EnterSpace

How would Buck Rogers do under a Romney Space Policy?

NASA Watch has a post up today on what a Romney space policy would look like. Since his advisors seem to be split into pro-SLS/Constellation and pro-NewSpace camps, the answer is "anyone's guess". Given that there is very little evidence that Romney has even given much thought to the space program at all - other than to blast Newt Gingrich's proposed lunar colony - it's likely that this is not simply obfuscation. Romney doesn't know himself.

But to the extent that Romney has hitched himself to the Paul Ryan budget bandwagon - and Romney endorsed it before naming Ryan as his running mate - perhaps it is worth pondering what the budgetary environment would look like for NASA under Ryan-derived budget scenarios.

SpacePolicyOnline notes that NASA's non-aeronautics activities are in the same budget category as the the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy's science programs. In the near term under a Ryan budget this category (technically known as "function 250") would be allocated a little more than $1 billion less than the Obama budget.

Given the strong and organized constituencies in support of NSF and to a lesser extent DOE, it is likely that the lower allocation would hit NASA very hard - perhaps even disproportionately so. Looking out over a longer 10-year period, a Washington Post analysis indicates that the total allocation for function 250 is six percent less in the Ryan budget compared to baseline. Whether one supports SLS or NewSpace (which requires NASA to be, at the very least, a key customer), even a watered-down version of Ryan budget is virtually certain to undermine efforts to re-establish a robust U.S. space program.

It's almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the Ryan approach is truly radical: energetic tax cuts, increased defense spending, and significant cuts or restructuring to entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. What's less widely discussed is the Ryan emphasis on cutting discretionary programs - which include all non-defense related spending on space, science, and technology. A CBO study found that the Ryan budget would result in cuts to all discretionary spending from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 5.75% in 2030 and 3.75% in 2050. Unless one believes the Ryan plan is some kind of magic economic growth formula that will increase GDP growth to 7 or 8% a year for the next 40 years, that is what's known as a drastic budget cut.

The New Yorker's James Surowiecki notes that the Ryan plan would

reduce federal spending to its lowest point, as a percentage of G.D.P., since 1951. And since an aging population, with rising health-care costs, means that a hefty chunk of government spending will be going to retirement and health-care benefits, hitting Ryan’s target would require drastically shrinking everything else.

It was, after all, Newt Gingrich who called the Ryan plan "right-wing social engineering" and "suicidal" (though specifically he was talking about its cuts to entitlement programs, and to the political implications for Republicans who endorse it).

And so granted, this is all something of a thought experiment since for what it's worth: A. at this moment in the campaign it still seems more likely than not that Obama will be re-elected; B. even if Romney/Ryan are elected, that does not mean Ryan priorities would become Romney's policy; and C. even if they were, given the realities of U.S. politics it is unlikely that Ryan priorities would remain in effect beyond their term of office.  

But any of the A, B, or C scenarios still have important implications for space. Much damage can be wrought by cavalier approaches. Some people conveniently forget that not so long ago the U.S. government ran budget surpluses. It could do so again with more sensible policies - and those don't require radical or Procrustean solutions.

But for purposes of this analysis, in some sense it's irrelevant whether Romney would come down as pro-SLS or pro-NewSpace. What would matter is what kind of budget stance he takes. Budgets drive all. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Read the NASA Watch piece after the jump.

Image courtesy: Philosophy of Science Portal

My Neil Armstrong stories

Neil Armstrong passed today. Rest in peace, Mr. Armstrong. Although he would have demurred, he was a genuine hero, and the world has lost a great man.

Much will be written about him in the next couple of days and there isn't much I can add to the telling of the grand story of his life. But I was extremely fortunate to have met Neil Armstrong twice, and so will share my personal stories.

The first time I met him was at the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation's Apollo 14 Anniversary at the Kennedy Space Center in January 2011. When he walked into the room, you could hear everyone's voice drop to a whisper: "That's Neil Armstrong!" I confess to being a little star-struck. My wife, on the other hand, showed no fear and walked right up to him and said "I'd like to introduce you to my husband". He extended his hand graciously and we shook hands - but all I could really manage to get out was "It's a pleasure to meet you. Thank you for your service and your work." I mean, what can you ask Neil Armstrong that he hasn't already been asked about 10 million times? I didn't want to look like a doofus asking him the same dumb question he got tired of answering by 1970. Unlike when I was a kid, I don't usually get all goo-gaw when meeting famous people, and when I sheepishly admitted to being a little flustered in meeting him, others at the event all said, essentially "So did we. It's Neil Armstrong - it's allowed."

The second time was just this last April, at the Apollo 16 anniversary at KSC. This time I wasn't the least bit nervous - although, he being who he was, it was hard to find him not surrounded by 6 or 8 people. Sara and I finally managed to find him with just his bodyguard, and we approached him. He had a gracious, modest, but no-nonsense demeanor, and I got to spend about two or three minutes one on one with him. We chatted a bit about the event, and then I asked him about the training sites they used in preparation for Apollo 11. Specifically, I asked "Which of all the training sites you and Buzz used were the most useful in preparing for the surface work on the mission?" He looked at me and squinted with an intense expression that I can only describe as Clint Eastwood-ian. I think he was trying to decide if that was a really smart question or a really dumb one. After thinking about 10 seconds, he said "You know, no one has ever asked me that question. I can’t think of one that was very similar at all.” I mentioned that I’m from Hawaii and that I know the Apollo astronauts used sites on Mauna Kea on the Big Island as a close lunar analogue site. He answered, “It was the moon. Very different.” At that moment – not because of my question – his bodyguard signaled that it was time for Mr. Armstrong to make his exit from the event, and Sara made a plea for one more photo. The bodyguard objected, but Neil graciously said, “Ok, one more.” And so we got our photo with Neil Armstrong.

I am genuinely sad today. Though I didn’t know the man beyond those two short exchanges, like many others I felt a personal connection with him. 

Just say the name “Neil Armstrong”. He is the very definition of inspiration and cool-as-a-cucumber courage. He wasn’t just cool-under-pressure – he was the ultimate cool under pressure character. Hemingway's fictional characters had nothing on Neil Armstrong. These days we throw out the word “hero” like candy to just about anyone who does anything remotely admirable, but he was the real deal.

I don't know how he came up with his first words on the surface of the moon, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." But they were inspired. Carl Sagan mused that in their voyages to the moon, the Apollo astronauts entered the realm of myth and legend. But Neil saw himself as a nerdy engineer who was just doing his job. Perhaps, but he is no less of a hero for that. As the first to venture to the moon’s vast, dangerous unknown, Neil Armstrong was our heroic representative making a giant leap into the unknown on behalf of all of us. 

Thank you, Neil Armstrong.

Image: NASA

China unveils planned space science projects

Latest on China's planned space science projects. HMXT is an x-ray telescope planned for 2012 that will be China's first civilian space telescope. DAMPE (Dark Matter Particle Explorer) is a planned satellite that will look for dark matter and other high energy particles. Another as yet unnamed project will examine the solar magnetic field, and yet another is a joint Sino-French project to study gamma ray bursts. And finally, China announced plans for a second Antarctic Survey Telescope.

These projects were announced at the opening of the International Astronomical Union's 28th General Assembly, which is being held in Beijing.

China unveils ambitious space projects

Xinhua, 08:25, August 22, 2012

BEIJING -- China will launch several space projects, including a hard X-ray telescope for black hole studies, between 2014 and 2016, according to a senior Chinese astronomer.

Su Dingqiang, an academic at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and former president of the Chinese Astronomical Society, revealed some details regarding the hard x-ray modulation telescope (HXMT), China's first space telescope, on Tuesday at the opening ceremony of the International Astronomical Union (IAU)'s 28th General Assembly.

The hard X-ray band is a key waveband for high-energy astrophysics studies. Hard X-rays originate mostly from regions close to black holes and have high penetrative power, making them important tools for studying physical processes in extreme conditions, such as high matter density and high energy density.

Su said China will develop another satellite, the dark matter particle explorer (DAMPE), to help detect high-energy electrons and gamma rays, as well as a telescope to study the solar magnetic field and a Sino-French joint mission to study gamma ray bursts. Su said Chinese scientists are also planning to establish an Antarctic astronomical observatory.

Cui Xiangqun, an academic at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and president of the Chinese Astronomical Society, said a lot of work has been done to gain experience for the future construction of an observatory in the Antarctic.

An Antarctic Survey Telescope (AST) was installed there at the beginning of the of the year and another AST will be installed in 2013, said Cui. China's first Antarctic telescope was installed in 2009.

"We can only send scientists there once a year and each time they can stay no more than three weeks. These telescopes help us detect problems via remote control," Cui said. "Some of the technological problems we face there are similar to those in space, like low temperatures," Cui said. However, Cui was optimistic about the Antarctic facility. "It has drier air, better visibility and fewer background disturbances. Its turbulent boundary layer is closer to the ground compared to other sites on the ice slope," she said while describing the area near the telescope.

Chinese space exploration has developed rapidly in the past decade. Some large-scale astronomical projects in China, including the Large Sky Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) completed in 2008 and the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST) to be completed in 2016, have drawn global attention.

The ongoing conference, the first of its size to be held in China, is itself a historic occasion for the country. "China's technology has advanced markedly, and some of its buildings are really world-class. The fact that we are meeting here is an indication that China has emerged in a short period of time to be competitive on the world stage in the science of astronomy," said Robert Williams, IAU president.

via english.peopledaily.com.cn

Interactive Graphic: The Drake equation - how many alien civilizations exist?

Continuing our summer infographic series, BBC Future commissioned Information is Beautiful to create a fascinating interactive graphic for the Drake Equation. It's completely embedded on the BBC website so click on the image to go directly to the interactive or click here.

The Drake Equation, for those unfamiliar with it, is a mathematical equation devised in 1961 by Prof. Francis Drake from the University of California - Santa Cruz as an attempt to obtain a scientifically informed estimate of the number of intelligent alien civilizations that may exist in our galaxy. This isn't some woo-woo concept - it's the standard model used by astronomy researchers at SETI and elsewhere to grapple with the question of how common life - and in particular, intelligent life - may be in the universe. Carl Sagan was quite fond of discussing the Drake Equation in his books and in the famous TV series, Cosmos.

The equation is based on extrapolations, from reasonably well-understood numbers (at least to an order of magnitude), the estimated percentage of solar systems in our galaxy that have planets; the number of those planets that are in the "Goldilocks Zone" of habitability; the percentage of those habitable planets that happen to develop life; the number of those that develop advanced intelligent life.... and so on.

As a result of new astronomical observations carried out since 1961, we have a much better handle on some of these numbers - and in particular the number of extrasolar planets orbiting other suns. For that, you can thank NASA's Kepler Space Telescope - an amazing piece of astronomical space engineering. Kepler has already detected the presence of thousands of extrasolar planets, and a January 2012 analysis of Kepler data suggests that "planets are at least as numerous as the stars in the Milky Way", and that each star of the 100 billion or so in our Milky Way galaxy is estimated to contain "on average ... at least 1.6 planets." 

Ultimately, the Drake Equation is informed speculation - a guesstimate. Obviously no one should take the numbers too seriously. But it's an interesting exercise, and one I believe is important in order to have some scientifically sound method of calculating - at least to ballpark numbers - such an important question.

Embedded in the equation, as you will note from the interactive graphic, is a number that estimates the number of years an advanced civilization may be able to persist before it becomes extinct. This reflects an understanding of the Fermi Paradox - the evident contradiction between estimates of the apparent number of probable extraterrestrial civilizations and the fact that we have an utter lack of evidence for their existence. Put another way, assuming there are other advanced civilizations and also assuming, reasonably, that our civilization is somewhere in the middle of the bell curve of technological progress, that leaves a lot of more advanced civilizations out there in our galaxy. And if that's so, why haven't they contacted us to say "hey, we're here!"?

That's the Fermi Paradox. The estimates you use to plug in numbers to the Drake Equation heavily determine the results you get. And that, perhaps as tellingly as anything, reflects how optimistic or pessimistic you are about the ability of a civilization to be sophisticated and moral enough to avoid the pitfalls of social and technological evolution. The more pessimistic you are, the more easily the Fermi Paradox is to understand.

And yet you would be forgiven for hoping that there's something screwy in one or other equation somewhere, such that whatever extraterrestrial civilizations out there that may exist are just keeping their radio silence because they're shy and not because they killed themselves.

That wouldn't bode too well for us.

Image: BBC Future and Information is Beautiful

Mental Health Break: Amid Myriads of Stars, by AtomicZen

Found this photo on Facebook and thought it worth sharing. It's a composite Photoshop job, but still lovely.

Amid Myriads of Stars
Copyright : AtomicZen 

AtomicZen writes: 

Amid myriads of stars in a new moon night, I felt that we are only a small creature when comparing to the universe.

In that darkest night, the Milky Way could be observed with our naked eyes. I carefully set my camera on the spot while worrying about the incoming tide, even reducing its level from time to time. My brightest wide angel is Carl Zeiss 21/2.8 and it was used in this shot for foreground. I took two shots, one with 20 minutes @ f8.0 and iso 400 to make sure the rock's sharpness. I used hyper focus in the first shot.

Another shot was taken with about 3 minutes @ f4.0 and iso 3200. I lightened the rock, located in the foreground, by light painting it with my small torch.

Unfortunately, even the widest aperture of the lens (i.e., f2.8), I cannot illustrate the beauty of the Milky Way as it was. Hence, Carl Zeiss ZF 35/2.0 was used to capture the sky (i.e., iso 6400, f2.0, and 15 seconds).

In post processing, three shots were manipulated in Adobe photoshop. Nik Software, tonal contrast, was used to boost details of the Milky Way.

Image: Atomic Zen

NASA funds five “game changing” technologies

NASA's Space Technology Program announced that it has funded five innovative "game-changing" technologies to advance our spaceflight capabilities. I'm particularly intrigued by the "Membrane Enabled Reverse Lung" since advancing life-support technologies and how they may transfer back to Earth applications is one of my particular areas of interest - but I have no other information than what is below. A bit surprised to see there are no awards for advanced energy systems.

NASA's STP is part of the Office of the Chief Technologist. Hat tip to Parabolic Arc for the find.

WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — NASA’s Space Technology Program has selected five technologies that could revolutionize America’s space capabilities.

In March, NASA issued a call for proposal focused on sudden and unexpected innovations that hold a potential for providing a “game-changing” impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency’s space capabilities.

NASA has selected the following proposals for funding:

• “Representing and Exploiting Cumulative Experience with Objects for Autonomous Manipulation,” University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This technology could improve autonomous robotic operations using artificial intelligence during deep space missions.
• “Lightweight High Performance Acoustic Suppression Technology Development,” NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. This technology could suppress acoustic environments during launch. By reducing vibrations by acoustic suppression during launch, the amount of prelaunch vibration stress testing for onboard instruments also could be reduced.
• “Fast Light Optical Gyroscopes for Precision Inertial Navigation,” NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. This technology could enhance navigation capabilities for spacecraft by improving the performance of existing gyroscopes by a factor of 1,000.
• “EHD-Based Variable Conductance Thermal Interface Material,” The Boeing Company, El Segundo, Calif. The development of this thermal material could provide better heat management for spacecraft.
• “Membrane Enabled Reverse Lung,” Oceaneering Space Systems, Houston. This technology could reduce the number of life support systems needed for astronauts.

US, Chinese Scientists Discuss Space Collaboration At COSPAR 2012

A group of American and Chinese space scientists had an informal meeting at the COSPAR 2012 meeting last month to discuss ways to improve cooperation between the two countries. It was a closed-door meeting, so details on what was discussed are unavailable, nor do I have a list of the attendees. But it's reasonable to surmise that those on the U.S. side these were non-NASA space scientists who, as such, are not subject to the onerous and misguided Wolf Amendment that effectively bars any NASA contacts or conversations with China.

However, given that many at NASA - not to mention most sensible outside observers - don't agree with the intent or implications of the Wolf Amendment, it's also quite possible that these conversations had the informal blessing of NASA leadership. But on this point I merely speculate.  

The problem - and this is on both sides - is that reactionary elements in both countries would rather have confrontation than cooperation or collaboration. China's space program is run by the PLA who are not known for their transparency. (Nor is the Pentagon, for that matter - and in most instances that is of course proper.) 

The U.S. should engage in open conversations with China on space cooperation. It would be nice to discuss inviting China to join the list of ISS partners, or a joint mission to Mars, but those are a bit beyond the scope of what's currently politically possible. A good start would be even more important, but rather mundane, issues such as orbital debris and simply understanding the other's space strategy objectives. The first step in preventing misunderstandings that lead to strategic miscalculations is to increase transparency. China is not monolithic. Empowering the right people, initially through contact and conversation, not only increases understanding and lays the groundwork for (possible) future joint activities - it also disempowers those who benefit from paranoia and hostility. On both sides of the Pacific.

Image: Adapted from Indiana University

Romney snarks at China's moon plans: "Take a look at our flag!"

Given U.S. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's very poorly-recieved foreign trip to London, Jerusalem, and Warsaw in July, one would think that at least in terms of speaking about foreign countries he might try not to step in his own poo for awhile. You'd be wrong. 

Voice of America reports that at a campaign stop in Florida on Tuesday, Romney trash-talked China's Olympic medal count and its planned unmanned lunar mission, saying "I hope they have a good experience doing that. And I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago".

“This is still the greatest nation on Earth. I know there are people around the world who are always critical of America, have something negative to say, say our greatest days are in the past. Baloney. We just won more Olympic medals than any other nation on Earth. You also just saw we just landed on Mars and took a good look at what's going on there. And I know the Chinese are planning on going to the moon, and I hope they have a good experience doing that. And I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago.”

Criticism of China's trade practices, currency policies, or human rights record has a long track record among U.S. Presidential candidates of both parties. And China's leadership probably even "gets it" that they're a useful domestic foil (because they do it too). But that's not what Mitt Romney was doing here.

It's a good thing to be proud of one's country's accomplishments. It's another thing to be snarky and dismissive of someone else's. Romney's taunting words are more an illustration of America's insecurity at its relative economic decline than an expression of its (real) strength. In fact, this kind of demagoguery trivializes and diminishes U.S. accomplishments in space. And at the Olympics for that matter.

And it does not win any friends. A genuinely great nation does not need to brag or make lame statements to prove its "exceptionalism". Demogogic jingoism may win a few votes from the missing chromosome demographic, but it is both ugly and empty. Romney's performance was sad, and less than Presidential-calibur behavior.

via blogs.voanews.com

Help Kickstart "Fight For Space": a documentary on the future of human spaceflight

There's a very worthy documentary film project over at Kickstarter called "Fight for Space" on the future of the human spaceflight program. I was an early backer and hope you will consider making a contribution as well. I don't know the filmmakers personally but have had a few short email exchanges with Paul Hildebrandt and I think he's on the right track.

They have already hit their initial goal, but it's still a shoestring budget and of course a little extra cash will mean more interviews and a better overall film. The funding phase ends on Sunday Aug 19 at 9:55am EDT. So don't put it off.

Their promo video:

Check out their website. And from their Kickstarter page:

"Fight for Space" is a feature length documentary film that explores the current state and future of the U.S. space program. Since the Apollo era of the 1960s, NASA's budget has been shrinking and our ambitions in space have been decreasing. We are producing a documentary that will examine the reasons why our space program is not all it can be. We are also going to show that space IS worth the time, money, and energy that it needs, not for only exploration and scientific reasons but for economic, planetary security, and cultural reasons as well. We will also be covering the great scientific achievements that NASA is making right now, and we will be examining the new commercial space enterprise by companies like SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Bigelow, and more. Many problems have occurred in just the past 10 years that have lead to the consistent underfunding of NASA, the cancellation of multiple space systems, and the decline of America's role in space.

 

CCDev is dead. Godspeed, CCiCap: NASA's NewSpace Three

NASA announced last week that it has selected three NewSpace companies worthy of continued U.S. Government investment in developing privately-operated human-rated vehicles to low Earth orbit. In other words, the vehicles that will functionally replace the retired Space Shuttle in carrying astronauts to the ISS.

The successful companies are Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada. Sounds about right. 

The vehicles under development are, respectively: the CST-100, Dragon, and Dream Chaser.

The new program is known as CCiCap (Commercial Crew Integrated Capability), and will replace CCDev (Commerical Crew Development program). CCDev was a NASA space technology development program that began in 2010 and intended to stimulate development of commercially-operated crew vehicles to LEO. CCDev used funding instruments known as Space Act Agreements (SAAs) in order to expedite this program, and based on the striking success of SpaceX in sending its Dragon capsule to and from the ISS in May 2012, it did what it was supposed to do. CCiCap is essentially a continuation of the same technology development program with a winnowed-down list of companies.

Most notably absent from the list of target companies in CCiCap are Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and the ATK consortium. Via its representatives in the U.S. Congress, it seems ATK is not happy about NASA's decision. 

Reactions elsewhere have tended to be positive.

More info from the BBC on NASA's announcement after the jump.