the magazine of the american astronautical...

SPACE TIMES • January/February 2009 1

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICANASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETYISSUE 1 VOLUME 48

JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2009

2 SPACE TIMES • January/February 2009

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

JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2009

ISSUE 1–VOLUME 48

AAS OFFICERSPRESIDENT

Frank A. Slazer, Northrop GrummanEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Lyn D. Wigbels, RWI International Consulting ServicesVICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL

Srinivas R. Vadali, Texas A&M UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS

David W. Brandt, Lockheed MartinVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS

David B. Spencer, Penn State UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONSAND OUTREACH

Mary Lynne Dittmar, Dittmar AssociatesVICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP

Patrick McKenzie, Ball AerospaceVICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION

Angela Phillips Diaz, University of California, RiversideVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE

Carol S. Lane, Ball AerospaceVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL

Clayton Mowry, Arianespace, Inc.VICE PRESIDENT–PUBLIC POLICY

Peggy Finarelli, George Mason University/CAPRLEGAL COUNSEL

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

James R. Kirkpatrick, AAS

AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORSTERM EXPIRES 2009Marc S. AllenSteven Brody, International Space UniversityAshok R. Deshmukh, Technica, Inc.Graham Gibbs, Canadian Space AgencySteven D. Harrison, BAE SystemsSue E. Hegg, The Boeing CompanyArthur F. ObenschainRonald J. Proulx, Charles Stark Draper LaboratoryIan Pryke, George Mason University/CAPRTrevor C. Sorensen, University of Hawaii

TERM EXPIRES 2010Linda Billings, SETI InstituteRonald J. Birk, Northrop GrummanRebecca L. Griffin, Griffin AerospaceHal E. Hagemeier, National Security Space OfficeDennis Lowrey, General DynamicsMolly Kenna Macauley, Resources for the FutureErin Neal, ATKLesa B. RoeRosanna Sattler, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLPRobert H. Schingler, Jr.Woodrow Whitlow, Jr.TERM EXPIRES 2011Peter M. Bainum, Howard UniversityRobert H. Bishop, University of Texas at AustinMark K. Craig, SAICJ. Walter Faulconer, Applied Physics LaboratoryJonathan T. Malay, Lockheed MartinKathy J. Nado, L-3 CommunicationsChristopher Nelson, Oceaneering Space SystemsSuneel Sheikh, ASTER Labs, Inc.Patricia Grace Smith, Aerospace Consultant, Patti

Grace Smith ConsultingGregg Vane, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

SPACE TIMES EDITORIAL STAFFEDITOR, Jeffrey P. Elbel

PHOTO & GRAPHICS EDITOR, Dustin DoudPRODUCTION MANAGER, Diane L. Thompson

BUSINESS 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 subscriptionsmay be ordered from the AAS Business Office. © Copyright 2008by the American Astronautical Society, Inc. Printed in the UnitedStates of America. ISSN 1933-2793.

PERIODICALSSPACE TIMES, magazine of the AAS, bimonthly, volume 47,2008—$80 domestic, $95 foreignThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, quarterly, volume 56,2008—$170 domestic, $190 foreignTo order these publications, contact the AAS Business Office.

REPRINTSReprints are available for all articles in SPACE TIMES and all pa-pers published in The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGESpace and America’s ChallengesAn Open Letter to the New Administration 3

FEATURESSolarBubbles and Adaptive Materials Set World Recordwith Fuel Cell Powered Aircraft 4On October 30, 2008, the University of Michigan students team, SolarBubbles,and Adaptive Materials began their journey of becoming world record holders,flying their fuel cell powered aircraft for 10 hours, 15 minutes, and 4 seconds.by Nicholas Rooney and Andrew Klesh

Micro & Nanosatellite Launch Capabilities from the Star BusGEO Commercial Communications Platform 7A concept for the deployment of nanosatellites and microsatellites from privately-owned commercial communications satellites is described in this paper.by Phillip C. Kalmanson, et.al.

AAS NEWS2008 AAS National Conference Report 13by Rick W. Sturdevant

47th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium 18

AAS Officers, Board, and Chairs 19

CORPORATE MEMBER PROFILEThe National Institute of Aerospace 21

UPCOMING EVENTS 22

NOTES ON A NEW BOOKJane’s Space Recognition Guide 23Reviewed by Mark Williamson

6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2370 USATel: 703-866-0020 Fax: [email protected] www.astronautical.org


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Advancing All Space

Frank A. [email protected]

FRONT: Solar array panels on the International Space Station are backdropped against Earth’s horizon in this digital still image photographed by oneof the STS-126 crew members who were visiting the orbital outpost. (Source: NASA)BACK: Discovered by William Herschel in 1788, here pictured by the Hubble Space Telescope, NGC 1569 is home to three of the most massive starclusters ever discovered in the local universe. Each cluster contains more than a million stars. (Source: NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), and A. Aloisi (STScI/ESA)

ON THE COVER

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, it’s time for the space community to stop asking “What willPresident Obama do for us?” and start asking “What can we do for the new Administration andthe nation in one of the most challenging points in recent US history?”

In fact, space is very relevant to addressing many of the problems facing our nation.

· Economic growth and competitiveness: Our economic strength is underpinned by new technology. Space programs directlyfoster innovation as both government and industry seek new answers to the challenges presented by space science and explo-ration programs. Space-related technologies from integrated circuits and CAT scans to GPS to home entertainment broadcast-ing have provided tremendous economic growth and improved life on Earth. Meeting new human exploration challengesrequires advances in a wide range of disciplines that can benefit economic growth just as the Apollo program did.

· Cost-effective national security: US military space capabilities are unsurpassed and provide our nation with tremendous asym-metric advantages, enabling the US military to do more with less. From precision guided weapons to sophisticated reconnais-sance capabilities, space is essential to our nation’s security, especially in a time of constrained resources and wide rangingchallenges.

· Global climate change: Anthropogenic climate change threatens our civilization; research and observation from space is essen-tial to advance our understanding of the environment and the complex interplay between it and human activities, as well asmonitoring compliance with environmental treaties.

· Education: Education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is essential to develop a more competitive scientificand technological workforce. As it has in the past, a robust, challenging space program can stimulate student interest in scienceand math.

The US civil space program has greatly improved our nation’s relations with other nations. To cite just one example, the InternationalSpace Station is arguably the greatest scientific and technical program in history – a multinational, multi-decade success. In fact,bringing Russia into the space station program was instrumental in discouraging the proliferation of Soviet military technology andexpertise after the end of the Cold War.

The American Astronautical Society, founded in 1954, is one of the oldest space stakeholders in the United States, and ourmembership spans the gamut of the space community from individuals and corporations to academic and governmental entities. Weare excited about the commitment the new Administration has made to a robust space program. As space professionals, we recognizethe enormous challenges it faces, and so we offer ourselves as a candid sounding board for its civil space leadership team as it worksto develop actionable space policies and budgets for the benefit of our nation.

Space and America’s ChallengesAn Open Letter to the New Administration


As the sun peaked over the horizon earlyThursday morning, October 30, 2008, thefinal leg in the quest for one group ofUniversity of Michigan students andAdaptive Materials to become worldrecord holders was started. The studentteam SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materialsflew their fuel cell powered aircraft for aworld record time of 10 hours, 15 minutes,and 4 seconds; a flight that lasted fromsunrise to sunset.

Started by a group of students whowanted to build cool airplanes and offerhands-on experience to their peers, theSolarBubbles team has been organized forjust over three years. The team is comprisedprimarily of Aerospace Engineeringstudents, ranging from undergraduatefreshmen to PhD students. SolarBubbles’

SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materials SetWorld Record with Fuel Cell Powered Aircraftby Nicholas Rooney and Andrew Klesh

Team members from SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materials pose with Endurance aftersuccessfully breaking the record for the longest fuel cell powered aircraft flight. (Source:SolarBubbles)

main focus has traditionally been to buildthe world’s smallest solar poweredautonomous unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV) that can remain in flight for 36continuous hours. By small, they mean anaircraft with a less than 15 foot wingspan.

In January, 2008, SolarBubbles wasapproached by Adaptive Materials, an AnnArbor based solid oxide fuel cellmanufacturer, to collaboratively build along endurance fuel cell powered aerialvehicle. Adaptive Materials specializes inthe design, development, and productionof small, energy-efficient solid oxide fuelcells that run on inexpensive, globallyavailable propane. SolarBubbles’ role inthe partnership was to design and constructthe air frame, while Adaptive Materialswould fund the project and supply the fuel

cell. The SolarBubbles fuel cell aircraftdesign team was comprised of A.J. Field,Steve Hoesli, Steve Kast, and CodyMartin, all of whom are University ofMichigan Aerospace undergraduates.

At the start of the project, the mainconstraints were wingspan, and powerconsumption. The goal was to create anaircraft with a wingspan of 8 feet or less,and be able to maintain flight on only thepower supplied by an Adaptive Materialsfuel cell. The power required to remain inflight had a direct correlation to the weightof the aircraft. If the airplane was tooheavy, then a large amount of thrust wouldbe required to keep the aircraft flying. Themore thrust required, the faster the electricmotor needed to spin, thus consuming morepower.

To combat the power penalty of a heavyaircraft, SolarBubbles focused on using asmuch composite materials as possible inthe manufacturing of the airframe. Thewing was constructed out of foam and wascovered in fiberglass, kevlar, and carbonfiber. The backbone of the aircraft was a 6foot long, 3/4 inch diameter carbon fiberrod. Initial designs had all of the aircraftelectronics, the fuel cell, and propanecontained within a composite fuselage.While these designs were aestheticallypleasing and reduced the amount of dragthat would be incurred during flight, theyalso presented challenges. AdaptiveMaterials’ solid oxide fuel cell technologyuses air, creating the need duct air past thefuel cell.

When flight testing was completedusing batteries, it was discovered that theaircraft was too heavy and consumed toomuch power. The SolarBubbles teamcontemplated ways to reduce the airframeweight, and decided to redesign the


The initial fuel cell aircraft design prepped for flight (Source: SolarBubbles)

fuselage using improved fabricationtechniques and a different layout. Now,instead of having a composite shell aroundall of the components, the componentswould all be out in the open air in a laddertype fuselage configuration. Componentswould be secured between two carbon fiberrods, one on top and one on bottom, andseparated by balsa wood bulkheadsreinforced with carbon fiber making the“rungs” of the ladder. This design reducedthe weight of the aircraft by eliminatingthe composite shells and fairings on theprevious designs, as well as reducing thesize of the ribs and bulkheads used toseparate components. In the end, it cut thefuselage weight to half of the originaldesign. The ladder solution also solved theproblem of having to direct air past the fuelcell, as the fuel cell itself was now in theopen. Further flight testing proved that thedrag penalties of having all of the aircraftcomponents located in the free streamairflow did not counteract the gains inreduced weight. The data collected fromthese flight tests also showed that theaircraft power consumption was lowenough that fuel cells provided by AdaptiveMaterials could indeed power it throughouta long endurance flight.

SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materialscollaboratively developed and tested theintegrated flight system. The final airplane,named “Endurance,” weighed 11.7pounds, had an 8 foot wingspan, and waspowered by a propane fueled solid oxidefuel cell - battery hybrid power system. Inthe power system, the electronics wouldpull power from the battery whilesimultaneously recharging the battery. Thissystem allowed Endurance to temporarilyexceed the amount of power available fromthe fuel cell for takeoff and climb-out. Thefuel cell could then replenish the power inthe battery during normal flight where fullpower was not needed. The battery itselfcould support only seven minutes of flightwithout the fuel cell, proving the fuel cellwas the main source of power.

The previous record for the longest fuelcell powered flight was achieved by a

partnership of Aerovironment Inc. andProtonex Technology Corporation, with aflight time of 9+ hours. Adaptive Materialsand SolarBubbles set their eyes on the goalof a 10 hour flight. This goal was chosento show that Endurance could easily passthe previous record. Given the late-fallflight test date, Endurance needed to flyfrom sunrise to sunset to maximize daylighthours because the aircraft had no lightingsystem to make it visible at night.

SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materialsarrived at the frosted Field of Dreams R/Cpark in Milan, Michigan early in themorning on October 30, 2008. It just sohappened that the temperature that morningset a record low of 20 degrees, making itmore advantageous to keep moving andsetup swiftly. Luckily, SolarBubbles andAdaptive Materials had prepared for thecold and brought several heaters andperhaps more importantly, lots of coffee,to keep everyone warm and happy.

Setup occurred without any problems,and Endurance was ready to launch atdaybreak. The launch occurred around 8:15am without incident as the “Hi-start”elastic launch device pulled Endurance intothe air and the pilot throttled up the motorand started to gain altitude. Endurance wasdesigned and tested as a hand-launchableaircraft, and the Hi-start device adds anelement of safety.

The initial fuel cell aircraft being hand launchedusing the “hi-start” (Source: SolarBubbles)


Nicholas Rooney is a Senior AerospaceEngineering student at the Universityof Michigan, and the current Team Leadof SolarBubbles. Andrew Klesh is aDoctoral Student also at the Universityof Michigan, and one of the originalfounders as well as a former Team Leadfor the SolarBubbles project. For moreinformation on SolarBubbles, pleasevisit their website at http://so larbubbles . eng in .umich .edu /~solarbubbles/, or you may [email protected]. For moreinformation about Adaptive Materials,visit www.adaptivematerials.com.SolarBubbles would like to thank A.J.Field, Steve Kast, Andy Klesh, SteveHoesli, Cody Martin, Nick Schoeps, theSolarBubbles team members, andAdaptive Materials for all their help andsupport throughout the project.

Endurance flies into the sunrise shortly after taking off to break the record. (Source: SolarBubbles)

Endurance makes a low altitude pass over thefield while preparing to land after breaking therecord. (Source: SolarBubbles)

The weather for the day turned out tobe great, except for the initial cold morning,with the sun shining bright, blue skies, andonly medium winds. Multiple pilots fromboth SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materialstook turns flying the aircraft throughout theday in a holding pattern above the MilanR/C field with the help of multiple spotters.Spectators would constantly hear thespotters calling out commands to the pilot,“bank left, hold, bank right, gain altitude.”Live onboard video footage providedadditional feedback to the pilot and waswirelessly broadcast to a live display inthe atrium of the University of Michigan’sFXB Building.

The record flight itself was uneventful,with only the occasional requirement todeal with up to 18 mph wind gusts. Onepilot commented as the wind increased that“This is the hardest video game I have everplayed.” The previous record time waspassed around 5:40 pm with cheers fromspectators, and the team continued flyinguntil the sun started to set at approximately6:30 pm, giving SolarBubbles andAdaptive Materials the new fuel cell recordflight time of 10 hours, 15 minutes, and 4seconds. As the airplane landed and gentlycame to a stop, it was met with more cheersfrom team members and intriguedbystanders, both at the field and from theremote FXB viewing site. GPS datatracking showed that over the span of the

flight, Endurance traveled slightly less than99 miles in winds averaging approximately10 mph. The team estimated that, had nightflight been possible, Endurance hadsufficient fuel on board at landing tocontinue flying approximately fiveadditional hours.

The idea of using fuel cell poweredvehicles to explore other planets and moonsis not too far fetched. While the solid oxidefuel cell type may not be able to work onother worlds, the concept of extendingflight through the use of fuel cells, even ifthey use onboard propane and oxygen, issomething that could be employed. Fuelcells are already in use on space shuttlesand other space vehicles due to their veryhigh energy density. As space explorationexpands further away from the sun, solarcells will become less effective, and fuelcells could be used to supply additionalpower.

Other alternatives are to consider flyingthis type of aircraft on a moon, such asTitan, that has methane in its atmosphere.Here, the fuel cell would obtain the gasused for fuel from the atmosphere andinstead have to store the oxidizer on board.Depending on the fuel cell technology, thisreversal could lead to increased endurancetimes for the exploration vehicles. Withmany people stretching to bring longendurance operations to other worlds,we’ve shown that fuel cells are able to

provide a viable technology for extra-planetary exploration.

SolarBubbles and Adaptive Materialswill be discussing a follow-up attempt toincrease the record to over 24 hours in thespring. Setting the record for the longestflight time of a fuel cell powered aircraftis just another example of how the studentsat the University of Michigan continue tobe innovators and leaders across theengineering disciplines.


Micro & Nanosatellite Launch Capabilities fromthe Star Bus GEO Commercial CommunicationsPlatform.by Phillip C. Kalmanson, Bryan Benedict, Michael Do, Quang Lam, Justin Morgan, Srimal Choi, and Matthew Seifert

ABSTRACTA concept for the deployment of nanosatellites and

microsatellites from privately-owned commercial communicationssatellites will be described in this paper. The Orbital Sciences Cor-poration Starbus is a platform that is representative of small-sizedGEO communications satellites. Modifications to the Starbus canbe made to allow a microsatellite to be attached to, and deployedfrom, the nadir deck of host the Star spacecraft. Furthermore, othermodifications can be made to allow for the mounting and deploy-ment of nanosatellites using the Cubesat form factor. Unique tech-nical and programmatic challenges present themselves in thislaunch concept of using a GEO spacecraft as the launch platformthat are not seen using more traditional rocket launch vehicles.Some of the more unique technical challenges are the impacts tothe primary communications payload, effects on primary missionorbit-raising from GTO to GEO, and overall fuel lifetime impactsto the host spacecraft. Some of the programmatic challenges arethe integration of schedules from different organizations with dif-ferent goals and constraints, and the impacts to insurability of thehost spacecraft. These Starbus modifications provide for a stan-dardized interface in accommodating micro and nanosatellitelaunches known as Commercial Rideshare. Commercial Rideshareis a concept for a novel service offered by Orbital and its industrypartners in the GEO commercial communications industry to pro-vide a low cost method of space-access that will also provide thehigh frequency of launch opportunities and the on-time scheduleassurance that is typical of commercial communications missions.

INTRODUCTIONDemand for space access continues to increase at a rate that

exceeds the ability of conventional launch services to satisfy. Theobvious hurdle that prevents this disparity of supply and demandfrom being alleviated is that launches are expensive. The moremassive a spacecraft is the more expensive the launch; however,this relationship between mass and cost is not linear – this benefitof this will be explained later on. For an organization that wishesto launch a microsatellite or nanosatellite cost is a primary mis-sion driver, otherwise, why settle on a small satellite. This modi-fies the economics for smaller microsatellite (11kg to 100 kg) andnanosatellite (i.e., 0.5 kg to 10 kg) launches in that they do notprovide a lucrative market compared with other launch serviceusers such as for government defense missions, observatory class

missions, or commercial communications missions. Indeed, thereare launch vehicles such as Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Pegasus,Taurus, and Minotaur lines as well as the SpaceX Falcon-1 thatcater towards small satellites. Nevertheless, achieving orbits otherthan Low Earth Orbit (LEO) remain cost and schedule prohibi-tive. High Earth Orbits (HEO) and Geosynchronous Earth Orbits(GEO) for a microsatellite are forced to use custom upper stages orsecondary payload adaptors which have their own disadvantages.Presented next will be a novel alternative for the deployment ofsmaller microsatellites and nonsatellites to GEO and other nonLEO orbits: Commercial Rideshare.

The Commercial Rideshare conceptIndustrialized society and the space business in particular have

reached a point where the number of spacecraft being launched forcommercial ventures has exceeded that of combined governmentagencies. Indeed, most operational spacecraft are now privatelyowned and operated. Current ratios vary yearly between three tofive commercial spacecraft for every government spacecraft (Fig-ure 1). The rate at which commercial missions are executed is

Figure 1. Distribution of Missions at GEO. Data from [1]

market driven relying upon forecasted demands for specific satel-lite services (fixed satellite service, broadcast satellite service, etc)within different geographic regions. As overall demand for com-mercial satellite services has increased over time the number ofmissions has increased, thus offering a fairly reasonable fast pacefor access to space. Another trend that is occurring is that moresatellite service providers are entering the market, which is driv-ing up competition and providing greater incentive to make themost efficient use of planned space assets. Competition drives com-


mercial missions to do one or both of two things – maximize profit,reduce capital expenditures. One possible means of accomplish-ing these aims is to lease the extra, unused capacity that some-times exists in regards to physical space, power, and mass alloca-tion.

The leased capacity can be used to host a secondary payloadthat remains resident on the commercial communications space-craft, this model being called Commercially Hosted Payloads, orto bring a small microsatellite or nanosatellite to GEO or anotherorbit, this model being called Commercial Rideshare [2]. Figure 2shows a representation of both of the aforementioned concepts.Commercial Rideshare differs from other concepts for Ridesharingsome of which consist of accommodations on a government mis-sion or via secondary payload adaptor located between a largerspacecraft and the launch vehicle. Commercial Rideshare embod-ies the technical, programmatic, and contractual details that areunique to privately owned and operated space based communica-tions missions in contrast to government managed or sponsoredscience, technology, or defense missions.

How Commercial Rideshare differs from conventional launchscenarios

First and foremost commercial Rideshare is the deployment ofone satellite from another much larger satellite as illustrated inFigure 3. The nature of being mounted on another active satellitepresents different challenges, advantages, and disadvantages assummarized in Table 1. Structural limitations of the host space-craft limit accommodation to only one small microsatellite at atime. This negates the need to wait for multiple spacecraft pro-grams to simultaneously be ready to launch. The host spacecraftcan take first available Nano/MicroSat provided that it has com-pleted protoflight/acceptance testing and is encompassed by ge-neric qualification of hosting/piggyback and fits within theRideshare parameters. With only one passenger the drop off ofmicrosat is possible closer to desired orbit – less compromise sincemission requirements do not have to accommodate multiple objec-tives. The Rideshare microsatellite can be injected in HEO, GTO,or GEO whenever the host spacecraft engines are not being fired.

The technical details and feasibility of post separation as wellas orbital insertion of micro-satellites to their respective GEO slothave been conducted and analyzed in[3].

Because the host satellite is less stiff of a platform shock expo-sure is significantly reduced due to attenuation by hosting satellitestructure. Lateral launch loads are much lower as compared to theradially-cantilevered orientation used on ESPA. Furthermore,mounting on an active satellite provides the option that themicrosatellite can be launched in a powered configuration, withbattery charging available, post-encapsulation telemetry and com-mand capability imbedded into hosting spacecraft telemetry stream.While this does add cost and complexity in that an interface mod-ule is necessary, many microsatellites requiring a non-LEO orbitwould benefit. Having the telemetry and command stream inte-grated into the host removes any requirement for separate RF emis-sions from the microsatellite which in any case would not be al-lowed. The aforementioned interface module would provide thenecessary isolation and close-outs of the harness left open aftermicrosatellite separation in order to prevent damage from space-craft charging and to prevent the intrusion of noise from sourcesexternal to the spacecraft Faraday cage.

Figure 2. Commercially Hosted payloads and Commercial Rideshare makes themost efficient use of extra resources that may exist on a commercialcommunications mission.

Figure 3. National Rideshare deployment sequence. Stowed host configurationleft and deployed host configuration right.

From an economic and schedule standpoint CommercialRideshare takes advantage of the fact that the majority of commer-cial communications spacecraft are recurring builds. Therefore itis unlikely that major slips in hosting satellite schedule will occur.One does not need to wait for many months/years due to technicalissues. Quite the contrary, the requirement for commercial mis-sions to start generating revenue has resulted in routine deliveriesfor launch of within a couple months or less of the originallyplanned launch date. Two year turn around times from contractstart to launch site delivery is the norm. Furthermore, the frequentlaunch schedule of commercial missions provides the capabilityfor constellation missions and for programmatic on-ramps and off-ramps. The largest spacecraft operators (those with fleets of be-tween 20 and 50 plus spacecrafts), may purchase anywhere fromone to three satellites annually (Figure 4). If a quarter of thesemissions are able to host micro or nano satellites the percent in-crease of space access for such missions is dramatically improved.


I. STAR BUS MODIFICATIONSStar Bus Brief Description

The Starbus is the platform designed and built by Orbital Sci-ences Corporation to serve the market for small geostationary com-munications satellites. The Starbus supports payloads in the powerrange of 2 to 5.1 kilowatts with a maximum wet launch capabilityof 3200 kg (Figure 5). To support the needs of commercial com-munications missions the Starbus avionics is designed to last aminimum of 15 years at GEO and offers high levels of redundancyand automation. A 1553 architecture is used which provides a ro-bust, reliable, high heritage backbone for commanding and datahandling. The GEO Starbus spacecraft utilizes a heritage zero-momentum design that provides a very agile, robust, precisionpointing platform and features full autonomy for ease of opera-tions and minimized operator intervention. The Attitude Determi-nation and Control Subsystem (ADCS) provides three-axis atti-tude determination and control of the spacecraft from launch ve-hicle separation to final de-orbiting at the conclusion of the mis-sion. The ADCS uses redundant fine sun and earth sensors alongwith laser gyro based miniature inertial measurement units (MIMU)or hemispherical resonator based scalable inertial reference units(SIRU) as sensors while orbit control and pointing accuracy areaccomplished via a combination of 23 thrusters and four reactionwheels mounted in a pyramid configuration.

The Starbus propulsion system is a dual mode design with dualmanifold redundancy that features a bipropellant system duringthe GEO Transfer Orbit. When GEO is achieved the oxidizer sub-system is permanently isolated and the bus reverts to a monopro-pellant system for the duration of its life. The robust ACS andpropulsion system are key aspects in being able to accommodatethe drastic changes in the spacecraft center of gravity and mo-ments of inertia that would accompany a microsatellite launch.

The Starbus large capacity reaction wheels would control andminimize transient errors as well as tip off torques, while the ADCSflight software would be able to be reconfigured easily throughtable uploads of the post separation mass properties. The post sepa-ration analysis from the ACS perspective has been conducted in[3] which demonstrates the feasibility of smooth post separationand safe deployment of a micro-satellite into a GEO orbit. ADCSflight software is readily capable of filtering out attitude noise to

Table 1. Description of three mission approaches for small microsatellite andnanosatellite space access.

Figure 5. Starbus designed and built by Orbital to serve the needs for small GEOcommunications satellites.

maintain a stable reference. Micro- and nanosatellite separationwould be similar to the solar array and antenna reflector deploy-ment phase, both of which involve changes not only to the massproperties but also to the flexible body modes. However, amicrosatellite separation would involve a drastic mass change aswell in which case this would be similar to a post GTO burn phasewhere mass changes on the order of 100 to 300 kg of fuel andoxidizer are typical.

A central core structure provides the backbone of the Starbuswhich is divided into two main modules, the core module and thepayload module (Figure 6). The payload module consists of thenorth, south and earth facing panels that carry the communica-tions payload components. The center cylinder of the core modulesurrounds the fuel tank with oxidizer tanks located on the outside.A result of this structural design as compared to other GEO com-munications spacecrafts is that the Starbus is a very stiff and lightstructure due to the high moment of inertia presented. Further-more, the large area presented by the end of the center cylinderprojected onto the earth deck is an ideal location for mountingnadir facing payloads. The main antenna reflectors are mountedonto support brackets located on the east and west base of the struc-ture with the antenna feeds located brackets off the earth deck.The side mount antenna configuration is one of the differentiatingfactors that allows Ridesharing to be compatible with the Starbusin contrast to some other GEO communications satellites that relyupon an all nadir mounted antenna configuration.

Use of the Light Band SystemA Motorized Lightband (MLB) separation system from Plan-

etary Systems Corporation of Silver Spring, Maryland forms thekey interface between the microsatellite and the host Starbus (Fig-ure 7). The Lightband system was chosen for the following as-pects: compatibility with ESPA class microsatellites, stiffness,multiple levels of redundancy (motors, ejection springs, retainingleaves, proven flight heritage, and simple yet well characterized

Figure 6. Starbus structure shown left. Payload module is removed to show coremodule at center, Core module center cylinder is shown at right.


electrical interface [4]. Additionally, the MLB design selectionmeets the ADCS performance objectives for safe post separationand orbital insertion for both spacecraft [3]. All these items takentogether offer a high degree of flexibility with low risk. Launchloads are transferred from the microsatellite through the Lightbandand into the nadir mounted, Rideshare adaptor cone.

and probability of failure.In determining Starbus capability a series of structural analyses

has been and continues to be conducted for various loads cases.The goals of these analyses were to obtain a mass and center ofgravity curve that defines the Rideshare envelope. Key metrics thatwere tracked were vibrational modes, stress, and failure indices.Results from the Hosted Payloads specific analysis (Figure 9) areprovided below and may be extended to represent a small ~50Kgmicrosatellite. For a small mission localized doublers are neces-sary on the center cylinder. These are considered to be minor modi-fications as they can be added either at the structure vendor orafter delivery at Orbital. Medium sized (~75 kg) and large (not tooexceed 100 kg) microsatellites would require more reinforcementand the design and analysis iterations are still in progress.

Figure 7. Rideshare Interface Concept

The adaptor cone is designed with the flexibility to mount ei-ther an 11 inch MLB for 50 Kg or less payloads or a 15 inch MLBfor payloads greater than 50 Kg. Once the MLB configuration ischosen the unused flange on the adaptor cone is machined awayfor weight relieving. Cut-outs are located on the adaptor cone toallow clearance for the nadir mounted communications compo-nents. Indeed the presence of nadir mounted C-band waveguideruns places restrictions upon the mass of the microsatellite as isillustrated in Figure 8. Larger microsatellites are restricted to hostmissions that are Ku or Ka band missions otherwise the structuralintegrity of the adaptor cone would be compromised by the cutoutsthat would be required. Structural loads from the adaptor cone aretransmitted to host spacecraft by four attachment points tied to thecenter cylinder in addition other tie points located on the earthdeck help distribute the load. The four main tie down points arecommon not just to Rideshare but also to the Hosted Payloads Deck[5] and to nadir antenna systems of more complex communica-tions missions. The modularity and standardization of the struc-tural interface translates into flexibility of mission accommoda-tions.

Structural Modifications for Nadir Microsat LaunchPrimary design constraints for the Rideshare concept involved

not exceeding the capabilities of the Starbus and achieving a modu-lar interface independent from the host spacecraft, as well as mini-mizing any modifications to other Starbus components or com-mon practices. The driving reasons for this were to minimize riskto the spacecraft and the communications payload, minimize oravoid development costs, and to achieve as close to an add-on fea-ture as possible to maintain the rigorous two year schedule of acommercial communications mission. Additionally these factorsalso play into keeping the insurance premiums on the host mis-sion low as these premiums are based on overall mission risk asjudged by failure modes and effects, parts and systems heritage,

Figure 8. Adaptor cone restraints placed by the communications mission

Figure 9. FEM model and results of the Starbus for Hosted payloads case.Equivalent to that of a small Rideshare mission.

Mechanical layout of other satellite components was reviewedfor compatibility with a Rideshare concept. Nadir/ Earth deck spaceis valuable realestate on the spacecraft and is shared by the earthsensors and the TT&C subsystem wide coverage area (WCA) hornsand omni directional antenna tower. All of these must have clearfields of view (FOV) for safe spacecraft operation (Figure 10). Ifsome interference occurs items such as the WCAs and omni tow-ers can be relocated to some degree while the earth sensors cannotwithout great difficulty. These FOV constraints define the volumeand appendage envelope for the microsatellite.

Microsatellites That May be AccommodatedIdeally, the GEO rideshare program should be able to accom-

modate a wide variety of microsatellite configurations. In order to


scope the requirements for hosting a wide variety of nano andmicrosatellites, a survey was performed of small satellite programs.The survey examined small satellite providers’ products that meetthe physical limitations of the rideshare platform. Specifically, welooked at past missions with spacecraft bus masses ranging from<1 kg to 180 kg, and payload masses from <1 kg to 100 kg. Wealso looked at missions that were flown on the Pegasus, Falcon,ESPA, Minotaur, or similar launch vehicles. In addition, to deter-mine the most likely types of microsatellites that may be lookingfor rides we primarily focused our attention on satellite productlines which have flown multiple times, such as Orbital’s MicroStarspacecraft and Surrey Satellite Technology’s MicroSat-70 andMicroSat-100. In order to show that GEO rideshare can easilyaccommodate any manufacturer’s standard spacecraft product (thatfits within certain physical limitations), our initial technical analysiswas based on the SSTL MicroSat-70 product line which repre-sents the small end of microsatellites and is well within the StarbusRideshare capability to the larger MicroStar which represents thetop-end Starbus Rideshare capability.

Structural Modifications of Zenith Launch of CubesatsMany commercial missions do include nadir antenna systems

which would preclude a microsatellite Rideshare. However theextremely small size of nanosatellites, specifically Cubesats, arestill compatible with such missions. Rather than seek a nadir mount-ing, Cubesats contained and deployed via P-POD launcher wouldbe mounted at the zenith end of the spacecraft. Zenith mountingpresents its own unique constraints. That is where many thrusters(13) are mounted as well as satellite servicing features (Figure11). Indeed the Zenith area contains the main liquid apogee en-gine (LAE), two dual mode thrusters, four 5 lb force reaction en-gines, and six smaller attitude control thrusters. The zenith panelalso contains the reflector support structure assemblies which areindependently made from the core structure and are bolted on.

Modifications can be made to this assembly to mount a P-Podlauncher, one launcher for each of the two assemblies.The P-Podwould be oriented to eject the Cubesats with sufficient clearancefrom the reflector dish (Figure 12). Impacts to other satellites sub-systems would be minimal or negligible; furthermore, the overallrisk to the host mission would be commensurate. The host missionshould not be affected whether three Cubesats are deployed per P-pod or a single three Cubesat form factor nanosatellite is deployed.

Regarding the P-Pod launcher itself, it should require littlemodification to make it compatible with Starbus. The main modi-

fication would be to have it operate at 36 volts rather than 14V or28V typical of most other spacecrafts. Mechanically, the P-Podlauncher would contain quasi-kinematic flexure mounts to betweenits aluminum structure and the composite structure of the antennasupport brackets to minimize stress from the different coefficientsof thermal expansion. The resulting gap caused by the flexureswould provide enough clearance for the P-Pod door hinge [6].

Figure 10. WCA FOV small cones and Omni FOV between the larger cones. Thesatellite used for this example is the Interstellar Boundary EXplorer (IBEX).

II. MISSION IMPACTS FROM RIDESHAREAnalysis was needed to determine the effects to the Orbital

Maneuver Life (OML) to the host GEO spacecraft. The purposewas to establish the range of Starbus masses and RideshareMicrosatellite masses that would not hinder the host mission frommeeting GEO contractual OML requirements. Extra fuel may bespent by the host mission depending upon when the micro ornanosatellites are deployed in relation to the orbital maneuvertimeline of the host. Adding complexity, the host spacecraft or-bital injection parameters, mainly inclination and perigee altitude,will vary based on the launch vehicle but will typically consist of ahighly elliptical GTO trajectory followed by several burns at apo-gee to circularize the trajectory into a geosynchronous orbit (Fig-ure 13).

In this analysis the authors researched past Star-2 launches viathe Arianespace Ariane V (AR5) launch vehicle. From launch to

Figure 11. Zenith area of the Starbus

Figure 12. P-Pod Cubesat deployer on the Starbus


Figure 13. Typical GTO to GEO maneuver sequence and access points. LEO inthis illustration and in this paper refers to a GTO orbit with a perigee at LEO,not a circuular or near circular LEO orbit.

launch the Ariane V maintains a high degree of consistency ofinjection parameters (inclination 6 deg, perigee 25 km, Apogee atGEO) with low dispersions. For simplicity, the spacecraft chosenin this analysis utilizes Optus D1 injection and burn plan param-eters. Optus D1 was injected via AR5 ECA (AR5 GS no longer inproduction). All Arianespace injected Starbus spacecraft have simi-lar burn plans with a total delta-V requirement of about 1500 m/sachieved through four firings of the LAE. Test cases analyzed con-sidered deployments between LAE firings one and four which arein elliptical orbits of lowering inclinations and increasing perigeealtitude and a post LAE maneuver four (drift to GEO mission ortest orbit). Rideshare deployments pre LAE maneuver one are as-sumed to require negligible fuel. These different intervals repre-sent different points of access available to a Rideshare spacecraft.

The results of the analysis were obtained using a code devel-oped in Matlab. The model automatically optimizes oxidizer suchthat no oxidizer is left over beyond residuals and automaticallyutilizes base panel REAs if oxidizer becomes depleted. On-Orbitpropellant requirements per year were modeled using PropMap(an in-house propellant management tool). The results were thenused to convert differences in propellant remaining into an Opera-tional Mission Life (OML) difference estimate.

(LEO) mass on the X-axis and host spacecraft wet mass on the Y-axis. To elucidate the proper usage of these results two representa-tive missions are highlighted. The consolidated results for severalinsertion cases are shown in figures 15 & 16. These show the trendin mission impacts as greater delta V is required for inserting theRideshare spacecraft into higher orbits. Deviations from a smoothline is due to modeling granularity.

Figure 14. Results for deployment post LAE maneuver 4. Three contour plotsare shown. In each contour plot, two representative missions are highlighted.

For a specific case (figure 14) the host spacecraft wet mass andthe Rideshare mass were allowed to vary. Results in each case wasas follows: extra fuel consumed by the host, OML of the host, dif-ference of OML if the host were not to have a Rideshare – theseare the key items used for pricing the Rideshare launch service.Each of these results are presented as a contour plot with Rideshare

CONCLUSIONThe Commercial Rideshare concept is a unique service that is

designed to technically and economically to serve the demand forspace-access of small micro and nanosatellites. By adapting a prod-uct, the GEO commercial communications satellite, which is de-signed for frequent high-turn around launches into a launch sys-tem itself the desirable traits of schedule reliability and high orbitsare made available to other types of missions. The main designchallenges of Commercial Rideshare focus on minimizing risk tohost mission profitability and keeping modifications, scheduleimpacts, and life impacts to a minimum while presenting the flex-ibility of accommodations and orbital insertion parameters for theRideshared spacecraft.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Authors thank the team at Orbital who contributed to the hosted

payload effort Andrew Donn, Dan Junker, Tim Litschgi, Guy Savage, PhilSchipani, and Rob Shah.

REFERENCES1. UCS Satellite Database, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/satellite_database.html, January 2008.2. Lam, Q. M., Kalmanson, P. C., Do, M., and Anhalt, D., “Fast Access toSpace for the Deployment of Micro-Satellites Using the QuickRide andRideshare Concepts,” to be presented at the 8th NRO Space Launch Inte-gration Forum, June 20083. Lam, Q. M., Kalmanson, P. C., Do, M., Seifert, M., and Junker, D.,“Launching Micro-Satellites Using a Commercial GEO Satellite RideShareConcept,” Submitted to the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Conference,Jan. 20094. User’s Manual for Mark II Lightband, Planetary Systems Corporation,September 20075. Kalmanson P.C., Lam Q. M., Do M. “Hosted Secondary Payloads onCommercial Communications Satellites: Looking at the Whole Problem”,AIAA 26th International Communications Satellite Systems Conference.June 20086. Nason I. , Creedon M., Johansen N. , CUBESAT P-Pod Deployer Re-quirements, May 2002

Figure 15. OML Delta trendfor different insertion cases

Figure 16. Propellant usage trendfor different insertion cases


The AAS held its National Conferenceand 55th Annual Meeting at the PasadenaHilton Hotel in Pasadena, California, during17-19 November 2008. Activities began onMonday evening with an “AerospaceLeaders Networking Reception” sponsoredby Lockheed Martin. Students and youngprofessionals had an opportunity to meetNASA and commercial space leaders, whoreadily shared their career experiences andhow they climbed to their present positions.Lively conversation, punctuated by quietanticipation when AAS Executive DirectorJames Kirkpatrick announced winningnumbers for door prizes, characterized theinformal opening event.

Frank Slazer, AAS president, formallywelcomed conference attendees on Tuesdaymorning and, acknowledging theorganization’s “wonderful partnership”with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL),introduced JPL Deputy Director EugeneTattini. Referring to the several devastatingfires that engulfed large portions of LosAngeles in smoke the previous weekend,Tattini expressed amazement that theUnited States can do all kinds of great thingsin space but still has difficulty containing abrush fire. With that, he introduced keynotespeaker 2008 Carl Sagan Memorial Awardrecipient Lennard Fisk from the Universityof Michigan.

Fisk, who titled his Sagan MemorialLecture “Civil Space and the NationalAgenda,” quickly stated his central theme:civil space is important to our nationalagenda, and a vibrant NASA is an essentialunderpinning to the success of civil space.Through an attention-getting history lesson,he asserted that no single event in Americanhistory had a more positive impact than theSoviet launch of Sputnik on 4 October 1957;its impact truly transformed Americansociety, and civil space activity became aproxy for war. Space became part of thebasic infrastructure of our civilization. It

Report on the AAS 55th Annual Meeting: “SpaceScience and Exploration in the Next Decade”by Rick W. Sturdevant

AAS NEWS

Lennard A. Fisk (Carl Sagan Award)with Lou Friedman and Frank Slazer

promoted global interconnections that hada stabilizing influence in recent decades. Italtered how we perceive ourselves as humanbeings and how we view our place in thecosmos. A “steady drumbeat of astronomicaldiscoveries” propels us into anotherCopernican revolution. At the conclusionof his lecture, AAS President Slazer andPlanetary Society Executive Director LouisFriedman presented Fisk with the CarlSagan Memorial Award.

Despite many impressive discoveriesduring our exploration of the solar system,we have taken only the “first, feeble steps”toward learning how to live and work inspace. Reminding listeners of Gene Parker’shighly controversial, seminal paper on thesolar wind in 1958, Fisk labeled “primitive”our current understanding of the Sun andthe space environment it creates. We havefar to go before achieving a “predictivecapability” in that and other specificsciences. Unfortunately, fiscal constraintssince the 1970s rendered the U.S. civil spaceprogram marginal when, in fact, it shouldhave remained central. Pondering theprospects for civil space in an Obamaadministration, Fisk expressed hope itwould again achieve its “rightful place onthe national agenda.” He anticipated a

stronger fiscal commitment to a broader,brighter future, one in which we mightbecome a “true space-faring civilization.”

The first panel session on “Space Policy– Expectations and Reality” continued thespeculation on how an Obamaadministration might affect U.S. spaceprograms. Moderator Kevin Kelly, vicepresident of Van Scoyoc Associates,questioned how NASA could provide theexpected level of innovation in the toughestof budget times. Positing that the biggestchallenge for spaceflight advocates mightbe to convince President Obama that NASAcan be a major player in the economicrevitalization of America, Kelly said wemust be prepared to echo John F. Kennedyand ask the new administration “Where isthe vigor?” Courtney Stadd, CapitolSolutions president, found hope in candidateObama’s space policy statement: that it wasthe most comprehensive and extensive fromany presidential aspirant in the last coupledecades. Labeling Obama’s policy statementan “exquisite document” and perceivingObama as “a man of great vision andaction,” Stadd cautioned that the newpresident undoubtedly will face the sternchallenge of managing expectations,particularly after eight years of PresidentGeorge W. Bush’s disengagement anddisdain for government. Finally, Staddchallenged NASA itself to instilltransparency in its budgeting in order toearn credibility with President Obama.

Comments by Richard Malow from theAssociation of Universities for Research andAstronomy and Damon Wells from theOffice of Science and Technology Policyrounded out Session 1. Malow wonderedwhether the course charted by PresidentBush’s “New Vision” in January 2004remains the right path and whether we haveestablished the right goal for humanspaceflight. Comparing a lunar return withScott’s arriving at the South Pole only to


AAS NEWS

A. Thomas Young (Space Flight Award)

see Amundsen’s Norwegian flag, Malowargued confidently that going elsewheremight rekindle public interest in humanspaceflight, make spaceflight part of a U.S.economic stimulus program, and benefitAmerican education in the sciences andengineering. Wells chimed in with a litanyof recent accomplishments or successes inspace, but he also found key challenges:workforce transition from Shuttle toConstellation, ongoing International SpaceStation support, finding an appropriatebalance among NASA programs, andacquisition problems. As extensivequestioning from the audience subsequentlyrevealed, practically everyone knows theway ahead for civil space will be roughbefore, if ever, it becomes smooth.

On that note, conferees moved to theawards luncheon, where A. Thomas Youngspoke. A former president of MartinMarietta Corporation, Young summarizedthe findings of a congressionally mandatedindependent assessment panel on nationalsecurity space that he chaired earlier in2008. He bluntly stated that space is criticalto our national economy and security, ourquality of life, and our scientific andtechnological base. His panel had at leastfour “bold but necessary” recommendations:establish a national space strategy andreestablish the National Space Councilchaired by the National Security Councildirector; put one group in charge, a NationalSecurity Space Authority (NSSA) whosedirector would be Under Secretary ofDefense for Space, with total responsibility;acknowledge the time is past for multiple,separate national security spaceorganizations and establish one national

security space organization to carry outacquisition, operations, and OT&E(organize, train and equip) functions andto report to the NSSA/Air Force SpaceCommand; and change human resourcesmanagement for space acquisitionprofessionals to achieve greater continuity.Young urged “bold and vigorous action” tocorrect longstanding organizational andmanagement problems.

Presentation of awards followed, withluncheon speaker Young receiving thehighest honor bestowed by the AAS—theSpace Flight Award—for over 45 years ofsignificant contributions to theadvancement of spaceflight and spaceexploration. The Flight Achievement Awardwent to the STS-120 crew—Pamela Melroy,George Zamka, Stephanie Wilson, DanielTani, Douglas Wheelock, Scott Parazynski,and Paolo Nespoli—for ingenious repair ofthe ISS solar array in 2007. Joseph Kittingerearned the Victor A. Prather Award basedon his record high-altitude balloon flightsand parachute jumps in the early 1960s, andBradford Parkinson accepted the Lloyd V.Berkner Award for leading the NAVSTARGlobal Positioning System acquisition teamin the 1970s. The Space Flight MechanicsCommittee chose Bob Schutz as recipientof the Dirk Brouwer Award for significantcontributions in space geodesy and itsapplications, orbital mechanics andcomputational techniques.wardannouncements continued with the John F.Kennedy Astronautics Award going tojournalism professor William Burrows inrecognition of his lengthy, industriouscareer in promoting America’s spaceprograms. General Kevin Chilton, the onlyastronaut to achieve 4-star rank, earned theMilitary Astronautics Award. TheInternational Programs Committee selectedRichard Kline, who fosteredcommercialization of space vehiclestogether with Russian partners, as winnerof the Advancement of InternationalCooperation Award. Michael Neufeld tookthe Eugene M. Emme AstronauticalLiterature Award for his biography VonBraun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War(2007). Last, but by no means least, theorganization elected four new AAS Fellows:Stephen Doyle, T.S. Kelso, Craig Kluever,

and Daniel Scheeres. Those members joinedmore than 420 others previously recognizedfor outstanding contributions toastronautics.

Following Tuesday’s luncheon, confereesreturned to the main hall for a session onspace science in the next decade. Moderatedby JPL Chief Scientist Daniel McCleese, thepanelists included Jon Morse from theAstrophysics Division at NASAheadquarters, Andy Cheng from JohnsHopkins University’s Applied PhysicsLaboratory, plus JPL research scientistsCandice Hansen and Diana Blaney. Withemphasis on how NASA’s AstrophysicsDivision has tried to maximize scientificresults based on minimal funding, Morselisted ten operating missions—from HubbleSpace Telescope (HST) to Fermi—andanother seven in development between nowand 2011. Trying to remain optimistic aboutprospects for accomplishing this ambitiousmission agenda, Morse neverthelessadmitted having budgetary concerns. As weset new science priorities for the next decadeand beyond, he demanded better costestimation for medium- and large-classmissions.

Session 2 continued with a discussion ofdecadal prospects for heliophysics andplanetary science. Cheng pointed to the goalof understanding, predicting and,ultimately, coping with the effects of solaractivity. He explained how projected solarand solar-terrestrial probes, heliophysicsexplorers, and suborbital programs will helpus solve the puzzle of how and why the sunvaries magnetically, how the planetsrespond, and what is the impact on humans.Hansen and Blaney described competingouter planet flagship missions—the TitanSaturn System Mission (TSSM) and theEuropa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM)—that could launch around 2020. The TSSM,jointly conducted by NASA and ESA, wouldemploy an orbiter with solar-electricpropulsion, a lake lander, and aMontgolfier-type balloon to investigateintriguing features of a Saturnian moon,which rivals Earth in complexity. Itscompetitor, the EJSM, consists of twoprinciple elements—NASA’s JupiterEuropa Orbiter and ESA’s JupiterGanymede Orbiter—each carrying a suite


AAS NEWS

Joseph Kittinger (Victor A. Prather Award)

of instruments to accomplish the firstexamination of the Jovian world as anintegrated system and the life-harboringpotential of these Jovian moons. Selectionbetween TSSM and EJSM is scheduled forearly 2009.

Tuesday’s third panel focused on the roleof education in American competitiveness.Angela Phillips Diaz from NASA Ames, aspecial assistant to the University ofCalifornia, Riverside chancellor, set thestage historically by reminding listeners ofclarion calls for action over the past quartercentury: A Nation at Risk (April 1983);Rising Above the Gathering Storm (October2005); and Shaping the Future: California’sResponse to ‘Rising Above the GatheringStorm’ (December 2006). Quoting InsideAerospace from May 2008, she declared,“Workforce development is the aerospacecommunity’s top challenge!” To offervarious perspectives on what American lifemight be like if the United States was notcompetitive in science and technology(S&T), Diaz introduced her five panelists:educator/leader Chauncey Veatch, NationalTeacher of the Year in 2002-2003;undergraduate student Brandon Hensley,Caltech/ARCS Foundation Scholar;business/industry leader Julie Van Kleeck,Aerojet Space Programs vice president;workforce consortium leader VictoriaConner, founder of Strategic Vitality, LLC;and S&T policy leader Susan Hackwood,executive director of the California Councilfor Science and Technology.

Each Session 3 panelist, in turn, offeredsubstantial food for thought. Bubbling withenthusiasm, Veatch inspired his audiencewith tales of success in preparing poorHispanic students from California’sCoachilla Valley for college and success ina global economy. He urged, “Stop makingexcuses, and make your best better!” Beingcompetitive, he thinks, means cultivating avision of limitless possibilities. Laudingamazing elementary schoolteachers, whoencouraged his creativity and inspired himto think creatively, undergraduate Hensleypressed for greater financial incentives andsignificant curriculum changes to attract alarger number of excellent teachers and toinspire students’ natural inquisitiveness.Van Kleeck wrestled with apparent

contradictions between Aerojet’s near-termfocus on industrial competitiveness and thecompany’s long-term viability, whichdepends on an infusion of new talent, thetransfer of “heritage knowledge” from olderworkers, and investments to develop newtechnology and new markets. Publiceducation is not the sole solution torejuvenating American competitiveness,according to Conner, who believes everyonemust collaborate on a strategic program toinspire, engage, educate, and employ youngpeople—to “fill the pipeline” with science,technology, engineering, and math (STEM)talent. Finally, Hackwood rallied confereesto support a “global search for talent”—tostop turning away many talented foreignerswho cannot obtain visas to stay, and toadvocate for sustained change with regardto STEM education in U.S. schools.

Freshened by a good night’s rest andstimulated by recollections of the previousevening’s reception that Ball Aerospace &Technologies Corporation sponsored tocelebrate JPL, conferees assembled for thefirst Wednesday session at 8:30 A.M.Believing “the best is yet to come” inMartian exploration, panel moderator SteveSquires from Cornell University reviewedhow missions since 1996 have literallytransformed our understanding of the RedPlanet, with no sign of letting up. Caltechprofessor John Grotzinger, project scientistfor the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL),described the MSL as a “monster truck”compared to prior rovers, explained the goalof assessing potentially habitableenvironments, and discussed possiblelanding sites. Robert Lin, Space SciencesLaboratory director at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley and principalinvestigator for MAVEN, explained howthis second Mars scout mission will launchin November 2013 to study the evolutionand present state of the Martian upperatmosphere in order to understand therelationship between solar activity andatmospheric loss.

The two remaining members of Squires’panel, JPL’s David Beaty and Caltech’s FukLi, placed MSL and MAVEN in a broadercontext. Characterizing Mars exploration as“science driven and discovery responsive,”Beaty extracted several main themes—

geologic, climatologic, and biologic—fromscientific findings and delivered hisperspective on where those themes aretaking us. He is increasingly encouragedabout the probability of life on ancient Marsand thinks life possibly exists on Mars today,but most intriguing are “comparativeplanetology” questions involving Mars andEarth—the how, when, and why ofenvironmental change, which involvesunderstanding Mars as a system. Voicingagreement, Li explained how spacecraft atMars today support each other scientifically,technically, and inter-operationally in anintegrated, structural approach toexploration. MAVEN and other futuremissions will perpetuate this approach and,eventually, result in “a little bit of the holygrail”—a sample return.

Session 5 provided a forum for spaceentrepreneurs. The Boeing Company’s PaulEckert addressed how to meet society’sneeds through emerging space markets. Heoutlined how the Space Enterprise Councilof the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports“a balanced portfolio of cost-effectivepolicies” to encourage space-relatedcommercial growth, “thereby enhancingprosperity, security, and quality of life.” Heproposed changing unclear laws andregulations that constrain the growth ofspace commerce, and he suggestedgovernmental advance-purchasecommitments as another means ofencouraging private investment in spaceenterprises. After listing tax incentives,prizes, and other pro-growth options, Eckertdescribed how dual use, public-privatepartnerships, encouragement of markets to

AAS NEWS

Bradford W. Parkinson(Llloyd V. Berkner Award)

meet specific needs, and internationalcooperation could benefit spaceentrepreneurs. “Space is only a tool,” heconcluded, “and the issue is how we use thattool to meet national needs.”

Four other space entrepreneurs sharedtheir personal experiences and visions. TomTaylor, vice president of LunarTransportation Systems, eyed the goal ofbuilding scalable hardware for a “two-waylogistics trade route” to resupply mining andsurface resource exploitation on the Moon.Odyssey Moon Limited co-founder andCEO Robert Richards touted his companyas being the first official contender for the$30 million Google Lunar X Prize. On amore interesting note, Richards describedhow the “greatest techno-archaeologyproject of the space age”—Project“McMoon”—began quietly during thesummer of 2008 in an abandonedMcDonald’s at NASA Ames ResearchCenter. There students participated inrecovering and restoring from 40-year-oldLunar Orbiter tapes some of the mostdetailed images ever taken of the lunarsurface. Rex Ridenoure, CEO of EclipticEnterprises Corporation, told how hisexperience salvaging Asiasat-3, the first andonly commercial spacecraft to reach theMoon, in 1998 set him on a path toward a“lean and mean” business approach “withsystems emphasis.” By avoiding cost-pluswork and variable pricing, concentrating on“catalog pricing” based on what the marketwill bear, Ecliptic offers a broad range ofproven on-orbit applications. Not to beoutdone, Kris Zackny, director of drillingand excavation systems for Manhattan-based Honeybee Robotics, boasted abouthaving no product per se, even though thecompany has been in business since 1983.In “skunkworks” fashion, HoneybeeRobotics is working with NASA, theDepartment of Defense, and the commercialsector to leverage existing earth-basedtechnology in the design of robotic systemsfor lunar digging, scooping, in-situ soiltesting, and pneumatic excavation andsample return.

The Honorable Andrea Seastrand,executive director of the nonprofitCalifornia Space Authority (CSA), spoke atWednesday’s luncheon. She examined

challenges and opportunities in STEMeducation and workforce development,both nationwide and particularly inCalifornia. She explained how CSApartners with “industry, government,workforce entities, education andacademia” to foster space enterprisedevelopment statewide. Echoing panelistsfrom Tuesday’s third session, Seastrandmentioned the need for more qualifiedteachers and more eager students in theSTEM arena. Furthermore, we mustcultivate both academic and applied skills;we must train both engineers andtechnicians in larger numbers. Because thesystem that built a strong foundation forrecruiting and training current STEMprofessionals is cracking, she observed, weneed to consider new strategies.

Perhaps we should overcome the biasthat traditional pathways to industry aredesirable, Seastrand suggested, especiallywhen alternative pathways might be better.Based on the idea that talent drivesprosperity, she explained WorkforceInnovation in Regional EconomicDevelopment (WIRED) efforts throughoutthe United States, then concentrated onexplaining the application of a spaceenterprise strategic plan in one suchregion—the California InnovationCorridor (CIC). Together with a sisterorganization, the California SpaceEducation and Workforce Institute(CSEWI), CSA has generated a STEMCollaborative Action Plan that includesmore than two dozen WIRED projects.Within a few years, CSA and CSEWI seekto develop a California Space Center on asite near Vandenberg Air Force Base toeducate the public and inspire STEMstudents.

Following Wednesday’s luncheon, asixth panel examined the status ofexploration one year after establishmentof the International Space ExplorationCoordination Group (ISECG). ClayMowry, Arianespace president, opened thesession by suggesting conferees ask, basedon what was accomplished during the pastyear, where the vision for space explorationmight be going under the new Obamaadministration. NASA’s John Olson laidout the exploration roadmap through 2025,

when a lunar outpost would exist, andexplained how development of anexploration strategy drives development ofthe architecture. He updated listeners ontechnical progress in hardware fabricationand testing for the Ares 1 crew launchvehicle, Orion crew exploration vehicle,EVA systems, plus construction of facilities.Reviewing ESA’s activities and plans,Andreas Diekmann from its WashingtonOffice explained how the Europeans aredeveloping a cargo download system—theAutomated Reentry Vehicle—to support ISSoperations and a Moon Cargo Lander tosupport NASA’s lunar exploration plans.Kohtaro Matsumoto from JAXA discussedrevision of his organization’s long-termprograms for lunar and planetaryexploration to bring them in line with thehuman lunar exploration planning ofthirteen other ISECG participants, all ofwhom will send representatives to Tokyo forthe ISECG’s third meeting in March 2009.

For Session 7, “cosmo-chemist” LaurieLeshin from NASA’s Goddard Space FlightCenter moderated a stimulating series ofpresentations on what might be achieved bythe next decade of earth observations fromspace. The general public wants to learnmore about what space systems contributeto earth science and how that contributes,in turn, to policy formation. With increasedpublic interest, however, comes greaterresponsibility for meeting publicexpectations. As director of the EarthScience Division at NASA headquarters,Michael Freilich tried boldly to explain howNASA intends to meet its responsibility withrespect to understanding climate change


Rick W. Sturdevant is Deputy CommandHistorian, HQ Air Force SpaceCommand and a member of the AASHistory Committee.

AAS NEWS

T.S. Kelso and Stephen E. Doyle(new AAS Fellows)

Visit the AAS website atwww.astronautical.orgto view the conferencepresentation slides.

through the frequent, global, precisecollection and correlation of data from a hostof satellites. In 2009, an “A-Train” ofspacecraft—OCO, Aqua, CloudSat,CALIPSO, PARASOL, Glory, and Aura—will provide nearly simultaneousmeasurements of Earth from differentorbital geometries. Freilich outlined how atleast 15 future missions will provide adecadal survey of environmental changes.Potentially, the decadal survey will serve asthe beginning of assured data acquisitionover still longer periods of time, becausewhat we desperately need to focus on is anoverall program, not individual missions,to map ongoing climate change effectivelyand plan for resulting societal challenges.

To ensure credible, long-term dataacquisition, NASA earth scientists workwith the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) and the UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS). GaryDavis from NOAA explained how hisagency once worried only about weather butnow focuses globally on societal benefitsderived through a system of systems thatcollect data from air, land, sea, and space.He updated the audience on the status ofthe National Polar-Orbiting OperationalEnvironmental Satellite System (NPOESS),the Geostationary OperationalEnvironmental Satellite R-series (GOES-R), and the Jason-2 satellite, which NOAAtook over operationally from the FrenchSpace Agency (CNES) on 29 October 2008.Looking a little further into the future, Davisdescribed how NOAA is working with otherU.S. organizations and internationalpartners to develop spacecraft for measuringocean vector winds, GPS radio occultation,coronal mass ejections, solar wind, ozone,clouds and earth’s radiant energy system.Building on Davis’s presentation, TimothyStryker from the USGS explained thecentrality of satellite remote sensing tounderstanding ecosystems and change. Thatknowledge is crucial in planning how tosustain what we must extract from Earth tomaintain our way of life. Labeling Landsatone of the most successful space programsever, despite government meddling, Strykershowed imagery of urban sprawl in LasVegas, wetland disappearance in Florida,and shrinkage of Lake Chad over time. He

concluded by mentioning the Future of LandImaging Interagency Working Group’sstudy A Plan for a U.S. National LandImaging Program (August 2007) andcalling for continuation of moderate-resolution land imagery through the Landsatprogram—Landsat 9 and beyond.

The final Session 7 panelist, theCanadian Space Agency’s Graham Gibbs,covered uniquely Canadian earthobservation (EO) missions andcollaboration with other countries. He listedCanada’s five operational EO spacecraft ormissions: Radarsat-1 in 1996; Radarsat-2in 2008; MOPITT on board NASA’s Terrain 1999; OSIRIS on board Sweden’s ODINsatellite in 2001; and SCISAT-1 in 2003.Gibbs explained that his agency’s EOstrategy, despite international collaboration,focuses on national priorities: sovereignty,monitoring Arctic sea lanes and territories;safety, navigation in ice-laden waters anddisaster management; environment,monitoring the ozone layer and transportof air pollution; climate, understandingfactors that control it and monitoringchanges that result from climatic variation;and resources, forests, agriculture, mineraland energy exploration. Clearly, the benefitsCanada receives from its satellite EOcapabilities do not differ substantially, onlygeographically, from those enjoyed by othercountries.

The conference concluded with MichaelWerner, JPL’s Spitzer Project Scientist,summarizing discoveries made during itsfive years of infrared observations into deepspace. He compared many of those

observations with Hubble Space Telescopeimages in the visible wavelengths andmarveled at the demonstrated,complementary power of these two “GreatObservatories.” From identification of starformation and thousands of potential solarsystems to characterization of exoplanetsand discovery of distant galaxy clusters,Spitzer dazzled astronomers and, along withdata from Hubble, challenged existingtheories about the formation of cosmicstructures. Even when the cryogenic heliumneeded for super-cooling of the SpitzerSpace Telescope expires in mid-2009, a“Warm Spitzer” mission will run throughat least mid-2011. The latter will be the onlymission capable of directly determining thesize of thousands of small near-earth objects(i.e., asteroids). In terms of significance,Werner exclaimed, “This will berevolutionary, not incremental!”

With that, the 2008 AAS NationalConference and 55th Annual Meeting ended,save for a special closing reception.Warmhandshakes and reluctant goodbyes markedthe final moments of another amazinglyinformative, refreshingly collegial, andinspiringly hopeful look at what spacescience and exploration has accomplishedand, more tantalizingly, what it might yetaccomplish in the future.


AAS NEWS

47th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium

Sustainable Space ExplorationGreenbelt Marriott Hotel

Greenbelt, MarylandMarch 10-12, 2009

DRAFT PROGRAMTUESDAY, MARCH 106:00 pm Evening Networking Reception: Students and Aerospace

Industry Leaders

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 117:30 Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast8:30 Opening Announcements and Acknowledgements

Harley Thronson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center8:45 Welcome

Frank Slazer, Northrop Grumman; AAS President8:55 Introduction of Keynote Speaker

Rob Strain, Director, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center andSymposium Honorary Chair

9:00 KeynotePresident’s Science Advisor

BREAK10:00 Challenges to Sustainability

Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University10:45 Sustaining Human Exploration

Doug Cooke, Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems MissionDirectorate, NASA Headquarters

11:30 LuncheonGuest Speaker: Congressman Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader (invited)

1:00 Earth Science Panel - What NASA is doing and can do tosustain the Earth

2:30 Education Panel3:45 Industry Panel - Sustainability of Aerospace Industry

Moderator: J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems, AerospaceIndustries Association

5:00 Five Decades of Goddard Space Flight Center - Engineers/Scientists from the 1960’s to the PresentModerator: Laurie Leshin, Deputy Director for Science and Technology,NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

6:00 Reception - Goddard Space Flight Center 50th AnniversarySalute with Earth Scientists and GSFC Alumni

THURSDAY, MARCH 127:30 Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast8:30 Opening Announcements8:45 Keynote

NASA Administrator9:30 NASA Center Panel - Sustainability of Scientific

ExplorationGoddard Space Flight CenterJet Propulsion LaboratoryLangley Research CenterAmes Research CenterDryden Flight Research Center

BREAK11:15 NASA Center Directors Panel - Sustainability of Human

ExplorationJohnson Space CenterMarshall Space Flight CenterKennedy Space CenterGlenn Research CenterStennis Space Center

12:45 LunchGuest Speaker: William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, SpaceOperations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters

2:15 Human Spaceflight and Science - Benefits of Servicing theHubble Space TelescopeMatt Mountain, Director, Space Telescope Science Institute

3:00 Global Climate ChangeBREAK4:00 NASA’s Science Program

Paul Hertz, Chief Scientist, Science Mission Directorate, NASAHeadquarters

4:45 A View of Global SpaceHenry Hertzfeld, Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, GeorgeWashington University

5:30 Closing Thoughts6:00 Closing Reception hosted by Center Directors

REGISTER ONLINE NOW AND SAVE $50www.astronautical.org


AAS Officers and BoardIntroducing the OfficersTerm Expires November 2010Frank A. Slazer - President Northrop GrummanLyn D. Wigbels - Executive Vice President RWI International Consulting ServicesS. Rao Vadali - Vice President Technical Texas A&M UniversityDavid W. Brandt - Vice President Programs Lockheed Martin Washington Operations OfficeDavid B. Spencer - Vice President Publications The Pennsylvania State UniversityMary Lynne Dittmar - Vice President Strategic Communications and Outreach Dittmar AssociatesPatrick McKenzie - Vice President Membership Ball AerospaceAngela Phillips Diaz - Vice President Education University of California, RiversideCarol S. Lane - Vice President Finance Ball AerospaceClayton Mowry - Vice President International Arianespace, Inc.Peggy Finarelli - Vice President Public Policy George Mason University/CAPRFranceska O. Schroeder - Legal Counsel Fish & Richardson P.C.

Introducing the DirectorsTerm Expires November 2011Peter M. Bainum Howard UniversityRobert H. Bishop University of Texas at AustinMark K. Craig SAICJ. Walter Faulconer Applied Physics Laboratory/Johns Hopkins UniversityJonathan T. Malay Lockheed MartinKathy J. Nado L-3 CommunicationsChristopher Nelson Oceaneering Space SystemsSuneel I. Sheikh ASTER Labs, Inc.Patricia Grace Smith Patti Grace Smith ConsultingGregg Vane Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Recognizing the Chairs and Editors

Nicholas G. Skytland – Chair, Houston Section NASA Johnson Space CenterSteven D. Jolly – Chair, Rocky Mountain Section Lockheed Martin AstronauticsJames McQuerry – Chair, Guidance & Control Committee Ball AerospaceMichael L. Ciancone – Chair, History Committee NASA Johnson Space CenterClayton Mowry – Chair, International Programs Committee Arianespace, Inc.

T.S. Kelso – Chair, Space Flight Mechanics Committee Center for Space Standards and InnovationJeffrey P. Elbel – Editor, Space Times SAIC – ChicagoKathleen C. Howell – Editor, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences Purdue UniversityRobert H. Jacobs – AAS Publications Office Univelt IncorporatedRichard M. Obermann – Capital Hill Liaison House Committee on Science and Technology

AAS NEWS



AAS NEWS

Join AAS,renew your

membership,or update your

informationonline

www.astronautical.org

Space Exploration Alliance 2009 BlitzA new President and a new Congress have taken office, and a crucial debate about the future of theU.S. Space Program is at hand. Your voice is needed to tell our new leaders that space must be anational priority. Please join members of the Space Exploration Alliance for the next Legislative Blitz inWashington DC, Sunday, February 22 through Tuesday, February 24. Over 50 meetings withCongressional offices are already scheduled, and every possible voice is needed to ensure that spaceremains a priority in the midst of economic uncertainty. No experience is needed – training will beprovided. Read more and sign up today at www.nss.org/legislative/

ISCOPS is coming May 26-29!It’s AAS’ year to host this unique event, under the theme “Applications of Space Technology for Humanity.”The conference site is beautiful Montreal, and check the AAS web site for more information.


CORPORATE MEMBER PROFILE

Corporate Member ProfileThe National Institute of Aerospace

NIA is a non-profit research andeducation institute that serves as a strategicpartner with NASA Langley ResearchCenter. NIA conducts research in a widerange of disciplines relevant to NASA’sspace exploration, science, and aeronauticsresearch missions. The institute wasformed by a consortium of leading researchuniversities that today includes: GeorgiaTech, Hampton University, North CarolinaA&T State University, North CarolinaState University, the University ofMaryland, the University of Virginia,Virginia Tech, Old Dominion University,and the College of William & Mary.

ResearchNIA’s research programs are sponsored

by NASA, other government agencies, andaerospace industry. The work is performedby resident scientists and engineers,resident and home-campus faculty,students, and consultants. Through NIA’s

University Research Program, faculty andstudents collaborate with NASA researchleaders on topics in aerospace, mechanical,electrical, and systems engineering;materials science; planetary science;climate change; and other related fields.NIA also collaborates with leadinguniversities, government laboratories,industry, and other non-profit institutesworldwide to accomplish its researchobjectives.

EducationNIA’s unique graduate education

program offers M.S. and Ph.D. degreesfrom the member universities. Graduateresearch is conducted in NASAlaboratories under the supervision of afaculty advisor and a NASA researchmentor. All coursework is delivered on-siteat NIA including one-of-a-kind electivesin new and emerging technologies. Acollaborative credit-sharing agreement

allows students to take up to 50% of thetheir courses from the other participatinguniversities. In addition, NIA administersa postdoctoral associate program, summerinternships for engineering and sciencestudents, and national aerospaceengineering design competitions. NIA alsomaintains an archive of one-of-a-kind shortcourses and colloquia that are available on-line.

OutreachNIA’s outreach programs focus on

aiding the development of a well-educatedworkforce in science and engineering.Programs include teacher professionaldevelopment in science and technology,engineering, and mathematics; educationalvideo for classroom use; and publicoutreach radio and televisionprogramming.

For more information about NIA, visitwww.nianet.org


UPCOMING EVENTS

AAS Corporate MembersThe Aerospace CorporationAir Force Institute of Technologya.i. solutions, inc.Analytical Graphics, Inc.Applied Defense Solutions, Inc.Applied Physics Laboratory / JHUArianespaceAuburn UniversityBall Aerospace & Technologies Corp.The Boeing CompanyBraxton Technologies, Inc.Computer Sciences CorporationEdge Space Systems, Inc.Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityGeneral Dynamics AISGeorge Mason University, CAPRHoneywell Technology Solutions, Inc.International Space UniversityJacobs Technology, Inc.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryKinetX, Inc.Lockheed Martin CorporationLunar Transportation Systems, Inc.National Institute of AerospaceN. Hahn & Co., Inc.NoblisNorthrop Grumman Space TechnologyOrbital Sciences CorporationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityRaytheonSAICThe Tauri GroupTechnica, Inc.Texas A&M UniversityUnited Launch AllianceUnivelt, Inc.Universal Space NetworkUniversities Space Research AssociationUniversity of FloridaUtah State University / Space Dynamics LabVirginia TechWomen in Aerospace

Thank you for your continued support!

AAS Events ScheduleJanuary 30-February 4, 2009AAS Guidance and Control ConferenceBeaver Run Resort and Conference CenterBreckenridge, Coloradowww.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

February 8-12, 2009*AAS/AIAA Space Flight MechanicsWinter MeetingHilton Savannah DeSotoSavannah, Georgiawww.space-flight.org

March 10-12, 200947th Robert H. Goddard MemorialSymposium“Sustainable Space Exploration”Greenbelt MarriottGreenbelt, Marylandwww.astronautical.org

May 26-29, 2009*12th International Space Conferenceof Pacific-basin Societies (ISCOPS)Holiday Inn SelectMontreal, Canada703-866-0020

June 12-14, 2009*5th Student CanSat CompetitionAmarillo, Texaswww.cansatcompetition.com

August 9-13, 2009*AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics SpecialistConferenceRenaissance Pittsburgh HotelPittsburgh, PennsylvaniaAbstract Deadline: March 9, 2009www.space-flight.org

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings


NOTES ON A NEW BOOK

Jane’s Space Recognition Guide by PeterBond. Collins, 2008. 384 pages. ISBN:978-0-00-723296-3. $24.95 (paperback).

Jane’s Recognition Guides wereoriginally developed to help ordinary folkslike us learn to identify planes, ships, andother military hardware. With a selectionof over 300 satellites, planetary spacecraft,and launch vehicles, this addition to therange brings Jane’s into the Space Age.Each entry has a separate page, a colorphotograph, and a brief list of“specifications,” such as manufacturer,orbit, mass, payload, and propulsion type(as appropriate). A book like this requiressome type of organization, perhapsalphabetical order by name, orchronological order by launch date. In thiscase, entries have been grouped byapplication, such as military satellites,scientific satellites, and human spaceflight.There are also sections on “selectedhistoric missions” and “historic launchers.”These, it could be argued, make the booksomewhat more encyclopedic than it wouldbe if it was restricted to recent and currenthardware. In fact, Peter Bond points outthe impossibility of including “every singlerocket and spacecraft” from the past 50years. The author assures the reader thatthe contents have been “carefully selected… to give as representative a spread of thesubject as possible.”

Luckily, the generous page countprovides good coverage. Space buffs willfind the Guide extremely useful. Of course,by its nature, the book contains limitedtechnical details and only two or threeparagraphs of text for each entry, but it isnot intended to do otherwise. For those whoknow what they are seeking, there is a full

Jane’s Space Recognition GuideReviewed by Mark Williamson

Mark Williamson is an independentspace technology consultant and author.

list of entries at the beginning of the book;for those who don’t, the book itself allowsfor interesting browsing.

Anyone who has tried to compile a listof spacecraft launched since 1957 (and thatincludes your reviewer!) soon appreciatesthe difficulties, especially whencommercial communications satellites areconsidered. First of all, such spacecraft arenumerous. Secondly, the commercially-owned spacecraft tend to be bought andsold while in orbit, which means theirnames and other designations change (thisis illustrated by the entry for “EuropeStar-1 (PanAmSat-12, Intelsat-12).” Also, thereis a tendency among some operators to givetheir satellites slightly (and sometimescompletely) difference names pre- andpost-launch. Spacecraft in Japan’sEngineering Test Satellite (ETS) serieswere renamed “Kiku,” “Orihime,” and“Hikoboshi,” for example.

Given their limitations, the author andeditors have made a good selection. It is

strange to find Bigelow’s Genesisinflatable space station module in the CivilCommunications and ApplicationsSatellites section, where it seems lonelyamong the many comsats, but I guess thissays more about the immaturity of thecommercial space applications market thananything else!

Like any book reviewer worth his salt,I have tried to my review with a point ofcriticism about this book. However, Ibelieve that it does exactly what it’s meantto do, by providing a brief and accessibleoverview of selected space missions andhardware. I could quibble that the authorlikens Sputnik to a beach ball in hisintroduction and a basketball in the entry(the former is closer), but this is minutiae.I do think the book would benefit from anexpansion of the one-page glossary andterminology sections, which are verylimited, and from the addition of an index.It is all very well having a contents list atthe front, but as a search for the Europeancometary interceptor Giotto proved, youcan’t beat an alphabetical index!

Although it is unlikely that readers willuse this Recognition Guide in the sameway as Jane’s other publications (sincesatellites and launch vehicles are relativelydifficult to spot with the unaided eye), itwill serve as a companion reference sourceto all those other space books on your shelf.Should you decide to embark on a worldtour of space agencies and spaceports, therelevant sections and the book’s handypocket size will be indispensable.


6352 Rolling Mill Place6352 Rolling Mill Place6352 Rolling Mill Place6352 Rolling Mill Place6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Suite 102Suite 102Suite 102Suite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2370Springfield, VA 22152-2370Springfield, VA 22152-2370Springfield, VA 22152-2370Springfield, VA 22152-2370

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #161

Lancaster, PA

the magazine of the american astronautical...

Documents