Extending human presence into space: who will benefit?


Credit: mining.com

On July 8, I tuned in to an online briefing on space settlement offered by the Beyond Earth Institute, a self-described “think tank for policymakers” offering “recommendations to Accelerate the establishment of communities in space.” The Beyond Earth (BE) “team” consists of six white men and one white woman. There is no information on the BE web site about funding sources. Sometimes I wonder whether I should keep drawing attention to such advocacy efforts. But then again, this outfit claims to be offering recommendations to the government. I realize that recommendations can be made and not heard, but what I worry about is that this outfit’s recommendations are being heard. So, here goes.

BE team member Steve Wolfe helped to write the 1988 Space Settlement Act. He said at the briefing that in 1988 it was “interesting” to consider space settlements, but now it’s “imperative.” He noted that Elon Musk wants to bring “all Earth life” to other planets.

My own observations are that 1) Earth life has evolved to live on Earth; 2) as far as I can tell, Musk plans to take people into space who can pay him; and 3) what is imperative is that we do everything we can to keep Earth livable for the vast majority of humans who cannot afford to, or otherwise don’t want to, live in space.

BE team member Tom Marotta, an analyst with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, reported on BE’s policy recommendations, which he described as “data-driven, non-partisan,” and based on interviews with seven space policy “thought leaders. ” I’m familiar with the thinking of all seven. They are all like-minded: pro-settlement, pro-space mining, pro-corporate, neoliberal/libertarian.

Here’s a brief summary of BE’s pro-settlement policy recommendations:

  1. The U.S. must revamp arms control/export-control regimes. (My view on this point: this step is to free up corporations to do what they want to do, with whomever they want to do it with, unhindered).
  2. The international space community should establish voluntary guidelines for behavior in space. Don’t wait for governments to do it. (My view on this point: Governments are a big part of the international community….). Let industry self-regulate. (My view: Yeah, like that’s gonna work.)
  3. The U.S. should establish a whole-of-government agreement on establishing communities in space. (My view: Really? The entire U.S. government should be working on this goal, which is not supported by taxpayers?)

Mike Gold, currently head of NASA’s Office of Interagency and International Affairs, discussed NASA’s so-called “Artemis accords” at the briefing – which he described as “principles for a safe, peaceful and prosperous future” in space. (I have a question: prosperous for whom?) “We” think the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty (OST) is the right way to go in establishing policy: no requirements, no regulations, just principles. (Interesting characterization of the OST….)

Laura Montgomery, former general counsel with the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, said the Artemis accords need tweaking. “From a business perspective,” full transparency and sharing of data, as called for in the accords, “might have to be limited.” Interoperability should not be required for the private sector. She said the U.S. government should not mandate standards for the private sector – let’s not tie industry’s hands. She also said the Artemis accords’ recognition of rights to space resource extraction “is a gem,” noting that a 2015 U.S. law recognizes U.S. rights to extraterrestrial resources. (My note: So, the principle here is those who get there first get the most.)

Montgomery said the Artemis accords are in harmony with the Outer Space Treaty. Article II of the treaty prohibits national appropriation of space resources but is silent on corporate appropriation. Thus, commercial extraterrestrial property ownership is okay according to Article II, she said. The Artemis accords are the first step toward commercial property rights in space. She noted that if nations establish a practice over time, it can become customary international law.

Pete Worden, executive director of the Breakthrough Foundation, said at the briefing, “There’s a rather significant pent-up enthusiasm” for the next step in space exploration: space mining.  (My observation: I am not feeling any pent-up enthusiasm for space mining.) He’s a consultant to the Duchy of Luxembourg on space mining, and he said Luxembourg is already working with China and Russia on space mining. “Informal protocols” for operations in space could be valuable to private-sector entities.

Gold said, “I’m in violent agreement” with Montgomery and Worden. Very few nations would object to private-sector space resource extraction, “I hope… Precedent’s important…. It’s important that we lead by example…. We have a soft-power influence…if we stick to our values [and] the rule of law.”

In June 2019, the National Space Society held a policy forum on space settlement, chaired by Steve Wolfe. According to the website for this forum, “The settlement of space is closer than many believe; therefore, it is not too early to have a sober discussion about policies that could support and possibly stimulate space settlement development.”

I have been listening to advocates for space settlement since 1983. I don’t think it’s a good idea, I don’t think it will happen in the foreseeable future, and I don’t think it will benefit the vast majority of humanity left here on Earth. Advocates tend to talk about extending human society or human civilization into space – but human society, human civilization, are not monolithic entities. Earth hosts a multitude of human societies, civilizations, that are not like-minded, that do not share the same values and morals. As I’ve said many times before, advocacy for space settlement is very Western-centric.

As to commercial development of space, I also have been listening to advocates since 1983. I will note that in congressional testimony in 2018, NASA’s inspector general observed, “NASA’s current plan to privatize the [International Space Station] remains a controversial and highly debatable proposition, particularly with regard to the feasibility of fostering increased commercial activity in low Earth orbit. Specifically, it is questionable whether a sufficient business case exists under which private companies can create a self-sustaining and profit-making business independent of significant Government funding.”

Emphasis added. If NASA has not been able to succeed in “commercializing” the ISS, why should we believe that NASA – or any other entity in the U.S. government – can, or should, “commercialize” outer space? Profitable space companies – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, etc. – have built their businesses on government subsidies and government contracts. Even Jeff Bezos – supposedly now the richest person in the world – is building his space company Blue Origin with government contracts. From where I stand, what’s going on in the space arena is more like business as usual than “a new era.”

Back to the Moon and on to Mars? Still unaffordable


Credit: thelineofbestfit.com

Last week the Trump administration issued a “new” strategy for sending people back to the Moon – “to stay” – and on to Mars, promoting the commercial development and exploitation (my word, not theirs – their word is “development”) of space and its resources, etc. etc.

I’ve been following similar declarations out of successive administrations since 1983, when Reagan was president. From 1985-1986, I worked on the staff of the National Commission on Space, charged by Congress to develop a plan for the next 25 years of space exploration (we did 50). The commission produced a grand plan for “pioneering the space frontier,” including a “rationale for exploring and settling the solar system.” The “vision” put forth was this: “The Solar System is our extended home. Five centuries after Columbus opened access to ‘the New World’ we can initiate the settlement of worlds beyond our planet of birth. The promise of virgin lands and the opportunity to live in freedom brought out ancestors to the shores of North America. Now space technology has freed humankind to move outward from Earth as a species destined to expand to other worlds.”

That “vision” – like its successors – is laden with religious and mystical belief – not to mention a skewed version of history. Columbus and his ilk may have opened access to North America for European explorers, exploiters, and colonists. But this “new world” was already home to many indigenous civilizations, most of which were trashed by the European invaders. Destiny, and manifest destiny, are Christian beliefs. (See my March 27, 2015, blog post about it.) The idea that humans are destined to populate the solar system is rooted in the mystical philosophy of Russian cosmism.

That vision was not funded.

In a 1989 speech, President George H.W. Bush called for a Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) that would  “follow an evolutionary pathway over a 30-year horizon beginning with Space Station Freedom in the 1990s, followed by a permanent outpost on the Moon at the beginning of the next century, andculminating with Mars expeditions that lead to a permanent martian outpost.”

Though the Moon-Mars Thing was not funded, we do have the International Space Station. NASA has invested at least $100 billion in the ISS. In addition, NASA’s inspector general testified to a congressional committee in 2018 that the ISS costs NASA $3 billion-$4 billion a year to use.

In his NASA history monograph, “Humans to Mars; 50 Years of Mission Planning, 1950-2000,” David Portree writes of NASA planning for the Space Exploration Initiative:

The initial cost of a permanent Moon base using Approach A and including the 55 percent  ‘cushion’ would be $100 billion in constant 1991 dollars between 1991 and 2001. The Mars expedition would cost an additional $158 billion between 1991 and 2016 based on the same stipulations. Thus, achieving the letter of Bush’s speech—a return to the Moon to stay and a mission to Mars— would cost a total of $258 billion, of which 55 percent ($141 billion) was cushion.

Continuing operations would, of course, add to SEI’s cost. In Approach A, operating the lunar base from 2001 to 2025 would cost $208 billion, while operating a Mars outpost from 2017 to 2025 would cost $75 billion. Thus the SEI program cost for Approach A for 34 years, from 1991 to 2025, including operations and a 55 percent cushion, would come to $541 billion.

The cost summary had NASA’s annual budget climbing from about $13 billion in 1990 to about $35 billion in 2007 for Approach A. At its peak, about half would be allotted to Moon and Mars programs, meaning that the average annual cost for Moon and Mars would be about $15 billion per year.”

You can see why the SEI was not funded.

In 2004, President George W. Bush unveiled his “vision for space exploration.” Part of his plan was “to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014.” This plan called for a “return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond…. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods…. With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.”

George W. Bush’s Crew Exploration Vehicle evolved (sort of) into the Orion crewed capsule. In a report issued last year, the Government Accountability Office said the development cost of Orion was $6.8 billion, while the development cost of the Space Launch System, the rocket required to take the Orion capsule into space, was $7.2 billion. Costs continue to climb….

In 2016, President Barack Obama wrote, for CNN, “We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America’s story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time.”

So, back to the Trump administration’s Moon-Mars plan…. Can we afford it? I say no.

Human exploration does not serve the public interest. It serves political and business interests. The Trump administration’s “strategy” says as much: “Geopolitical interests and objectives provide the historic model and rationale for practically all U.S. human spaceflight missions…. Those interests include security, commerce, science, and international leadership.”

The U.S. is continuing on its path of spending more money on space exploration – in particular, human exploration – than, likely, all other space-faring nations combined. This is not what I’d call sustainable. The U.S. economy, U.S. society, will not miraculously recover from the pandemic and all the other serious problems plaguing our nation (no need to list them here, you know what they are) in a year or two. We will have so much rebuilding to do – not to mention the near-term costs of dealing with the pandemic – and the human exploration of space contributes nothing to that enterprise, except perhaps employment (though likely not for all those displaced hotel and restaurant industry workers). When the Pew Research Center surveyed public opinion in 2018 on what NASA’s priorities should be, respondents ranked sending people back to the Moon and on to Mars at the bottom of the list. The Trump administration does not seem to care about public opinion.

Government accountability: NASA


Credit: efdassociates.net

Some parts (likely most parts) of government continue to work well – for example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO has published its 12thannual “quick look”(which is darned thorough) at the status of NASA’s major projects.

According to the report, NASA “is planning to invest at least $65 billion over the life cycle of its current portfolio of 25 major projects, which we define as those projects or programs that have a life cycle cost of over $250 million.” GAO has been doing these annual reports since 2009, at the direction of Congress, “to assess the cost and schedule performance, technology maturity and design stability” of these projects.

NASA’s most expensive projects are, on the science side, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and, on the human space flight side, the Space Launch System/Orion projects. The latter are critical elements of NASA’s plan to send people back to the Moon by 2024 – a goal I believe to be unachievable, and also of little to no public value.

GAO notes, “Prior to being approved for development, cost estimates for JWST ranged from $1 billion to $3.5 billion, with expected launch dates ranging from 2007 to 2011…. Now estimated at $9.7 billion, the project’s costs have increased by 95 percent” – 95 percent! – “and its launch date has been delayed by over 6.5 years since its cost and schedule baselines were [re]established in 2009.”

NASA itself says it has only a 12 percent chance of meeting its current planned JWST launch date of March 2021.

The next big NASA planetary science mission up for launch is Mars 2020. GAO reports, “The Mars 2020 project has encountered development cost growth of almost $360 million, which exceeds the 15 percent congressional notification threshold at a critical point in the development process when problems are most commonly found and schedules tend to slip. This cost growth was due to multiple development difficulties, delayed deliveries, and higher than anticipated procurement costs.” The cost of formulation, development, and operation of Mars 2020 appears to be close to $3 billion.

Meanwhile, NASA and the European Space Agency are proceeding with plans for a joint Mars sample return mission, with dual launches proposed for 2026. I can’t find any information from either agency right now about cost estimates for this mission, but certainly it will be a multi-billion-dollar endeavor.

This mission is designed to collect samples from the martian surface that will have been cached – if all goes well – by the Mars 2020 rover. It will be extremely complex – I’ve read the phase-2 report of the International Mars Architecture for the Return of Samples (MARS) Working Group, published in the journal Astrobiology in April 2018. The plan outlined in this report looks solid – but, again, it’s extremely complex. Hence, expensive.

The reason why a Mars sample return mission has been a top priority and, thus far, mission impossible since the late 1970s is that, while the space community has known how to do it, it has not known how to do it affordably. I expect that the current NASA-ESA mission plan will end up costing more and taking longer than the agencies now anticipate.

See my report on cost and schedule escalation for NASA’s Viking mission to Mars – while the mission was completed, and was successful, management and budget problems plagued the project from Day One and the duration.

Over the next year, nations around the world will need to start rebuilding their economies. In the U.S., where I live, I believe the government should create something akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, putting people back to work to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and reinforce our public-health system. The WPA was only one of FDR’s New Deal programs, which revived the U.S. economy, created jobs, and provided security to citizens. We’ll need to do it again.

Don’t get me wrong. I love space science and believe it’s important for us to continuing exploring space. But right now, I don’t think space exploration advocates should be lobbying for more money for space exploration. And definitely not with humans. Human exploration is too expensive. And what’s the point?

Finally, I want to note that Cristina Chaplain, GAO’s director of contracting and national security acquisitions, is retiring. Chaplain has led the team that has been producing GAO’s excellent reports on NASA activities. She and her team have been doing a great job, and her retirement will be a loss for government accountability. I wish her successors the best of luck.

Reliable sources/fact-checking

2fupudCredit: imgflip

We’re all consuming more information than usual online, not just about COVID-19 but about pretty much everything. (Right?)

So, I’m doing a post about reliable sources of information.

First, the most reliable sources of information about COVID-19 that I’m paying attention to are as follows.

Scienceand Naturemagazines – I subscribe to both (and subscriptions aren’t cheap). I don’t know how much of the information that these magazines offer is behind a paywall, but check them out. They are keeping up to date on the latest scientific information about COVID-19.

I have found the New York Times, Washington Post, and for state and local news my local newspaper the Sarasota (FL) Herald-Tribune, to be reliable sources of information about COVID-19 as well. If you don’t subscribe to your local newspaper, do it now. They need your support. Many news sources online have removed their paywalls, in full or in part, during the current crisis. (I subscribe to the Sunday Times, which gives me full access to the Times online, and the digital Post, plus home delivery of my local paper.)

Just FYI, in case you think that the mass media are liberally biased, there is no evidence to support this assertion, in particular when it comes to politics. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advancesthis month – Hans H.G. Hassell et al, “There is no liberal media bias in which news stories political journalists choose to cover” – reports: “Using a unique combination of alarge-scale survey of political journalists, data from journalists’ Twitter networks, electionreturns, a large-scale correspondence experiment, and a conjoint survey experiment, we showdefinitively that the media exhibits no bias against conservatives (or liberals for that matter) inwhat news that they choose to cover. This shows that journalists’ individual ideologicalleanings have unexpectedly little effect on the vitally important, but, up to this point,unexplored, early stage of political news generation.”

Here are other reliable sources of information about science, in general, that I’ve consulted over the years: the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); and the American Geophysical Union (AGU)– AGU in particular has been doing a great job of staying on top of the science of climate change . I’m sure there are many more reliable sources of information about science, but these are sources with which I’m familiar.

For reliable information about corporate public relations campaigns, try Sourcewatch, which provide[s] well-documented information about corporate public relations (PR) campaigns, including corporate front groups, people who ‘front’ corporate campaigns, and PR operations.” SourceWatch is published by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), an organization that is funded by foundation grants from foundations ranging from the Ford and Rockefeller Family Foundations to George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

For political fact-checking, try Politifact— “a nonpartisan fact-checking website to sort out the truth in American politics. PolitiFact was created by the Tampa Bay (FL) Timesin 2007. In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists.

Another reliable source of political fact-checking is Fact Check. Fact Check is transparent about its funding sources. It says: “Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the APPC’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation. In 2010, we began accepting donations from individual members of the public for the first time, responding to many unsolicited offers of support from our subscribers. We launched our first public appeal for donations in April 2010.”

The APPC is the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which operates out of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Both the center and the school have excellent reputations. The APPC was established in 1993 by former ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg. Its ongoing funding comes from an endowment established for it at that time by the Annenberg Foundation.


Another site I often find useful is Media Bias/Fact Check. According to this outfit, Funding for Media Bias Fact Check comes from donations and third party advertising. We use third party advertising to prevent influence and bias as we do not select the ads you see displayed. Ads are generated based on your search history, cookies and the content of the current web page you are viewing. This sometimes leads to politically biased ads as well as promotion of pseudoscience products that we do not endorse.”

I do not trust any sources online that do not name members of staff and do not divulge funding sources. That’s my rule of thumb.  (I’ve noticed that a lot of organizations with the words “liberty” or “freedom” in their names are promoting libertarian ideology.) And even some corporate front groups that do provide some information about staff and funding are suspect.

Take, for example, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which it says is supported by  “restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers.” (Exactly who?) The Center’s executive director is Rick Berman, who is president of the Washington, DC-based public affairs firm Berman and Company. Herman and Co. says it “specializes in research, communications, and creative advertising.”

Creative, indeed….

One recent campaign launched by the Center for Consumer Freedom – a.k.a. Rick Berman – was an attempt to convey the idea that plant-based meat substitutes are bad for your health. I was alerted to this campaign by an article in the health section of my local newspaper, which turned out to be a truncated version of a story that had been published by the New York Times. The Times story included information about the Center for Consumer Freedom and its backing by the meat industry. My local paper edited out that part of the story. I wrote a letter to the editor of my paper, saying, “check your sources” – my letter was published.

Here’s what SourceWatch has to say about Berman: he’s “ a former labor management attorney and restaurant industry executive who, with his firm Berman & Co., currently works as a Washington, D.C. lobbyist for the food, alcoholic beverage, tobacco industries and, more recently, other industries. Berman & Co. has lobbied for companies such as Cracker Barrel, Hooters, International House of Pancakes, Olive GardenOutback SteakhouseRed Lobster, Steak & Ale, TGI Friday’s, Uno’s Restaurants, and Wendy’s.

Berman has earned the nicknames “Dr. Evil,” the “Conservatives’ Weapon of Mass Destruction” and the “Astroturf Kingpin” for his repeated use of the strategy of forming dozens of non-profit front groups, attack-dog web sites, and alleged think tanks that defend his corporate clients’ interests by attacking their critics, allowing his paying clients to remain out of public view.

So, friends, check your facts – please?

And as everyone’s saying these days – stay safe!

Space science (still) at work

d41586-018-04881-z_15706516Credit: nature.com

Dear readers, you know that while I am a long-time consultant to NASA science programs, I’m not in the habit of cheerleading for NASA. But today, I want to praise my two NASA teams – astrobiology and planetary defense – for keeping their programs moving along as best they can, managing grants and staying in touch with their grantees. I’m sure that many other NASA program managers are doing the same, but I’ll talk about the ones I know.

I am so impressed with how my NASA colleagues have adapted to working from home. The science community writ large has been working with virtual meeting and communication tools for some time, so we may be better equipped than other communities to adapt to the current environment.

For the astrobiology program, the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI)– established in 1998 and “sunsetted” in 2018 – was established as a virtual research institute – an innovative concept some 20 years ago. The NAI enabled many members of the astrobiology community to become familiar with virtual meeting and collaboration tools long before they came into common use. In addition, the astrobiology community has a vibrant early-career component, members of which are knowledgeable about working with online collaboration tools. So we’re good to go.

NASA’s Office of Communications has created a resource for engaging people stuck at home – especially those with children. It’s called NASA @ Home and offers videos, podcasts, and other activities for families with children.

My planetary-defense colleague Kelly Fast made a video for NASA @ Home at her home in Maryland to explain, “What do we mean when we say an asteroid is making a close approach to Earth?” (We had a close approach of an asteroid designated 2020 GH2 on April 15 – 223,000 miles from Earth.) The short answer is: for asteroid observers, “close” could range from tens of thousands to millions of miles. She puts things into proper perspective, visually.

On Tuesday April 14, my astrobiology colleague Mike Toillion, along with colleagues Graham Lau and Sanjoy Som, was able to stage another episode of the online seminar series “Ask an Astrobiologist” with University of Arizona astrobiologist Betul Kacar. It’s excellent! I recommend it. Betul is a colleague and a friend, and I am in awe of her accomplishments. She is featured on UN Women: Europe and Central Asia, explaining her path from Turkey to the U.S.This episode came just two weeks after the last one, with Colin Goldblatt (also very interesting). On April 16 on YouTube, Mike premiered a video he produced about our colleague Aaron Gronstal, who is the artist (and also a Ph.D. scientist) who has been producing a series of astrobiology graphic histories.

The activities I’ve mentioned may not seem critical, but they are part of an overall effort to keep science programs moving, and scientists at work. Scientists are doing the best they can to keep working. The NASA program managers I work with are doing their best to keep funding flowing, convert grant proposal reviews from in-person to virtual, move mission planning along, and so on. Most big science conferences have been postponed or cancelled. NASA’s Science Mission Directorate posted its latest FAQs on grants and research during the COVID-19 pandemic on April 8, following guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

I have been working remotely with my NASA colleagues in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, since I moved to Sarasota, Florida, in 2017. So the current situation is not especially disruptive for me. I live in a beautiful park-like community where I walk every morning – six feet from my neighbors – watch mockingbirds, great blue herons, many other beautiful birds – and I have my own solar-heated pool. So my life is good. I’m one of the lucky ones. Stay safe!

Who’s doing what in planetary defense: another update


Credit: cnn.com

I’ve written here before about the B612 Foundation’s tendency to, rhetorically, take credit for the work of others. They’re still at it, so I’m writing again.

In the B612 Foundation’s 2019 annual progress report on its Asteroid Institute program, B612 president Danica Remy writes: “Perhaps one of the things I am most excited to see is the growth of capability in the field we occupy.” This is interesting wording.

I assume that what she means by “the field we occupy” is planetary defense. Neither B612 nor its Asteroid Institute is engaged in the working of finding, tracking, and characterizing asteroids, predicting their orbital paths, and developing missions to demonstrate asteroid deflection techniques, as far as I can tell. NASA’s planetary defense program, including its near-Earth object observations program, currently funds more than 90 percent of the work being done in this field. (Full disclosure: I am a part-time consultant to the NASA program, and no one asked me to write this post. It’s just that I find B612’s rhetorical style irksome.)

Remy writes: “Last summer with asteroid 2018 LA, we saw our planet’s asteroid tracking and early warning system work together. Because of new alert systems in place, astronomers were able to assess the object shortly after discovery and determine its trajectory (it exploded over Botswana).” Those tracking/early warning/alert systems are funded primarily by NASA’s planetary defense program.

2018 LA, a small asteroid 9–12 feet (2.6-3.8 meters) in size, was detected by the Mount Lemmon Survey – funded by NASA — eight hours before it exploded in the atmosphere. Observations were reported to the Minor Planet Center – also funded by NASA – and thus shared with other observers. Impact occurred over Botswana. Following eyewitness reports of the impact, the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) – funded by NASA – released observations that confirmed the asteroid had impacted Earth’s atmosphere over Botswana. As far as I can tell, neither B612 nor the Asteroid Institute played a part in these observations.

Remy writes, “this summer [2019], another asteroid, asteroid 2019 OK, whizzed past Earth, having been detected only earlier that week, which surprised all of us as to its size and close proximity to our home planet. While our systems are improving, we still see an imperative for an increase in discovery rates. This will be possible only through increases in funding for technologies to find and track asteroids.”

Who are Remy’s “we” and “our”? I guess she’s speaking for humanity….  “Our” systems, as noted above, are funded primarily by NASA, secondarily by the European Space Agency, and coordinated by means of the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN). IAWN currently has 25 members, spanning Europe, Asia, and South and North America. B612 and the Asteroid Institute are not members.

More from B612’s report: “What started in 2002 as a visionary idea to develop the technology to deflect an asteroid has grown into a world-renowned organization and scientific institute with a key role in the emerging field of planetary defense.”

A key role, really? Depends on whom you ask, I suppose.

According to B612, from its founding in 2002 to 2012, it worked on the idea of deflection methods. But it did not actually develop a deflection method or a deflection mission, as far as I can tell. NASA is funding the first mission designed to demonstrate the kinetic method of asteroid deflection – the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), scheduled to launch in 2021. The European Space Agency is funding the Hera mission, which will follow on the DART mission to conduct a detailed post-impact survey.

B612 co-founder Ed Lu – ex-NASA astronaut – for some years promoted, with colleagues, the gravity tractor method of asteroid deflection.  The Obama administration advanced the concept of an Asteroid Retrieval Mission, which could have involved a demonstration of the gravity tractor method of asteroid deflection. The Asteroid Retrieval Mission did not take off.

In 2012, B612 changed gears, announcing plans to build a space-based near-Earth object (NEO) survey telescope — Sentinel. B612 entered into a Space Act agreement with NASA under which NASA would provide data and expertise to the project. According to B612, “In June 2012, the B612 entered into a Non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA. This provided for future use of the Deep Space Network for transmission of data from the Sentinel spacecraft to ground stations and a select board of NASA experts to collaborate with the senior experts of the Sentinel Mission.” B612 failed to raise the funds to build the telescope. NASA terminated its Space Act agreement with B612 in 2015, because B612 failed to meet milestones established for it under the agreement (NASA met its milestones). B612 ultimately abandoned the project.

A misleading – perhaps outdated? – Wikipedia entry on the Sentinel space telescope project states: “After NASA terminated their funding agreement with the B612 Foundation in October 2015and the private fundraising goals could not be met, the Foundation eventually opted for an alternative approach using a constellation of much smaller spacecraft under study as of June 2017.NASA/JPL‘s NEOCam has been proposed instead.”

NASA did not have a funding agreement with B612. The Space Act agreement did not provide any funding.  I don’t recall that B612 worked on a constellation of smaller spacecraft. Maybe I missed it. In my humble opinion, B612’s claim that it would raise funds to build Sentinel made it difficult, for a while, for NASA to seek funding for a NASA-funded space-based NEO survey telescope – a priority identified by the small-bodies community for more than a decade. In 2019, NASA decided to move forward with a space-based NEO survey mission, based on the NEOCAM concept and technology, and now called the NEO Surveillance Mission (NEOSM).

From where I stand, it appears to be in the hands of Congress to provide adequate funding for NEOSM.

Consciousness, intelligence, and being human


Credit: psychologytoday.com

Susan Schneider is a philosopher of science and the 2019-20 Baruch Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology. (She is an associate professor of philosophy and director of the AI, Mind, and Society Group at the University of Connecticut.) She’s studyingthe nature of self and mind, especially from the vantage point of issues in philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, astrobiology, metaphysics and cognitive science.I’ve recently read a couple of interviews with her, which were fascinating. I’ll review them here.

In an interview with Dan Turello, staffer with the Kluge Center of the Library of Congress, she provided her definition of consciousness: “the felt quality of experience.”

“Science is still uncovering the neural basis of experience,” she said. “But even when we have the full neuroscientific picture of how the brain works, many philosophers believe there will still be a puzzle, which they call the ‘hard problem of consciousness.’ It is the following: Why do we need to be conscious? That is, the brain is an information processing system, so why does it need to feel like anything, from the inside, when we process certain information? If you think about the fact that the world is comprised of fundamental particles in certain configurations, it is bizarre to think that when these particles organize in certain, highly complex ways, (as with brains), a felt quality arises. This is astonishing.”

(Indeed, it is.)

As to creating human-like intelligence, she’s skeptical. “We don’t know enough about the brain to reverse engineer it, for one thing,” she noted. That said, “Even today’s AIs can be programmed to state they are conscious and feel emotion. So we need to devise tests that can be used at the R&D stage – before the programmed responses to such questions happens…even if AI becomes ‘superintelligent,’ surpassing us intellectually in every domain, we may still be unique in a crucial dimension. It feels like something to be us.”

In a recent interview with Mac Observer, Schneider observed that the human mind is not like a computer program. “A program is akin to an equation.” But human beings are concrete beings in space and time, and our thoughts change things. “We know so little about consciousness in humans,” she said. “The nature of consciousness is…one of the fundamental mysteries of the world, the universe…. I’m not sure we’re going to have an answer” to the question, what is consciousness, “any time soon.”

As to speculations about the development of human-like artificial intelligence, “It’s possible that human consciousness may not be replicable in silica,” she said. “We just don’t know” whether entities other than biological creatures can have consciousness, or not. And also, most of human brain activity is “non-conscious computation,” she noted, so why would artificial intelligence systems require consciousness at all?

As to the idea of “post-biological intelligence” – that is, non-corporeal intelligent life – Schneider said she’s surprised by how accepted this idea is in the astrobiology community. (I’m with her. It seems far-fetched.)

Could AI be implanted in human brains, as some people suggest? First, we don’t know if it would be possible, she said. Second, if possible, “it could be super-wonderful or super-dystopian,” depending on how the technology would be regulated. At the same time, “government control of AI technology can also be scary…. That’s why it’s so important that we have a public dialogue” about this emerging technology.

Schneider has a new book out, Artificial You – AI And The Future Of Your Mind. Check it out.

Space debris: how to clean it up?



Credit: wikipedia.org

Last week I blogged about the space debris problem. Today I’m blogging about technologies being developed and demonstrated to clean up space debris.

Several methods for the removal and de-orbiting of debris have been proposed so far, classified as either contact – for example, a robotic arm, a net, an electrodynamic tether – or contactless – for example, laser or “ion beam shepherd.”

Researchers at Tohoku University and Australian National University are developing an ion beam shepherd method of debris removal, which would use a plasma beam ejected from a satellite to impart a force to the debris, thereby decelerating it, which would result in the debris falling to a lower altitude, entering Earth’s atmosphere, and burning up.

Astroscale, a company founded in 2013 by a Japanese information-technology entrepreneur, proposes “to aid in the removal of orbital debris through the provision of End of Life and Active Debris Removal services.” A few years back, the company launched a 25-kilogram microsatellite designed to measure sub-millimeter-size debris in low-Earth orbit. The mission failed. The company plans to launch another debris-removal mission next year, designed to demonstrate capabilities for target search, target inspection, target rendezvous, and non-tumbling and tumbling docking. As far as I can tell, the company’s web site does not provide any information on who is paying for these demonstrations.

A company called Tethers Unlimited has developed three different approachesto space debris removal:

  • “Terminator Tape,” a 250 meter long conductive tape, is designed to de-orbit microsatellites (less than 50 kilograms) operating at altitudes of less than 1000 kilometers. (I am not going to explain how this thing works – go to the web site.) The company has developed several Terminator Tape modules: theCubeSat Terminator Tape (CSTT),sized for cubesats; the NanoSat Terminator Tape,sized for large nanosats to small microsats (less than 100 kg); and the MicroSat Terminator Tape, sized for microsats less than 200 kg.
  • “Terminator Tether,” which is designed to use“active electron emission technologies to greatly increase the electrodynamic forces, enabling it to deorbit most LEO [low Earth orbit] spacecraft with in a period of several months.The company says it has demonstrated this technology, but it does not provide details about the demonstration on its web site.
  • “GRASP” – Grapple, Retrieve, And Secure PayloadTechnology for Capture of Non-Cooperative Space Objects – “a deployable net technology that enables small satellites to capture and manipulate space objects such as orbital debris, small asteroids, and defunct spacecraft.”

Earlier this month, Tethers Unlimited, TriSept. Corp., Millennium Space Systems, and RocketLab USA announced that they have formed a partnership to develop a mission called Dragracer, designed to demonstrate Terminator Tape. Scheduled to be launched next year, this mission will involve placing a module on a smallsat that can unwind a stretch of electrically conductive tape that can capture a dead satellite. (The company says it already has tested Terminator Tape on several space missions, but details not available on the company’s web site.)

In June 2018, a consortium of European aerospace companies launched an experimental space-debris-removal satellite from the International Space Station. The RemoveDEBRIS satellite featured two active-debris-removal technologies developed by Airbus:  a net and a harpoon. This project was funded by the European Union. In September 2018, the RemoveDEBRIS net was demonstrated. A cubesat target representing an element of space debris was launched from the RemoveDEBRIS spacecraft and targeted by the net at a distance of several meters. The cubesat was captured, and the target/net combination subsequently deorbited and burned up upon atmospheric entry.

Also in 2018, another European space-debris-removal demonstration –DeOrbitSail – was intended to deploy a 4 x 4 meter drag sail designed to change the satellite’s orbit through drag and solar radiation pressure. DeOrbitSail was successfully put into orbit, but failed to deploy.

In February 2019, the RemoveDEBRIS harpoon was fired at a panel mounted on a boom extended from the RemoveDEBRIS spacecraft, hitting and penetrating the panel.

In May 2019, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd’s TechDemoSat-1 successfully deployed a space-debris-removal drag sail supplied by Cranfield University. According to the European Space Agency, the UK’s Technology Strategy Board and the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA funded the design of the core elements of this mission, and Surrey Satellite Technology along with partners in UK industry and funded the payload technologies.

All well and good, yes? Efforts to mitigate the space debris problem are also under way (see last week’s post). Meanwhile, I keep wondering: who will pay for debris removal?



Space debris: can we clean it up before something awful happens?


Credit: wikipedia.org

Earlier this month, I gave a talk to the Environmental Caucus of the Sarasota Democratic Party on environmental issues in space: space debris, planetary defense, and planetary protection. I’ve blogged frequently here about planetary defense and planetary protection, so in this post I’ll focus on space debris.

Here’s my quick take on the space debris problem. The world is increasingly dependent on space-based services, for everything from communications to environmental monitoring, weather forecasting, and national security.A growing number of nations are building and launching their own rockets and spacecraft: the U.S., China, India, Japan, Russia….Actors in the space sector are increasingly concerned about the hazard of collisions between space assets and space debris.

Who’s keeping track of space debris? In the U.S., it’s a military operation, so limited information is available. In Europe, it’s a civilian operation, so more information is available.

The United States Space Surveillance Network (SSN) detects, tracks, catalogs and identifies artificial objects orbiting Earth – active and inactive satellites, spent rocket bodies, and fragmentation debris. The system is the responsibility of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space, part of the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).

The SSN says it has been tracking space objects since 1957 when Sputnik 1 was launched. Since then, the SSN has tracked more than 39,000 space objects orbiting Earth. Of that number, the SSN currentlytracks more than 8,000 orbiting objects. The rest have descended into Earth’s atmosphere and disintegrated, or (more rarely) survived entry and impacted Earth. Space objects now orbiting Earth range from satellites weighing several tons to pieces of spent rocket bodies weighing only 10 pounds. According to the SSN, about 7 percent of the space objects are operational satellites, the rest are debris. The SSN tracks space objects that are 10 centimeters in size or larger.

According to the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Space Debris Office:

  • 5,000 satellites are in orbit around Earth, only 1950 of them still operational.
  • 34,000 pieces of space debris that are 10 centimeters in size or larger are currently being tracked.
  • 130 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 centimeter in size can’t be tracked.
  • Debris is traveling in orbit around Earth at speeds up to 28,100 kilometers per hour.
  • 500 collisions, break-ups, and explosions have already occurred in Earth orbit.

Antisatellite weapons (ASAT) testing since the 1960s has made some contribution to the space debris problem, though I did not find any authoritative source of information on the extent of the contribution. The U.S. government admits to working on ASATs from 1958 to 1988. However, in February 2008, the U.S. Navy destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. spy satellite using a ship-fired missile (a.k.a. Operation Burnt Frost). The U.S. government said it decided to shoot down this satellite because it carried toxic hydrazine fuel. China and Russia suspected that this operation was actually an ASAT test. Reuters reported in 2009 that Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, chief of the Defense Department’s U.S. Strategic Command, said, “Every bit of debris created by that (U.S.) intercept has de-orbited.” Chilton also claimed that some of the debris caused when China used a ground-based ballistic missile to destroy a defunct weather satellite in 2007 would remain in orbit for another 80 or 90 years.

China’s 2007missile-defense/anti-satellite system test reportedly created about 3,000 pieces of debris. Since then, the U.S. Defense Department claims, China has continued to develop anti-satellite weapons and conduct similar tests in 2010, 2013 and 2014, tests that apparently have not created debris.

Earlier this year, India conducted a missile-defense/anti-satellite system test that destroyed an Indian microsat, reportedly creating about 400 pieces of debris.

Also this year, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) established a Space Situational Awareness Control Center to protect Indian space assets from space debris, near Earth asteroids, and adverse space weather conditions. ISRO says it plans to work on methods of active debris removal, space debris modeling and mitigation. It also plans to establish its own debris tracking system.

There are a lot of guidelines in place for mitigating space debris. How enforceable are they? Not much, I’d say. They’re guidelines, not regulations.

In 1995, NASA issued orbital debris mitigation guidelines. In 1997, the U.S. government established “Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices” based on NASA’s guidelines. In 2007, an Inter-Agency Space debris Coordination Committee, organized by the United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), published space debris mitigation guidelines.

Japan, France, Russia, and ESA have adopted orbital debris mitigation guidelines.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which licenses space launches, requires licensees to complete a flight safety analysis, which includes, among other things, a debris analysis and a debris risk analysis:

“A debris analysis accounts for the debris produced by both normal events, such as the planned jettison of stages in an ocean, and abnormal events, such as destruction of the launch vehicle. This analysis must identify the inert, explosive and other hazardous launch vehicle debris that results from normal and malfunctioning launch vehicle flight. A debris analysis also requires a debris list, which is commonly referred to as a ‘‘debris model,’’ and must account for each cause of launch vehicle breakup. The debris lists describe and account for all debris fragments and their physical characteristics. A debris model categorizes, or groups, debris fragments into classes where the characteristics of the mean fragment in each class represent every fragment in the class. These debris lists are used as input to other flight safety analyses, such as those performed to establish flight safety limits and hazard areas and to determine whether a launch satisfies the public risk criteria of section 417.107.A debris risk analysis determines the expected number of casualties to the collective members of the public, if the public were exposed to inert and explosive debris hazards from the proposed flight of a launch vehicle. “

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which licenses the operation of U.S. comsats, proposed a new rule intended to update its 2004 orbital debris mitigation requirements:

“In several recent instances, applicants have sought to deploy satellites using mechanisms that detach from or are ejected from a launch vehicle upper stage and are designed solely as means of deploying a satellite and not intended for other operations. Once these mechanisms have deployed the onboard satellite(s), they become orbital debris.”

“Certain types of liquids, such as low vapor pressure ionic liquids, will, if released from a satellite, persist in the form of droplets. At orbital velocities, such droplets can cause substantial or catastrophic damage if they collide with other objects.  In the last several years, there has been increasing interest in the use by satellites (including small satellites) of alternative propellants and coolants, some of which would become persistent liquids when released by a deployed satellite. The Commission also expects that the orbital debris mitigation plan for any system utilizing persistent liquids should address the measures taken, including design and testing, to eliminate the risk of release of liquids, and to minimize risk from any unplanned release of liquids.”

In June, Stijn Lemmens, ESA’s senior space debris mitigation analyst, had this to say:

“Several nations have launched almost 9,000 satellites over the past six decades. Of these, about 5,000 are still in orbit. So we are talking about doubling the amount of traffic in space over a couple of years, or over a decade at most, compared to the last 60 years.”

“The space debris issue is mostly caused by the fact that we leave objects behind in orbit, which are then a target for collisions either with fragments of a previous collision event or with big, intact objects. Currently, most space debris comes from explosive breakup events; in the future, we predict collisions will be the driver. It’s like a cascade event: Once you have one collision, other satellites are at risk for further collisions.”

“Over the past two decades, there has been a lot of effort to establish guidelines and codes of conduct. For low-Earth orbit (LEO), there is a well-known guideline to take out your spacecraft, satellite, or launch vehicle upper stage, within 25 years after the end of mission. To have a reasonable shot at having a stable space environment, the goal is to have at least 90% of the satellites and launch-vehicle upper stages with lifetimes longer than 25 years take themselves out of orbit, or put themselves into orbits with lifetimes less than 25 years.”

“However, we are not really good at doing this at the moment. We’re talking about success rates of 5 to 15 percent for satellites (launch vehicle orbital stages do notably better, with success rates of 40-70% in low-Earth orbit). Already with current traffic, we have reasonable concerns that we’re creating a real debris issue out there.”

In 2018, Swarm Technologies bypassed the required FCC approval process for sending communication satellites into space, launching four experimental communication smallsats. In December 2018, the FCC fined Swarm $900,000 for launching and operating these smallsats without approval.

In May of this year, SpaceX launched the first 60 of a proposed constellation of 12,000 Starlink communication smallsats. SpaceX claims its Starlink satellites “are designed to be capable of fully autonomous collision avoidance.” (I guess time will tell whether this capability is functional.)

My next blog post will be about space debris removal technology developments and demonstrations.


How did (does) life begin? We don’t know (yet)


Credit: Youtube.com

I’m still plowing through my notes on the 2019 Astrobiology Science Conference (AbSciCon, June 24-28, Bellevue, Washington). Here are some tidbits from a session on “unresolved issues” in origins of life research.

Someone, whose name I regrettably did not write down, said in introducing this session that only three percent of reactions run by professional chemists since 1771 have been run for more than two days. What does this mean? It means that scientists might be missing something…. In understanding prebiotic chemistry and how it led (or leads) to the chemistry of life, we’ve learned so much but have yet to be able to explain how life began on Earth (and how life might have began elsewhere).

Open questions in origins of life research include: What is life? (There is no consensus definition.) What is the origin of life? (We don’t know yet. Theories abound.) Is the origin of life easy or hard? Is the origin of life frequent or rare? Is the origin of life a unique process, or are there many pathways to go from nonlife to life? Are there different classes of life? Where is life possible? That is, in what environments might life be possible?

And what about the possibility of life beyond Earth? What is the current search space? In looking for signs of life, we’re restricted to a small segment of our own galaxy. The Milky Way resides in the Laniakea galaxy supercluster, which includes another 100,000 galaxies. And this is just a tiny sliver of the observable universe. So, astrobiologists have plenty of work to do for the next few centuries, at least.

For now, astrobiologists are interested in exploring abiotic and prebiotic chemistry in solar system environments, including Earth environments, to compare with lab experiments in abiotic and prebiotic chemistry. The aim is to determine whether terrestrial abiotic and prebiotic chemistry is “universal” or unique to Earth. We don’t know.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center astrobiologist Jamie Elsila noted at the AbSciCon session that in studies of prebiotic chemistry in the solar system, analyses of carbonaceous chondrites—making up less than 5 percent of meteorites collected on Earth – have dominated the literature on the topic for 30 years. The Murchison meteorite, recovered in Australia in 1969, weighing in at 220 pounds, has been a particular focus of study. However, Elsila said, “Murchison is neither unique nor representative.”

In other words, many pieces of the puzzle to be solved could be missing….

Eric Smith of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Environmental and Life Sciences Institute (Tokyo) observed that “this is still really early days” in origins of life research. His description of the origin of life? “A cascade of non-equilibrium phase transitions in planetary geochemistry.” He said that the fact that scientists are growing further away from, rather than closer to, consensus on a theory of the origin(s) of life is a bit of a relief. Answering the question, what is the origin of life?, will require that researchers “become theorists of the complex in ways that are completely new.”

Jamie Elsila acknowledged that different astrobiologists use the term “complexity” in different ways. “It means different things in different contexts and different conversations.” (So, there’s complexity to complexity….)

Nick Hud of the NASA-National Science Foundation-funded Center for Chemical Evolution (CCE), based at Georgia Tech, said at the session that the assumptions guiding the CCE’s origins of life research over the past 10 years are that “life is based on biopolymers,” that the “emergence of biopolymers was essential to the origin of life,” and that molecules and reactions that gave rise to biopolymers “were simple and robust.” (Okay, if you find this confusing, check out the title of a recent paper by Hud’s group, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): “Selective incorporation of proteinaceous over nonproteinaceous cationic amino acids in model prebiotic oligomerization reactions.”)

In another session at AbSciCon, Reggie Hudson, lead scientist for the Cosmic Ice Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said that some organic chemical reactions appear to be “unstoppable” throughout the solar system – for example, on Saturn’s moon Titan, and on the dwarf planet Pluto. His advice to astrobiologists? “Seek and ye shall find rings” – that is, the ring structures of hydrocarbon molecules (which could be prebiotic or biotic).

To wrap up, origins of life research is complicated – and deeply interesting.