry because there
are no exit strategies (38). Additional hurdlers addressed elsewhere in the paper are outlined in
Appendix B.1 in the context of start-up companies.
The issue of financing for space start-up companies is beginning to be addressed. A very
big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels Network. The
Space Angels Network is an organization whose members ―share a common passion for
promoting the development of aerospace-related industries and technologies while also making a
solid return on private investments‖ (12). This network is without a doubt a catalyst for the
commercialization of space because it is a group of investors and entrepreneurs that are waiting
and willing to give money to private space companies. Space Angels provides a forum via an enewsletter, an online deal database and deal screening events for entrepreneurs to present their
ideas in front of ―early-stage investors who are actively looking for investment opportunities in
aerospace-related industries‖ (13). This is very beneficial because, as mentioned above, securing
start-up investment is a challenge for space start-ups. Other groups of early stage investors exist
such as the Boston Harbor Angels, who invest in space and aviation as well as many other
technology areas (39). Details on both of these Angel groups can be found in the Appendix B.1.
These angel networks interested in space will hopefully expand and have the ability to
accelerate the development of the industry. Efforts should be made by private space companies
to assist each other in this new sector. This mutual respect is important because poor
relationships and the creation of bad reputations will turn away potential investors.
Another suggestion is that commercial space companies design milestone technologies
into their business plans. These would be products created on the way to a longer-term goal.
Milestones such as these would allow companies to initiate cash flow and help to alleviate some
of the added costs and risks of long term investments. Additionally, space companies focusing
on areas that investors can relate to, such as pharmaceuticals, biotech, tourism, entertainment,
and energy will also help to bring in new investments. As companies begin to succeed, it is very
likely that more investors will enter the commercial space industry and help to accelerate its
development.
5.3 Space Based Solar Power
The focus will now shift to a look at suggestions to increase business opportunities for
commercial space, and this section focuses on the energy market. Energy is a necessity in
everyday life, and the demand for energy is constantly increasing. Energy is one of the most
important and valuable resources on the planet. Energy markets are well known to investors and
have the potential to attract many non-aerospace companies.
Space based solar power (SBSP) is a way to generate electricity in space for use on Earth.
SBSP consists of large solar panel arrays in Earth-orbit that collect energy directly from the sun
and transmit it to Earth-based receiving stations wirelessly. Recent studies show that SBSP is
technically feasible with current technologies.
27
SBSP should be developed for many reasons. SBSP is a clean, reliable, and plentiful
source of energy. Solar arrays based in North America can generate 125-375 W/m2 of power, but
1366 W/m2 of energy could be captured by space based solar arrays (40). SBSP directly supports
the goals of the US National Space Policy and Vision for Space Exploration, which seeks to
promote international and commercial participation in space. SBSP is a clean alternative to both
finite fossil fuels and nuclear power, which produces hazardous nuclear waste. SBSP has the
potential to increase international cooperation and enable a true space faring civilization.
There are two main components of SBSP. The first is the conversion of solar energy into
power, and the second is transmitting this power to Earth wirelessly. Solar panels are a
technology that is continuing to improve. Solar panels have demonstrated 28% efficiencies at
room temperature, and projections estimate efficiencies of 50% reached within the next two
decades (41). Wireless power beaming has also been demonstrated in the past. For example, 30
kW of power was beamed over 1 mile by JPL in 1975 (42). NASA is also currently offering a
prize challenge for power beaming technology demonstration. Details on this prize can be found
in Appendix C.11.
The major obstacle to developing and improving SBSP is a lack of organization and
funding. Since the National Security Space Office (NSSO) SBSP study came out in fall 2007, no
funded work has been completed. The first step is to determine who should be in charge of
coordinating the development. Although SBSP clearly involves space, it is mainly an energy
technology, and therefore should be managed by someone such as the DOE. An organization
within or directed by DOE, such as Energy Research and Development Organization (ERDO),
which preceded DOE and no longer exists, should take responsibility.
At this point in development, a relatively small amount of funding is necessary. We
propose funding on the scale of $10 million, and it can easily be justified to congress as a small
investment into new technology that will help us attain energy independence. A small amount of
successful funded research should grow exponentially when the technology potential is seen and
pursued by industry and universities. Since it was first proposed in the 1960s, approximately
$80 million has been spent in the study of SBSP. In contrast, since the 1950s, approximately $21
billion has been spent for the development of fusion power (40). Government funding for SBSP
should be increased to a comparable level.
The other major factor preventing SBSP development is high launch costs and the lack of
easy access to space. According to the SBSP Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study by (NSSO),
construction of a single SBSP satellite would require at least 120 launches. In general, launch
costs are the only major factor limiting the development and use of space, and SBSP will
encourage companies to develop technology to decrease these costs. SBSP will catalyze the
development of commercial access to space, and in the same way, development of commercial
access to space will catalyze the use of SBSP.
It is impossible to put a price tag on SBSP because the technologies involved still need to
be developed and demonstrated. For example, the current specific power of solar arrays is 180
W/kg, but is expected to improve to 1000 W/kg over the next two decades (41). Technologies
28
such as this should be able to be applied to many things other than SBSP along the way, and that
should offset the cost of development. Once SBSP is actually deployed in space and customers
purchase its electric power, it will pay for itself.
5.4 Biotechnology in Space
Another business opportunity with significant growth and investment potential is
biotechnology. Biotechnology, a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, is one of the largest,
most profitable industries on the planet. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
at the end of 1995, 1,415 biotechnology companies existed in the United States, of which 329
were publicly traded (43). These companies alone were worth $410 billion. In 2005, the
Biotech industry reported earnings of $50.7 billion, and $19.8 billion was spent on research in
the U.S., with the top five companies spending $130,000 per employee on research and
development. As seen in the chart below, these companies‘ research budgets are higher than
NASA‘s total budget.
Biotech Research vs NASA Budget
25
20
Billions of 15
Dollars 10
5
0
2000 2001
2002 2003
2004 2005
Year
Biotech Research
NASA Budget
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
NASA Budget
$13.4
$14.3
$14.8
$14.9
$15.2
Biotech Research
$14.2
$15.7
$20.5
$17.9
$19.6
Figure 2: Budget Comparison - NASA and Biotech Research
2005
$15.7
$19.8
Biotech statistics from Ernst & Young LLP; BioWorld
NASA statistics from the US OMB
The biotech industry performs rapid research and produces many of products,
continuously moving to the next big market or new drug. With their high profits and desire to
expand, biotech companies have taken great interest in space research, which may prove to be a
gold mine for the first company willing to take it seriously.
29
Since its beginning, the International Space Station (ISS) has been seen as a great
opportunity for biotech companies to perform research in zero-gravity environments. Scientists
and businessman alike, all anticipating access to the station, have been frustrated by the lack of
time they have been permitted to use it. In 2005, the ISS was named a national lab, yet it
remains to be extremely underutilized. Noting the intrinsic value of an orbital laboratory,
biotech may be ready to advance its markets into space.
The most notable recent success has an experiment performed by SPACEHAB, a space
company aimed at extending space based products to the consumer market. On May 30, 2008,
SPACEHAB, signed a Space Act agreement with NASA, making them one of the first
commercial groups to have access to the station and guaranteeing them space on all but one of
the remaining shuttle flights (44). Thomas Pickens III, CEO of SPACEHAB, stated that this ―is
expected to revolutionize a myriad of industries,‖ and ―will have a significant social and
economic impact and shows great promise of saving lives and providing thousands of new jobs
in the coming years" (45).
That sentiment, shared by many throughout the biotech and other industries, has become
one step closer to reality. SPACEHAB‘s recent agreement with NASA comes after successfully
testing a salmonella vaccine aboard the ISS during STS-123 in March 2008. The Texas-based
company flew tests again onboard STS-124, validating the previous results, leaving SPACEHAB
with a vaccine which they will present to the Food and Drug Administration, hopefully start
human tests as early as October (44), and market the vaccine in the next 2 to 3 years (46).
SPACEHAB saw the potential market and have demonstrated promising results. Salmonella,
chosen as a test case long before the most recent outbreaks, is the most common food poisoning
agent in the United States. It affects over 40,000 people per year and is responsible for a loss of
productivity valued at billions of dollars annually (47). According to the Center for Disease
control, 400 people a year die of acute salmonellosis (48). Salmonella diarrhea is also one of the
top 3 causes of infant mortality worldwide. Due to its widespread affects and previous
experiments that showed salmonella was more virulent in microgravity, SPACEHAB targeted
this vaccine as one that could prove the concept of vaccine development in space.
SPACEHAB has made great progress in opening up the ISS to corporate use. They have
set a precedent and paved groundwork for working with NASA to use the ISS. By proving the
capability of such a business model, SPACEHAB has demonstrated that a market is possible.
After a decade of very little corporate activity aboard the station, NASA and private companies
need to capitalize on these recent successes for the benefit of both groups.
Other organizations, such as the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense,
National Institute of Health, and Department of Agriculture, are interested in conducting research
on the station and need to pursue a course of action to fund such projects. One option that could
increase the utilization of ISS by private companies would be if the government agencies
mentioned above instituted a program to partially subsidize delivery costs for various
experiments. These subsidies would only be used to initiate private interest in the research, but
they could be continued if specific research is deemed necessary by one of the agencies. Once
private industry is given an opportunity experiment aboard ISS, the companies would be
30
expected to utilize the station under agreement with NASA. Currently this is offered at no cost.
However, as the market develops and private capabilities begin to emerge, NASA should begin
to charge for private use of the ISS. Based on a strict timetable, this cost should be increased to
match fair market value. This will help NASA offset ISS operating costs.
Biotech, with its large investments in research, is a great industry to target for such a
venture, and SPACEHAB, Inc. has shown it is possible. Agencies could set aside funds, in the
form of grants valued at $250,000 each. Assuming a conservative launch cost of $30,000 per kg,
with these agencies giving $2 million, launch costs for 8 experiments could be subsidized. The
experiments should require minimal attention from the astronauts onboard. Such a program
would get companies seriously thinking about the possibility of a venture into space, creating a
large potential market. In the future, corporations will be launching to private space stations,
such as Bigelow modules.
Enticing corporations from biotech and other non-aerospace industries to enter low earth
orbit will increase demand in the commercial space market. If a significant return on investment
can be proven with this model it will help to pave the way for cooperation between private
industry and NASA.
5.4 Prizes
5.4.1 Background
A proven way of accelerating an industry is through the use of prizes. Prize competitions
are challenges proposed in areas in which increased involvement by private individuals or the
commercial sector is sought. Prize competitions attract innovative people who are driven by
passion, prestige, and personal achievement. Throughout history, prize competitions have been
used to foster crucial development in many areas [Appendix C]. Prizes can create heroes,
reflecting the level of visibility of the prize and the level of commitment of the general public.
An example of this is Charles Lindbergh.
The Ansari X PRIZE initiated the commercial development of sub-orbital space flight.
The new Google Lunar X PRIZE has started a new, commercial race to the Moon. In order for
man to get back to the Moon, NASA and the private industry will be forced to complete lunar
characterization missions to determine the locations of the best landing sites, habitable regions
and available resources.
5.4.2 Lunar Characterization Prize Proposal
Currently, little is known about the lunar craters, especially those that lie in permanent
shadows at the poles. A good way to gain this information is to create a new prize to
complement the current missions planned by various space agencies. The goal will be to provide
key measurements and information about the environment in these permanently shadowed
craters. Such a competition would involve universities and other research entities, and develop
31
interest among the scientific community all around the world. Moreover, a prize competition can
create a global scientific competition centered on lunar issues which will be advantageous for the
return to the Moon. The instruments used may be secondary payloads on other robotics/manned
lunar missions, and may then provide another source of cash-flow for emerging lunar delivery
companies.
If successful, not only would this prize provide valuable data on the environment in
permanently-shadowed lunar craters, but it would verify a new prize model. This new model
would provide smaller purses for data that could be used as a secondary funding source for
commercial lunar missions. If this prize were successful, similar scientific prizes could be
planned. These prizes would not necessarily be the primary mission of a spacecraft, but instead
provide an additional opportunity for private companies to make a return on their investment. In
the future, it is hoped that when these companies design a business model around landing a
spacecraft on the surface of the Moon, that they can choose a few appropriate prizes and receive
compensation for the data they collect. The model proposes that NASA would more or less buy
the data that it wants and in the prize format would only pay if the data were collected
successfully.
This prize is detailed more thoroughly in Appendix C. The appendix also has further
information on follow-on prize suggestions listed below.
5.4.3 Potential Future Lunar Prizes:
Thermal Characterization - Temperature data collection
Radiation Characterization - Measure radiation levels for a given period of time
Regolith Drilling Techniques - Test methods for drilling in-situ, preferable automated
with low mass and power requirements
Dust Mitigation Techniques or Systems - Competition to design device or process to
abate lunar dust contamination
Nighttime Power Management - Design power systems to survive the lunar night
Robotic Geology Assistant - System used by astronauts to run geological analysis on
collected samples
Penetrator Design Competition - Design penetrator that would go to a certain depth and
survive hard impact.
There are many more hurdles and various other possible business markets and
accelerators. Those listed above are merely a start. To truly open up space to commercial
development, many more ideas, inventions, and innovations will be required. It is thus very
fortunate that free market societies such as ours thrive on such challenges. As markets evolve
and demand grows entrepreneurs will be attracted to the limitless potential of space based
companies. This can already be seen in the recent explosion in interest for sub-orbital space
travel.
32
6.0 Policy
While the goal of this paper is to have the development of space entirely commercial,
government involvement is still unavoidable. Aside from being a customer or a partner,
government also dictates policy decisions affecting the development of space. These policies
include laws, treaties and regulatory bodies. This section will address the important policy issues
affecting the development of commercial space as it moves beyond Low Earth Orbit.
6.1 Liability Indemnification and Anchor Tenancy
One of the laws helping the commercial industry is Public Law 108-428, which extends
the liability indemnification regime from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2009 (49). The
government requires commercial launch companies to have private liability insurance for each
launch up to approximately $500 million. While expensive, the launch and insurance industries
are capable of covering such a cost. The difficulty is covering the billions of dollars of potential
liability insurance (50). The Amendments to the Commercial Space Launch Act of 2004 laid out
provisions for the indemnification of the liability above $500 million in order to help the launch
service providers cope with such a large cost.
The liability indemnification regime has been an extremely successful program since its
inception in 1988. It has allowed American launch providers to keep their costs low, which
helps lower the expenses to satellite providers and those who use satellite services. Foreign
launch companies are subsidized by their governments and thus have similar coverage. The
indemnification levels the playing field and allows American companies to compete with foreign
competitors and protects U.S. launch providers, their customers, and subcontractors. It ensures
financial responsibility and fiscal security, allowing companies to operate without risking the
company‘s future with each launch. The indemnification is vital to national security since it
protects companies that also launch U.S. civil and military payloads. All of this encourages U.S.
space transportation scientists and engineers to develop safer, more cost effective and more
efficient methods of getting to space (51).
Fortunately, these benefits to the commercial industry have come with no adverse sideeffects to the American public. The liability indemnification regime has cost the U.S. taxpayer
nothing since it began in 1988. It allows the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers to benefit from
efficiencies created by the commercial launch providers. It creates an environment that
encourages and facilitates the commercial space transportation industry. It also bolsters the U.S.
economic and national security, advances foreign policy, and generates hundreds of highly
technical and highly skilled jobs (51).
While the liability indemnification regime has greatly benefitted the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry, American companies still have a hard time competing with foreign
companies that are subsidized by their government and can therefore offer better protection and
lower prices (51) (52). A more aggressive policy needs to be implemented to help American
companies catch up with foreign companies like Arianespace. One such policy could be for
NASA to sign anchor tenancy agreements with commercial space transportation companies.
33
Anchor tenancy is defined by 15 U.S.C 5802 as ―an arrangement in which the United
States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or
service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made
viable‖ (53). Such an agreement would give the commercial space transportation industry the
boost that it needs.
An ideal implementation of anchor tenancy would be for NASA to use normal
procurement procedures and open the contract for bidding to all of the commercial space
transportation companies. NASA would select the company that could build the launch vehicles
best suited to the mission parameters. They would sign a contract with the chosen company
specifying how long NASA would remain an anchor tenant. With the guarantee of NASA
launches, the company would be able to invest significant time and money into the development
of new, reliable launch vehicles. This would help attract other non-government customers and
even foreign customers. The success of the company would build confidence in the viability of
the commercial space transportation industry, which would attract venture capitalist who would
invest in start-up companies. The industry would continue to grow and attract more companies,
driving costs down and increasing efficiency. After the completion of the contract, NASA would
become a normal customer and buy launch vehicles and services as a commercial item.
There would have to be a definite end date for the contract. Otherwise, companies that
did not get the contract would fail because they cannot compete with both foreign and domestic
companies. Without competition and a guaranteed customer base, the contracted company
would have little motivation to decrease costs and would not be able to compete with foreign
companies.
Two pieces of legislature currently dictate NASA anchor tenancy contracts. The first is
NASA FAR Supplement 1812.7000, which states:
Prohibition on guaranteed customer bases for new commercial space
hardware or services.
Public Law 102-139, title III, Section 2459d, prohibits NASA from
awarding a contract with an expected duration of more than one year if
the primary effect of the contract is to provide a guaranteed customer
base for, or establish an anchor tenancy in, new commercial space
hardware or services. Exception to this prohibition may be authorized
only by an appropriations Act specifically providing otherwise (54).
The second is 15 U.S.C. 5806 Anchor tenancy and termination liability Part (a), which states:
Anchor tenancy contracts
Subject to appropriations, the [NASA] Administrator or the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
may enter into multiyear anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a
good or service if the appropriate Administrator determines that—
34
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, as appropriate;
The commercially procured good or service is cost effective;
The good or service is procured through a competitive process;
Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the
United States Government have been specifically identified;
The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued
Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and
Private capital is at risk in the venture (55).
There is some debate about which piece of legislation should set the precedence for
anchor tenancy, or even if the two legislations are in conflict. In order for NASA and the U.S.
government to help the commercial space transportation industry, the rules for anchor tenancy
need to be made clear and must enable NASA to establish anchor tenancy. The benefits of
anchor tenancy to the U.S. government would be similar to the benefits of the liability
indemnification regime, but on a much larger scale.
6.2 International Traffic in Arms Regulations
One policy that is slowing the growth of commercial space sector is the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR is designed to monitor trade conducted by parties of
the United States of items and ideas pertaining to defense to insure that any exchange will not
injure the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. ITAR is
administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a branch of the Department
of State, and was created by section 22USC2788 of the Arms Export Control Act and Executive
Order 11958. The main objective of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations is to avert the
proliferation of sensitive or high tech weapons and technologies by regulating the export of these
items. While ITAR concerns items that are considered to be military in nature, the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Department of Commerce, concerns the
export of those items considered to have dual-use applications that are mostly commercial but
can also be military.
The term export is defined by ITAR as the release of a defense article to a party outside
of the United States (whether foreign or U.S. Citizen), the disclosure of defense technical data to
a non U.S. citizen or the carrying out of a defense related service for the benefit of a non-citizen.
In some circumstances, it is absolutely necessary to violate the export guidelines set forth in
ITAR. In these cases, an export license must be obtained from the Office of Defense Trade
Controls Licensing within the Department of State. These authorizations are not uncommon, but
they must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and take weeks or sometimes months to obtain.
Individuals found to be in violation of ITAR, without the appropriate license, could face criminal
charges of up to one million dollars in fines and ten years of imprisonment per violation. For an
item to fall under the export control of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, it must be
named in Section 38 or 47 of the Arms Export Control Act. This section, better known as the
35
United States Munitions List (USML), enumerates 20 classes of items considered to be defense
articles. The items of specific concern to the space industry include, but are not limited to:
launch vehicles, rocket technology, ablatives, control equipment, range finding electronics,
guidance systems, training electronics, personal protective equipment, propellant and any
spacecraft (manned and unmanned), or associated equipment. In short, ITAR governs basically
every technology concerning space flight. With regard to the future of space exploration, ITAR
is definitely an issue worthy of addressing. See Appendix B.7 for a historical overview of ITAR.
6.2.1 Effects on the Aerospace Industry
The problems stemming from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations are complex
and far reaching. Perhaps the most import issue arising from ITAR is the cost of compliance to
the policy. This issue is especially relevant when considering that many of the companies on the
forefront of commercial space are small compared to the normal government defense
contractors. The burden of filing for export license review, in terms of money and time lost, is
felt universally. However, large defense companies are acquainted with the licensing process
and often have a full staff dedicated to streamlining the process. Smaller companies, like many
New Space companies, are not so fortunate as to have full time staff dealing only with obtaining
these licenses. In addition, these companies are often unfamiliar with the process. This
increases the amount of time it takes them to receive a license and makes it more likely that the
license will not get approved. The costs incurred are also more heavily felt by the smaller
companies that the large ones. This creates a high barrier of entry into the space industry and
ultimately hinders the ability of the smaller space companies to compete in the global
marketplace.
Another area of concern with ITAR is its effect on the United States aerospace industry
as a competitor in the global market. Because the process to obtain export licenses can be so
costly, foreign customers often choose to deal with ITAR-free or non-U.S. companies.
According to research done by the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Industry and
Security, between 2003 and 2006, the US share in the global market has decreased by 20% for
all commercial communications satellites and by 10% for geosynchronous satellites. The
reported loss of all foreign sales due to ITAR during the four year period was $2.35 billion.
Furthermore, the study found that the average yearly cost of compliance industry-wide was $49
million. Many countries who would usually buy from the United States are instead researching
the technologies themselves, which is essentially proliferating the same technology that ITAR is
intended to protect.
6.2.2 ITAR and International Collaboration
ITAR hinders one of the essential ingredients of a successful commercial space industry,
which is international collaboration. The scientific community benefits greatly when universities
and labs from all around the world can work together. This becomes difficult to do considering
all of the roadblocks imposed by ITAR. Because ITAR kills the free flow of information from
partner to partner, other countries will often leave the United States out when working on
36
international projects. This could become increasingly problematic as these partnerships will be
needed for the difficult tasks that lay ahead on the road into space. ITAR has already caused
several problems on current international space missions. For example, when the Mars Phoenix
Lander was being built, the Canadian team responsible for one of the instruments had to work
blindly to interface the instrument with the rest of the spacecraft because the US team could not
share technical information about the on board computer or software. The commercial space
industry has already hit numerous ITAR snags as well. The concept of space tourism was nearly
delayed indefinitely when Virgin Galactic could not view technical documents for
SpaceShipOne, the sub-orbital space vehicle they had just recently purchased from the Ansari X
Prize winning team Scaled Composites. However, Virgin Galactic was finally granted a license
and was able to obtain the equipment and documentation that it had already legally purchased.
ITAR was amended in 2002 in response to issues with foreign nationals conducting
research at institutions of higher learning. The amendment to ITAR allows foreign students and
faculty at an institution of higher learning to be involved with ―fundamental research‖ relating to
space technology. While the amendment did help to address the primary concern, it created an
entirely different set of issues. First, despite the fact that fundamental research is defined within
the document, it is not necessarily clear as to when the research is no longer fundamental.
Because of this, students who are foreign nationals at some universities are not allowed to
participate in space technology related research. This is also causing some professors to ―dumb
down‖ their curriculum for fear of violating ITAR and being subject to criminal penalties. This
is denying some students of an education that would prove very valuable, not only to themselves
but to the entire space industry. This amendment only opened up a small portion of all space
related research to foreign students because it only applies to research conducted independently
by the institution. The most cutting edge university research is often done in collaboration with
professional research laboratories or aerospace companies, thus barring foreign nationals from
working on these research projects. ITAR makes it difficult for aerospace companies within the
United States to obtain access to the expertise of foreign nationals, as they are not allowed access
to all of the necessary information.
The problems associated with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations will persist
as the commercial space market continues to grow. It is possible that there will be an increase in
failures of international space missions as a result. This is because the U.S. participants may be
forced to downgrade essential mission components in order to make them ITAR-friendly, thus
losing access to the hardware that may be better suited for mission specifications. Also, as the
demand for space ports and launch sites increases, expect to see even more problems
hamstringing U.S. companies who wish to launch on foreign soil or with a foreign launch service
provider. Currently, missions launching with foreign launch service providers are required to
have an armed guard at all times to watch over the payload from delivery to launch, imposing yet
another unnecessary cost for the parties involved.
37
6.2.3 Future Work
While it is obvious that the International Traffic in Arms Regulations is hurting the
commercial space industry, some form of export control is certainly necessary. In order to
address the growing and changing atmosphere of the space industry a top to bottom reworking of
ITAR is the best solution. However, this is not likely to happen anytime in the near future.
Drastically changing ITAR would most likely involve removing certain items from the United
States Munitions List. Unfortunately, doing this may be looked at as an attempt to decrease
national security, which in the current political climate would be a very risky thing for any
elected official to do. There is also no widespread push to change ITAR because most people
outside of the aerospace and defense community are ignorant to the unintended effects of the
policy. Another effective, but probably unrealistic solution, would be the removal or at least
reduction to the USML Article XV, ―Space Systems and Associated Equipment.‖ It is arguable
that of everything on the USML, spacecraft are the least likely to be a national security threat and
should not be considered a defense article. However, this becomes more complex considering
that some spacecraft are equipped with propulsion systems, for example, that are similar to
technology that could be used on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM‘s). Even the reversal
of the 1999 Strom Thurmond Authorization, which placed communications satellites back on the
USML, would go a long way in alleviating some of the burdens imposed by ITAR. This too
becomes difficult because placing communications satellites back under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Commerce would require an act of Congress.
Fortunately, there are a variety of short term improvements that can be implemented to
help reduce the unintended consequences of ITAR. One option would be to do a full evaluation
of everything on the USML. If a technology is already available from other countries that are
willing to sell it internationally, then there is no reason that the United States should not be able
to do the same. The purpose of ITAR is to prevent the proliferation of high technology related to
defense. If that technology is already available elsewhere, then ITAR has no purpose to serve.
Another option would be to streamline the licensing process through a few different
methods. The first is to create a fully electronic system. This change is already underway and
should help to reduce the processing costs and time required to physically create and mail
hardcopies of license applications. Also, licenses should be obtained more easily by companies
who have consistently proven themselves. This could also be applied to companies who work
very closely with the governments of foreign allies to the United States, like Great Britain or
Israel. Of course, this too can be difficult because it ignores the possibility of changes in
allegiance. Companies who must deal with obtaining export licenses should have access to
better ITAR training. This would help the smaller, inexperienced companies who are writing
their first export control applications. This would greatly simplify the process and lead to a
decrease in the amount of time lost due to denied licenses or uncertainties. In addition, clearer
guidelines as to what constitutes ITAR regulated materials would help to reduce uncertainties
and probably help to prevent unneeded export license requests.
38
6.2.4 Conclusion
These are only a few of the ideas that would to help reduce the unintended effects of the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The general public must be made aware of the farreaching consequences of the legislation because that is the best way to incite change.
Amending ITAR is the only way that the United States can play a prominent role in the
development of commercial space. Commercial space, like almost all industries today, can only
thrive if it is a global industry. The ability to export space technology is very valuable and can
help to accelerate the industry and decrease the U.S. trade deficit.
6.3 Intellectual Property
Another concern for the emerging space industry is the security of intellectual property
(IP). Intellectual property rights play a large role in encouraging and sustaining innovation
because IP drives development and profits. If the United States and NASA want to be leaders in
the future of space exploration, the issues of intellectual property regarding space must be
considered and addressed. In this section, the major barriers to a sustainable space faring
civilization will be brought forward and questions will be posed regarding the future of IP in
space.
According to Janene L. Landenberger‘s paper titled Protection of Intellectual Property in
Space, Intellectual Property is an asset which may be legally owned and requires intelligence to
develop, or it can be information which requires protection because of its security level. For the
future commercial development of space, we are most concerned with intellectual property as an
asset or industrial property.
Intellectual Property as an asset can be further divided into the categories of patents,
trademarks, and copyrights (56). Of these categories, patents are the biggest draw for private
industry because of the money that can be made in the creation of space-related technology.
Within the field of patents there are five subcategories (57):
1) Inventions made on earth for space applications
2) Inventions made on earth for terrestrial applications as a result of space
activities
3) Inventions made in outer space for terrestrial applications
4) Inventions made in outer space for space applications
5) Inventions patented on earth for special applications used in outer space
For any inventions made on Earth, the patent system, though flawed on an international
scale, already exists. However, for inventions made in space (e.g. on the surface of the Moon)
the framework for patent protection does not yet exist.
39
As commercial industry expands further into space, this lack of regulation and protection
will prove to be a major disadvantage. Companies will be hesitant to get involved if the millions
of dollars they spend developing a technology can be stolen by the next company to arrive.
Thus, any sustainable space faring civilization will require a more concrete and permanent
system for patents.
6.3.1 NASA and Intellectual Property
As stated in Vision for Space Exploration, one of the primary missions of NASA and
future government endeavors in space is to ―promote international and commercial participation
in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security and economic interests‖. A large part of
fulfilling this mission involves intellectual property and the NASA‘s management of patents. As
a government agency that deals heavily with contractors and advanced technologies, investments
by NASA can greatly stimulate and drive the commercial industry in positive or negative
directions.
By the same token, because NASA is a government agency funded by U.S. taxpayers,
there is a belief that any byproduct of their research should be public domain (58). It cannot be
commercialized and sold, or else it‘s almost as if the public is paying twice: first to build the
product, then to purchase and use it. To prevent this and encourage free flow of science from
NASA, there is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which although is a good thing, can
have some detrimental effects on private industry, which will be discussed in more detail in a
later section.
However, in order to properly stimulate private industry and the commercial sector,
NASA‘s technological assets must be made into marketable and innovative products that will
spur commercial and economic growth (59). In order to create a marketable product, some sort
of intellectual property protection is required both for contractors who develop technology
through contracts with NASA and for researchers and innovators within NASA itself. The
government has already taken steps to deal with this issue through acts such as the Bayh-Dole
Act, the Stevenson-Wydler Act, and the Technology Transfer Act. Each of these documents
provide the opportunity for private industry to obtain patents while developing products for
NASA and for NASA to grant the IP to private companies, particularly smaller companies.
Overall, the FOIA and acts such as Bayh-Dole demonstrate the need for NASA to
balance the free flow of information with IP protection for private companies. As the
commercial space industry grows, NASA will have more opportunities to encourage growth with
the management of intellectual property. By properly managing intellectual property rights,
NASA can serve as a catalyst in the commercialization of government funded endeavors (60).
6.3.2 Territory Based Intellectual Property
Currently, patents are administered on a national basis. Inventions can be protected on an
international level, but such protection requires individual licenses to be obtained in every
40
nation. No single international patent system exists. Within this nationalized system, patent
grants and protection exist on a territorial basis. More specifically, any patent license obtained
applies only in that nation‘s territory. There are issues associated with terrestrial patents, but it
becomes even more complicated when addressing patents for space, especially concerning
national territory.
One example illustrating this problem is that of research done in microgravity. Any form
of research in microgravity, particularly in a spacecraft, is not technically U.S. soil (61). Thus,
any invention that results from that research does not immediately fall under the U.S. patent
umbrella. However, as with ships in international waters, spacecraft are considered by the U.N.
Outer Space Treaty to be the territory of the nation of origin. Any research done on the
International Space Station U.S. modules can be patented in the U.S. because the work is
considered to be produced in U.S. territory (57).
Difficulties arise in this reasoning when private industry is considered. If Bigelow
Aerospace, for example, does research within one of its space stations, is any resulting invention
patentable in the U.S.? Does the space within the module qualify as U.S. territory? What if the
research is not done within a capsule, but in the vacuum of space itself? According to the U.N.
Outer Space Treaty, no nation can claim territorial rights to space, so if research is done in the
vacuum of space, in which nation can the patent be sought from?
Even more difficulties arise when considering the lunar surface. According to the U.N.
Moon Treaty, no nation can claim territory on the Moon. However, no such specifications are
made about private companies. Thus, private industry is not prohibited from claiming lunar
property and then doing research on that land. However, if that land must belong to the private
company and not a nation, the land cannot technically be within any nation‘s territory. Thus, the
territorial based application of Intellectual Property Protection does not apply, and any invention
created on the Moon is not patentable by normal conventions.
Keeping these issues in mind, reform of the current patent process is needed. This
change can come in the form of international cooperation or a reform of property rights and land
management in space, or even a combination of the two. Regardless, a change is needed to
ensure that private companies can protect their intellectual property and remain profitable.
6.3.3 NASA and the Freedom of Information Act
As mentioned previously, because NASA is a publically funded government agency, any
information created by NASA should be public domain. The Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) is part of insuring that this occurs, making much research done by NASA freely
accessible to the general public. However, the lack of information protection has some
implications in regard to intellectual property.
More specifically, the FOIA affects the intellectual property protection of any private
contractor doing work for NASA. The FOIA can, in some instances, force unrestricted public
41
release of information disclosing an invention, posing a barrier to patentability (58). If the
information can be freely accessed and used, no protection is provided by obtaining a patent.
Fortunately, this issue with FOIA is dealt with effectively by the Bayh-Dole Act, which
provides patent security to private companies. However, even with this legislation, intellectual
property protection relies primarily on the government‘s good will. First, NASA or any
government agency can claim intellectual property rights to an invention by claiming that it
concerns national security. Second, in order to retain the intellectual property, even by the BayhDole Act, a company must apply for and be granted a waiver by NASA. The IP is not
immediately given to the company. As such, it is recommended that NASA create a policy of
granting waivers on request.
6.3.4 Encouraging Private Industry through Government Research
One of major barriers to entry in the aerospace field is the expense involved in the
cutting-edge research necessary for success. Many small companies do not have the funds or the
facilities necessary to succeed in the industry.
A similar problem was encountered in the beginning of the airline industry and the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was instrumental in jump starting the
industry by providing the necessary research to develop the commercial industry. NACA was
founded on March 3, 1915 as a government agency and was given the responsibility of carrying
out, promoting, and institutionalizing aeronautical research. Specifically, the Congress act that
created NACA states, "...It shall be the duty of the advisory committee for aeronautics to
supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical
solution...‖ Basically, the goal of NACA was to conduct cutting-edge aeronautics research in
order to propel both the military and civilian aviation fields.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created from NACA in 1958. A
published statement by the Director of NACA stated:
―It is of great urgency and importance to our country both from
consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military
necessity that this challenge [Sputnik] be met by an energetic
program of research and development for the conquest of space. . .
. It is accordingly proposed that the scientific research be the
responsibility of a national civilian agency working in close
cooperation with the applied research and development groups
required for weapon systems development by the military. The
pattern to be followed is that already developed by the NACA and
the military services. . . . The NACA is capable, by rapid extension
and expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space
technology.‖
42
Following this statement, NACA was reassigned to take on the task of both aeronautics
and space research, as well as to carry out the creation of the United States space program.
Currently, there exists a NASA Advisory Council (NAC), which is the formal successor
to NACA. Their objective is to provide council to the NASA Administrator on programs and
issues of importance to the agency. NAC could be expanded to handle the same responsibilities
for the space and aeronautics fields as NACA handled solely for the aeronautics field prior to its
transformation into NASA. In this scenario, NAC would be given funding and serve as a
selection committee to fund and direct cutting edge space research at any organization. If NAC
were to take on this assignment, the commercial development of space would be made much
easier because the expensive, cutting-edge research that holds back many companies from
entering the aerospace market would be made publicly available. However, the free flow of
information must also be tempered with the ability to receive patents off of the research provided
by NAC. The industry will only be sustainable if the technologies developed by the companies
receiving the information are patentable.
6.3.5 ITAR and Intellectual Property
As with many factors in developing a space faring civilization, ITAR poses a significant
barrier to intellectual property reform, particularly in the realm of international patent protection.
With any patent, whether international or domestic, all information regarding the invention,
including technical specifications, must be released. However, for any technology covered under
ITAR, the technical specifications cannot be released beyond the United States. Thus, any
invention that contains ITAR protected technologies cannot be patented internationally. Without
a patent, there is nothing preventing an international competitor from gaining rights to someone
else‘s idea. If the United States wishes to remain competitive in the international space industry,
major reforms are needed to ITAR to allow for international protection of innovation.
An additional concern for the future is invention in space. Though it is not an issue
addressed by ITAR, there is the possibility that ITAR technologies could be used for creating
new inventions in space. Because territorial boundaries are less defined in space, this poses an
interesting question about the applicability of ITAR to anything invented in outer space. Also, it
raises an interesting question: will ITAR protected technologies be allowed to be used in the
invention process in outer space?
The intention of this section is not to give an answer to this and many other questions
regarding the future of ITAR. However, the questions brought forth here, and others that have
not been mentioned, need to be considered sooner rather than later. There are serious concerns
about how the process is currently administered, and it is evident that many reforms are
necessary.
43
6.3.6 Conclusions and Future Work
The major question of where a space-made invention can be patented must be answered.
As mentioned above, no nation state can own property in space, and thus has no territory for
which current patent policy can apply.
One possible solution to this problem would be to internationally harmonize the patent
process. A universal international patent process and protection system would remove the need
for territorial legislation. No matter where an invention is born, it would be able to be patented
because the necessity for state territory no longer exists.
While some steps have been made towards unifying the patent process through
agreements such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, a complete
solution has not been offered. The best example of an attempt at harmonization can be found in
the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the European Community Patent.[Appendix B.8]
The EPC provides the legal framework for a unified European patent application office and
enforcement agency. However, each member nation within the EPC has a great deal of autonomy
within the system, both in granting and enforcing patent legislation. Thus, the EPC is only the
first step. The European Community Patent, however, finishes this process for the intention of
the community patent is to provide consistent patent rights across Europe. The consequence of
this would be to create universal market conditions across all markets dealing in European trade,
which is currently hindered by differing patent rights in the various countries in Europe.
There are many obstacles to this legislation such as language barriers, and as of now,
very little progress has been made towards accomplishing the goals of the Community Patent.
However, regardless of obstacles, Europe has indentified a universal patent system as an issue
worth consideration and discussing, leaving options open for the future.
An additional benefit from an international patent system would be broader patent
protection than currently offered to a company under national patent systems. As competition in
space becomes more international, private companies in the US will have to compete not only in
the domestic market, but internationally as well. World-wide patent protection will help with
this competition, allowing US companies to be confident that their product can be bought only
from them and not a foreign competitor.
However, creating an international patent system could have effects on various industries,
such as pharmaceuticals, that could hurt third world countries that have very little interest with
intellectual property rights. Also, with broader patent protection comes more danger of
monopolies and trusts. Increased patent protection may block out small companies unable to
break into the market because of the cost of licensing. Thus, while an international system
appears to be appropriate, it must be thoroughly discussed and studied.
With the above considerations in mind, one of the most important characteristics of any
reform to policy regarding intellectual property in space is flexibility. Any legislation at this
44
point would be pre-emptive, and while not necessarily a negative point, it does imply that
assumptions about the future state of technology will be contained within any legislation. While
predictions can be made about where space technology will be in 20 years, the accuracy of such
predictions cannot be assured. Issues that are now believed to be the major issues of Intellectual
Property Rights may change with technology.
Of course, such inevitabilities do not imply that this policy should not be reformed at all,
but that any inherent predictions and assumptions must be documented and seriously considered.
We must not lock ourselves into a system with no opportunities for reform. It is important to
allow the opportunity to reform easily as the issues become more prevalent. This way, the
legislation can be molded to match the times and state of technology. No reforms are ever
perfect or meant to stand for all time. As long as this is kept in mind, with any policy, great
potential exists for success.
6.4 Historical Moon Preservation
Thus far, this paper has addressed some of the necessary requirements for commercially
developing space with a focus on the Moon. Journeying into the future and looking back as a
human race, it is important to honor past heroes and accomplishments. Among those
accomplishments, perhaps one of the greatest of human history, are man‘s first steps on the
Moon. A return to the Moon has implications for the past because the historical sites, that have
thus far been preserved, are now in danger of being disturbed. Prior to making this return trip to
the Moon, it is important to consider the preservation of historic lunar sites. Historical
preservation on the Moon is considered at length in Appendix B.9.
6.5 Lunar Property
These sites and artifacts require preservation because we believe in the future humans
will live, work, and play on the Moon. If the general public is to one day live and work in
thriving communities on the Moon, Mars, and beyond, precedence must be set now to ensure the
stability of such future settlements. The United States and other space faring nations must
establish a set of rules and regulations pertaining to the ownership of private property by a
government or private entity.
A major obstacle to commercial space development is the current lack of international
agreement over the formulation of a set of binding legal rules for the development of celestial
body resources. Land claims recognition will be necessary. This way, a privately funded space
settlement could make a profit by selling land back to the public on Earth and by exploiting lunar
resources. Without property rights, private companies cannot undertake such a grand economic
venture, and investors will not commit to supporting the already expensive and risky endeavors
of those companies.
45
There have already been several attempts at space law over the years. The existing space
law treaties, including the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer
Space Treaty) and the 1979 Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies (Moon Treaty), made great strides by raising key issues that must be addressed
in such legislation. Unfortunately, they lack sufficient detail for thorough regulation and have
failed to gain necessary consensus among the prominent nations in space exploration. Therefore,
building on previous work, a satisfactory piece of legislation is necessary to safeguard the
investments of private companies and individuals as well as to propel NASA's space exploration
policy forward.
6.5.1 Antarctic Treaty
A basis for space law can be taken from Antarctica because of its similarly harsh
environment, potential for science research, and lack of ownership. Expeditions to explore and
study the region began around the 1820s, and Antarctica was only recognized as a continent in
1840. Since then, many countries have erected stations that operate seasonally and throughout
the year. With many countries operating stations and conducting research, one can see how they
would quickly become territorial over their areas, leading Australia, Chile, and Argentina to
―claim Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) rights or similar over 200 nautical mile extensions
seaward from their continental claims." Many other countries do not acknowledge these claims,
however. In fact, such claims are not recognized by 21 out of 28 Antarctic consultative nations
that have not made any territorial assertions. With such disagreement over land rights, the need
for general consensus on Antarctic policy became apparent. Hence, the Antarctic Treaty was
signed by 12 nations in 1959, who became the original 12 consulting nations on Antarctic
policy. Many other nations, with strong research presence on the continent, have agreed to the
treaty and have become consulting nations. There are still other nations who have agreed to the
treaty and are granted observation status at consultative meetings. The treaty recognizes the
importance of maintaining Antarctica as a peaceful region, prohibiting military establishments
and nuclear activity. In accordance with this sentiment, the treaty also states that all areas of the
continent are open to inspection by observers. Therefore, a nation cannot assume that it operates
under privacy in Antarctica. Any disputes that may arise are encouraged to be resolved by the
parties involved. The issue may be taken to the International Court of Justice if resolution
cannot be achieved. The idea of preserving a peaceful area, which everyone can benefit from, is
an important theme that space policy can draw from. It should be noted, however, that even with
Antarctica there was trouble gaining consensus on all points.
6.5.2 Outer Space Treaty
Many ideas for the Outer Space Treaty were modeled from the Antarctic Treaty. After
several years of debate over proposals by the United States and the Soviet Union, a collaborated
version of the Outer Space Treaty was finally signed in 1967. A major issue in reaching
consensus was arms regulation. Military installations and weapons of mass destruction are
explicitly prohibited. The treaty contains many other provisions for safety, calling on the
46
participating States Parties to aid each other in case of potential danger from launching
spacecraft or other space hazards. The States-Parties are further encouraged to inform each other
and the United Nations Secretary-General of their activities. Another significant point that the
treaty makes is that outer space is meant for the peaceful use of everyone. Government claims of
sovereignty by occupation or any other means are not allowed. When discrepancies arise
between member State Parties to the treaty, they are urged to work matters out between
themselves.
However, any attempt at building a lasting lunar settlement will almost have to be a
multi-national effort. Currently, there are no U.S. companies that can bear the burden of
financing such an undertaking. The building of a settlement will have to be financed and owned
by stockholders from many different countries. This cooperation comes with the benefit of
ensuring that no one state is capable of monopolizing either resources or property. Partnerships
with developing states would give them the opportunity to participate as well as provide
scientists, engineers, etc. in exchange for investment in the base.
6.5.3 Moon Treaty
The framers of the Moon Treaty felt that the Outer Space Treaty was unclear on the issue
of private property. Article II, paragraph 1 of the Moon Treaty states that "the Moon and it
natural resources are the common heritage of mankind." Developing countries often interpret
"common heritage" to mean common property of mankind. Thus, the Moon Treaty is unpopular
with countries that have free market economies. While prohibiting land ownership, States
Parties are allowed to remove samples for scientific study. The Moon Treaty also forbids
military actions on the Moon. It urges member State Parties to aid each other when necessary,
especially when there are lives in danger. It has not been ratified by any major space power and
has been signed by very few states. It is generally agreed upon that the Moon Treaty is nonbinding and not a part of international law.
6.5.4 Future Legislation
One current argument is that there is no need for such legislation, because once a space
settlement is established a property rights regime will evolve naturally. Although it is
certainly logical that property ownership claims will follow the establishment of a permanent
settlement, if no advance legislation is passed then initial property claims will not
have legitimacy, potentially causing chaos. The President‘s 2004 Commission on
Implementation of United States Exploration Policy states that:
The issue of private property rights in space] be recognized and
addressed at an early stage in the implementation of the vision, otherwise
there will be little significant private sector activity associated with the
development of space resources, one of our key goals.
47
Legal uncertainty will certainly deter companies from developing space. Without the
protection that existing regulations would provide, there is little incentive for companies to take
the risk or investors to support those companies. A firm law would encompass many key ideas
already raised in current legislation. While existing law has failed to gain the consensus needed
to be effective, it has shed light on significant points to consider. The theme of banning military
operations is an important component of the drive to keep space development peaceful. Many
other points, however, have only been ambiguously addressed.
Private property legislation on the Moon should be international and include all of the
space faring nations in order to provide for cooperative exploration by future generations. The
handful of nations with a significant space presence and that currently have the capability to
support private companies, must deal with the issue of private property as the central council for
decision-making. It is these nations that will be most affected by the laws developed. Provisions
for the inclusion of other countries that become prominent in space activity should also be
included, since space is sure to remain a dynamic and developing front. To reach further
consensus across the globe, a system of weighted influence could be instituted to include all
nations, while ultimately leaving most power to the nations directly involved in space
operations.
Property on the Moon can currently be divided into several main categories.
Historical regions such as the Apollo landing sites should be considered sacred ground, as is the
case with similar places on Earth. Because of its position as a unique platform for scientific
research, scientists from the international community will want access to lunar land that has been
protected and preserved. These various requirements constitute the need for zoning of lunar
land, another issue to be initially addressed and modified as the Moon is developed. For the rest
of the lunar land, priority for property claims should be awarded on a ―prior tempore, prior jure‖
(first in time, first to right) basis, with a limit on the amount of land the entity is allowed to
claim. The size of the land claims should be determined based on intended use, with standards
laid out in legislation by the council. A claim of about 384,000,000 acres (or approximately 4%
of the Moon‘s surface), sold at a moderate price of one hundred dollars per acre, would be
sufficient to offset the initial cost of establishing a Lunar settlement (62). Although this seems
like a generous amount, it is important to keep in mind that space companies will not generate a
profit at first by transporting a physical product back to Earth. Initially, the only products that a
settlement could profitably sell back to Earth are land deeds that are recognized by the
international community.
Also, merely setting foot on the Moon cannot suffice to earn the official rights to
property. Ownership should follow use or improvement of the land, or some sort of
establishment of presence to be agreed upon by the council of space faring nations.
Unfortunately, flexibility must be built into these portions of the new space law as well,
to provide for the changes resulting from development. Such policy does leave room for
ambiguity or power abuse. To ensure continuity of agreement among participating nations and
to account for the dynamic nature of the issues, new legislation must include room for growth
and modification.
48
6.5.5 Conclusion
A key step to successful commercialization of space is the development of legislation that
takes into account private property rights on the Moon and related issues. As technology
continues to develop, the absence of such a legal framework will become one of the biggest
obstacles to commercial space development. Future legislation will have to take into
consideration commercial viability, future access and flexibility, and environmental protection of
the land. Existing legislation, though ineffective, has laid the base for success by bringing
together the space faring nations to raise key issues. Ultimately they will have to agree on laws
that allow for all nations and private entities to peacefully benefit from lunar development. The
Moon can no longer be considered "common heritage" to all of mankind as we stand at the
precipice of lunar development. If the human race is to persevere, it will have to continuously
expand and explore beyond Earth, guided by legislation developed now as precedence.
49
7.0 Roadmap Summary
The preceding Roadmap was written to be a step towards the commercialization of space.
To arrive at this goal many more steps will be required. As the hurdles are cleared for
commercial development of space, expanded capabilities will be available to private citizens,
corporations, and government agencies.
NASA specifically would benefit greatly from such commercial capabilities. Open
market competition has the potential to drive innovation and lower costs. With such options
available, NASA scientists and engineers could buy commercial components and transport for
their missions at much lower than current costs. In addition to lower prices, costs for
infrastructure could be shared with private entities who would utilize and upkeep facilities for
commercial enterprises. In these ways commercial space could be a partner as well as a supplier
to NASA. Such a relationship has the potential to greatly increase the science and exploration
return on NASA spending.
50
8.0 Elements of Success
Albert Einstein once said ―Imagination is more important than knowledge.‖ History has
shown visualization to be a vital first step in any successful scientific endeavour. When we hold
in our mind‘s eye a vision of success it becomes far more attainable A well developed vision of
a thriving space industry and populated lunar surface are essential for meeting our goal.
Successful space development means many things to many people. Scientists define it in
terms of discoveries made, engineers define it in terms of technology developed, and others
define it as simply returning to the Moon. For our purposes, a vision of success will include
both a permanent human lunar presence and a state of technological development capable of
launching more ambitious missions from the lunar surface. Additionally, our successful vision
will include economic stimulus for our terrestrial based economy leading to the eventual
exploration of Mars and beyond.
In this section, we use our imagination to present our concept of a hopeful future on the
lunar surface. Details of our vision include terrestrial benefits, lunar surface activities, and
societal development geared towards aiding our exploration and colonization of additional
celestial objects.
8.1 Terrestrial Benefits of Lunar Colonization
The first lunar landing inspired millions to consider human civilization in space.
Collaborations between NASA and private sector institutions have lead to the development of
technologies aiding our maneuverability in space and enabling us to better understand the
universe as a whole. However, our current level of technology is not capable of providing safe
travel to remote regions of our solar system. In order to acquire these technologies we require
immersion in space as a laboratory. The Moon‘s proximity and resources make it an ideal
location for establishing such a laboratory in a permanent lunar settlement. This type of lunar
settlement may offer political, economic, scientific, and technological advantages. A more
detailed listing of these advantages follows.
8.1.1 Science
a) Astronomy
In the short term, the scientific sector will benefit most from a lunar settlement and space
laboratory. The use of scientific instrumentation from the lunar surface reduces many of the
atmospheric effects and noise that affect the quality of the data provided by sensitive
instrumentation used on Earth. The Moon‘s light exosphere will eliminate most of these
constraints and allow us to research other planets and space phenomena impossible to study from
our home planet. Instrumentation such as telescopes and radio telescopes would perform more
51
efficiently. Additionally scientists and engineers could design new instrumentation and
technologies in order to study more remote regions of the universe.
Space settlement could also facilitate asteroid colonization and mining for rare resources.
Moon crossing asteroids would be the ideal choice since their small gravitational pull makes
them easier to abandon once mining is complete. It is believed that these asteroids may be a
source of raw material that can be used in space construction and colonization. Materials
extracted may be of used in propulsion, agriculture, metallurgy, semiconductors, and precious
and strategic metals. Certain volatiles such as hydrogen and methane could be used to produce
rocket propellant. Rare-earth metals could be used to manufacture structural materials as well as
solar photovoltaic arrays to power space and lunar habitats. These solar cells could also be used
in a constellation of solar power satellites in orbit around the Earth in order to provide electrical
power for its inhabitants. These alternate resource supplies will reduce dependence on our own
planet‘s limited resources.
b) Health and Medicine
Studies suggest major medical research benefits may arise in the reduced gravity and
hard vacuum environment of the Moon. These areas include the medical treatment of massive
injuries, growth of human organs and cartilage, immune systems research, and pharmaceutical
research and production. There may be benefits in treating burn and trauma patients, or those
with massively degenerative diseases. Moon‘s one-sixth gravity can be very helpful to those
with serious injuries that require extensive rehabilitation (business on the Moon). In addition, the
lunar environment offers a laboratory necessary for the study of astronaut medical care. This will
be essential if we wish to establish ourselves permanently in space and for manned missions to
remote regions of the solar system.
For permanent establishments in space, human physiology and psychology research is
essential. It is necessary to determine how human behavior will be affected and how we will
survive physically and mentally in the space environment. Some relevant studies have been made
in the past but more details will be necessary before sending manned missions beyond the Moon.
The Moon provides us with a test bed for better understanding human behavior and for the
development of coping tools.
8.1.2 Economics
a) Business
Space tourism
Studies have estimated that space tourism could grow to a turnover of 100 billion
Euros/year with only 10% of ESA‘s budget (63). A similar model could be applied to NASA.
This development would sharply reduce the cost of space access and would allow agencies to
spend more money on other projects. Space tourism would also generate excitement about space
and cause more people to pursue technical careers, resulting in a positive feedback loop for the
space industry.
52
Products
Products manufactured or directly taken from the lunar surface should be made available to the
public. This will be a source of revenue and excite the publc.
b) Trade Relationship
In order to understand the potential future relationship between Earth and lunar
settlements, one must examine the goods and resources that could be traded. While the Moon
would initially experience a large trade deficit, in-situ resource utilization could eventually bring
balance. A lunar settlement may never be truly isolated from planet Earth, nor would we want it
to be. A vibrant trade industry benefits both parties.
The Moon‘s relatively low gravity makes it an ideal candidate for a spaceport. It is
possible that in the future, the Moon will provide cheaper means of manufacturing and launching
satellites into Earth orbit. This can only be achieved through the utilization of lunar oxidizers
and chemical fuels developed in-situ. Other goods that will be possible to manufacture on the
Moon include solar cells (64), circuit boards and computer chips (65). Oxygen can be extracted
from the lunar regolith and can be used for a number of applications including life support and
rocket propulsion (66). Helium-3 is more plentiful on the Moon than on Earth and is a promising
future fuel for nuclear fusion.
Any material that can be manufactured from the lunar regolith could potentially be
launched to lunar or Earth orbit economically. The following chart by Järvstråt and Toklu lists
the concentration (mass percent) of various elements in the lunar regolith and their potential
applications (67).
Element
Oxygen
Silicon
Aluminum
Lunar Highland
45
21
13
Lunar Mare
42
21
7.0
Earth
47
28
8.1
Applications
Fuel, essential air constituent
Glasses, ceramics, etc. Solar cells.
Electric wire, structures, mirrors
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
Titanium
11
4.9
4.6
0.31
0.31
7.9
13
5.8
0.29
3.1
3.6
5.0
2.1
2.8
0.44
Ceramics, electrical conductor
Structural steel
Metal alloying element
Chemical processing, Plant nutrient
High strength metal
Chromium
Potassium
Manganese
0.085
0.08
0.068
0.26
0.11
0.17
0.01
2.6
0.095
Metal alloying element
Chemical processing, Plant nutrient
Metal alloying element
Table 6 : Element Concentrations in Lunar Regolith and Earth
53
It is also likely that a number of high-priced novelty goods will eventually be exported
from the Moon. One example would be jewelry manufactured from the lunar regolith. Lunar
jewelry holds the potential to be extremely valuable; one estimate values it at approximately ten
million dollars for one kilogram (68).
In the long-term, the Moon will not only be used as science and manufacturing platform
but also as an entertainment venue. The feats accomplished at lunar sporting events could far
surpass their Earth-based counterparts due to the Moon‘s lower gravity. For example, during a
diving competition on the Moon, a diver would take more than six seconds to hit the water from
a 30-meter board. A high-jumper that could clear a 2.4 meter bar on Earth could clear a 9.4
meter bar at a lunar base. Lunar sports have the potential to be immensely marketable on Earth.
What began with Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo
program will one day hopefully expand into a thriving industry (69).
8.1.3 Engineering
a) New technology development
Settlement on the lunar surface will require the development of new technology that will
allow human beings to adapt and work under space conditions. This has been one of the factors
that have prevented us from executing long term manned missions. Technology development on
the Moon will allow us to develop more advanced spacecraft and materials that will help us to
not only withstand the harsh space conditions, but to use these conditions to our advantage.
These new technologies could later be applied and/or modified to adapt to Earth situations in
order to be commercial spinoffs as well as prepare us for the exploration of other destinations in
the future such as Mars.
b) Lunar Launch Services
When settlement on the Moon becomes self-sustaining, various items, whether
manufactured or mined directly from the lunar surface, will be able to be exported to Earth and
LEO. It has been determined that it would cost less to place satellites in LEO from the Moon
than from Earth. In the long term, such an advantage will lead the satellite manufacturing
companies to the lunar surface. This will increase revenue and allow companies to pursue more
missions.
In addition to advantages from an economic standpoint, satellite launches from the Moon
would also reduce the probability of experiencing mission complications since the reduced
gravity will facilitate the task of placing such objects in space. This would allow engineers to
direct their efforts and budget in other projects that may require more time to develop.
c) Lunar mining for resources and alternate energy options on Earth
Due to its strategic position near Earth, the Moon will provide resources for the
development of near-Earth space. Its reduced gravity field and abundant resources make it the
54
ideal target to mine for essential materials. The most significant problem of lunar development is
the lack of fuel for spacecraft. Despite the abundance of oxygen present in the minerals of lunar
regolith, no concentrated sources of hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels have been discovered. If
rocket fuel must be imported to the Moon to launch payloads from the Moon, it is very difficult
to devise a low cost Moon-to-space transportation system. However, if both the fuel and oxidizer
can be obtained locally, a reusable transportation system that can reach lunar orbit at low cost
may be feasible. If it exists, this is one of the benefits that water ice at the lunar poles would
provide. Even without the existence of water ice, hydrogen deposited on the lunar surface by the
solar wind could be retrieved to create fuel.
It has also been suggested that the Moon can be mined in search for new energy resources
for Earth. It is believed that solar power generation is a promising area. The overall lunar surface
receives as much solar power as the Earth without the obstructing effects of the atmosphere.
Studies have suggested that a power grid can be placed in a strategic position on the surface of
the Moon so that more than 50% of the grid is always in the sun. This could be a method used to
generate power for a Moon base as well as for Earth by linking it via orbital transmitters.
8.1.4 Political
a) Military testing ground
Militarization of space has been a debatable topic since the vision for space exploration
was announced. This refers to the development, testing and commercialization of dual-use
technologies. The commercialization of dual use technologies would serve to finance and
support the development of the lunar base. These technologies have applications in two different
economic sectors, such as materials technology that have military and civilian applications.
Promising dual-use technologies that may be developed upon settlement on the Moon are selfrepairing systems, low gravity and microgravity technology, micro- and nano devices, robotic
manipulators, and instrumentation. The Moon would provide the testing ground necessary for
such technologies to be developed and later on be commercialized in order to generate income to
sustain the lunar base.
b) Space Colonization
Space colonization is the ultimate goal. It has been said multiple times that the future
exploration of Mars as well as of the other planets may depend upon prior settlement on one of
the other planets. We do not yet possess in depth knowledge about space and have not
experimented enough in the space environment to send men directly to Mars. Learning to
maintain and manage a Moon will prepare us to carry out similar operations in other areas of the
solar system. Only when we master the techniques that guarantee our survival on the Moon will
we be able to take the next step forward and accomplish our objective to extend human reach
through space.
55
Moon Base
Science
Economic $
Activities on the
Moon
Astronomy
Health and
Medicine
Tourism
Products
Engineering
Determination of technologies
and resources needed to
sustain human life in space
Energy
Resources
Technology
Political
Expand human presence through
Space
Mars
Figure 3 : Diagram of Roadmap from the Moon to Mars
In conclusion, settlement on the Moon will provide multiple benefits to Earth as well as
enable us to design a roadmap for the colonization of Mars and other planets. Economic and
scientific activities on the Moon will catalyze the engineering sector. The economic sector will
look to generate money which in part could be directed towards the development of technology.
Science will develop medicines and study space conditions that we will have to overcome in
order to explore further. After such barriers are overcome, the engineering sector will be in
charge of developing the technology needed to actually reach new destinations.
The Moon provides the ideal environment necessary to begin our preparation for a
human presence farther into space. Once we have find a way to settle permanently on the Moon,
the mentality will be directed towards working in collaboration in order to reach the next goal of
a human presence on Mars. The Vision for Space Exploration will continue and we will have the
technology and techniques to make it possible.
56
8.2 A Typical Day on the Moon
Below is a general overview of what activities may be occurring during generic near, mid
and far term scenarios on the Moon. Near term is considered to be the initial period of time
when the human presence on the Moon is government-funded. Far term is defined to be when
industry on the Moon is self-sustaining. Midterm is merely the transition between these two
states.
8.2.1 Near Term Operations
In the near term, the human presence on the Moon will consist primarily of astronauts.
The most important activity in terms of the commercial development of the Moon will be
research into in-situ resource utilization. The astronauts will begin to find solutions to the
technical challenges that are inherent with lunar operations. Two challenges that must be
undertaken are dust and radiation mitigation. Astronauts will work to determine the optimal
method for transporting and utilizing the lunar regolith for radiation shielding and other
objectives. Near term operations may also include commercial technology demonstrations, such
as cargo delivery systems.
In addition to these missions, astronauts will spend their time establishing a governmentfunded outpost as planned, utilizing private industry wherever possible. Most of the research
conducted at this outpost will be that sponsored by government entities, but it is possible that
some private companies will purchase lab space in order to run their experiments.
8.2.2 Mid Term
Commercial cargo delivery flights may become reality, with private companies
competing to offer crew delivery and return options. It is feasible that a private company has
made a demonstration flight early in this period. In the meantime, NASA can now lease a few
advanced inflatable modules on the lunar surface from private companies. With the development
of privately owned habitats on the Moon, the development of manned commercial lunar
transportation systems may accelerated.
Regolith extraction and processing may have begun, with oxygen production taking place
on-site. This can lead to early infrastructure development to use regolith resources for
propulsion, energy, and possible construction of satellites and components. This may include the
building on launch pads.
57
8.2.3 Far Term
A thriving commercial industry now exists on the surface of the Moon; all habitats are
owned and operated by private industry. NASA and other government agencies can lease
modules on the lunar surface. Satellite construction and launch may be occurring. Roads made
of sintered regolith now connect the various settlements on the surface. These roads are essential
for the delivery of helium-3, which may bring nuclear fusion one step closer to becoming a
reality.
NASA, now having established a foothold on the Moon for private industry is free to
focus on manned sorties to Mars and beyond. Lunar industry supports Mars missions, by
providing consumables produced through ISRU, electronics and other materials readily
available. Most of all, living on the Moon has shown mankind how to move beyond its home
planet. Perhaps in this far term scenario, lunar inhabitants have become complacent with life on
the Moon and look in wonder out to the next destination, whatever that may be.
8.3 A Lunar Society
With the rapidly approaching dawn of commercial spaceflight, it is useful to start
thinking about what society on the Moon will be like. Lunar society would be greatly influenced
by the work force tasked with making the Moon profitable and habitable. It will consist
primarily of NASA and commercial space employees.
8.3.1 Lunar Inhabitants
The successful development of a lunar base would call for international cooperation.
Thus, its inhabitants would reflect the various cultures of space faring nations. People on the
Moon would consist of scientists, engineers, businessmen, service workers, medical staff,
farmers, maintenance workers and tourists. The culture on the Moon will develop naturally as an
extension of Earth‘s culture. In the near term lunar populations will consist primarily of highly
trained professionals capable of enduring extreme physical and psychological conditions.
8.3.2 Governance/ Unique Cultural Concerns
Space faring nations of the world will need to decide how a lunar base will be run.
Depending on the level of independency, the base might have its own justice system and need its
own police force, which will be difficult to accomplish in anything but the long-term.
A full-scale medical facility will be needed on the Moon as well. Ill people might need to
be isolated at special locations at the base. The medical facility will need to be able to treat and
58
perform high-risk surgeries since a seriously injured person might not be able to last long enough
to make the long voyage from the Moon to the Earth. Such a facility will need several medically
trained personnel. The funds could come from government as well as from private medical
companies or research laboratories.
Another concern for any future bases in space is pregnancy and birth, among other health
precautions. Studies will need to be done to show the risks of birth and childrearing on the
Moon, as well as risks associated with space travel. Children‘s education will also need to be
considered.
Another question for government is how businesses will be supported. The government
could exempt taxes for lunar activities, to enable businesses to expand. Such support for
corporations would last until the private sector is secure enough to support itself. The
government will have to tread carefully along this line.
59
APPENDIX A: ABOUT NASA ACADEMY 2008
A-1
2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center
“From the stars, knowledge”
A-2
Appendix A
2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center
The NASA Academy is a leadership development summer program for undergraduate
and graduate students interested in pursuing careers in space-related fields. The program is
designed to present a comprehensive package of information and experiences about NASA, its
current and planned science, engineering, education, and technology enterprises, as well as a
number of non-technical areas of critical significance such as safety, management, budgeting,
personnel and career development, space law, and international cooperation. Students are
involved in research in GSFC laboratories, and participate in lectures, workshops and meetings
with space community leaders.
Jennifer Allen
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Bachelor of Science, June 2010
[email protected]
Andrea Balbas
Queens College CUNY
New York, NY
Geology
Bachelor of Science, December 2009
[email protected]
A-3
Bradley Cheetham
University of Buffalo
Buffalo, New York
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, June 2009
[email protected]
Jennifer Founds
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Electrical Engineering
Master of Science, December 2008
[email protected]
Brandon Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, May 2010
[email protected]
A-4
Juan Lora
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Astronomy
Bachelor of Science, May 2009
[email protected]
Andrew McDonald
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science, May 2009
[email protected]
Tony Mercer
University of California – Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
Mechanical Engineering/astrophysics
Bachelor of Science / Bachelor of Art, 2009
[email protected]
A-5
Kenji Nagaoka
The Graduate University for Advanced Studies
Kanagawa, Japan
Aerospace Engineering
Doctor of Engineering, March 2011
[email protected]
Florent Nobelen
Institut Supérieur de l‘Aéronautique et de l‘Espace
(SUPAERO)
Toulouse, France
Aerospace Engineering
Master of Science, October 2010
[email protected]
Michelle Perez
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, May 2010
[email protected]
A-6
Maxime Rizzo
Institut Supérieur de l‘Aéronautique et de l‘Espace
(SUPAERO)
Toulouse, France
Aerospace Engineering
Master of Science, October 2010
[email protected]
Lisha Roubert
University of Puerto Rico, Cayey
Cayey, Puerto Rico
Mathematics
Bachelor of Science, June 2009
[email protected]
Andrew Schaeperkoetter
University of Kansas
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, May 2008
[email protected]
A-7
John Springmann
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Madison, WI
Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics
Bachelor of Science, May 2009
[email protected]
Michelle Sybouts
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Atmospheric Sciences
Bachelor of Science, June 2010
[email protected]
Alan Talbott
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science, December 2009
[email protected]
A-8
Jessica Tramaglini
Penn State University
University Park, PA
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, May 2009
[email protected]
Zhen Zhao
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science, June 2010
[email protected]
Support Staff for Goddard NASA Academy 2008
David Rosage – Program Director
Dr. Joseph DiRienzi – Academy Dean
Sherrica Newsome – Operations Manager
Tim Montague – Logistics Manager
A-9
APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES AND ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
B-1
Appendix B
B.1 – Feasibility of Commercial Space
B.1.1 - Industry Overview
A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006
Type
Commercial
Infrastructure
Satellite
Manufacturing
(commercial)
Launch Industry
(commercial)
Ground Stations and
Equipment
2005[1]
(in $ B)
2006 (in
2006 Source
$ B)
$28.70
$33.12
$2.30
$2.92
Satellite Industry
Association (SIA)
2006 revenue from production of
commercial satellites
$1.20
$1.40
Federal Aviation
Administration
(FAA)
2006 revenue from sale and
launch of commercial payloads
SIA
2006 revenue from mobile
terminals, gateways, control
stations, VSAT/USAT, DBS
dishes, handheld phones and
DARS equipment
Estimate of space industry IR&D
not recovered from the
government[3]
$25.20
Infrastructure Support
$1.04
Industries
$28.80
Description
$1.02
Independent Research
and Development
$0.16[2]
(IR&D)
$0.17
Defense Contract
Audit Agency
Insurance
$0.88
$0.85
International
Aerospace
2006 industry premiums
Commercial Satellite
Services
$86.91
$111.14
Direct-to-Home
television (DTH)
$46.00
$55.05
In-Stat
2006 direct-to-home TV revenue
Satellite Radio
$0.81
$1.59
XM, Sirius,
WorldSpace
2006 revenue from XM, Sirius,
and WorldSpace
Fixed Satellite Services
$9.80
(FSS)
$11.80
SIA
2006 revenue from transponder
agreements, VSAT services, and
remote sensing
Mobile Satellite
Services (MSS)
$2.00
SIA
2006 revenue from MSS satellite
services, ranging from
narrowband voice to next
$1.80
B-2
A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006
Type
2005[1]
(in $ B)
2006 (in
2006 Source
$ B)
Description
generation broadband
Global Positioning
System (GPS)
Equipment and
Chipsets
Commercial Space
Transportation
Services
$28.50[4] $40.70
ABI Research
Worldwide revenue for all GPS
equipment and chipsets
2006 revenue from Anousheh
Ansari flight
$0.03
$0.03
Orbital
$0.02
$0.02
Space Adventures
Suborbital
$0.01
$0.01
Virgin Galactic,
2006 down payments from
Space Adventures customers
U.S. Government
Space Budgets
$57.24
$62.00
Department of
Defense (DoD) Space
$21.70
$22.50
Congressional
Research Service
(CRS)
FY 2006 Budget Request
$9.90
Global Security
FY 2006 NRO projection
$2.67
Global Security
FY 2006 NGA projection
$9.30
MDA
FY 2006 Budget for U.S. Ballistic
Missile Defense Program
$16.62
NASA
FY 2006 Operating Budget
$0.96
NOAA
FY 2006 Budget Request
$0.04
DOE
FY 2006 Operating Budget
$0.01
FAA
FY 2006 Budget Request
National
Reconnaissance Office $7.50
(NRO)
National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency
$2.00
(NGA)
Missile Defense
$9.00
Agency (MDA)
National Aeronautics
and Space
$16.10
Administration
(NASA)
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
$0.90
Administration
(NOAA)
Department of Energy
$0.03
(DOE)
Federal Aviation
$0.01
Administration (FAA)
International
Government Space
Budgets
$12.39
$13.46
B-3
A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006
Type
2005[1]
(in $ B)
2006 (in
2006 Source
$ B)
Description
European Space
Agency (ESA)
$3.70
$3.52
ESA
FY 2006 Operating Budget
Estimate
Russia (Roscosmos)
$0.70
$0.87
RIA Novosti
FY 2006 Reported Budget
France (CNES)
$0.88[5]
$0.85
CNES
CNES Budget, excluding ESA
Italy (ASI)
$0.40
$0.33
ASI
United Kingdom
(BNSC)
$0.12
$0.13
BNSC
Japan
$2.50
$2.15
JAXA Public
Affairs
FY 2006 Operating Budget
India (ISRO)
$0.70
$0.82
Space.com
FY 2006 Operating Budget
Canada (CSA)
$0.30
$0.33
CSA
FY 2006 Operating Budget
China (CNSA)
$0.50
$1.50
World Security
Institute
Germany (DLR)
$0.30[6]
$0.36
DLR
2006 Estimated Annual
Expenditures
FY 2006 Operating Budget,
excluding ESA
Non-U.S. military
space
$2.29
$2.29
Euroconsult
FY 2006 Operating Budget,
excluding ESA
FY 2006 Operating Budget,
excluding ESA
2004 Estimate of non-U.S.
military space expenditures,
excluding China
TOTAL
$186.65 $220.78
[1] Sources for 2005 revenue and budget figures are available in The Space Report 2006.
[2] Figure revised by source.
[3] DCCA IR&D value, multiplied by the ratio of DoD-wide space R&D to overall R&D.
[4] Figure revised by source.
[5] Figure revised by source.
[6] Figure revised by source.
(70)
B-4
Courtesy of the Space Report 2008 (2)
B-5
B.1.2 - New Space Companies
SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation)
One of the winners of funding for the NASA Commercial Orbiter Transportation
Services (COTS) competition, SpaceX focuses on the development of launch vehicles, with an
aim of reducing satellite launch costs and improving reliability “by a factor of ten.” The
company was founded in 2002 by PayPal cofounder Elon Musk, who is now CEO and CTO.
SpaceX has two families of vehicles in use and development: The Falcon, which includes
the light-lift Falcon 1 and medium- and heavy-lift Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy, and the Dragon
vehicles, designed to move pressurized or unpressurized cargo, and/or crew members. It aims
to a commercial re-supply vehicle for the International Space Station after the US Space Shuttle
is retired in 2010 (71).
Scaled Composites
Scaled Composites was founded by Burt Rutan in 1982. In May 2004 the company's
SpaceShipOne reached the lower levels of space (64 km above Earth), and in June it reached
outer space (100 km). In September 2004 SpaceShipOne repeated the feat -- with the weight of
two additional passengers -- and in October of that year it successfully completed another flight
to space, thus claiming the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE, which required that a privately funded
three-person craft successfully go 100 km into space and repeat the feat within two weeks.
Now, Scaled Composites is partner with Virgin Galactic to commercialize its suborbital success
by building SpaceShipTwo, unveiled in 2008 (72).
Bigelow Aerospace
Bigelow Aerospace plans to develop a working infrastructure for space tourism,
including orbital hotels. Robert Bigelow, owner of Budget Suites of America (a $600 million
(est.) privately-held company), has planned a long-term project for the development of space
tourism, which includes a commitment of several hundred million dollars. The first prototype
module, Genesis I, was successfully launched on July 12, 2006; Genesis II was launched on June
28, 2007. In August of 2007, the company announced that instead of launching the Galaxy
module in 2008, they would do only ground studies with it and instead accelerate development
and flight of the crew-capable Sundancer module (73).
Armadillo Aerospace
Armadillo Aerospace is a very small research and development company that was
founded in 2000, and is headed and partly funded by John Carmack, a computer game
developer of Doom and Quake fame. It focuses on reusable rocket-powered vehicles,
B-6
particularly vertical takeoff and vertical landing. It has competed in every X PRIZE event, and
performed the first flight with an FAA/AST experimental permit. The goal of the company is
to reach orbit using its vehicles, potentially with the aim of becoming a contractor for cargo or
human transport for government or private industry (74).
Blue Origin
A small company focused on suborbital flight development, particularly for space
tourism, Blue Origin was founded by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. It has developed a
prototype design of a rocket vehicle named New Shepherd, which has had several successful
test flights.
XCOR Aerospace
XCOR is a California-based privately held corporation, dedicated mostly to research and
development of reliable, low-cost and reusable rocket engines. It is the developer of the EZRocket, a manned rocket-powered vehicle, upon which its next-generation Lynx Rocket Launch
Vehicle is based. The company is funded by angel investors as well as revenue from contracts
and consulting services. It is one of two organizations to have received a Reusable Launch
Vehicle mission license from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (75).
Arianespace
Arianespace is the world's leading commercial satellite launch company. It is a private
European commercial space consortium that has signed contracts for 285 satellite payloads.
Arianespace has signed cooperative agreements with Boeing Satellite Systems and Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries. It uses its family of Ariane 1-5 rockets, and will manage the Russian-built
Soyuz launcher starting in 2009 from French Guiana Spaceport. Additionally, it will add the
Vega vehicle for light- to medium- payloads.
Arianespace was formed in 1980 and, after undergoing a recapitalization in 2004, is
controlled by about 23 corporations, primarily aerospace and telecommunications firms
(previously there were approximately 45 shareholders in the consortium).
Arianespace's largest shareholder is European aerospace and defense giant EADS, which has
several international units that have stakes. Other major shareholders include French space
agency CNES and French aircraft and rocket engine maker Snecma (76).
US Contractors
Key Numbers
Annual Sales
($ mil.)
Employees
Orbital Sciences Boeing Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman
1,084.1
66,387.0 41,862.0
32,018.0
3,100
159,300 --
122,600
B-7
Market Cap ($ mil.) 1,497.5
12-Month Revenue
Growth
12-Month Net
Income Growth
36-Month Revenue
Growth
36-Month Net
Income Growth
55,158.0 41,720.3
24,317.5
37.3%
6.9%
7.3%
6.9%
57.1%
83.7%
16.9%
6.1%
66.5%
27.6%
19.4%
7.3%
(69.7%)
147.1% 128.6%
32.2%
B-8
B.1.3 - Catalysts
The Vision of Space Exploration
Perhaps the most visible catalyst to the commercialization of space and the
encouragement of the involvement of the private sector is President George W. Bush‟s
announcement of the new Vision of Space Exploration. In this announcement, President Bush
lays out the challenge for the space program to complete the ISS by 2010, create and use a new
manned spacecraft (Crew Exploration Vehicle) by 2014 and return man to the Moon by 2020. In
his speech the President encourages commercial involvement by stating, “I will also form a
commission of private and public sector experts to advise on implementing the vision that I've
outlined today” (6). This commission was hand selected by the White House and was charged
with reporting to the President in four months.
Creating this commission greatly furthers commercial involvement in the industry
because it places the private sector at the forefront of the policy and allows them to have a
voice. If the private companies have a voice in the policy of space exploration, there is a much
higher probability that more companies will get involved because they will have the feeling that
they have some control. A small amount of control over the direction of the industry is a major
catalyst to private investment, because control means that there is much less risk involved in the
venture.
NASA’s Attitude and Actions
A second major catalyst for the development of the commercial industry is the attitude
and actions of NASA. NASA recently launched a very pro space commercialization baseline in
their 2006 Strategic Plan. In this Strategic Plan, they established six goals that are going to be
followed through the next ten years to meet the Vision for Space Exploration. The fifth strategic
goal of this plan was to “Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging
commercial space sector” (7). This basic attitude bodes well for the commercial industry,
because it shows that NASA is willing to support a fairly new industry, and it will help it to
grow and flourish, rather than squash it. NASA‟s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has
also stated in the Strategic Plan that it will “stimulate new ideas and invite private
entrepreneurs to provide space capabilities from the private sector” (7). Overall NASA‟s
attitude is a catalyst because they are encouraging and looking for commercial involvement.
NASA is also a catalyst because of its current and planned actions. As of right now
NASA has setup up prizes known as Centennial Challenges, which invite private companies to
compete and develop new technology systems (77). NASA would like to complete by 2012 at
least one prize competition for “independently designed, developed, launched, and operated
missions related to space science or space exploration” (7). Besides prize competitions NASA is
also stimulating the growth of a private industry by looking to expand their number of launch
service providers to include emerging US companies. NASA will try to encourage the
development of the launch sector by awarding intellectual property rights for technology and
systems developed (7). NASA has also worked to encourage commercial involvement through
Space Act Agreements, like the current Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS)
B-9
program which is hoped to provide transportation for crew and cargo to the ISS by 2010.
Finally NASA has developed the Innovative Partnerships Program, which will focus on
partnering the US private sector with NASA‟s interests to produce technologies for future
missions (7). This program allows NASA to leverage the private sector‟s capabilities, while
fostering the growth of the industry. All of these actions and programs coordinated by NASA
further the growth of the private industry.
NASA’s Budget
Another factor that pushes for the commercialization of the space industry is the current
state of NASA‟s budget. NASA‟s annual budget in 2004 at the announcement of President
Bush‟s Vision of Space Exploration was 15.559 billion US dollars (all numbers are adjusted for
2007 inflation). Four years later, after this initiative to go back to the Moon and onto Mars, the
budget has only increased about 5 billion dollars, as 20.949 billion dollars is being proposed for
FY 2009 (78). This budget while increasing is not increasing enough to allow NASA to complete
the Vision entirely its own. NASA doesn‟t have enough money to continue with the ISS,
complete its current projects and send man back to the Moon with only a 5 billion dollar
increase in their budget.
Operations at NASA are much different as we head back to the Moon for the second
time, than they were when we journeyed to the Moon in the days of the Apollo Program.
During the Apollo program (July 1969 to December 1972) NASA‟s budget peaked in 1966 and
the total budget was 6% of the annual federal budget (8). Today, NASA‟s budget makes up less
1% of the federal budget. Furthermore, the Apollo Program made up 34% of NASA‟s annual
budget (9), while its successor the Constellation Program receives only 17% of NASA‟s annual
budget (10). All of these factors point to the result that NASA has significantly less funding
with which to perform their journey back to the Moon. Thus, there is no way that NASA will be
able to travel to the Moon completely under government funding as it did in the Apollo
Program. NASA‟s lack of adequate funding leads to the commercialization of space because
there is work that they don‟t have the resources to complete that will need to be done to fulfill
the Vision.
Space Angels Network
A very big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels
Network. The Space Angels Network is an organization whose members “share a common
passion for promoting the development of aerospace-related industries and technologies while
also making a solid return on private investments” (12). This network is without a doubt a
catalyst for the development for the commercialization of space because it is a group of
investors and entrepreneurs that are waiting and willing to give money to private companies.
Space Angels provides a forum via an e-newsletter, an online deal database and deal screening
events for entrepreneurs to present their ideas in front of “early-stage investors who are actively
looking for investment opportunities in aerospace-related industries” (13). This is very
beneficial because one of the biggest obstacles, (which will be addressed later) is that it is very
hard for space companies to find sufficient funding and investors. Other groups of early stage
investors exist such as the Boston Harbor Angels, who invest in space and aviation as well as
many other technology areas (39).
B-10
Challenges and Prize Competitions
A major catalyst for the involvement of private companies is the contests and challenges
presented by the X PRIZE Foundation and NASA. With these challenges hype is generated and
money is poured into the space industry through private investors, universities and small
companies as they compete to be the first to develop the technology and complete the challenge.
The Ansari X Prize for example featured a $10 million prize for a spacecraft that was capable of
carrying the weight of three people to 100 km above the Earth‟s surface, twice in two weeks.
For this prize the 26 teams competing spent a combined total of over $100 million, which is ten
times the prize value (11). Also, since the prize has been won by Scaled Composites with
SpaceShipOne, over $1.5 billion dollars in public and private spending has occurred for
development of the private spaceflight industry (11). This prize alone developed by the X
PRIZE Foundation shows how invaluable these contests and challenges are to the development
of the private sector.
The challenges presented by the X PRIZE Foundation allowed many new companies to
form and allowed small existing companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Scaled Composites to
develop technology products without having to compete against well established Aerospace
giants like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing. X PRIZEs allow the industry to
grow and flourish so that there will no longer just be three of four large companies that run the
private sector.
NASA‟s prizes known as Centennial Challenges are also beneficial to the private
industry because their mission is to “Encourage the participation of independent teams,
individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research
and development” (77). Centennial challenges provide an arena where all of the space
companies can compete against each other for the development of crucial technology at their
own expense and effort. NASA challenges are not as beneficial to the formation of private
companies as X PRIZEs are, but they do provide another area for successful private companies
to invest, compete and earn money.
Community and Public Outreach Events
Community and public outreach events like the X PRIZE Cup are catalysts to the
commercialization of space because they energize the public and generate support for the
industry. The X PRIZE Cup is a space expo that was started in 2004 where airplanes and
rockets fly together for crowds of up to 85,000 people (79). These types of events can be
considered catalysts because they involve the public in the industry. The public becomes thrust
into the action of the emerging technology scene for the Space Industry, and their interest is
peaked. The public‟s intensified interest is critical because the more excited the public is about
space, the more stable the market will become, and the more investment there will be by private
industry.
Space Tourism
B-11
A final catalyst for the development of the commercial space industry is the growth of
the market for Space Tourism. As NASA and other international government agencies continue
to explore space, the public is becoming more interested and intrigued by what lies beyond our
planet. Space Tourism provides the public with the opportunity to explore this interest and
makes space accessible to a wider range of people, rather than just a select astronaut core.
Space Tourism is a major catalyst for commercial development, because NASA is not
interested in helping get the public to space. NASA more importantly does not have the
resources or the budget to do so. But, still the demand to go to space remains and in order to fill
this demand, the private companies must emerge and supply opportunities for Space Tourism.
Currently the market for Space Tourism is in an early development phase as many new
companies are starting up and presenting new experiences and products to the public. One
current opportunity presented by Bigelow Aerospace, the inventors and manufacturers of
inflatable orbiting modules, is the “Fly Your Stuff” Program. In this program, Bigelow will fly
personal items in their Genesis II module and take pictures of the items floating in space (80).
Bigelow‟s end goal is to develop inflatable habitats, which could function as a suborbital space
hotel (81). A second major experience that is in development by Virgin Galactic, are suborbital
space tourism flights. These flights are going to take the public to space beginning around 2010
and ticket prices will be about $200,000.00 US dollars (81). Many other companies, like Space
Adventures, XCOR, and RocketPlane Limited, are looking to compete with Virgin Galactic as
space airlines as they begin to develop their own suborbital spaceflight programs. In addition
to suborbital flights, Space Adventures is currently conducting orbital flights by flying private
citizens on the Russian Soyuz to the International Space Station for $20 million US dollars (82).
Many opportunities are being developed for Space Tourism by private companies, but there is
room for many more once in a lifetime adventures.
The key to Space Tourism being a catalyst to the commercialization of space is that the
government is unwilling to participate in the market, but the demand for this market is still
thriving. This flourishing new industry of Space Tourism provides a great economic
opportunity for the private companies.
B-12
B.1.4 - Airline Analogue
The space industry thus far has been primarily used for government use, minus a few
commercial satellite applications and recent space tourism ventures. This often leads many to
question the feasibility of a commercial space industry. However, aviation successfully made a
similar leap from experimental government endeavors to a significant business market.
Cargo
Early use of aviation technology took place primarily in government. “[In 1917],
Congress appropriated $100,000 for an experimental airmail service that was to be conducted
jointly by the Army and the Post Office between Washington and New York, with an
intermediate stop in Philadelphia” (15). First proposed by the post office as a way to give
valuable time to new army pilots, the government airmail service was formed. “During the first
three months of operation, the Post Office used Army pilots and six Jenny training planes of the
Army (JN-4Hs). On August 12, 1918, the Post Office took over all phases of the airmail service,
using newly hired civilian pilots and mechanics and six specially built mail planes from the
Standard Aircraft Corporation. […] by using airplanes the Post Office was able to shave 22
hours off coast-to- coast mail deliveries” (83). The same year that Congress passed the Contract
Mail Act, President Calvin Coolidge appointed a board to recommend a national aviation policy
that would be the “Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA), and gave the new agency power to
B-13
regulate airline tariffs, airmail rates, interline agreements, mergers, and airline routes. Its
mission was to preserve order in the industry, holding rates to reasonable levels while at the
same time nurturing the still financially-shaky airline industry by protecting carriers from
unbridled competition” (83).
On February 2, 1925, Congress passed a law "to encourage commercial aviation and to
authorize the Postmaster General to contract for mail service" (83). The Post Office immediately
invited bids for its routes by commercial aviation. By the end of 1926, 11 out of 12 contracted
airmail routes were operating. The first commercial airmail flight in the United States occurred
on February 15, 1926. The transition from government to commercial aviation was seen as well
with the communication networks. Originally the army set up beacons for nighttime
navigation. After one year, the post office took over control of the guidance system and
expanded the network of beacons.
Cargo to People
As commercial airlines took over, the Post Office Department transferred its lights,
airways, and radio service to the Department of Commerce, including 17 fully equipped
stations, 89 emergency landing fields, and 405 beacons. Terminal airports, except those in
Chicago, Omaha, and San Francisco, which were government properties, were transferred to
the municipalities in which they were located. Some planes were sold to airmail contractors;
others were transferred to interested government departments. By September 1, 1927, all
airmail was carried under contract. Once the feasibility of airmail was firmly established, and
airline facilities were in place, the government moved to transfer airmail service to the private
sector by way of competitive bids. The legislative vehicle for the move was the 1925 Contract
Air Mail Act (83). “Henry Ford, the automobile manufacturer, was among the first successful
bidders for airmail contracts, winning the right in 1925 to carry mail from Chicago to Detroit
and Cleveland aboard planes his company already was using to transport spare parts for his
automobile assembly plants. More importantly, he jumped into aircraft manufacturing and in
1927 produced the Ford Trimotor, commonly referred to as the "Tin Goose." It was one of the
first all-metal planes, made of a new material called duralumin that was almost as light as
aluminum and twice as strong. It also was the first plane designed primarily to carry passengers
rather than mail. [. . .] its sturdy appearance, combined with the Ford name, had a reassuring
effect on the public's perception of flying” (83).
Prizes Revitalize Industry
Early on, many of the other companies who flew the mail started carrying passengers on
airmail flights. In 1926, airlines in the US carried 6,000 passengers. By 1930, passengers flying on
US airlines had soared to 400,000. Thus the shift from cargo to passengers began. This
transition was significantly catalyzed by the effect of Charles Lindbergh‟s trans-Atlantic flight
in 1927. Lindbergh‟s $15,000 flight was supported and made possible by the Orteig Prize. Set
up by a wealthy private citizen, the $25,000 prize spurred numerous attempts at the flight, and
led to Lindbergh‟s success, which in turn led to a huge growth in the aviation industry. The
winner of the 1930 Best Woman Aviator of the Year Award, Elinor Smith Sullivan, said that
before Lindbergh's flight, "people seemed to think we [aviators] were from outer space or
something. But after Charles Lindbergh's flight, we could do no wrong. It's hard to describe the
B-14
impact Lindbergh had on people. [His flight] changed aviation forever because all of a sudden
the Wall Streeters were banging on doors looking for airplanes to invest in. We'd been standing
on our heads trying to get them to notice us but after Lindbergh, suddenly everyone wanted to
fly, and there weren't enough planes to carry them” (84). Over the remainder of 1927
applications for pilot's licenses in the U.S. tripled, the number of licensed aircraft of all types
quadrupled, and U.S. Airline passengers grew between 1926 and 1929 by 3,000% from 5,782 to
173,405 (16). The support and competitive nature of the prize created the opportunity for
investors to take seriously something as risky as aviation, and because of it, the industry was
revitalized and took significantly critical steps to the thriving sector it is today.
Analogue
We propose that a similar shift can successfully occur from government and small
civilian ventures in space to a significant commercial space sector. Aircraft moved from
government cargo, in the form of airmail, to contracted cargo, to independent passenger flights.
Currently space flight is still reserved mostly for government ventures, but with programs such
as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), the shift to contracted cargo is already
visible. Additionally, some companies are slowly moving toward small-scale passenger flights
into space. The use of prizes was an obvious catalyst in the aviation industry. The beginnings
of some similar effects can be seen with X PRIZEs, and such endeavors should be significantly
pursued in order to encourage investors and supporters to be involved with the space industry.
Looking back at the evolution of the aviation industry, a framework strikingly similar to that of
current space endeavors is apparent. Based upon that analog, it can be predicted that
commercial space development is possible.
B-15
B.2 – Agreements and partnerships
There are many different paths for an innovator to choose from within the Innovative
Partnerships Program (IPP) when seeking a relationship with a commercial entity. One such
path is termed the “Partner/License Agreement”, in which the first step occurs when a “civil
servant employee or contractor informs IPP of his or her innovation through New Technology
Reports (NTR‟s)” (85). The technology is evaluated based on its potential for success in nonNASA applications. After securing IP rights and patents, the IPP office seeks out commercial
partners to work with the technology. From here, there are options regarding the form of the
partnership.
Agreements might include direct transfer of technology or a joint development project.
These may include a Non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement (SAA) in which “NASA and the
partner both contribute resources and/or technology; research must be relevant to a NASA
mission or program. Data /results usually are shared between the two parties.” The agreement
could also take the form of a Reimbursable SAA where a “partner uses NASA resources and
agrees to reimburse NASA for the use of its facilities, personnel, and equipment; research
should be relevant to NASA.” The three other forms of agreements are an Exclusive Patent
License, in which “The right to be the only organization (other than the U.S. government)
allowed to manufacture or use NASA technology,” a Partially Exclusive Patent License in
which “exclusive rights are limited to a particular application area, geographic region, or other
stipulation,” and a Nonexclusive Patent License in which “The right to be one of multiple
partners allowed manufacturing or using NASA technology.”
B-16
B.3 - Success case studies
B.3.1 – IPP
In 2007 BSG Wireless licensed “NASA Goddard Space Flight Center‟s (GSFC) HilbertHuang Transform (HHT) technology to help improve signal reception capability in radio
frequency (RF) communications. Initial testing at Goddard indicates that applying HHT to
degraded RF signals can significantly improve the detected signal, enabling better reception
and more accurate signal transmission. BCG Wireless is exploring the applicability of this HHT
capability for devices including radio frequency identification (RFID) chips and cellular
communications systems” (84). BCG Wireless LLC, a small start-up company affiliated with the
Emerging Technology Center* (ETC), which is a technology incubator in Baltimore, Maryland,
utilized a Reimbursable SAA for this technology transfer from GSFC. “Collaboration between
Goddard and BCG Wireless began in 2004 when the company was part of ETC. ETC made BCG
Wireless aware of HHT and its capabilities. After evaluating the technology, BCG Wireless
suggested that HHT may be applicable to RF devices, and collaborated with Goddard to
conduct research to validate this hypothesis. This research was conducted as part of [the SAA],
signed in January 2005. Based on the positive findings, BCG Wireless submitted a license
application and worked with Goddard‟s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) Office to
finalize the agreement, which was signed in July 2006” (84). The technology originated at
NASA, and at the request of BSG was developed further. “A revolutionary, adaptive set of
signal-analysis algorithms, HHT was developed at Goddard in 1995 by Dr. Norden Huang as
part of oceanic wave research. Unlike precursor technologies, HHT provides an effective
method for analyzing nonlinear and nonstationary signals while improving the accuracy of
linear- and stationary-signal analysis. The technology‟s first application within NASA was
analysis of wing-flutter tests and the next generation of aircraft design at NASA Dryden Flight
Center. The technology has also contributed to Shuttle mission safety by testing the tiles that
insulate the Shuttle in space for the Shuttle Return to Flight Project following the Columbia
accident. [. . .]Research conducted at Goddard [. . .], with the support of BCG Wireless indicated
that HHT may be very beneficial for RF signal analyses. Using a simple RFID kit, researchers
introduced noise that degraded the RF signal. When the researchers then introduced the HHT
algorithm, they were able to extract the signal, despite the noise. This testing validates that HHT
can be used to improve signal reception for RF devices, which may also help preserve battery
life and improve usability [. . .] With a license in place, BCG Wireless is initially working to
apply HHT to RF applications such as RFID and cellular systems to improve reception, battery
life, and usability. Given the success of initial research with Goddard, the company is also
considering further collaborative research with NASA” (84).
B.3.2 – SBIR
One of the major success stories of technologies developed from NASA and later
commercialized comes from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. A water filtration device was
designed to provide safe and affordable drinking water to different sectors around the world. It
was a result of the work of NASA‟s Marshall Space Flight Center engineers who were also
B-17
working on creating a regenerative Environmental Control and life support system (ECLSS),
which consists of a complex system of devices intended to sustain astronauts living on the ISS
and the astronauts that will travel to the Moon and Mars. The devices make use of the available
resources by turning wastewater from respiration, sweat, and urine into drinkable water. This
would be a major breakthrough due to the fact that the ISS astronauts currently receive their
water from Russian delivery missions and from a device that recycles moisture from respiration
into a limited amount of drinking water. This water replenishment is a costly endeavor. With
the ECLSS, engineers are working to make the process more efficient. A similar device
developed from such technologies is now available through Water Security Corporation Inc., of
Sparks, Nevada. It is designed to make use of the available resources by turning wastewater
into drinkable water. Water Security Corporation, Inc. now owns the patents for the commercial
use of this technology and has begun to offer its services to the diverse sectors around the
world. The company‟s terrestrial water treatment device was recognized as a Certified Space
Technology by the Space Foundation and was awarded the Certified Space Technology Seal
because it effectively applies space-based knowledge to Earth situations in order to improve our
life quality.
A second example was developed through several Small Business Innovation Research
(SBIR) contracts with NASA‟s Johnson Space Center and the U.S. Department of Defense‟s
Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). In the 1980s, Johnson awarded Autonomous
Technologies Corporation a Phase I SBIR contract to develop technology for autonomous
rendezvous and docking of space vehicles to service satellites. During Phase II of the Johnson
SBIR contract, Autonomous Technologies developed a prototype range and velocity imaging
LADAR to demonstrate technology that could be used for this purpose. The partnership
resulted in a new eye-tracking device for LASIK surgery, called LADAR Tracker. Eye-tracking
devices must be able to sample the eye‟s position at a rate of at least 1,000 times per second to
keep up with the involuntary or saccadic movements. The LADAR Tracker measures eye
movements at a rate of 4,000 times per second which is four times the established safety margin.
In addition to this, the LADAR Tracker also employs a closed-loop system, which keeps the
device locked on the eye at all times. This allows eye movement information to be continuously
relayed to the system which in turn allows the system to compensate for the movements. The
device is manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, of Fort Worth, Texas, and is used in conjunction
with the company‟s LADARVision 4000 system for LASIK surgery, which is being, used by eye
surgeons across the country.
B-18
B.4 - Spacesuit Development : Case study
Since their inception, spacesuits have been developed and built by private industry.
Spacesuits for the initial Gemini and Apollo space walks were initially produced by a
partnership of Hamilton Sundstrand and subcontractor ILC Dover (or ILC Inc.). The A7 was
the primary suit and maintained a 100% success rate throughout its lifetime. At the
discontinuation of the Apollo program ILC Dover suffered due to a lack of interest or market in
the spacesuit business. Cutbacks and layoffs quickly left the company in difficult financial
circumstances and they were forced to move into other industries and markets. But as the
Space Shuttle and Skylab programs began it was clear a newer more maneuverable spacesuit
would be needed and ILC Dover and Hamilton Sundstrand secured this new contract. The
space shuttle program has lasted over 20 years with the partnership maintaining their contract,
providing spacesuits, and developing new spacesuit technologies. However, as NASA again
begins to retool to return to the Moon and move on to Mars, spacesuit designs are in need of
change so that they will be prepared for the harsh extraterrestrial environments. The spacesuit
contract was again put to bid, but instead of the ILC Dover and Hamilton Sundstrand group,
NASA selected Oceaneering International to develop the spacesuits for the Orion program.
Selection of Oceaneering as the spacesuit developer “completes the spaceflight hardware
requirements for the Constellation Program's first human flight in 2015," according to Jeff
Hanley, the Constellation program manager. As NASA pushes to the Moon it is important that
private corporations follow and become a permanent presence in space. The spacesuit market is
a small market, but is well suited for a study of how non-aerospace engineering companies like
ILC Dover, a clothing manufacturer, and Oceaneering, an underwater oil and diving company,
can affect and invest in the space industry.
Suits from Oceaneering for the future NASA programs on the Moon
www.oceaneering.com
B-19
ILC Dover
The corporation that would eventually design and build the spacesuits that would walk
on the Moon, the International Latex Corporation, were in 1947 producing girdles, bras, baby
pants, life rafts, life vests, and anti-exposure clothing (86). This example of a company
beginning in a non-Aerospace market and moving into the space market shows how a company
can take advantage of skills and processes used here on Earth that can be expanded for space
applications, bringing more profit and expertise to the company, in more markets. 1947 saw the
Latex Corporation divide into four divisions, the Metals division, the Playtex division, the
Chemical division, and the Pharmaceutical Division. The Playtex division created the textile
and rubber products, while the Metals division originated from a group that built custom racks
to display the Playtex products.
The first step away from local Earth-based markets like
textiles and metals occurred in 1947 when the Metals division received a contract from the Air
Force and Navy to build high altitude pressure helmets. They used their expertise in metal
working that again came from building metal racks, to build helmets for pilots! The Metals
division sought new markets and new ideas, in which they could properly use their capabilities.
Even if the helmet industry didn‟t seem like an industry with large profit margins, it was still an
opportunity which the Metals division took up and it paid off. This first step, into the helmet
industry is what would catapult the company into the flight suit market and later into the
spacesuit business.
The corporation of only 30 people geared up to produce this specialty product for the
military, and at the same time continued development in the area of plastics, creating new
methods for bending plastics. Because they had an affiliation with the military, working on a
crucial part of a flight suit, in 1956 the contract was enlarged and ILC Dover was commissioned
to develop high altitude pressure suits. Their
abilities to work with plastic made them an
understandable choice, but the primary reason
the contract was awarded to ILC Dover was a
result of their helmet making. They already had a
foothold in the top part of the suit and the
military saw an opportunity to have ILC transfer
into producing full suits. And with their previous
experience in rubber processes, they resolved
issues about how to bend joints in high pressure
suits using rubber manufacturing techniques.
By 1962 the company was subcontracted
by
Hamilton
Standard
(now
Hamilton
Sundstrand) to build the joints on the Apollo The space suit worn by Neil Armstrong.
Space Suit. In 1965 Hamilton Standard dropped
www.fi.edu
ILC as a subcontractor. Facing lawsuit for breach
of contract, NASA held an open competition, in
which any company could enter a spacesuit. 3 companies competed, Hamilton Standard, the
David Clark Company, and ILC. ILC‟s suit proved far superior even to Hamilton Standards
and they won contract, as prime contractors. Even though they were slated as subcontractors,
they had the expertise to manufacture the entire suit, including joints and helmet. A small
B-20
subcontractor had developed and used all their expertise to win the lead subcontractor spot on
a major NASA endeavor. There were a few specialty parts they did not have the capability to
build, but they had the know-how and experience to build most of the suit to be used on the
Moon. This was the beginning of big contracts between ILC and NASA that would sustain their
business for the next decade. Initially the number of employees quadrupled to 200. In 1966 and
1967 the International Latex Corporation officially split into three separate entities, one of which
was ILC Industries, which would later become ILC Dover. In 1968 the companies reported
number of employees was 755. Minor spinoff groups were working for the US military
developing different kinds of inflatables, while others were working on motorcycle and
snowmobile helmets. However, these groups were small with 90% of the companies revenue
coming from the NASA funded space suit project.
ILC developed the first spacesuit in human history to be used in extra vehicular activity,
the A7L. The A7L can be considered to have a perfect success record, with no major failures
throughout its lifetime, spanning the Apollo 7 to Apollo 14
missions. The first spacesuit on another terrestrial body,
the ILC developed suit, was used by Neil Armstrong, Buzz
Aldrin, and others to navigate the lunar surface. A small
company that began in fabrics, migrated to the space
industry, and built a garment that survived the harshest
environment known to man, space. For each mission 15
one-time use, custom made suits with 11 layers, each
estimated at $2 million, had to be prepared (87). Each
astronaut on the main crew needed 3, 1 for training, 1 for
flight, and 1 for back-up, and each of the backup astronauts
needed 2, 1 for flight and 1 for training. Thus without
operating costs, which were also significant, spacesuits for
1 mission reached an estimated $30 million, and these suits
would all be discarded upon safe return from the Moon.
For Apollo 15 through Apollo 17 the Commander and LM
pilot had slightly redesigned suits, the A7L-B, that
provided more mobility at the joints.
ILC had a corner on the spacesuit market and by
Apollo A7L
1970 the company expanded to 900 people. The ILC
EVA Moonsuit/Spacesuit
contract continued through Apollo and on to the Skylab
www.wonderworksweb.com
Space Station program. ILC also began buying smaller
companies and extending into other industries such as
balloons, parachutes, goggles, and other types of cooling vests. But even with the expansion
into other industries, disaster struck as the Skylab program was discontinued and spacesuits
were no longer needed for any operation. With NASA not needing spacesuits, there were zero
customers in the market for spacesuits. Over a 2 year period ILC Dover‟s workforce suffered
enormous cutbacks, downsizing over 95%, from over 900 employees to only 25. ILC Dover,
though interested in moving into other industries, did not have near enough investment in
industries besides spacesuits and nearly fell apart. ILC Dover was not prepared for their
business to sharply end. This example of a company operating in a one-dimensional space
market is important for current companies. If space companies fail to invest and expand, when
B-21
NASA no longer needs their products, which may be inevitable, there company is out of
business and will end. Not only do non-Aerospace companies need to invest in the space
industry, but companies in the space industry need to invest in other markets as well.
However, the expansion into other industries did keep the company afloat, with contracts for
military goggles and hazardous suits bringing in some money. They did maintain a slight
contract with NASA developing intra-vehicular use suits.
As the US Space Program moved forward, the
Space Shuttle became NASA‟s next venture. ILC Dover
capitalized and won the contract to develop the new
spacesuits for the Space Shuttle and quickly retooled. In
1977 they were awarded the primary contract to develop
the new suits. The company subcontracted to Hamilton
Standard and grew to 100 employees. By 1983 the
corporations‟ suit was successfully used on STS-6, for the
first EVA of the shuttle era.
ILC Dover received again received major NASA
support for spacesuit development and upkeep.
However, even more than before, ILC Dover began to
seriously expand into other industries, pushing barriers in
pressure suits, inflatable balloons and aerostats, helmets,
goggles, hazardous suits, parts for aircraft, airbags, air
lifting devices, and memory polymers. ILC Dover did not
want remain a one-dimensional market, whose fate was
decided by 1 unstable government market. They worked
with
both Government and Private organizations,
Shuttle EMU/MMU Suit
pursuing
both Military contracts, and available private
www.guard-lee.com/suits.html
markets. Some projects had little production, such as the 3
420,000 ft3 aerostats developed for the Air Force, or developmental projects that never expanded
beyond the research phase, while others were produced by the millions. Chart 1 illustrates all
of ILC Dover‟s business since 1965 when the Apollo Spacesuits were commissioned. As is seen,
ILC has shown major expansion with a wide variety of products, over many industries,
including the Aircraft Parts Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Aircraft Vehicle Industry,
Plastics Industry, Construction Industry, Chemical Industry (Waste Management), and even
Sporting Goods Industry. Using the Space Industry as a platform they were able to create a
diversified profile of products and services. Such a profile makes them extremely competitive
in the current market. In the same way ILC Dover transitioned from a textile company to a
space company, they had now transformed from a space-only company to a diversified
company.
Product
Year
Apollo Lunar Spacesuit 1962
Barrier
Bag
(for 1967
Corporation
Approximate
Number
NASA
Commercially Sold
B-22
cartridge cases for
munitions)
Inflatable
Structures
and Walls
Riot Helmets and Face
Shields
Motorcycle Helmets
Inflatable Boats
GOGGS (Ski Goggles)
Cool Vest
Aerostat
Goggles
Chemturion hazardous
suit
Cyclocrane
(Aerostat with wings)
Propellant
Handlers
Ensemble suits
Collapsible Fuel and
Water Tanks
M43 Hood/Mask
Torpedo
Recovery
Bags
Air-inflated
Decelerator
Systems
(AIDS)
US Air Force,
Commercially Sold
Commercially Sold
1968
1971
1973
1974
1975
1977
1980
1981
1982
1983
1991
Collective
Protective
System
(M28 Hazardous Suit)
AERP Hodd/Mask
595 K Balloon Systems
Chemical
Biological
Protective Mask (M40)
Ram Air Decelerator
Cup
Spinner Cones for Jet
Engines
Integrated Hood Mask
(PIHM)
Upper
Pressure
Garment, Lower G
Garment, Air-Cooling
Garment
Aerostat
Balloons
Commercially Sold
US Air Force
Commercially Sold
Commercially Sold
US Air Force
US Military
US Army/
Commercially Sold
1986
384
1000
~100,000
Development Only
NASA/
US Air Force
US Army
US Military
Rocket
Research/Navy
Aerojet
Alliant
Techsystems
Army
550
5,280
1,318,680
100,000
1987
1988
Boeing
General Electric
Commercially Sold
5
1989
Honeywell
1,843,000
1990
Garret Engine Corp
1991
1992
Boeing,
Air Force
Boeing
5,300
10,500
1992
Loral
8
B-23
(275,000 ft3)
1993
(420,000 ft3)
Vapor Guard Tank
Cover
Hybrid
Airship 1994
Envelope
Airbag
Landing
System
(Mars
Pathfinder Mission)
Integrated
Ballistic 1995
Helmet
Fuel Cells
Lightship envelopes
1995
Space
Rigidizable
Antenna
Inflatable
Lunar
Habitat
Hasty Hide Shelter
Flexible
Power
Transfer System
AirCrane
(with
TCOM
and
Uretek)
ISAT
Antenna
Structure
(inflatable
shape
memory polymer)
Materials for radome
structure of Sea Based
X-Bad Radar System
FlexMixer
(with Wave Biotech)
1996
Air Force
3
Reichold Chemical
Corp.
Zeppelin
Jet Propulsion Lab
741
FPT Industries Ltd.
American
Blimp 6, Ongoing
Corp
TRW
Development only
NASA
Development only
Military
Eli Lilly
2001
CargoLifter
2004
DARPA
1
2005
Raytheon
1
Commercially Sold
(Pharmaceutical
Customers)
(86)
Companies in non-Aerospace industries must realize that investing and developing
products in the space industry can and will lead to many marketable earth-based products,
bringing increased profit and expertise.
B-24
B.5 – Highway System
A transportation infrastructure has long been recognized by governments to be of
crucial importance, particularly from the points of view of defense and the economy. At the
end of the 20th century, transportation (in a very general sense) accounted for approximately
18% percent of the GNP. In 1989, the typical American household spent $27,810, of which
$5,187 went toward transportation.
Throughout American history, a transportation infrastructure has preceded successful
trade and economic expansion, whether in the form of ports, canals, railroads, highways or
airports. In terms of interstate or even intercontinental trade, “transportation allows each
geographic area to produce whatever it does best and then to trade its product with others. In
addition to direct trades, it is also possible to use transportation to link together a number of
different steps in the production process, each occurring at a different geographic site.” Also,
transportation has historically opened markets, such that significant economies can be born out
of large-scale single-resource production, and promoted competitiveness (88).
Although historically late in its
implementation, the US National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways is the
world‟s
most
extensive
automobile
transportation network. It contains more
than 45,000 miles of roadways, and sustains
over 20% of the nation‟s traffic, although it
makes up only 1% of the roads system. The
project was started by a recommendation
from the Clay Committee, established in
1954 by President Eisenhower, after which
the Federal Aid Highway Act and the
Highway Revenue Act of 1956 provided
funding for an accelerated program of
Highway
construction.
The system was funded
students.engr.ncsu.edu/ite/grad.html
primarily by the federal government, with
resources that included the Highway Trust
fund, where funds from the newly established gasoline tax were placed (89).
From (90), key findings of “Productivity and the Highway Network: A Look at the
Economic Benefits to Industry from Investment in the Highway Network” by Nadiri and
Manuneas:
• Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution
costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry
costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors
indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors.
On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24
B-25
cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.
• Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of
production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S.
productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the
1950s, highway network investments‟ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31
percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S.
productivity growth in the 1980s.
• Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of
depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local
road
network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared
investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital
was about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about
equal to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social
welfare from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the
interstate system.
B-26
B.6 – Satellite Cell Phones Case Study
Satellite cell phones networks have not been financially viable in the past. Several
companies, having investor interest, high technological capabilities and high expert
expectations, have failed to attract costumers, and filed for bankruptcy.
Iridium, one of the first companies to offer satellite cell phone service, originally offered
services that were comparable or superior to standard ground-based operations, but failed to
achieve profitability because consumer interest in their very expensive services was low.
Furthermore, Iridium operated on a constellation of 66 LEO satellites that had short lifetimes,
and were very difficult and expensive to maintain. Standard cell phone services operate by
ground radio technology, and nowadays have multiple functions which make them more
attractive, such as email, cameras, and navigation.
After spending $5 billion to develop its system, Iridium was bought for $25 million, and
its commercial services have yet to attract consumers. However, Iridium has standing
contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Defense, and its obvious technical usefulness,
as demonstrated by television coverage and global cell phone coverage may yet entice the
public.
Other companies attempted using MEO and GEO networks, but either failed to get
financial backing or implement fully-functional infrastructures. See (91) for several examples,
and a more complete case study of Iridium.
B-27
B.7- ITAR Historical Overview
For as long as defense technology has been around, there has been a need to control
what parties have access to that technology. Certain defense articles in the hands of the wrong
parties could have disastrous consequences, not just for some countries but even mankind as a
whole. This has always been the guiding principle behind export control. The latter half of the
20th century has demonstrated, more than ever before, the need for export controls to protect
national security interests. Much of today‟s export control policy has stemmed from the 1950‟s
and 1960‟s. During the Cold War there was an obvious motivation to prevent the Soviet Union
and its allies from obtaining defense related information from the United States, specifically
technology relating to nuclear armaments. The intent was to prevent the widespread
proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would certainly unsettle the fragile geopolitical
climate. Aside from nuclear weapons, it has also always been necessary to prevent the export of
any information that could potentially violate national security interests. The International
Traffic in Arms Regulations were created for just that purpose, to define what technologies
were sensitive and to regulate who has access to them by defining under what circumstances
they are allowed to be transferred.
The International Traffic of Arms Regulations has only been changed a few times over
its lifespan.
Prior to 1992, the export of anything having to do with commercial
communications satellites was considered to have military applications and thus fell under the
control of ITAR. However, in order to increase the number of United States communications
satellite launches, government contracts were given to Chinese launch providers who would
perform the launches for similar prices to that of US launch providers. In order to circumvent
the export control issues with this contract transfer, communications satellites were moved over
to the control of the Department of Commerce as a dual-use technology, thus significantly
decreasing the barriers for export. Within a two year period of the creation of the directive, nine
commercial launches of US communications satellites were carried out by Chinese launch
service providers. Much debate occurred over the transfer of communications satellites to the
control of the Department of Commerce and the switch was not fully complete until 1996.
Within a few years of the dual-use transfer, two Chinese launches carrying United States
communications satellites failed, leading to a full investigation into the causes of the failure.
During this review process, sensitive data relating to the design and construction of the launch
payloads was transferred to the Chinese government. It was later deemed that this occurred
without the proper licenses from both the Department of State and the Department of
Commerce. In 1999, in response to repeated Chinese attempts to obtain high technological
information about the US communication satellites, all satellites were transferred back over to
the control of the Department of State. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
placed all satellites in the USML Category XV “Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment.”
This includes scientific satellites as well as most satellite components such as ground control
telemetry and radiation hardened microelectronics.
More recently in 2002, ITAR was amended to address problems dealing with higher
education and space research. Under previously existing ITAR policy, it was forbidden for
B-28
students who are foreign nationals to be involved with space related research at the university
level. The amendment to ITAR allows foreign nationals who are students or faculty of an
institution of higher learning to be involved with “fundamental research” relating to space
technology. Fundamental research is broadly defined within ITAR as “basic and applied
research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and
shared broadly within the scientific community.” This amendment only applies to research
done independently by a university and is not valid if there is an additional party involved.
B-29
B.8 - Case Study of European Patent Convention and the European
Community Patent.
Currently, there is no single, centrally enforceable, European Union-wide patent.
However, the European Patent Convention dismisses the need to file separate patent
applications and centralizes the prosecution in one language. With the EPC, the system for
protecting an invention in several European countries is greatly simplified, since the EPC does
away with the need to apply for a separate patent in each country.
However, the situation is not as universal as first appearances suggest. Though the
application process is unified, each member nation in the EPC must individually approve the
patent. Thus, a European patent is not a patent across Europe but instead a group of national
patents in each Contracting State designated by the inventor. Each patent exists independently
from the same patent in a different nation, except for opposition procedure. Thus, one nation
may choose to void a patent, but this will not affect the validity of the other patents.
Additionally, almost all patent proceedings necessary after the patent is issued, for example,
renewal and revocation, are determined under national law.
An additional complication in the EPC is the need for translation of patents into the
various languages of the member nations. This can add a great deal of cost for the inventor
who is forced to pay for expensive translations in order to file patent documentation. Though
some work has been done to eradicate this problem by designating official languages of the
EPC, there are still problems to be dealt with.
Though, The European Patent Convention has enabled great progress in making patent
grant simpler within the European Union, there is still much to be done. The next step is
similar legislation to the European Community Patent. The Community Patent‟s goal is to
create a level playing field in the markets of the European Union by providing a more efficient
and less expensive way to ensure patent protection across the entire European market.
However, there is some opposition to the establishment of an EU-wide patent policy,
particularly from larger businesses. If the Community Patent is to be supported by this group,
it would have to deal with national issues such as translation and enforcement. By the same
token, a new patent policy would mean a new enforcement agency and there are concerns
about the level of competence of such an agency. If a patent could be lost due to inexperience
and inefficiencies in a new agency, businesses will be unwilling to apply for EU-wide patents.
In addition, the language and translation issue has also been responsible for hindering
progress on the establishment of a community patent. Dismissing entirely the need for
translation is near impossible, but translation is one of the largest costs in the current process.
With these issues in mind, many larger businesses are hesitant to change from the known and
tested current process for a completely untried unified system without major incentive.
Overall, the work of the EU on the EPC and the Community Patent demonstrate some of
the major issues involved in harmonizing the patent system into an international system. Issues
like language and enforcement will be serious issues, but the progress made by the European
Union in harmonizing their patent system may prove to be a good test case for a more
international agreement.
B-30
B.9 - Why is historical preservation necessary on the Moon?
Just as we have preserved terrestrial artifacts that mark great achievements of the
human race, we seek to preserve similar artifacts on the lunar surface. The lunar artifacts
represent major accomplishments in the history of mankind and range from such things as the
first human footsteps on the Moon to the first manned spacecraft to land on the surface. Man‟s
first steps on the Moon have been compared to the technical feat of the ancient pyramids of
Egypt. Given such importance, can such monuments be dismissed just because they are on the
lunar surface and beyond the normal jurisdiction of any regulatory body? Artifacts on the
Moon warrant preservation and such preservation must begin now. The key to historical
preservation is that it must occur preemptively. If we wait until protection becomes an issue, it
may be too late. We cannot preserve something once it is destroyed.
Unlike on Earth, there is a large possibility that some of the steps made by the first
astronauts on the lunar surface are still there. Comparable to the first creature who crawled out
of the ocean onto land, these steps represent a turning point in our destiny as species. It is very
likely that most steps made by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still in pristine condition,
just as they were when they were made. Wouldn't the possibility of seeing such a site in person
be worth the attempt to preserve it? If we are to preserve anything, discussion about this must
begin now. A protection policy must be an item of serious consideration in future space policy.
What is the goal of historical preservation ?
As mentioned before, the objects on the lunar surface represent major accomplishments
in human history. They are tangible evidence of our success and the spirit of exploration in
every human. They represent our past and our future and are inspiring, demonstrating that
humankind has the potential to walk on soils other than those on Earth, and if we have done it
once before, we can do it again. Preserving these objects allows us to archive these major
accomplishments and inspire us to continually reach for the stars.
The point of preservation is to allow these items to be visited and to be seen. There is no
point to preserve these objects if no one will ever have access to see them. In addition, much
science can be done on objects currently on the Moon upon their return to Earth. Through this
kind of archeology, it was discovered that Earth-borne bacteria can survive the harsh space
environment when astronauts of the Apollo 12 mission were able to extract components from
the Surveyor 3 spacecraft that had landed on the Moon more than two years earlier. We could
learn even greater things about the lunar environment from studying the objects that have been
on the Moon for decades. However, this science can only be accomplished if the objects are
preserved.
B-31
Approaches to Preservation
The first step to creating regulations for historical preservation is to define how artifacts
are to be preserved. For the objects on the lunar surface, there are two main actions that can be
taken: leave the items on the Moon and protect them on site or return them to Earth for
preservation.
Leave and Protect
The Apollo 11 lander would be impressive to see in person no matter where it was, but
seeing it at Tranquility base would be awe-inspiring. For this reason, objects that are firsts of
any kind on the Moon should remain on the Moon. Such items include: the first artificial
human made object on the Moon, the first lunar lander, the first footprints, the first lunar rover
and the first US flag. This list is by no means exhaustive, and as man returns to the Moon, this
list may increase. An additional consideration for in situ preservation is the impact on the
commercial space industry. Locations such as Tranquility Base provide the perfect tourist
destinations for future space tourism. Who wouldn‟t want to spend their vacation days on the
Moon visiting the site of the first human steps on another planetary body? Tranquility Base
would lose such appeal if it were the victim of vandalism.
Return to Earth
As with any type of travel, not everyone will be able to afford traveling to the Moon, at
least not initially. However, this should not mean that they will never see an object that has
been on the lunar surface. For many of the items on the Moon, there is no strong argument for
why they should be preserved on the Moon. Many other historical objects should be returned
to the Earth for preservation in terrestrial museums.
The rationale behind this approach is twofold. One is for scientific interests. There is
much we can learn about the lunar surface and the long term effects of the lunar environment
on hardware from the items returned from the Moon. An example of science from returned
items is the Apollo 17 lander, Challenger. Samples were taken from Challenger prior to launch
to allow for pre-launch documentation. These samples were taken with the intention of a later
comparison of the pre-launch samples with returned samples from the lunar surface. This
would allow scientists to better document the toll the lunar environment takes on hardware and
improve past designs. The second rationale is to promote commercial industry. Returning
items from the Moon does not need to be a government run task, private industry could
develop the technology to return items from the Moon. This could be the first stage of
developing the cargo transfer industry between the Moon and Earth.
Steps toward In-Situ Resource Utilization
Once the objects and the locations for lunar preservation are determined, the next step is
to evaluate what infrastructure is necessary to preserve the sites for future visitation. Although
the long term goal is to open the historical sites for visitors, initially the sites should be isolated
B-32
until the best method for preservation has been identified. In some cases, we do not currently
have the technology necessary to assess what is needed
to preserve the sites and will need to wait until that technology can be developed. Additionally,
isolating the site will help to prevent looters; both human and robotic. We do not want a
situation like the Titanic, where those who were the first to find it were able to take whatever
they could find.
However, we wish to stress that the eventual goal is to allow the site to be visited. Thus,
the next step in preservation is to determine some way to preserve the site so that it can be
viewed. If we simply preserve these artifacts in pristine condition without allowing anyone to
see them, they lose their meaning. Though initially we may isolate an object to better assess the
situation, the site must eventually be opened to visitation.
To take Tranquility Base as an example, the first step should be to establish a perimeter
around the lander and the still surviving footprints. The next step will be to assess the current
state of the lander and footprints once we have a way to do so without marring them in any
way. Once the situation has been properly assessed, a way for people to approach the lander
and visit the footprints should be determined. For example, a catwalk or glass dome could be
constructed that would protect that lander and footprints from tourists.
Political Issues involved
As with many things in space, there are political issues involved in historical
preservation. According to the Outer Space Treaty, no nation can own property on the Moon.
Once again using Tranquility Base as an example, the US cannot legally establish a perimeter
around the lander. Thus, a major question in the future of historical preservation is whether or
not historical preservation should be an international enterprise. Only with some claim to the
land will the US be able to preserve objects in-situ on the lunar surface, and this may not be
possible without international agreement. Additionally, a purely domestic policy is not
enforceable. If a foreign company decided to visit the site and destroy the footprints, there
would be nothing the United States could do.
Additionally, the objects on the Moon do not belong to the United States alone. The first
artificial object on the Moon was launched by Russia, and because it is a first, it should be
preserved in-situ. However, the US cannot attempt to preserve Russian spacecraft
without permission, since the vehicle belongs to the government of Russia. Since we wish to
preserve things for the good of humankind, the nation of origin should not affect whether or
not an object is preserved. In order for this to be true, any agreements regarding historical
preservation needs to be international. Any international agreement is difficult to write and
establish. However, a great first step would be a courtesy agreement not to disturb any nation‟s
property currently on the lunar surface. This would provide the time necessary to establish a
broader and more defined agreement.
At the same time, while we should strive for international cooperation, we should also
make sure that we do not neglect our own artifacts in our insistence for international
cooperation. An international policy would be best, but it would be better to have a domestic
B-33
policy than to have nothing. Historical Preservation is an important concern in the future of
space exploration and should not be ignored.
Conclusion
The issues involved in historical preservation are complicated and will be difficult to
solve. With that in mind, it is important to start this process now. Creating regulation will take
time and if we wait until there is a tangible danger to artifacts on the Moon, it will be too late.
By the time any agreement comes into effect, the damage will have been done. We must make
sure that artifacts are protected until they can be preserved before there is once again a presence
on the Moon. One day the site of Tranquility Base will inspire the next generation of space
explorers, and to make that future a definite eventuality, we must start down a path of
international protection now.
B-34
B.10 - Introduction to life support
Introduction
The general plan for the development of space exploration is to build and sustain a
functional inhabited Moon base. In this part we briefly study the main aspects of what is
required to support life on the surface of the Moon. Once these requirements for a Moon base
are met, they will indicate an important first milestone on the road to success: the Moon base
will be ready.
According to NASA‟s study “Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions
Documents” (ALS) by Anthony J. Hanford in 2004, life support can be divided in two general
parts. The first deals with all the life support subsystems which can be separated from the
second part, the external interfaces. The interfaces will link the subsystems together in a
complex way in order to make the base functional.
This study gathers several elements that help understand life support. Reading the ALS
document is highly recommended for further information.
The life support problem can be divided into Support Subsystems on the one hand, and
External Interfaces on the other hand.
Table of the Subsystems
Subsystem
Air
Biomass
Food
Description
The Air Subsystem stores and maintains
the vehicle cabin atmospheric gases,
including
pressure
control,
overall
composition, and trace constituents. The
Air Subsystem is also responsible for fire
detection and suppression and vacuum
services.
The Biomass Subsystem produces, stores,
and provides raw agricultural products to
the Food Subsystem while regenerating air
and water. This subsystem is not present in
a solely physicochemical life support
system.
The Food Subsystem receives harvested
agricultural products from the Biomass
Subsystem, stabilizes them as necessary,
storing raw and stabilized agricultural
products,
food
ingredients,
and
prepackaged food and beverage items. The
Food Subsystem transforms the raw
agricultural products into a ready-to-eat
Life Support System
Interfaces
Biomass, Food, Thermal,
Waste, Water, Crew, EVA
Support,
Human
Accommodations,
In-Situ
Resource
Utilization,
Integrated Control, Power
Air, Food, Thermal, Waste,
Water,
Crew,
In-Situ
Resource
Utilization,
Integrated Control, Power
Air,
Biomass,
Thermal,
Waste, Water, Crew, EVA
Support,
Human
Accommodations, Integrated
Control, Power, Radiation
Protection
B-35
Thermal
Waste
Water
form via food processing and meal
preparation operations. In the absence of
the Biomass Subsystem, this subsystem
operates only on prepackaged, stored
products.
The Thermal Subsystem is responsible for
maintaining cabin temperature and
humidity within appropriate bounds and
for rejecting the collected waste heat to the
Cooling Interface. Note: Equipment to
remove thermal loads from the cabin
atmosphere normally provides sufficient
air circulation.
The Waste Subsystem collects and
conditions waste material from anywhere
in the habitat, including: packaging, human
wastes, inedible biomass, and brines from
other subsystems such as the Water
Subsystem. The Waste Subsystem may
sterilize and store the waste or reclaim life
support commodities, depending on the
life support system closure and/or mission
duration.
The Water Subsystem collects wastewater
from all possible sources, recovers and
transports potable water, and stores and
provides the water at the appropriate
purity for crew consumption and hygiene
as well as external users.
Air, Biomass, Food, Waste,
Water, Crew, Cooling, EVA
Support,
Human
Accommodations, Integrated
Control, Power
Air, Biomass, Food, Thermal,
Water, Crew, EVA Support,
Integrated Control, Human
Accommodations,
Power,
Radiation Protection
Air, Biomass, Food, Thermal,
Waste, Crew, Cooling, EVA
Support,
Human
Accommodations,
In-Situ
Resource
Utilization,
Integrated Control, Power,
Radiation Protection
(92)
B-36
Table of the External Interfaces
(92)
B-37
B.10.1 - Crew characteristics
The metabolic rate is an important factor that characterizes a crewmember, as it will
directly affect his air, food, and water consumption, as well as his heat and waste production.
Table: Metabolic Rate
Gender
Female
Male
Age (years)
Metabolic rate [kJ/CM-d]
18-30
1.6*(61.5*mass + 2.075)
30-60
1.6*(36.40*mass + 3.469
18-30
1.7*(64.02*mass + 2.841)
30-60
1.7*(48.53*mass + 3.678)
(93)
Time allocation for nominal crew
This table shows typically scheduled time in space, and can potentially be used for a
base on the Moon.
(92)
B-38
B.10.2 - Life Support Subsystems Estimations
Air Subsystem
Typical control values of the air system are given in the following table.
Assumptions
Parameter
Units
Lower
Nominal
Upper
Carbon Dioxide Generated
Oxygen Consumed
p(CO2) for Crew
p(CO2) for Plants
p(O2) for Crew
kg/CM-d
kg/CM-d
kPa
kPa
kPa
0.466
0.385
0.031
0.04
18.0
0.998
0.835
0.4
0.12
18.0 - 23.1
2.241
1.852
0.71
23.1
(92)
Total pressure is one of the most important issues. It is generally preferred to use
normal sea-level pressure because that is the condition under which most data is collected and
because people can live satisfactorily for extended periods under these conditions. Others,
however, prefer lower pressures, to reduce the mass of required gas, the mass of the vehicle, etc.
Reduced pressure normally entails increasing the percentage of oxygen relative to other gases
in the cabin atmosphere, which increases the risk of fire.
In the case of a lunar base, the objective is to recycle as much as possible. However, the
only source of oxygen on the Moon would be vegetables used for agriculture purposes, but
given the plants used, recycling will be of little efficiency. Indeed, plants which produce a
maximum of food while minimizing volume, mass and waste will not be green plants, which
are the most photosynthesis-efficient.
Biomass Subsystem
Plants offer the greatest opportunity for self-sufficiency and, possibly, cost reduction for
long-duration missions, but at the same time have some of the greatest unknowns. An attempt
has been made to estimate the mass of a plant growth system on the surface of an
extraterrestrial body such as the Moon or Mars. Two uncertainties that must be dealt with are
the cost of power, and the availability of water locally. The role of the Biomass Subsystem is to
determine what kind of plants, how much and what facilities are necessary to supply the Food
Subsystem with its basic needs.
In addition, fresh food is crucial to crew welfare, and nutritionists generally recommend
deriving food from original sources such as grown plants and/or livestock. Because livestock
production is more expensive even terrestrially, early in-situ food production will likely
concentrate on growing crops. Since shipped fresh foodstuffs from crops are heavier than
dehydrated or low-moisture foods due to the significant mass associated with natural moisture,
plants will probably be grown on an extraterrestrial body.
B-39
In order to develop a plant growth system, a lot of parameters must be taken into
consideration. As it is not the topic of this paper, these parameters are hereunder listed but will
not be detailed. Also, the needs may depend on the type of plants, for each plant requires
different amounts of light and water, a different soil, etc.
Lighting: electrical lighting might provide the necessary lighting
o Number of lamps
o Type of lamps
 Power electrical/light
 Wavelengths
 Mass
o Time of light per day/Photoperiod (24hours? 12 hours?)
Irrigation
o Ballasts
o Mechanization system
Surface needed
o Ground/shelves
o Soil
 Terrestrial soil (mass!)
 Martian/lunar soil
o Growing area dimensions
o Planting density
Plants
o Number of plants
o Type of plants
 Light
 Growth period
Air
o Oxygen
o Carbon dioxide
o Pressure
o Humidity
The basic inputs of the Biomass Subsystem are the type and number of plants. Once this
data is available, all other parameters can be deduced. As a result, to have these parameters,
analyzing food subsystem might help.
B-40
Food Subsystem
Food, though historically omitted from life support analysis, has significant impacts on
closure and the cost of crew support. In particular, food, if grown on-site, can regenerate some
or all of the crew‟s air and water. If more than about 25% of the food, by dry mass, is produced
locally, all the required water can be regenerated by the same process. If approximately 50% or
more of the food, by dry mass, is produced on site, all the required air can be regenerated by the
same process.
The crew food energy requirement will depend on the crew itself, its lean body mass in
particular, and the amount of physical work it performs. Extravehicular activity (EVA), for
example, requires additional food energy compared with crews conducting only intravehicular
activities (IVA) because more physical work is typically associated with an EVA. Unless
specified otherwise, this document assumes an average body mass of 70 kg, and an
intravehicular metabolic requirement of 11.82 MJ per Crew Member per day, which are derived
from NASA data (1991).
The basic role of the Food Subsystem is to fulfill human needs: humans have to be
provided the daily Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) of vitamins and minerals to be
healthy. An adult must eat 2,000 Calories per day. When astronauts travel into space, NASA
scientists determine how much food will be needed for each mission. For example, an astronaut
on the ISS uses about 1.83 pounds (0.83 kilograms) of food per meal. About 0.27 pounds (0.12
kilograms) of this weight is packaging material.
However, space tourists or long-time inhabitants of a lunar base/city may want more
food, of a better quality. That is why the Food Subsystem should take into consideration both
variety and quality, which could have a tremendous impact on crew morale and the success of a
long-duration mission. Also, food storage should be carefully studied: refrigeration equipment
and packaging are serious issues to be discussed.
Several pick-and-eat vegetable crops have been identified for possible growth in transit
on long-duration missions. These crops will provide the crew with added nutrition and variety.
Veggies, unlike prepackaged foods, will add bright colors, crisp textures and fresh aromas to
the crew‟s menu.
B-41
Menu Masses for Diets Using Advanced Life Support Crops and Resupplied Foods
(92)
When the crew arrives at its destination, the lack of fertile soil on the lunar and Martian
surfaces will make growing a garden impossible. Instead, astronauts will build hydroponic
growth labs, where pick-and-eat vegetables, as well as white and sweet potatoes, soybeans,
wheat, rice, peanuts and dried beans, can be grown. The latter crops would require processing
to convert raw goods, such as wheat, into foods like bread and pasta.
To make food processing a reality, specialized equipment will be needed for each crop
grown. The Martian food processing equipment will be much smaller than standardized
equipment and will use minimal water, power and crew time. If harvested crops cannot be
grown, bulk ingredients such as packaged soybeans or wheat berries can be sent with the crew
on the mission to be used later.
Concluding, the whole point of the Food Subsystem consists in providing safe,
nutritious and appetizing food while minimizing volume, mass and waste.
B-42
Thermal Subsystem
Thermal management, in terms of its most direct impact on a spacecraft, maintains
temperatures throughout the vehicle. Or, from another perspective, thermal energy, or heat,
transfers from regions of high temperature to regions of low temperature. The thermal
management hardware regulates when and how thermal energy transfers from regions of high
temperature within the spacecraft to regions of low temperature outside of the spacecraft so
that all components within the spacecraft are maintained between their prescribed temperature
limits.
Thermal management may be subdivided in several ways. One organization classifies
thermal management as either passive or active. Passive thermal management hardware
encourages or inhibits heat transfer as the heat passes directly through the hardware and
eventually to the external environment, radiating from the vehicle‟s entire external surface.
Active thermal management hardware acquires thermal loads near where the loads are
generated and then transports those loads to some other portion of the vehicle before the loads
are discharged to the environment by specifically designed radiating surfaces.
The Thermal Subsystem must ensure that the temperature stays stable inside a vehicle, a
base or a city, and must manage both passive and active thermal hardware using as less energy
as possible.
Waste Subsystem
The Waste Subsystem collects waste materials from life support subsystems and
interfaces. Commonly, wastes are perceived as materials with no further utility. More widely,
wastes might include crew metabolic wastes, food packaging, wasted food, paper, tape, soiled
clothing, brines, inedible biomass, expended hygiene supplies, and equipment replacement
parts from the other subsystems.
Current NASA spacecraft waste-handling approaches essentially rely on dumping and
storage. On Shuttle missions or aboard ISS, most waste is stored and returned to Earth with
little or no processing. Consequently, the volume of wastes can be significant. In future longduration missions, wastes may be disposed directly, or they may be processed.
Here is a list of all the wastes that should be taken into account by the Waste Subsystem.
Each item should be treated in order to minimize the stored mass and volume that cannot get
rid of, and to recycle it as much as possible.
Equipment waste
Experiment waste
Human/metabolic waste
o Hairs
o Finger and toe nails
o Urine
o Feces
o Skin cells
B-43
o Menses
o Mucus and saliva solid
Food Packaging and Adhered Food
Inedible Biomass and Wasted Crop Materials
Laundry: Clothing, Towels and Wash Clothes
Papers and wipes
Medical wastes
Hygiene products
For instance, if it is not easy to treat papers or wipes in a space station, it will become
easy within a lunar base, where appropriate equipment will be available. Similarly, it is difficult
to get rid of feces aboard the shuttle, but they could be easily disposed of in an advanced base,
using them as fertilizers for the agriculture, with little processing.
Water Subsystem
Water may not be the most time-critical life support commodity, but water regeneration
streams are the most massive. Further, water quality is also of great concern with respect to
crew safety. No single technology has proven adequate for water regeneration to date. Instead,
a suite of complementary technologies must be employed. In the past, power use has driven
water regeneration. However, other infrastructure costs are also important.
A human daily drinks a total of 2.7 kg of water. But a human consumes much more
water: they wash themselves, brush their teeth, do laundry, wash their plates, etc. Hopefully,
water can be recycled which enables to survive with an affordable amount of water.
On the space station, people will wash their hands with less than one-tenth the water
that people typically use on Earth. Instead of consuming 50 liters to take a shower, which is
typical on Earth, denizens of the ISS will use less than 4 liters to bathe. However, space tourists
or long-duration inhabitants of the Moon will want some comfort, so an average of 25 liters for
a shower, if environment-friendly showers can be designed.
B-44
Here is a table of human needs in different situations, in kg per Crew Member per day:
(92)
Here is a table of wastewater generation rate, in kg per Crew Member per day:
(92)
One would notice that the water usage rates and wastewater generation rates sometimes
differ, as a quick comparison of both tables confirms. In some cases, either the water usage or
wastewater generation rates are unknown. In other cases, water usage does not correspond to
wastewater generated and sent to the Water Subsystem, varying with the configuration of the
system using the water.
Anyway, this shows that recycling is indispensable. Without a careful recycling 40,000
pounds per year of water from Earth would be required to resupply a minimum of four
crewmembers for the life of the station, or 10,000 pounds per person. By recycling, we can go
down to 2,000 pounds.
B-45
However, humans are not alone to consume water: plants and animals, assuming some
could be present in an advanced base or city, need water as well. It can be assumed that plants
will not be too demanding in water, thanks to GMOs, but they have to be taken into account by
the Water subsystem.
In addition, the Water Subsystem must ensure that the recycled water is safe to drink or
use, by managing its chemical components and their concentration. There is a strong link with
the Food subsystem here, as water contains a lot of minerals and vitamins men require to live.
B-46
B.10.3 - External Interfaces Estimations
Extravehicular Activity Support
This preliminary data is useful to keep mind the major difference of physics on the
Moon:
Mean acceleration due to
1.620
gravity (m/s²)
Fractional
gravity
0.165
compared to Earth Normal
Weight of a 70kg – crew
113 (16.5% of Earth Normal)
member (N)
These differences will induce a large modification of behaviors while operating an EVA.
Description of Lunar operations and requirements
During the transit, it seems very unlikely to plan any EVA, but in case of extreme
emergency. The suits and other interfaces that are necessary for EVA will then be built after onsite EVA requirements. Thanks to a good experience in EVAs in Low Earth Orbit, humans have
learned a lot and can then provide better concepts for space suits.
According to present rules on EVAs, each Sortie requires at least two crewmembers in
the same time. We can reasonably think that it is going to be the same for EVAs on the surface
of the Moon. Traditionally, the EVAs in LEO last 8 hours, and again we think it can perfectly be
applied for activities on the Moon. The next table describes crucial figures about losses and
required Airlock volumes. We are supposing 5 EVAs per week (one each day, except for the
week-end, based on the week on Earth).
B-47
Table: Extravehicular Activity Values
Units
Nominal
Human metabolic rate during EVA
MJ/CM-h
1.06
EVA Crewmember Hours per Week
CM-h/week
80
EVA Sorties per week
Sorties/week
5
Cooling water losses
kg/CM-h
0.19
Oxygen Losses
kg/Cm-h
0.15
Airlock Volume
m3
4.25
(94)
This important table summarizes how the average human body works during an EVA:
Table: Extravehicular Activity Metabolic Loads
(92)
Human Accommodations External Interface
Clothing will require several interfaces associated with life support, even if it rarely is
part of a life support study: for ISS, clothes are always resupplied by cargo. This approach is no
longer available if we think about a sustainable base on the Moon. One has to think about an
appropriate washing/drying system. Its main characteristics will be its mass and the losses in
water vapor it induces.
This table shows a proposal of a new washer/dryer system for space habitats. Authors
have assumed that clothes have a useful life of 40 laundry cycles.
B-48
(95)
In-Situ resource utilization external Interface
Human capability for In-Situ resource utilization (ISRU) is crucial to further exploration
of the solar system. Even if in the case of the Moon, a cargo system can still be imagined, it will
remain extremely expensive and non-efficient. Moreover, the Moon is the only body with which
we can imagine a working cargo exchange system, due to the proximity with the Earth. Sending
crucial resources to Mars via regular cargo supply should not be an option.
This table provides estimation of the required mass per year to compensate the on-site
consumables.
(96)
Abbreviations:
ECLSS = Environmental Control and Life Support System
LSAM = Lunar Surface Access Module
These ISRU technologies will have to be demonstrated through various primary
landings on the surface (robots or humans), and will have to be validated before the permanent
presence on the Moon is decided.
B-49
General Life Support Summary (see next page)
This diagram consists of 14 different subsystems, which can fall into two main
categories: support subsystems and external subsystems. All these subsystems depend on one
another. All those interdependencies enable the general space system to be reliable, sustainable,
and to be able to face (nearly) all kinds of issues.
The General Life Support diagram has been simplified to remain understandable and
clear. Although all the subsystems are necessary to the system, this diagram focuses only on
three major subsystems:
The Crew subsystem, chosen because the main objective of a lunar outpost/base/city is
to enable humans to live
The Biomass subsystem, chosen because of its peculiar links with the other subsystems
The EVA (Extra-Vehicular Activity) subsystem, chosen to illustrate an ordinary mission
outside the lunar base
Also, the Thermal, Cooling, Power and Integrated control subsystems have been grouped
because they interact with nearly all the other subsystems and their role can often be
summarized by "provides energy to", "manages and controls", "keeps the temperature constant".
Therefore, it would be pointless to repeat those roles every time.
Thus, all the interdependencies do not appear in this diagram, but all the details can be
found in the tables located above.
Conclusion
This part of the appendices is a brief description of the basic needs for humans to live on
the Moon, and can easily be extended to Mars. Life support is a concern which has to be dealt
with in the Roadmap, for men will not be able to live on the Moon or in space without their basic
needs being fulfilled.
The next step of the life support capabilities would be to detail thoroughly all the needs of
every subsystem and foremost to study more accurately the interdependencies between the
different subsystems, which have to be studied as a whole, not as independent entities.
B-50
Crew
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Takes care of, manages
Eats
Uses, lives in
Is supplied with energy by, can live thanks to, controls all subsystems thanks to
Collects, uses
Uses and depends on during EVA missions
Is protected from radiations thanks to
Drinks, uses
Produces, recycles thanks to
Breathes thanks to
Biomass
1. Needs, uses
2. Produces
3. Needs, uses
4. Uses
5. Is supplied with energy by, can develop thanks to
6. Produces
EVA Support
1. Provides crew with
2. Manages during EVA missions
3. Provides crew with, manages
B-51
4. Provides crew with
5. Is supplied with energy by, enables crew to have energy during missions, manages
temperature
6. Uses, collects soil/rocks from
B-52
APPENDIX C: PRIZES AND SPACE ACT
AGREEMENTS
C-1
Appendix C
C.1 – Space Act Agreement Background
Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958 gives the Administrator
the following authorization:
“…to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other
transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may
deem appropriate, with any agency or instrumentality of the United States, or with any
State, Territory, or possession, or with any political subdivision thereof, or with any
person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution.
Agreements that can be classified as „other transactions‟ have been traditionally referred
to as a „Space Act Agreements.‟
Types of Agreements
NASA Policy Directive 1050.1H outlines NASA‟s current agreement policy. Space Act
agreements can be divided into three categories: funded, reimbursable and nonreimbursable.
a. Reimbursable – This type of agreement allows for a partner to transfer funds to
NASA as reimbursement for a service NASA has provided. NPD 1050.1H states:
“NASA undertakes Reimbursable Agreements when it has unique goods, services,
and facilities, not being fully utilized to accomplish mission needs, which it can
make available to others on a noninterference basis, consistent with the Agency's
missions.”
b. Nonreimburasable – A nonreimbursable agreement is reached when both NASA and
a partner agree to exchange services for mutual benefit without the exchange of
funds. Both parties bear the cost of their individual participation.
c. Funded – These agreements allow NASA to transfer funds to a partner in order to
accomplish a NASA objective. NPD 1050.1H clearly states that “Funded Agreements
may be used only when the Agency objective cannot be accomplished through the
use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.”
For all agreements, a financial analysis must be performed to ensure that the agreement
is reasonable and fair.
Agreement Specifications
All agreements (with few exceptions) must include the following provisions
(Quoted/Paraphrased from NPD 1050.1H):
C-2
a. Respective responsibilities of NASA and the agreement partner.
b. Responsibilities or performance milestones that are stated with sufficient clarity to
support preparation of cost estimates, sound management planning, and efficient
agreement administration.
c.
Clearly defined financial commitments, including a statement that NASA's
performance of the agreement is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
d. Resource commitments providing that NASA usage of facilities, equipment, and
personnel shall have priority over the usage planned in the Agreement.
e. Allocation of risk between NASA and the agreement partner.
f.
Allocation of intellectual property rights implicated by or created under the
agreement.
g. Termination rights and obligations.
h. A fixed expiration date for the agreement based either on a certain date or upon
completion of the obligations under the agreement, whichever occurs first.
C-3
C.2 - Nonreimbursable COTS Agreements
Nonreimbursable agreements were made with SPACEHAB, PlanetSpace, t/Space,
SpaceDev and Constellation Services International for Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (97). These agreements give NASA the ability to aid these companies in any way that
they see fit without the exchange of funds.
Typical non-reimbursable agreement activities and responsibilities are listed below (98) :
Private Company Responsibilities
Conduct its development program according to the specific identified milestones
Provide NASA with data regarding its progress towards the milestones
Conduct a quarterly meeting with NASA regarding the past quarter‟s milestones,
demonstrating that the success criteria have been met.
NASA Responsibilities
Provide a point of contact for the partner within the Commercial Crew & Cargo
Program Office
Provide a library of relevant NASA data/information including, but not limited to,
projected requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) for cargo transportation
services as well as ISS visiting vehicle requirements
Provide program know-how regarding the ISS visiting vehicle
o
Resources will be provided on an as-available basis by the Commercial Crew &
Cargo Program Office.
Review data provided by agreement partner
Attend quarterly meetings with agreement partner regarding the past quarter‟s
milestones
C-4
C.3 - COTS Agreement Summary
Company
Space Exploration
Technologies (1)
Rocketplane Kistler
(2), (2a)
Orbital Sciences
Corporation (3)
Transformational
Space Corporation
(4)
Agreement Type
Funded
Date of Agreement
August 2006
($278 million)
Funded
(Cancelled)
August 2006 –
September 2007
Funded
February 2008
($170 million)
Nonreimbursable
January 2007
SpaceDev (5)
Nonreimbursable
June 2007
SpaceHab (6), (7)
Nonreimbursable
(Cancelled)
June 2007 – June
2008
PlanetSpace
Incorporated (8)
Nonreimbursable
January 2007
Constellation
Services
International (9)
Nonreimbursable
June 2007
Notes
COTS Round I
Falcon 9 launch
vehicle
Dragon
Spacecraft
COTS Round I
207 million
($32.1 million
spent before
cancellation)
K-1 Launch
vehicle
COTS Round II
Taurus II launch
vehicle
Cygnus
spacecraft
CXV spacecraft
DreamChaser
Spacecraft,
Atlas V
launcher
ARCTUS
spacecraft
Silver Dart
spacecraft
LEO Express
spacecraft
(1) "Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
Demonstration
(COTS)."
NASA.gov.
15
June
2007.
NASA.
C-5
<www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.
pdf>.
(2) – "Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and
Kistler Aerospace Corporation and Rocketplane Limited, Inc. for Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services Demonstration (COTS)." NASA.gov. 15 June 2007. NASA.
<www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/162330main_SPACE_ACT_AGREEMENT_FOR_COTS.
pdf>.
(2a) – "NASA to Open New Competition for Space Transportation Seed Money." NASA.gov. 18
Oct 2007. NASA.
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/oct/HQ_07228_COTS_competition.html>.
(3) "NASA Selects Orbital To Demonstrate New Commercial Cargo Delivery System For The
International Space Station." Orbital Sciences Newsroom. Orbital Sciences Corporation.
<http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=644>.
(4) "About t/Space." Transformational Space Corporation.
<http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.About%5Ft%2FSpace>.
(5) "SpaceDev Advanced Systems." SpaceDev.
<http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php>.
(6) "Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space
Administration and SPACEHAB, INC. for Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities."
NASA.gov. 15 June 2007. NASA. <www1.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/180947main_SAASpacehab.pdf>.
(7) Cowing, Keith. "Spacehab Cancels COTS Space Agreement With NASA." SpaceRef.com. 26
June 2008. <http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1294>.
(8) "NASA Signs Agreement with Planetspace for Development of Commercial Space
Transportation Capabilities." Planetspace. 01 Feb 2007. 5 Aug 2008
<http://www.planetspace.org/pdf/PressRelease020107.pdf>.
(9) "Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and Constellation Services International, Inc. for Commercial Space
Transportation Capabilities ." NASA. 5 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/180945main_SAA-CSI.pdf>.
C-6
C.4 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission – Landing Systems
Introduction
Landing on the Moon is no small feat. Landing at a precise location is even more difficult.
During the days of Apollo, a lander could only land at an accuracy of 1 kilometer, combining a
skillful pilot with the best technology available. Any hope of creating a lunar base will require
a much more accurate landing technology. Additionally, for the progression of science,
landings will need to be accurate to land at more interesting, but also potentially more
dangerous places. Excursions out of the lunar module are dangerous journeys and the shorter
time spent traveling enables the astronauts to perform more engineering duties safely. The sites
selected for landing will not be as safe as the Apollo sites. Thus it is imperative to develop a
technology that can land a cargo ship safely and avoid dangers, but also within a fairly close
distance of a base.
Current Status
In the future lunar missions will most likely need to land at Shackleton Crater, a crater at
the south pole of the Moon. The crater has regions on the rim which are always under light.
One of the problems with these regions is that they are rocky, have dangerous inclines and
smaller areas available for landing than the locations selected for the Apollo program. These
kinds of regions need to be visited by probes in addition to eventual manned missions. Ever
more accurate landings will be required when a lunar base is selected because the lander will
need to land very close to the base.
To accomplish these demanding requirements, NASA has started a program called
ALHAT (Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology). This program is intended
to achieve certain goals to ensure the capability to land at precise locations. The first goal is to
develop an active sensor for measuring topography. The second goal is to develop terrain
analysis algorithms. The requirements for success of this technology is that it should be able to
detect a .3 m high object, 5 degrees of slope, and land in any lighting condition (99).
Additionally, a lander should be able to land within 1000 meters of a target to be accurate for
sorties. This should be done unaided by other devices and maps. Also, the lander should be
able to land within tens of meters of an objective with assets and/or maps in place (99). Such
assets would include landing beacons put in place at the target site. Maps also will be needed
with very high resolution. The resolution that is needed is even higher than that which will be
provided by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).
As a result, ALHAT will also include additional capabilities. ALHAT will use
technology to take high resolution images rapidly while in flight. These will most likely be
made using LIDAR, though what kind has not yet been determined. Scanning LIDAR is not as
good, but it is more developed; the hope is that flash LIDAR will soon be a ready technology.
Scanning LIDAR takes data and requires many readings and transformations to create data that
is legible. Flash LIDAR takes all the data at once but is not yet ready for space uses (99).
Other concerns are that ALHAT needs to be able to handle variable lighting conditions.
During the Apollo missions, landing conditions were very restricted. The sun had to be rising
C-7
within a precise range to be judged safe enough for pilots to see the landscape well enough. For
future missions, the angle of light hitting the surface of Shackleton Crater will be only 1.5
degrees, likely to create long shadows. Additionally, missions to the Moon must not be
restricted to only certain periods of the year (99).
To verify the successes of ALHAT, field tests must be made to ensure the safety of
expensive probes and the safety astronauts. Additionally, high fidelity Monte Carlo
simulations will be done to ensure the quality of the software.
Requirements for Cargo Delivery Landing System
Having reviewed the required capabilities of ALHAT, the following are proposed
requirements for a lunar cargo delivery vessel. These would be subject to rigorous revision and
updates as the requirements for a base on the Moon become clearer.
Land in any lighting conditions, to enable landing conditions at polar and equatorial
locations
Identify and avoid hazards that could be of size great enough to cause problems
landing, but also unloading. There should be a region capable of travel and carrying
cargo surrounding the cargo delivery vessel. The size of this region will be determined
by the cargo and the method of unloading.
Land at slope of about 5 degrees of slope
Land within 10s of meters of required location with maps or assets or onboard sensors
Additional requirements might be imposed due to the structural concerns of a cargo
vessel and also the ability to unload the cargo vessel.
Be tested using Monte Carlo Simulations and Field tests as necessary and possible
C-8
C.5 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission - Automated Rendezvous
and Docking
Rendezvous and docking in space is not a new technology, it has been used since the
early days of the Space Program and it is still a piece of technology that is critical to space
exploration today. Most rendezvous and docking processes up to this point have been
completely manually controlled. The procedure of making the rendezvous and docking process
automated stands against strong opposition because the astronauts will be removed from the
driver‟s seat and replaced by a computer and highly complex algorithm system. However, in
order for man to go back to the Moon and continue to explore the solar system it will be
necessary to develop and use this technology regularly.
While this would not be a requirement for a direct mission to the lunar surface, if
transportation architecture is developed that requires cargo delivery to lunar orbit or orbital
refueling, this requirement becomes pertinent.
Current Docking Systems
Shuttle Capabilities:
The United States Space Shuttle Orbiter uses the Russian developed Androgynous
Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) to dock with the International Space Station (ISS). This
system uses a series of guide petals which latch onto the passive capture ring on the ISS. After
the guide petals have made contact and the vehicles have been joined, a series of twelve active
and passive structural hooks are connected to provide an airtight seal. This design evolved
from an earlier docking system design from the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. For this system, the
crew manually controls the docking by continuously adjusting the position until the Orbiter is
properly aligned within four degrees of pitch, yaw and roll with the ISS (100).
The advantage to this docking mechanism is that it is a highly tested and flight proven
system. The disadvantage to this system is that is prone to human error since the Orbiter is
always pilot controlled and has no automated docking capabilities. A second disadvantage is
that because of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2004 it will be illegal for the US to purchase
any additional parts for the mechanism after 2012 (100). Thus the US must find a new way to
rendezvous and dock their vehicles because they will not be able to use Russian technologies.
Soyuz Capabilities:
The Soyuz‟s docks with the ISS by a probe and cone mechanism that is not
androgynous. The Orbital Module of the Soyuz contains the probe mechanism, while the cone
is mounted on the ISS (100). The Kurs sensor system is used to control the rendezvous and
proximity operations leading up to the actual dock. With this docking system, the Soyuz has
the ability to complete Automated Rendezvous and Docking (ARD) and crew piloted docking
similar to the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The ARD is the preferred method of docking, and with this
C-9
method the crew will only manually control the docking if the “pre-defined docking parameters
are exceeded” (100).
The advantage of this system is that the Soyuz has ARD capabilities that allow human
error to be greatly reduced. With an ARD system and the very powerful Kurs sensors there is
much less risk involved, unlike the docking of the Orbiter. The main disadvantage of the Soyuz
is that the docking system is not androgynous and the mechanical portions of the docking
mechanism must be specific to this system.
Current and Future Developments
Orion Requirements:
The Orion vehicle that is being developed by Lockheed Martin for NASA to ferry man
back to the Moon and on to Mars is required to have ARD capabilities. The Orion vehicle
represents the opportunity to introduce and develop new technology such as relative sensors,
and docking hardware (101).
The Low Impact Docking System (LIDS) that is currently being developed by NASA
Johnson Space Center (JSC) is being used as the baseline for Orion. The LIDS is an androgynous
system with a “closed loop feedback and load sensing electromagnetic capture ring” that is very
similar to the APAS system is used by the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The main difference between
these two systems is that the LIDS allows for ARD unlike the APAS (100).
The main advantage to the LIDS system is that it is androgynous. The disadvantage to
this system is that it is not a flight proven and it is still in the early development phase. A
second disadvantage is that in order to dock with the ISS a LIDS adapter will need to be added
to the station. Despite these disadvantages, the requirements made for Orion demonstrate a
change in the thinking and the technological approach to rendezvous and docking.
Developments by Lockheed Martin:
In addition to developments of systems for the Orion vehicle, Lockheed Martin also
developed two ARD systems under the Human and Robotic Technology (H&RT) program. The
H&RT was created by NASA following the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration
and was used to develop technologies that would be needed for the Vision. Lockheed worked
on these two systems for a year until the program was cancelled and then continued on with
testing and development for multiple years under an Independent Research and Development
effort.
The first system that Lockheed developed is the Multi-functional Common Mating Port
(MCMP). The MCMP is an androgynous docking system that can be used to autonomously
rendezvous and dock two small satellites in orbit. This system allows the satellites to form a
stiff mechanical connection and a few direct electrical connections. This system is best for soft
docking situations like “satellite servicing and structure assembly” (100).
C-10
The second system that Lockheed developed is the Attenuating Docking System (ADS).
The ADS is not an androgynous system, like the MCMP. The ADS allows for docking of larger
vehicles because it has a larger capture envelope and a damping mechanism (100).
Both of these systems are designed for unmanned vehicles and are still undergoing testing and
validation (100).
Orbital Express Program:
The Orbital Express Program (OEP) was a Space technology experimentation and test
mission operated by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) (102). The OEP demonstrated
the ability to autonomously separate and re-mate two spacecraft, as well as transfer propellant,
a spare flight computer and a battery. This program gave the United States its first successful
ARD experience in space with unmanned vehicles (100). This was a giant step in the
technological development of ARD systems, but the technology must be more thoroughly
tested and proven before it can be used on manned spacecraft.
Requirements for Space Act Agreement for Cargo Transportation System Demonstration
Automated rendezvous and docking is a key enabling technology that will be needed to
accomplish future missions planned by NASA and because of this, it is a requirement for this
Space Act Agreement for Cargo Transport (100). Automated rendezvous and docking will help
with on orbit assembly of larger units, crew exchange between vehicles, and the supply of
orbital stations and depots (100). Automated rendezvous and docking is one of the many
critical steps that must be taken to reach a sustainable space exploration program.
In order for a company to complete ARD they will be faced with many technical
challenges that include the refining of sensors, relative and absolute navigation, and ARD
hardware and software. The focus of the ARD requirement should be on the hardware and
software that will need to be developed; because once it is developed it can be adapted to the
vehicles that will be used to accomplish the Vision for Space Exploration.
Potential Requirements
1. Complete ARD with another spacecraft in space.
Automated rendezvous and docking will require a significant change in mindset, but it will
provide large cost savings, risk reduction and the opportunity for many more mission modes
(103).
ARD will be cost effective because a common set of generic docking algorithms can be used by
multiple spacecraft, which will reduce the amount of software that will need to be developed.
Costs will also be reduced because since manned control is no longer a primary part of
rendezvous and docking, astronaut training can be greatly reduced.
C-11
ARD will also prove to be a risk reduction technology because as computers take over, there is
little room for human error. The process will be much more accurate and precise because it will
be controlled by on-board computers and complex algorithms (101).
2. Complete ARD without Ground Systems Communication
The lack of ground communication is a critical requirement because in distant planetary missions
ground communication is not an option because it will take too long for a satellite and spacecraft
to relay data back and forth during the docking process (103).
3. Complete ARD with an androgynous docking mechanism
An androgynous system is much more beneficial to the future exploration of space, because it is
easier and cheaper to design future compatible vehicles. If one autonomous androgynous system
can be developed by the US, than all future US spacecraft can be made to fit that specific system.
C-12
C.6 - Case Study: the Ansari X Prize
Origin of the Prize
The well-known Ansari X Prize created in 1996, was the first prize organized by the X
Prize Foundation which was founded by Peter Diamandis in 1995. Diamandis was inspired by
the Orteig Prize while reading the book The Spirit of St. Louis, and had the ambition to develop
private access to space.
Fundraising
Diamandis had difficulty raising the required funds ($10 million): “I [Diamandis] finally
placed a bet in an insurance policy, negotiating a multi-million dollar policy payment against a
$10 million payout if the flights were successfully made by January 1, 2005. The premium for
the policy was paid by Anousheh Ansari, and her name was given to the Prize” (104).
The Competition
The Ansari X Prize was a $10 million Prize offered to the first team to fly to an altitude of
100km twice in two weeks. The ship was required to have the capability to carry three people
(or one pilot and a 2-people equivalent weight).
Twenty-six teams competed from 7 different countries for the prize and the total global
investment was more than $100 million. The Prize was won on October 4, 2004, after three
successful flights of the SpaceShipOne, designed and built by Burt Rutan, a legendary figure in
aviation. Even after the Prize was over, several teams continued their work and scheduled
several flights for passengers to go into space. Burt Rutan is currently designing a second
spaceship which can carry five passengers, called SpaceShipTwo. Rutan now works with
Richard Branson‟s Virgin Galactic, who is anticipating the emerging market of human space
flight and wants a fleet of carriers to fly people into suborbital space. This operation with Virgin
Galactic certainly makes Burt Rutan‟s company the best suited to launch the suborbital space
market (which is not necessarily the case for all winning teams).
Lessons Learned & Impact
The Ansari X Prize was a revolution in private space flight. The private-companies-withprivate-investment system reached success with much less money than any government-based
initiative could expect.
One big issue was to build an appropriate regulatory system which would allow the
private space flight market to grow in the United States. This regulatory system which was
created shortly before the completion of SpaceShipOne allows private companies to launch their
own experimental vehicles into space. Had the foundations of the systems not been established,
SpaceShipOne would not have been allowed to fly. After the Ansari X Prize, Congress and the
FAA built a more refined regulatory environment and created the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation which provides permits for launch proposals, launch and re-entry proposals as
C-13
well as re-usable suborbital vehicles. This newly designed regulatory system makes United
States the most attractive country to develop private human space flight in the world.
The Ansari X Prize definitely mitigated some doubt about commercial human space
flights. It has been much easier for Peter Diamandis to raise money for the X PRIZE foundation
after the Prize was won, and he earned respect and attention from the space industry. Investors
now know that they can trust the prize model, and a huge amount of prizes were born out of
the Ansari X Prize, in all the fields of science.
The Ansari X Prize was an “alternative financing engine” Peter Diamandis). Like the
Orteig Prize, the Ansari X Prize proved that a prize could generate a total investment from all
the donor‟s funds of a value ten times more than the actual purse. Moreover, the donors‟ funds
used for the purse are effectively used because they are only paid and distributed if there is a
winner.
One major lesson learned from this prize is that they began with a challenging, yet
surmountable problem. Instead of beginning with an orbital flight, which is a much more
complex challenge, a suborbital flight was targeted. A comparison can be made with aviation
challenges, as the prize for the crossing of the English Channel occurred prior to the Orteig
Prize, designed to cross the Atlantic Ocean – these represent two very different levels of
aviation technology maturity.
As Diamandis‟ ambition was to convince the public that commercial spaceflight was
possible, the Ansari X Prize had a very high visibility, which also helped to promote financial
support of the teams (105). The X Prize Foundation kept supporting the competing teams by
telling their stories, in order to reach the publics‟ perception
Concerning media coverage, the weakest aspect of the X Prize, according to Peter
Diamandis himself, was that it was impossible to say where and when the Prize would be won.
The competing teams were from several countries, and advanced at different speeds. It was also
impossible to say whether the challenge could be won or not.
C-14
C.7 - NASA Centennial Challenges
The recent Centennial Challenges program launched by NASA is a stepping stone to
apply the Prize philosophy to the aerospace field. This may be a new era for the use of prizes by
a major U.S. government organization, as NASA is experimenting with the introduction of
prizes to spur technology developments for its own goals.
The Centennial Challenges are founded on basic rules that are relevant to the prize culture.
These six main lessons have been learned over the years from historic prizes and they include:
The simpler, the better
Objectives must be easily understood and should avoid complex rules and complex
verification.
The correct level of difficulty
The balance has to be found between a Prize which would be too easy and one which
would be too hard; a large degree of freedom has to be given to the competitors to let them
choose the right pathway to fit the basic requirements.
Follow-On Opportunities
A prize is more successful when short-term economic opportunities can be found by the
competitors.
Interest & Excitement
The prize has to create interest among potential competitors, investors, and foster public
excitement.
Prize programs cannot stand alone
The purse is rarely enough to achieve the prize itself, it requires private investments
which will almost always exceed the value of the prize.
Properly define the Prize
A prize might be won without fostering the development of the required technology. This
would make the prize a failure, because the main goal is to foster the creation of
something new.
Considering all of these lessons and guidelines, the difficulty is defining a prize that
fosters innovation and is still feasible.
C-15
NASA‟s application of the Prize model lends credibility to the idea that the prize
philosophy can be adapted to the development of space. It is extremely advantageous for
NASA to use the prize model because prizes can provide investment with a high risk of failure
which would otherwise be unacceptable for the government. In addition, the purse is only a
fraction of what it would cost to NASA to actually produce the solution on their own.
These prizes are simple and relevant to the NASA program, and may make NASA goals
more understood by the public.
C-16
C.8 - Prize Development Process
This part of the paper is a reflection on the process of designing a prize competition. It
will provide the interested reader with the main elements that are necessary in such
a process, as well as propose various questions and suggestions of an outline for a potential
paper to build a good prize proposal.
This section was written largely with the assistance and guidance of the X Prize Foundation.
Prize Competition Proposal Outline
1) Introduction
Context
This section explains the general issue and/or context in which the prize will take place. It
can show a major lack in one particular field or the potential of a new market, which can
each be the purpose of the prize.
The Prize as a solution
Introduces the concept of the prize and explains how it will address the current unknown,
develop the potential market, and solve the general issue. The goal of the prize has to be
clearly defined and simple.
Success and Follow-ons
What will be considered successful? What can be the follow-ons of the prize? What further
developments are expected?
2) Benefits
This section has to show what partners, companies and/or organizations this Prize will involve,
as well as show if the Prize will contribute to a specific policy (e.g. : NASA policy), or a country’s
goals and missions. The prize designers must categorize all sectors which can be impacted by the
prize development, and its success.
3) Polling Potential Interest
One of the major works which has to be accomplished in creating a prize is to poll interest among
experts, scientists and investors, to be sure that the project is feasible, well received and
supported. Interviews will also help the prize designers have a better idea of the reasonable prize
requirements, as well as a fair purse amount which will be awarded. The prize-design committee
has to address these three major questions:
Who might compete?
How much might they spend?
When will someone win?
C-17
These questions can be preliminarily answered by comparing and reviewing the information
received by the interviewees.
Polling Methodology
We recommend short interviews of anywhere from 30 min to 1hour based on specific
questionnaires (15-20 questions). Interviewees can be broken into three separate categories:
Mission experts: These people will bring their expertise on the technical aspect and feasibility of
the prize
Potential teams or team partners: This group includes private companies, universities, and
individuals
Potential financiers: This could include potential financers for the teams or for the purse
Two important tasks have to be realized in order for this large survey to occur:
Find potential interviewees in all three of these categories - talk to as many people as
possible in order to compare opinions and raise new ideas
Establish precise questions on the topic- Categorize these questions into three different
questionnaires, one questionnaire for each group of interviewees
Important methodology elements of the questionnaire:
First and foremost, each interviewee should be informed that their responses will be
kept confidential.
The questionnaires should:
Tackle technical, business, and legal issues
Incorporate public outreach questions
Incorporate a few questions for general brainstorming
Collect opinions from the interviewees on several options for the design of the prize
The committee designing the prize and interviewing these three groups of people must
include experts who will be able to analyze this survey, and adapt the answers to the prize
development process.
4) Mission feasibility study
The goal of this part is to determine if the objectives of the prize are feasible in a realistic time
frame. The balance will have to be found between a prize which will be too difficult and a prize
which will be trivial, from a technological point of view. The interviews will help the committee
experts to properly design their prize.
C-18
A good prediction of the state of technology in the years to follow the prize announcement is
necessary here. It is critical to estimate what environment this prize may be developed and solved
in, especially if the completion of the prize requires bridging a large technological gap.
The feasibility study can be supported by preceding prize analyses.
5) Purse distribution – tradeoff of various options
The committee will refine its preliminary study and the projected amount of purse.
This part explains the final calculation for the amount of purse. This section finalizes the prize
amount as compared to the purse amount in the preliminary study which was just an estimate of
the development cost for a sample team. The calculations that are performed may use scale factors
taken from theoretical studies or preceding prizes, or the number may be rebuilt from scratch.
This section is also where additional options are developed, concerning secondary prizes and
bonuses. Tables are well-suited for showing the trade-off, as this part will not be lengthy.
6) How will the Prize engage the public
This portion shows the committee's plans for external communication that will be used to
actively engage the public. It will explain how the prize design committee team will build its own
prize's philosophy, and organize events surrounding the prize competition. Events that can be
organized around the prize include preliminary competitions, technology demonstrations, web
casts, blogs, public shows, and public award ceremonies. This section will also show how the
prize design team plans to involve private industry, students, universities and the government.
A preliminary budget may be suggested here, which can serve as a business plan.
7) Summary
In order to be successful, it is necessary to have the simplest prize possible. This summary is very
important because it simplifies the prize and breaks down the elements of the prize so that it can
be understood by all audiences. We suggest that the Prize be summarized and presented as an IDpage in the following outline:
Name of the prize:
The more direct, the better
Purse size:
Time to achieve prize's objectives:
-An estimation of the time frame that the Prize will be won in
Description:
-This should be split up into tasks of the challenge, and the tasks should be arranged
in order of highest priority first
-Each task description should be no longer than a couple of sentences
Goal of overall prize:
C-19
-What the prize seeks to achieve at its conclusion
Expected participation:
-A listing of potential teams, companies or demographic markets
Judging & Evaluation:
-The judging and evaluation process that will determine a winner
Main issues:
-Explains the main challenges that teams will have to face
Narrative:
-Optional short text including any additional relevant information that did not fit
anywhere else in the ID format
8) Appendix
List of contacts
A list of the people that were interviewed, and were used as references. This list of contacts can be
categorized according to the three sections of Mission Experts, Potential teams, and Potential
financiers.
Questionnaires
A list of all the questions that were asked in the interviews will be identified by their respective
group (Mission Experts, Potential Teams, and Potential Financers).
All data and results
The sorting, review, analysis and conclusion of the interviews is present in this section.
Philosophy of the prize
This is an optional portion of the paper where the philosophy of the prize can be explained.
General interest in prizes
Optional section where various resources are gathered, summarized, and sorted in some way, to
show the general interest in prizes from various parties.
C-20
C.9 - Prize Competition Guidelines
In order to design a successful prize competition, a number of simple guidelines must be
followed. The items listed below are important considerations when designing a prize.
1) Define a goal, not a method for achieving that goal (105)
Competitors must have the freedom to choose how they will solve a given problem. The more
requirements that are defined for a prize the less innovative the solution for the Prize will be. As
witnessed during the Ansari X PRIZE, a plethora of diverse ideas came about; if the problem had
been over constrained, the more innovative concepts such as SpaceShipOne may have never been
allowed to compete.
2) Allow competitors the option to address other markets as they see fit (105)
The goal of prize competitions in the space industry is to seed and foster commercial
development. One of the difficulties that aerospace companies have encountered is the lack of
commercially viable operations in the industry. No commercial opportunities should be blocked
during prize competitions as long as they do not interfere with the primary objectives of the
Prize.
3) Allow participants to keep intellectual property (IP) rights (106)
If the goal of prize competitions is to foster innovation, it is essential that competitors maintain
the rights to the system that they develop. If the prize organization were to demand that the
innovator surrender rights to his or her system "at the extreme such a requirement would likely
discourage potential entrants from participating for fear that if they won, they would lose control
over their innovations." (NSF, 26) If competitors maintain IP rights, there is a greater likelihood
of future profit
4) The goals of the prize should be simple and easily understood (105) (106)
This recommendation exists for multiple reasons. Clear competition goals allow the public to
understand and become invested in the prize competition. In general, prize competitions should
also avoid lengthy periods of testing, judging and verification. For example, in two of the most
successful and well-known prizes in human history, the Ansari X PRIZE and the Orteig Prize, it
was immediately apparent when the objectives had been met.
5) Resulting innovation has the potential to lead to future commercial opportunities (105)
It is essential that any prize competition lead to future commercial opportunities. One benefit of
a prize competition is that the competitors often invest more money into developing their system
than the prize itself is worth. It is the promise of future profit that makes this method financially
plausible. If prizes were conducted in areas where no future opportunities exist, there would be
no reason to invest beyond the size of the purse.
C-21
6) Goal should be lofty, yet achievable - should accelerate development in field (106)
It is essential that a rigorous feasibility study be undertaken in order to determine if a prize
concept is technically and economically feasible. This is not to say however that the goals of the
prize are to be trivial; they should represent what is on the edge of technical feasibility.
Competitions should aim to accomplish a goal that would otherwise not occur during the
duration of the prize. Goals for prize competitions should be placed at the edge of the current
state of the art technology.
C-22
C.10 - Sample Prize Development Process
This section will provide an example of a prize development process. The following is a
concept that calls for a prize for performing environmental characterization of the lunar surface.
While this mission may prove to be unfeasible due to the inclusion of permanently-shadowed
craters, our hope is that the general type of prize competition could be adapted to more
accessible locations.
Context
On January 14, 2004 President George W. Bush announced his New Vision for the Space
Exploration Program, and he challenged the United States to get man back on the lunar surface
by 2020. In order for man to get back to the Moon, NASA and the private industry will be
forced to complete lunar characterization missions in order to determine where the best landing
sites, habitable regions and available resources exist. Currently there is a lot of information
available about the lunar surface, but little is known about the lunar craters, specifically those
that lie in permanent shadows at the poles. There are international missions (LRO, LCROSS,
Chandrayaan I, Luna-Glob) that are being planned to explore these polar lunar craters.
However, these missions will only conduct imaging and will seek to find if water ice exists in
the craters' depths.
The Lunar Prize that we are creating will go beyond these future missions and will
conduct a complete characterization of a permanently shadowed crater, which has never been
done before by anyone in the space community.
Prize as a Solution
We think a good way to gain this crucial information is to create a new Prize to
complement the current missions planned by the various space agencies. The goal will be to
provide key measurements and information about the environment in permanently shadowed
craters. Such a competition is well-suited to involve universities and other research entities, as
well as develop interest among the international scientific community. Moreover, a prize
competition can create a global scientific competition centered on lunar issues, which will be
advantageous for the return to the Moon. This is opportunity for independent organizations to
be involved in the international effort for the exploration of the solar system. The instruments
used to process the characterizations may be secondary payloads on other robotics/manned
lunar missions, and may thus provide another source of cash-flow for these missions.
Success and Follow-ons
If successful, not only would this prize provide valuable data on the environment in
permanently-shadowed lunar craters, but it would verify a new prize model. This new model
would provide smaller purses for data that could be used as a secondary funding source for
commercial lunar missions. If this prize were successful, similar scientific prizes could be
planned. These prizes are not necessarily the primary mission of a spacecraft, but instead
C-23
provide an additional opportunity for private companies to make a return on their investment.
In the future, it is hoped that when these companies design a business model around landing a
spacecraft on the surface of the Moon, that they can choose a few appropriate prizes and receive
compensation for the data they collect. Potential future prize competitions include temperature,
radiation and micrometeorite characterization. In addition, simple technology demonstrations
prize could also be of use, such as dust mitigation or drilling cores in the lunar regolith.
Polling Interest
This section contains a list of questions aimed toward mission experts, potential
competitors and financiers. If the prize was designed further this section would contain the
results of the polling.
Mission Experts
1) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most necessary, how would you rank the
necessity of the currently selected characterization plan?
a. Is this prize timely?
2) What aspects of the lunar environment need to be further characterized in order to
support a sustained human or robotic presence on the Moon?
a. What are the applications of this information?
3) What data is necessary to make this characterization successful?
a. What mission profile will allow for this data to be collected?
4) Are these instruments appropriate as a secondary payload?
5) What do you see as prize parameters and specifications? Why?
6) How long do you think it would take for this challenge to be won?
7) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most feasible, how would you rank the
feasibility of this prize competition? Why?
a. What do you feel is the biggest technical challenge related to this prize?
8) How would the support of NASA affect the likelihood of success?
a. What kind of support would you like to see NASA provide?
9) What do you think is an appropriate purse size?
10) How can universities be involved in the prize competition?
a. What is the benefit?
11) Who are potential parties interested in funding this prize?
12) How do you monitor teams‟ progress?
a. What would you define as key milestones?
i. What type of notification should be given for these milestones?
13) How much money is this data worth? To NASA? To industry?
Potential Teams
1) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most necessary, how would you rank the
necessity of the currently selected characterization plan?
a. Is this prize timely?
2) What aspects of the lunar environment need to be further characterized in order to
support a sustained human or robotic presence on the Moon?
C-24
a. What are the applications of this information?
3) What do you see as prize parameters and specifications? Why?
4) How long do you think it would take for this challenge to be won?
5) How much money do you think it would take to successfully complete this project?
a. What do you think is an appropriate purse size?
6) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most feasible, how would you rank the
feasibility of this prize competition? Why?
a. What do you feel is the biggest technical challenge related to this prize?
b. Explain mission profile recommended by experts: How does this affect the
feasibility?
7) How would the support of NASA affect the likelihood of success?
a. What kind of support would you like to see NASA provide?
8) Would you support university involvement in the prize competition?
a. What are the benefits and disadvantages?
9) How would you like to interact with the administrator of the prize?
a. How often would you like to provide progress reports?
10) Would you be open to certain public outreach activities such as keeping a regular blog
of progress updates?
11) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most interested, how would you rank your
interest in this prize? Why?
a. What can make this prize more attractive?
Financiers
1. What would you hope to gain in supporting a prize competition?
2. Do you feel supporting a prize of this magnitude is a worthwhile investment?
a. If not, what would make this investment worthwhile?
3. What do you feel are the risks and rewards of financially supporting a prize or a
competitor?
4. How much money do you feel is a reasonable purse for this prize?
5. Do you feel that this prize will generate economic activity in the aerospace industry?
a. Will this potential cash-flow encourage commercialization of the Moon?
6. What would make financiers interested in supporting this prize competition?
a. Would you be interested in supporting this prize competition in anyway,
financially or otherwise?
b. Would you be interested in supporting a competitor in anyway, financially or
otherwise?
7. Would you support foreign participation in this prize competition?
8. What proportion of teams‟ funds should be from private investors?
Mission Feasibility Study
Radiation Environment
For interplanetary missions, such as manned missions back to the Moon, it will be
necessary to know more about the radiation that the astronauts will encounter. Radiation in
space is a huge problem because sudden solar storms and flares could cause the astronauts to
C-25
become extremely sick, or perhaps even die (107). During the Apollo Program, the longest
missions were only a little over week, with the astronauts spending only a couple of days on the
lunar surface. Going back to the Moon now with President Bush‟s vision will require much
longer stays of weeks and months on the lunar surface. As humanity pushes forward, NASA
and the international space community must be prepared to deal with this question of lengthy
exposure to and protection from space radiation.
Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) have not had to deal as much with
the effects of space radiation because the station is situated in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and it is
still protected somewhat by the Earth‟s magnetic field (108) (109). Journeying to the Moon
though will raise serious radiation issues as the astronauts are forced to travel outside Earth‟s
protective field. A trip to the Moon has actually been considered by some to be more dangerous
than a journey to Mars because once the astronauts arrive at the lunar surface, the Moon has no
atmosphere and thus no natural shielding to protect them (108).
The two main types of radiation that the astronauts will have to face in interplanetary
missions are solar particle events and galactic cosmic rays (GCR) (110). Solar particle events are
unpredictable events in which particles from the Sun are shot into space following solar flares
(111). This form of radiation is not unidirectional and will cause the need for shielding in all
directions (110). Solar particle events will be dangerous on the Moon because the Moon lacks a
strong magnetic field that is “capable of deflecting flare particles” (109). The second form of
radiation, GCRs occur more often than solar particle events and are more hazardous but they
are easier to predict. GCRs are made up of heavy, high energy ions of elements that have had
all their electrons stripped from them as they travel through the galaxy at velocities near the
speed of light. These rays are hazardous because they can virtually pass through matter
(spacecraft, spacesuits and astronauts) without hindrance (111).
There may be regions on the lunar surface where there is less radiation present and
where it may be more beneficial to setup lunar habitats and bases. One such region of lesser
radiation might be in the depth of a permanently shadowed lunar crater. It has been shown
that on the Moon‟s surface because of the lunar shadow, radiation is reduced by a factor of two
(112). Based off of this information, it is logical to conclude that in a permanently shadowed
crater the space radiation should be further reduced and provide a natural form of radiation
protection to the astronauts. Being situated in a crater may also help to mitigate some of the
radiation because the lunar regolith can be used to absorb and stop most protons from a solar
particle event or GCRs. This in-situ resource can help reduce the radiation to more manageable
levels (113). However, being in a crater could also provide added radiation danger because of
the chance of secondary deflection of rays and particles off of the crater walls.
Before deciding where it is best to settle and construct habitats on the Moon, lunar
craters need to be explored. It is critical that we send a rover or lander down into one of the
permanently shadowed craters to see what radiation conditions exist, because these craters may
not be as susceptible to space radiation. Lunar craters have not been heavily explored yet and
because of their geography and unique conditions, yet they may be the best option for
protection from space radiation for extended stays on the lunar surface.
C-26
Water Detection
The search for water is something of enormous importance to any future long-term
operations on the Moon. Current launch costs for one kilogram of water to go to the Moon are
about $2,000-$20,000 (114). Additionally, to make matters worse, water is a relatively dense and
heavy molecule.
Water will have enormous potential in the future on a Moon base for a large variety of
uses. Most obviously, water will be needed for drinking, cleaning, and cooking. Water is
something that man cannot live without. Water can also be used for things like growing plants
on the Moon. The growth of plants in space would be very beneficial towards maintaining a
healthy atmosphere at the lunar base. Plants are a source of fresh food, which would definitely
be a welcomed change to the common freeze dried food that is sent into space with the
astronauts.
Water can also be broken down by electricity into molecules. From it molecular
structure, water can be further separated into hydrogen and oxygen atoms which in turn have
their own unique uses. The oxygen most obviously can be used as breathable air, as well as for
rocket fuel. Hydrogen can also be used as rocket fuel. If ships could be refueled on the Moon
or be refueled in space with resources from the Moon, launching things into orbit and beyond
would become significantly cheaper.
So now the question of is there water on the Moon becomes key for future missions,
because water sustains life. A follow up question that must be asked if water is found is will
there enough water for it to be of practical use? Astronomers believe that if water is on the
Moon it will most likely to be found in the permanently shadowed craters. This is hypothesized
because since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the sun causes the lit side of the Moon to be
very hot, quickly evaporating any water that is on the surface. This means that any water
exposed to sunlight would boil off the surface of the Moon and leave the Moon since the gravity
is so weak. Thus it is believed that water could really exist only in the permanently shadowed
craters at the poles.
There are several things that back this theory up. In 1996, the Clementine spacecraft
used a special kind of radar to study the surface of the Moon. The results of this instrument
came back with a strong possibility of very large deposits of water in the north and south poles.
Later the Lunar Prospector in 1998 detected large amounts of hydrogen using Neutron
Spectrometer at the poles. It is believed that these hydrogen atoms are contained in water
molecules.
Another cause for hope is that very recently, NASA scientists discovered that there were
very small particles of water inside some of the lunar rocks retrieved during the Apollo
missions. So there is at the least definite proof that water exists on the Moon, whether it is in
quantities that are helpful for men has yet to be determined (115).
C-27
Electrostatic Environment
The electrostatic environment of the Moon is something that is not yet fully understood
by NASA scientists. This data is of vital importance to understand for future missions. Lunar
dust has been widely thought to be one of the most pressing concerns for future missions. The
Apollo astronauts quickly recognized the problems that lunar dust could pose in the future
when they were on the lunar surface. The lunar dust is very fine and charged so that it sticks to
the suits of the astronaut, to the point of almost making them unusable. The dust could also
pose a problem inside of the spacecraft, because it is impossible to get all of the dust off of the
spacesuits. In addition, the dust may prove to be toxic if inhaled, causing significant respiratory
symptoms. NASA is furiously working on technology to mitigate the effects of the dust and
minimize its effects on future operations on the Moon. An important part of these studies is to
understand what causes the dust to be electrostatically charged.
It is currently believed that the dust becomes charged due to solar wind. The sun
releases charged particles and most of these are stopped from entering Earth by the Earth‟s
magnetosphere. The Moon though has no magnetosphere, and thus is not protected from these
charged particles which bombard the surface. The sunlit side of the Moon becomes positively
charged, while the dark side of the Moon becomes negatively charged. An interesting question
is to know what the permanently dark craters are like and how they interact with the
permanently lit regions. Do they have a charge difference? There is a charge difference
between the dark side of the Moon and the light side of the Moon of hundreds of volts. If there
is indeed a similarly large voltage difference at the line between the permanently dark regions
and the permanently lit regions of the crater, this could make things much more complicated for
anyone or anything traveling between the two regions.
Another concern is the line between the light and the dark sides of the Moon. There are
theories that there could be dust storms at this line. This could be of particular concern if a base
was built near Shackleton Crater at the southern pole. Dust particles could be electrostatically
repulsed from the surface of the Moon and literally float. Complex interactions with the
magnetotail and the particles inside it could create dust storms and create severe problems for
astronauts and probes. It is important that the dust environment be characterized in a
meaningful way.
C-28
C.11 - List of Select Aerospace Prizes
America’s Space Prize
Sponsors: Bigelow Aerospace
Status: America‟s Space Prize was established by Bigelow Aerospace in 2004.
Rules:
The rules were made to encourage the development of an orbital vehicle that could dock
with Bigelow Aerospace‟s inflatable station modules by an American company. The prize
offered was $50 million. The vehicle needed to perform two orbital flights carrying 5 people
within 60 days of each other by 2010 (116).
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
Since 2004, it has largely disappeared from radar. To further encourage the
development of an orbital vehicle, in 2007 Bigelow promised a $760 million contract to an
orbital vehicle that could provide transportation to its station modules (117). In early 2008, it
was announced that Bigelow was in discussions with Lockheed Martin to man-rate its Atlas V
rockets and to develop a vehicle that could go to its modules (118).) In hindsight, it appears that
Bigelow was a little ambitious with setting the date for completion of the prize.
Participants:
Several teams were speculated to compete, including InterOrbitalSystems (119), JP
Aerospace (120), and SpaceDev (121). SpaceX was disqualified because it accepted government
funding (122).
Apophis Mission Design Competition
Sponsors: The Planetary Society
Status: This competition has been won in 2008 by a team led by SpaceWork Engineering, Inc. of
Atlanta (Georgia).
Rules:
Teams must design a mission to rendezvous with a potentially dangerous asteroid, and
tag it, allowing scientists on Earth to track it. The required accuracy should allow scientists to
know whether or not the asteroid will impact the Earth. Apophis was used as the near-Earth
asteroid in the competition. In 2029, it will come closer to Earth than the satellites in
geostationary orbit.
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
C-29
This allows private companies as well as universities to be involved in the design of
complex missions, fostering their interest in space. Teams were from 20 different countries,
which demonstrates that prizes can span several engineering cultures while focusing on a
common issue.
Participants::
Foresight (SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc., SpaceDev Inc.), United States
A-Track (Deimos Space, EADS Astrium, University of Stuttgart, University of Pisa), Europe
Apex (EADS Astrium Ltd.), United Kingdom
Many student teams were also participating :
Pharos (Georgia Institute of technology), United States
Oracle (Monash University, Clayton Campus), Australia
RA (University of Michigan), United States
Centennial Challenge – Lunar Lander Challenge
Sponsors: Northrop Grumman
Status: The challenge has not been won last year (Armadillo Aerospace missed the goals by 7
seconds). In 2008 the competition takes places on October 24th.
Rules:
The teams must build a rocket-powered vehicle with vertical take-off and landing
capabilities, and that travels horizontally. During the competition the vehicle will have to takeoff, move to another spot, land, then take-off again and land back at the original take-off point.
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
Successful completion of the prize will force private companies to acquire key
technologies for the future vehicles on the Moon. Thus these vehicles and technologies may
interest NASA for its missions, as well as other companies that have commercial interest on the
Moon. It is a necessary step on which will rely many commercial activities related to the
colonization of the Moon.
Participants:
Armadillo Aerospace
BonNova
Phoenicia
Paragon
TrueZer0
Unreasonable Rocket
All of these teams are US-based.
C-30
Centennial Challenges - 2008 Power Beaming (Climber Competition)
Sponsors: The challenge is administered by The Spaceward Foundation and funded by NASA‟s
Centennial Challenges program.
Status: The competition for this event takes place in late September at a location to be
determined. This prize was announced in 2005 and has been offered yearly since.
Rules:
The climber cannot be more than 50 kg while carrying a maximum amount of payload.
They will be scored by taking into account the climber‟s weight, payload weight, and speed of
ascent. The overall prize is called Elevator2010 to facilitate the development of technology
necessary for a space elevator by 2010. For this prize, a climber vehicle will climb a 1 km tether
with a payload. The climber is powered via solar cells which are powered by a laser on the
ground. The foundation has $2 million to distribute in prizes for accomplishing these goals. If a
vehicle climbs 2m/s, then it could win $900,000. If a climber climbs at 5m/s, then it can win
$1,100,000. Other teams that climb will follow a formula that will calculate the amount of prize
money that they win.
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
A space elevator would hopefully dramatically decrease the launch costs to a point of an
eventual $100/kg, a huge drop in price from modern rockets which can run over $24,000 for the
Ariane V (123) .
Participants:
Many of the teams that are competing for this prize consist of universities and other small
businesses.
Centennial Challenges - 2008 Tether Strength Competition
Sponsor: The challenge is administered by The Spaceward Foundation and funded by NASA‟s
Centennial Challenges program.
Status: The competition for this event takes place in September 2008. This prize was first
announced in 2005 and has been offered every year since then (124).
Rules:
The tether can weigh only 2 grams, it must be at least 2 meters long, and less than 200
mm wide. To win the purse of $1 million provided by NASA‟s Centennial Challenges and
administered also by The Spaceward Foundation, a tether must beat a house tether and perform
better than a certain competition specified requirement. The prize is then distributed among the
competing teams in amounts determined by using a specific formula. The rules are still being
formulated to some extent.
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
C-31
One of the requirements for a space elevator also is to create a tether that is light enough
but also strong enough to fulfill the rigorous requirements needed for such a venture.
Nanotubes are believed to be the most possible material that can allow for these requirements.
Participants:
Many of the teams that are competing for this prize consist of universities and other
small businesses.
Centennial Challenges - Astronaut Glove
Sponsors: NASA sponsors the prize and it is managed by Volanz Aerospace, Inc.
Status: In 2007 Peter Homer won the prize of $200,000 for his glove design (125).
According the NASA website another purse of $400,000 is planned for Spring 2009, but no
details could be located.
Rules :
The purpose of this challenge is to develop glove joint technology, which will result in a
highly dexterous and flexible glove that can be used by astronauts over long periods without
the fear of wear and tear or leaks. A competitive glove must meet a series of minimum
performance requirements before it can be entered into the competition. In the competition the
glove must then go through a series of tests, such as the Joint Force Test, the Structural Pressure
Test, Dexterity and Flexibility Test, and a Burst Test. The glove that has the highest scores,
which are above the Baseline Glove (“The bladder-restraint portion of the Glove currently
certified for use by NASA on the International Space Station, the Phase VI EVA Glove (126)(2)”)
will win the prize of $200,000. (2)
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
This challenge has contributed greatly to the commercialization of space, because the
winner Peter Homer developed his own private company to produce spacesuit gloves. Today
his company has a contract to make gloves for another company that is producing spacesuits for
the private suborbital spaceflight industry. This is just one example of how a Centennial
Challenge not only led to the development of a very useful technology but also a new private
company.
Participants:
The likely participants are small US companies or single engineers. The competition is
open to teams and individuals. The competitions is also open to foreign participants, but the
team leader must be a US citizen and the organization must be either based in the US or have
offices in the US.
Centennial Challenges - Lunar Regolith Excavation
Sponsors: NASA sponsors the prize and the California Space Education & Workforce Institute
manages the prize (127). The challenge is co-hosted by California Space Authority (CSA) and
the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo College of Engineering (128). The
C-32
event is sponsored by Diani Building Corporation, Empirical Systems Aerospace, and the
California Business Transportation and Housing Agency (128).
Status:
This is an ongoing prize that teams compete every year for. In the 2007 competition no
one won the purse, so there will be another round of competition on August 2-3, 2008.
Rules:
The teams must use a fully autonomous system to excavate the most lunar regolith
simulant in 30 minutes from a square sandbox. The system used must not exceed 150 Watts,
averaged over the time of the attempt. The excavation hardware that the teams use must also
not exceed 70kg. Those teams that complete the challenge successfully and excavate the most
regolith are eligible to receive First, Second or Third Prize of $500,000, $150,000.00 and $100,000
respectively in US dollars (129).
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
This prize tackles the problem of construction techniques on the Moon. If this prize
results in a new way to move the regolith without a lot of power and heavy machinery, private
companies can use this technique to help construct their own products on the Moon. Also, this
may help some private companies who are looking into the possibility processing and using the
natural resources of the Moon, because excavating is the first crucial step in this process.
Participants:
There will be at least 20 team returning from the 2007 competition who will try again for
the purse this year in 2008. Most of the teams are made up of university students (125).
N-Prize
Sponsors:
A
private
organization
called
the
N-Prize
Group
Status: The challenge is ongoing and the rules went into effect on May 6, 2008. The contest will
end on 19:19:09 (GMT) on the 19th September 2011, and it may be continued
if no one has won the prize.
Rules:
“The N-Prize is a challenge to launch an impossibly small satellite into orbit on a
ludicrously small budget, for a pitifully small cash prize.” The N-Prize challenges participants
to put a satellite with a mass of between 9.99 and 19.99 grams into orbit around Earth. The
participants must prove that the satellite has completed at least 9 orbits, and the cost of launch,
not including ground facilities must be less than £999.99. The first team to do this will receive a
cash prize of £9, 999.99 (130).
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
C-33
This competition is very helpful to commercial development because it tackles one of the
biggest problems in the space industry: high launch costs. This prize is directed at finding and
developing a launch technique that will be extremely in expensive. If launch costs are
dramatically reduced, that will be one barrier of entry to the commercialization of space that
will be brought down.
Participants:
Team Nebula, United Kingdom
Team Epsilon Vee, United States
Team Vulcan, South Africa
Team ASATA, Australia
Team Generation Space, United States
Team Odyssey, United States
V-Prize
Name of Prize: V-Prize
Status: The V-Prize is a prize currently under development. There are current hurdles to
overcome before this prize is even feasible, including international treaties and regulatory
issues.
Rules:
The prize is for a commercial vehicle that can fly from the US to Europe within one hour.
The craft will launch from Virginia (thus the V-Prize) and land in a country yet to be
determined. The expiration date on the prize is July 1, 2013, coinciding with the expiration date
of the Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act of Virginia, a law which releases the company
from liability for passenger injury. This expiration date could be subject to change, especially if
it is planned that the law will be extended. The prize value will be from $10-25 million (131).
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
This prize would encourage the development of quick trans-Atlantic travel and ensure
that Virginia and its spaceport would have a presence in the future of the space industry.
1 - de Brem, Paul. "The V-Prize: one hour to Europe." The Space Review 27 Aug 2007 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.thespacereview.com/article/940/1>.
Centennial Challenge - MoonROx Challenge
Sponsors: Prize sponsored by NASA Centennial Challenges Program, administrated by
California Space Education and Workforce Institute
Status: Ongoing
C-34
Rules:
A $1 million dollar purse will be awarded to the first team that can demonstrate the
ability to extract 2.5kg of breathable oxygen from lunar regolith simulant in four hours. The
prize expires in July 2009. The equipment cannot weigh more than 50 kilograms, power cannot
exceed 10 kW and the system must be reusable (131).
How does this contribute to commercial development of space?
“The production of oxygen from materials on the Moon has been a subject of great
interest to NASA for many years. Most scenarios for human activity on the Moon involve the
use of its natural resources. There is a large amount of oxygen on the Moon, but it is bound up
in compounds and extracting it may require large amounts of power and large, massive
machinery. This challenge seeks novel approaches to oxygen production with systems that are
small, lightweight and require small amounts of power. Advancements in this field would
enable much more capable human establishments on the Moon and eventually at other
destinations in the solar system” (132).
Participants: University teams and the private sector have expressed interest but no teams have
registered as of January 2008 (133).
C-35
C.12 – Current Characterization Plans
Type of
Mission
Launch Date
Scientific Objectives
China (CNSA)
Three-dimensional image mapping of lunar geological
structures
-Detailed images of the lunar pole regions
Chang'e 1 (In
conjunction with
1,21
ESA)
Orbiter
24-Oct-07
Analyze the existence and distribution of 14 chemical
elements on the Moon
Measure the depth of the lunar soil
To explore the cislunar space environment, specifically the
space weather
Duplicate of Chang'e 1
Chang'e 22,3,22
Orbiter
2009
Further Chang'e 1 Mission Objectives
Investigate possible landing sites for the future lander and
rover
Objectives are unclear and are currently being planned
Future Planned
Rover22,23
Lander,
Rover
2012
Transmit video footage
Analyze soil samples and complete in-situ testing in
preparation for the 2017 sample return mission
Future Planned
Sample Return
Mission23
Lander,
Rover,
Return
Vehicle
2017
Land and return to the Earth with lunar soil and rock
samples for scientific research
Japan (JAXA)
Study the Origin of the Moon and its geological evolution
Selenological and
Engineering
Explorer- SELENE
(Kaguya)4,5,6
Orbiter
14-Sep-07
Global survey of the Moon
-Obtaining data on elemental abundance
-Mineralogical composition
-Topography
-Geology
-Gravity
-Lunar and solar-terrestrial plasma environments
Develop critical technologies for future lunar exploration
-Lunar polar orbit injection
-Three-axis attitude stabilization
-Thermal control
-Radio Science and Communication
C-36
7
LUNAR-A
8
SELENE 2
Orbiter,
Penetrator
Orbiter,
Lander,
Rover
Penetrator
CancelledPossibly
Contracted for
Luna-Glob
Mid 2010's
Study internal structure, composition and origin of the Moon
through the following methods:
-Observe Moonquakes and heat flow by inserting
penetrators
-Observe the lunar surface by imagery.
Investigate and determine whether or not the Moon has a
core
Testing and validation of technologies for sample & return
missions from the Moon
-In-situ
analysis and returned sample analysis
-Integrated landing system
-Navigation system for pin-point landing &
autonomous obstacle avoidance
Power generation system for an extended period of
time
-Surface
mobility to support material sampling, analysis and
instrumentation
Investigate the origin of the Moon
European Space
Agency (ESA)
Comprehensive inventory of key chemical elements on the
lunar surface
Investigation of the theory that the Moon was created by a
violent collision of a smaller planet with Earth
Small Missions for
Advanced Research
and Technology 1
(SMART 1)9
Test a solar-powered ion thruster propulsion system
Orbiter
27-Sep-03
Test the use of miniaturized instruments, which are
considered to be more efficient
Search for frozen water at the Moon's south pole where the
surface is never exposed to sunlight
Map the lunar surface by way of X-ray and infrared imaging,
taking images from several different angles so that it can
produce a 3D map
United States of
America (NASA)
Provide Global Lunar data, such as:
-Day and night temperature maps
-Global geodetic grid
-High resolution color imaging
-The Moon's UV albedo
Lunar
Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO)10
Orbiter
No earlier than
November 24,
2008
Characterize the lunar radiation environment and the
potential impacts
Collect orbital thermal mapping data
-Surface and subsurface temperatures
Identify cold traps and ice deposits and, as well as landing
hazards (rough terrain)
C-37
Search for surface ice and frost in the polar regions
Generate high resolution maps of the hydrogen distribution
Collect Space and lunar radiation environment
measurements
Measure landing site slopes, lunar surface roughness, and
generate a high resolution 3D map of the Moon
Provide images of permanently shadowed regions by using
ultraviolet imaging
Identify the Moon's permanently lit and shadowed areas by
analyzing lunar surface elevations
Collect high resolution black and white images of the lunar
surface
-Images of the lunar poles with resolutions down to
1m
Image the lunar surface in color and ultraviolet
Lunar Crater
Observation and
Sensing Satellite
(LCROSS)11
Impactor
No earlier than
November 24,
2008, on board
LRO
Gravity Recovery and
Interior Laboratory
(GRAIL)12
Orbiter
2011
Analysis and characterization of the impact plume from
Centaur Upper Stage striking a permanently shadowed
region near the south pole of the Moon
-Looking for water, hydrocarbons and hydrated
materials
Measure the gravity field in extreme detail
The gravity field information will be used to X-ray the Moon
to reveal the Moon's subsurface structures and thermal
history
Characterize the atmosphere and the lunar dust
environment
Determine the global density, composition, and time
variability of the lunar atmosphere
Lunar Atmosphere
and Dust
Environment Explorer
13
(LADEE)
Orbiter
2011
Test a new spacecraft design called the "Modular Common
Bus"
-Flexible, low cost, rapid turn around spacecraft
Determine if the Apollo astronaut sightings of diffuse
emission at 10s of km above the surface were Na glow or
dust
Collect critical data on dust impactor environment
India (ISRO)
C-38
High-resolution remote sensing of the Moon in visible, near
infrared(NIR), low energy X-rays and high-energy X-ray
regions
Create a 3D atlas (with spatial and altitude resolution of 510m) of both near and far side of the Moon
Chandrayaan I14
Orbiter
19-Sep-08
Conduct mapping of the lunar surface for the following
elements in the permanently shadowed north and south pole
regions:
-Magnesium
(Resolution of about 25km)
-Aluminum
-Silicon
-Calcium
-Iron
-Titanium
-Radon
(Resolution of about 20km)
-Uranium
-Thorium
Search for surface or sub-surface water-ice on the Moon,
specially at lunar poles
Observation of X-ray spectrum greater than 10 keV and
stereographic coverage of most of the Moon's surface with
5m resolution, to provide new insights in understanding the
Moon's origin and evolution
Chandrayaan II (Joint
mission with the
Russia)15
Russia
(Roscosmos)
Luna-Glob16
Orbiter,
Rover
Orbiter,
Lander,
Penetrator
2011-2012
In situ chemical analysis and resource exploration of the
lunar surface
Explore the south pole craters for water ice that may exist in
the permanently shadowed regions
2012
Conduct seismic experiments through the use of the 13
penetrators that will be scattered around the lunar surface
-Helps further the investigation of the Moon's origin
United Kingdom
(BNSC)
Moon Lightweight
Interior and Telecoms
Experiment
(MoonLITE)17,18
MoonRaker
17,19
Use of penetrating seismometers to investigate the lunar
interior to analyze Moonquakes and heat flows
Orbiter,
Penetrator
Lander
2012
2013
Determine the chemical and physical structure of the Moon’s
interior from the data from the seismometers
Demonstration of high data rate telecoms at the Moon
In-situ geological dating of basalts at the northern Oceanus
Procellarum
Germany (DLR)
C-39
Map the Moon geomorphologically, geochemically and
geophysically with resolutions down to less than 1m
Global imaging coverage of the lunar surface
-Stereo resolutions of less than 1 m
-Spatial resolutionof the spectral bands of less than
10 m
Lunarer
Erkundungsorbiter engl.: Lunar
Exploration Orbiter
(LEO)20
Global Mapping of the ultraviolet (0.2 – 0.4 μm) and midinfrared (7 - 14 μm) wavelengths, that have so far been
uncovered
Orbiter
2012
Global coverage and subsurface detection of the regolith
with vertical resolutions of about 3 m down to a few ten
meters
-Investigates the regolith’s structure on a millimeter
scale for the first 2 m
Detailed measuring of the lunar gravity field and magnetic
field from a low orbit
-Enables geophysical investigation of the lunar far
side.
Monitoring of new impacts with the use of a flash detection
camera
REFERENCES
1. Opgenoorth, H. ―Chang'e-1 - new mission to Moon lifts off.‖ ESA News. 24 Oct 2007. 09 July
2008 <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMPM53Z28F_index_0.html>.
2. Staff Writers Beijing (XNA), (2008, February 26). ―China To Launch Chang'e-2 Lunar Probe
Around 2009.‖ Space Daily. 26 Feb 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_To_Launch_Change_2_Lunar_Probe_Aroun
d_2009_999.html>.
3. ―Chinese Lunar Exploration Program.‖ Wikipedia. 2008. 09 July 2008
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang'e_program>.
4. ―KAGUYA (SELENE).‖ Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. 2007. 10 July 2008
<http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm>.
5. Okumura, H., Matsui, K., Sobue, S., Takizawa, Y. and SELENE Project. ―Overview of
SELENE(KAGUYA) and HDTV Movie show.‖ NASA- LCROSS Workshop at ARC. 29
Feb 2008. 10 July 2008
<http://quest.nasa.gov/lunar/lcross/docs/astrWorkshop/JAXA_SELENE_for%20LCROS
S_080229.ppt>.
C-40
6. Fang, L. ―Kaguya(SELENE) - JAXA Lunar Obiter Mission (Japan, 2007).‖ CCTV.com. 10
Oct 2007. 10 July 2008
<http://www.cctv.com/english/special/Change1/20071020/101944.shtml>.
7. ―LUNAR-A.‖ JAXA- Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. 2008. 10 July 2008.
<http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/lunar-a/>.
8. Hashimoto, T. ―Robotic Lunar Exploration Scenario- JAXA Plan.‖ European Space Agency.
May 2006. 08 July 2008
<http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/spineto/2006/splinter_sessions/splinter4/1_JAXA.pdf>
.
9. ―SMART-1 Fact Sheet.‖ European Space Agency. 26 Feb 2007. 07 July 2008
<http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMSDE1A6BD_0.html>.
10. ―Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2008. 08
July 2008 <http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission.html>.
11. Day, B. ―LCROSS- Mission.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Sep 2006. 09
July 2008 <http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/mission.htm>.
12. Hautaluoma, Grey. ―Solar System Exploration: News & Events.‖ National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. 11 Dec 2007. 10 July 2008
<http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?news_id=24695>.
13. Williams, G. ―NASA Science- Missions- LADEE.‖ National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. 02 Apr 2008. 11 July 2008 <http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions/ladee>.
14. ISRO. ―Chandrayaan-1 Objectives.‖ Indian Space Research Organization. 16 Jan 2007. 09
July 2008 <http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/objective_scientific.htm>.
15. Staff Writers New Delhi (PTI), ―China India And Russia Begin Talks On Chandrayaan-II.‖
Space Daily. 19 Dec 2007. 08 July 2008.
<http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/India_And_Russia_Begin_Talks_On_Chandrayaan_
II_999.html>.
16. Covault, C. ―Russia Plans Ambitious Robotic Lunar Mission.‖ Aviation Week. 04 June 2006.
11 July 2008
<http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/a
w060506p2.xml>.
17. Maddock, J. ―Europe forges long-term strategy for Space Exploration.‖ Physics and
Astronomy Research Council. 10 Jan 2007. 11 July 2008
<http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/prSpace.asp>.
C-41
18. ―NASA may support UK in ground-breaking MoonLITE mission.‖ Gizmag. 20 Feb 2008. 12
July 2008 <http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-us-uk-Moonlite-mission/8836/>.
19. Davies, P. & et. al. "UK LUNAR SCIENCE MISSIONS." IEEE Xplore. 2008. 12 July 2008
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4283955/4283956/04284097.pdf>.
20. Jaumann, R, & et. al. ―Lunar Exploration Orbiter (LEO).‖ Geophysical Research Abstracts,
EGU General Assembly 2008. 2008. 12 July 2008
<http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/03809/EGU2008-A-03809.pdf?PHPSESSID>.
21. Enjie, L. ―Payloads of Chang‘e-1--China‘s Lunar Exploration Program.‖ China National
Space Administration. 08 Mar 2007. 09 July 2008
<http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n772514/n772543/93746.html>.
22. CRI. ―China to launch Chang'e-1 duplicate in 2009.‖ CHINA.ORG.CN. 2 Dec 2007. 9 July
2008 <http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/234091.htm>.
23. Guodong, D. ―China to launch Chang'e-2 lunar probe around 2009.‖ China View. 22 Feb
2008. 9 July 2008 <http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/200802/22/content_7647480.htm>.
C-42
Sources
Billings, Linda. "How Shall we Live in Space? Culture, Law and Ethics in Spacefaring Society."
Space Policy 22.4 (2006): 249-55.
Christol, Carl Q. "International Outer Space Law." Space Policy 3.1 (1987): 65-71.
Danilenko, Gennady M. "International Law-Making for Outer Space." Space Policy 5.4 (1989):
321-9.
―Intellectual Property and Space Activities.‖ International Bureau of WIPO 2004.
Kempf, Robert F. "Legal Ramifications of Intellectual Property." Government Information
Quarterly 7.2: 197.
Landenberger, Janene L. "Protection of Intellectual Property in Space." Booz, Allen, & Hamilton
Matte, N. M. "Legal Implications of the Exploration & Uses of the Moon & Other Celestial
Bodies." Acta Astronautica 30 (1993): 423-42.
Reynolds, Glenn H. "Legislative Comment: The Patents in Space Act." Forum on Space Law
3.Spring Issue (1990).
Von der Dunk, Frans G. "The Role of Law with Respect to Future Space Activities." Space
Policy 12.1 (1996): 5-8.
Williams, Vernon E. ―Intellectual Property Rights at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Lewis Research Center.‖ NASA Technical Memorandum 106731., 1994.
Williamson, Mark. "Lunar Exploration and development—A Sustainable Model." Acta
Astronautica 57.2-8 (2005): 161-6.
―A Renewed Spirit of Discovery.‖ The White House: President George W. Bush. 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html>.
―ESMD Commercial Development Policy (ECDP)‖. NASA: Exploration and Science Mission
Directorate. 3 Aug 2008
<http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/ESMD+Commercial+Development+Policy+(ECDP)>.
―NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1.‖ NASA. 3 Aug 2008
<http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7500&s=1>.
Noichim, Chukeat. ―The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space of the EU and
Thailand.‖ Thailand Lawyers Attoneys & Legal Services. 3 Aug 2008
<http://asialaw.tripod.com/articles/ipspacenoichim.html>.
―US National Space Policy.‖ Office of Space Commercialization. 3 Aug 2008
<http://ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Unclassified%20National%20Space%20Policy%20-%20FINAL.pdf>.
―Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies‖.
Office for Outer Space Affairs. 2006. United Nations. 05 July 2008
<http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/moon.html>.
―The Antarctic Treaty‖. Office of Polar Programs. 26 Jan 2007. National Science
Foundation. 05 July 2008
<http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp>.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Unites States Department of State.
05 July 2008
<http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm#treaty>.
―United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea‖. The United Nations Law of the Sea
Treaty Information Center. 2007. United Nations. 05 July 2008
<http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm.
The World Factbook. 19 June 2008. Central Intelligence Agency. 05 July 2008
< https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html#Intro>.
Dinerman, Taylor. "ITAR's Failure." The Space Review. 17 Mar. 2008. 21 July 2008
<http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1086/1>.
Finarelli, Margaret, and Joseph Alexander. Space Science and the Internatinoal Traffic in Arms
Regulations: Summary of a Workshop. Rep.No. Space Studies Board, National Research
Council. Washington DC: National Academies P, 2008.
Kennedy, Jack. "ITAR Has Hamstrung the American Space Industry." Spaceports. 12 June 2006.
21 July 2008
<http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2006/06/itar-has-hamstrung-american-space.html>.
Livingston, David, prod. "Interview with Ann Ganzer, Director of the Office of Defense Trade
Controls Policy." The Space Show. 12 Feb. 2006.
"Official ITAR and Ammendments." US State Department - Policy - Directorate of Defense
Trade Controls. 2 Apr. 2008. 3 July 2008
<http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/official_itar_and_amendments.htm>.
Taylor, Alan, ed. Defense Industrial Base Assessment: US Space Industry. Rep.No. Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. Dayton, 2007.
R. Lee, Hunt and Hunt Lawyers, "Property and Mining Rights for Lunar Mining Operations in
the Absence of International Consensus on the Moon Agreement" 54th International
Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy
of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, Bremen IAC-03-IAA.10.2.02 (Sep.
29-3, 2003): 1-11.
Wasser, Alan and Jobes, Douglas. "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law:
Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive?" Journal of Air Law
and Commerce 73.1 (2008): 38-78.
"National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended)." NASA History Division. 18 Feb
2004. 5 Aug 2008 <http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html>.
"NPD 1050.1H." NASA Online Directives Information System. 29 Nov 2006. NASA.
<http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=1050&s=1H>.
Epp, Dr. Chirold D., and Thomas B. Smith. "The Autonomous Precision Landing and Hazard
Detection and Avoidance Technology (ALHAT)." NASA. 2006. 5 Aug 2008
<http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060050771_2006253122.pdf>.
Fehse, Wigbert. "Automated Docking and Rendezvous of Spacecraft." Cambridge University.
2003. 6 Aug 2008
<http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/4923/sample/0521824923ws.pdf>.
K. Davidian. ―Prizes, Prizes‘ Culture, and NASA‘s Centennial Challenges,‖ NASA
Headquarters.
Krohmal, Benjamin. "Prominent Innovation Prizes And Reward Programs." Knowledge Ecology
International . 01 Mar 2007. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29>.
Pidwirny, Michael. "Solar radiation." The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation>.
Barry, Patrick L.. "Prospecting for Lunar Water." Science @ NASA, 6 Aug 2008
<http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/28apr_lro.htm>.
Dalton, Brad. "Water on the Moon?." SPACE.com, 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.space.com/searchforlife/080605-seti-moon-water.html>.
Philips, Dr. Tony. " The Moon and the Magnetotail." Science @ NASA. 09 Jun 2005. NASA. 6
Aug 2008 <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/17apr_magnetotail.htm>.
"X PRIZE Foundation Announces Ten Teams Vying for Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander
Challenge." SpaceRef.com. 05 Aug 2008. X Prize Foundation. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26135>.
"2008 Power Beaming (Climber) Competition." The Spaceward Foundation. 2008. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010-pb>.
Braukus , Michael and Metzada Shelef. "NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges' Prizes."
NASA News. 23 Mar 2005. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083_Centennial_prizes.html>.
Raitt, Dr. David and Dr Bradley Edwards. "THE SPACE ELEVATOR: ECONOMICS AND
APPLICATIONS." International Astronautical Congress. 2004. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/iac-2004/iac-04-iaa.3.8.3.09.raitt.pdf>.
"2008 Tether Strength Competition." The Spaceward Foundation. 2008. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010-ts>.
―European Patent Office‖ European Patent Office. Jul 2008
<www.epo.org>
Krohmal, Benjamin. "Prominent Innovation Prizes And Reward Programs." Knowledge Ecology
International . 01 Mar 2007. 6 Aug 2008
<http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29>.
Taylor, Lawrence A. and W. David Carrier III. "Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which
Processes Are Best and Why?." AIAA Journal Dec 1992 03 Aug 2008.
H. Benaroya, "Doing Business on the Moon." 55th International Astronautical Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the
International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4-8, 2004
M. B. Duke, R. J. Gustafson, E. E. Rice, "Mining of Lunar Polar Ice." Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, 36th, Reno, NY, January 12-15 1998
Schmitt, Harrison. "Mining the Moon." Popular Mechanics October 2004 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1283056.html>.
S.D. Ross, "Near-Earth Asteroid Mining." Control and Dynamical Systems, California Institute
of Technology MC 107-81, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA, 2001, p. 1-24
H. Benaroya, "Doing Business on the Moon." 55th International Astronautical Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the
International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4-8, 2004
"Columbus Leaves Europe, Heads for America." NASA. 23 May 2006. 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/Columbus_module.html>.
"Kibo Japanese Experiment Module." NASA. 23 Nov 2007. 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/jem.html>.
US Government Accountability Office, "NASA‘S DEEP SPACE NETWORK: Current
Management Structure Is Not Conducive to Effectively Matching Resources with Future
Requirements." US Government Accountability Office. Apr 2006. 4 Aug 2008
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06445.pdf>.
Mudgway, Douglas J.. "Uplink-Downlink, A History of the Deep Space Network 1957-1997."
NASA. 2001. 4 Aug 2008 <http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4227/Uplink-Downlink.pdf>.
Benaroya, Haym, Leonhard Bernold, and Koon Meng Chua. "Engineering, Design and
Construction of Lunar Bases." Journal of Aerospace Engineering April 2002 .
D.A. Comstock, D. L. (D.A. Comstock, D. Lockney, ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and
Prospects for Future Benefits‖, AIAA ConfeSeptember 18-20 2007 ). ―NASA‘s legacy of
Technology and Prospects for Future Benefits‖. AIAA Conference and Exposition , AIAA20076283.
"Innovative Partnerships Program." NASA. 10 July 2008. 5 Aug 2008
<http://www.ip.nasa.gov/partnership_devel.htm>.
―Blue Origin Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=jrxyfskty>.
―Xcor Aerospace.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rxkjksxrr>.
―Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=yjrfsyhss>.
―The Boeing Company.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfttrffsthjxrs>.
―Lockheed Martin Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfsfyxycshrjsr>.
―Northrop Grumman Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtmlID=rrfsyfrjcyhhhs>.
―European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company EADS N.V.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B
Company <http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfrtfxyxfkxkjhh>.
Taylor, Lawrence A. and W. David Carrier III. "Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which Processes
Are Best and Why?." AIAA Journal Dec 1992 03 Aug 2008.
H. Benaroya, "Doing Business on the Moon." 55th International Astronautical Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the
International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4-8, 2004
M. B. Duke, R. J. Gustafson, E. E. Rice, "Mining of Lunar Polar Ice." Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, 36th, Reno, NY, January 12-15 1998
Schmitt, Harrison. "Mining the Moon." Popular Mechanics October 2004 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1283056.html>.
S.D. Ross, "Near-Earth Asteroid Mining." Control and Dynamical Systems, California Institute of
Technology MC 107-81, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA, 2001, p. 1-24
H. Benaroya, "Doing Business on the Moon." 55th International Astronautical Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the
International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4-8, 2004
"Columbus Leaves Europe, Heads for America." NASA. 23 May 2006. 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/Columbus_module.html>.
"Kibo Japanese Experiment Module." NASA. 23 Nov 2007. 3 Aug 2008
<http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/jem.html>.
US Government Accountability Office, "NASA‘S DEEP SPACE NETWORK: Current Management
Structure Is Not Conducive to Effectively Matching Resources with Future Requirements." US
Government Accountability Office. Apr 2006. 4 Aug 2008
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06445.pdf>.
Mudgway, Douglas J.. "Uplink-Downlink, A History of the Deep Space Network 1957-1997." NASA.
2001. 4 Aug 2008 <http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4227/Uplink-Downlink.pdf>.
Benaroya, Haym, Leonhard Bernold, and Koon Meng Chua. "Engineering, Design and Construction of
Lunar Bases." Journal of Aerospace Engineering April 2002 .
D.A. Comstock, D. L. (D.A. Comstock, D. Lockney, ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects for
Future Benefits‖, AIAA ConfeSeptember 18-20 2007 ). ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects
for Future Benefits‖. AIAA Conference and Exposition , AIAA2007-6283.
"Innovative Partnerships Program." NASA. 10 July 2008. 5 Aug 2008
http://www.ip.nasa.gov/partnership_devel.htm>.
―Blue Origin Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=jrxyfskty>.
―Xcor Aerospace.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rxkjksxrr>.
―Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/basic/factsheet.xhtml?ID=yjrfsyhss>.
―The Boeing Company.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfttrffsthjxrs>.
―Lockheed Martin Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfsfyxycshrjsr>.
―Northrop Grumman Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtmlID=rrfsyfrjcyhhhs>.
―European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company EADS N.V.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B
Company
<http://premium.hoovers.com/subscribe/co/factsheet.xhtml?ID=rfrtfxyxfkxkjhh>.
Citations
1. 2008.06.16 Presentations Give to NASA Goddard Academy: Commercial Space PPT.
Davidian, Ken. s.l. : <http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/ECDP-Presentations/2008.06.16 3Commercial Space.ppt>, 2008.
2. The Space Report 2008: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. s.l. : The Space
Foundation, 2008. p. <http://www.thespacereport.org>.
3. US Spaceports. s.l. : FAA, 07 July 2008. p.
<http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/industry/media/spaceports.gif>.
4. Olsen, Stephanie. Q&A: Space entrepreneur shoots for the moon | CNET News.com. 1 Oct
2007. pp. <http://news.cnet.com/QA-Space-entrepreneur-shoots-for-the-moon/2009-11397_36210751.html?tag=st.nl>.
5. The Coming Space Industry Revolution and its Potential Global Impact. Collins, P. 2, Journal
of Space Technology and Science, Vol. 6, pp. 21-33.
6. President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration. The White House: President
George W. Bush. [Online] January 2004, 2004.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/new/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html.
7. 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. NASA. [Online] 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142302main_2006_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf.
8. Lloyd, Robin. CNN - NASA has aged -- but has it grown up? - July 13, 1999. CNN.com.
[Online] July 13, 1999.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/apollo/stories/nasa.then.and.now/index.html.
9. Human Space Flight (HSF) - Apollo History. NASA. [Online] 2002.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apollo.
10. FY 2007 Budget Request Summary. NASA. [Online] 2007.
http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/142459main_FY07_summary.pdf.
11. Ansari X PRIZE | X PRIZE Foundataion. [Online] http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize>..
12. Space Angels Network: About Us. Space Angels Network. [Online]
http://www.spaceangelsnetwork.com/aboutus.php.
13. Space Angels Network: Entrepreneurs. Space Angels Network. [Online]
http://www.spaceangelsnetwork.com/entrepreneurs.php.
14. Virgin Galactic News - GEORGE WHITESIDES AS SENIOR ADVISOR. Virgin Galactic.
[Online] June 21, 2007. http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php.
15. Koop, Matthew. 1900-1920 History. Aviation Resources Center. [Online] 1998.
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/4294/history/1900_1920.html#earlycompanies.
16. Jennings, Peter and Brewster, Todd. The Century. New York : Doubleday, 1998. 0-38548327-9.
17. NASA: Exploration and Science Mission Directorate. ESMD Commercial Development
Policy (ECDP). Commercial Space Wiki. [Online]
http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/ESMD+Commercial+Development+Policy+(ECDP).
18. Goddard HHT Shows Promise for Radio Frequency Communications. NASA - Goddard
Space Flight Center. [Online] September 27, 2007. http://techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov/SSbcg.html.
19. Dunbar, Brian. Dryden News-From Concept to Capability. NASA. [Online] July 24, 2005.
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/news/XPress/stories/2005/20051130_aerovations_frmConcept2Capability.html.
20. Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Sciences Technology Transfers.
Hertzfield, H. 4, December 2002, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 27, pp. 311-320.
21. Sierra County Voters Approve Spaceport Tax. Spaceport America. [Online] July 2008.
http://www.spaceportamerica.com/news/press-releases/18-spaceport-press-articles/110-sierracounty-voters-app-tax.html.
22. New Mexico Commercial Spaceport Economic Impact Study. Futron Corporation. [Online]
December 30, 2005.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/reports/NewMexicoReport_lowres.pdf.
23. Space Rocket Launch Sites Around the World. Space Today Online. [Online] 2004.
http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/LaunchSites.html.
24. Dickey, Beth. NASA Partners with Orbital Sciences for Space Transport Services. NASA.
[Online] February 19, 2008.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08058_COTS_Selection.html.
25. Space Act Agreement between National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Space
Exploration Technologies Corp for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration.
NASA. [Online] May 30, 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf.
26. Commercial Transportation & Lunar Surface Mining. Houston : s.n., October 1-5, 2007,
Enabling Exploration: The Lunar Outpost and Beyond.
27. O'Neill, Ian. Building a Moon Base: Part 4- Infrastructure and Transportation. Universe
Today. [Online] March 22, 2008. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/22/building-a-base-onthe-moon-part-4-infrastructure-and-transportation/.
28. Ruess, Florian. Habitats for Extreme Environments. [Online] 2008. http://www.hesquared.com/.
29. Taylor, Larry. Return to the Moon: This Time to Stay. s.l. : Tennessee Space Grant
Consortium, 2006.
30. Taylor, Lawrence A., et al. The Lunar Dust Problem: From Liability to Asset. AIAA.
[Online] February 01, 2005.
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSEC05_1205/PV2005_2510.pdf.
31. NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Incorporation and Development Plans. Sanders,
Jerry and Larson, Bill. October 02, 2007, Presentation at Lunar Exploration Analysis
Workshop.
32. About the Deep Space Network. NASA- Jet Propulsion Laboratory. [Online] December 08,
2005. http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/about.html.
33. Developing Architectures and Technologies for an Evolvable NASA Space Communication
Infrastructure. Bassin, Kul and Hayden, Jeffery. July 2004.
34. Stadter, P. A. A Scalable Small-spacecraft Navigation and Communication Infrastructure
for Lunar Operations. IEEExplore. [Online] [Cited: August 4, 2008.]
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10432/33126/01559349.pdf.
35. Carney, Matthew D. and al., et. AEGIS: A Navigation and Communications Infrastructure
for the Moon and Mars. Lunar and Planetary Institute. [Online] 2005.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/rascal/forum2005/presentations/utah_2_paper.pdf.
36. The Space Review: Opening wallets, closing windows. The Space Review: Essays and
Commentary about the Final Frontier. [Online] April 30, 2007.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/860/1.
37. The Business of Commercializing Space. Livingston, DM. s.l. : Presented to Mars Society,
August 13, 1998.
38. Foust, Jeff. The Space Review: Lawyers, insurance, and money: the business challenges of
NewSpace. The Space Review: Essays and Commentary about the Final . [Online] March 26,
2007.
39. Boston Harbor Angels: Who We Are. Boston Harbor Angels. [Online]
http://www.bostonharborangels.com/.
40. Space-based solar power as an opportunity for strategic security. s.l. : National Space
Security Office, October 10, 2007. Tech. Rep. Release 0.1.
41. Novel space-based solar power technologies and architectures for earth and beyond.
Howell, JT, et al. 2005, International Astronautical Federation - 56th International Astronautical
Congress, pp. 4083-4092.
42. The history of power transmission by radio waves. Brown, W.C. 1984, IEEE Trans.
Microwave Theory Tech, Vols. MTT-32, pp. 1230-42.
43. Biotechnology Industry Facts. Bio. [Online] 2008.
http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp.
44. Iannotta, Becky. Spacehab Eyes Biomedical Research Opportunites Aboard ISS. Space
News. [Online] June 23, 2008. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080623-busmonspacehab-biomed.html.
45. SPACEHAB FINALIZES AGREEMENT WITH NASA FOR USE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION. SPACEHAP. [Online] May 30, 2008.
http://www.spacehab.com/news/2008/08_05_30_1.htm.
46. Peterson, Patrick. Worms may yield salmonella vaccine. FloridaToday.com. [Online] July
12, 2008.
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/NEWS02/807120332/1006/
NEWS01.
47. Space Florida Spacehab Release. SPACEHAB. [Online] May 30, 2008.
http://www.spacehab.com/news/2008/Space%20Florida%20Spacehab%20Release%205-3008.pdf.
48. Disease Listing: Salmonellosis General Information. Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. [Online] May 21, 2008.
http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/salmonellosis_gi.html.
49. H.R.5245 An Act. [Online] October 8, 2004.
http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Bills%20Signed%20into%20Law--11-2004.pdf.
50. Mahone, Bruce L. Prepared Testimony of Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Space Policy
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. before the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. [Online] June 10, 1999.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/astwg/barriers99.pdf.
51. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. Meeting Minutes. [Online]
October 18, 2001.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/18oct01.htm.
52. Futron Corporation. Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 19902000. [Online] September 6, 2002.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf.
53. NASA Office of the General Counicl. [Online] November 4, 1994.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/15usc5802.html. United States Code, 15 U.S.C
5802.
54. NASA FAR Supplement. [Online] November 1, 2004.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1812.doc.
55. NASA Office of the General Council. [Online] November 4, 1994.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/15usc5806.html. United States Code, 15 U.S.C
5806.
56. Protection of Intellectual Property in Space. Landenberger, Janene L. Booz, Allen, &
Hamilton.
57. Noichim, Chukeat. The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space of the EU
and Thailand. Thailand Lawyers Attoneys & Legal Services. [Online]
http://asialaw.tripod.com/articles/ipspacenoichim.html.
58. Legal Ramifications of Intellectual Property. Kempf, Robert F. 197, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 7.2.
59. NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1. NASA. [Online]
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7500&s=1.
60. Intellectual Property Rights at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis
Research Center. Williams, Vernon E. 1994, NASA Technical Memorandum 106731.
61. Legistlative Comment: The Patents in Space Act. Reynolds, Glenn H. 1990, Forum on Space
Law, Vol. 3.
62. "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could A Lunar Settlement
Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs To Survive? Wassner, Alan and Douglas, Jobes. 1, 2008,
Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 73.
63. The Economic Benefits of Space Tourism to Europe. Collins, P. 2006, Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society, Vol. 59, pp. 400-411.
64. Landis, Geoffrey A. Lunar Production of Solar Cells. The Artemis Project, Private
Enterprise on the Moon. [Online] 2004. http://www.asi.org/adb/02/08/solar-cell-production.html.
65. Prospects of Commercial Activities on a Lunar Base. Benaroya, H. 2, 2001, Solar System
Development Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-19.
66. Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which Processes Are Best and Why? Taylor, Lawrence
A. and Carrier III, W David. December 03, 1992, AIAA Journal.
67. Design and Construction for Self-sufficiency in a Lunar Colony. Jarvstrat, Niklas and
Cengiz, Toklu. 2004 : s.n., ASEM 2004.
68. Woodcock, Gordon R. Economic Prospects for Lunar Industries. AIAA. [Online]
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1995/PV1995_4066.pdf>..
69. Lunar Ball Games and Other Sports. Tera, Fouad and Wasserburg, G.J. Lunar and
Planetary Institute.
70. The Space Report 2006. The Space Report. [Online]
http://www.thespacereport.org/executive_summary.pdf.
71. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - SpaceX. SpaceX. [Online]
http://www.spacex.com.
72. Scaled Composites, LLC. Scaled Composites. [Online] http://www.scaled.com.
73. Bigelow Aerospace: Commercial Spacecraft and Complexes. [Online]
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/.
74. Armadillo Aerospace - Home. Armadillo Aerospace. [Online]
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home.
75. XCOR Aerospace. XCOR Aerospace. [Online] http://www.xcor.com.
76. Arianespace. Arianespace. [Online] http://www.arianespace.com/site/index.html.
77. Innovative Partnerships Program. NASA. [Online] http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov.
78. NASA Budget. Wikipedia. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget.
79. X Prize Cup | X Prize Foundation. X Prize. [Online] http://space.xprize.org/x-prize-cup.
80. SPACE.com -- Bigelow Orbital Modules: Accelerated Space Plans. Space.com. [Online]
November 22, 2006.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/061122_bigelow_sundancer.html.
81. SPACE.com -- Bigelow Aerospace Aims for an International Market. Space.com. [Online]
April 10, 2007. http://www.space.com/news/070410_nss_bigelow.html.
82. Grafik. Space Adventures: Orbital Spaceflight. Space Adventures. [Online]
http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=orbital.welcome.
83. History of Airmail at the Post Office. About.com. [Online] 1997.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmailus3.htm.
84. Our Story: The X Prize Heritage. Diamandis, Peter. s.l. : The X-Prize Foundation, 2004.
85. Ibrahim, Abdul. The Technology Transfer Spin-Out Process. NASA. [Online] April 11,
2005. http://ipp.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources-ttprocess4.html.
86. ILC Dover History. ILC Dover. [Online]
http://www.ilcdover.com/company/images/ILC_Dover_History.pdf.
87. Spacesuits. NASA. [Online] http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf.
88. Transportation Economics. Encyclopedia Britanica. [Online] Encyclopedia Britanica Online,
2008. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603153/transportation-economics.
89. Roads and Highways. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online] Encyclopedia Britannica Online,
2008. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/505109/road.
90. The Economic Impact of the Interstate Highway System. Interstate 50th. [Online]
http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2.pdf.
91. Good Technology, Bad Management: A Case Study of the Satellite Phone Industry. Lim,
Jaejoo, Klein, Richard and Thatcher, Jason. 2, 2005, Journal of Information Technology
Management, Vol. XVI.
92. Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Documents. Hanford, Anthony J.
2004.
93. Nutritional Requirements for International Space Station Missions up to 360 days. Lane, et
al. Houston, TX : Johnson Space Center. JSC-28038.
94. Rouen, M.N. Houston, TX : Johnson Space Center, 2001.
95. Jeng, F. and Ewert, M. K. Trade study on laundry system for Advanced and ISS missions.
Houston, TX : NASA/Johnson Space Center, 2002.
96. Simon, Tom and Sacksteder, Kurt. In-Situ Resource Utilization Development &
Incorporation plans. s.l. : NASA - Techology Exchange Conference, November 2008.
97. NASA Signs Commercial Space Transportation Agreements. NASA. [Online] June 18, 2007.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jun/HQ_07138_COTS_3_Unfunded_SAAs.html.
98. Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space
Administration and SPACEHAB, INC for Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities. NASA.
[Online] June 15, 2007. www1.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/180947main_SAA-Spacehab.pdf.
99. Epp, Chirold D., Robertson, Edward A and Brady, Tye. Autonomous Landing and
Hazard Avoidance Technology. IEEExplore. [Online]
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4505446/4526225/04526297.pdf?tp=&isnumber=4526225&arnum
ber=4526297.
100. Approach and Capture for Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking. Timmons, K. K. and
Ringelberg, J.C. 2007, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
101. Challenges of Orion Rendezvous Development. Goodman, J. L., Brazzel, J. P. and Chart,
D. A. 2007, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit.
102. Lt. Colonel Kennedy, F. Orbital Express. DARPA Tactical Technology Office. [Online]
2007. http://www.darpa.mil/orbitalexpress/index.html.
103. Wertz, James R. Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking Technologies - Status and
Prospects. SPIE Aerospace Symposium. [Online] April 21, 2003.
http://www.smad.com/analysis/spie03.pdf.
104. X Prize Foundation: Revolution through Competition. Hoyt, D. and Phillis, J. 2006,
Stanford Graduate School of Business, pp. Case SI-90.
105. Lunar Robotic Landing Challenge - External Study. Diamandis, P., et al. 2006, X Prize
Foundataion.
106. Prize, Committee on the Design of an NSF Innovation. Innovation Inducement Prizes at
the National Science Foundation. National Research Council. [Online] 2007.
http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/f/NRC+report+on+NSF+prizes+2007.01.pdf.
107. University of Washington. Earth's Protective Magnetic Field. Astronomy. [Online]
December 13, 2007. http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6390.
108. Britt, Robert Roy. Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars. Space.com.
[Online] January 20, 2004.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html.
109. Radiation Hazard in Space. Miroshnichenko, Leonty I. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2003.
110. Landis, Geoffrey A. Magnetic Radiation Shielding: An Idea Whose Time Has Returned?
AIAA. [Online] 1991. http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html.
111. NASA Facts - Understanding Space Radiation. NASA. [Online] October 2002.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/radiation.pdf.
112. Radiation Analysis for the Human Lunar Return Mission (NASA Technical Paper 3662).
Wilson, J. W. and al., et. Hampton, VA : NASA Langley Reserach Center, 1997.
113. Miller, J. and al., et. Radiation Shielding Properties of Lunar Regolith and Regolith
Simulatn. NLSI Lunar Science Conference (2008). [Online] 2008.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nlsc2008/pdf/2028.pdf.
114. Williams, David. Ice on the Moon . NASA. [Online] March 26, 2007.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html.
115. Hsu, Jeremy. Water Discovered in Moon Samples. Space.com. [Online] July 09, 2008.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080709-moon-water.html.
116. David, Leonard. Exclusive: Rules Set for $50 Million 'America's Space Prize'. Space
News. [Online] November 08, 2004.
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_bigelow_041108.html.
117. Shiga, David. Bigelow Aerospace to offer $ 760 million for spaceship. New Scientist.
[Online] October 25, 2007. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12836.
118. Terms for Launch Services. Bigelow Aerospace. [Online] February 05, 2008.
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/?Terms_For_Launch_Services.
119. Boyle, Alan. Space races set sights on orbital frontier. MSNBC-Technology & Science.
[Online] October 08, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199370/.
120. JP Aerospace Information update AND JPA will compete for the Bigelow American Space
prize. The Space Fellowship. [Online] January 25, 2005.
http://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=731.
121. SpaceDev, INC. [Online] 2008. http://www.spacedev.com.
122. Foust, Jeff. Bigelow Aerospace‘s big day at the rodeo. The Space Review. [Online] July 24,
2006. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/667/1.
123. Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000. Futron
Corporation. [Online] September 06, 2002.
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf.
124. Braukus, Michael and Shelef, Metzada. NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges'
Prizes. NASA News. [Online] March 23, 2005.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083_Centennial_prizes.html.
125. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Astronaut Glove. Innovative
Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008.
http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm#glove>..
126. Astronaut Glove Challenge 2006. Spaceflight America, Vloanz Aerospace Inc. [Online]
October 24, 2006. http://www.spaceflightamerica.org/.
127. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Lunar Regolith Excavation. Innovative
Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008.
http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm#regolith.
128. About the Regolith Excavation Challenge. 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge. [Online]
2007. http://regolith.csewi.org/about.
129. Competition Rules. 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge. [Online] 2008.
http://regolith.csewi.org/files/Regolith-Rule-Book-2008.pdf.
130. Rules in Full. The Official Site for the N-Prize. [Online] http://www.n-prize.com/.
131. About the Moon Regolith Oxygen Extraction (MoonROx) Challenge. Moon ROx
Challenge. [Online] 2007. http://moonrox.csewi.org/about.
132. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Lunar Oxygen Production or
MoonROx. Innovative Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008.
http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm.
133. Spacebound! California Space Authority. [Online]
http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/spacebound-08-v23/.
134. al., Dickey Beth and et. NASA Partners with Orbital Sciences for Space Transport
Services. NASA. [Online] February 19, 2008.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08058_COTS_Selection.html.
135. Stadter, P. A. and al., et. A Scalable Small-spacecraft Navigation and Communication
Infrastructure for Lunar Operations. IEEExplore. [Online] [Cited: August 4, 2008.]
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10432/33126/01559349.pdf.