Thursday, April 30, 2020
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Monday, April 27, 2020
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Thursday, April 23, 2020
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
An Original New Book About Humans In Deep Space
Review: Spacefarers
by Jeff Foust
Comments (5) |
| Wanjek starts the book in a way that leads you to think he is advocating against human spaceflight. |
The latest attempt in that long-running effort to make a case for human spaceflight is Spacefarers by Christopher Wanjek, a science writer whose career includes both stints at NASA as well as a joke writer for Jay Leno on The Tonight Show. The book’s subtitle claims he will chart a path for how humans will go beyond the Earth. But, while the book examines a range of technical approaches for human spaceflight, it comes up short explaining why they’re worth doing.
Wanjek starts the book in a way that leads you to think he is advocating against human spaceflight. The first chapter notes that the Earth is far more habitable than any other destination in the solar system, and criticizes some of the rationales offered for human settlement. Overpopulation? No, space settlement can’t realistic offer a relief valve, he argues. Ensuring survival of the species, as people like Elon Musk have argued? No, he counters, there’s no realistic scenario for the foreseeable future where all of humanity would be wiped out by a natural or human-made calamity. A second chapter then examines the health issues associated with spaceflight, from the deleterious effects of weightlessness to exposure to solar and cosmic radiation.
After reading those two chapters, you might believe that Wanjek is making a strong case for humans to stay home and let robots do our bidding in space. However, he follows that introduction with chapters that examine the potential roles for humans in Earth orbit, the Moon, asteroids, and Mars. (A final chapter even extends that to other destinations in both the inner and outer solar system, albeit must further into the future.) He examines in depth the technical details and issues associated with sending humans to these destinations.
While Wanjek is skeptical of some near-term initiatives, like NASA’s Artemis program to return humans to the Moon by 2024, he paints a surprisingly optimistic view about humanity’s future in space. His predictions, at the end of each chapter, range from space hotels by 2030 to a permanent human presence for “small science and mining camps” on the Moon in the 2030s to a Mars base in the 2050s. Those timelines might be longer than what some space advocates, like fans of Musk, might want, but it’s still quite optimistic given all of the problems with human spaceflight he outlined earlier in the book.
One problem, though, is that it’s never quite clear what those people would be doing in space that actually requires the presence of humans (beyond, of course, space tourism.) For the Moon, he suggests humans will be needed for mining, and goes so far to predict that those bases will be like mining settlements on Earth, “predominantly male” and potentially a “lawless boomtown.” But the business case for mining—he suggests helium-3 and rare earth elements—is unclear, and the high costs and hostile conditions of any lunar mining efforts would likely emphasize robotic, remote operations, just as is taking place today in some terrestrial mining projects. In other words, it may be more like Moon than Outland.
To support human missions to Mars, Wanjek tries to conjure up a space race between China and the United States, something he does to a lesser extent in the chapter about the Moon. “China has a plan to establish human colonies on Mars by the 2040s,” he claims, but doesn’t cite evidence of that. That plan apparently includes “simultaneously sending seven orbiters and six rovers by the early 2020s, almost all at once.” Yet there is no evidence of such a bold plan. China is sending a Mars mission this summer with an orbiter, lander, and rover—ambitious in and of itself—but there’s no sign it is a vanguard of a fleet that would have to launch in 2022 and/or 2024.
| To support human missions to Mars, he tries to conjure up a space race between China and the United States. “China has a plan to establish human colonies on Mars by the 2040s,” he claims, but doesn’t cite evidence of that. |
There are other factual flaws in the book. He claims that SpaceX has been able to turn around boosters and refly them with 48 hours; turnaround time has so far been closer to a couple months than a couple days. He says the government of Luxembourg has invested “hundreds of millions of dollars” in asteroid mining; its investment in Planetary Resources, its biggest investment in that sector, was just a small fraction of that and effectively wiped out when the company was sold to ConsenSys. (He also doesn’t mention the other major asteroid mining startup, Deep Space Industries, pivoted to smallsat work and was later acquired.) He says NASA will send people to Mars “in a spacecraft now under development called Orion”; the agency, of course, is not considering forcing a crew to remain in the cramped Orion capsule for the entire journey there and back.
In some respects, Spacefarers still lives up to its subtitle, as it does go into significant detail about how humans can go and live on other worlds. But “how” has never really been the problem: there’s no shortage of ideas about going to the Moon, Mars, or elsewhere, each with its particular advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty is answering the “why” question, be it with a rationale compelling enough to win political support or a business case compelling enough to win investment. After this book, that’s still a difficult question to answer.
Note: we are temporarily moderating all comments submitted to deal with a surge in spam.
Comments (5)
The Debate About The Future Of Space Law
Hard law or soft law? The debate about the future of space law
by Dennis O’Brien
Comments (2) |
| The underlying question throughout was whether new international agreements were needed or if the current treaties, with evolving norms and customs, would be sufficient. |
The program began with an introduction to space law by Prof. Mark Sundahl, Director of the GSLC, and Chris Johnson, space law advisor for the Secure World Foundation. They discussed the Outer Space Treaty (OST), the “Constitution of Space Law”, focusing on Article I, which states that outer space “shall be the province of all mankind”; Article II, which prohibits national claims of sovereignty; and Article VI, which requires countries to “bear international responsibility” for activities by their citizens in space. They concluded that the OST provides an adequate legal framework for private activity in outer space, though later speakers would suggest that a stronger framework of laws is necessary to grant possession/property rights, considering the prohibition against national appropriation in Article II.
“Who is Going to the Moon? Public/Private Partnerships and Procurements” was the topic for the first panel. Steven Mirmina (International Law Practice Group, NASA) and Diane Howard (Chief Counsel, Office of Space Commercialization, Dept. of Commerce) joined Sundahl and Johnson. They talked about the already robust partnerships between the United States government and private industry that have grown around the International Space Station and the commercial cargo and crew missions. They also highlighted the international agreements that have evolved to codify the cooperation between nations that is required for projects like the ISS.
They acknowledged that, in the United States, there are multiple agencies with jurisdiction over different aspects of space activity (e.g., Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission) but that steps were being taken to streamline the process and shorten the time between application and launch. One possibility is to issue licenses that are for types of activities rather than a specific activity, allowing for changes in timing and cargo that would not require a new application. They also discussed space debris and satellite constellations. Although most of the panel’s time went to activities in low Earth orbit, there was a presumption that the traditional economic model would be extended to lunar activities: NASA contracting with private industry to build the Lunar Gateway station and send landers to the Moon.
The conference then went local: “How Ohio Companies Can Get Involved in the Artemis Program – Lessons from NASA and Industry Lawyers.” The panelists were John Sankovic (President, Ohio Aerospace Institute), James Jackson (NASA Glenn Research Center, Office of the General Council), Justine Kasznica (Babst Calland LLP), and Jon Yormick (Phillips Lyttle LLP). They noted that Ohio was the birthplace of aviation—the Wright Brothers—and was currently the largest supplier for Boeing. The Rust Belt region, stretching from Pittsburgh through northern Ohio to Detroit, has been transforming itself and is now a center for high-tech development in many industries. These skills and resources can be leveraged to become contractors or subcontractors in upcoming space-related projects, including the Artemis program, for hardware, software, and related products/services.
| The Open Lunar Foundation has eight engineers working full-time on spacecraft development and a think tank to work on legal matters, to “fill the gaps in the Outer Space Treaty, of which there are many,” according to Schingler. |
Although there are many nut-and-bolts to the process, both literally and figuratively, the region and its institutions have the capacity to meet any legal needs, from protecting intellectual property to government applications and certifications. Like the preceding panel, there was a presumption that the role of the private sector would be as contractors and subcontractors for government projects, both domestic and international (e.g., the lunar lander being built by Astrobotic in Pittsburgh). Neither panel envisioned the private sector acting on its own.
The afternoon panels were more expansive, beginning with “How Will We Govern a Moon Village? Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Standard Setting, and International Cooperation.” There were four new panelists: Giuseppe Reibaldi (President, Moon Village Association, or MVA), Michelle Hanlon (Founder/President, For All Moonkind), Jessy Schingler (Open Lunar Foundation), and myself, as Founder/President of The Space Treaty Project. Reibaldi spoke by video from Italy, a concession to the spreading global pandemic. He introduced the newly drafted MVA Principles, an effort to provide guidance for activities on the Moon. The principles urge all actors to abide by the first four space treaties (OST, Rescue, Liability, and Registration) and detail non-binding recommendations/obligations—aka “soft law”—in lieu of the fifth space treaty, the Moon Agreement. The obligations include registering lunar activities, avoiding “harmful interference” with such activities, and avoiding harmful contamination of the lunar environment. The Principles will (hopefully) be presented at this summer’s meeting of the UN’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in Vienna.
A conference panel discusses lunar legal issues. From left: Dennis O’Brien, Michelle Hanlon, Chris Johnson, Steven Mirmina, and Jessy Schingler. (credit: Cleveland-Marshall School of Law)
|
The Open Lunar Foundation envisions nonprofit actors on the Moon in addition to government and commercial actors. It has eight engineers working full-time on spacecraft development and a think tank to work on legal matters, to “fill the gaps in the Outer Space Treaty, of which there are many,” according to Schingler.
In addition to leading For All Moonkind, Hanlon is also director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi. The center is also looking at the Outer Space Treaty to determine if it can support commercial activity on the Moon or if the legal framework needs something more. Her own research is focused on human rights in outer space and how individuals will be protected.
Like the other three nonprofits represented on the panel, the Space Treaty Project was started three years ago, indicating a natural emergence of interest and focused activity as humanity prepares to leave the home planet. The project has taken the position that additional hard law is needed to support private activity in outer space, and that the best vehicle for creating such law is an implementation agreement for the Moon Treaty, along with updates for the Rescue, Liability, and Registration treaties. “The state of space law concerning private activity is, at best, uncertain,” I explained, “and businesses and investors hate uncertainty.” The project has published its latest proposal for an implementation agreement for the Moon Treaty. http://spacetreaty.org/implementationagreementjournalrevision.pdf.
“That’s really the question on this panel,” observed Sundahl, who was moderating. “Do we need additional laws and what should they look like? I would love a treaty, too, but I think the chances of a wide-ranging international treaty are zero.”
“This year,” I replied.
“This year,” acknowledged Sundahl. “We shouldn’t give up entirely, but there are political realities.”
The panel went on to discuss “soft law” efforts to fill the gaps in space law, such as MVA’s Principles and the Building Blocks of the Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group. Some advocated for an expanded use of registration, perhaps under the Registration Convention, that would allow actors to give notice of their activities on the Moon and thus protect such activities from “harmful interference” that are prohibited by the OST. There was also a discussion of personal jurisdiction: what country’s laws govern the actions of an individual? Everyone agreed that the laws of the state authorizing an activity would follow the individual even when visiting another state’s activity site, though there seems to be an exception for individuals seeking asylum. The operating agreement for the ISS was cited as an example of how an additional international agreement—hard law—could be useful when different states must coordinate their activities in close proximity. The panel also discussed establishing liability for damages and the use of arbitration to resolve disputes between actors of different states, including enforcement of decisions and awards.
| “Preservation is a great starting point to get everybody on the same page,” sad Hanlon. |
The final panel focused on “Land Rights, Natural Resources, and the Protection of Sites of Significant Historical or Scientific Interest.” Steven Freeland of Western Sydney University, an expert on international law, joined the panel via video. Australia is a State Party to the Moon Treaty, and Freeland spoke in favor of additional international agreements to provide “clarity and certainty” concerning property rights and other outer space activities. He noted that some countries, like the United States and Luxemburg, had passed national laws on these issues but that there is an effort among other states for a multilateral approach. The panel agreed that conflict is possible, perhaps even likely, over certain scarce resources like water and locations that provide “eternal sunlight” for solar energy farms, and that we need some framework, be it soft law or hard law, that helps actors avoid or resolve such conflicts.
Hanlon noted that preserving historical, scientific, and cultural sites is the primary mission of For All Moonkind, and that they were worried about the effects of landers on such sites. The debris kicked up by landers’ engines will travel far, because of the lower lunar gravity and no air resistance to slow it down, harming such sites even at a distance. Her organization is currently working on designated landing sites with protective berms to reduce debris spray and hopes that there can be an international agreement to use them. “We need to build public support for the universality of space, to make the world realize that those bootprints on the Moon are like those footprints (on Earth, preserved in hardened mud) made three million years ago… Preservation is a great starting point to get everybody on the same page.” NASA’s Mirmina noted that the agency has adopted guidelines to provide such protection to all human heritage sites and that any country working with NASA must agree to do so. There is also a bill before the US Congress, the One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act, that provides such protections. Open Lunar Foundation’s Schingler suggested that we allow specific activities at specific locations and agree to leave the rest of the Moon alone.
An audience member asked if UNESCO could designate lunar sites as cultural heritage sites and thus give them the same protections afforded such sites on Earth. Hanlon explained that the UNESCO charter (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) requires that any nomination for a site to be designated for protection must come from the state within whose territory the site is located. But, because of the prohibition against national appropriation in Article II of the OST, no state can make such a claim. This appears to be another gap in the current framework of space law that will require a hard law international agreement to fix.
The panel agreed that the current treaties and laws are subject to differing interpretations. They supported efforts by the Hague International Space Resources Governance Working Group (Building Blocks) and the Moon Village Association (Principles) to develop guidelines that could be adhered to by states pending any new international agreements. Expanded registration of activities, for example, would at least put others on notice and reduce the likelihood of harmful interference. Johnson pointed out that the voluntary Sustainable Development Guidelines for outer space adopted by consensus at last year’s COPUOS meeting were the product of years of negotiations involving all stakeholders; such extended negotiations would likely be necessary for the success of any future effort at international agreements.
As Johnson put it, “If you don’t have a regulatory compliance plan as part of your business plan, you don’t have a business plan.”
“One of the things investors are looking for is our answers so they can take away as much of the risk as possible. One of the biggest risks we’re dealing with, with respect to mining on the Moon or creating a community on the Moon, is what are the laws and regulations that are going to apply?” Hanlon said. “We don’t want burdensome regulations, but we want to know what’s going to happen when we get there; that is a fundamental need for anybody. We want transparent and clear laws so that you can go to your investors and say ‘I know this is what’s going to happen and I know this is how I’m going to make money off it’ and we don’t have that yet.”
| As Johnson put it, “If you don’t have a regulatory compliance plan as part of your business plan, you don’t have a business plan.” |
There were additional topics worthy of expanded discussion, such as how to share the benefits of outer space with all nations, but time was limited. The conference had already been reduced from two days to one, as some speakers cancelled due to the impending pandemic. Indeed, had the conference been scheduled a week later, it would likely have been cancelled. Attendance, though, was good, and overseas speakers were able to participate by video.
Those who attended appreciated the information presented and the opportunity to engage with those directly involved with space law and its impact on the private sector. By the end of the day there was a feeling that the Moon Village already existed, that those at the conference were its first inhabitants, with a duty to work for those who followed and a mission of providing hope and inspiration to the people of Earth. Could building a peaceful and cooperative society on the Moon help nurture peace and international cooperation on Earth? For those on the forefront of space law, the answer is yes.
Note: we are temporarily moderating all comments submitted to deal with a surge in spam.
The Coronavirus Is Causing Big Problems For India's Space Program
The role of global cooperation in space after COVID-19
by Ajey Lele
Comments (0) |
| Because of the COVID-19 crisis, the Indian government expected to try to reduce the budget allocations made just in February. Science and technology could thus be one sector vulnerable to budget cuts, particularly for new projects. |
Like much of the rest of the world, India is under lockdown. It is bit premature to predict the exact impact of coronavirus crisis on the Indian economy since the situation is still evolving. However, it is clear at this stage that the country will be facing major economic downturn and levels of unemployment will steeply rise. The government has already offered an economic package of 1.7 trillion rupees ($22.3 billion) in the last month for providing food security and money to the poor. It is expected that the government would shortly announce the next economic stimulus package.
All this would require the government of India to undertake a ruthless review of existing patterns of expenditure. The government budgeting caters to the requirements of various segments of the society, including agriculture, health, education, and railways. The budget has two other important areas of attention: defense and science & technology.
Because of the COVID-19 crisis, the Indian government expected to try to reduce the budget allocations made just in February. However, it could be difficult to make major cuts in the agricultural, social services, and defense sectors. Science and technology could thus be one sector vulnerable to budget cuts, particularly for new projects. It is fully understood that science and technology is one area that always needs a budget boost to ensure progress of research and development and innovation continues unhindered. However, these are difficult times and there would be requirements to make some immediate compromises.
There is a need for the Indian government to prioritize certain projects. For example, the government announced in its 2020 budget a National Mission on Quantum Technologies & Applications (NM-QTA) with a total budget outlay of 80 billion rupees ($1 billion) over five years. It is a much-required investment because quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and quantum communication would allow India to leapfrog its technology development. However, this project is vulnerable to potential reprioritization by government agencies.
Another major project on the anvil is the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Gaganyaan project. This is India’s ambitious program for a human mission to low Earth orbit with an estimated cost of 100 billion rupees ($1.3 billion). Jairam Ramesh, a member of parliament who is also the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, has recently suggested in an interview with Pallava Bagla that under these tight fiscal circumstances India could think of delaying this mission by three to four years.
| Today, when the virus is taking so many lives, it would be immoral to even offer a counterargument to opinions like, “Why spend money for going to Moon and Mars when our healthcare sector is suffering?” |
Gaganyaan is a spacecraft for carrying an Indian astronaut to space. Four Indian Air Force test pilots are undergoing astronaut training in Russia. It is proposed to fly its first mission by late 2021 or early 2022, lasting for approximately seven days. So far only three countries in the world have demonstrated such capability, namely the US, Russia, and China. There is an opinion in India that, since they are almost two years away from a flight, it could be better to freeze this mission for a few years and allow finances to be diverted to address the COVID-19 crisis.
Indian is not the only major space power facing major financial challenges owing to the coronavirus pandemic. Thus, while the issue of Gaganyaan is India specific, it still should not be viewed in isolation. In many other nations, major space projects demanding significant financial commitments could be put on the backburner in near future. Various investments in space will under major scrutiny because of this crisis. Today, when the virus is taking so many lives, it would be immoral to even offer a counterargument to opinions like, “Why spend money for going to Moon and Mars when our healthcare sector is suffering?”
At the moment, it is premature to predict what the world will be like after, perhaps, six months. It is not the purpose of this essay to debate about the possibility of a “new world order” in post-coronavirus era. However, in all likelihood, world powers will realize the need for greater cooperation among nations versus any aggressive competition. At the same time, it would be naive to think that power politics would wither away so easily.
But, perhaps, space could offer an excellent opportunity to demonstrate a way forward. It is a reality that many major space missions are money-guzzlers. However, altogether stopping investments in major space protects could work against the long-term interests of humanity. Various space projects among nations are at different levels of maturity. All these projects have relevance, and it could be unwise to terminate these projects. Hence, bilateral and multilateral collaboration could emerge as better options for the future. All this would require various states to alter their mindsets.
Some people have been arguing in favor of global cooperation as a better option, particularly in case of human missions to the Moon and Mars. Now, the time has come for the world to look at the importance and urgency in regard to various proposals in development and on the drawing board. Countries should stop the unnecessary activity of trying to reinvent the wheel in every respect of space experimentation.
In case of India’s Gaganyaan mission, a couple of years back some people argued that India should avoid going solo for human spaceflight. In one conference in Goa in 2018, scientist V Siddhartha had suggested that India should actively advance the idea that human space flight programs of all spacefaring nations become an international collaborative program among those national space agencies. Even today, India could lobby to become a part of ISS. This also could allow India to send their astronauts after their successful completion of training to ISS.
| Yt could be a positive development for the global community if nations decide to shift their futuristic ambitious programs from the local to the global level. |
Gaganyaan has yet to reach the midpoint of its development. The two uncrewed test flights of this program had been scheduled for December 2020 and July 2021. Two Indian Data Relay Satellite Systems (IDRSS) communications satellites meant for this mission are also under development. This suggests significant savings for the government if this project is put on hold for some time.
Today, the world is enduring a major crisis that demands drastic measures. After the situation gets stabilized to some degree, the space community can a take a measured view about their various ongoing projects and decide on priorities. However, it could be a positive development for the global community if nations decide to shift their futuristic ambitious programs from the local to the global level. It was always known that science would go faster if important countries join hands together to further their space agendas. Now the time has come to bring it in practice.
Note: we are temporarily moderating all comments submitted to deal with a surge in spam.
Comments
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Tuesday, April 7, 2020
Monday, April 6, 2020
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Saturday, April 4, 2020
NASA's Perseverance Mars Rover Gets Its Wheels and Air Brakes
NASA's Perseverance Mars Rover Gets Its Wheels and Air Brakes: After the rover was shipped from JPL to Kennedy Space Center, the team is getting closer to finalizing the spacecraft for launch later this summer.
Friday, April 3, 2020
Thursday, April 2, 2020
The Man Who Wanted to Fly on Mars
The Man Who Wanted to Fly on Mars: The Mars Helicopter is riding to the Red Planet this summer with NASA's Perseverance rover. The helicopter's chief engineer, Bob Balaram, shares the saga of how it came into being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)