Neil Armstrong's Secret Star Trek Wish

Reusable Spacecraft

The main benefit of a reusable vehicle is of course its reusability, a quality which theoretically should reduce the cost of each launch. The purpose behind building a reusable vehicle was precisely to lower the costs for payload deliveries, and also to contribute to the commercial launch systems. Reusable space craft would be profitable if they would perform regular and multiple trips to LEO. A reusable vehicle such as the space shuttle has the advantage of being able to carry a larger crew. Another benefit of a reusable vehicle is the flight experience provided for future research and improvement of space flight both in terms of practicality and safety. Commercially speaking, a reusable vehicle would be a great contributor to business development in LEO, yet another benefit of such a vehicle. One important advantage that the space shuttle presented was the ability to service satellites in LEO. Let us not forget that without the space shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope would have been space junk right after its launch. With the space shuttle being the most sophisticated space craft ever built, having a fleet of reusable vehicles assures a leadership position in the field of space exploration. No other nation than the US has managed to build a successful reusable vehicle yet. While the Soviet Union failed with Buran, India promises to build such a vehicle by 2030, but if we look at the long and complicated history of reusable vehicles in the US and how many had to fail to have a successful space shuttle, such a deadline could remain simply a dream. Finally, it is not the reusable machines that are not profitable at the moment, but rather it is the mission, or what they are used for that makes them undesirable financially. It is the mission of these vehicles, together with their turn-around capability that needs some improvement. A larger market would require more trips which in turn would reduce the costs of each launch. These are indeed wonderful and complex machines, and they require a larger market in order to become profitable and do the job at their real capability.

I do not believe that at least at the moment, any of the benefits of a reusable spacecraft outweighs the current costs of such a vehicle, simply because with our limited endeavors into space, the expandable vehicle can do as good a job as the reusable one and at lower costs. However, in the future, if our activity in LEO increases and there will be a need for lots of launches per month, it makes sense to have reusable vehicles with quite a fast turn-around and for which maintenance would not require such a long amount of time as for STS. But for now I am in favor of using expandable vehicles during this decade and probably the one to come, mainly because they seem more reliable, and although the reusable spacecraft may be lower cost in the long run, for the time being using the expandable ones would be more cost-effective. An excellent reusable vehicle with an outstanding performance and profitable financially is yet to be designed, and while engineers and designers work on this, it is best to rely on expendable launch vehicles.

Privatization of Space

Industry has been a part of space flight for quite some time. Let us not forget the big role companies such as Boeing or Lockheed Martin play in space flight since decades. I was fortunate to visit the ULA factory in Decatur, Alabama this summer and I was honestly impressed. ULA – United Launch Alliance is a joined venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and it is the manufacturer of Delta II, Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V. I witnessed the manufacturing of both Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V on the factory floor at ULA and I could say that was state of the art work. ULA’s main customers are NRO, Air Force, and NASA of course, and they were sold out seven years in advance at the time I visited the factory. From this perspective, I found privatization of space flight really useful. I will not mention SpaceX in my post for this week because I simply do not consider SpaceX to be an example of a private company, with NASA funding 80% of its endeavors ($800 million).

I would say that privatization of space can be beneficial if a couple of factors are considered into this equation. First of all, the industry will never focus on ideals such as NASA did to beat the Soviet Union to the moon in the Sixties. The industry will always focus on profit only. As long as space flight could be profitable, private companies will jump in. Since I used as an example ULA, I would mention that such an endeavor is a recipe for success: ULA makes rockets, customers buy the rockets; ULA makes money, customers fulfill their needs.

Second of all, for space flight to be profitable on a large scale, the market must be expanded. At the moment, the market offered to commercial space is only transfer to ISS. However, rational investors will not put their money into this, because the market is too small and it will not last long enough. Here is where the role of government is important. For example, if NASA goes to the moon, something that could work better in the long run for the industry would be lunar cargo. Delivering only cargo to the moon, having no crew would also mean no risk, so private companies could develop their capability to deliver. The value of payload would lay in its location (the moon) and not the content, so they can risk losing it without any serious consequences. Lunar market would be big, governable, and long-term. Once the government goes to the moon, the industry can come up with many ideas: providing electricity, habitat etc., and therefore other and larger commercial activities could happen. But it is probably only a matter of time until such enterprises will occur.

Image source: spaceflight.com

Neil Armstrong speaks at AirVenture 2003

EAS “AirVenture 2003” Program, Oshkosh, Wisconsin —  100-Year Anniversary of Powered Flight

NASA Remembers Neil Armstrong

Kennedy's 'Moon Speech' Still Resonates 50 Years Later...

Some of the early design issues with reusable vehicles

Some of the early design issues with reusable vehicles, and that shown to be enormous challenges, were stability, control, aerodynamic heating and hypersonic flow fields [1]. X-1A and X-1B proved inadequate stability at Mach 2.44. At this speed, the aircraft diverged and spun to almost the impossibility of landing safely. X-2 experienced inadequacy of aerodynamic control at 126,200 feet altitude and a speed of Mach 3. The aircraft diverged out of control and it could not be recovered [2]. These control difficulties experienced by the early X-planes later led to thruster reaction pitch, yaw and roll, while aerodynamic heating issues led to the development of new alloys to stand up to high temperatures during the high speed flights [3] With the stability issues encountered by X-1 and X-2 at lower Mach speeds than expected, NACA suggested the replacement of the supersonic airfoil with a wedge shaped vertical tail. This kind of tail would give a higher maneuverability to control the vehicle if it diverged, as well as directional stability [4]. Such design changes (thruster reaction and wedge shape tail) would be implemented in the X-15 in order to achieve a speed of over Mach 3. To deal with the heat, designers chose a hot structure and the plane was meant to fly at the maximum heat tolerance of the alloys, which was expected to be around Mach 7. Although X-15 was designed to fly “fast and hot - the faster, the hotter, the better” [5], and not necessarily high, the X-15 managed to reach above the atmosphere. It was then noticed that over 200,000 feet altitude there was no more any kind of aerodynamic reaction control [6]. Despite the fact that human space flight was not yet considered at that time, another important issue discussed was reentry, both in regard to heating and stability.

---

Notes:

[1] Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012. YouTube (accessed September 9, 2012).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010, 5.

[4] Ibid, 6.

[5] Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012. (accessed September 9, 2012).

[6] Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010, 5.

---

References

Armstrong, Neil A. The X-15. Next Generation Suborbital Research Conference (NSRC), 2012.

Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System. World Print Ltd, Hong Kong, 2010.

Vision for Space Exploration

Humans need to learn deep space travel, as well as living in space. There is no way around this if the species is to survive. Although such endeavors may still seem to be science-fiction, the ultimate scope of all these endeavors is the survival of the species by means of colonizing other celestial bodies. Exploring the Moon and Mars are definitely the correct destinations, and explain the reasons behind Visions of Space Exploration.

Visions of Space Exploration came in a moment of stagnation in the U.S. space program, with the goal to advance the scientific, security, and economic interests of the United States by the means of space exploration. [1] With the space shuttle fleet grounded for almost a year by the time Visions of Space Exploration was proposed, its immediate scope was to encourage the return of the STS to flight, complete the building of the ISS, and then retire the fleet. The larger scope of the President’s Vision was to propose the extension of robotic exploration in the solar system, but also extending human space flight by eventually returning to the Moon in 2015, and no later than 2020, and use the knowledge gained during the lunar missions to further travel to Mars and beyond. [2]

The main event that caused this aggressive and audacious change in the U.S. space policy was the Columbia accident in February of 2003. After this unfortunate event, some people suggested grounding the shuttle fleet until the fall of the same year. At that time, the lengthy grounding after the Challenger disaster was discussed, and NASA, underlined that a second suspension for a long period of time was not desirable. However the accident raised serious doubts about the viability of the shuttle, and some people asked for a definitive STS retirement. The President’s Visions of Space Exploration came as an encouragement to get going, and restart using the fleet. With an unfinished ISS in orbit and no spectacular plans for the space program, this vision was a necessary push. However, the shuttle remained initially grounded until 2005, and since problems occurred again during STS-114, the shuttle was grounded until 2006. [3]

Let us all remember the Sixties, and the impact that the short presidential deadline for landing a man on the moon and returning him safe to Earth had on the U.S. space program. Such pushes have proved to be very fruitful, and this is why the aggressive change intended by Visions of Space Exploration was necessary in times of stagnation. Crisis was overwhelming NASA in 2004. Having to deal with the aftermath of the Shuttle Columbia’s accident, with the only means to reach LEO grounded for unlimited time, unfinished business left in orbit with no means to reach it, and no plans for the future, the entire space program was in free fall. It seems to me that by proposing Visions of Space Exploration, the President hoped for a reinvigoration of the space program, and tried to re-bring the spirit of the Apollo program upfront. 

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. 2004. The Vision for Space Exploration, 5.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Launius, Roger, D. Frontiers of Space Exploration. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004, 55-56.

---

References

Launius, Roger, D. Frontiers of Space Exploration. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004.

NASA. 2004. The Vision for Space Exploration. https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/178054/Readings/NASAVisionforSpaceExploration.pdf (accessed April 5, 2012).

Launch Vehicles

The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program was established in 1994 with the objective to lower the costs for payload deliveries, and contribute to the commercial launch systems. [1] X-33, developed by Lockheed Martin, and X-34, developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation were part of this initial program. However, they failed to meet both the financial and performance expectations. At that time, the program’s goal was to reduce the payload costs. The cost of a pound of payload on the STS was $10,000, and the new RLV’s were supposed to be able to carry a payload at $1000 per pound. [2] The RLV’s feature of caring out more missions is the low cost aspect of the program, since the same vehicle can perform multiple trips to the LEO and back to Earth. However, a vehicle capable to return to Earth and perform multiple missions is of course more expensive to build. RLVs can feature: full reusability of one stage and partial reusability of another stage (X-33, X-34), full reusability of one stage and expendable other stages (X-38), and partial reusability of one stage. [3] The Space Shuttle has been the most distinguished RLV. Its design phase began in the Sixties and it successfully operated for about thirty years. [4] Recently SpaceX has announced the attempt to produce a new RLV. SpaceX’s RLV will display a first burning stage that will detach and return to Earth by restarting the engines and landing vertically on the launch pad, as well as a second stage that will deliver the payload, and then return for a vertical landing. [5]

Expendable launch vehicles such as Lockheed Martin‘s Atlas, Boeing’s Delta IV, or Proton have no reusable components. The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) program was also designed to make space launch more affordable and reliable. [6] Delta IV is the most advanced rocket developed by Boeing, with capabilities to transport one or more payloads weighting from 9,480 to 28,620 lbs to GTOs, and over 50,000 lbs to LEOs, and can also launch to polar, sun-synchronous orbits, geosynchronous and geosynchronous orbits. The cost of one Delta IV launch is between $140 million and $170 million. [7] Falcon 9 is also a low cost expendable launch vehicle designed by SpaceX, and a much more cost-effective one. The $1.6 billion contract between NASA and SpaceX covers a minimum of 12 flights to the ISS. [8] The launch vehicles developed by SpaceX seem to have increased reliability and performance, and reduced cost by a factor of ten.  Falcon 9 is estimated to cost between 54 and 59.5 million dollars per flight. [9]

The U.S. space program should probably use the EELVs during this decade, mainly because they seem more reliable, and although the RLV’s may be lower cost in the long run, for the time being using the EELVs would be more cost-effective. An excellent RLV with an outstanding performance and profitable financially is yet to be designed, and while engineers and designers work on this, it is best to rely on expendable launch vehicles

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. Reusable LaunchVehicle. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/14.html (accessed March 29, 2012), para. 1

[2] GlobalSecurity.org. Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/rlv.htm (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 5-6.

[3] Federal Aviation Administration. REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/98rlv.pdf (accessed March 28, 2012), 1.

[4] Ibid, 6.

[5] Rosenberg, Zach. SpaceX to build reusable launch vehicle. FlightGlobal. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/spacex-to-build-reusable-launch-vehicle-362729/ (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 2.

[6] Air Force Space Command. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE. http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3643 (accessed March 28, 2012), para. 1.

[7] Boeing. Delta IV Overview. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta4/delta4.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

[8] SpaceX, Falcon 9 Overview, 2011. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#falcon9_overview (accessed March 28, 2012).

[9] ORBCOMM, I. c., ORBCOMM and SpaceX Set Plans to Launch Satellites on Next Falcon 9 Launch. Business Wire. EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2012).

---

 References

Air Force Space Command. EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE. http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3643 (accessed March 28, 2012).

Boeing. Delta IV Overview. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta4/delta4.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

Federal Aviation Administration. REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAMS AND CONCEPTS. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/98rlv.pdf (accessed March 28, 2012).

GlobalSecurity.org. Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/rlv.htm (accessed March 28, 2012).

NASA. Reusable Launch Vehicle. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff1996/14.html (accessed March 29, 2012).

ORBCOMM, I. c., ORBCOMM and SpaceX Set Plans to Launch Satellites on Next Falcon 9 Launch. Business Wire. EBSCOhost (accessed March 28, 2012).

Competition and NASA

NASA was created due to the pressure of national defense, which in turn was generated by the tensions of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Simply put, the National Aeronautics and Space Act was a political maneuver and a power display in order to assure national security, and to demonstrate to the Soviets and the entire world the strength that lies behind the American spirit. [1] Tension increased in 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik 1 to be the first man-made object to orbit the planet. This event generated a strong and acerb competition later known as the “space race”. The impact that Sputnik had on the American civilization was compared to the one of the Pearl Harbor disaster. Everything that came after the Sputnik event led to the formation of NASA. [2] Having the Russians starting the space race by being the first to launch was immediately seen as a catastrophe and failure of the entire nation. It created a feeling of inferiority and mediocrity, but it also stirred up ambition and perseverance. Besides this, having the Soviets up in the air, with reconnaissance capabilities, had thrown the American Administration into a state of paranoia. Despite the fact that national prestige was at stake, national security was even more important. With the Cold War involving all resources, from industry to military, and including space exploration, the launch of Sputnik represented a defeat. And to make things even worse, the American space program failed to launch Vanguard live in TV. This is the environment in which NASA was born. It could have been a panic reaction from President Eisenhower, but also an obvious desire to not only be a part of space exploration, but the a leader in the field. This kind of feeling is usually the foundation of a strong competition, and this is exactly what the space race turned out to be. It was the beginning of a long series of “firsts” in regard to space activities. Project Mercury was designed precisely to accomplish such “firsts”, making beating the Russians in the space race a national priority. In turn, the competition had a variety of benefits for the industry and the general public.

During the space race, defense-related industries, science and research in aviation and space experienced a significant development, creating a lot of jobs. At that time, one worker in seven owed his job to the military industry. The 1950s economic growth and prosperity in the United States was owed primarily to the fact that the Cold War brought a state of permanent mobilization, and therefore the necessity of increasing national security and defense. Federal money covered most of the research costs, offering corporations like IBM the possibility of researching the integrated circuits which brought the computer revolution, and later the high definition television, audio-video players and many other electronic gadgets. The United States’ GPD more than doubled during the 1950s, bringing a 25 percent rise in the individual income of the working Americans. [3] It is therefore fair to say that the Cold War has greatly helped the U.S. space industry.

---

Notes:

[1] NASA. 2005. "A Brief History of NASA," NASA online. Home page on-line. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm (accessed March 22, 2012), para. 1.

[2] Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005, 44.

[3] Henretta, James A, and David Brody. “America: A Concise History, Volume II: Since 1877.” 4th ed., Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2010, 797.

---

References

Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005.

Henretta, James A, and David Brody. “America: A Concise History, Volume II: Since 1877.” 4th ed., Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2010.

NASA. 2005. "A Brief History of NASA," NASA online. Home page on-line. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsheet.htm (accessed March 22, 2012).

The Story of Buck

 

 Neil Armstrong at Cincinnati Museum Center from Cincinnati Museum Center on Vimeo.

Buck

Neil Armstrong & Buck

In Memoriam Neil Armstrong...

NASA Academy 2012!

NASA Academy 2012 Documentary de dm_5032d216239c7

Launching my Rocket!

Armstrong uses updated video mapping technology from Google in a detailed walk-through of his manual landing.

Where did those famous words come from? Armstrong explains.

The video has been moved at: http://thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au/ 

Where did those famous words come from? Armstrong explains that he didn’t come up with his famous declaration until after he landed. Mission control “had no confidence in our ability to get down safely,” he jokes.

  

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/24/neil-armstrong-gives-a-rare-interview-to-discuss-the-apollo-program-and-the-moon-landing.html

Quo vadis?

For the coming two decades, the US space program should focus more on finding the best methods to detect and deflect possible hazardous NEOs, as well as making progress in the actual exploration of the solar system by using robotic missions rather than human space flight. Top six missions should be:

• Perfecting the method of tracking and deflecting hazardous NEOs;
• Finalizing the James Webb telescope to replace Hubble;
• Intensive robotic search for life on Mars.
• Further exploring Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.
• Developing launch systems with better performance for deep space travel.
• Remain involved in an international venture to keep an ongoing orbiting facility.

It seems at the very least strange if not worrisome that in 2012 there is not yet a system to fully track and deflect asteroids that could impact Earth. Since this danger is a certainty, and the time of such an event is never known, being ready for anything possible seems to be the only right attitude. The US space program should dedicate an entire program to accomplish this task. It is more important to stay alive than flying humans in space. This should be a Number 1.

Having the James Webb telescope launched into orbit is also of crucial importance. The mission of the HST will soon come to an end, and we not only need a replacement, but a high performance tool to continue the outstanding discoveries brought by Hubble.

I believe that at least for now the US should focus on robotic exploration rather than human space flight. So far humans cannot go any further than LEO, maybe the moon, while Mars is still science fiction. Robotic missions have brought fantastic results in the last decades. The three main candidates for life in the solar system, Mars, Europa, and Titan were visited by robots only, and we should be thankful they were able to go in those places where humans would not make it even for a second, let alone the long trip to reach those worlds. Spirit, Opportunity, Galileo and Cassini-Huygens sent back a wealth of data leading to conclusions that life could exist elsewhere in the solar system. At this point, if life is out there, it will be a robot that will find it. On top of their excellent results, robots are cheaper and human lives are not at stake.

Another important aspect of the space program for the next 20 years is developing a better performance launch vehicle. Sad enough, we should start by making one such vehicle to reach the LEO, since no such tool exists yet. And of course, research and the development for a deep space travel is a necessity if we ever want to consider a trip to Mars with humans on board. Finally, a permanent presence in space has proved itself to be of crucial importance for humanity, and with the end of the ISS mission coming soon, a new such mission must be developed.

There is a strong trend in the field of space exploration supporting a human space flight, advocating an eventual return to the Moon and prepare for a Mars visit. President Obama proposed a first deep space trip by 2025, but there are many variables to consider into the equation for such mission to become reality. I believe that the US space program will focus primarily on the above mentioned missions as it is.

Benefits of Space Exploration

Space exploration brings a global perspective. Nothing humanity has ever done changed the world more than the space-related activities. Space exploration generated significant improvement in people’s life. Today, none of us would use a cell phone or a computer, watch satellite TV or go to an online school like APU without space exploration. It all started with expensive space flights that demanded the development of computer science for supplying the necessary equipment. Space flight required highly developed computers and miniaturization. When more equipment was added, more fuel was needed, and the research for miniaturization went even further. Today, the existence of many gadgets contributing to life improvement is actually owned to space-related activities.

Public benefits that flow from space-related activities include scientific advances that have an impact on people’s life at various levels, including intellectual stimulation, access to a manifold spectrum of applications, from commercial and economic, to personal applications, but also national defense and national security. [1] Leaving Earth offers a better, clearer view of the universe, without atmospheric obscurations. Scientific advances may seem to benefit a small niche, specific fields such as astronomy, geophysics and geology, but also life sciences – biology and chemistry, which in turn have an impact on the science medicine and pharmaceutics. The progress made in medical technology is also a byproduct of space activities. Since every single person’s life is impacted by the field of medicine, there is no doubt that scientific advances brought by space exploration had tremendous benefits for everyone. [2]

Satellites, either meteorological, of navigation, or communication, have brought comfort in everybody’s life. Remote-sensing satellites improved the commercial and economic capabilities. Exploring space allows experimentation in a free fall environment, allowing testing and developing materials. Space exploration offers access to plentiful resources such as solar energy and materials that are not existent on Earth. [3] But space is also the final frontier of exploration and therefore it offers a new and unique challenge, stimulating the inherent human quality to explore. Space activities expand humanity’s knowledge and range of action. Finally, national defense has been greatly impacted by rocket science and various types of satellites in Earth’s orbit. However, exploring space not only brings security, but also propels a nation to a higher step in the world’s hierarchy. A nation capable of exploring space is a powerful nation.

Despite all these benefits, there are people complaining that the tax-payers have to pay for an expensive space program without having any immediate advantages. On top of the fact that any scientific research is conducted for the benefit of all humanity, much of people’s comfort comes from space exploration. Nobody would give up his cell phone, computer or TV. The space program is not only worth every penny, but it is probably the most profitable there is for the entire humanity.

NASA has released an application that demonstrates how space-related activities impact everyone's life on a daily basis. The application is called NASA @ Home and City and it is worth giving it a try. [4]
________________________________________
Notes:
[1] Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005, 8.
[2] Ibid, 8.
[3] Sellers, Jerry Jon. Understanding Space: An Introduction to Astronautics, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005, 3.
[4] NASA. NASA @ Home and City. http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm (accessed March 15, 2012).
________________________________________

References

Kay, W.D. Defining NASA: The Historical Debate over the Agency's Mission. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2005.

NASA. NASA @ Home and City. http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm (accessed March 15, 2012).

Sellers, Jerry Jon. Understanding Space: An Introduction to Astronautics, 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

The importance of Gemini

While the Mercury project proved that man can fly in space, during the project Gemini, man learned how to fly to the Moon. This is the importance of Gemini: learning how to get to the Moon. Gemini was special because without it the Apollo program would not have been ready to fly its missions. Gemini had 10 missions planed, and with each new mission, risk was escalading. Every Gemini mission tested a critical procedure in the flight to the Moon. [1] Missions were flown just a few weeks apart in the rush to accomplish the required skills to fly to the Moon by the end of the decade. Gemini taught the astronauts how to become familiar with the rocket and capsule, walk in space, rendezvous with another vehicle, spending enough time in space to travel to the Moon and back, and docking and operating two spacecraft in space.

Launched in March 23, 1965 Gemini 3 tested the new rocket (a converted ballistic missile) and the capsule, trying to return to Earth alive. This was the first time two Americans flew together in space. They practiced changing altitude and orbit, critical maneuvers on the trip to the Moon. Reentry was faulty because the rotation of the Earth was not included in the calculations and the capsule of Gemini 3 splashed down off-target. [2] Next step was walking in space. The EVA (extravehicular activity) was a key element that had to be accomplished before going to the Moon, to learn how it is like to float and live in space. This mission had to test the efficiency of the flight suit in keeping astronauts alive. The first American space walk occurred on Gemini 4. [3]

Rendezvous with another vehicle was the next critical step. This was the mission of Gemini 6 and 7. Gemini 6 and 7 had to find each other in orbit and fly inches apart. Despite the difficulties encountered during this mission, Gemini 6 and 7 capsules were able to rendezvous and fly in tight formation for 270 minutes, three orbits of the Earth. Gemini 7 also completed a two weeks mission in space to prove that astronauts can survive a long trip to the Moon and back. [4] The last critical maneuver was docking two spacecrafts in space. This mission was accomplished by Gemini 8, despite the issues encountered during the mission that led to landing to the next closest landing area to the original landing site. [5]

Teaching astronauts how to work in the vacuum of space was next. Gemini 9 attempted the longest space walk ever, but failed, together with the following two Gemini missions. After modifying the spacesuit and training methods, the last Gemini mission, Gemini 12 tried again and succeeded three EVAs (five hours). [6] Gemini ended in triumph, setting the stage for a mission to the Moon.

The accomplishments of the Apollo program would not have been possible without Gemini. The main, most important skills required for going to the Moon and returning back to Earth alive were acquired by NASA’s astronauts during the Gemini program. Gemini provided a solid foundation of technology, a team, and the confidence to go to the Moon.

---

Notes:

[1] Butterworth, Tyler. When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions. Dangerous Films, 2008.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

---

Bibliography
 

Butterworth, Tyler. When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, Episode 2: Friends and Rivals. Dangerous Films, 2008.

Comets and the Origin of Life

Comets and life are two of the most spectacular commodities of the universe. Life seems to be the rarest feature displayed in the vastness of the cosmos. Comets come more often, but hold untold secrets of the universe. While at first it may seem that life and comets could not possibly have anything in common, on a more careful consideration, there might appear that life on Earth could have not started without the help of these fascinating shiny wonderers of the solar system. The past tells a story of life extinctions by comets colliding with Earth, and therefore the thought that comets could also bring life may seem far out. Are comets life takers, but also life-givers? This paper presents an overview of comets, the origin of life on Earth, the connection between comets and life, and speculates on how the two could be intertwined.

Comets are packages of rock and ice, speeding around the Sun in numberless highly elliptical orbits, with the star at one of the foci. They reside in the furthest outer areas of the solar system, either in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud. Kuiper Belt comets have short and intermediate orbital periods, not less than 20 and not more than 200 years, therefore visiting Earth more often. Their paths are eccentric, direct orbits, on the ecliptic plane, and most of them have an enemy in the giant Jupiter, as its gravity can completely derail their well-established trajectories. [1] On another hand, Oort Cloud comets have very long orbital periods, taking thousands of years and even more to fly by the inner planets, that is only if some external force, such as the gravity of another star pushes them towards the inner solar system. They have orbits randomly inclined to the ecliptic plane, and therefore they arrive in Earth’s neighborhood from different directions. [2] Comets are all about their tails. In fact, David Levy, one of the discoverers of the Shoemaker-Levy Comet believes that “comets are like cats: they have tails, and they do precisely what they want”. [3] As a comet approaches the Sun, solids and gases are released, and it develops a glowing atmosphere known as a coma, blown outward away from the Sun, as well as an ion and a meteoric dust tail reflecting light. In the words of astronomer Fred L. Whipple, comets are “dirty snowballs” [4], and some of that dirt is made of organic compound. [5] The ion tail is developed when gases are ionized by solar radiation. Since the solar wind travels very fast by the comet, the orientation of the ion tail is always against the Sun. The dust tail has a slightly different orientation than the ion tail. This material stays in individual orbit around the Sun, and therefore the dust tail is curved. [6] In contact with Earth’s atmosphere, it is the source of one of the most spectacular cosmic shows: meteor showers, popularly known as falling stars. Most importantly, comets are leftovers of the solar system formation, and hold the secrets of its beginnings. They formed slowly as leftover debris clumped together. Comets contain the building blocks of the solar nebula, material that has been pushed from the inner to the outer solar system. Some of these materials were organic compounds: carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, but also interstellar silicates and ices such as water, ammonia, methane, carbon monoxide, and recently discovered ethane. Comet dust is composed of silicates and some metals. [7]

What about life? Where did it come from? How did it come into existence? These are difficult, unresolved questions tormenting scientists for centuries, while the origin of life remains one of the most puzzling and controversial issues. When Earth was formed over 4.5 billions years ago, the planet was inhospitable and inhabitable. From that point on until a billion years later, some processes occurred that led to a planet teeming with life. [8] Life on Earth started 3.8 billion years ago, as soon as the environment and the conditions became slightly favorable to ignite the spark of life. These favorable conditions allowed life to become firmly rooted in less than half a billion years. [9] To figure out how this happened and how could non-living matter turn into living matter, biologists imagined the process of evolution in reverse. Reversing evolution concluded that life on Earth started in the oceans, and in simple forms, such as carbon-chained molecules capable of copying themselves. [10] These organisms did not have bones or shells that could have been fossilized and preserved, and therefore the evidence of their existence is scarce. However, ancient rocks dating over three billion years ago have revealed stromatolites, fossilized colonies of these single cell organisms. Life was thriving in the oceans just a billion years after its beginnings. [11] But where did it come from?

The Russian biochemist A.I. Oparin, and the English biologist J.B.S. Haldane introduced the so-called primordial soup theory of the origin of life. This theory states that a primordial soup of amino acids was formed on Earth a little under four billion years ago from molecules generated by chemical reactions between gases like nitrogen, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. These amino acids would have later developed into organisms. This theory however was demolished when it was discovered that the early atmosphere on Earth had an oxidizing nature, meaning no life could have formed in such conditions. [12]

But what do comets have to do with the origins of life? It appears that the speculation about their connection started when Halley’s Comet last visited, in 1986. At that time the Vega and Giotto missions observed that the famous comet had in its composition carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in proportions just like on Earth. [13] Comets also have in their structure organic molecules. The Deep Impact mission has revealed evidence of organic and clay particles in the comet Tempel 1. Similar organic molecules were discovered by the Stardust mission in the comet Wild 2. [14] However, the samples returned by Stardust did not contain clay, and therefore the existence of clay in comets is still controversial. [15] The Herschel Infrared Space Observatory has recently discovered that the comet Hartley 2 contains the same kind of water as Earth’s oceans, allowing the scientist to assume that comets must have played a significant role in the origin of water on the Blue Planet. [16] The data brought by all these missions led to the conclusion that comets do contain all the prerequisites for life: liquid water, organic molecules, and clay surfaces that allow catalytic reactions. Life could have first developed on a comet, and travel later to Earth and other planets or moons. [17] It sounds like a process of contamination: Earth could have been literally contaminated with life four billion years ago. Since life on Earth started rapidly in geologic terms, it could have arrived on the surface of the planet ready-made. An extreme theory supporting this idea is called the Panspermia Theory, claiming that life originated elsewhere and spread by spores or bacteria to habitable planets all over the universe, developing wherever it found a suitable environment. [18]

But the connection between life and comets has been made centuries before in popular beliefs. It appears that Sir Isaac Newton has several times expressed his belief that the appearance of comets in the sky was related to the spontaneous generation of plants. [19] However his belief has been demolished by the theory of evolution. The publication of this theory by Darwin brought another reason to try to explain the process of life’s evolution on Earth. Without knowing anything about the origins of life, such task was difficult, leading the German physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz to blame comets for scattering life in the form of germs on planets that already had suitable conditions for life to thrive. [20]

The idea that comets had a role in the formation of planets was already proposed by both Newton and Halley at the end of the 17^th century. Halley suggested that the biblical floods originated in a collision between a comet and the Earth. [21] Further developing this idea, Newton proposed that the water vapors inside comets were the source of water in the Earth’s oceans, indispensable in sustaining life. This was an audacious idea for the 17^th century, especially since at that time the correct composition of a comet was not yet known. [22] At the beginning of the 20^th century, the theory of panspermia through comets became part of a long list of theories on the origin of life.

In 1992 Carl Sagan expressed that “comets may be the bringers of life”. [23] It was already known at that time that life has developed a little under four billion years ago during the heavy bombardment phase, and that comets do carry organic molecules, which, if given energy, can break apart and re-combine in more complex forms, such as amino acids, proteins and potentially DNA. [24] To all this was added the knowledge that organic molecules on board a comet could have survived a violent collision with the planet, especially since 74 different amino acids unknown on Earth have been found in chondrites, and hence such amino acids could have easily survived a minor impact. [25] After all, thermofilic organisms are the common ancestors of the oldest forms of life found on Earth, which means that life has evolved in high temperatures. Prebiotic molecules could have also been sowed even if a comet exploded in the atmosphere and the debris would have fallen on the surface of the planet, or even from such interplanetary debris. [26]

The similarity in composition between humans and comets suggests at the very least that there must be a connection between life and comets. Humans contain 9.5 percent carbon, 63 percent hydrogen, 26 percent oxygen, and one percent nitrogen. Halley’s Comet contains 11 percent carbon, 55 percent hydrogen, 28 percent oxygen, and two percent nitrogen. [27] Recent studies have revealed organic compounds, clay and light water on board of comets. All of these seem to be enough to allow the spark of life to ignite. However, there is not yet enough evidence to support the theory that life has hitched a ride on a comet and arrived on Earth ready-made, and the fact that life is still yet to be discovered elsewhere is a drawback of such a hypothesis. If life arrived onboard of a comet, it must have contaminated other worlds too. But, if life turns out to be widely spread everywhere in the universe, the cometary contamination of all planets with life seems likely, and it is just a matter of time until such evidence will come up. Until then, panspermia through comets seems to be a fascinating theory on the origins of life.  

Tracking Methods of Comets, Asteroids and Meteorites

Hollywood movies have depicted many times planetary disasters as a consequence of cosmic collisions. These grotesque situations seem to be the domain of the science fiction, but that is only because none of them has actually occurred during the history of mankind. But they have hit the Earth before humans, and not only once. It is just a matter of time before one such cosmic body will threaten the planet with extinction, and the only thing we know for sure is that it will happen sometime in the future. For humanity, tracking asteroids, meteorites, and comets is the first most important step in avoiding a hazardous collision. This paper provides an overview of the recent tracking history, as well as currently available and future tracking methods.

Despite their hazardous characteristic, tracking comets, asteroids and meteorites did not become urgency until the 1970s, when photometry, radiometry, and spectroscopy developed, contributing to the advances in the field, allowing better detection. [1] The Spacewatch program happened at the beginning of the 1980s, and marked the use of electronic techniques for asteroid tracking and observation, but their hazardous aspect was not to be acknowledged until the 1990s, especially after the impact of the comet Shoemaker-Levi into Jupiter in 1994. [2] The first program dedicated exclusively to the study of the flying rocks started as an idea in 1969 with the decision to build a telescope only for this purpose. Since very few scientists gave importance to this subject, it took years for the project to come into existence. A multi-mirror telescope was used until 1993 when the first Spacewatch 1.8 meter telescope was finally built. [3] The mission of the Spacewatch program was to continue the work done before by using photography, but implementing new technology, using faster detectors and charge-coupled scanning devices (CCD scanning), as well as computer processing. [4]

New technology helped the science of astronomy in tracking NEOs with impact possibility. Being able to observe and accurately calculate their trajectories is of crucial importance. Therefore, NASA has established the Near-Earth Object Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Its mission is to find asteroids that post the most serious threats to Earth. [5] Part of the Near-Earth Object program is NEAT – Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking. In cooperation with the US Air Force, NEAT uses a GEODSS telescope located in Hawaii to track NEOs. The telescope has a state of the art charge-coupled scanning (CCD) camera and computer system, and the data on any newly discovered Near-Earth object is immediately sent to JPL for analysis. A telescope equipped with three CCD cameras, and located at Palomar Mountain in California also joined the NEAT team, followed by the SkyMorph system allowing the search for moving objects, and in charge of archiving all images, so that no NEO gets lost. [6] Since the Near-Earth Object program started in 1998, more than 5500 asteroids and comets have been identified, of which about a thousand are potentially hazardous objects (PHA). PHAs are rocks that can come 7.5 million kilometers or closer to Earth in their trajectory around the sun, and are larger than 150 meters. [7]

Another method of tracking flying stones involves the use of the delay-Doppler radar, a very powerful tool that searches for asteroids and conveys information on their orbits, as well as and two-dimensional images of their physical characteristics. The precision of this method is invaluable in refining orbit prediction. [8] The first radar detection of an asteroid (1566 Icarus) occurred in 1968. Since then, the results of radar detection have grown exponentially. Until December 2011, the radar has detected 128 objects from the Asteroid Belt, 286 Near-Earth Asteroids, and 15 comets. One of the accomplishments of the delay-Doppler radar for the year of 2011 is the first detection of a comet since 2006, comet 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova. [9]

However, tracking can now be done by everybody. NASA has just announced the newest method of tracking meteoroids: the new iPhone and iPad Meteor Counter application. Using this free app, everyone interested can contribute to tracking the flying stones. The data collected from people using this app will be used to find new meteor showers, but also to keep track of these stones flying around Earth’s orbit. [10]

As far as future plans are concerned, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) intended to be functional by 2015 will take a picture of the sky every three nights in search for the faintest flying objects. LSST’s main mission will be to map small objects in the solar system, particularly near-Earth asteroids and Kuiper belt objects. LSST is planed to find about 80 percent of all the flying rocks of the solar system in one decade. [11] However, telescopes have blind spots, including the LSST, mainly when looking towards the sun, and can miss. Tracking comets, asteroids and meteorites can be faulty and incomplete. To avoid the blind spot issue, a suggestion was to place an infrared asteroid observatory in a Venus-like orbit that could make an inventory of all NEOs. Such a complete inventory would be valid for about a century. [12] This may be the technology of tomorrow in terms of detecting and tracking comets, asteroids and meteorites.

The science of comet, asteroid and meteorite observation and tracking has indeed developed tremendously in the past century, and has reached a quite trustworthy level. Earthlings can be confident that possible hazardous objects would be detected before catastrophic impacts. However, there is still work to do in order to detect almost all, if not all such hazardous objects. Time is precious in terms of detection, because the earlier a possible impact is discovered, the better and more precise its deflection will be. Keeping an eye on all the flying rocks is an important milestone in the survival of our species.

Asteroid Studies and Technological Developments

Human curiosity and eagerness for exploring the unknown has provided the species with an impulse towards always doing better, understanding more, and discovering new things. While from the very beginning people gazed at the sky and wondered about its mysteries, generation after generation humanity looked for new ways to support its thirst of knowledge. This is the reason behind all discoveries done my man, from fire and the wheel, to the telescope and ultimately spaceflight. New technology has not always been around to allow space exploration, but nevertheless, people have used whatever tools at hand to explore the heavens, and asteroids equally captured human attention. This paper provides an overview of the asteroid studies timeline, as well as of the latest technological developments that have influenced this field of study over the past century.

It all started in 1776 when Johann Titius of Wittenburg formulated the Titius-Bode planetary law, and concluded that, given the distances between planets, there must be an undiscovered one between Mars and Jupiter. This conclusion led to a passionate search for a missing celestial body. [1] In 1801 Giuseppe Piazzi discovered the asteroid Ceres, marking the beginning of asteroid studies. The discovery of Pallas in 1802, and of Juno in 1804 followed, and it became evident that there was not a single planet missing, but rather a whole bunch of small ones, later on acknowledged as the “asteroid belt”. At that time, the only means to conduct such studies were ground telescopes and spectroscopes. Discoveries were conducted visually and slowly, and resources were limited to observing the surface of an object, but not at all analyzing its composition. [2] 1807 marked the discovery of Vesta by Heinrich Olbers, but Vesta had to wait until 1994 when the Hubble Telescope had the means to look at its complete rotation. [3] In 1891 Max Wolf used photography for the first time to conduct asteroid observations, leading to the discovery of the first NEA (near-earth asteroid), Eros. However, the first proposals to focus on these potential hazardous objects and organize space missions to explore them did not come until the 1970s. In the seventies the development of photometry, radiometry, and spectroscopy contributed to the advances in the field, allowing the discovery of new structural characteristics in asteroids. [4] The beginning of the 1980s brought the Spacewatch program, and marked the use of electronic techniques for asteroid observation, but their hazardous aspect was not to be acknowledged until the 1990s, especially after the impact of the comet Shoemaker-Levi into Jupiter in 1994. [5] Later on, the space probe Dawn entered Vesta’s orbit in July of 2011, in order to answer questions about the origins of the solar system. After orbiting Vesta for a year, Dawn will move on to orbit Ceres for further studies. [6]

The first program dedicated exclusively to the study of the small objects in the solar system started as an idea in 1969 with the decision to build a telescope only for this purpose. Since very few scientists gave importance to this subject, it took years for the project to come into existence. A multi-mirror telescope was used until 1993 when the first Spacewatch 1.8 meter telescope was finally built. [7] The mission of the Spacewatch program was to continue the work done before by using photography, but implementing new technology, using faster detectors and charge-coupled scanning devices (CCD scanning), as well as computer processing. [8]

Obviously, the development of rocket and spacecraft technologies has further led to a revolution in asteroid studies. Missions were designed to have exploration of asteroids as primary goal (NEAR, MUSES-C, Dawn) or as secondary goal (Galileo, Deep Space 1, Stardust). [9] The next goal in space exploration is human landing on an asteroid by 2024. The Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) was the first NASA mission studying NEOs, orbiting and landing on an asteroid, providing the best ever taken images of Eros and Mathilde. [10] MUSES-C, a mission of the Japanese Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science, had as primary mission to obtain asteroid samples and return them to Earth. Launched in 2007, Dawn is in search for clues about the formation of the solar system, by visiting Vesta and Ceres. [11] Missions having asteroid research as secondary goal have also brought important contributions in the field. Galileo was the first NASA mission to come close to asteroids, by taking pictures of Gaspra and Ida, as well as discovering Dactyl. [12] Deep Space 1 conducted a flyby of Braille, coming as close as 26 kilometers away from the asteroid, while Stardust encountered Annefrank. [13] Such missions have tremendous contributions to expanding the knowledge and understanding of asteroids, generating huge advances in asteroid studies in the past couple of decades.

The new advances in technology also support the science of astronomy in detecting asteroids and NEOs with impact possibility. This is a crucial step for mitigation. The next step is precise calculation of asteroid orbits which again can be done with accuracy by computers. If deflection is required, the latest rocketry advances and missile encounters are well-founded and ready. In the same time, nuclear methods of deflection are considered to alter the orbit of a hazardous object. The Planetary Society is building its own spacecraft for testing solar sailing, a safer method of nudging an asteroid, and one day, a fleet of such laser spacecraft could orbit Earth and constantly protect the planet from NEOs. [14]

According to the newly released issue of Scientific American Magazine, nobody is actually in charge to save humanity if an impact should occur soon. [15] Prediction is crucial, but telescopes have blind spots, mainly when looking towards the sun, and can miss. To avoid the blind spot issue, a suggestion was to place an infrared asteroid observatory in a Venus-like orbit that could make an inventory of all NEOs. Such a complete inventory would be valid for about a century. [16] This may be the technology of tomorrow in terms of detection and prediction. Deflection however is another story.

The science of asteroid observation has indeed developed tremendously in the past century, and has reached a quite trustworthy level. Earthlings can be confident that possible hazardous objects would be detected before catastrophic impacts. However, there is still work to be done on deflection methods. It all depends on how much time is left to a possible impact. Either way, this field should be a priority of space exploration. After all, if such an impact occurs, there might be no more science or space exploration left to be done by the human species.

 

Notes

[1] Hobden, Heather. Asteroids - their history. http://www.cosmicelk.net/asteroids.htm (Accessed November 16, 2011), para. 1-3.

[2] Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dawn – A Journey to the Beginning of the Solar System. Modern Era of Asteroid Study. http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/dawncommunity/flashbacks/fb_12.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2011), para. 1.

[3] Hobden, Heather. Asteroids - their history. http://www.cosmicelk.net/asteroids.htm (Accessed November 16, 2011), para. 14.

[4] Gehrels, Tom. History of Asteroid Research and Spacewatch. March 9, 1999. http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/arsw_tg.html (Accessed November 17, 2011), para 1.

[5] Ibid, para. 5.

[6] Hobden, Heather. Asteroids - their history. http://www.cosmicelk.net/asteroids.htm (Accessed November 16, 2011), para. 15.

[7] Gehrels, Tom. History of Asteroid Research and Spacewatch. March 9, 1999. http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/arsw_tg.html (Accessed November 17, 2011), para 18.

[8] Gehrels, Tom. History of Asteroid Research and Spacewatch. March 9, 1999. http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/arsw_tg.html (Accessed November 17, 2011), para 20.

[9] Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dawn – A Journey to the Beginning of the Solar System. Modern Era of Asteroid Study. http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/dawncommunity/flashbacks/fb_12.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2011), para. 2.

[10] Ibid, para. 6.

[11] Ibid, para. 9.

[12] Ibid, para. 3.

[13] Ibid, para. 7.

[14] The Planetary Society. Organization’s Official Website. Projects. http://www.planetary.org/programs/list/ (Accessed November 18, 2011), para. 7.

[15] Lu, Edaward T. "Stop the Killer Rocks". (Forum). Scientific American 305, no. 6 (December 2011): 8.

[16] Ibid, 8.

 

Bibliography

Gehrels, Tom. History of Asteroid Research and Spacewatch. March 9, 1999. http://spacewatch.lpl.arizona.edu/arsw_tg.html (Accessed November 16, 2011).

Hobden, Heather. Asteroids - their history. http://www.cosmicelk.net/asteroids.htm (Accessed November 16, 2011).

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Dawn – A Journey to the Beginning of the Solar System. Modern Era of Asteroid Study. http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/dawncommunity/flashbacks/fb_12.pdf (Accessed November 16, 2011).

Lu, Edaward T. "Stop the Killer Rocks". (Forum). Scientific American 305, no. 6 (December 2011).

The Planetary Society. Organization’s Official Website. Projects. http://www.planetary.org/programs/list/ (Accessed November 18, 2011).