the magazine of the american astronautical...

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

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

JULY/AUGUST 2006

2 SPACE TIMES • July/August 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

JULY/AUGUST 2006

ISSUE 4 – 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 SPACECommon Data, Different Conclusions 3

FEATURESThirty Years After: The Science of the Viking 4Program and the Discovery of a “New Mars”Thirty years ago, the Viking program sent two Orbiters and twoLanders on a multi-year mission to Mars. Following up on previousflybys and orbiters, the Viking mission deployed more than fourdozen scientific instruments, revolutionized our understanding ofMars, and provided stunning new pictures of the Red Planet.by Joel S. Levine

The Golden Age of Mars Exploration 9With the landing of Viking, Mars moved from an object of ourimagination to a destination of exploration and discovery. Sincethen, our understanding of Mars has progressed immensely andour understanding of life on Earth has radically changed. As aconsequence, our expectations for life on Mars has waned andwaxed, to the point where the quest for evidence for life on Marsis now an exciting and legitimate scientific endeavour.by Michael Meyer

A Different Vision for Space Exploration 13On 14 January 2004, President George W. Bush outlined a newfocus for NASA that has come to be called the “Vision for SpaceExploration,” which emphasizes the development of new humanspaceflight systems capable of carrying crews beyond low-Earthorbit out to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. A year and a half later, isit time to ask whether this human-focused approach to space scienceand exploration is the best way to allocate our limited resources?by Donald A. Beattie

CALL FOR PAPERS17th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting 18January 28 - February 1, 2007

30th AAS Guidance and Control Conference 20February 3-7, 2007

AAS NEWSAAS Honors Japanese Student 19

AAS and AIAA Sign Cooperative Agreement 21Global Space Exploration Seminar to be First Joint Activity

SPACE TIMES • July/August 2006 3

I write this message as Space Shuttle Discovery has just returned safely toEarth from a spectacular flight. Mission STS -121 delivered over 28,000 pounds ofexperiments, equipment and supplies and ESA astronaut Thomas Reiter to the Inter-national Space Station. It repaired the mobile transporter to enable resumption ofStation assembly. And in doing so it covered 5.3 million miles in 202 orbits over 13days. It was breathtakingly successful, and paved the way for the 18 Shuttle flightsneeded to complete ISS, and hopefully a Hubble repair mission, before Atlantis,Endeavour, and Discovery are retired in 2010. President Bush noted that “America’sspace program is a source of great national pride, and this mission has been anotherimportant accomplishment in advancing space science, human space flight and space exploration.”

STS -121 received meticulous technical, management and media attention because of continuing challenges in eliminatingexternal tank insulation debris, the cause of vehicle damage that led to the Columbia tragedy. Technical and management debates werereported often, and in some detail. At times there was the inference that decisions made in the presence of differing conclusions were asign of schedule pressure, or of closed minds, or of overbearing management. Always a possibility, these and other impediments tomaking good decisions must constantly be guarded against. We should never loose sight of the fact, though, that differing conclusionsare the engine that powers the pursuit of truth, as they did here. Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale observed, “The fact that peoplelook at common data and sometimes reach different conclusions is not a bad thing. It keeps us sharp and keeps us smart.” And sharp andsmart is what we must certainly be in pursuing the exploration and development of space.

Our heartiest congratulations to the entire Space Shuttle team and to the ISS team around the world, and to astronautsSteve Lindsey, Mark Kelly, Michael Fossum, Piers Sellers, Lisa Nowak, Stephanie Wilson and Thomas Reiter. We look forwardto the flight of Atlantis and all the remaining Shuttle missions.

Mark [email protected]

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

FRONT: Astronaut Piers J. Sellers, STS-121 mission specialist,participates in the mission’s third and final extravehicularactivity to demonstrate orbiter heat shield repair techniques.(Source: NASA)

BACK: Launched on July 12, 2006, Bigelow Aerospace’sGenesis 1 is the first inflatable space habitat prototype designed,built, and launched by a private company. (Source: BigelowAerospace)

ON THE COVER

Common Data,Different Conclusions

Attention AAS Fellows!

Special lapel pins for AAS Fellows were recently mailedout. If you are an elected AAS Fellow and did notreceive a pin, please notify the AAS Business Office [email protected].


Thirty Years After: The Science of the VikingProgram and the Discovery of a “New Mars”Thirty years ago, the Viking program sent two Orbiters and two Landers on a multi-year mission to Mars. Followingup on previous flybys and orbiters, the Viking mission deployed more than four dozen scientific instruments,revolutionized our understanding of Mars, and provided stunning new pictures of the Red Planet.by Joel S. Levine

On 19 June 1976, the Viking 1 Or-biter achieved orbital insertion aroundMars. The next day, the Viking 1 Landersoft-landed on the surface in an areaknown as Chryse Planitia, becoming thefirst human-made object to land on Mars.Less than two months later, on 7 August,the Viking 2 Orbiter achieved Mars or-bital insertion, while the Viking 3 Landertouched down on Utopia Planitia on 3September. By then, four Viking Marsspacecraft—two in orbit and two on thesurface – were simultaneously collectingnew and previously unobtainable data andtransmitting it back to Earth.

The first U.S. missions to Marswere all flybys. Mariner 4 (which passedwithin 9,850 kilometers of Mars duringits closest encounter on 14 July 1965),Mariner 6 (31 July 31), and Mariner 7 (5

August 1969) all showed Mars to be aseemingly desolate, inhospitable worldlike our own Moon. The thinking aboutMars changed with Mariner 9, the firstMars orbiter, which achieved Mars orbitalinsertion on 13 November 1971. Mari-ner 9 showed that Mars was an intriguingobject with very diverse and puzzlinggeological features, including very largeimpact craters (Argyre), the largest can-yon (Valles Marineris), and the largestvolcano (Olympus Mons) in the SolarSystem.

The Viking Project was a truly “oneNASA” project, with NASA’s LangleyResearch Center responsible for the de-velopment and management of the entireViking Mission. The Jet Propulsion Labo-ratory (JPL) was responsible for the or-biters, the tracking and data acquisition,

and mission control. The Lewis ResearchCenter (later renamed the Glenn ResearchCenter), was responsible for the launchvehicle. The Kennedy Space Center wasresponsible for the launch. The MartinMarietta Aerospace Corporation, nowLockheed-Martin Corporation, built thelanders and also had the responsibility forits integration with the JPL-provided or-biter. Other NASA centers, including theNASA Ames Research Center, theGoddard Space Flight Center and theJohnson Space Flight Center, providedscientific and engineering support to theViking Project.

Viking Science Package Overview

The two Viking Orbiters andLanders carried a very impressive array

A color image of Valles Marineris, the great canyon of Mars; north toward top. The scene shows the entire canyon system, over 3,000km long and averaging 8 km deept. This image is a composite of Viking medium-resolution images in black and white and low-resolution images in color. Layers of material in the eastern canyons might consist of carbonates deposited in ancient lakes. Hugeancient river channels began from Valles Marineris and from adjacent canyons and ran north. Many of the channels flowed north intoChryse Basin, which contains the site of the Viking 1 Lander and the future site of the Mars Pathfinder Lander. (Source: Jet PropulsionLaboratory)


of scientific instrumentation. The instru-ment package on the Orbiters includedtwo vidicon cameras for imagery fromorbit, an infrared spectrometer for MarsAtmospheric Water Detection (MAWD),and an Infrared Radiometer for ThermalMapping (IRTM). During their descentto the Martian surface, the Landers tookmeasurements of the ionosphere and thecomposition, structure, and dynamics ofthe Martian atmosphere during entry. TheLanders carried the most comprehensiveset of scientific instruments ever deployedto another planetary body, including vi-sual-light cameras, meteorological andatmospheric instruments, seismometers,magnets, and, most notably, a set of threedifferent biology experiments. In addi-tion, the radio and radar systems on theorbiters and landers provided measure-ments of atmospheric parameters, celes-tial mechanics and a test of general rela-tivity.

Orbiter Science

The Viking Orbiters obtained52,000 images of the Martian surface fromorbit, with larger format and a spatialresolution of about 100-150 meters, abouta factor of 10 increase compared to theMariner 9 cameras. The scientific objec-tives of the orbiter imaging systems in-cluded characterization of potential land-ing sites in sufficient detail to supportfuture missions; studying the topographic,photometric, and colorimetric character-istics of the surface; and investigating ingreater detail the various interesting geo-logic features (volcanoes, impact craters,canyons, channels, faults, polar cap for-mations, etc.) discovered by Mariner 9.

An example of Viking 1 imagerycan be seen on page 4. The first is a com-posite image of Valles Marineris, the greatcanyon of Mars, with north towards thetop, made up of a number of medium-resolution black and white and low-reso-lution color photos. The scene shows theentire canyon system, over 3,000 km longand averaging 8 km deep, extending fromNoctis Labyrinthus in the west to the cha-otic terrain to the east. Scientists still

don’t fully understand how this monu-mental structure was formed, but manynow think that liquid water may haveplayed a major role in the process. Theconnected chasma or valleys of VallesMarineris may have formed from a com-bination of erosional collapse and struc-tural activity. Layers of material in theeastern canyons might consist of carbon-ates deposited in ancient lakes. Huge an-cient river channels began from VallesMarineris and from adjacent canyons ap-pear to run north. Many of the channelsflowed north into Chryse Basin, whichcontains the site of the Viking 1 Landerand, nearly two decades later, the futuresite of the Mars Pathfinder Lander So-journer. Olympus Mons is nearly the sizeof the state of Montana, covering an arearoughly 600 kilometers in size, with asummit caldera that rises 24 kilometersabove the surrounding plains.

Other instruments on board theorbiters helped characterize the planet-wide atmospheric and surface propertiesof this fascinating body. MAWD foundthat water in the atmosphere is highly vari-able, changing with local time, elevation,latitude and season. In other words, Mars,like Earth, has active weather and vari-able climates. Atmospheric water vaporwas found to vary from 0 parts per mil-lion (ppm) in the winter hemisphere to85 ppm near the polar region of the sum-mer hemisphere. The atmosphere abovethe north polar cap in midsummer wasfound to be saturated, providing strongevidence that the permanent ice cap iscomposed of water. The water vapor inthe atmosphere is concentrated near thesurface and moves from one hemisphereto the other during the changing seasons.

Meanwhile, IRTM mapped thetemperature and thermal inertia of thesurface. The question of the composition

This mosaic of Mars is a compilation of images captured by the Viking Orbiter 1. Thecenter of the scene shows the entire Valles Marineris canyon system, over 3,000 kmlong and up to 8 kilometers deep, extending from Noctis Labyrinthus, the arcuate systemof graben to the west, to the chaotic terrain to the east. (Source: Jet Propulsion Laboratory)


of the Martian polar caps was partiallysettled by Mariner 7 measurements. Thesouthern winter pole cap was found to beat a temperature consistent with frozenCO2. A similar result was found for thenorthern winter cap from Mariner 9 mea-surements. The composition of the per-manent or residual polar caps was a sub-ject of debate prior to Viking. Vikingmeasured the temperature of the perma-nent (residual) polar cap at 200 - 215K,indicating that the permanent cap is com-posed of water ice, a result consistent withthe MAWD measurements. The amountof water deposited at the poles was foundto be many orders greater than in the at-mosphere.

Entry Science

During entry, the Viking Landersobtained the first in situ measurementsof the pressure, temperature and compo-sition of the atmosphere of Mars. Theseresults provided unexpected evidence of

the history and ultimate fate of Mars’ earlyatmosphere, and clues as to whether Marsmight have ever supported an environ-ment hospitable to life.

The mass spectrometers aboard thetwo Viking Landers measured the chemi-cal and isotopic composition of the Mar-tian atmospheric as they decelerated fromover 10,000 kilometers per hour towarda soft landing. Along with mass spectrom-eters deployed on the surface, the VikingLanders found isotopes of carbon (12C and13C) and oxygen (16O and 18O) in carbondioxide (CO

2), carbon monoxide (CO)

and oxygen (O2) , and nitrogen (14N and

15N), other isotopes of argon (36Ar and39Ar), neon, krypton, and xenon (129Xeand 132Xe).

The isotopic abundance of carbonand oxygen in the atmosphere of Marswas found to be similar to that in theEarth’s atmosphere. A surprising resultwas the discovery that 15N is enriched withrespect to 14N by a small factor. The mea-sured enrichment of 15N may be attrib-

uted to the selective escape of 14N froman atmosphere initially rich in N

2. The

measured ratio of 15N to 14N suggests thatMars had a significantly denser atmo-sphere in its past. The denser atmosphereis also consistent with the Viking Orbiterimages suggestive of flowing water onMars. (The current atmosphere pressureon Mars of about 8 millibars cannot sup-port the presence of liquid water on thesurface of Mars. For comparison, the sur-face atmospheric pressure on Earth is1013 millibars.)

However, the mass spectrometerson the Landers did not find any evidenceof organics on the Martian surface. Thiswas considered a very surprising nullmeasurement, since organics are regularlyand continuously supplied to a planetarysurface by meteorite impact, and had asignificant impact on the interpretationof the Mars biology experiments, as wewill see below.

Lander Images

The Landers took about 4,500 im-ages from the surface Mars. The surfaceand sky were found to have an orange tobrownish color. The color of the sky wasdue to large amounts of wind-blown sur-faced dust in the atmosphere. The rockson the surface were found to be basalticigneous, or volcanic in origin.

Above is the first color picturefrom the surface of Mars, taken 21 July21, the day after Viking l’s successfullanding on the planet. The local time onMars is approximately noon. The view issoutheast from the Viking. Orange-redsurface materials cover most of the sur-face, apparently forming a thin veneerover darker bedrock exposed in patches,as in the lower right. The reddish surfacematerials may be limonite (hydrated fer-ric oxide, or rust). Such weathering prod-ucts form on Earth in the presence ofwater and an oxidizing atmosphere, an-other piece of tantalizing evidence aboutthe early environment on Mars. The skyhas a reddish cast, probably due to scat-tering and reflection from reddish sedi-

This picture of Mars was taken July 21 – the day following Viking l’s successful landingon the planet. The local time on Mars is approximately noon. (Source: Jet PropulsionLaboratory)


ment suspended in the lower atmosphere.The scene was scanned three times by thespacecraft’s camera number 2, through adifferent color filter each time.

On page 8 is Viking 2’s first pic-ture on the surface of Mars, taken withinminutes after the spacecraft touched downon 3 September 1976. The scene revealsa wide variety of rocks littering a surfaceof fine-grained deposit. Boulders in the10 to 20 centimeter size range, with someholes and other features apparently hav-ing been carved by wind action. Many ofthe pebbles have tabular or platy shapes,suggesting that they may be derived fromlayered strata, though whether they weredeposited by wind or perhaps liquid wa-ter is unknown. The fluted boulder justabove the Lander’s footpad displays adust-covered or scraped surface, suggest-ing it was overturned or altered by thefoot at touchdown.

Meteorology

The Lander meteorology instru-ments found that the surface atmosphericpressure varies seasonally by about 30%due to the condensation of carbon diox-ide at the polar caps. The first weatherreport from the surface of another planetwas given by Seymour Hess, Head of theViking Meteorology Team:

Light winds from the Eastin the late afternoon, changingto light winds from the southeastafter midnight. Maximum windswere 15 miles per hour. Tempera-tures ranged from minus 122 de-grees Fahrenheit just after dawnto minus 22 degrees Fahren-heit…Pressure steady at 7.70 mil-libars.

Biology Experiments

While the Viking missions were re-sponsible for bringing more and more dif-ferent types of instruments to Mars thanever before, it was the Martian biologyexperiments that were the focus of mostof the scientific and popular interest in

the mission. The Viking Landers con-tained three different biology experi-ments to search for the presence of lifeon Mars; the Pyrolytic Release Experi-ment (The Carbon Assimilation Experi-ment), the Labeled Release Experimentand the Gas Exchange Experiment. In anattempt to minimize any ambiguities inthe results, these experiments would testthe Martian soil for a number of differ-ent possible biological markers. Never-theless, even the best instruments thatcould be flown at the time could, in theend, not yield a definitive statement as to

be entirely consistent, though not depen-dent on, a possible biological interpreta-tion.

Finally, the Gas Exchange Instru-ment periodically sampled the headspacegases above a Martian surface sample in-cubating under dry, humid, or wet con-ditions and analyzed the gases with a gaschromatograph. The instrument was de-signed to distinguish between gas changesarising from microbial metabolism andthose arising from purely chemical reac-tions or physical phenomena, such as sorp-tion and desorption, by recycling the soil

“The surface of Mars is obviously highly reactive and containsat least one and probably several highly oxidizing substances.While inorganic chemical reactions may be sufficient to explainthe data seen, biological processes cannot be ruled out at thistime.”

whether Mars has, or has ever had, anactive biosphere.

The Carbon Assimilation Experi-ment was designed to detect the synthesisof organic matter in Martian surface ma-terial from atmosphere CO or CO

2 or

both. The experiment assumes that Mar-tian life would be based on carbon andthat this carbon would necessarily cyclethrough the atmosphere. In two papers,the Carbon Assimilation Experiment Sci-ence Team summarized all of the experi-mental data, including the results of thetwo experiments on Mars and concluded“that they are unlikely to have a biologi-cal explanation.”

Meanwhile, the Labeled ReleaseExperiment sought to detect het-erotrophic metabolism by monitoring ra-dioactive gas evolution. A small amountof mildly radioactive “nutrient” contain-ing seven 14C-labelled organic substrateswas added to a sample of surface mate-rial. Unlike the Carbon Assimilation Ex-periment results, those from the LabeledRelease Experiment were determined to

sample. A chemical or aqueous physicalreaction would be reduced or eliminatedin subsequent cycles, whereas a biologi-cal system would perpetuate itself. Thegas changes from the former would bereduced or disappear; from the latter theywould continue or increase. The Gas Ex-change Instrument science team con-cluded that the measured response of theMartian surface samples to water vaporresulting in O

2 output was ascribed to the

presence of superoxides in the Martiansurface material and that all the gaschanges observed in the experiment couldmost easily be explained or demonstratedby plausible chemical reactions that re-quired no biological processes. Again,though, the team could not rule out anybiological activity based solely on theresults from the Gas Exchange Instru-ment.

Viking Project Scientist Gerald A.Soffen summarized the results of the Vi-king Biology Experiments in the follow-ing statement:


The biological results wereby far the most complex of allinvestigations. There was no un-ambiguous discovery of life bythe Viking Landers, and three ofthe results appear to indicate theabsence of biology in the samplestested. Nevertheless, the experi-ments gave significant results re-vealing the chemical nature ofthe Martian surface and at leastone result that could still be con-sistent with a biological inter-pretation. One experiment indi-cates that the Martian soil hasan agent capable of rapidly de-composing organic chemicalsused in the medium or that lifeis present…In another experi-ment the addition of water va-por to the Martian sample causeda vigorous release of oxygen fora few hours. This oxygen releaseis heat stable. Heating the drysample generates large amountsof CO and CO

2. In one experi-

ment a small amount of carbondioxide (or carbon monoxide)was incorporated into the organicfraction (or made organic denovo). This process does not ap-pear to be stimulated by light orthe addition of water vapor. Thesurface of Mars is obviouslyhighly reactive and contains atleast one and probably severalhighly oxidizing substances.

While inorganic chemical reac-tions may be sufficient to explainthe data seen, biological pro-cesses cannot be ruled out at thistime.

Conclusions

Viking discovered a Mars that wasvery different from the Mars found by

surface of Mars. But Viking did discovera surface unlike any other on the SolarSystem—a surface exhibiting very highchemical reactivity, most probably formedby the deposition of chemically active at-mospheric gases, like hydrogen peroxide(H

2O

2) and ozone (O

3), onto the surface

of Mars.Viking Project Scientist, Gerald A.

Soffen, believed that the Viking explora-

Viking 2s first picture on the surface of Mars was taken within minutes after the spacecraft touched down on September 3. (Source: JetPropulsion Laboratory)

“Comparative planetology was conceived with Mariner andborn with Viking.”

Mariner 4, 6 and 7. The new, exciting,more Earth-like Mars was hinted at bythe Mariner 9 orbiter and confirmed byViking. Viking discovered some very fun-damental things about Mars. Viking dis-covered the presence of nitrogen in theatmosphere, a key ingredient needed forlife. Viking made the first measurementsof the isotopic composition of carbon,oxygen, nitrogen and the noble gases inthe atmosphere of Mars. The ratio of 15Nto 14N suggested that Mars may have lostmore than 99% of the total mass of itsatmosphere. The denser atmosphere in thepast may explain the presence of flowingwater earlier in the history of Mars firstdiscovered by Mariner 9 with additionaland higher spatial resolution examplesprovided by the Viking orbiters. Vikingdid not measure organics or life at the

tion of Mars came at an important timein history when humankind was just be-coming aware of the Earth as a planet.Soffen added: “Comparative planetologywas conceived with Mariner and born withViking.” After Viking, our picture of Marswould never be the same! ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Joel S. Levine is a Senior Re-search Scientist in the Science Director-ate, NASA Langley Research Center,Hampton, VA. Dr. Levine is Principal In-vestigator of the Aerial Regional-scale En-vironmental Surveyor (ARES) of Mars, arobotic, controlled, rocket-powered air-plane. In 2002, ARES was one of the fourfinalists in the first NASA Mars Scout Mis-sion competition. ARES was re-submittedin August 2006, for the second Mars ScoutMission competition.


The Golden Age of Mars ExplorationWith the landing of Viking, Mars moved from an object of our imagination to a destination of exploration anddiscovery. Since then, our understanding of Mars has progressed immensely and our understanding of life onEarth has radically changed. As a consequence, our expectations for life on Mars has waned and waxed, to thepoint where the quest for evidence for life on Mars is now an exciting and legitimate scientific endeavor.by Michael Meyer

In 1872, the HMS Challenger setsail from Plymouth, England, in part toresolve a debate within the Royal Soci-ety as to whether there is life in the ocean’sdark depths, otherwise known as the azoiczone. Over the next three years, Chal-lenger found amazing biological diver-sity throughout the ocean and collectedenough data and samples to fill fifty vol-umes of material. The sheer volume ofinformation generated by the Challengermission helped establish the scientific dis-cipline of oceanography. Since then,oceanography has progressed from a sci-ence devoted to cataloguing novel phe-nomena to one devoted to an understand-ing of processes and testing of hypotheses.

Interestingly enough, it was dur-ing the exploration of the Galapagos Riftin 1977, just after Viking landed on Mars,that bizarre life forms were found at hy-drothermal vents on the sea floor. Find-ing life at above surface-boiling tempera-tures suddenly expanded our view of theextreme capabilities of life on Earth andopened the landscape to where life mightbe possible elsewhere.

Since then, life has been found inhot springs, in permafrost, in acid pools,in ancient salt deposits, and in all but themost extreme deserts. Life on Earth, itseems, can hang on in the most inhospi-table of environments so long as it hasaccess to liquid water. The results beggedan obvious question: if there is liquidwater on other planetary bodies, whichseems to be one of the few absolute ne-cessities for life here on Earth, can therebe life on these bodies as well?

With this insight, NASA’s Mars Ex-ploration Program has pursued a “followthe water” theme. Water is as a key tofinding where life may exist, or existed;

it is central to tracking climate, past andpresent; a key to understanding geologi-cal processes over time; and as a resourcefor future human exploration. The MarsGlobal Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, the MarsExploration Rovers, and Mars Expresshave all found evidence that liquid wateronce existed on the Martian surface. Thefocus of the Program is now turning toquestions of when water may have existedon Mars, and for how long. As we come tounderstand the answers to these questions,we come closer to determining if Mars hasever supported life and, if so, where evi-dence of that life might be preserved.

But looking for life is a challenge,intellectually and operationally. If Mar-tians were like scientists on Earth and lefttheir pens lying around like in the pic-

ture below, they’d be pretty easy to find!However, even if Martians were to re-semble terrestrial organisms like crustoselichen, finding and recognizing suchsubtle signs of life would be a huge chal-lenge. If Martian life is somehow mark-edly different from what we are familiarwith here on Earth, then the job becomesmuch more difficult. Since without know-ing exactly what we are looking for, weneed to rely upon a well-reasoned ap-proach on how to go about looking forlife, extremely capable instruments totease out the signs of life from a hugeamount of background noise, and, ofcourse, missions to get those instrumentsto Mars.

For several years, the Mars Explo-ration Program has been successful in

Crustose lichen and a geologist’s pen on a rock formation reminiscent of Mars. The term“crustose” applies to the appearance of this life form, which can often look very similar toan abiotic mineral deposition. If the only life forms Mars ever supported were similar tothese lichens, finding evidence of their existence would be a significant scientificchallenge. (Source: Michael Meyer)


launching a spacecraft at every twenty-six month opportunity. This has enableda synergistic fleet of spacecraft, each withdistinct capabilities, able to provide thedifferent perspectives needed to discoverwhere water may have existed on Mars,when, and for how long. As in oceanog-raphy in the last century, our progress inunderstanding Mars is growing from“what’s there?” to an understanding ofglobal processes through time and a grow-ing ability to build and test different hy-potheses. A short review of the currentlyoperating and developing Mars missions

The Mars Odyssey was launchedApril 2001, and its prime-mapping mis-sion began in March 2002. Its suite ofgamma-ray spectrometer instruments hasprovided strong evidence for large quan-tities of water-ice mixed into the top layerof soil poleward of 60 degrees both northand south. Odyssey’s Thermal EmissionImaging System (THEMIS), a mid-in-frared camera, has also provided infor-mation on the detailed distributions ofdifferent minerals throughout the Mar-tian landscape. A layer of olivine-richrock in one canyon near Mars’ equator

from highlands to the south. Spirit landedin January 2003 on a plain strewn withloose rocks. The rover found that therocks are volcanic with slight alterations.By June, Spirit had driven to ColumbiaHills about 2.6 kilometers from the land-ing site in a quest to find exposed bed-rock. Exploring in the hills since then,Spirit has found an assortment of rocksand soils bearing evidence of extensiveexposure to water, including the iron-hy-drogen-oxide mineral goethite and sul-fate salts. Spirit is now “wintering over”near a feature dubbed Home Plate in theColumbia Hills and conducting intensivemeasurements of the local area.

In an example one the results froman earlier mission supporting the plan-ning for a later one, Opportunity was sentto a flat region named Meridiani Planum,where the MGS Thermal Emission Spec-trometer had years earlier discovered alarge exposure of hematite. Opportunitylanded inside Eagle Crater, only 22 metersin diameter, and immediately saw ex-posed bedrock. During the next fewweeks, the rover’s examination of thatoutcrop settled the long-running debateabout whether Mars ever had sustainedliquid water on its surface. Compositionand textures showed that the rocks notonly had been saturated with water, buthad actually been laid down under gentlyflowing surface water. For six monthsbeginning in June 2003, Opportunity ex-amined more extensive layers of rock in-side the much larger Endurance Crater.The rocks had all been soaked in water,but textures in some showed periods ofdry, wind-blown deposition. A consistentenvironment would be sand dunes inwhich periodically, water would pond inthe troughs. Opportunity has driven morethan 3 kilometers southward through theetched terrain. The expectation is forOpportunity to continue south to VictoriaCrater, which is expected to have 30-50meters of layered sediments, expandingthe timeline of our view into Mars’ an-cient past.

Mars Express, also launched in2003, is a European Space Agency or-biter. The spacecraft has been returning

“Life on Earth, it seems, can hang on in the most inhospitableof environments so long as it has access to liquid water. Theresults begged an obvious question: if there is liquid water onother planetary bodies, which seems to be one of the fewabsolute necessities for life here on Earth, can there be life onthese bodies as well?”

shows how our scientific quest has pro-gressed and portends exciting discover-ies in the near future.

Mars Global Survey (MGS) waslaunched in 1996 and has exceeded, inspectacular fashion, its primary mappingmission. It has collected more data thanany other previous Mars mission. Someof the mission’s most significant findingsinclude: gullies which suggest recent liq-uid water at the Martian surface; evidencefor extensive layering of rocks possiblyfrom lakes in the planet’s early history;topographic confirmation that the south-ern hemisphere is higher in elevation thanthe northern hemisphere; identification ofgray hematite, a mineral that forms inaqueous environments; and extensive evi-dence for the role of dust in reshapingthe recent Martian environment. MGSprovided valuable details for evaluatingthe risks and attractions of landing sitesfor the Mars Exploration Rover missionsand will continue to do so for the cominglander missions of Phoenix and Mars Sci-ence Laboratory.

suggests that the site has been dry for along time, since olivine is easily weath-ered by liquid water. However, other min-erals such as hematite have suggested awater-borne period. THEMIS observa-tions have helped us understand thethermophysical properties of the Martiansurface, such as the extent of rocky ordusty areas in different locations. In ad-dition to its primary science mission,Odyssey has served as a node on the in-terplanetary Internet, relaying over 90percent of the data beamed from the sur-face by the Mars Exploration Rovers toeager to scientists back on Earth duringits twice-daily pass over each rover.

The Mars Exploration Rovers,Spirit and Opportunity, are mobile roboticfield geologists sent to examine cluesabout the environmental history, particu-larly the history of water, at their twounique sites. Spirit is exploring insideGusev Crater, a bowl 150 kilometers indiameter. Orbital images suggest Gusevmay have once held a lake fed by inflowfrom a large valley network feeding in


color images and other data since Janu-ary 2004. It has confirmed water ice inMars’ south polar cap and added infor-mation about how the solar wind has in-teracted with the Mars atmosphere. MarsExpress has found traces of methane inMars’ atmosphere, suggesting that eitherbiological or non-biological source main-taining the amount in the atmosphere. Theorbiter has also mapped variations in theconcentration of water vapor in the lowerportion of the atmosphere. Thespacecraft’s ground-penetrating radar in-strument is finding layers indicative ofsubsurface structures and has measuredthe thickness of the polar ice cap. ItsOmega near-infrared instrument has iden-tified clays and sulfate minerals in an-cient terrains, pointing to a time whenwater may have lingered on the surface.

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter(MRO) is now in an aerobraking orbitaround Mars and will begin its sciencemapping orbit in November. The orbiterwill observe the red planet for two Earthyears from a 300-kilometer near-polarscience orbit. With its powerful array ofadvanced scientific instruments, MROwill return over ten times as much infor-mation to Earth as any previous Marsmission. Not only that, MRO will as apowerful communications and navigationlink to help support future Mars space-craft. The returned data will be used to:1) advance our understanding of the cur-rent Mars climate, the processes that haveformed and modified the surface of theplanet, and the extent to which water hasplayed a role in surface processes; 2) iden-tify sites of possible aqueous activity in-dicating environments that may have beenor are conducive to biological activity;and 3) thus identify and characterize sitesfor future landed missions.

MRO will bring a suite of instru-ments to bear on Mars like never before.The High Resolution Imaging ScienceExperiment (HIRISE) has the largest ap-erture of any camera to leave Earth or-bit. At 30cm per pixel, it can image com-pelling geological features as small as akitchen table. In addition, it is capable ofproducing stereo pictures. The Compact

Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometerfor Mars (CRISM) uses near-infrared lightto provide unprecedented hyperspectraland high spatial resolution images that willidentify materials at equally high resolu-tion. The Context Camera will deliverwide area views to help provide a con-text for even higher resolution images ofkey Mars spots provided by HiRISE andCRISM. Meanwhile, the Shallow Radarwill probe into the ground to search forlayers of rock and ice within 500 metersof the surface. The Mars Color Imager isa multi-color wide-angle camera that willmonitor clouds and dust storms on a daily,global basis, while the Mars ClimateSounder is an infrared profiling radiom-eter that will detect vertical variations oftemperature, dust, and water vapor in theMartian atmosphere.

Phoenix is the first in a new seriesof small, focused, principle investigator-led mission for NASA called Scout. Se-lected in 2002, the Pheonix mission willbe launched in August of 2007 and willland in icy soils near the north polar icecap of Mars. The stationary lander willoperate for up to three months, while arobotic arm will literally dig into the cli-

mate record contained ice and soil whilechecking for organic chemicals and moni-toring polar climate. The arm is designedto dig a trench up to half a meter deepand deliver samples to an onboard labo-ratory to analyze the samples’ chemistryand physical properties. The mission willserve as NASA’s first exploration of thisice-rich region and renew the search forcarbon-bearing compounds, last at-tempted by the Viking landers. The Phoe-nix mission was planned and developedby a team led by a University of Arizonascientist.

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL,Fig. 8) will be the first roving analyticallaboratory on Mars, carrying 75 kilogramsof instruments (ten times the payloadmass of the Mars Exploration Rovers)capable of definitive mineralogy and ableto characterize a wide range of any or-ganic compounds that it finds. This mis-sion will use precision landing technolo-gies to put the science instruments in themost scientifically exciting, but safe place.MSL is designed to operate for more thana Martian year (687 Earth days). To helpscientists assess whether the landing areaever had or still has environmental con-

NASA’s Mars Exploration Program plan through the end of the decade envisions aseries of orbiters and landers operating in concert to search for more evidence of liquidwater on Mars. Mars Express and other international missions are not shown. (Source:NASA)


ditions favorable to life, the rover willanalyze many dozens of samples scoopedfrom the soil and cored from rocks. In-struments have been selected that couldidentify and inventory the chemical build-ing blocks of life and identify featuresthat may show effects of biological pro-cesses. MSL sets the course of future ex-ploration in addressing the question ofwhether signatures of life might be pre-served in the near sub-surface.

MSL will be carrying remote sens-ing instruments for studying the Martian

abundance of chemical elements in rocksand soils. Sponsored by the CanadianSpace Agency, the APXS would be placedin contact with samples on Mars to in-ventory the area and select candidatesamples for further analysis. The MarsHand Lens Instrument (MAHLI) is a so-phisticated hand-lens and camera. It willprovide scientists with close-up views ofthe minerals, textures, and structures inmartian rocks and the surface layer ofrocky debris and dust. MAHLI will carryboth white and ultraviolet light sources,

tector (RAD) is designed to be one of thefirst instruments sent to Mars specificallyto prepare for future human exploration.RAD will measure and identify all high-energy radiation on the Martian surface,such as protons, energetic ions of variouselements, neutrons, and gamma rays. Thatincludes not only direct radiation fromspace, but also secondary radiation pro-duced by the interaction of space radia-tion with the Martian atmosphere, sur-face rocks and soils. Also onboard is theRussian contribution of Albedo Neutrons,DAN. By measuring the slow-down ofneutrons by interaction with the hydro-gen molecules in water, DAN will be sen-sitive enough to detect water content aslow as one-tenth of 1 percent and resolvelayers ice within one meter of the sur-face. MSL will carry a weather monitor-ing station provided by the governmentof Spain on behalf of investigators at theCentro de Astrobiología (INTA-CSIC).The Rover Environmental MonitoringStation will provide a daily report of at-mospheric weather conditions on Mars.Attached to the vertical mast on the roverdeck, the station will measure atmo-spheric pressure, humidity, ultravioletradiation from the sun, wind speed, winddirection, and air temperature.

Mars remains a high priority forplanetary exploration as our nearest neigh-bor with the potential for life – past,present, and future. With this handful ofspacecraft, we have learned that in thedistant past, Mars was more Earth-likeand had water on its surface. What isemerging, is a more recent, episodicMars, whose climate can radically changeand affect where ice and potentially whereliquid water may exist. Combined withthe Mars missions in development, we arein the golden age of Mars exploration andare on the threshold of potentially dis-covering if life ever arose on a planetoutside our own. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Meyer is the Lead Scien-tist for NASA’s Mars Exploration Pro-gram and the Program Scientist for theMars Science Laboratory.

“As in oceanography in the last century, our progress inunderstanding Mars is growing from ‘what’s there?’ to anunderstanding of global processes through time and a growingability to build and test different hypotheses.”

environment and selecting the most prom-ising locations for further exploration.MSL will have a series of instrumentsarrayed on its body and mounted onarmatures that can inspect samples in situ,bring them inside a mini laboratory builtinto the body of the lander, and analyzethe surrounding environment. A MastCamera will take color images, three-di-mensional stereo images, and color videofootage of the Martian terrain. The cam-era will also be able to take high-defini-tion video at 10 frames per second.ChemCam will fire a laser at objectswithin ten meters and analyze the elemen-tal composition of vaporized materials onthe surface of Martian rocks and soils.An on-board spectrograph will provideunprecedented detail about minerals andmicrostructures in rocks by measuring thecomposition of the brief glow of the re-sulting plasma. The Mars Descent Imagerwill take color video during the rover’sdescent toward the surface, providing anested series of pictures, from a bird’seye view to close-ups of the local envi-ronment.

MSL’s Alpha Particle X-Ray Spec-trometer (APXS) that will measure the

making the imager functional both dayand night.

Within the rover body are the twoanalytical instruments that boost sciencemeasurement capabilities to a new levelfor Mars exploration. The Chemistry andMineralogy instrument, CheMin, willidentify and measure the abundances ofvarious minerals on Mars. Minerals areindicative of environmental conditionsthat existed when they formed, includingthe presence or absence of liquid water.The Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) in-strument suite will feature chemicalequipment found in many scientific labo-ratories on Earth. SAM would search forand identify a wide range of compoundsof the element carbon, including meth-ane, that are associated with life. Actu-ally a suite of three instruments, includ-ing a mass spectrometer, gas chromato-graph, and tunable laser spectrometer,SAM would also look for and measurethe abundances of other light elements,such as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen,associated with life.

Finally, another three instrumentswill measure the rover’s immediate envi-ronment. The Radiation Assessment De-


A Different Vision for Space ExplorationOn 14 January 2004, President George W. Bush outlined a new focus for NASA that has come to be called the“Vision for Space Exploration,” which emphasizes the development of new human spaceflight systems capable ofcarrying crews beyond low-Earth orbit out to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. A year and a half later, is it time to askwhether this human-focused approach to space science and exploration is the best way to allocate our limitedresources?by Donald A. Beattie

Until a “string theorist,” steepedin the arcane physics of quantum mechan-ics, devises a method to travel at warpspeed in our universe, or parallel uni-verses, our astronauts will have to stickclose to good old friendly Earth. Therewill be, of course, robotic missions to thefar reaches of the solar system and be-yond, and humans may make voyages todestinations within the inner solar system.However, human flights will be infre-quent for the simple reasons of cost, risk,and most importantly, the returns that canreasonably be expected to justify thesecosts and risks.

Space exploration will continue.The difficult questions to answer are: whatshould be the content, and what shouldbe the pace? Arguments are always trot-ted out about how the human race mustexplore and expand its horizons just aswe have done throughout recorded his-tory. What is over the horizon? What newdiscoveries would be made if only wewere to take the next steps? Questions suchas these motivated our ancestors to takeon daunting challenges that led, in manycases, to unexpected discoveries. Usually,especially during the 15th, 16th, and 17thcenturies, the passion that drove explor-ers to travel beyond the horizon was stimu-lated by the anticipation of great economicgains. In those centuries, what was beyondthe horizon was truly unknown.

But that was then and this is now.The major mysteries of the Earth havebeen solved. The world is round, almost;the composition and extent of the conti-nents are known; we understand the work-ings of Earth’s atmosphere; the oceanshave been plumbed; and humans haveexplored beyond the narrow confines of

Earth. In addition, using wonderfullycrafted instruments located in space andon mountain tops, we have studied theuniverse to its earliest beginnings and itsdeepest mysteries are now being revealed.What is left to learn? Who would chancea prediction? Despite all we have learnedso far, there will be much more that fu-ture generations will discover about theEarth and the universe. That is a certainty.

If this last statement is true, thenwhy suggest that space exploration mis-sions carrying men and women will beinfrequent? The answer to that questionis posed above. What will be the motiva-

tion, why send humans to explore thesolar system rather than use robots thatare becoming more capable every day?Or should it be a combination of robotsand humans? There is no argument thathuman explorers, if provided with therequired resources, can carry out activi-ties that a robot can not, or do it morecompletely, or faster, or respond betterto unforeseen problems. But what arethese problems that, at great cost and risk,we would ask astronauts to try and solveon a distant planet?

In July 2005, Science magazinepublished: “125 Questions: What Don’t

This approximate true color image of Saturn and its Rings, captured by the Cassinispacecraft, are examples of planetary exploration detail that would not be possiblewithout robotic space exploration. (Source: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute)


We Know?” The list does not includequestions dealing with societal problemsbut is “...a survey of our scientific igno-rance, a broad swath of questions thatscientists themselves are asking.” Does thislist include all the important questions?Perhaps not, but it is a good start. Thefirst thing that will strike a reviewer ofthe list is that none of the questions willbe answered by sending either robots orastronauts to the Moon. Reinforcing theassertion that there is an absence of im-portant scientific discoveries still to bemade on the Moon, some may recall that

plicate what we accomplished thirty-eightyears ago, let them try. The Moon willnot become a military “high ground,” and,if we continue to accept the challenge toexplore space, we will not be left behindin the technological race, as some fear.

Can the four reasons listed abovepass a test of close analysis? Reason 1assumes that there will be many roboticand human space missions that would beserviced by extracting useful fuels fromlunar material. Thus, it will warrant thehuge expenditures to establish the infra-structure necessary to mine lunar mate-

Earth, to be fueled on the Moon, mustland on the lunar launch pad or face theadded problem of transporting it to thelaunch site. None of these requirementsare impossible; however, does a detailedanalysis, using reasonable assumptions,exist of the cost-benefit of a combinedEarth-Moon launch sequence? Lackingsuch an analysis, proposing to processlunar material on the Moon to augmentsolar system exploration is not justified.

Reason 2 assumes that there is aresource on the Moon that is so valuablethat the cost of developing the infrastruc-ture to mine, process, and deliver it toEarth is outweighed by its value on Earth.The only resource thus far identified thatmay have this potential is He-3. By ap-plying many helpful assumptions, an eco-nomic model indicates it would be pos-sible to mine He-3 on the Moon and re-turn it to Earth for useful applications;the most important being as a fuel to gen-erate electric power in a fusion reactor.One of the most challenging assumptionsin the model, in order for the enterpriseto be economically viable, is that me-chanical systems can be designed to op-erate automated and occasionally tendedby astronauts, “indefinitely,” in the hardvacuum of space. In addition, the equip-ment must process huge quantities of lu-nar soil while every lunar cycle subjectsthe equipment to temperature swings ofplus/minus 2500 F. All moving parts willhave to incorporate designs never beforerequired for mining equipment. To passthe economic test a lot of Moon dirt, hun-dreds of square kilometers, must be pro-cessed to obtain enough He-3, found at per-haps ten parts per billion in the soil, to fuela large number of fusion reactors on Earth.

In addition to the problems thatmake the forecast positive economicsquestionable, a fusion reactor that wouldburn He-3 does not exist. Research todesign and build fusion reactors thatwould be competitive with conventionalelectric power generators has been under-way, without success, for over thirtyyears. It is a very difficult technology tomaster. Recently, a $12 billion dollar fu-sion experiment, ITER, was initiated that

“In July 2005, Science magazine published: “125 Questions:What Don’t We Know?” …The first thing that will strike areviewer of the list is that none of the questions will beanswered by sending either robots or astronauts to the Moon.”

in 1977, after continuously monitoringthe geophysical stations still operating atthe Apollo landing sites, NASA chose toturn them off. The reason: no unusual eventsbeing recorded were worth the cost of $1million a year to continue collecting data.

Thus, NASA’s near-term focus onreturning to the Moon must be justifiedon grounds other than answering impor-tant scientific questions. In brief, NASAdescribes these reasons as follows: 1) uti-lize lunar resources, such as oxygen foundin lunar minerals, to fuel space probeslaunched from the Moon; 2) explore aresource mined on the Moon for use onEarth; 3) learn how to live on another“planet” in preparation for sending astro-nauts to Mars; and 4) use the Moon as atesting ground for technologies needed forfuture solar system exploration. NASAhas stated that each of these four reasonsis an important objective worthy of thecost to proceed. Some believe there isanother reason to return to the Moon.China and Russia say they “plan” on send-ing “taikonauts” and cosmonauts to theMoon, and may build bases. If other coun-tries want to spend their resources to du-

rial, process it, then collect and store thefuel. The argument for why one wouldwant to fuel space missions on the Moonis justified by the fact that the “gravitywell” that must be overcome to launch aspace mission is much less than launch-ing from Earth or Earth orbit. Therefore,one needs less fuel for a given missionand, perhaps, a smaller launch system.

True, but where is the cost break-over point compared to launching fromEarth where all the facilities are alreadyin place? How many launches, how muchfuel must be manufactured, to make itworthwhile? Refueling and launchingrockets is a difficult and dangerous jobrequiring a complex infrastructure. Welaunched Apollo lunar modules from theMoon for rendezvous in lunar orbit with-out a hitch because each lunar module wasa fully contained spacecraft. Refueling onthe lunar surface was not necessary. Alaunch complex on the Moon will require,at some scale, all the facilities found onEarth. In addition, the launch will haveto be carried out with some or most work-ers doing their jobs in space suits. It alsorequires that the spacecraft launched from


will not be operational for many years.At the end of that time, if the experimentachieves its goals, a reactor that couldproduce electricity at competitive ratesstill will not exist. To further complicatethe possibility that He-3 fusion reactorswill ever be built, other fuels can be foundon Earth that can be used in fusion reac-tors. We do not need to go to the Moonfor fuel. Any advantage deriving from afusion reactor fueled by He-3 is offset bythe difficulty of obtaining the fuel. Whenall the assumptions and unknowns areadded up, the economic viability of min-ing the Moon for He-3 make this reasonfor returning to the Moon suspect.

Reason 3 is predicated on the needto learn how astronauts could live andwork on the Moon, as training to live onMars in the future. The first two reasonsfor not returning to the Moon, discussedabove, are in play with this goal. Lunarresources would need to be mined, pro-cessed, and stored so that the logistics ofsupplying a lunar base would be reduced.This goal would also serve as a techno-logical precursor to using raw materialsfound on Mars if a base were built there.Again, one must ask the important remain-ing question: Why would humans wantto “live” on the Moon? As there are nomajor scientific questions to be answered,and using lunar resources for any practi-cal application is highly questionable froma cost-benefit perspective, there is no needfor a lunar base. Next, is there a need fora Mars base where astronauts would haveto utilize Mars resources in order to sur-vive? Can you imagine that a first-timehuman mission to Mars would ever beplanned that would require using Marsraw materials for the fuel to return homeor oxygen and water to sustain life whileon the surface? Besides few, if any, as-tronaut missions to Mars may ever beneeded because extensive robotic explo-ration will come first. The answer to theonly important question may be in handwithout direct human intervention.

Why might only a few, or no hu-man missions to Mars be required? Ofthe 125 questions mentioned above, onlyone may be answered by exploring Mars:

“Is there or was there life elsewhere inthe solar system?” A rational explorationprogram to answer this question must relyon very capable robotic missions that willinclude sample return. Then, and onlythen, if the answer is still uncertain butindications are that sending astronautswould confirm the answer, they wouldgo to a few carefully selected sites. Forthese missions, stay times would be rela-tively short and all the resources neededto carry out their exploration and returnhome would be landed on the surface withthe astronauts, or waiting in Mars orbit.

Reason 4, using the Moon as a test-ing ground for technologies or systemsbefore sending them on the real mission,will slow and increase the cost of explo-ration, not enhance it. Each solar systembody, be it a planet, moon, asteroid, orcomet, is sufficiently different from theother that every mission must be tailoredto the specific objectives of the mission.To use resources to first test systems onthe Moon, and then modify them to ex-plore another solar system body, has notbeen shown to provide a positive cost-benefit. We have already photographed,

landed, moved about on the surface, andconducted sophisticated analyses of sev-eral bodies in the solar system. From eachwe have learned a great deal about whatworks and what doesn’t work. Taking adetour to the Moon to test future systemswill not be a shortcut to success.

Now that we have saved a lot oftime and resources by not sending mis-sions back to the Moon, what are the goalsand objectives of this different vision ofspace exploration? The 1958 Space Actstill defines the vision of what Congressexpected NASA to accomplish; languagein the Act is not skewed to a single objec-tive. By freeing up funds now requiredto return to the Moon, NASA’s traditionalprograms that face cancellation or cut-backs can proceed. Within NASA bud-gets the competition for limited sciencefunds is intense. Funding added to oneline item will usually result in the reduc-tion of another line item. This is wherefuture congresses and administrationsmust exercise great discipline. Specialinterest earmarks that do not advance fun-damental research must be rejected. Fund-ing for federally supported research will

The Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package, deployed on the lunar surfaceduring Apollo 16, comprised a set of geophysical measurement instruments thatwere designed to run autonomously after astronaut installation. (Source: NASA)


never be sufficient to satisfy all the re-searchers waiting in line to conduct “veryimportant” programs. Other agencies,including National Science Foundation,the National Institutes of Health, the De-partment of Energy, and the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,contend for federal science funds in whathas become, essentially, a zero-sum fund-ing environment. In all cases, selecting acourse of scientific endeavor must showthat the approach chosen has the promiseof being of greater incremental benefitthan a different, less costly approach. Inthis regard, NASA space exploration pro-grams compete with all other science pro-grams funded by Congress.

What must be done is that all fed-erally funded science programs should beprioritized, one against the other. TheNational Academies of Science (NAS)should perform the prioritization undercontract with Congress with assistancefrom each affected agency. Once estab-lished, priorities should only be changedin the event of a major, unforeseen eventthat Congress and NAS agree should takeprecedent over previously agreed to pri-

orities. As a starting point, prioritizationshould be based on the “125 Questions:What Don’t We Know?” or a similar setof questions developed by the NAS.Within each question, specific programsand experiments should be defined andprioritized. For each program and experi-ment, a careful schedule and cost projec-tion should be developed. Those spaceexploration programs that survive thisrigorous analysis can then be included inNASA’s budgets.

While prioritization is underway(probably a two year effort), all sciencedoes not come to a halt. There will bemany new and important scientific inves-tigations to fund that will be relativelynon-controversial, as well as ongoing pro-grams. However, regardless of the scien-tific discipline, spending resources onsecond or third-order priority investiga-tions should be avoided. Many of the 125high priority questions deal with the bio-logical and earth sciences. There are, inaddition, some that can be best addressedby space systems. These include: How doplanets form? What is the nature of grav-ity? What drove cosmic inflation? It

seems clear that there will be a need tobuild and operate a next generationHubble telescope and other types of ob-servatories including the currently sched-uled James Webb Space Telescope. Thesetelescopes and observatories must be builtto be “robotic and astronaut friendly” sothat their lifetimes and capabilities canbe extended and upgraded at minimumcost.

Even after a rigorous prioritizationof space programs is accomplished, somewill continue to declare that we must sendastronauts back to the Moon and on toMars because there will be many unex-pected discoveries. After all, that is whatexploration is all about. If you knew whatyou would find, then why go? Despitesuch assertions, it is possible to discusswhat we won’t find. The Periodic Tablehelps to define this issue. We will not findany new elements on the Moon or Mars,nor will we find any new minerals thatwould be so valuable that mining themfor use on Earth would be cost effective.We already have an excellent understand-ing of the history of the Moon. Learningmore about Mars will appeal to someplanetologists but, in the larger schemeof understanding the evolution of the so-lar system, will not result in any break-throughs that will have a profound im-pact. Mounting a detailed explorationprogram for Mars, if it should ever cometo pass, will have to await the day whenresources for such exploration are morereadily available.

For NASA, this new vision willrequire an adjustment no more painfulthan the restructuring currently underway.Making use of the astronaut corps duringthis period of redirection may pose thebiggest problem. Presently, between 2010when the shuttle is scheduled to be re-tired and the time when the Crew Explo-ration Vehicle (CEV) is available, perhaps2014, there will be no missions to launchastronauts or payload specialists excepton the Russian Soyuz. A lesson learned:the second class of scientist-astronauts,selected in 1967 for Apollo missions thatwere subsequently canceled, waitedtwenty years for a shuttle flight. That was

Pictured here is an artist’s conception of a lunar mining facility that could be usedto harvest oxygen and manufacturing metals such as iron, aluminum, magnesiumand titanium from the volcanic soil of the eastern Mare Serenitatis. (Source: PatRawlings/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

�

not a happy time at the Johnson SpaceCenter. Some walked away rather thanwait for an assignment. Every effortshould be made to avoid having individu-als in the astronaut corps leave NASAbecause they foresee a long wait beforetheir next flight. However, there is a wayto keep current and future astronauts in-volved in important work.

A decision must be made quicklyto better utilize the $100 billion dollarinvestment we, and our fifteen partners,have made in the International Space Sta-tion. The Space Shuttle should not beretired in 2010 in spite of the high costand risk of each launch. The Shuttle isthe only way to keep the Space Stationfully supplied. The Russian Soyuz andProgress vehicles, and the CEV and ESAAutomated Transfer Vehicle (neither ofthe last two yet operational) have only alimited capability to service the SpaceStation. Crews of six or more are neededon a continuing basis to provide thehousekeeping and to carry out scheduledexperiments. Continuing to operate theShuttle will take pressure off the ambi-tious development schedule for the CEV;this should be a welcome respite forNASA managers and contractors. Past

experience demonstrates that new man-rated vehicles encounter unforeseen prob-lems along the way. Although the CEV istouted as incorporating many heritagesystems, they will be performing togetherin a new operational environment.

If the Shuttle is retired in 2010 itmeans that the centrifuge, built by Japanfor $500 million dollars, will never reachorbit. Originally, it was considered themost important experimental facility thatwould be docked to the Space Station. Iffor some reason problems are encounteredtransporting and attaching the remainingelements on the manifest, without theShuttle there will be no alternative ve-hicle available to complete construction.Some of the International Space Stationelements have been on orbit for eight yearsand by the time scheduled construction iscompleted they will be twelve years old.Space systems eventually wear out. Com-ponents, such as the solar arrays, have lim-ited lifetimes and must be replaced if theSpace Station is to operate efficiently.Without the Shuttle, it will be difficultor impossible to maintain the facility ifthere is a major system or element fail-ure. We have already spent some $2 bil-lion dollars after the Columbia accident

to make each shuttle launch less risky andmore improvements are scheduled. Whywalk away from that investment? Onewould hope the Space Station will con-tinue to operate well past the 2010 dateand in order for this to happen mainte-nance must continue. Until (and if) theCEV is available in 2014, crew size willbe restricted. The Shuttle is by far thebest asset available that will assure con-tinued, safe operation.

This “Vision of Space Explora-tion” is very different from that currentlybeing pursued. If selected as the betterway to proceed, the impact it will haveon NASA as an institution will be posi-tive. It will require a change in some fund-ing levels for the next two years. Afterthat, NASA can continue down a path ofexciting and rewarding programs thattakes full advantage of all the agency’scapabilities. ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Donald A. Beattie is a former NASAengineer who has also worked with the Na-tional Science Foundation and the Depart-ment of Energy. He currently works as aprivate consultant. He is also the author ofHistory and Overview of Solar Heat Tech-nologies and Taking Science to the Moon:Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program.


The seventeenth annual AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meetingwill be held at the Hilton Sedona Resort& Spa in Sedona, Arizona, from January28 through February 1, 2007. This eventis co-sponsored by the American Astro-nautical Society (AAS) and the Ameri-can Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics (AIAA), and organized by boththe AAS Space Flight Mechanics Com-mittee and the AIAA Astrodynamics Tech-nical Committee.

Papers are being sought that per-tain to all areas of astrodynamics. Topicsof interest include, but are not limited to,the following:

• Orbital dynamics, perturbations, andstability

• Orbit determination and tracking• Spacecraft guidance, navigation, and

control• Trajectory design and optimization• Satellite constellation design and for-

mation flying• Atmospheric density modeling• Earth orbital, asteroid, and planetary

mission studies• Libration point trajectories• Low thrust mission and trajectory

design• Artificial and natural space debris• Planetary defense• Orbital rendezvous and proximity

operations• Attitude dynamics, determination,

and control• Attitude and payload sensor calibration• Dynamics and control of large space

structures and tethers• Reentry flight mechanics

Updated and additional informa-tion on the conference will be posted atthe AAS Space Flight Mechanics Com-mittee website: www.space-flight.org

17th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics MeetingJanuary 28 – February 1, 2007Hilton Sedona Resort & Spa, Sedona, Arizona

Special Sessions

Proposals are solicited for specialsessions such as panel discussions, invitedsessions, workshops, and mini-symposia.Potential special session organizers shouldsubmit a proposal to the Technical Chairs.For a panel discussion, this proposalshould include a title of the discussion, abrief description of the topics to be dis-cussed, and a list of the speakers and theirqualifications. For an invited session,workshop, or mini-symposium, the pro-posal should consist of the title of the ses-sion, a brief description of its significance,and the extended and condensed abstractsfor each talk to be included.

Information For Authors

Papers will be accepted on the ba-sis of extended abstracts. Authors arerequired to use an automated web-basedsystem for submitting the extended ab-stract, a condensed abstract, and authorinformation. If authors are unable to usethe automated web-based system, theyshould contact the Technical Chairs forinstructions on submitting papers by E-mail. The web site for submitting thisinformation is: www.pxinet.com/aas

Please note that the extended ab-stracts are due by October 1, 2006.

The information required is as fol-lows:1) Title of the technical paper2) The name, affiliation, postal address,

telephone number(s), and E-mailaddress of each author

3) The text of the extended abstract,having a length of 500-1000 wordsand containing supporting tables andfigures. The extended abstract shouldprovide a clear and concise statementof the problem addressed and the re-sults obtained. Submissions without

extended abstracts will not be con-sidered. The extended abstract must beuploaded in the form of a PDF file.

4) A condensed version of the abstract(100 words maximum) to be includedin the printed conference program.Avoid using symbols and Greek char-acters in the short abstract. The shortabstract must be pasted into the boxprovided on the web page.

Notification of acceptance will besent to the authors via E-mail by Novem-ber 1, 2006. Author instructions will besent by E-mail and also placed on thewebsite: www.space-flight.org

Final manuscripts are required andmust be electronically uploaded to thewebsite prior to attending the meeting.Authors are also required to supply theirSession Chairs with a printed copy oftheir paper along with a short biographyof the presenter before the meeting. A nopaper-no podium rule will be in effectfor all presentations. Authors whose pa-pers are not uploaded to the website orare not available in printed form at thetime of the meeting will not be allowedto present their papers. After the meet-ing, all authors will have an opportunity toupload revised versions of their papers forpublication in the conference proceedings.

Please note that electronic formats(e.g. PowerPoint, Adobe PDF) will berequired for all technical presentationcharts briefed at this conference.

Breakwell Student Travel Award

The AAS Space Flight MechanicsCommittee also announces the John V.Breakwell Student Travel Award. Thisaward will provide travel expenses for upto three U.S. and Canadian students pre-senting papers at this conference. Themaximum coverage per student is lim-

CALL FOR PAPERS ABSTRACT DEADLINE: October 1, 2006


The 25th International Sympo-sium on Space Technology and Science(ISTS) was held June 4-June 11, 2006 inKanazawa, Japan. The theme was “SpaceExploration for a Peaceful Planet Earth!”Approximately 800 participants from 18countries submitted more than 600 oralpresentation and poster session papers. TheOpening Ceremony included openingcomments from Prof. Yasunori Matogawa,from ISAS (JAXA), as General Chair ofthe 25th ISTS Organizing Committee,Congratulatory addresses from: Mr.Masanori Tanimoto, Governor of IshikawaPrefecture; Mr.Tamotsu Yamada, Mayorof Kanazawa City; Professor TetsuhikoUeda, President of the Japan Society forAeronautical and Space Sciences; andProf. Peter M. Bainum, Howard Univer-sity and the AAS, on behalf of the Over-seas Organizing Committee. On June 7,2006, five different student awards werepresented in the Student CommendationCeremony including the AAS Award forthe Most Innovative Application of SpaceTechnology. Various cultural events wereoffered during the week including a tech-nical tour to three different local indus-tries. An opening welcome reception was

Dr. Peter Bainum presents Naritoyo Shibata from Kyushu University the AAS Award forhis paper "Orbital Transfer of a Tethered System Using Pitch Motion Control throughTether Length Variation." (Source: Peter Bainum, AAS)

AAS Honors Japanese Student

held on Monday evening and a farewellbanquet terminated the activities on Fri-day evening, both with spectacular enter-tainment. Key participants from the USAincluded Ms. Patricia G. Smith, Associ-ate Administrator, FAA, who presented a

Keynote Speech on "Preparing for Pri-vate Human Space Flight", and Mr. Wil-liam Jordan, NASA representative at theUS Embassy in Tokyo, describing the USNational Space Program and updates onthe International Space Station. ■

ited to $1000. Further details and appli-cations may be obtained at: www.space-flight.org

Warning - Technology TransferConsiderations

Prospective authors are remindedthat technology transfer guidelines havesubstantially extended the time requiredfor the review of abstracts and completedpapers by private enterprises and govern-ment agencies. These reviews can requirefour months or more. It is the responsi-bility of the authors to determine the ex-tent of approval necessary for their pa-pers to preclude late submissions and pa-per withdrawals.

All material (cover page, ab-stracts, etc.) should be sent to each ofthe two Technical Chairs below:

AAS - Dr. Maruthi R. AkellaASE/EM Dept WRW 414, MC: C0600The University of Texas at AustinAustin, TX 78712Ph: 512-471-9493 Fax: [email protected]

AIAA - Dr. James W. GearhartOrbital Sciences Corporation42920 Maplegrove CourtAshburn, VA 20147Ph: 703-406-5818 Fax: [email protected]@orbital.com

For other questions regardingthe conference, please contact one ofthe General Chairs below:

AAS - Dr. Robert H. BishopThe University of Texas at AustinDept of Aerospace Engineering andEngineering Mechanics, Austin, TX 78712Tel: 512-471-4258 Fax: [email protected]

AIAA - Alfred J TrederBarrios Technology28327 183rd Ave SE, Kent, WA 98042Work: 253-639-5101 Cell: 206-818-5732Home: [email protected] ■


Greetings from the Rocky Moun-tain Section of the American Astronauti-cal Society!

The 30th Annual Guidance and Con-trol Conference will be held February 3-7, 2007 at the beautiful Beaver Run Re-sort in Breckenridge Colorado. We arecommitted to inviting the best papers andpresenters to this conference, please sub-mit abstracts for potential papers to thecontacts listed. The deadline for abstractsubmission is October 31, 2006.

The conference will have the fol-lowing sessions. Their themes are listedas well as the session chairperson to con-tact for abstract submission. Sessions 9and 10 will not be ITAR-restricted,whereas Sessions 1 through 8 are thetraditional international sessions.

Session 1 “Advances in Guidanceand Control” Some projects require in-novative G&C solutions that are outsidethe realm of conventional thinking. Thepapers in this session will focus on thelatest in theoretical developments, cutting-edge hardware, unique mission possibili-ties, system architecture, autonomous op-erations, and system modeling and test-ing. Contact: Ian Gravseth ([email protected])

Session 2 “Technical Exhibits”The Technical Exhibits Session is a uniqueopportunity to observe displays and dem-onstrations of state-of-the-art hardware,design and analysis tools, and servicesapplicable to advancement of guidance,navigation, and control technology. As-sociated papers, not presented in other ses-sions, are also provided and can be dis-cussed with the author. The latest com-mercial tools for GN&C simulations,analysis, and graphical displays are dem-onstrated in a hands-on, interactive envi-ronment, including lessons learned andundocumented features. This session takes

30th AAS Guidance and Control ConferenceFebruary 3-7, 2007Beaver Run Resort, Breckenridge, Colorado

CALL FOR PAPERS ABSTRACT DEADLINE: October 31, 2006

place in a social setting. While an excel-lent free buffet is served, conference at-tendees can interact with technical repre-sentatives and authors. The innovativetechnology can be discussed directly withdesign engineers. Contact: Alex May([email protected]) or RickJackson ([email protected]) orJay Brownfield ([email protected]) or Marv Odefey([email protected]) or Joe Vellinga([email protected])

Session 3 “International LunarAmbitions” NASA’s Vision for near-termhuman and robotic exploration of theMoon, combined with international Lu-nar exploration initiatives, has led to anunprecedented realignment of resourcesfor returning to the Moon. This is due toscientific interest in the Moon itself and,also, as a springboard for future deep spacehuman and robotic exploration to otherdestinations, like Mars. The unique andchallenging guidance, navigation and con-trol aspects of very ambitious lunar mis-sions, such as the Crew Exploration Ve-hicle (CEV)/Lunar Surface Access Mod-ule (LASM), the Lunar ReconnaissanceOrbiter (LRO), the Japanese Selene space-craft or the ESA SMART-1 mission, areaddressed in this session. The topics cov-ered include launch, rendezvous, samplereturn, entry-descent-landing and surfaceoperations. A broad range of papers willbe presented covering design, analysis,and operational solutions. Contact: MaryKlaus ([email protected])

Session 4 “GN&C Challenges ofMicrosats” The success of recent Micro-Satellite missions, combined with DoD in-terest in smaller vehicles to host payloadsfor launch-on-demand, responsive spacemissions, has created a thriving marketfor Micro and Nano satellite vehicles. Pack-ing "large spacecraft" functionality into

these smaller spacecraft buses has requiredsignificant technology advances. This ses-sion will address the challenge of obtain-ing traditional GN&C performance uti-lizing miniaturized sensors, integratedavionics packages, and vehicle control withlimited actuator capability. Contact: MikeDrews ([email protected]) orMike Osborne ([email protected])

Session 5 “Spacecraft Constella-tions and Formation Flying” Recent andproposed space missions with multiplespacecraft are becoming more prevalentin recent years. This is due, in part, to thedesire for synergistic science by exploit-ing multiple sensor packages distributedacross independent spacecraft. There hasalso been significant study toward space-craft constellations for interferometry andsegmented telescope applications. Thissession address aspects of the conceptualdesign, simulation, maintenance strategy,and implementation challenges and les-sons learned, where applicable, of systemsof spacecraft used in both loosely andtightly coupled constellations. Contact:Dave Chart ([email protected])

Session 6 “Advances in GN&CComponents” Many advances in sophis-ticated and complex GNC solutions areachieved through innovative improve-ments in component capabilities. This ses-sion will focus on the most cutting edgedevelopments in GNC components withan emphasis on their properties and po-tential impacts for the GNC user. Papersare encouraged that are tutorial, theoreti-cal, experimental, and/or application ori-ented which address future subsystem ar-chitecture/modeling, core advances intechnological development, and uses/drawbacks of component hardware. Con-tact: Christine Mollenkopf ([email protected]) or Chris Robb (crobb@ball. com)


Session 7 “Recent Experiences”Lessons learned through experience provemost valuable when shared with others inthe G&C community. This session, whichis a traditional part of the conference, pro-vides a forum for candid sharing of in-sights gained through successes and fail-ures. Past conferences have shown this ses-sion to be most interesting and informa-tive. Contact: Jim Chapel (jim.d.chapel@

lmco.com) or Shawn McQuerry ([email protected])

Session 8 “Unmanned Aerial Ve-hicle Guidance and Control” UnmannedAerial Vehicles have proven to be highlyeffective for long-dwell applications to re-connaissance, remote sensing for naturalresources, and national border patrol. Thissession explores the GN&C aspects ofthese applications, including airspace

Left to Right: Jim Kirkpatrick (AAS Executive Director), Lyn Wigbels (AAS VP Interna-tional), Vince Boles(AIAA VP International), and Bob Dickman (AIAA Executive Director)sign the MOA. (Source: AIAA)

The American Astronautical Soci-ety and the American Institute of Aero-nautics and Astronautics (AIAA) recentlysigned a Memorandum of Agreement tocollaborate in the development and plan-ning for international activities and pro-grams of each organization.

“Both AAS and AIAA share a com-mitment to strengthen the global spaceprogram. It makes sense to combine ourunique capabilities through cooperationwith international space organizations, andbring comprehensive, value-added per-spectives and programs to the space com-munity. We look forward to a growing,productive relationship with AAS,” statedVincent Boles, AIAA vice president, in-ternational.

The agreement includes co-spon-sorship of certain events, representationon each other’s international committeesand promotion of activities and events inthe organizations’ respective magazines,Space Times and AIAA’s AerospaceAmerica.

“The AAS and AIAA have coop-erated for many years in organizing firstclass technical meetings. I’m delightedthat we will now work closely togetherto promote and expand international dia-logue and collaborative activities on cur-rent and future space endeavors. We arealready actively engaged on our first ini-tiative that will address human and ro-botic space exploration activities world-

AAS and AIAA Sign Cooperative AgreementGlobal Space Exploration Seminar to be First Joint Activity

management, remote piloting, autonomousoperations, and recent experiences. Con-tact: Bill Frazier ([email protected])

Session 9 “U.S. Space System Re-search: Autonomy and Innovations inGuidance and Control – US ONLY”U.S. government laboratories and agen-cies sponsor research and development for

wide,” said Lyn Wigbels, AAS vice presi-dent, international.

The first activity by AAS and AIAAunder this new agreement is a series ofevents to highlight global space explora-tion objectives, plans and industrial ca-pabilities, and develop a single integrateddatabase of space exploration activitiesworldwide.

Organized in conjunction withGeorge Mason University, “Contributionsto Space Exploration: Global Objectives,Plans and Capabilities” will be launched

with a public seminar November 1-2,2006, at the George Mason University,Arlington Campus, Virginia. It will high-light the important role of internationalcooperation and feature presentations bynumerous space agencies.

The series also will include a meet-ing of a synthesis group to develop a sum-mary document of national explorationplans, an invitation-only workshop to beheld in early 2007 to review the summaryand discuss next steps, and a written reporton the summary and workshop findings. ■

Continuted on page 22


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]).

AAS Welcomes Our NewestCorporate Member

www.applieddefense.com

For information on becoming a corporatemember, visit www.astronautical.org

or call 703-866-0020.

30th AAS Guidance and ControlConference (Continued from page 21)

future air, space and interplanetary missions. Thesemissions will incorporate cutting-edge technolo-gies to achieve operational objectives. Technolo-gies will incorporate advancements in autonomousoperations, platform attitude and navigation, andpayload line-of-sight control. This session will beopen to and attended by U.S. citizens only. Con-tact: James McQuerry ([email protected]) orArlo Gravseth ([email protected])

Session 10 “U.S. Space Initiatives – USONLY” The United States is developing techno-logical solutions to a variety of Commercial, Civiland Defense problems. Areas of development in-clude exploration, remote sensing, planetary sci-ence, and innovative air and space platform con-figurations. This session will provide a forum topresent concepts and solutions in an ITAR freeenvironment. This session will be open to and at-tended by U.S. citizens only. Contact: JamesMcQuerry ([email protected]) or Brent Abbott([email protected])

We look forward to seeing you at the con-ference! ■_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Heidi Hallowell, 2007 Conference Chair, BallAerospace & Technology Corp. (303-939-6131), andJay Brownfield, Rocky Mountain Section Secretary,Honeywell Defense & Space (303-681-3316)


UPCOMING EVENTS

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings

October 17–19, 2006*Short Course“The U.S. Government Space Sector”George Mason UniversityArlington, Virginia703-866-0020www.gmupolicy.net/space

November 1–2, 2006*AAS/AIAA Seminar“Contributions to SpaceExploration: Global Objectives,Plans, and Capabilities”George Mason UniversityArlington, Virginia703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

November 14–15, 2006AAS National Conference and53rd Annual Meeting“The Man+ Machine Equation”Pasadena HiltonPasadena, California703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

January 28–February 1, 2007*AAS/AIAA Space FlightMechanics Winter MeetingHilton Sedona Resort & SpaSedona, Arizona703-866-0020www.space-flight.org

AAS Events ScheduleAAS CORPORATE MEMBERS

a.i. solutions, Inc.The Aerospace CorporationAir Force Institute of TechnologyAnalytical Graphics, Inc.Applied Defense Solutions, Inc.ArianespaceAuburn UniversityBall Aerospace & Technologies Corp.Braxton Technologies, Inc.The Boeing CompanyCarnegie Institution of WashingtonComputer Sciences CorporationEmbry Riddle Aeronautical UniversityGeneral Dynamics C4 SystemsGeorge Mason University / CAPRHoneywell, Inc.Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.Jacobs SverdrupJet Propulsion LaboratoryKinetXLockheed Martin CorporationMitretek SystemsN. Hahn & Co., Inc.Northrop GrummanOrbital Sciences CorporationRaytheonRedShift VenturesSAICSwales 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

February 3–7, 200730th AAS Guidance andControl ConferenceBeaver Run ResortBreckenridge, Colorado703-866-0020www.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

March 20–21, 200745th Robert H. GoddardMemorial SymposiumThe Inn & Conference Center by MarriottUniversity of Maryland University CollegeAdelphi, Maryland703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

May 16–18, 2007*11th International Space Conferenceof Pacific-basin Societies (ISCOPS)“Space Exploration for the 21st Century”Beijing, China703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

August 19–23, 2007*AAS/AIAA AstrodynamicsSpecialist ConferenceMission Point ResortMackinac Island, Michigan703-866-0020www.space-flight.org

AAS National Conference and 53rd Annual Meeting“The Man + Machine Equation”

November 14-15, 2006Pasadena Hilton, Pasadena, California

Coming soon on the AAS Web Site - program details, online registration andinformation on the new Student Poster Contest.


6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #565

Springfield, VA

the magazine of the american astronautical...

Documents