===== ASTRONAUTICAL EVOLUTION =====
Issue 11, 1 September 2006 -- 37th Apollo Anniversary Year
- Debate: What direction for UK space policy?
- Debate: UK space policy -- Let's inspire the younger generation!, by Simon Evetts
- Debate: UK space policy -- Analysis of the options, by Stephen Ashworth
- Art exhibition: "The Starry Messenger" -- Space art at Compton Verney
=============== AE ===============
(1) Debate: What direction for UK space policy?
by Stephen Ashworth
How could we in Britain contribute most effectively to the exploration and development of space?
Or (a different question): how could we gain most for Britain from the exploration and development of space?
Or (another different -- but more realistic -- question): what realistic advice on the British Space Strategy should we be giving to our constituency MP, the BNSC, the Minister for Space and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
As Jerry Stone wrote recently (2 August), on the subject of the UK and manned spaceflight: "The RAS Commission on Human Spaceflight came up with a number of reasons for the UK to reverse its long-standing opposition to involvement in this area. The recent meeting at the BIS agreed, as did the public who voted on the BBC website. There have been other indications that the tide of opinion is turning and that the UK should have the opportunity to benefit as our European neighbours do."
In other words, many people are tending to answer the three questions I posed above by calling for the UK to rejoin the European astronaut corps, with the expectation of being able to fly a small number of Britons to the International Space Station for scientific, particularly medical, research. One suggestion is that two astronauts might fly over a period of three years.
Yet there remains a diversity of opinion. The Mars Society UK remains strongly focused on Mars, and sees the possibilities for UK astronautics in this light. Meanwhile the Royal Aeronautical Society's provisional conclusion so far (as at the beginning of this year) leaned more towards supporting commercial passenger spaceflight to low Earth orbit.
In his document "The Case for UK Support of Human Spaceflight", available for download at http://www.geocities.com/spaceflight_uk/Human_Spaceflight.html, Jerry Stone names the eight countries which currently make up the European astronaut corps, and asks: "Are all these countries wrong in their belief in the value of human spaceflight, or is it the UK that is out of step?"
The greatest value of manned spaceflight cited there is its inspirational effect on the younger generation. The excitement of the Apollo missions caused large numbers of students to turn to studying science, technology and maths, enabling a wealth-creating technology boom in the USA. Meanwhile Britain over the past 15 years has seen a major fall of interest away from physics, chemistry and maths at A-level and degree level.
Clearly the Space Minister is irrelevant -- this assessment of Britain's educational state suggests that it is the Dept of Education that should be funding British astronauts!
-- Stephen Ashworth
=============== AE ===============
(2) Debate: UK space policy -- Let's inspire the younger generation!
by Simon Evetts, 2 August 2006
I'd like to support Jerry Stone's point concerning the attractiveness of "space" and its ability to inspire youngsters to study science. As a space life scientist I have presented at schools (as I am sure a number of you also have), and space must be one of the top 3 or 4 most attractive subjects to kids, they love it! We have 100s (maybe 1000s?) of people involved in space engineering, electronics and other hard sciences and many in the soft sciences, but what inspires the kids I talk to is whether they could actually go into space (not what space jobs they could do on the ground). The key point is that there must be the possibility (even if it is remote) for a Briton to float about in micro-G for the kids to be really inspired. It's not what I do that gets the kids' attention, it's the pictures and video footage of me bobbing about weightless that grabs them.
With regard to this one issue (inspiring kids), to my mind, whether Britain follows a government-funded astronaut programme or a private sector "tourist" programme, the key is to have UK professionals who actually visit or work in space, however they get up there. It is these jobs that will lead to an increase in science interest and motivate older kids to go to uni to get the necessary qualifications to be an "astronaut" (whether it be astro-physician, engineer, psychologist or whatever). The increase in science activities and all its associated spin offs and the positive effect on UK industry will benefit everyone.
As an outsider of this [discussion] group, it appears to me that group members are all after the same thing: getting Britain involved in human space activities. If some of us British space advocates work towards a government plan and others work more in line with the burgeoning private sector programmes, I think we will get there in all likelihood through both means. Lets champion both!
-- Simon N. Evetts BA (Hons) MSc PhD
Senior Lecturer Exercise Sciences
Health and Exercise Sciences Group
Faculty of Health and Human Sciences
Thames Valley University
(Advance Projects Lead [Space Medicine],
European Astronaut Centre from Sept).
=============== AE ===============
(3) Debate: UK space policy -- Analysis of the options
by Stephen Ashworth
Too often, proposals that the UK should increase its involvement in space exploration or utilisation adhere to the following format: the speaker advances his or her special interest in space, presents arguments in its favour, and ignores the alternatives. (I, too, have been guilty of this.)
But an intelligent approach requires an objective comparison of all the options, and a rational ordering of priorities based on the costs and benefits to the UK of those options.
Here, I do not argue for any course of action. Rather, I attempt a first draft of the pros and cons of the different options. It will be up to those with more technical knowledge than myself to refine this survey, if they so desire.
The options
What are the realistic near-term options for the UK government in space? The Default Option is to maintain existing commitments unchanged. But what alternative policies are possible?
The public debate so far has tended to focus on a single question: whether the British government should change its current policy of not being involved in manned spaceflight -- this was the focus of the RAS and RAeS studies. Obviously, the debate should be far broader than this, given that there are a number of other important possibilities.
The options for the UK include:
- rejoining ESA's astronaut programme, with the goal of carrying out scientific, particularly biomedical, research on the ISS (argued by the UK's biomedical community) (the Biomedical Option);
- rejoining ESA's astronaut programme, with the goal of participating in international, though almost certainly NASA-led, manned lunar and planetary exploration (argued by the RAS) (the Manned Moon-Mars Option);
- using existing DTI mechanisms to support commercial spaceplane development in Britain (argued by David Ashford of Bristol Spaceplanes Ltd, and also the conclusion of the BIS symposium on space tourism in November 2005) (the Spaceplane Option);
- increasing UK commitment to scientific robotic planetary exploration, particularly through ESA's Aurora programme, so as to achieve a higher rate of missions, particularly to Mars and Venus, and probably focusing on the goal of a robotic Mars sample return mission (argued by the Beagle 2 team) (the Robotic Moon-Mars Option);
- developing, either alone or with international partners, using robotic systems, a prototype solar power satellite to demonstrate a non-polluting, sustainable successor to fossil fuels (argued by myself at the 27 May BIS/RAeS meeting) (the Solar Option);
- embarking on robotic asteroid exploration, either alone, with international partners, or as part of ESA's Aurora programme, with the twin goals of prospecting near-Earth asteroids as an economic resource, particularly for a large-scale solar power system, and demonstrating technologies for deflecting a dangerous asteroid away from a collision course with Earth (the Asteroid Option).
Obviously, these six options for change (and other variants which one might propose, such as prizes on the X-Prize model, or a government astronaut programme outside the framework of ESA) all represent desirable things. Further, the pursuit of one generally tends to enable another (e.g. adopting the Biomedical Option clearly makes easier a subsequent decision to pursue the Manned Moon-Mars Option, all other things being equal).
But the financial and political constraints suggest that, in the next few years, only one of these options is likely to be adopted. (But see Simon Evetts, above, for the contrary view.)
How should one evaluate the pros and cons? They clearly depend upon two sets of factors: the future developments which one anticipates will be important, and -- since a political decision is being asked for -- the government's political goals for the nation.
These factors are of course matters of vision and judgement, not of fact.
Future developments
What important future developments in space may be in prospect over the next 10 to 20 years? They include:
- completion of the International Space Station (by 2010) and regular use thereof, with a crew of about 6 government astronauts and occasional private visitors (the ISS Development);
- renewed manned lunar exploration, leading possibly -- but not necessarily -- to manned Mars exploration, using infrastructure owned by NASA but probably flying a small number of guest astronauts from outside the USA (the VSE Development);
- the appearance of an economically self-sustaining suborbital space tourist industry, starting around 2008 with flights operated by Virgin Galactic (the Suborbital Commercial Development);
- the development of one or more brands of commercial reusable craft capable of flying passengers and cargo to orbit, leading to an economically self-sustaining orbital space tourist industry, as well as cheaper access to the ISS (the Orbital Commercial Development).
Although not new developments, I would suggest that we should also keep in mind the following highly relevant factors:
- continued pressure on terrestrial sources of energy as a result of both dwindling reserves of fossil fuels and continued environmental concerns about the effects of pollution by carbon dioxide and radioactive waste (the Energy Problem);
- the fact that terrestrial industrial civilisation and the Western way of life are founded on the principle of growth, whereas ALMOST ALL the natural resources of use to it are extraterrestrial (the Resource Fact).
The political goals
What are the relevant political goals which any UK government is likely to have for the nation? Clearly, they include, amongst other things:
- promoting economic growth and prosperity;
- securing Britain's energy supplies;
- keeping Britain up-to-date with emerging science and technology;
- maintaining the impression (though not the reality) of keeping public spending down.
These suggest to my mind (though not necessarily to others) that maximising the benefit to Britain involves:
- increasing space activities that are profit-making and capable of sustainable growth;
- positioning the UK (including its schools, universities and industries) as a supplier rather than a purchaser of these activities.
Obviously, these processes have a tendency to occur spontaneously without government intervention (as the case of Virgin Galactic illustrates). But any British government has an interest in promoting British industry -- note Tony Blair's recent high-profile visit to California to fly the flag for British business -- and space activities are therefore possible candidates for public-private partnerships.
Analysis of the options -- advantages versus disadvantages
The Biomedical Option -- PRO
- UK involved in collecting medical data, maintaining the long-standing UK strength in aviation medicine;
- inspiration for young people, though possibly a fairly low-profile one (compare Helen Sharman's flight, as also the reported fact that many people in Britain are under the impression that we already have astronauts flying to the ISS);
- no new technology development required in the UK;
- experience goes some way towards facilitating future UK manned spaceflight, both as planetary exploration and as commercial passenger spaceflight.
The Biomedical Option -- CONTRA
- fails to address problem of high-cost space access;
- cannot become economically self-supporting without other developments;
- vulnerable to cancellation as economy measure;
- all access to infrastructure would have to be purchased abroad;
- scientific data gathered likely to largely duplicate what other countries are doing;
- very low flight rate, no more than one UK astronaut per year;
- research in orbit has poor track record of producing commercially viable products;
- cheaper space access needed before biomedical research can be done in space on a regular economic basis;
- private individuals and research institutions likely to have little participation;
- UK citizens already able to become NASA astronauts by adopting US citizenship;
- requires change in current government policy.
The Manned Moon-Mars Option -- PRO
- UK involved in on-the-spot lunar/planetary research by astronauts;
- very high-profile inspiration for young people (compare Apollo);
- no new technology development required in the UK;
- possibly serendipitous benefits, intrinsically unpredictable.
The Manned Moon-Mars Option -- CONTRA
- fails to address problem of high-cost space access;
- will certainly not be economically self-supporting for at least several decades, and possibly not until the 22nd century;
- highly vulnerable to cancellation as economy measure (compare Apollo);
- UK participation highly vulnerable to decisions taken abroad, most likely in America;
- all access to infrastructure has to be purchased abroad;
- UK participation in missions unlikely to have much effect on UK universities' access to scientific data gathered;
- UK participation in missions unlikely to result in any additional discoveries;
- extremely low flight rate, no more than one UK astronaut every few years;
- private individuals and research institutions likely to have little participation;
- UK citizens already able to become NASA astronauts by adopting US citizenship;
- requires change in current government policy.
The Spaceplane Option -- PRO
- UK potentially able to make a unique contribution to a critical spaceflight breakthrough;
- UK already has a leading involvement in commercial passenger spaceflight through Virgin Galactic, Bristol Spaceplanes, Starchaser Industries and Reaction Engines;
- government spending intended to kick-start an economically self-supporting industry;
- constantly increasing flight rate (no astronauts for 5 years or so, rising to perhaps hundreds a year after about 15 years);
- infrastructure built in UK highly marketable abroad, thus creating permanent jobs and benefiting balance of payments;
- high-profile inspiration for young people;
- a large part of the risk borne by private investors;
- end product should make ALL other activities in space cheaper and vastly more common;
- builds on long-standing UK strength in innovative transport engineering;
- private individuals and research institutions ultimately enabled to access space;
- UK has a window of opportunity to get ahead while other countries dawdle;
- does not require any change in current government policy;
- does not require any new government institutions.
The Spaceplane Option -- CONTRA
- new infrastructure has to be developed in the UK;
- waiting period to get the first UK government employee into orbit a few years longer than going through ESA;
- physical resemblance of a spaceplane to Concorde likely to cause a negative kneejerk reaction among those who would denigrate British history;
- if we wait a decade or so, private ventures, mainly in America, will develop the technology anyway, so why bother to compete?
The Robotic Moon-Mars Option -- PRO
- currently sluggish Aurora programme needs speeding up;
- medium-profile (low-profile?) inspiration for young people;
- builds on UK experience (Beagle 2, Huygens) and UK strength in robotics;
- comparison of different geological histories of Earth, Mars and Venus of incalculable but possibly enormous long-term importance in keeping Earth habitable for life;
- likely to facilitate some sort of UK input into a possible future NASA-led manned Mars programme;
- increases the amount of infrastructure to be built in the UK;
- UK already has a commitment to Aurora, so this option does not require any change in current government policy.
The Robotic Moon-Mars Option -- CONTRA
- additional investment in Aurora might bring relatively small benefit over current level of commitment, compared with the same investment in another option;
- fails to address problem of high-cost space access;
- focus on scientific goals postpones likely economic benefit from asteroid exploration;
- vulnerable to cancellation as economy measure;
- UK-built infrastructure has limited market abroad.
The Solar Option -- PRO
- directly addresses three problems (carbon dioxide pollution, radioactive waste pollution, and sustainable energy supply) of enormous current public and political concern;
- long-term prospect of an economically self-sustaining industry;
- extreme desirability of sustainable pollution-free energy brings this as close to secure against cancellation as any space programme can be;
- medium-profile (high-profile?) inspiration for young people;
- develops an economic motivation to achieve low-cost space access;
- builds on UK strength in robotics;
- UK has a window of opportunity to get ahead while other countries dawdle;
- infrastructure built in UK highly marketable abroad (e.g. to India, China);
- does not require any change in current government policy on manned spaceflight.
The Solar Option -- CONTRA
- requires long-term vision, making it politically weak;
- requires long-term development of asteroid and/or lunar resources for the system to become economically self-supporting and minimally polluting;
- will not make a major contribution to world energy usage for a couple of decades;
- does not directly address problem of high-cost space access;
- probably requires change in current government policy on energy.
The Asteroid Option -- PRO
- medium-profile inspiration for young people;
- develops an economic motivation to achieve low-cost space access;
- builds on UK experience (Beagle 2, Huygens) and UK strength in robotics;
- dual aim of long-term economic growth and security from cosmic impacts kills two birds with one stone;
- some infrastructure to be built in the UK;
- in the longer term asteroid materials likely to be highly marketable in near-Earth space, with the prospect of becoming economically self-supporting after two or three decades;
- precedent of Falklands war, fought partly with an eye to the UK's claim on any future exploitation of natural resources in Antarctica;
- UK has a window of opportunity to get ahead while other countries dawdle;
- does not require a major change in current government policy.
The Asteroid Option -- CONTRA
- requires long-term vision, as the system will not become economically self-supporting for a couple of decades, making it politically weak;
- does not directly address problem of high-cost space access;
- politicians liable to get confused by a programme which aims to achieve two goals at once;
- UK-built infrastructure has limited market abroad.
Obviously, I have included every benefit and drawback which occurred to me, and in no particular order. No doubt I have missed some, and maybe exaggerated others.
The next stage of analysis would entail assigning weights to these factors in order to enable some rough quantitative comparison of the options, but I shall not attempt that here.
-- Stephen Ashworth
=============== AE ===============
(4) Art exhibition: "The Starry Messenger" -- Space art at Compton Verney
The Compton Verney art gallery, near Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, UK, is currently hosting an exhibition of space art, "The Starry Messenger".
The exhibition includes paintings, drawings, photography, music, sculpture, video installations, and a collection of science fiction magazines. Artists include Glenn Brown, John Cage, John Flamsteed, Graham Gussin, David A. Hardy, William Kentridge, Steve McQueen, Aleksandra Mir, Heather and Ivan Morison, John Murphy, John Russell, Bridget Smith, Wolfgang Tillmans and Fred Tomaselli. Also featured is commissioned work by Paul McDevitt and Mark Titchner.
Further details on the Compton Verney website at http://www.comptonverney.org.uk.
David A. Hardy writes: "several of my early 50s paintings are on show, and they seem to create a lot of interest; one of them, which you may see at http://www.hardyart.demon.co.uk/pages-gallery2/early.html even shows a UK spaceport at Woomera!"
The exhibition is open Tues.-Sun. 10am-5pm, until 10 September.
-- S.A.
=============== AE ===============