the magazine of the american …...2 space times • march/april 2006 the magazine of the american...

T H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E A M E R I C A NA S T R O N A U T I C A L S O C I E T Y

MARCH/APRIL 2006

I S S U E 2 V O L U M E 4 5

2 SPACE TIMES • March/April 2006

T H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E A M E R I C A N A S T R O N A U T I C A L S O C I E T Y

MARCH/APRIL 2006

ISSUE 2 – VOLUME 45

6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354 U.S.A.Phone: 703-866-0020 Fax: [email protected] www.astronautical.org

AAS OFFICERSPRESIDENT

Mark K. Craig, SAICEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Peggy Finarelli, Finarelli AssociatesVICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL

Arun K. Misra, McGill UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS

Barbara B. PfarrVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS

Ronald J. Proulx, Charles Stark Draper LaboratoryVICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP

Steven D. Harrison, Northrop GrummanVICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION

John E. Cochran, Jr., Auburn UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE

Michael F. Zedd, Naval Research LaboratoryVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL

Lyn D. Wigbels, Rice Wigbels InternationalVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLIC POLICY

Ian Pryke, CAPR, George Mason UniversityLEGAL COUNSEL

Franceska O. Schroeder, Fish & Richardson P.C.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

James R. Kirkpatrick, AAS

AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORSTERM EXPIRES 2006Shannon Coffey, Naval Research LaboratoryAshok Deshmukh, Technica Inc.Angela P. DiazGraham Gibbs, Canadian Space AgencyRobert E. Lindberg, National Institute of AerospaceG. David Low, Orbital Sciences CorporationArthur F. ObenschainTodd Probert, Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.Frank A. Slazer, The Boeing CompanyTrevor C. Sorensen, University of Kansas

TERM EXPIRES 2007Paul J. Cefola, MIT/ConsultantMichael L. CianconeJohn W. Douglass, Aerospace Industries AssociationG. Allen FlyntRobert G. Melton, Penn State UniversityLinda V. Moodie, NOAAArnauld Nicogossian, George Mason UniversityFrederic Nordlund, European Space AgencyJames A. Vedda, The Aerospace CorporationThomas L. Wilson

TERM EXPIRES 2008Peter M. Bainum, Howard UniversityJohn C. Beckman, Jet Propulsion LaboratoryDavid A. Cicci, Auburn UniversityLynn F. H. ClineNancy S. A. Colleton, Institute for Global

Environmental StrategiesRoger D. Launius, Smithsonian InstitutionJonathan T. Malay, Lockheed Martin CorporationClayton Mowry, Arianespace, Inc.Kathy J. Nado, Computer Sciences CorporationRichard M. Obermann, House Committee on Science

SPACE TIMES EDITORIAL STAFFEDITOR, Jonathan M. Krezel

PHOTO & GRAPHICS EDITOR, Dustin DoudPRODUCTION MANAGER, Cathy L. EledgeBUSINESS MANAGER, James R. Kirkpatrick

SPACE TIMES is published bimonthly by the AmericanAstronautical Society, a professional non-profit society. SPACETIMES is free to members of the AAS. Individual subscriptionscan be ordered from the AAS Business Office. © Copyright2006 by the American Astronautical Society, Inc. Printed in theUnited States of America.

PERIODICALSSPACE TIMES, magazine of the AAS, bimonthly,volume 45, 2006—$80 domestic, $95 foreignThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, quarterly, volume54, 2006—$160 domestic, $180 foreignTo order these publications, contact the AAS business office.

REPRINTSSee a story you’d like to share? Reprints are available for allarticles in SPACE TIMES and for all papers published in TheJournal of the Astronautical Sciences.

ENTERING SPACEPresident’s Message 3

From the Editor 4

FEATURESOnce Upon a Time, “Responsive Space” Was Real — 5and Needs to be AgainToday we are lucky if “student payloads” are launched before“the student” retires from industry. This can, and must, change byreturning to the space program as it once was and making ResponsiveSpace a reality by James Wertz

Making the Most of the International Space Station 8The success of the International Space Station program now depends onmaking wise decisions and overcoming the barriers that stand in the wayof full scientific utilization of this unique orbiting research outpost.by Roger D. Launius

Reviews of Destination Moon and Roving Mars 11Two new IMAX movies demonstrate the power and the challenges ofmaking space films for the REALLY big screen. by Jonathan M. Krezel

The Vortex-Cooled Chamber Wall Engine: 13A Tamed TornadoDesigners hope a new rocket engine technology, combined with new vehicledesigns and operating models, will dramatically reduce the cost of gettingbulk goods to space. by Andrew E. Turner and William H. Knuth

AAS NEWS44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium a 15Big SuccessRecord participation and a strong cadre of speakers prove that the Visionfor Space Exploration is becoming a reality - but that many hurdles lieahead. by Jan Kalshoven and Michael Calabrese

SPACE NEWSAAAS Announces 2005 International Science 17Cooperation Award RecipientsA team of Russian and American Experts surmounts political and culturalhurdles to the benefit of all.

NOTES ON A NEW BOOKFirst Man: The Life of Neil Armstrong 19reviewed by Mark Williamson

IN ORBITStudent Teams Participate in AAS National 20Conference and 52nd Annual MeetingAAS provides future aerospace leaders with a unique opportunity to feedtheir enthusiasm and stretch their skills alongside working professionals.by Alicia Baker

SPACE TIMES • March/April 2006 3

What is the AAS? My previous Message described our Society’s StrategicPlan, its attributes and content, and progress made toward its implementation in2005. Strategy exists, after all, to be implemented, to prioritize and align our effortto have maximum impact. In this Message I would like to explore the Strategy’sfoundation, a foundation that hopefully articulates why you are a member of theAAS and that energizes you to become more involved.

The AAS Strategic Plan, to be effective, must be based on an understandingof who we are, where we hope to go, and the difference we will strive to make. YourBoard’s Executive Committee (ExComm) and its Strategic Plan Sub-Committee hadmany long and penetrating discussions on these subjects in the course of developingthe Plan. The views, perspective and advice of many members were sought. Fundamental truths and powerful insights emergedfrom these discussions that, taken together, are the foundation of the Plan:

• We are a network. A network, not simply an organization. Time and again we heard of how members had learned,grown, contributed and enriched their careers through relationships with other members, both informally and formallyin various AAS activities.

• We are space professionals, technical and non-technical. We are space professionals, beyond being space enthusiastsor advocates. We are both technical and non-technical. Our members are engineers, scientists, teachers, astronauts,lawyers, historians, artists, policy analysts, journalists, and entrepreneurs. We are much richer for this mix.

• We are dedicated solely to space. Its exploration, use and development. AAS is “Advancing All Space.”

• We are dedicated to harnessing the energy and capability of our members. We were created by the founders ofspace exploration over 50 years ago to make a difference. They made a difference. Our members today make a difference.The AAS exists to harness the energy and capabilities of its members to make a difference - to help the people, theprofession and the enterprise of space exploration and development flourish.

This foundation is powerful. It differentiates us from other institutes, societies and organizations; it reminds us of ourheritage; and it challenges us to rise to our unique potential.

I look forward to sharing strategic progress with you in the coming months and to getting your feedback and ideas.

Mark [email protected]

ENTERING SPACE

The Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium is named in honor of the American rocket pioneer. Goddard's numerouspatents and technical writings on the development and use of rocketry for space exploration remain the foundationof the discipline to this day and a source of inspiration for all explorers. (Source: NASA)

ON THE COVER

President’s Message


It’s been a fascinating and rewarding couple of months getting up to speedas editor of Space Times. This magazine is the popular voice of the AmericanAstronautical Society. As such, it speaks for, and to, the thousands of professionalsand observers who have a vested interest in promoting the goals and objectives ofAAS; namely, the advancement of all space and the creation of the spacefaringcivilization.

For years, I have valued the authority, experience, insight, and, mostimportantly, passion that the contributors to Space Times bring to their work. Thesepages have played host to articles from countless aerospace luminaries on a trulystaggering array of issues. Technology. Policy. Business. Law. Pop culture. History.In the future, you can expect to see this tradition carried forward with more articles, more features, and more special issuesdesigned to keep you up-to-date on the latest thinking in the field.

Space Times is also the magazine of record for AAS, the nation’s premier organization dedicated to the principle thatindividuals and groups sharing both commitment and common cause can create a future in space for generations to come. Assuch, you, the reader, expect the latest reports from recent AAS events as well as information on upcoming activities of interestto you and your peers in the aerospace community.

Space Times is your magazine. As a reader of Space Times, you have joined a network of thousands of others who, likeyou, have a vested interest in the broader goals of the AAS. That network is strong. It grows even stronger when individuals canstep up and share their strengths, their talents, and their experience with others on the network. I invite everyone to review theArticle Submission Guidelines on page twenty-three and, if you have an interesting story to tell that would benefit the community,let me know.

The goal of Space Times has been, and will continue to be, to provide a discussion forum for the community that isanchored in the goals of AAS. It is my responsibility to ensure that Space Times continues to serve your needs as your source forthought-provoking insights and the latest developments in this fast and rapidly accelerating field.

Thank you all for this opportunity to serve!

Jonathan M. [email protected]

From the Editor

AAS Volunteers NeededYour help is requested! Three important committees will meet this summer, and each is critical to the work ofAAS. The awards committee reviews nominations for ten major AAS annual awards and selects worthycandidates for election by the Board. The Fellows committee reviews candidates for the annual Fellowselection; 415 distinguished men and women have been chosen for this honor since 1954. Finally, the nominationscommittee develops a slate of officer and director candidates for election by the membership. Although theAAS president selects the committee chairs, membership of each is open to AAS members. If you are interestedin serving as a committee member, please contact the AAS office at [email protected].


Once Upon a Time, “Responsive Space”Was Real — and Needs to be AgainToday we are lucky if “student payloads” are launched before “the student” retires from industry. This can, andmust, change by returning to the space program as it once was and making Responsive Space a reality.by James Wertz

Spaceflight On Demand

As commercials keep reminding us,it is an “on-demand world,” unless you’rein the business of space. In our line ofwork, everything takes far longer than itshould and longer than it used to take.From the time President Kennedy an-nounced a decision to go to the Moon forthe first time, it took eight years to ac-complish that remarkable feat. Now weare trying to repeat that goal with an ini-tial timeline that is twice as long and verylikely to slip, as all space programs seemto do.

Responsive Space is the process ofchanging that pattern; i.e., of going backto the way space used to be done when itwas more fun, more exciting, cheaper, andgot more done. There is no general agree-ment on just what Responsive Spacemeans. The defining characteristics thatI’ve used for several years are shown inTable 1. The bottom line is that to be re-sponsive, space systems have to be manytimes faster to get into space and quite afew times cheaper than has been the casefor a long time.

Why Be in Such a Hurry?

When Hurricanes Katrina and laterRita hit the gulf coast, we needed infor-mation, we needed communications, weneeded better data for forecasts, and weneeded them in hours, not months oryears. It has become clear to all of us thatboth natural and man-made disasters canwipe out much of the infrastructure onwhich we have come to depend, and sav-ing lives and property depends in part onrestoring services (and getting new onesin place) in a very short time.

Imagine what might have occurredif we could have launched a satellitewithin hours of the Southeast Asia tsu-nami and seen where large debris fieldshad been washed out to sea. It is at leastpossible that many who died might havebeen saved. I cannot prove that betterknowledge or better communications orbetter forecasting would have saved livesin either Southeast Asia or the U.S. GulfCoast, but surely most of us can agreethat the response that did occur was inad-equate to the task at hand.

Similarly, in today’s military con-flicts, needs change rapidly. Even the lo-cation of the battlefield can change in amatter of hours as we fight a truly global

war where the enemy can strike anywhereon Earth at any time. Responsive Spacecan meet this challenge with supplemen-tary communications, surveillance, andweather data available in a matter ofhours, providing the right informationwhere and when we need it.

Responsive Space changes the wayspace assets are used. Today, we take adramatically long time (and largeamounts of money) to build space assetsthat will last for a decade or more andare fundamentally global in their charac-ter and coverage. Since we don’t knowwhere the next need will occur, we haveto blanket the Earth with all of the infor-mation gathering resources. The goal of

• Responsive – Provide requested information within 24 hours of anidentified need

– Launch within 8 hours of a previously unknown need

– Within 2 hours if on alert on the pad

– Can be put in place before or during a disaster

• Low Cost – Total mission cost less than $20 million each

– Launch = $5 million

– Spacecraft bus = $5 million

– Payload = $9 million

– Operations (6 months) = $1 million

• Flexible – Provide multiple types of data (from different spacecraft)for any location on Earth at any specified future time

• Focused – Specific geographic location and specific time of day

• Short Duration – 6 months to 1 year planned mission life

• Small Spacecraft – Total mass less than about 500 lbs

• Single Function – 1, or at most 2, payloads per spacecraft

• Low Altitude Orbit – 150 to 300 km altitude

Table 1. The defining characteristics of Responsive Space.


Responsive Space is to make a more in-telligent, focused use of scarce resourcesthat are able to respond in near real time.If we can put assets in place rapidly andat moderate cost, we can do far more withless money. Space assets are certainly notcheap, but then neither is putting a mili-tary or civilian task force into a previ-ously unidentified part of the world withan assignment that can change in a mat-ter of days or hours. In addition, usingground or air assets can potentially putpersonnel in harms way and can be viewedas a hostile act, irrespective of our inten-tions.

If we can create low-cost, respon-sive space, there are also a variety of newapplication areas that may open up. Someof these include:

• Search and rescue for both civilianand military disasters

• Monitoring unfolding world eventsfor news organizations

• Launching student experiments whilethey’re still students

• Follow-up on either successful or un-successful science or engineering ex-periments with new or revised instru-ments

• Materials processing in space• Ground-based, rather than space-

based sparing for constellations• Resupply or maintenance missions in

case of problems with human space-flight

Another, often overlooked, reasonfor Responsive Space is to allow us totake advantage of technological advancesin the shortest possible time. As the ter-rorist threat evolves, so too does our ca-pacity to monitor it, counter it, and totrack terrorists and their activities. Un-fortunately, traditional space surveillanceand reconnaissance systems take years ordecades to build and launch. Much lowercost, launch-on-demand satellites can al-

low us to put new technology into placeas soon as it is developed and to try ex-perimental approaches to see if they areeffective.

The problem being attacked by Re-sponsive Space is best summed up by sev-eral quotes:

“I believe that this nation shouldcommit itself to achieving the goal, be-fore this decade is out, of landing a manon the moon and returning him safely toEarth.” — John Kennedy, before a jointsession of Congress, May 25, 1961

“The U.S. Air Force has kick-started a major study on quick-to-launchboosters capable of enhancing the nation’swarfighting abilities,...Given a Pentagongo-ahead and funding, the Air Force couldfirst fly a multi-stage system by 2014.”— Leonard David, in Space News, March28, 2003

“If it takes us 11 years to create aResponsive Space capability, we alloughta find a different line of work.” —Jim Wertz, Challenge to the First Respon-sive Space Conference, April 1, 2003.

How Can We Create ResponsiveSpace?

If Responsive Space is critical tothe nation, as I believe it is, how do wemake it happen? The answer, of course,is that many things have to change —launch systems, payloads, spacecraft,communications, operations, and even thebasic way we do business in space.

Although all of the above are im-portant, the most important is launch.While not the dominate element for ei-ther cost or timing for most space sys-tems, it nonetheless drives the rest. Ifwe’re going to pay $10,000/lb to putthings into orbit, and if it takes years tomake it happen, then it has to be as lightas possible, as efficient as possible, andas error free as possible and this, in turn,makes it take years and cost $10,000/lb.

Fortunately, we can solve thisproblem. The Soviets and now the Rus-sians have been launching satellites in aday with high reliability and at low costsince very early in the space program. We

Figure 1. Microcosm’s Sprite Small Launch Vehicle is intended to launch 810 lbs into lowEarth orbit for a total cost of $4.2 million within eight hours of a newly identified demand.This is the type of capability needed to create Responsive Space. (Source: Microcosm)


understand what it takes. Launch vehiclesmust be designed from the start for re-sponsive launch, and they must be suffi-ciently low cost to be built to inventory.The launch vehicle must be sitting in stor-age, ready to go, when the satellite ar-rives at the gate or when it too is takenout of storage in response to a potentiallyunforeseen world event, such as the tsu-nami in Southeast Asia. Microcosm,AirLaunch, SpaceX, and Lockheed-Mar-tin all have launch vehicle designs thatcan do this job with technology that isessentially available today. (See Figure1.)

Of course, a responsive launch ve-hicle is only the first part of the solution.We still need responsive spacecraft, pay-loads, communications, and operations.There are two basic ways that we cantackle the spacecraft and payload prob-lem. One is to build them up rapidly fromlarge, pre-assembled building blocks.This process has come to be known asthe “6-day spacecraft” and quite a bit ofwork has been done on this approach atthe Air Force Research Laboratory andother locations. The other approach is tobuild full-up satellites in advance andstore them in the same fashion that thelaunch vehicles are stored. When imag-

ery is needed, we take out an imagingsatellite, put it on the launch vehicle, andsend them both to the launch pad for de-livery to orbit. Again, the real key is lowcost. If the cost of the complete satelliteis less than about $10 million, then it is areasonable item to keep in inventory, justlike cruise missiles, tanks, or materialsupplies.

The operations problem is a bittrickier because we have to get data downfrom the satellite after is has gathered thatdata over a region of the world we hadn’tbeen thinking of as a trouble spot (i.e.,southeast Asia) and which may not havethe satellite communications infrastruc-ture in place (or may have had it wipedout). Again, there are a number of solu-tions, including bringing the data downto multiple receivers located at embas-sies around the world, using satellite com-munication links (called cross-links), orusing store and forward techniques, likethe ORBCOMM system, and bring the databack when the satellite next passes overthe US.

Ultimately, more than anythingelse, Responsive Space requires a newway of thinking about how we use spaceand what we want it to do for us. Cer-tainly there are technical challenges, but

The National Space Society (NSS) and American As-tronautical Society are pleased to announce the recipientsof their 2006 scholarships to the International Space Uni-versity (ISU).

For AAS, Kirk Kittell received the $10,000 LadyMamie Ngan Memorial Scholarship to attend the SummerSession Program. Kirk is pursuing a Masters of Sciencedegree in Aerospace Engineering at the University of Illi-nois and is an active member of Students for the Explora-tion and Development of Space (SEDS). Annamarie Askrenreceived the AAS’ Annual $3,000 Scholarship to attend theISU Masters of Space Studies Program. She is a senior at

the University of Washington with a major in Aeronauticaland Astronautical Engineering.

For NSS, Dan Andrei Costea was awarded a $10,000scholarship to attend this year’s ISU Summer Session Pro-gram in Strasbourg, France. He is currently a student at theInternational University Bremen, studying electrical engi-neering and computer science. Dan is Romanian, and waspart of the winning team in the 2004 NASA Space Settle-ment Contest. Additionally, a $2,000 scholarship wasawarded to Kirk Kittell.

NSS and AAS are among several organizations of-fering annual scholarships to ISU. For information on ISUprograms, check www.isunet.edu. ■

2006 Scholarship Winners

these can be overcome with relativelymodest amounts of systems engineeringand a little old-fashioned ingenuity. Thebigger problem is simply deciding to doit, to turn back the clock in a sense to theway the space program was many yearsago, and to begin making space once againexciting, economical, and dramaticallymore relevant to today’s world. Chang-ing the entrenched way of doing things isnever easy. All of us in the space businessare a part of the problem. In the immor-tal words of Pogo, “We have met the en-emy, and he is us.” But we can also be apart of the solution. Indeed, we must be,if we are to make space relevant to theproblems facing us today and the bringerof promises and dreams to our childrenand grandchildren as it once was to manyof us. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. James Wertz is the President ofMicrocosm in El Segundo, CA, and thegeneral chairman and organizer for theannual Responsive Space Conference heldin the spring. He is also the editor and aprincipal author of a number of widelyused books in astronautics, includingSpace Mission Analysis and Design andReducing Space Mission Cost.


This early "Power Tower" concept is shown flying over Japan with a Japanese moduleattached at the nadir. The three major elements that make up the Japanese ExperimentalModule have been completed and are awaiting Shuttle flights to the ISS in the next fewyears. (Source: NASA)

Making the Most of the InternationalSpace StationThe success of the International Space Station program now depends on making wise decisions and overcomingthe barriers that stand in the way of full scientific utilization of this unique orbiting research outpost.by Roger D. Launius

No one envisioned that we wouldbe in the current situation when the spacestation first emerged on the nationalagenda in 1984. President Ronald Reaganproudly announced it in the State of theUnion Address on January 25, 1984, tell-

ing the nation that “America has alwaysbeen greatest when we dared to be great.We can reach for greatness again. We canfollow our dreams to distant stars, livingand working in space for peaceful, eco-nomic, and scientific gain.” More than

twenty years later those dreams remainunfulfilled. Although a crew has beenaboard since 2000, the InternationalSpace Station (ISS) remains incompleteand its promise of utilization virtuallynonexistent. Instead of “dreams to dis-tant stars” the space station program hassuffered a succession of cost overruns(more than $50 billion spent by the U.S.thus far), technical complexity (connect-ing the multiple components made aroundthe world together on-orbit), politicalshortsightedness (annual spending caps onthe construction effort, the political de-cision to place ISS in a 51.6 degrees or-bital inclination, and a host of other de-cisions), and international disagreements(over the use of Soyuz capsules and manyother issues).

The expectation that ISS would be-come a centerpiece of research in orbitsustained the effort. Some have referredto the operational station as an “NIH inspace” from which all manner of bio-tech-nical discoveries might spring. Othershave emphasized the station’s significanceas a laboratory for the physical sciences,with materials processing in microgravitythe chief research effort. Still others sug-gest that human factors research will gaina leap forward because of the work onISS, simply because data about changesto the bodies of astronauts engaging inlong duration spaceflight will expand ourbase of scientific knowledge. Finally,some contend that ISS offers a platformfor greater scientific understanding of theuniverse, especially about the origins andevolution of the Sun and the planets ofthis solar system. Those four scientificendeavors—bio-tech research, materialsscience, human factors, and space sci-


ence—represent a panoply of scientificopportunities once ballyhooed by advo-cates of the ISS.

The expectation of path-breakingresearch on-orbit continues to abound. In2001 Representative Ralph M. Hall (thenDemocrat-Texas), speaking at the AAS’sGoddard Memorial Symposium, com-mented that while elements of ISS hadbeen launched and crews placed aboard,he questioned NASA’s resolve to utilizethis new capability. He challenged NASA,“After all of the taxpayer dollars that havebeen invested in the Space Station, wewill need to ensure that we wind up withthe world-class research facility that wehave been promised.” As an aside to hisprepared remarks, Hall added that NASAhad better find a way to use the ISS ef-fectively. He said that some astoundingscientific discovery should be forthcom-ing—he specifically mentioned a cure forcancer—or the program could rapidly losepolitical support.

It looks like this has happened onlyfive years into the new century. Even theNASA administrator has called ISS, alongwith the Space Shuttle, a “mistake.” Asreported in a page one story in USA To-day on September 29, 2005, Mike Grif-fin said, “It is now commonly acceptedthat was not the right path,…We are nowtrying to change the path while doing aslittle damage as we can.” Seemingly, ISSis irrelevant to NASA’s task of exploringbeyond Earth orbit. But how do wechange the path? Does it involve quietlywithdrawing the resources necessary toutilize ISS and reprogramming it forother purposes? Does it involve turningISS over to another entity? Does it in-volve both of those options and perhapsothers?

Perhaps I am overly optimistic, butI like to think that the international con-sortium overseeing ISS would not allowits capability to be abandoned. I also liketo think that the many highly intelligentindividuals who make up the space com-munity will find a way out of the currentbox canyon we seem to have traveleddown. On my best days I believe this, at

other times I wonder. And sometimes deepmelancholia sets in as I ponder possible“nightmare scenarios” in which the UnitedStates abandons human spaceflight alto-gether.

Avoiding any of the “nightmarescenarios” for ISS will require dealingwith the factors currently limiting utili-zation. At a minimum there are four ma-jor ones. The first is the problem of spaceaccess. With the Space Shuttle fleetgrounded for all but one mission sincethe Columbia accident of February 1,2003, reaching ISS has become a task notwithout difficulties. The Shuttle providedenormous capability to bring cargo andequipment to ISS, to say nothing of thecomponents for completing it, and offeredas much as a 20,000 pound down-masscapability in any return to Earth. Its hia-tus means that the crew complementshrunk by one-third and the ability tomove experiments and other componentsto and from ISS is limited to Soyuz cap-sules and Progress resupply modules. Pre-sumably that problem will abate whenShuttle returns to on-going flights, but

with the prospect of the system’s retire-ment in the 2010 time frame a long-termissue looms on the horizon. Efforts toaddress this are necessary now to ensurethat we do not “box” ourselves in andavoid future limitations by making care-ful Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) de-cisions.

Second, crew time on orbit is an-other limiting factor, and one closely re-lated to the access issue. Aggressivelyworking to ensure a larger crew aboardISS, and maximizing their time to sup-port research activities, is a prudentcourse.

Third, the development of experi-ments and funding available to conductthem should take a higher priority placethan at present. Even understanding thevery real limitations of funding for sci-ence vis à vis other critical priorities, itis important that NASA make a good-faith effort to make ISS a world-classresearch facility as it promised for morethan two decades.

Finally, there are on-going bureau-cratic challenges, some of them relating

Astronaut William S. McArthur configures the Microgravity Science Glovebox to preparefor the installation and activation of the Protein Crystal Growth Monitoring by DigitalHolographic Microscope (PromISS) experiment on board the ISS in January, 2006.(Source: NASA ISS Program Office)


to international commitments, some do-mestic that require continuing diligence.At a fundamental level (notwithstandingRalph Hall’s quixotic call for curing can-

“No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”“No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

Since the flight of Freedom 7, one thing sure

hasn’t changed: Having the ‘green stuff’ is

just as important as having the Right Stuff.

Even today’s most advanced scientific, tech-

nological, and human capabilities will still

only take you so far without adequate capital

resources, optimally structured. As we enter

this next phase of manned space exploration,

we look forward to helping you—the indus-

try elite—reach escape velocity...once again.

N. Hahn & Co., Inc. Member NASD/SIPC

230 Park Avenue New York , N.Y. 10169 www.nhahn.com

NHahn Investment Banking

Fueling Dreams

TM

Photo used courtesy of NASA

Photo used courtesy of NASA

SM

"Seemingly, ISS is irrelevant to NASA's task of exploringbeyond Earth orbit. But how do we change the path?"

cer), as a nation, as a people, and as aspaceflight community we cannot affordto renege on the promises made since the1980s. If it is a token effort for the short-term, I am willing to accept a token ef-fort. But to abandon serious efforts to uti-lize ISS plays into the hands of those whowish to see it fail, and those who advo-cate a zeroing out of the human space-

flight effort in the United States. The NewYork Times editorialized in November2001: “in truth, it has never been clearjust what science needs to be done on a

permanently manned platform in spaceas opposed to an unmanned platform oran earthbound facility.” The positions ofsuch naysayers gain significant credibil-ity when we fail to fulfill our longstandingpromises.

I believe that if we lean forward witha commitment to ISS utilization, discover-ies made on the ISS will encourage the de-

velopment of a bright future in space. Per-haps even a research park in orbit with ISSas the “anchor” will emerge, acceleratingresearch in a wide spectrum of scientificdisciplines. Operations centered on the In-ternational Space Station could open spaceto humans in much the same way that mod-est government investment on the Ameri-can frontier forged links between curiosityand commerce, knowledge and a brightfuture. I hope we will advance ISS utiliza-tion and make the investments necessary toensure a peaceful, productive future forhumanity in space. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Roger D. Launius is Chair of theDivision of Space History at the NationalAir and Space Museum in Washington,DC.


Reviews of Destination Moon and Roving MarsTwo new IMAX movies demonstrate the power and the challenges of making space films for the REALLY bigscreen.by Jonathan M. Krezel

For more than a generation, notechnology has brought the visceral ex-citement of space exploration to morepeople than the IMAX film. Since therelease of the first IMAX movie in 1970,aviation and space films have been a main-stay of the medium, and for obvious rea-sons. In terms of sheer size, acousticpower, and quality of imagery, nothingcompares to watching a movie on thesebiggest of big screens. Movies like ToFly!, Hail, Columbia!, The Dream isAlive, and Space Station 3D have givenaudiences around the world unprec-edented access to and immersion in thethrill of a Space Shuttle launch and thebuilding of the InternationalSpace Station. They are the mod-ern equivalent of the old black &white televisions sets that carriedthe first live images from the lu-nar surface over thirty-five yearsago, and the medium by whichhuge numbers of people get theirfirst real gut-level taste of whatspace exploration is really allabout.

The latest in this long lineof space-themed IMAX shows arenow showing nationwide. Thefirst, Magnificent Desolation:Walking on the Moon 3D, is anextravagant homage to the Apolloprogram and our first, tentativeforays to the Earth’s nearestneighbor. Produced and narratedby veteran Hollywood space en-thusiast Tom Hanks, the film isnothing less than a technologicalmarvel. The 3D effects, thoughstill too jarring and clinical attimes to be fully lifelike, arenonetheless very compelling anddramatic. The introduction, with

a quick, kid-narrated review of mankind’sfascination with the moon throughout his-tory, wastes little time in getting the au-dience into the Lunar Excursion Moduleand out onto the moon’s surface. If any-thing, the journey happens too quickly.For example, you’d expect that an IMAXmovie about the Apollo program wouldhave the launch of the gigantic Saturn V– complete with immense clouds of smokeand belching flames accompanied by theunholy roar of five F-1 rocket enginesblasting off at full throttle – as its center-piece. Curiously, Magnificent Desolationskips over the launch of an Apollo mis-sion entirely.

Nevertheless, when the audiencefollows an unspecified Apollo crew to thelunar surface, the spectacle is truly mag-nificent. We see the moon through theeyes of the astronauts descending theLEM, hear their… our…breathing withinthe spacesuits, feel the dust kicked up aswe take our first tentative moonhops overthe dusty ground. And when you’re onthe surface, looking around, you can re-ally feel that unearthly loneliness, thatsense of wonder bordering on vertigo thatone must feel walking in a place that hasnever, in four and half billion years, wel-comed another living soul until that verymoment.

The most awe-inspiringmoment of the whole film maybe the shot where the LEM,which fills the whole 365 squaremeter screen, touches down on thelunar surface on top of a pillar ofsmoke, fire, and flying lunarrocks.

Then, silence.The camera, which until

now has focused on the LEM andits crew, backs away. And away.And away. What was an impos-ing interplanetary spacecraft withan intrepid crew of bigger-than-life heroes standing six storiestall, slowly shrinks to nothingmore significant that a glitteringpinprick of metal swallowed upby the bleak, blasted hills of anutterly alien landscape.

At that moment, you can’thelp but think that no other moviehas ever had a more appropriatename than Magnificent Desola-tion.

Few other formats have thepower to just rip this sense of awestraight out of the belly of an au-


dience. At its best, IMAX can dojust that. But sometimes the for-mat is so big that it tries to fightthe director who tries to tell amore intimate story. Roving Mars,the story behind the twin MarsExploration Rovers Spirit and Op-portunity, doesn’t fall into thistrap. Whereas the suffocatingvastness of the lunar landscape isthe star of Magnificent Desola-tion, it’s MER Principal Investi-gator Steve Squires, his team, andtwo little golf cart-sized robots thatsteal the show in Roving Mars.Squires is a naturally infectiouspersonality with an intense yetfolksy demeanor, and his love forhis people and the mission easilyfill even an IMAX-sized screen.Narrated by actor Paul Newmanand with Squires as the tour guide,Roving Mars moves effortlesslyfrom the gigantic volcanoes andcontinent-sized canyons of the RedPlanet to the clean rooms at theJet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasa-dena, California. Here, the IMAXformat is put to work showing thedizzying complexity of the rovers, andthe amazing amount of testing and vali-dation needed to bring them to life. Testparachutes rip apart with heart-wrench-ing sound effects, prototype air bags bursttumbling down rock-strewn ramps inmassive wind tunnels, and the whole timethe team is pushing, pushing toward alaunch schedule dictated by the inviolablelaws of Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton.

Once the rovers are buttoned up intheir payload fairings and mounted on topof their Delta II rockets, the full poten-tial of the IMAX theater is unleashed.Roving Mars seamlessly blends actual foot-age from the launch with computer ani-mation. Countdown…5…4…3…2…1.Then…BOOM! The seats rock and rolland the screen explodes as over 1 millionpounds of combined thrust flings therocket off the pad. Nine solid rocketsripple off the bottom of the core boosteras their propellant is expended. Then,deafening silence as the first stage is de-

pleted. A few seconds. Then…BOOM!Second stage ignition. More sound andfury as the payload, now traveling at al-most 28,000 kilometers per hour, clawsits way into orbit. A deafening roar, fol-lowed abruptly by quiet as the second stagecuts off. A few seconds. Then…BOOM!Third stage ignition, less than 2% of thethrust of the first stage, and yet the soundcoming from the IMAX theater’s build-ing-sized speakers is still nearly over-whelming. Finally, engine cutoff, and therover in its aeroshell is spin-stabilized andejected for its long nine month cruise.Overall, a fitting start for a mission to theplanet named for the Roman god of war…

Even knowing the outcome, theaudience seems as tense as the flight con-trollers at JPL as the rover screamsthrough the Martian atmosphere on de-scent. Though the movie itself is aboutrobots, the relief and joy of the flightcontrol team when they hear the first ten-tative signals from their robotic creations

safely down on the Martian sur-face makes Roving Mars aseemingly more human filmthen Magnificent Desolation.Afterwards, the science results,including the first compellingevidence of standing liquid wa-ter on another planetary surface,seems almost secondary to thesheer thrill of pulling of suchgutsy feat.

Together, these films bega number of questions for theperson interested in the long-term exploration and exploita-tion of space. MagnificentDesolation paints a picture of aplace as barren as can be imag-ined. If Apollo was more thanthe Cold War-era stunt that itsdetractors claim it to be, thenproponents of permanent pres-ence and settlement face thedaunting task of explaining howmankind is ready to accept thechallenge of transforming suchan empty, foreboding landscapeinto a vibrant focus of scientificand commercial activity in the

decades and centuries ahead. The verysuccess with which the movie lives up toits title means that audiences will be leftwith a powerful sense of how hard thatfuture will be to create.

At the same time, the infusion ofhumanity into the story of the Mars Ex-ploration Rovers is a powerful reminderthat people can indeed connect verydeeply to our robotic sentinels on the edgeof the unknown. How far can we pushthat connection and the scientific returnfrom robotic missions before we come tothe point where the human element needsto be co-located on site? These are hardlynew questions in our community. Never-theless, the brilliance of these films is theircapacity to provoke these questions in anew light…all while taking the audiencealong for one hell of a wild ride. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jonathan M. Krezel is a policy andprogram analyst at NASA and editor ofSpace Times.


The Vortex-Cooled Chamber Wall Engine:A Tamed TornadoDesigners hope a new rocket engine technology, combined with new vehicle designs and operating models, willdramatically reduce the cost of getting bulk goods to space.by Andrew E. Turner and William H. Knuth

The violent winds within tornadoesare among the most powerful forces on theface of the Earth. The Orbital TechnologiesCorporation (ORBITECTM) of Madison, WIhas discovered a way to harness the forcesof a powerful tornado-like vortex flow withina new rocket engine where the chamber wallsare protected from the fierce heat of com-bustion by a vortex flow field.

This tamed tornado exists today as thevortex cooled chamber wall (VCCW) rocketengine and is the focus of a 15-month, mil-lion-dollar study contract awarded in June2005 to an Aerojet-led team includingORBITEC, Space Systems/Loral, and Mi-crocosm. The California Space Authorityworked to obtain support for this studythrough the office of Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and the funding was derived from ef-forts of the U.S. Congress and Air Forcesupporting development of advanced launchvehicles.

As the following drawing illustrates,the vortex engine involves injecting one pro-pellant, in this case the oxidizer, at the baseof the chamber in a tangential direction togenerate a tornado-like flow. This flow swirlsup the wall to the head end. There it spiralsinwards to form a second vortex that de-scends along the centerline. The core vortexmixes and burns with the fuel, which is in-jected at the head end.

Combustion is confined to the coreby vortex-generated dynamic forces. Thepropellants perform two functions: first onepropellant insulates the walls as it works itsway to the core. Second, it mixes and burnswith the other propellant and releases heat. Theresult is an exhaust stream of hot, high-pres-sure gas that produces thrust.

Many rocket engines employ ablativematerial liners to absorb the heat transferred

to the walls, these liners are vaporizedand expended in the exhaust. Unfortu-nately, applying ablatives is costly, par-ticularly in the confined space of thechamber, and adds mass as well. Withno ablatives needed in the chamber, thevortex engine promises lower cost andmass, and a shorter schedule.

No mere tempest in a teapot, thevortex engine has already been exten-sively hot-fire tested. Despite the pro-verbial warning against wrapping firein paper, successful results have beenobtained using walls of combustiblePlexiglas, as the picture shows.

Tests involving a variety of fuelsincluding hydrogen, methane, RP-1 (re-fined kerosene) and carbon monoxide,with gaseous and liquid oxygen haveshown that while the core vortex withinthe combustion chamber is hot, thechamber walls remain cool. Vortex en-gines have produced over 386 kilogramsof thrust. ORBITEC is currently work-ing on designs for higher thrust levels.

The objective of this new studyis to validate the design for a vortexengine with a thrust of 45,000 kilogramsor more, the range required for a low-cost launch vehicle. This work begins

The vortex cooled chamber wall engine contains two co-axial vortices. The oxidizerflowing up from the base forms the outer, insulating vortex, and then spirals in at thehead end to form the second vortex that descends to flow out of the engine nozzle.Fuel is injected at the top of this inner combustion vortex. (Source: Orbital TechnologiesCorporation (ORBITECTM))


with physical testing utilizing cold gas andwater flows within highly instrumentedlarge scale engine model. Issues to be re-solved include whether this flow can bemade to spiral within the vortex core tokeep it isolated from the walls even at alarge scale where huge quantities of fluid

ABOVE: Oxygen and hydrogen burn in a VCCW chamber. The combustion chamber,constructed of Plexiglas, demonstrates the vortex cooled chamber wall concept. ThePlexiglas walls remain cool and undamaged even though the temperature in the corevortex is 3000 C. (Source: Orbital Technologies Corporation (ORBITECTM))BELOW: Aquarius Mission Profile. Low cost launch is achieved through relaxed reliability.(Source: Space Systems/Loral)

are involved. Can the vortex flow of thecombustion gases within the core be ex-panded into an exhaust jet to efficientlygenerate thrust at the larger scale? Willthe inner and outer vortices remain stableand in a predictable relationship as scaleincreases? Will additional design features

be needed to fully exploit the unique vor-tex properties and achieve the desired coldwall operation?

The applicability of this new en-gine is being investigated for a new launchvehicle: Aquarius. The engine and vehicleare well matched from the perspectivesof simplicity and economy. For manylaunchers engine reliability must be closeto 100% even if cost is high and scheduletight. As will be discussed, for Aquariussuch high engine reliability is not re-quired. Though unlikely, if it were to befound that achievement of high initialreliability of the vortex engine is depen-dent on an extensive effort, no issue isposed because high reliability is not re-quired for Aquarius economic success.

The Aquarius launch vehicle wasdiscussed in a previous article (SpaceTimes, May/June 2001), and requires atotal liftoff thrust of 400,000 pounds. Herelow cost launch is obtained by relaxingreliability. Aquarius system reliabilitymight be only 67%, so engine reliabilitymight be 93%. Aquarius will ship lowcost consumables and low-cost, replace-able spacecraft and other equipment toorbit. Since stringent protection of reli-ability is not required, the cost per poundto orbit could be $500, an order of mag-nitude below that of any present launcher.

Lastly, work will be performed onthis study to prepare for the next effort,which will involve actual hot-fire testingof a high-thrust vortex engine. A designof a workhorse version of this engine is agoal of the current effort and will be readywhen the time comes to take this nextmajor step on the road to flight and, fi-nally, operational use. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew E. Turner is the projectmanager of the Aquarius launch vehicledevelopment at Space Systems/Loral andwas the lead mission analyst for theGlobalstar constellation established byLoral and its partners; he can be reachedat [email protected].

William H. Knuth is chief engineerof Orbital Technologies Corporation(ORBITECTM) and is one of the inventorsof the vortex cooled chamber wall engine.


AAS NEWS

AAS’ 44th Robert H. Goddard MemorialSymposium a Big SuccessRecord participation and a strong cadre of speakers prove that the Vision for Space Exploration is becoming areality - but that many hurdles lie ahead.by Jan Kalshoven and Michael Calabrese

Attendees turned out in recordnumbers for the 2006 Robert H. GoddardMemorial Symposium, held March 14-15 at the Greenbelt Marriott Hotel. Thisyear’s theme, “80 Years after RobertGoddard’s First Rocket Flight: Engineers,Scientists and the Vision” addressed thehistorical anniversary and the Explora-tion Vision’s connection to Robert H.Goddard.

AAS President Mark Craig wel-comed attendees on day one and intro-duced Goddard Center Director EdWeiler, who in turn introduced keynotespeaker NASA Administrator MichaelGriffin. The Administrator referencedRobert Goddard’s “dream becoming re-ality” and discussed plans to implementthe Vision for Space Exploration begin-ning with the Constellation Program.Griffin also discussed NASA’s rationalefor science growing at the rate of infla-tion and stressed the need to complete theInternational Space Station, retire theSpace Shuttle by 2010, and hopefullysqueeze in a final servicing mission to theHubble Space Telescope. He also sum-marized launch vehicle capabilitiesneeded to implement the Vision along withcommercial opportunities.

Seven technical sessions filled thetwo day event. On the first day, NASAExploration Systems Mission DirectorateAssociate Administrator Scott Horowitzkeynoted a session on Exploration andthe Vision, moderated by Constellationprogram manager Jeffery Hanley, JohnsonSpace Center.

A session on Exploring with Hu-mans and Robots – The Synergy of Hu-man and Robotic Exploration, moderatedby GSFC Deputy Director MikeRyschkewitsch, followed with panelists

from NASA and academia. NASA ChiefEngineer and former GSFC Deputy Di-rector Chris Scolese moderated a panelon Engineering the Exploration – TheChallenge of Systems Engineering. LisaGuerra, Acting Director for NASA’s Ex-ploration Systems Mission DirectorateIntegration Office, led a panel on Engi-neering Innovation and the Vision.

Guest speaker John Marburger,Director of the White House Office ofScience and Technology Policy, providedthe keynote on day two, discussing theVision in terms of being long-term, sus-tainable and affordable. He said, “Thefundamental goal of this Vision is to ad-

vance U.S. scientific, security and eco-nomic interests through a robust spaceexploration program.” He also spoke ofthe Vision in terms of the American Com-petitiveness Initiative highlighted in Presi-dent Bush’s recent State of the Union ad-dress.

Technical sessions on day two be-gan with Future Human Capital Needsof the Vision, led by former Goddard di-rector and current president of the Uni-versal Space Network Joseph Rothenberg.The panel consisted of a broad represen-tation from leaders in industry, NASAand academia addressing the educational

John H. Marburger III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy provides thesecond day Keynote address. (Source: Chris Gunn, NASA GSFC)


and early career aspects impacting theworkforce needs of the long term Vision.

During the luncheon on day two,Mark Craig presented the president of theCommittee on Space Research(COSPAR) Roger-Maurice Bonnet withthe AAS Advancement of InternationalCooperation Award. Craig also bestowedthe AAS Eugene M. Emme Astronauti-cal Literature Award to MargaretWeitekamp for her book Right Stuff,

Wrong Sex: America’s First Women inSpace Program.

A unique afternoon session Scienceis Exploration was moderated by LaurieLeshin, Director of Goddard’s Scienceand Exploration Directorate, and GeorgeMorrow, Deputy Director of Goddard’sFlight Programs and Projects Director-ate. They introduced leader pairs fromtheir directorates who jointly addressedthe major science thrust areas of Earth

Science, Heliophysics, Astrophysics andPlanetary Science.

The Symposium concluded with asession on Exploration is Science, mod-erated by NASA Associate Administra-tor for Science Mary Cleave. The panelincluded two former NASA Science As-sociate Administrators Wes Huntress andLennard Fisk, President of COSPARRoger Bonnet, and NOAA Climate Pro-gram Office Director Chet Koblinsky.

A series of Innovative OutreachVideos were presented throughout thesymposium, which highlighted the inte-grated nature of NASA’s outreach effortsas an important element of scientific re-search, technology development and mis-sion formulation and implementation.

Goddard’s James Kalshoven led theplanning committee. GSFC and industryemployees made up the ten member teamwho worked closely with AAS executivedirector Jim Kirkpatrick and AAS presi-dent Mark Craig to generate this year’stheme, as well as a coherent selection ofsessions, moderators and presenters. Con-tacts for the first day were handled pri-marily by Mike Calabrese of SGT, Inc,Pat Rainey of The Boeing Company, andVicki Oxenham, Harley Thronson, andBarbara Pfarr of Goddard. Kathy Nadoof Computer Sciences Corporation, andVic Teplitz and Don Savage of Goddardmanaged the second day’s sessions. MikeCalabrese provided ideas and topics forthe outreach videos which were producedby Erica Drezek of Honeywell.

Presentations from this symposiumcan be accessed from the AAS web site atwww.astronautical.org. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. James Kalshoven is an electri-cal engineer and is currently NASA'sSBIR and STTR programs' R & D Tech-nology Manager, located at GoddardSpace Flight Center. He has received boththe NASA Exceptional Achievement andDistinguished Service Medals and theGSFC Inventor of the Year award.

Michael Calabrese is a SGT, Inc.Senior Program Analyst at the GoddardSpace Flight Center supporting theHeliophysics Division. He has been amember of the Goddard Memorial Sym-posium Planning Team since 2000.

ABOVE: NASA Administrator Michael Griffin Keynotes the Symposium. (Source: ChrisGunn, NASA GSFC) BELOW: Gen. Lester Lyles addresses the April 15 luncheon.(Source: Chris Gunn, NASA GSFC)


American Association for the Advancement ofScience Announces 2005 International ScienceCooperation Award RecipientsA team of Russian and American experts surmounts political and cultural hurdles to the benefit of all.

SPACE NEWS

The American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS), theworld’s largest general scientific society,named a team of Russian and Americanscientists to receive the 2005 InternationalScientific Cooperation Award. They areDr. Kyle T. Alfriend, Dr. Paul J. Cefola,Dr. Felix R. Hoots and Dr. P. KennethSeidelmann from the United States, andDr. Andrey I. Nazarenko, Dr. Vasiliy S.Yurasov and Dr. Stanislav S. Veniaminovfrom Russia.

Once adversaries, these dedicatedscientists were honored for both theirdetermination to transcend numerouslimitations to collaboration. Their pio-neering work has served to advance state-of-the-art space surveillance in both coun-tries for the benefit of the worldwideastrodynamics community and the safetyof human activity in space.

At the beginning of the Space Age,the United States and the former SovietUnion created separate systems for sur-veying space and classifying objects float-ing in space to ensure their own strategicand tactical advantage. The resulting databases, called space object catalogs, con-tained regular tracks and orbital elementsof the floating objects, and were notshared between the two countries. In ad-dition to restraining advancements inastrodynamics, this information divideimpeded international knowledge of allsatellites orbiting the Earth and the scopeand safety of human activity in space.

Beginning in 1994, the awardeesembarked on an exceptional series ofworkshops aimed at exchanging informa-tion on the mathematical methods andsystems used for space surveillance intheir two countries, and ultimately on

comparing space object catalogs. Giventhe proximity of these meetings to thecollapse of the former Soviet Union, thescientists could have easily been deterredby the many logistical challenges alone.But they persevered. They held six work-shops in the United States, Poland andRussia, which opened communicationbetween U.S. and Russian experts inspace surveillance, fostered cooperativeresearch addressing common problems ofspace surveillance, and led to sharing ofdata, exchange of catalogs, and commu-nication between people and organiza-tions.

As a result of these collaborativeefforts, it was possible to achieve nearreal-time determination of upper atmo-

spheric density — the nagging problemfor estimating drag on satellites — andtherefore, improving the performance oflow-Earth orbit satellites. The reductionin estimation errors led the U.S. NationalAeronautics and Space Administration toproclaim this as the “greatest improve-ment in atmospheric drag modeling overthe last 30 years.”

Here are the background descrip-tions for the award winners:• Dr. Alfriend is the Distinguished Re-

search Chair Professor of AerospaceEngineering at Texas A&M Univer-sity. He is a mechanical engineer anda recognized international expert inastrodynamics and satellite attitudedynamics and control. His research

AAAS 2005 International Science Cooperation Award recipients, Paul J. Cefola, Kyle T.Alfriend, and Vasiliy S. Yurasov.


has contributed to protecting the In-ternational Space Station from colli-sions with floating objects and navi-gating satellites.

• Dr. Cefola is a lecturer in the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology Aero-Astro Department and an independentconsultant, with over 30 years expe-rience in the Aerospace industry. Heis a mechanical engineer with re-

gies, Russian Aviation-Space Agency.His main research interest is devel-oping the statistical theory of motionof a satellite ensemble and applyingit to studies of space debris. He alsohelped establish the Russian SpaceControl System.

• Dr. Seidelmann is a dynamical as-tronomer and research professor inthe Astronomy Department at the

for optimum search of space objectson highly elliptical orbits and in geo-synchronous orbit. He co-originated(with Dr. Seidelmann) the series ofworkshops this award honors.

• Dr. Yurasov is a project manager forSpace Informatics Analytical Systems(KIA Systems) in Moscow with morethan 25 years’ experience inastrodynamics, orbital mechanics andinformation technology, includingresearch, development and manage-ment in public and private sectors.He has worked on optical measure-ments processing technology for geo-stationary satellite orbits, a compari-son of satellite theories, and deter-mination of satellite re-entry timewith the help of numerical and semi-analytical methods.

AAAS is the world’s largest gen-eral scientific society, and publisher ofthe journal, Science (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was founded in 1848, andserves 262 affiliated societies and acad-emies of science, reaching 10 million in-dividuals. Science has the largest paid cir-culation of any peer-reviewed generalscience journal in the world, with an es-timated total readership of 1 million. Thenon-profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is opento all and fulfills its mission to “advancescience and serve society” through initia-tives in science policy; international pro-grams; science education; and more.

The recipients are active membersof the AAS Spaceflight Mechanics com-munity with numerous contributions tothe Spaceflight Mechanics and the Astro-dynamics Specialist Conferences and to TheJournal of the Astronautical Sciences. ■

New Career Center Launched!The new AAS Career Center gives employers and job seeking professionals a better way to find one anotherand make that perfect career fit. Visit the Career center at www.astronautical.org to post jobs or search joblistings for qualified space professionals.

“Their pioneering work has served to advance state-of-the-art space surveillance in both countries for the benefit of theworldwide astrodynamics community and the safety of humanactivity in space.”

search interests in the application ofoptimization techniques to the designand maintenance of satellite constel-lations and of parallel processingparadigms to astrodynamical prob-lems.

• Dr. Hoots is the Group Manager ofSpace Programs for AT&T. He is anexpert in astrodynamics and math-ematical modeling, linear program-ming modeling and satellite motion,mechanics and geometry. He previ-ously served in the directorate ofastrodynamics at the U.S. Air ForceSpace Command and as an adjunctassistant professor at the Universityof Colorado, Colorado Springs.

• Dr. Nazarenko is the chief scientistof the Space Observation Center, De-partment of Information Technolo-

University of Virginia. After militaryservice as a research and develop-ment coordinator at the U.S. ArmyMissile Command, he joined the U.SNaval Observatory, where he wasdirector of the Nautical AlmanacOffice, the Orbital Mechanics De-partment, and the Directorate ofAstrometry. He co-originated (withDr. Veniaminov) the series of work-shops this award honors.

• Dr. Veniaminov is an engineer andleading scientist of the Scientific Re-search Center “Kosmos” of the Rus-sian Department of Defense. He isan expert in cybernatics and cooper-ates internationally on space surveil-lance and debris contamination ofnear-Earth space. He has helped de-velop a theoretical base and method


Reviewed by Mark Williamson

First Man: The Life of Neil Armstrong

NOTES ON A NEW BOOK

First Man: The Life of Neil Armstrong byJames R. Hansen. London: Simon &Schuster, 2005. 769 pages. ISBN: 0-7432-5963-7. £20.00/$30.00 (hardback).

On July 20, 1969, the world stoodstill to watch a 38-year-old American as-tronaut called Neil Armstrong become thefirst person ever to step onto the surfaceof another planetary body – the Moon.The words he said as he did so have gonedown in history, and have been much indebate ever since (but more of that later).

This book is an important publica-tion, because Armstrong – renowned forhis shyness – has never penned an auto-biography. Indeed, this is the first and onlyauthorized biography of Neil Armstrong,the first man on the Moon. To fulfil hisambition to write this biography, authorJames Hansen drew on NASA andArmstrong family archives and conductedmore than 125 original interviews (includ-ing more than fifty hours with Armstronghimself). The book covers Armstrong’scareer in flying, as a naval aviator, testpilot and astronaut, in 35 chapters dividedinto eight sections, each addressing a keyportion of his life. There is also an insertof black-and-white photographs.

As a professional historian, Hansenincludes a substantial (60-page) sectionof chapter notes, a 20-page bibliographyand a massive 30–page index. Accordingto the author, this treatment echoes thewishes of Armstrong himself, who“wanted the book to be an independent,scholarly biography”.

Naturally, many contentious issuesthat have been argued and written aboutfor years are included in this book. Oneof them is the decision regarding whoshould be first to actually set foot on theMoon. Hansen reviews the previous writ-ings of Buzz Aldrin and others, relatingthe arguments for and against one astro-

naut or the other. It comes down to thefact – if indeed it is a fact – that the de-cision to send Neil out first was madeby a group of four NASA managers whothought that, given the respective per-sonalities involved, Armstrong wasbest-suited to that historic role. An in-terview with Armstrong reveals hisapparent naivety regarding the im-portance of the decision in the mindsof more or less anyone outsideNASA. His comment that “therewasn’t a lot of difference betweenhaving ten feet of aluminium legbetween the bottom of thespacecraft…and the surface of theMoon and having one inch ofneoprene rubber or plastic on thebottom of our boots touchingthe lunar surface” shows a lackof appreciation for the emo-tional needs of ‘Joe Public’ andthe importance of personalities to histo-rians.

What about those first words ut-tered on the lunar surface? Even now,Armstrong says he “didn’t think it wasparticularly important” or that he “pickeda particularly enlightening statement”.Despite all the stories to the contrary, itseems that he came up with the idea ofwhat to say only once the Eagle hadlanded. As for the famous missing ‘a’ in“That’s one small step for man…”, he ispragmatic. He can’t remember whetherhe included the ‘a’, which was certainlyintended, but thinks that “reasonablepeople will realize that I didn’t intention-ally make an inane statement”. Accord-ing to Hansen, when asked how he wouldlike historians to quote him, he answers“only somewhat facetiously, ‘They canput it in parentheses’.”

The other fascinating question iswhy there are no posed pictures of thefirst man on the Moon. Was it because

the astronauts were sofixated on completing their assignedtasks, or because Aldrin made a consciousdecision not to photograph Armstrong?You will have to read the book to findout.

In a sense, it is sad that people fix-ate on these issues, rather than the broaderaspects of the lunar missions, but at leastif they do they are not wasting time dis-cussing whether or not men actually wentto the Moon at all. For those who weren’teven born when this piece of history wasbeing made, this book will make a fasci-nating read; for those who were, and re-member watching those blurry black-and-white TV pictures from the edge of theirseat, the book is an absolute must. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark Williamson is an independentspace technology consultant and author.


IN ORBIT

Student Teams Participate in AAS NationalConference and 52nd Annual MeetingAAS provides future aerospace leaders with a unique opportunity to feed their enthusiasm and stretch their skillsalongside working professionals.by Alicia Baker

On November 15th and 16th of thisyear, the AAS hosted its National Con-ference at South Shore Harbor in LeagueCity, Texas. The conference theme was“Building Bridges to Exploration: TheRole of the International Space Station”.Various sessions were held to discuss therole of the ISS in the future of spaceexploration- the journey back to themoon, Mars, and beyond.

The conference opened with agreeting from the ISS Expedition 12Crew Commander Bill McArthur andFlight Engineer Valery Tokarev. FormerJohnson Space Center (JSC) director,Jefferson Howell, Jr., then introduced thekeynote speaker, NASA AdministratorMichael Griffin. Dr. Griffin discussedhow our next step in supporting Presi-dent Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration

is to complete the assembly of the ISSand then use the ISS to further explora-tion beyond lower Earth orbit. Before thesessions began, a quick presentation wasmade about the NASA Means Businessstudent competition. The objective of thecompetition is for students to come upwith a promotional product, such as avideo, that communicates to the generalpublic how import NASA space explora-tion programs are to life here on Earth.Sessions about the role of the space sta-tion then included aerospace profession-als from all over the world. Representa-tives from the US space program, Rus-sia, the Canadian Space Agency (CSA),the European Space Agency (ESA), andthe Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency(JAXA) discussed the roles they play inthe ISS program.

I had a unique opportunity as a stu-dent to participate in a student workshopas part of the session: “ISS as an Explo-ration Mission Testbed.” Student SessionChairman, JSC’s Paul Brower, helpedorganize students into teams that workedtogether before and during the conferenceto develop ideas on how the ISS can beutilized for testing technologies that willhelp us continue with our journey intospace. Teams consisted of students fromall over the country from various disci-plines from physics to engineering ma-jors. Teams included Habitability, Robot-ics, Maintenance, and Medicine/Life Sup-port Technology. Each team was giventhe task to develop a concept and preparea 10 minute presentation. Prior to theconference students used an online chatroom, discussion board, email correspon-dence, and teleconferences to preparetheir presentation.

Each student team was assisted byan aerospace professional with experiencein one of the four areas. Team mentorsanswered questions about their area ofexpertise. They assisted students in divid-ing up research and presentation respon-sibilities. A student lead was chosen tofacilitate turning in pre-conference workto the student session committee. Studentshad to demonstrate their progress in vari-ous stages. Stage one included present-ing a list of brainstormed ideas. Stage twoincluded selecting a final idea and pro-viding an outline to topics to be discussedduring presentation. The final stage con-sisted of a draft PowerPoint presentation.On the first day of the conference, stu-dents were able to attend the aerospaceprofessional sessions. We then weretreated to a pizza party at the Gilruth

Students listen to their teammates as they present ideas on how to utilize the ISS as atestbed for Exploration technology during the American Astronautical Society Conferenceheld Nov. 15-16, 2005 in League City, Texas. (Source: NASA)


where students and mentors met for thefirst time! On the second day of the con-ference, students fine-tuned and practicedtheir presentations. We took a break dur-ing the day to attend the conference lun-cheon where the speaker gave an updateon the Chinese Human Space Flight Pro-gram. When it was time for the studentsession of the conference, students pre-sented their ideas to a NASA panel thatincluded astronauts Michael Foale andScott Altman and AAS Houston Confer-ence Planning Chair Nicholas Skytland.

My team was the habitability team.It was an eye opening experience learn-ing about the importance of habitabilityin the space program. Habitability in-volves trying to create a safe and produc-tive environment for the astronauts whileliving in space for extended periods oftime. Our team mentor was CynthiaRando from the Muniz Engineering, Inc.(MEI) ISS Flight Crew Integration Hab-itability and Human Factors Office. Ourconcept was “Virtual Earth”. We werehoping to find a way to help alleviatehomesickness for astronauts that are awayon long duration space missions. It couldbe tested on the ISS and then used on alunar base or a mission to Mars.

As an inspiration for our concept,we looked to astronaut John Phillips ofExpedition 11 for inspiration: “It’s kindof a sterile environment; I want to expe-rience weather, the smell of trees, eventhe sound of cars going by, somethingthat’s more like the real world that I livein back home.” Each astronaut wouldhave a “Virtual Earth” module in theirquarters that would consist of a LCDscreen, speakers, web cam, optional head-phones, and light boxes hooked up to acentral computer.

“Virtual Earth” would have threedifferent modes: “Earth EnvironmentSimulator,” “Window View,” and “Fam-ily Interaction”. The “Earth EnvironmentSimulator” would provide day and nighttime pictures and video from earth, in-cluding scenes from astronaut’s hometowns. Light boxes would be attached onboth sides of the LCD screens to provide

light therapy. They would provide spe-cific wavelengths of light similar to thoseprovided by the sun. Lack of exposure tosun light on long duration space missionscould affect an astronaut’s circadianrhythm-lead to an increase in the hormonemelatonin and a decrease in energy lev-els. “Window View” would provide viewsof outside a space vehicle from camerasmounted on the vehicle. When astronauts

where out of range of the earth, theycould watch pre-recorded video of theEarth from orbit. The LCD screen wouldact as a window without the radiation ef-fects of having a window in an astronaut’screw quarters.

“Family Interaction” mode wouldfeature a live feed for family conferencesand an option to view family videos whenastronauts where out of live feed range.

ABOVE: NASA astronaut C. Michael (Mike) Foale discusses his experience on theinternational space station with Richard Rhodes, a student session participant. (Source:NASA) BELOW: American Astronautical Society conference student participants andmentors gather for a photo with NASA astronauts C. Michael (Mike) Foale (far left) andScott Altman (wearing blue flight suit on rear row). Also included is Mark Craig (far right),the society's president. (Source: NASA)


___________________________________________________________________________________Mr./Ms./Dr. Last Name First Name

___________________________________________________________________________________Title Company

___________________________________________________________________________________Address

___________________________________________________________________________________City State Zip Code

___________________________________________________________________________________Phone E-mail

Membership Application

703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

Membership Benefits Include: Subscriptions to the quarterly Journal of theAstronautical Sciences and the bi-monthly Space Times magazine as well as reducedrates at all AAS conferences. Visit the AAS web site for further information on benefits.

Membership Type� Member .............................. $85� Affiliate ............................ $85� Senior Member .............. $100� Retired .............................. $35� Teacher (K-12) ................. $35� Student (full-time) .......... $35

Payment Method❒ Check Enclosed❒ Bill Me❒ Credit Card ❒ Visa ❒ Amex

❒ Mastercard

Mail to: AAS, 6352 Rolling Mill Place,Ste #102, Springfield, VA 22152

Fax to: 703-866-3526

________________________________________Credit Card Number

________________________________________Signature Expiration Date

�

It would provide private time with fam-ily and psychological support for longduration missions. Using current technol-ogy and a small budget, “Virtual Earth”could be tested on the ISS. We hoped itwould make living on a moon base easier

with the concept of using planters de-signed to grow plants in a hexagonal pat-tern in order to maximize use of volumeon the ISS.

The panel critiqued each group’spresentation-providing both positive

"John Philips of Expedition 11 [said], "It's kind of a sterileenvironment; I want to experience weather, the smell of trees,even the sound of cars going by, something that's more like thereal world I live in back home.""

ISS and its future in helping us preparefor a moon base and the long journey toMars and beyond. I thoroughly enjoyedattending the professional presentationsand hearing from aerospace profession-als from all over the world! Working withstudents from all over the country on ateam project was a very unique experi-ence! I enjoyed seeing all the studentgroup final presentations. I was also niceto run into other students in AIAA fromother universities! I look forward to thereturn of the conference to our area in2008! For more details about the confer-ence, including a transcript of Dr. Griffin’sspeech, go to www.aashouston. org.

For details about the NASA MeansBusiness student competition, go towww.tsgc.utexas.edu/nmb/this.html. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alicia Baker is a student memberof the University of Houston AIAA Chap-ter and serves on the Houston AIAAGN&C Committee. She is also ProjectEngineer Intern for the NASA-fundedSpace Alliance Technology Outreach Pro-gram (SATOP) run by the Bay Area Hous-ton Economic Partnership (BAHEP).

and the long journey to Mars feasiblefrom a habitability standpoint.

The Robotics team proposed con-cepts for robots that would help astro-nauts with both Intravehicular Activity(IVA) and Extravehicular Activity (EVA).Maintenance group felt that a databaselisting all hardware and components onthe ISS should be maintained in order tofacilitate repairs and upgrades on the sta-tion. The Life Support group came up

feedback and constructive criticism. Thewinning student team, Life Support, re-ceived travel funds to assist with the costsof travel to Greenbelt, Maryland, wherethey will present their concept at the Rob-ert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium inMarch of 2006. All students were treatedto a photograph with the astronauts andsigned certificates of participation fromFoale and Altman! This conference wasan exciting time! I learned a lot about the


2006 Space EventsMay 20 – Team America Rocketry Challengeat The Plains, Virginia.www.aia-aerospace.org/aianews/features/team_america

June 4-7, 2006 – SPACE BLITZ 2006in Washington, D.C. Do you want to make adifference? The National Space Society (NSS),with the support of AAS and otherorganizations, is planning the biggest Blitzyet! Volunteers will visit every Congressionaloffice in Washington, D.C. to support theVision for Space Exploration.www.nss.org/legislative/index.html

July 17-21 – GPS/GNSS Symposiumsponsored by the International GlobalNavigation Satellite Systems (IGNSS)Society at the Holiday Inn Surfers Paradise,Queensland, Australia.www.ignss.org

September 19-21 – Space 2006 Conference“The Value Proposition for Space – Security,Discovery, Prosperity”at the San Jose Convention Center, San Jose,California.www.aiaa.org

November 9-11 – Space Vision 2006Students for the Exploration and Developmentof Space (SEDS) 3rd National Conference atthe University of Central Florida in Orlando.www.seds.org

Space Times ArticleSubmission Guidelines

We accept feature articles (1500-3000 words), op-eds(500-1500 words), and book reviews (600 words or less). Ex-ceptions to these lengths may be possible and should be dis-cussed with the editor. The editor and author will agree on alength at the time an assignment is made.

Articles can cover virtually any topic involving spacescience, technology, exploration, law, or policy. We welcomearticles that touch on issues relevant to the civil, commercial,and military and intelligence space sectors alike.

Articles should be written for a well-educated audiencethat has great interest in space topics but may not necessarily befamiliar with your specific topic.

We are a magazine, not a technical journal. Articles shouldbe written in active voice and should explain technical conceptsclearly. Tone should lean more toward conversational ratherthan stiff and formal. We do not include references with ar-ticles.

Deadlines occur six to seven weeks before the first monthof the issue in question (e.g., ~Jan. 15 for the March/Aprilissue). Exceptions are possible if discussed with the editor.

Articles should be submitted in Microsoft Word format,Times New Roman font. No need to worry about other format-ting specifics – we’ll take care of the rest in the editing process.

Authors should provide with their articles: a title, a “sub-title” of one or two sentences summarizing the idea of the ar-ticle, sub-heads within the article that provide separations be-tween the major sections of the article, and an author biogra-phy of one to two sentences to appear at the end of the article.You should also send a mailing address so we can send you compli-mentary copies of the issue in which your article appears.

Authors are encouraged but not required to submit pho-tos or other visual supports for their articles. Suggestions forphotos or visuals are also welcome. Photos need to be of highresolution (at least 300 dpi) and can be in JPG, TIF, or GIFformats. We must receive permission from photo owners to usephotos, so please provide proof of permission or contact infofor the photo owner if you haven’t already secured permission.

A few style pointers:• Units of measurement should be conveyed in metric, not

English, terms.• Acronyms should be used sparingly, and only when a term

is used several times.• Names of specific spacecraft (e.g., Columbia) should be

italicized. General spacecraft names (e.g. space shuttle,Delta) should not.

• Numbers one through one hundred should be spelled out.

Contact: Jonathan Krezel, editor ([email protected]).

A popular way to donate to an organization is to makea gift by means of a will, i.e., make a bequest. Youmay wish to consider either a general bequest toAAS, or a bequest targeted to an existing or newAAS scholarship or award fund. Such bequests aredeductible against estate and inheritance taxes. Ofcourse, there are also tax advantages to makingcharitable donations to AAS while you’re living. Suchgifts could give tribute to the memory of someonewho has passed away or be in honor of a person stillliving. Special occasions offer other opportunitiesfor gifts to be directed to the Society. As a finalnote, although AAS can provide suggestions for chari-table giving, such actions should always be reviewedby your financial or legal advisor.

Charitable Givingand the AAS


6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #565

Springfield, VA

UPCOMING EVENTS

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings

June 2–4, 2006*Student CanSat CompetitionGreat MeadowThe Plains, Virginiawww.cansatcompetition.com

June 4–7, 2006*SPACE BLITZ 2006Washington, D.C.www.nss.org/legislative/index.html

August 21–24, 2006*AIAA/AAS AstrodynamicsSpecialist Conference and ExhibitKeystone Resort & Conference CenterKeystone, Coloradowww.aiaa.org

November 14–15, 2006AAS National Conference and53rd Annual MeetingPasadena HiltonPasadena, Californiawww.astronautical.org

AAS Events ScheduleAAS CORPORATE MEMBERSa.i. solutions, Inc.The Aerospace CorporationAir Force Institute of TechnologyAnalytical Graphics, Inc.ArianespaceAuburn UniversityBall Aerospace & Technologies Corp.Braxton Technologies, Inc.The Boeing CompanyCarnegie Institution of WashingtonComputer Sciences CorporationGeneral Dynamics C4 SystemsGeorge Mason University / CAPRGottfried International, Inc.Honeywell, Inc.Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.Jacobs SverdrupJet Propulsion LaboratoryKinetXLockheed Martin CorporationMitretek SystemsN. Hahn & Co., Inc.Northrop GrummanOrbital Sciences CorporationRaytheonSAICSpace Systems/LoralSpaceVestSwales AerospaceThe Tauri GroupTechnica, Inc.Texas A&M UniversityUnivelt, Inc.Universal Space NetworkUniversity of FloridaUtah State Univ. / Space Dynamics Lab.Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ.Women in AerospaceWyle Laboratories

January 28–February 1, 2007*AAS/AIAA Space FlightMechanics Winter MeetingHilton Sedona Resort & SpaSedona, Arizonawww.space-flight.org

February 3–7, 200730th AAS Guidance andControl ConferenceBeaver Run ResortBreckenridge, Coloradowww.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

March 200745th Robert H. GoddardMemorial SymposiumWashington D.C. Areawww.astronautical.org

the magazine of the american …...2 space times • march/april 2006 the magazine of the american...

Documents