THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · 2 SPACE TIMES • November/December 2007 THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2007 ISSUE 6–VOLUME

SPACE TIMES • November/December 2007 1

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICANASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETYISSUE 6 VOLUME 46

2 SPACE TIMES • November/December 2007

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

NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2007

ISSUE 6–VOLUME 46

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

AAS OFFICERSPRESIDENT

Frank A. Slazer, United Launch AllianceEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Lyn Wigbels, RWI International Consulting ServicesVICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL

Rao S. Vadali, Texas A&M UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS

Mary L. Snitch, Lockheed MartinVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS

David B. Spencer, Penn State UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP

Walter Faulconer, Applied Physics LaboratoryVICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION

Kirk Kittell, Orbital Sciences CorporationVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE

Carol Lane, Ball AerospaceVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL

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

William B. Adkins, Adkins Strategies, LLCLEGAL COUNSEL

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

James R. Kirkpatrick, AAS

AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORSTERM EXPIRES 2008Peter M. Bainum, Howard UniversityJohn C. BeckmanDavid A. Cicci, Auburn UniversityLynn F.H. ClineNancy S.A. Colleton, Institute for Global

Environmental StrategiesMark K. Craig, SAICRoger D. Launius, Smithsonian InstitutionJonathan T. Malay, Lockheed MartinKathy J. Nado, Computer Sciences CorporationRichard M. Obermann, House Committee on Science

TERM 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. ObenschainIan Pryke, CAPR, George Mason UniversityRonald J. Proulx, Charles Stark Draper LaboratoryTrevor C. Sorensen, University of Hawaii

TERM EXPIRES 2010Linda Billings, SETI InstituteRon Birk, Northrop GrummanRebecca Griffin, Griffin AerospaceHal Hagemeier, Georgia TechDennis Lowery, General DynamicsMolly Macauley, Resources for the FutureErin Neal, ATKLesa RoeRosanna Sattler, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLPRobert H. Schingler, Jr.Woodrow Whitlow, Jr.

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. © Copyright2007 by the American Astronautical Society, Inc. Printed in theUnited States of America. ISSN 1933-2793.

PERIODICALSSPACE TIMES, magazine of the AAS, bimonthly, volume 46,2007—$80 domestic, $95 foreignThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, quarterly, volume55, 2007—$170 domestic, $190 foreignTo order these publications, contact the AAS Business Office.

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

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE“We Just Need to Communicate Better”... Not 3

FEATURESMars Wars: The Rise and Fall of the Space ExplorationInitiative 4On the 20th anniversary of the first human landing on the Moon,President George H.W. Bush proposed a long-range human explorationplan. Within a few short years, the initiative had faded into history.

by Thor Hogan

Defending the Earth from Falling Comets and Asteroids 6The Earth is constantly bombarded by celestial objects, a situation thatwarrants consideration of protective measures.by Yoji Kondo

AAS NEWSNew AAS Officers and Board 10

46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium 11March 4-6, 2008

Amazing Summer at the International Space University 12by Audrey Schaffer and Ian Christensen

2007 AAS National Conference Report 13by Rick W. Sturdevant

NOTES ON NEW BOOKSInto the Black: JPL and the American Space Program,1976-2004 202006 AAS Eugene M. Emme Astronautical Literature Award: WinnerReviewed by Rick W. Sturdevant

Testing the Limits: Aviation Medicine and the Origins ofManned Space Flight 212006 AAS Eugene M. Emme Astronautical Literature Award: Honorable MentionReviewed by Donald C. Elder III

UPCOMING EVENTS 23


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

FRONT: The first operational Delta 4-Heavy rocket blasts away from Cape Canaveral’s Complex 37 on November 10, 2007 at 8:50p.m. EST carrying the 23rd and final Defense Support Program missile warning satellite for the U.S. Air Force. (Source: PatCorkery/United Launch Alliance)

BACK: Goodyear’s prototype non-pneumatic lunar tire, under development for use first on the Moon and eventually on Mars.(Source: Goodyear)

Mark [email protected]

ON THE COVER

“We Just Need toCommunicate Better”… NOT

It is widely recognized that a principal challenge facing NASA’s human spaceflightprogram, and the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) as well, is sustainability of support.Sustainability is required across administrations and congressional sessions, acrossnational and world events, across budget crises, and even across generations. How do weensure that human missions to Mars continue after the first several successful landings?

Recent research has validated that the keys to sustainable support are NASA’s relevance,its value, and its benefit-to-cost. That seems obvious. But what is relevance, really? Howis it established? What is value, and how is it delivered?

Apollo’s value was demonstrating American superiority over the Soviet Union whileincreasing the pride and reducing the fears of the American people. After the Moon race was won and American superiority was trulyfelt, Apollo was canceled. Its benefit-to-cost was deemed too low. Apollo’s value had been delivered simply by communicatingprogress on a mission which in the 1960’s was an emotional blockbuster: send a man to the Moon and return him safely within thedecade.

Research has shown that most people in the 2000’s do not find the missions of Space Shuttle or International Space Station or VSEto be self-evident emotional blockbusters. Their value can no longer be delivered simply through communication. Moreover, valuecannot be delivered by merely asserting that it exists. Value is authentic only when it is actually experienced. People must feel pride,rather than simply hearing assertions that they should be proud. People must feel less fear, n rather than simply hearing assertionsthat they should not be afraid. How is this accomplished?

Relevance and value must be built into the way NASA does business if human spaceflight and the Vision for Space Explorationare to be sustainable. Delivery of value must be deliberate - it must be owned, managed, budgeted and staffed. It must be based uponrigorous research, not personal opinion or urban legend. Within the policy of science-driven lunar and Mars exploration, valuedelivery must shape architectures, mission sequences, operation concepts, landing sites, payloads, cameras, crew selection andtraining, bandwidth, press releases, naming conventions, and everything else identified by value research. This will require thatNASA import the substantial value delivery capabilities, processes, tools, and expertise that exist in other domains. Sustainability,too, requires far more than better communication!

Since my term is now ending, this is my final President’s Message. It has been one of the great honors and privileges of my life tohave served as President of this remarkable Society. Thank you. And thanks to Jim Kirkpatrick and the officers with whom I’veserved for everything done to strengthen the AAS and place it on a robust trajectory into the future. Best wishes to our new President,Frank Slazer, and our new team of officers!


Mars Wars: The Rise and Fall of theSpace Exploration Initiativeby Thor Hogan

President George H.W. Bush speaks at the NationalAir and Space Museum’s Apollo 11 20th anniversarycelebration and announces the Space ExplorationInitiative, which was to complete the space station,return to the moon, and bring man to Mars. (Source:NASA)

On the 20th anniversary of the firsthuman landing on the Moon, PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush stood atop the steps ofthe National Air and Space Museum inWashington, D.C. and proposed a long-range human exploration plan that includedthe successful construction of an orbitalspace station, a permanent return to theMoon, and a mission to Mars. Thisenterprise became known as the SpaceExploration Initiative (SEI). The presidentcharged the newly reestablished NationalSpace Council with providing concretealternatives for meeting these objectives.To provide overall focus for the newinitiative, Bush later set a thirty-year goalfor a crewed landing on Mars. Within afew short years after this Kennedy-esqueannouncement, however, the initiative hadfaded into history – the victim of a flawedpolicy process and a political war foughton several different fronts.

The story of this failed initiative wasone shaped by key protagonists and criticalbattles. It was a tale of organizational,cultural, and personal confrontation.Cultural struggles pitted the increasinglyconservative engineering ethos of NASAagainst the “faster, better, cheaper”philosophy of a Space Council looking for

innovative solutions to technical problems.Personality clashes matched Vice PresidentDan Quayle and Space Council ExecutiveSecretary Mark Albrecht against NASAAdministrator Dick Truly and JohnsonSpace Center Director Aaron Cohen. Somecommentators have argued that SEI wasdoomed to fail, due primarily to theimmense budgetary pressures facing thenation during the early 1990s. Failure,however, was not predetermined. Instead,it was the result of a deeply flaweddecision-making process which failed todevelop (or even consider) policy optionsthat may have been politically acceptablegiven the existing political environment.

By 1989, the American space programhad been in a steady decline for nearly twodecades. NASA had failed to find itsfooting in the years following the triumphsof the Apollo moon landings. After failingto gain support for a robust post-Apollohuman exploration program, the agencyhad retreated and become increasinglyconservative, risk averse, and bureaucratic.During this time the space program had nogreat supporters in the White House, norgreat advocates within the Congress. Thisforced the agency to focus its politicalenergies on protecting its turf (e.g. thespace shuttle and space station programs)and trying to slow the regular reductionsin its annual appropriation. The end resultwas a NASA that hardly resembled the onethat had challenged the Soviet Union uponone of the most prominent battlegroundsof the Cold War – an agency that had wona great victory for the United States.

Despite this long interlude, there hadbeen stirrings within the space policycommunity that seemed to indicate that areturn to glory might be achievable.During the mid-to-late-1980s, theAmerican public had rallied around NASAin the wake of the Space Shuttle Challengeraccident, the National Commission on

Space had recommended humanexploration of Mars as the appropriatelong-term objective of the space program,and President Bush was an outspokensupporter of the space program. On thelarger national stage, however, moresignificant forces were developing thatdidn’t bode well for the adoption of anoverly aggressive or expensive newundertaking in human spaceflight. Inparticular, a struggling economy and risingdeficits were placing enormous pressure onthe federal budget. This political realitywould be the most important constraintfacing adoption of an expanded explorationprogram and attempts to revitalize thenational space program. In fact, thesituation was so serious that it called intoquestion whether the new president shouldsupport such an endeavor at all. Despitethe potential hazards, only a few shortmonths after taking office, PresidentGeorge Bush and his key space policyadvisors decided to champion an ill-definedyet exorbitantly expensive explorationplan.

SEI reached the national agenda afteran incredibly short two-month alternativegeneration process, which was conductedin secret by senior leaders at NASAHeadquarters and Johnson Space Center.Rather than providing President Bush witha variety of potential mission architectures,the space agency selected a long-termstrategy (based largely on existingtechnology) that would have cost anestimated $400 billion. Although thiswould require NASA’s budget to increaseto over $30 billion annually, Vice PresidentDan Quayle and the National SpaceCouncil initially supported the spaceagency’s approach. Thus, on 20 July 1989,President Bush announced a long-range,continuing commitment to humanspaceflight: “First, for the coming decade,for the 1990s: Space Station Freedom, our


critical next step in all our space endeavors.And next, for the new century: back to theMoon; back to the future. And this time,back to stay. And then a journey intotomorrow, a journey to another planet: amanned mission to Mars.”

Political pundits comically depict one of the reasonsthe space program was having trouble on Earth.(Source: Tony Auth/Philadelphia Inquirer)

Unfortunately, the public andcongressional reaction to President Bush’sannouncement was generally negative. Forexample, Senator Al Gore said, “byproposing a return to the Moon and amanned base on Mars, with no money, notimetable, and no plan, President Bushoffers the country not a challenge to inspireus, but a daydream.” In Fall 1989, thingsgot worse when NASA released its Reportof the 90-Day Study on HumanExploration of the Moon and Mars. Whatthe Bush White House had expected wouldbe a study providing additional projectalternatives with a broad range of costprofiles turned out to be an endorsementof a single architecture offered with threedifferent timelines (it would have costupwards of $550 billion). The universalresponse was outrage – the initiative neverrecovered and slowly faded away over thenext year.

There are numerous lessons that can belearned from the failure of SEI. Theinitiative was originally endorsed byPresident Bush to provide direction to adirectionless agency. The Space Council,however, failed to provide adequateguidance regarding the political andbudgetary constraints confronting any newprograms. As a result, NASA’s 90-Day

Study was significantly at variance withwhat Congress judged to be in the long-term interest of the nation. This situationmay have been ameliorated if the SpaceCouncil had engaged space policycommunity actors outside NASA that mayhave provided architecture alternativesleveraging new technologies and withdifferent cost profiles. Vice PresidentQuayle and Mark Albrecht, however,largely abdicated their authority to thespace agency. Responsibility should notland entirely at the White House doorstep,as missteps by NASA’s leaders sharedequally in the initiative’s failure. Manywithin the agency believed PresidentBush’s endorsement of a bold humanspaceflight initiative was an opportunity toobtain a large funding increase. Preparingexpensive plans for SEI based on thisfundamental principle proved to be anenormous political miscalculation and theagency missed a historic opportunity toright itself two decades after the post-Apollo deceleration. If the White Househad consulted with Congress during theagenda setting process for the initiative, theglaring shortcomings with the NASAapproach may have been understood andaddressed much earlier. The failure toengage Congress explains why SEI neverhad any true champions on Capitol Hill,even among constituencies usuallysupportive of the space program.

During the second half of the 20thcentury, there were a number of seminalmoments in American space policy. Theseincluded the creation of NASA, PresidentKennedy’s moon decision, and the spaceshuttle and space station decisions. Dueto its influence on the space program’sfuture course, SEI belongs on this list. Itis an anomaly in some respects, because itwas a failed initiative. Combined with theHubble Space Telescope flaw and SpaceShuttle fuel leaks, its demise led tosignificant changes at NASA. Perhaps themost important was the appointment of DanGoldin, the most change-oriented NASAadministrator since James Webb. The mostimportant change he wrought was forcingNASA to face budgetary reality and focuson evolutionary advancement. Thisarguably wouldn’t have happened absent

the extraordinary budgetary requirementsof NASA’s SEI system architectureapproach and the resulting downfall of theinitiative.

As suggested above, the demise of SEIwas a classic example of a defectivedecision-making process. The decision toconduct the agenda setting process in secretmade it difficult to generate support withinCongress or the larger space policycommunity. The Space Council’s inabilityor unwillingness to provide high-levelpolicy guidance, combined with NASA’sfailure to independently consider criticalfiscal constraints, derailed the initiativebefore it really got started. Finally, thefailure of the Space Council to initiate acompetition of ideas after President Bush’sannouncement speech removed anypossibility of gaining congressionalsupport after the devastating release of the90-Day Study.

It is far from obvious that the failure ofSEI was predetermined. What is clear,however, is that its failure was ensured,because options that may have beenpolitically feasible were not considered.While this had the benefit of forcing somelevel of change within NASA, it also badlydamaged the agency’s reputation as aworld-class technical organization. Toensure the success of future efforts to sendhumans to Mars, current and futurepolicymakers must learn the lessons of SEI.This alone is why its history is sofundamental to understanding what isrequired to gain support for large humanspaceflight initiatives.

Thor Hogan is an Assistant Professorof Political Science at the IllinoisInstitute of Technology. Dr. Hogan’sresearch focuses on climate changepolicy and national space policy. Hewas previously Director of the RANDSpace Policy Project. Dr. Hogan’sbook, Mars Wars: The Rise and Fallof the Space Exploration Initiative,won the 2007 AIAA HistoryManuscript Award. A version of thisarticle first appeared in the NASAHistory News and Notes newsletterduring November 2007.


by Yoji Kondo

Defending the Earth from Falling Cometsand Asteroids

Meteor Crater, in Arizona, was the first crater tobe identified as an impact crater. The impact isthought to have occurred 20,000 to 50,000 yearsago by an asteroid approximately 80 feet indiameter. (Source: 1929 Smithsonian ScientificSeries/US Army Air Service)

The Astronomical EnvironmentThe Earth is constantly exposed to

bombardment by celestial objects, such ascomets or asteroids. Indeed, over ahistorical period, comets and asteroidshave been falling to the Earth with analarming frequency. The situation issufficiently serious to warrantconsideration of protective measures.There are literally hundreds of thousandsof asteroids that are large enough to causesevere damage if any one of them shouldfall on our planet. Most of them have orbitsthat preclude the possibility of hitting theEarth, but there are some whose orbitscome perilously close. The largestasteroids are several hundred kilometersin diameter, but their orbits are welldetermined; there is little chance that anyof the large asteroids will hit the Earth inthe foreseeable future. However, there areasteroids with undetermined orbits that arelarge enough to cause serious damage.Their orbits can be significantly altered ifthey come close to massive planets likeJupiter or Saturn. Our danger is from suchmedium to small asteroids whose orbits areunknown. Perhaps, more of an imminentthreat are comets that come to the innersolar system for the first time from theremote Oort Cloud. There, possiblybillions of comets may be orbiting looselyattached to the solar system by the feeblegravity of the distant Sun. When the orbitsof some of those comets are sufficientlyperturbed – perhaps by the gravitationalfields of the passing stars as the solarsystem moves among stars at a relativevelocity of about 20 kilometers per second– some of them may come hurtling towardus. Several such ‘new’ comets are reported

each year, most of them discovered bydiligent amateur astronomers. Their orbitsare totally unpredictable. Although theprobability of one of them colliding withthe Earth is not very high, it could happenat any time. Comets are typically severalkilometers in diameter, so they arecomparable in their mass to typicalasteroids.

Historical Comet/Asteroid Strikes andTheir Consequences

In mid-July several years ago, we weremesmerized by the cosmic spectacle of theplanet Jupiter being bombarded for a weekby some two dozen fragments of CometShoemaker-Levy. Upon impact, even thesmallest cometary nucleus, which wasprobably about one kilometer across,released an energy equivalent to about 200megatons of TNT. Each comet impact gaverise to an immense mushroom cloud,leaving in its wake a dark spot about thesize of Earth. Experts say that thisprobably happens to Jupiter only once amillennium. Being a much smaller targetand possessing signif-icantly more feeblegravitational attraction, it is estimated thatthe Earth is hit by a kilometer-sizedasteroid or comet only once in a hundredthousand years. I am willing to concedethe validity of these estimates on a purelystatistical basis. But, is it really safe tothink this way? Consider the following.

While a periodic comet or an asteroidabout one-kilometer across will release anenergy upon hitting Earth in the range oftens of megatons of TNT, an asteroid atenth that size – one hundred meters across– would still pack an energy equivalent toat least several megatons of TNT. As a

point of reference, the Hiroshima bombwas a 20 kiloton blast. Any city, no matterhow big, hit by a ten-megaton explosivewould be TOTALLY devastated. Clearly,the one kilometer criterion applies to acomet or an asteroid fall that can causenot just regional but truly planet-widedamage.

Although the chances for a major strikemay be statistically limited, Earth has beenhit at least three times this century, onlythe first of which was mentioned by mostpeople commenting on Shoemaker-Levy inJuly. All three impacts occurred in Russia.

Tunguska, Central Siberia, 30 June1908. It was an air-blast, with an energyyield estimated to have been about twomegatons. The falling body was either asmall comet with a size of less than akilometer or a stony asteroid some sixtymeters across. The mounting air pressureand heat caused the body to explode beforeit touched the ground. Despite that, itdevastated an area about 100 kilometers


NASA’s DAWN spacecraft will characterize theconditions and processes of the solar systemsearliest epoch by observing two protoplanetasteroids Ceres and Vesta. (Source: NASA/UCLA)

across, knocking down trees that fellradially from the center of explosion.Having fallen on a virtually uninhabitedregion, the casualties were apparentlylimited to over a thousand reindeer. Theonly reported human casualty was a manwho was knocked off his feet whilestanding in front of his cabin. If there hadbeen human deaths that escaped detection,the deceased did not report them to theauthorities.

Sikhote Alin mountain range, EasternSiberia, 12 February 1947. The strikingobject was an iron meteoroid, perhapsoriginally about ten meters across. It leftseveral craters on the ground, the largestof which was thirty meters in diameterindicating the meteoroid fragment to havebeen three meters across. Had the originaliron meteoroid not broken up in theatmosphere, the total energy at impactwould have been in the range of tens ofkilotons, comparable to the yield of theHiroshima bomb. [Note: A meteoroid is asmall asteroid. Whatever is leftunexploded after hitting the ground iscalled a meteorite.]

Serlitamak, two hundred kilometersfrom Moscow, 17 May 1990. An ironmeteoroid that must have been a meteracross left a crater about ten meters indiameter. It lit the night sky with a bolt oflight that was almost as bright as the Sun.The energy yield was in the range of onehundred tons of TNT.

In addition to the above, there are ratherspectacular reports of near-misses orprobable ocean strikes, such as those on10 August 1972, 25 January 1990, and 1February 1994 over the Pacific. Imaginewhat the consequences would be if aTunguska-sized object should fall onheavily populated areas like New York orTokyo! The death toll could easily be inthe hundreds of thousands – nay, in themillions. If one goes back further inhistory, there have been numerousmeteorite and comet falls. Because of theweathering effects and other geological

events, the evidence of such strikes is oftennot very obvious. However, one look atthe surface of the Moon with a moderatelyhigh-powered telescope will show thatthere have been innumerable hits on ourcelestial companion less than 400,000kilometers away. The Earth is nearly fourtimes as large in diameter and ourgravitational attractive force at the surfacesix times as strong; our planet must havebeen struck a few tens of times morefrequently than the Moon.

The Nobel Laureate Physicist LouisAlvarez proposed the followinghypothesis. The dinosaurs that haddominated this planet a hundred millionyears ago became suddenly extinct as aresult of the fall of a huge asteroid or acomet 65 million years ago. That objectwas probably at least ten kilometersacross; there is some evidence that it mighthave struck the sea near the YucatanPeninsula. Such a strike would do severalthings at least. First, most advanced formsof life in the immediate area – say withina hundred kilometers of the impact point– would be obliterated. Second, if it is asea-strike, the resulting tsunami woulddrown land animals all along the coastalareas for tens of thou-sands of kilometers.The immense quantity of water vaporcreated by the kinetic energy of the impactwould create cloud coverage all over theworld lasting for weeks (perhaps months),lowering the surface temperature. Thesubsequent rainfall would create severeflooding all over the planet. Perhaps themost deadly of the consequences would becaused by its effect on the atmosphere. Ifit is a land strike, the particle debris thatis injected into the atmosphere could causeclimatic changes lasting for years. It wouldmake the dire predictions of a “nuclearwinter” – which could be caused in a totalnuclear war involving the USA, Russia,China, and Europe – look like a Sundaypicnic in comparison. The surfacetemperature would likely plummet, a newice age might arrive, and the delicate

ecological system of our planet would betotally disrupted. It is conceivable that,depending on the severity of the damage,the human race would become extinct.

Can We Protect Ourselves Against SuchCatastrophes?

The answer would have been a “No”only a few decades ago before the adventof the space age. Today, the answer isfortunately “yes” – provided that the strikedoes not occur before we have the time toprepare ourselves for it. If we are to avoidthe possible extinction of our race, we mustget started now. There will be importantancillary benefits from the new spacedefense program. Actually, the relatedbenefits alone are so great that any countryor a group of countries making theseinvestments, though substantial, could reaphandsome rewards for their trulyhumanitarian contributions to the future ofthe human race.

How Do We Do It?There are two components: the warning

system and the active defense system.The early warning system. This

consists of a network comprised of existingcomet and asteroid hunters, which will bebacked up by a world wide sky monitoring


program to fill existing gaps and extendcurrent capabilities. This is the leastexpensive part of the program. As soon asan object – be it comet or asteroid – thathas a suspected Earth-intersecting orbit isdiscovered, it will be monitored closely todetermine its exact orbit. If the object ison a collision course, the active defensesystem will be alerted immediately. As wewill see later, knowing the exact orbit iscrucial in deciding whether or not or whento use an active defense system. Actually,there already exists an Arizona-basedprogram called “Sky Watch” that caneventually determine orbits of perhaps asmuch as ninety percent of near Earthobjects larger than a kilometer. Themonitoring system can be extended, in duecourse, to include telescopes in space,including those on the far side of the Moonor on Martian satellites; among otherfunctions, lunar telescopes may be used toexamine the sky close to the Sun.

The active defense system. Differentplans may be considered for (1) theimmediate future and (2) the intermediateand long-range future. We need to havesome form of protection as soon aspossible, even if that protection is notwholly satisfactory – hence the necessityfor the two-phased programs.

The program for the immediate futureinvolves an automated space ship foraltering the course of the threateningobject. At least one automated (unmanned)space ship – ideally a dozen to a score ofthem – will be kept in readiness in a lowparking orbit, possibly adjacent to a spacestation for maintenance. Once it isdetermined that there exists a comet orasteroid on a collision orbit with the Earth,those space ships would be dispatched tointercept it at a distance as far from ourplanet as possible. The ships will eachcarry to the target a hundred-megaton classnuclear bomb, to be detonated in such away as to cause a maximum deviation ofits orbit from the current course. There maybe objections from some nations to nucleardevices in orbit. In that case, nuclearbombs could be carried to the spaceships

after the alert has been issued from the SkyWatch network, using a quick responsetransportation system like the DeltaClipper that has been tested successfullyin 1993 or the projected NationalAerospace Plane. The ship’s televisionmonitor will send a close-up view of theobject as the ship approaches its target.Because of the great distance, there maybe a time lag of up to several minutes, sothe rate of approach must be monitoredwith an utmost precision. The nucleardevice would detonate at a point where itwould be most effective in changing thecourse of the object.

The purpose of the bomb is to push theasteroid or comet in a direction about 90degrees from its current course. Even aminute change in the direction at a greatdistance could sufficiently alter the object’strajectory so that it would miss the Earthentirely. However, a threatening asteroidor the comet could be quite massive. It maytake a score of megaton bombs to redirectits course away from the Earth. If the objectis at a distance of one astronomical unit,or 150,000,000 kilometers, we would needto change its direction by at least 10arcseconds. If a one hundred megatonbomb is detonated right next to an asteroid(with a mass of several million tons or asize of about one kilometer) at a distanceof some ten million kilometers from theEarth, its course could possibly be alteredenough to make it miss our planet. Theproblem is that it is extremely difficult toestimate the mass of a comet or an asteroidfrom a distance; it is difficult enough todetermine its size from a large distance.That is one reason why several back-upnuclear devices would be required.

The obvious weak point of this plan isthat since the ships would be remotelyoperated, handicapped by a time lag, itwould be difficult to explode the bomb atan optimum point. Instead of changing thecourse of the object, the explosion may justbreak up the comet – or the asteroid to alesser extent – and cause several fragmentsto fall on the Earth. Further complicatingthe matter is the difficulty of determining

the orbit of the intruder precisely. But evensuch a risk may be worth taking if animmense object is certain to hit our planet.If it will barely miss the Earth, we willnot want to jump the gun and turn it into abullseye hit by shifting its orbit in a wrongdirection. If we are uncertain, we must waituntil we have a reliable orbitaldetermination. There are those who thinkthat we can explode a nuclear device infront of the object and obliterate it. If acomet is made up of loosely packed smallpieces of dirty ice and rocks, it may bebroken into pieces small enough so thatthey will burn up upon entering Earth’satmosphere. However, the core of a cometcould be a solid rock like an asteroid,which may be difficult to fragment intoharmless pieces. In that case, several bigchunks of rocks, instead of one really bigpiece, would strike our planet. It is muchsafer to use a nuclear device to alter thecourse of the comet or asteroid.

The intermediate and long-rangefuture involves sending a crewed deepspace mission to alter the course of thethreatening object. Some years from now,a spacecraft that is capable of anexpedition to deep interplanetary spacewill be constructed in low Earth orbit,possibly near a space station, and will bekept there in readiness. This deep spaceship will not be burdened with a massiveprotective surface that is required for anyspace ship launched directly from theground. It will be built for a voyage invacuum and will be light in weight for fueleconomy. Its engine will perhaps be an ion-drive that can accelerate the shipcontinuously with limited reaction massbecause of its high effective impulse ornozzle velocity. As soon as an asteroid orcomet on a collision course to our planetis detected, the ship’s crew – perhaps twoto three astronauts – would be lifted to itby a quick response transportation system.The deep space ship would have to departas soon as possible. The further away fromthe Earth the asteroid or comet isintercepted, the better chance we wouldhave of altering its course and avoiding


collision. Upon arrival at the object, thecrew would determine an optimumlocation for applying a thrust roughlyninety degrees from the direction of itspresent course. Most asteroids and cometshave irregular forms; if the force is notapplied properly, we would end upspinning the object instead of sufficientlychanging its course. The lateral thrustwould be applied by either preciselydetonating shaped (hundred megatonclass) nuclear charges or attachingpowerful rockets to the asteroid or cometand firing them. If the latter option ispreferred, extremely strong rocket enginesmust be developed for that purpose.

(Single Stage To Orbit) rockets, and viabledeep space manned space ships that canboost continuously, the solar system willeffectively be ours to explore. Forexample, at a continuous acceleration ofone g (= the gravitational acceleration onthe ground), we could reach Mars in just afew days. If an economical spacetransportation system like SSTO reducesthe cost of lifting payloads into low Earthorbit (LEO) by a factor of ten or more, theconstruction of solar power satellites(which could take care of practically allof our energy needs) could become aneconomically attractive proposition. Abouteighty percent of the cost of goinganywhere in the solar system is consumedby achieving LEO. Materials from theMoon could potentially be used forconstruction of solar power satellites,rather than lifting them from the groundagainst Earth’s strong gravity.

ConclusionWhile we cannot predict when the next

major comet or asteroid strike will occur,it is virtually certain that it will occursometime during the future. The survivalof our species may hinge upon our abilityto protect ourselves against it.

If Shoemaker-Levy had struck ourplanet, the consequences would have beendisastrous. Can we afford to not protectourselves against such catastrophe –especially in view of the collateral benefitsthat would flow from such an undertakingin space?NASA has researched asteroids with missions like NEAR, which took these progressively

closer images (left to right) of the asteroid Eros in 2001. (Source: JHU/APL)

Yoji Kondo, Ph.D., headed theastrophysics laboratory at the JohnsonSpace Center during the Apollo andSkylab missions, and was the directorof the geosynchronous satelliteobservatory, IUE, for 15 years atGoddard. He has published over twohundred scientific papers. Under thepseudonym of E. Kotani, he haspublished seven science fiction books.

The Moon can serve as an excellentbase for sending out spacecraft to interceptastronomical bodies on a collision coursewith Earth. Solar-powered catapults on thelunar surface can send robotic deep spaceships at extremely high initialaccelerations so as to get them to thevicinity of the trouble making object muchfaster than is possible from near Earthorbits; a prohibitive amount of reactionmass would be needed for a very high

acceleration from Earth orbit relyingsolely on rocket propulsion. A Moon basecould also be used to catapult crewedmissions, economizing the fuelsubstantially at the beginning, though theinitial acceleration would have to be lessextreme for human crew. An importantpoint is that economizing the fuel initiallycan make the difference between asuccessful or unsuccessful mission. Ifdeposits of polar ice are found on theMoon, as has been speculated, a permanentbase with human inhabitants will becomemuch easier to realize. We could evenchange the course of a water rich cometand redirect it to the Moon to furnish water.

After all, it has been speculated that theEarth’s oceans may owe their origin tofrequent bombardment by comets in theformative days of our planet.

Benefits from Investing in an ActiveDefense System

Once the infrastructure is available,such as permanent space stations,economical ground-to-low-Earth-orbittransportation systems such as SSTO


AAS NEWS

New AAS Officers and BoardIntroducing the OfficersTerm Expires November 2008Frank A. Slazer - President Director for Business Development, United Launch Alliance

Lyn D. Wigbels - Executive Vice President President, RWI International Consulting Services

S. Rao Vadali - Vice President Technical Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University

Mary L. Snitch - Vice President Programs Director, NASA Programs, Lockheed Martin Washington Operations Office

David B. Spencer - Vice President Publications Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Penn State University

J. Walter Faulconer - Vice President Membership Business Area Executive for the Civilian Space Business Area, Applied Physics Laboratory

Kirk Kittell - Vice President Education Systems Engineer, Orbital Sciences Corporation

Carol S. Lane - Vice President Finance Vice President of Washington Operations, Ball Aerospace

Clayton Mowry - Vice President International President, Arianespace, Inc.

William B. Adkins - Vice President Public Policy President, Adkins Strategies, LLC

Franceska O. Schroeder - Legal Counsel Principal, Fish & Richardson P.C.

Introducing the New DirectorsTerm Expires November 2010Linda Billings Astrobiology Communications Coordinator, SETI Institute

Ronald J. Birk Director of Civil Space Mission Integration, Northrop Grumman Space Technology

Rebecca Griffin President, Griffin Aerospace

Hal E. Hagemeier Operations Manager, National Security Space Office

Dennis Lowery General Dynamics

Molly Kenna Macauley Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future

Erin Neal Director of Senate Relations, Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK)

Lesa B. Roe Director, NASA Langley Research Center

Rosanna Sattler Partner, Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP

Robert H. Schingler, Jr. Engineering Project Manager and Special Assistant to the Director, NASA Ames Research Center

Woodrow Whitlow, Jr. Director, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center

Chair, Houston Section – Nick Skytland NASA Johnson Space Center

Chair, Rocky Mountain Section – Ronald Rausch Lockheed Martin Astronautics

Chair, Guidance & Control Committee – JamesMcQuerry Ball Aerospace

Chair, History Committee - Mike Ciancone NASA Johnson Space Center

Chair, International Programs Committee – ClayMowry Arianespace, Inc.

Chair, Space Flight Mechanics Committee – T.S.Kelso Center for Space Standards and Innovation

Editor, SPACE TIMES – Jeff Elbel SAIC – Chicago

Editor, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences– Kathie Howell Purdue University

AAS Publications Office – Bob Jacobs Univelt Incorporated

Capital Hill Liaison – Dick Obermann House Committee on Science

And the Unsung Heroes – AAS Chairs and Editors


AAS NEWS

46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium

Tuesday, March 46:00 pm Future Leaders Networking Reception

Wednesday, March 57:15 am Corporate Members Breakfast7:30 Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast8:30 Welcome

Frank Slazer, AAS President8:40 Introduction of Keynote Speaker

Edward Weiler, Director, NASA GSFC8:45 Keynote

Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator9:30 Break9:45 Perspectives on the 50th Anniversary of NASA’s Founding

Roger G. Launius, Chair, Division of Space History, NASM, SmithsonianInstitution

10:15 Reflections on Humans Working in SpaceWilliam H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations,NASA HQ

10:45 Sustaining a Human Presence in SpaceRichard J. Gilbrech, Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems,NASA HQ

11:15 The International Role in Expanding Human Presence inSpaceLon Rains, Editor, Space News

11:45 LuncheonRep. Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, D-MD (invited)

1:15 pm The Unknown History of the Vision for Space Exploration(VSE)Stephen J. Garber, History Division, NASA HQ

1:45 Prizes and Emerging Markets: Encouraging CommercialSpace CapabilitiesKen Davidian, Commercial Development Policy Lead, NASA HQ

2:15 Break2:30 A Ticket to Ride: An Emerging Space Adventure Industry

Moderator and Panelists: TBD3:30 Spaceports and Commercial Space Launches

Moderator: John Campbell, Director, Wallops Flight Facility andSuborbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate, NASA GSFCPanelists: TBD

5:00 Reception

Thursday, March 67:30 am Registration Opens / Continental Breakfast8:30 Keynote

Alan Stern, Associate Administrator for Science, NASA HQ9:15 Earth Science from Space

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and(NOAA Administrator) (invited)

9:45 Investing in Technology to Enable Future Science Missionsin SpaceLaurie A. Leshin, Deputy Director for Science and Technology, NASAGSFC

10:15 Break10:30 Faces of the Future

Alexis Livanos, Corporate Vice President and President, NorthropGrumman Space Technology

11:15 Moon ScienceDavid E. Smith, Deputy Director for Planetary Science, Solar SystemExploration Division, NASA GSFC

11:45 LuncheonSenator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD (invited)

1:15 pm Summer Jobs: Hubble Servicing MissionFrank Cepollina, Manager, Hubble Space Telescope DevelopmentProject, NASA GSFC

1:45 Space Weather: Survival of People and RobotsLouis Lanzerotti, Distinguished Research Professor, Center for Solar-Terrestrial, New Jersey Institute of Technology

2:15 Break2:30 Mars on the Horizon

James B. Garvin, Chief Scientist, NASA GSFC3:00 Before Earth and Beyond Mars: Planetary Science

Speaker TBD3:30 Astrophysics Beyond 2020: the Big Questions

Mario Livio, Head, Office of Public Outreach, Space Telescope ScienceInstitute

4:00 Summary & Closing Remarks

Exploration to Commercialization: Going to Work in SpaceGreenbelt Marriott Hotel

Greenbelt, MarylandMarch 4-6, 2008

PROGRAM (as of December 20, 2007)

REGISTER ONLINE NOW & SAVE $50

www.astronautical.org


AAS NEWS

Amazing Summer at the InternationalSpace Universityby Audrey Schaffer and Ian Christensen

For nine weeks during the summer of2007, we attended the International SpaceUniversity Summer Session Program (ISUSSP) in Beijing, China. As winners of theAmerican Astronautical Society’s LadyMamie Ngan Memorial Scholarship andannual ISU scholarship, we wereprivileged to have the opportunity to attendthis rigorous program in one of the world’smost interesting countries.

This year marked the 20th anniversaryof ISU’s Summer Session Program. Thismeant that our experience was built on thesuccess of twenty years of spaceprofessional education. This summer, theSSP was organized into three phases. Ourfirst phase consisted of core lectures in theseven ISU departments. With world-classinstructors from space organizationsaround the world, we learned about spacetopics ranging from propulsion systems, tointernational space law, to how the heartis affected by microgravity.

The second phase of ISU allowed eachof us to focus in one of ISU’s sevendepartments to learn more in-depth aboutan area of interest. Audrey chose to focusin Business and Management, and Ianchose to focus in Satellite Applications.Each of these departments complimentedour existing skill sets and broadened ourpractical experience.

Our final phase centered on ISU’s teamproject experience. Every year, ISUstudents form international,interdisciplinary, and intercultural teamsto tackle a current space issue area andproduce a substantive report available tothe world community. Audrey chose towork on Project Phoenix – an examinationof a lunar archive to enable the recoveryof civilization after a global catastrophe.

Ian chose to work on Project TREMOR –an investigation of the use of spacetechnology to monitor and respond toearthquakes.

The team projects were certainly themost rigorous aspect of the ISU experience.On each of the teams, we struggled tocorrectly define the scope of our issue, self-organize a team of thirty students fromtwenty-four different countries, and use ourfew remaining weeks to research andanalyze these difficult problems. Apartfrom learning about the issue area of eachof our team projects, more importantly welearned how to work in large, internationalteams, with people from a range of fieldswith varying levels of experience.

And that was only the beginning!During this rigorous academic experience,we were having another type of experiencealtogether – living in China. While both ofus had traveled abroad, neither had visitedChina prior to this trip.

Ian Christensen and Audrey Schaffer (Source: Audrey Schaffer/Ian Christensen)

Living in China was both everything andnothing we expected. China’s culture hasdeveloped over thousands of years, and ittruly is different from our Westernupbringing. We expected this to be the case,but not the degree to which old habits andcustoms pervade modern interactions.China is also a developing nation, as weall know in the West. We were struck bythe truly rapid pace of change, and yet wesaw evidence of the many new challengesthat China will face as it struggles toreinvent itself as a modern society.

Living abroad in such a dynamicenvironment was truly a unique experience.Our generous Chinese hosts, the ChinaAerospace Science and TechnologyCorporation and Beihang University, madeour summer even more memorable bywelcoming us to this amazing place andgraciously supporting our activities inBeijing. We again thank them and theAmerican Astronautical Society for thisonce-in-a-lifetime experience.


AAS NEWS

Report on the AAS 54th Annual Meeting:“Celebrating Fifty Years – But, What’s Next?”by Rick W. Sturdevant

Maria Zuber receives Sagan Memorial Award from Mark Craig (Source: AAS)

The AAS National Conference and 54thAnnual Meeting occurred at South ShoreHarbour Resort in League City, Texas,during 12-14 November 2007. It was anopportunity to reflect on a half century ofNASA accomplishments in space, to shareexperiences from that historic period withthe next generation (NextGen) of spaceprofessionals, and to hear NextGenmembers speculate on their participationin future space exploration. Thisintergenerational exchange commenced onMonday evening at a “Future LeadersNetworking Reception” sponsored by TheBoeing Company.

On Tuesday morning, AAS PresidentMark Craig welcomed attendees to whathe promised would be an “expansive andthought-provoking” program. He thenintroduced Michael Coats, NASA JohnsonSpace Center (JSC) director, who said itwas gratifying to see so many youngpeople—”the future of our spaceprogram”—in the audience. Even asconferees honored past achievements andchallenged themselves for the future, Coatsreminded them of history in the making.For the first time, two femalecommanders—Peggy Whitson on the ISSand Pamela Melroy on the space shuttle—were in space simultaneously and had justoverseen installation of the Harmony nodeand emergency repair of a solar array. TheJSC director said those effortsdemonstrated the value of humanintelligence and flexibility in the spaceprogram. He encouraged everyone to keeppressing the boundaries of science,technology, and imagination—to celebratememories that “fired” the past but, moreimportantly, to create “new memories tofire the next fifty years.” Coats then

introduced the 2007 Carl Sagan Awardrecipient, Maria Zuber from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology.

For the Sagan Memorial Lecture, Zubergave some thought to what Sagan wouldhave liked and decided to talk about theimportance of perseverance in our questfor knowledge about space. Herpresentation, titled “Present-day Mars:From Moonscape to Desert to Tundra,”illustrated how decades of perseverance insending spacecraft to the Red Planet—oftrying to hit curve balls and losing to theGreat Galactic Ghoul 28 out of 47 timesat bat—literally changed our views aboutthat place. Coarse images of Mars fromthe Mariner 4 flyby in 1965 suggested a

cratered landscape not unlike the Moon. Atransition began in late 1971 with Mariner9, which revealed Valles Marineras andhinted at a desert-like landscape; continuedin the late 1970s and early 1980s with theViking missions, which exposedstreamlined islands, valley networks, andoutflow structures; and persisted throughthe 1990s into the early twenty-firstcentury with Mars Global Surveyor, theMars Pathfinder mission, the EuropeanSpace Agency (ESA) Mars Expressdelivering striking images of dunestructures, erosion from sustained orcatastrophic outflows, and dust devils onsummer afternoons. If Martian stratigraphyindicated water had flowed abundantly in


AAS NEWS

First session panel (Source: AAS)

Three astronomy professors—EugeneLevy and David Black from RiceUniversity and J. Craig Wheeler from theUniversity of Texas at Austin—supplemented Bille’s presentation withtheir scientific perspectives on the first fiftyyears of NASA in space. Levy marveledat how little was known about the Moon,other planets, or the sun in 1958, whenNASA was created. By advancing “ourability to see,” NASA revealed to us the“wide fabric of structure and process” thathas shaped our current understanding ofEarth and beyond. Above all, Levycontended, “NASA helped us define andrealize our humanity.” Wheeler, whoemphasized the invention of a “whole newscience” in the form of high-energyastrophysics and the conduct of both X-ray and gamma ray astronomy from space,foresaw a “wondrous future” in this fieldwith a “distribution of satellites,” large andsmall, surveying the universe. Recalling theimportance of “foreign policy”considerations in NASA’s birth andevolution, Black labeled the search forother places where life might exist as theagency’s most important contribution. Fiftyyears ago, he said, would not have thought

some long-ago period, “water is not wherethe action is” on Mars today, where theatmosphere and frozen polar caps aboundwith carbon dioxide.

Zuber contended, however, thatfocusing on the dusty surface and how itcame to pass has distracted researchersfrom seeing Mars as it really is—a tundra.If we think of Mars as a treeless region inwhich the subsoil is permanently frozen,the discussion shifts from dust and carbondioxide to subsurface water. Instrumentsaboard Mars Global Surveyor and MarsExpress revealed a large quantity of waterice only a few meters beneath the frozencarbon dioxide covering the Martian poles,and that “nailed the water on the surface,”according to Zuber. It was “a hugediscovery,” she exclaimed, but subsurfaceexploration led to even more spectacularnews. The Mars Odyssey neutronspectrometer, which has allowed scientiststo map the amount and depth of water inthe Martian substrata, indicates thatplanet’s soil contains “as much as 75percent and easily 10-15 percent water icein the top meter.” By finding this readilyaccessible water supply, she exclaimed,“we have solved the biggest impedimentto sending humans to Mars.”

To open the conference’s first session,moderator Joseph Alexander from theNational Academy of Sciences explainedthat his panel would “reflect and ruminatea little bit” on the past and future of spaceexploration from one historical and threescientific perspectives. Historian MattBille, an associate with Booz AllenHamilton, emphasized the “great value”fifty years of “lessons learned” might haveif we remember three principles: to learnthe right lessons, because some thingschange over time and some do not; toremember the past changes, because newmaterial becomes available and becausepresent-day experiences influence how werecall the past; and to avoid the abuse ofhistory by being mindful of differencesbetween then and now. “Don’t wastehistory,” he admonished, because it can

instruct our decision making, minimize our“reinvention of wheels,” and cue us topotential pitfalls.

of spectroscopic examination of thedynamic atmospheres of other planets as away of detecting life on them.

After a lengthy, stimulating exchangeof questions, answers, and commentsamong audience members and thepanelists, conferees moved to Tuesday’sluncheon, accented by an entertaining talkby former NASA astronaut Winston Scott.He described in delightful, captivatingdetail a shuttle flight from launch tolanding. Although it might sound like allfun and games, he reminded listeners ofthe many biomedical lessons yet to belearned in the next fifty years of humanspaceflight. Future space travelers willneed space suits that are moremaneuverable and reliable than the existing350-lb model, and he predicted people willgo into space for fun once spaceflightbecomes more reliable and affordable.Meanwhile, Scott reminded everyone,space exploration is a great educationaltool, and we must figure out ways to takeadvantage of this fact.

The first of two sessions on Tuesdayafternoon involved what panel moderatorJ. Walter Faulconer from Johns HopkinsUniversity/Applied Physics Laboratorydescribed as “four members of the psychicnetwork” looking at the goals andchallenges of the next fifty years. From a


AAS NEWS

NASA Headquarters’ perspective, DougCooke pointed to the strategy of developingan “open architecture” that includesthirteen different international spaceorganizations and civil enterprises to takehumans back to the Moon by 2020 and onto Mars. He said we are beginning to livethe future of space exploration even as wewitness the end of what we developed overthe last fifty years. Always the insightfulprovocateur, JSC’s Wendell Mendell askedif there is anything really magical inthinking about the next fifty years.Reminding everyone of the PayneCommission’s 1986 report titledPioneering the Space Frontier: An ExcitingVision of Our Next Fifty Years in Space,he called it “extraordinary” for providingan appropriate time scale for thinking aboutthe future in an intelligent fashion. In termsof both pace and budget, Mendellsuggested the 1986 report made, and stillmakes, “eminent sense” for the period1986-2036. Agreeing with Cooke’sobservation that “a good strategic plan iscritical” to the success of future spaceexploration, Mendell also highlighted thesignificance of a “whole newphenomenon”—high-net-worth individualswho are taking remarkable strides towardlow-earth orbit. This new mixture ofgovernment and civil activities promisesto advance the vision set forth in Pioneeringthe Space Frontier.

The remaining panelists in Session 2—Bretton Alexander, executive director ofthe X-Prize Foundation, and Steven Brodyfrom the International Space University—supplied civil and academic perspectiveson challenging NextGen spaceprofessionals. Alexander said thegovernment needed to do more to createopportunities for entrepreneurs in space.He urged NASA to turn over activities inlow-earth orbit to the private sector as soonas possible and to involve the private sectorsignificantly in cooperative exploration ofthe Moon and beyond. Finally, he describedthe $30-million Google Lunar X-Prizecompetition as a way to accelerate space

Second session panel (Source: AAS)

exploration for the benefit of all humanity,because “if private human spaceflighthappens … everything changes.” Brodyconcentrated on sustaining two fundamentalvisions: extensive human and roboticexploration of the solar system; and whatis possible someday (e.g., lunar Olympics)through commercial enterprise. Hesuggested that sustaining those visionsdepends on “immersion of the public” in“virtual space exploration” through earth-based analogs (e.g., Antarctic and underseaactivities), science centers and museums,commercial theaters, and homeentertainment. Pointing to the GLOBEProgram, Star Count, and Inspiring theNext Generation as examples of using“space as classroom,” he concluded thatwhen you engage children, you engage theirfamily.

Session 3 investigated what young,visionary NextGen leaders themselvesforesee as the future of space exploration.The panel, moderated by Oceaneeringproject engineer/manager Chris Nelson,included Robbie Schingler from NASAAmes, William Pomerantz from the X-Prize Foundation, space artist Karen Lau,Tim Bailey from Zero Gravity Corporation,and Kathleen Coderre from the Space

Generation Advisory Council (SGAC).Nelson opened the session by assertingthat today’s young people “absorb somuch,” because they have far greateraccess to information through so manydifferent media tools and technology thanwere available to previous generations. Hecontended, however, that we have builtconferences around discussing ideas andhave “spun our wheels” in terms of action.

Only two of the Session 3 panelistsdelivered presentations prior to Nelsoninviting “open discussion” among allconferees. Coderre reported the first-round results of an SGAC survey on what276 respondents aged 18-29 envisionedfor space activity during the next fiftyyears. Their general vision entailedhumans becoming an interplanetaryspecies, with the first child being born onanother world. That vision involved threemain themes: ensuring the survival ofhumanity; benefiting all people and ourenvironment; and advancing the frontiersof science and technology. Round 2produced a 50-year roadmap—includingheavy involvement by private industry andan international space-governing body—toward achieving the vision. Coderre’sreport generated some of the most vocal,


Wednesday morning began with ahumorous, informative keynote

At Tuesday evening’s Awards Banquet,William Pomerantz, the X-PrizeFoundation’s director of space projects,entertained diners with a light-heartedassertion: “If you own lunar property, themarket is pretty good right now.”Describing the amount of current andprojected “lunar traffic”—Japan, China,India, the United Kingdom, and Russia—as “awesome,” he explained how theGoogle Lunar X-Prize announced inSeptember 2007 would stimulate privatelyfunded teams to solve importanttechnological problems associated withlunar basing. In just two and one-halfmonths, over 260 competitors, with a wide

Emme Astronautical Literature Award winnerPeter Westwick and Honorable MentionMaura Mackowski (Source: AAS)

Award recipients Curtis Stephenson, JohnCasani, and new Fellow Rick Sturdevant(Source: AAS)

engaging, and stimulating audienceinvolvement heard at an AAS nationalconference in as many as a dozen years.One older conferee remarked that it wasvery beneficial to hear what the youngergeneration was thinking.

To conclude the third session, Schinglerexplained how technologies “outsidespace” could assist “very visual” NextGenspace professionals in overcoming futurechallenges and meeting visionary goals.After the internet bubble burst in 2000-2001, accessing information began tochange from broadcasting to user-generated content (e.g., blogs). Schinglerrecalled science-fiction writer NealStephenson’s 1992 novel Snow Crash andhow its “Earth” software bore aresemblance to virtual-globe programs likeNASA World Wind and Google Earth.Internet programs like Second Life andFacebook link people in virtual worlds,which give participants a second identitythrough which to better understand real-world processes in a “hassle-free way.”Through programs like the NASAPlanetary Data System, Stardust@Home,and Google Moon, large quantities of high-quality space data become available tothousands of people, thereby engagingthem in “participatory exploration.” Thisis the kind of “hands-on learning,”Schingler exclaimed, that “really fires up”young people.

variety of conceptual approaches, alreadyhad expressed interest in the prize. Bypartnering with Falcon as the preferredlaunch provider, with SETI and UniversalSpace Network for communication links,and with Holloman Air Force Base forflight-demonstration purposes, the X-PrizeFoundation could save competitorsmillions of dollars. Through Moon 2.0 andthe Lunar Legacy Program, the X-PrizeFoundation would invite participatoryexploration and a virtual lunar presence formillions of individuals. Touting the hugeeducational potential of the Google LunarX-Prize competition, Pomerantz concludedhis talk by assuring his audience thateveryone on Earth will benefit in some wayfrom what is learned.

The banquet celebration concluded withpresentation of AAS awards. CharlesPellerin received the Space Flight Awardfor conceiving and developing the GreatObservatory Program. Wayne Hale and theSTS-121 flight team and crew garnered theFlight Achievement Award for preparationand launch of Discovery in July 2006. TheVictor A. Prather Award went to CurtisStephenson for his insight and leadershipin managing extravehicular activities, andJohn Casani earned the W. RandolphLovelace II Award for extraordinaryproject management in the Voyager,Galileo, and Cassini missions. Craig

Fischer won the Melbourne W. BoytonAward for his biomedical contributions toNASA human spaceflight. For hisoutstanding promotion of America’s spaceprograms over many years, WalterCronkite merited the John F. KennedyAstronautics Award. Representatives fromthe International Space Stationpartnership—NASA, ESA, JAXA, CSA,Roscosmos, and the Italian SpaceAgency—accepted the Advancement ofInternational Cooperation Award, andBernard Kaufman earned the DirkBrouwer award for his work inastrodynamics. Peter Westwick acceptedthe Eugene M. Emme AstronauticalLiterature Award for his book Into theBlack: JPL and the American SpaceProgram, 1976-2004, and MauraMackowski received honorable mentionfor her book Testing the Limits: AviationMedicine and the Origins of MannedSpace Flight. To conclude thepresentations, AAS President Mark Craigannounced the election of F. LandisMarkley and Rick W. Sturdevant as AASFellows in recognition of their outstandingcontributions to astronautics. For the nightowls, Lockheed Martin Corporationsponsored post-banquet coffee andcordials.

AAS NEWS


Milburn credited the X-PrizeFoundation with stimulating Armadillo’senterprise, because the newly formedcompany paid $5,000 to enter competition,albeit three years behind Burt Rutan, forthe Ansari X-Prize. Beyond beingcompetitors, however, those pursuing theX-Prizes began to realize they were“fellow pioneers in a new industry” just inits infancy. Showing a video of Armadillo’s

Award winner Craig Fischer and his wife,Sandra (Source: AAS)

In Session 4, moderated by Boeing’s JoyBryant, conferees turned their attention tothe future of the International Space Station(ISS). Associate ISS Program ManagerMelanie Saunders from NASA JSC laid outplans for the upcoming year andemphasized the “unbelievable workload”associated with accomplishing ISSExpedition 16 mission objectives. She alsoemphasized the new strategic focus onusing the ISS as a national laboratory,thereby utilizing otherwise unused capacity.Rod Jones from JSC’s ISS Payloads Officeforesaw “quite a bit of science” inupcoming flights: ESA’s ColumbusResearch Lab in December 2007; JAXA’sKibo module in 2008-2009; and NASA’sExPress Logistics Carriers. He alsooutlined the anticipated, overall capacity ofthe fully assembled ISS to accommodatescientific research. Julie Robinson, ISSchief scientist, marveled at how muchscience has been done in synchronizationwith the primary, time-consuming activities

Pixel vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)prototype, a craft he believes “in somesmall way, maybe in some large way,” willchange what it takes to go into space,Milburn described how it was nearing1,000 test launches—as many as ten flightsper day. As of November 2007, Armadillowas participating in various,technologically cutting-edge corporate orNASA programs for lunar landing andascent, plus an Air Force ResearchLaboratory project for OperationallyResponsive Space (ORS) access. Inaddition, Armadillo had signed amemorandum of understanding withXTreme Space to promote a newindividualized sport—rocket-powered“spacediving” from a 100-km altitude in2009. Milburn ended his fascinating talkwith another video recording of a Pixellaunch, landing, refueling without othermaintenance, second launch, and secondlanding in less than two hours. If anyonehad questioned Armadillo’s capability toprototype a workable spacecraft, he mostassuredly dispelled their doubts.

Receiving the Advancement of InternationalCooperation Award (left to right): AlexeyKrasnov (for Roscosmos); Robert Brown (forCSA); Melanie Saunders (for NASA); FredericNordlund (for ESA); Masafumi Yamamoto andYoshinori Yoshimura (for JAXA) (Source: AAS)

of station assembly and maintenance. Thefirst fifteen expeditions during 2000-2007undertook 125 investigations, mostlyhuman research, involving 428 scientistsand completed ninety-four of those.

The five remaining panelists—NASA’sDennis Grounds, Roscosmos’ AlexeyKrasnov, ESA’s Rainer Steinmeyer,JAXA’s Masafumi Yamamoto, and CSA’sWilliam Mackey—discussed how theirrespective organizations planned to use theISS beyond 2010. Grounds described howNASA intends to identify human health andperformance risks relevant to spaceexploration, then develop countermeasuresand technologies by 2020 to mitigate thoserisks. Roscosmos, according to Krasnov,

will focus on basic science but would liketo expand on the applied-science side inpursuit of developing industrial capabilitieson the ISS. He surprised some listeners byrevealing that Russia, in the more distantfuture, might launch its own nationalstation rather than participating in aninternational replacement for the ISS.Steinmeyer said the seventeen members ofESA likely would seek answers to a diverseset of scientific questions, all with an eyetoward Earth applications, but he also

AAS NEWS

presentation titled “Standing on theThreshold of a Dream” by Neil Milburn, afounding member and current vicepresident of Armadillo Aerospace. Herecalled growing up near the Yorkshiremoors in post-WWII England and, at ageeleven, building his first rocket, which hedescribed as “very colorful, because itburned on all surfaces at once.” Aftergraduating from the University of Leedsin 1972 with a chemical engineeringdegree, employment diverted Milburn’sattention from spaceflight but brought himthe United States in 1982 and to Texassome half-dozen years later. Around 1991-1992, he visited Space Center Houston andviewed The Dream Is Alive at its IMAXtheater. He left the screening in tears,because he realized his dream was notalive; it had died twenty or thirty yearsearlier. Then, in 2000, he joined threeyounger men—John Carmack, Phil Eaton,and Russell Blink—to form ArmadilloAerospace and pursue the dream ofinexpensive access to suborbital and orbitalspace.


Fourth session panel (Source: AAS)

Session 5 convened with moderator LynWigbels from the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies pronouncing that itwould focus on “late-breaking news” fromthe first formal meeting of the InternationalSpace Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG) the previous week. Asbackground to what transpired at that 6-7November 2007 meeting in Berlin, theCSA’s Graham Gibbs summarizedmilestones in creation of a document titledGlobal Exploration Strategy: TheFramework for Coordination. He traced itsroots to ESA’s Aurora ExplorationProgramme but found the “real catalyst”in President George Bush’s January 2004“Vision for Space Exploration,” whichclarified that others outside the UnitedStates needed a document to help thempromote coordination and collaboration intheir respective countries. At an April 2006NASA-sponsored conference inWashington, DC, fourteen agencies createdan informal “Global Exploration Strategy”team, which met four months later inMontreal to define a global-coordination

vision. In March 2007, participants met inKyoto to review a draft of the strategydocument, which they made public twomonths later at a gathering in Spineto, Italy.That set the stage for the November 2007ISECG meeting, where twelve of thefourteen members discussed the group’swork plan and terms of reference for acoordination mechanism.

Before opening the floor to audiencequestions, moderator Wigbels introducedNASA’s Gib Kirkham and ESA’s FredericNordlund, who supplied details about theformation of the ISECG and its Berlinmeeting. Nordlund asked, “Why create aBefore opening the floor to audiencequestions, moderator Wigbels introducedNASA’s Gib Kirkham and ESA’s FredericNordlund, who supplied details about theformation of the ISECG and its Berlinmeeting. Nordlund asked, “Why create anew group when many already exist?” Toanswer his own question, he explained theneed for an entity where exchange ofinformation would be the first item on everyagenda. As a coordination mechanism, theISECG would be open and inclusive,flexible and evolutionary, effective, andexpressive of mutual interests. Kirkhamprovided details about six actions theISECG identified as part of its near-termwork plan: (1) creation of an InternationalSpace Exploration coordination tool,already begun by a “synthesis group” ledby George Mason University’s Ian Pryke,

viewed the Columbus module as a test bedfor Europe’s human spaceflight program.For now, as Yamamoto outlined, JAXA isconcentrating primarily on launch of itsKibo module and procurement of H-11Transfer Vehicles for moving cargo fromEarth to the ISS. This session ended withMackey’s description of how Expedition19 would be the first six-crew complementwith a Canadian, and how the CSA’s dual-armed Dextre manipulator would launchon STS-123 in February 2008 to meetupcoming ISS assembly and maintenancerequirements. Beyond 2010, CSA intendedto conduct life-science experiments toinform long-term exploration planning.

To accompany Wednesday’s luncheon,speaker Lori Garver served a perspective“from the political front lines” on possiblenew directions for the U.S. space program.“If space is my quest, why is politics mychosen method?” she asked. Her answerencompassed a family background inMichigan’s Republican political arena, herfirst job in Washington being withDemocrat John Glenn’s campaign forpresident, her thirteen years with theNational Space Society, graduate researchfor John Logsdon on NASA budgets, anda strong personal desire to see someonewho has developed the strongest possiblepro-space position become president. Asan advisor to Hillary Clinton on spaceissues, Garver helped ensure her candidatebecame the first, at the Carnegie Instituteon 4 October 2007, to make a specificcommitment on space policy. Media andindividual-voter interpretations of thatstatement and a subsequent clarification,however, ranged from very supportive toskeptical to downright derogatory. With ayear left in the presidential campaign,Garver encouraged everyone “to dig into”the space-related statements of all thecandidates and carefully consider them.

Before joining the afternoon sessions,diners were encouraged to view the threeentries in the Student Poster Competitionoutside the main conference hall. RiceUniversity’s Jerry Vera had designed a

poster titled “Celebrating 50 Years – ButWhat’s Next.” Jon Winkeller and BrianYoung from Texas A&M submitted“Continuous Access Surface Imager.” AnAuburn University team consisting of RanDai, Ryan Sherril, and Mana Vautier wonthe $1,000 prize with “Explorations inAstrodynamics – Past, Present andBeyond.”

AAS NEWS


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

to show pending actions and by whom; (2)development of a common cartography forthe Moon; (3) common data standards forpresent and future programs; (4)interoperability standards to avoidinterface issues; (5) promotion ofrelationships with existing independentgroups that are committed to coordination;and (6) engaging the public by “getting theword out” about reducing needlessduplication in order to achieve sustainableexploration programs.

Moderator Wigbels next posed severalquestions to all the panelists—theaforementioned Gibbs, Kirkham,Nordlund, and Pryke, plus JAXA’sYoshinori Yoshimura and Russia’sYevgeny Zvedre—and the audience. Heasked why a global exploration strategy isimportant and how it has changed thedialogue in different countries. It sharpensthe focus on long-term plans, saidYoshimura; it brings together those whootherwise might have stayed apart,commented Gibbs; it sharpens the focus ofeach national program, observed Pryke; itoffers a refreshing bottom-up approachinstead of the traditional top-downapproach to clarification of what resourceseach participant can commit, contendedZvedre. A comment from the audienceabout International Traffic in ArmsRegulations (ITAR) being one of thebiggest barriers to internationalcooperation in recent years led Zvedre toremark that it will require considerablecourage and political will to make theGlobal Exploration Strategy a sustainableendeavor. Yoshimura admitted setbacks incooperative or collaborative programs, buthe expressed optimism in our ability tosustain an international strategy; Nordlundbelieved that no matter how difficult itbecomes to establish and sustain such astrategy, we will need the “stability factorof international cooperation” more thanever during the twenty-first century. Nearthe end of the discussion, Pryke remindedeveryone that spaceflight always has beena tool of foreign policy, which has

significant implications for how the ISECGperforms.

Session 6 on the space frontier’s policyand political landscape further evidencedthe more participatory character of thisyear’s national conference. Moderator BillAdkins, president of Adkins Strategies,introduced panelists Paul Carliner,formerly on the professional staff of theSenate Appropriations Committee, andEric Sterner, former NASA associatedeputy administrator for policy andplanning. He then invited everyone to joina relatively free-wheeling exploration ofthe overall landscape. All agreed thatNASA’s budget prospects are “a bitominous” due to fierce competition forshrinking funds. In the past NASA, likeother federal agencies, relied on “whiteknights” to joust for funds but, as Carlinernoted, “competing for very scarce dollarswith some very popular programs” meanshaving to “elevate our game” if we wantto overpower others’ white knights. Oneway to do this, with 2008 being an electionyear, is to formulate “very simple anddirect proposals” without reference to partyaffiliation and to insist that congressionaland presidential candidates makesubstantive commitments in response tothese proposals. Another way is to avoidgoing it alone, to acknowledge and utilizecommonality among related groups inscience, aeronautics, and astronautics. TheNASA budget, as a percentage of thewhole, likely will remain stagnant unlesspublic pressure sparks a congressionaldebate on why we have a space program,Sterner asserted.

Discussion turned to whether a policygap exists and, if so, who should be heldresponsible. NASA never was charged withtying what it does to the country’s higher-level goals. Perhaps policy makers shouldhave demanded that NASA make thoseties; on the other hand, perhapsresponsibility for clarifying those tiesbelongs with the policy-makingcommunity, not NASA. Regardless ofwhere that responsibility lies, Sterner noted

that neither the president nor NASA isjustified in saying all sorts of grand,strategic things will be done, then refusingto spend the dollars necessary to do the job.Perhaps closing the policy gap depends onbetter marketing to sell NASA’s purposeto both the American public and policymakers, suggested Mark Craig. Thatprompted Wendell Mendell to remark onhow government agencies, once created,are “by and large” immortal but, likeNASA, they can wander aimlessly if thelack a strategic statement of theirexistential purpose. Steven Brodywondered whether cultivation of“understanding, tolerance, cooperation”with other spacefaring nations, especiallyChina, might be a “great reason” forNASA’s existence, but his suggestioncaused a ripple of disagreement amongthose who distrust China.

As the evening shadows lengthened andremaining attendees anticipated the closingreception sponsored by Jacobs TechnologyESC Group, AAS President Mark Craigadjourned the conference with a briefsummation. He observed that “two greatdays” of presentations and discussions lefteveryone with two things to ponder. First,what the technical world calls “exploringthe trade space” had been done in aninstructive, thought-provoking waythroughout the sessions. Second, Zuber’s“history of the history of Mars” andMilburn’s “rocket boy” keynote illustratedthe “power of stories” to help us betterconnect with and understand things. As aparting suggestion, he encouraged listenersto think about using “story” to shape oraffect what is going to happen and toengage the public in our endeavors.

AAS NEWS


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

Into the Black: JPL and the American SpaceProgram, 1976-2004

Into the Black: JPL and the AmericanSpace Program, 1976-2004, by Peter J.Westwick, New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 2007, 416 pages, $40.00, ISBN978-0-300-11075-3 [hardcover]

Reviewed by Rick W. Sturdevant

Peter Westwick’s Into the Blackcombines solid narrative with thoughtfulanalysis to deliver a rich slice from thenearly seventy-year history of the JetPropulsion Laboratory. Picking up thestory line where Clayton R. Koppes’ JPLand the American Space Program (1982)left off, Westwick draws from animpressive variety of primary andsecondary sources to explain the furtherevolution of one of America’s foremostspace institutions. Candid assessment ofhow external forces affected JPL’sdevelopment and how JPL influenced theoutside world illustrates how thisdistinguished enterprise not only survived,but thrived.

Organized in three parts coinciding withthe tenure of three successive directors,Into the Black probes their respectiveleadership traits, vision, and influences onJPL. Although Bruce Murray (1976-1982)might have been selected to promoteinnovation after conservative WilliamPickering’s tenure, Murray’s ownunderlying conservatism led to theperpetuation of traditional practices andprocesses when it came to buildingspacecraft. Lew Allen (1982-1991)shunned his predecessor’s mercurialapproach to managing laboratory affairs,preferring a politically quiet, methodicalstyle that enabled JPL to recover itsprimary mission in planetary exploration.By the time the innately cautious Ed Stone(1991-2001) took over, declining budgetscompelled him to undertake revolutionary

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

change in the form of a “faster, better,cheaper” approach to building spacecraft.When Stone retired in 2001, he left anaccumulation of unpopular decisions thatprompted new director Charles Elachi todefend JPL’s culture against those whowished to change it by embracingcorporate management philosophies.

Westwick describes the “JPL-Caltech-NASA triangle,” and the longstandingacademic and administrative tensionbetween the laboratory and the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology from which itoriginated. Despite the 1976 “orangereport,” which recommended various stepsto improve campus-lab interaction, morethan a geographic gulf persisted betweenJPL and Caltech. Incentives certainlyexisted for Caltech to divest from JPL, butthe management fee that NASA awardedCaltech on the JPL contract constituted asignificant proportion of the campusbudget. Administrators at Caltech tendedto concern themselves with broad policyissues involving JPL, leaving mostprogrammatic decisions to NASA and thelab’s director. Because JPL had a basicallyambiguous role as independent contractorand NASA lab, expansion of JPL’s non-NASA work in the 1970s and 1980s tiltedthe triangular relationship in favor of“Caltech’s JPL.” The phase-out of suchwork in the 1990s shifted it back toward“NASA’s JPL.” Essentially, JPL’scontinued existence depended on its abilityto adapt in balancing its autonomy and itsaccountability to others.

Westwick also examines successes andfailures in specific JPL interplanetarymissions. From the two Voyager spacecraftin the 1970s to the Magellan and Galileoprojects in the 1980s, and from Cassini inthe 1990s to “a multitude of missions” at

the beginning of the twenty-first century,Into the Black reminds readers howchallenging it is to triumph over humanfrailties and “galactic ghouls.” Westwicksuggests that diversification into fieldsranging from earth sciences and astronomyto energy, defense, and microelectronicshelped “damp the amplitude of the success-failure curve” for JPL’s planetary missions.Still, Westwick finds validity in thecommon saying around JPL that “the labis one failure away from closing, and onetransistor away from failure.”

Though not the final word on JPL,Westwick’s book goes far towardpreserving this remarkable institution’shistory. JPL insiders and a larger populationof interested outsiders should find itinstructive with regard to what has been,and to some degree still is, right or wrongwith our approach to outer space and spaceexploration. Into the Black is filled withlessons on institutional longevity. Perhapsa third volume, written twenty years henceby another talented historian, will detail thefurther adventures of JPL and itscontributions to the American spaceprogram.

2006 AAS Eugene M. Emme Astronautical Literature Award: Winner


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

Testing the Limits: Aviation Medicine and theOrigins of Manned Space Flight

Maura Mackowski’s Testing the Limitsdemonstrates outstanding scholarship inthis exploration of the history of Americanmilitary aviation medicine. In telling thestory of the field’s development from 1929to the early days of manned spaceflight,Mackowski examines a vast array ofprimary and secondary sources in order torecognize those involved. Mackowskifocuses primarily upon American efforts,but also recognizes the role played byGerman émigrés after the Second WorldWar.

Testing the Limits begins with theassignment of Harry Armstrong to WrightField as a consultant in 1929. Armstrongmade the serendipitous discovery of a high-altitude testing chamber in the basementof the building to which he had beenassigned, and requested permission to usethe device to study the human body’sreaction to conditions experienced bypilots at high altitude. This led to thecreation of the Aeromedical ResearchLaboratory at Wright Field. Rather thanrelying on others to undergo the dangerousexperiments conducted at the AeromedicalResearch Laboratory, Mackowski notesthat Armstrong frequently served as asubject himself. Working in conjunctionwith individuals at the Mayo Clinic,Armstrong had by 1941 helped the armygain valuable insights into methods forallowing personnel to more successfullyfunction in the environment above theearth.

Reviewed by Donald C. Elder III

Testing the Limits: Aviation Medicine andthe Origins of Manned Space Flight, byMaura Phillips Mackowski, CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press,2006, 289 pages, $49.95, ISBN 1-58544-439-1 [hardcover]

World War II provided a powerfulstimulus for further US research in aviationmedicine, but it also caused a drive forsimilar knowledge in Nazi Germany.Mackowski discusses Hubertus Strugholdand Germany’s pre-war developments inaviation medicine during chapter two. Inchapter three, she examines both Americanand German research during the World WarII. In a balanced fashion, Mackowskiconsiders whether Strughold engaged in,or even knew about, the heinousexperiments conducted on concentrationcamp inmates by the Nazis to gain datafor use in aviation medicine. She thenexplores the American program, known asOperation Paperclip, which broughtStrughold and many other Germanscientists to the United States to work forthe American military.

The post-war period includedadjustments in the field of military aviationmedicine necessitated by the arrival of thejet engine. While this represented asignificant change in medical aviationmedicine, an even larger development soonloomed on the horizon: the concept of spacetravel. In the wake of the public concernexpressed by the American publicfollowing the Soviet Union’s successfullaunch of Sputnik in 1957, the newlyconstituted National Aeronautics andSpace Administration decided to embracea manned spaceflight program in 1958.This decision, Mackowski notes, lead tothe involvement of Randy Lovelace and hisAlbuquerque, New Mexico clinic in theselection process. The New Mexicoconnection in the quest for manned spaceflight was furthered by John Stapp andJoseph Kittinger at the airfield inAlamogordo. These combined efforts ledto the six Mercury missions in the early

Donald C. Elder III is a professor ofhistory at Eastern New MexicoUniversity.

1960s, and paved the way for the Apolloprogram.

While the name “manned spaceflight”implied that only males would journey intoouter space, Mackowski describes anumber of highly qualified females whohoped to become astronauts as well. Shepoignantly describes the efforts that thesewomen took in offering their services totheir nation, and the process by whichfemale participation at that time wasultimately denied.

In her introduction, Mackowski notesthat the movie The Right Stuff gave manyviewers the impression that the relationshipbetween Mercury astronauts and medicalpersonnel assigned to the program wasadversarial. Testing the Limits should helpto clarify this erroneous assumption. Welldocumented and convincingly argued,Mackowski’s book deserves high praise fortelling the story of those individuals whohelped aviators and astronauts climb everhigher into the heavens.

2006 AAS Eugene M. Emme Astronautical Literature Award: Honorable Mention


� �

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

___________________________________________________________________________________Title Company

___________________________________________________________________________________Address

___________________________________________________________________________________City State Zip Code

___________________________________________________________________________________Phone E-mail

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

Payment Method❒ Check Enclosed❒ Credit Card

❒ Visa ❒ Amex ❒ MasterCard

________________________________________Credit Card Number

________________________________________Expiration Date

________________________________________Signature

Membership Application

Mail to: AAS6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Fax to: 703-866-3526

Membership Benefits Include: Subscriptions to the quarterly TheJournal of the Astronautical Sciences and the bi-monthly SPACETIMES magazine, as well as reduced rates at all AAS conferences.Visit the AAS website for additional information about benefits.

�

703-866-0020www.astronautical.org

IN MEMORIUM

Dr. Paul Dergarabedian, a former president of AAS (1969-1971) passed away onNovember 17, 2007, at the age of 85. Dr. Dergarabedian was a noted scientistand had a significant role in the development of America’s space programs. Hewas Director of Systems Research at TRW for 25 years, a systems analyst for theAerospace Corporation, and a Visiting Professor at CalTech. He earned his B.S.and M.S. in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics at the University of Wisconsin,his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Physics at CalTech, and was Phi BetaKappa.


UPCOMING EVENTS

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings

AAS Events Schedule

The 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.Carnegie Institution of WashingtonComputer Sciences Corporation

AAS CORPORATE MEMBERS

January 27-31, 2008*AAS/AIAA Space Flight MechanicsWinter MeetingThe San Luis ResortGalveston, TexasFor information: www.space-flight.org

February 1, 2008*Symposium Honoring Byron D. TapleyThe University of Texas at AustinAustin, TexasFor information: www.csr.utexas.edu

February 1-6, 200831st AAS Guidance and ControlConferenceBeaver Run Resort and Conference CenterBreckenridge, ColoradoFor information:www.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

February 10-12, 2008*Space Blitz on the HillWashington, DCFor information: call 703-866-0020

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityGeneral Dynamics AISGeorge Mason University, CAPRHoneywell Technology Solutions, Inc.International Space UniversityJacobs Technology, Inc.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryKinetX, Inc.Lockheed Martin CorporationN. Hahn & Co., Inc.NoblisNorthrop Grumman Space TechnologyOrbital Sciences Corporation

March 4-6, 200846th Robert H. Goddard MemorialSymposiumExploration to Commercialization: Going toWork in SpaceGreenbelt Marriott HotelGreenbelt, MarylandFor information: www.astronautical.org

June 13-15, 2008*Student CanSat CompetitionAmarillo, TexasFor information: www.cansatcompetition.com

June 29-July 1, 2008*F. Landis Markley Astronautics SymposiumThe Hyatt Regency Chesapeake BayCambridge, MarylandFor information: contact [email protected]

RaytheonSAICThe Tauri GroupTechnica, Inc.Texas A&M UniversityUnited Launch AllianceUnivelt, Inc.Universal Space NetworkUniversity of FloridaUtah State University / Space Dynamics Lab.Virginia TechWomen in AerospaceWyle Laboratories


6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #565

Springfield, VA

Documents

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · 2 SPACE TIMES • November/December 2007 THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2007 ISSUE 6–VOLUME