THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · the magazine of the american astronautical...

SPACE TIMES • July/August 2007 1

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICANASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETYISSUE 4 VOLUME 46

JULY/AUGUST 2007

2 SPACE TIMES • July/August 2007

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY

JULY/AUGUST 2007

ISSUE 4–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

Mark K. Craig, SAICEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Frank A. Slazer, United Launch AllianceVICE 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

John E. Cochran, Jr., Auburn UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE

Michael F. Zedd, Naval Research LaboratoryVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL

Lyn D. Wigbels, RWI InternationalVICE 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 2007Paul J. Cefola, MIT/ConsultantMichael L. CianconeJohn W. Douglass, Aerospace Industries AssociationG. Allen FlyntRobert G. Melton, Penn State UniversityLinda V. Moodie, NOAAArnauld Nicogossian, George Mason UniversityFrederic Nordlund, European Space AgencyJames A. Vedda, The Aerospace CorporationThomas L. WilsonTERM EXPIRES 2008Peter M. Bainum, Howard UniversityJohn C. BeckmanDavid A. Cicci, Auburn UniversityLynn F. H. ClineNancy S. A. Colleton, Institute for Global

Environmental StrategiesRoger D. Launius, Smithsonian InstitutionJonathan T. Malay, Lockheed MartinClayton Mowry, Arianespace, Inc.Kathy J. Nado, Computer Sciences CorporationRichard M. Obermann, House Committee on ScienceTERM 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

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 subscriptionscan 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.

REPRINTSSee a story you’d like to share? Reprints are available for allarticles in SPACE TIMES and for all papers published in TheJournal of the Astronautical Sciences.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGEAstrodynamics Meets Somewhere in Time 3

FEATURESPutting NASA’s Budget in Perspective 4How does funding for NASA stack up compared to the variousprograms often cited as more deserving than the space agency?by Jeff Brooks

Experiencing Microgravity 6NASA’s Reduced Gravity Student Flight Opportunities Programprovides a unique opportunity to experience the environment inwhich our astronauts live and work.by Lynn F. H. Cline

Do You Know Where Your Satellite is Tonight? 8Tracking satellites and their orbits is one of the most importantspace endeavors, and also among the least understood andappreciated.by Dave Finkelman

CALL FOR PAPERS31st AAS Guidance and Control Conference 12February 1-6, 2008

AAS NEWSAAS International Space University Scholarship Report 14by Kirk Kittell

2007 AAS National Conference and 54th Annual Meeting 16November 12-14, 2007

NOTES ON NEW BOOKSFrom Nazis to NASA: The Life of Wernher von Braun 20Reviewed by Mark Williamson

Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fearsabout Encountering Extraterrestrials 21Reviewed by De Witt Douglas Kilgore

UPCOMING EVENTS 23


PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

FRONT: Space Shuttle Endeavour, docked to the Destiny Laboratory of the ISS, is pictured along with the Canadian builtRemote Manipulator System (Canadarm1) and Canadarm2 during the third EVA of STS-118. (Source: NASA)

BACK: Dwarfed by mechanical complexity, the Mars Phoenix Lander is lowered into a thermal vacuum chamber forthermal environment testing. The Phoenix was successfully launched on August 4th, 2007. (Source: NASA/JPL/UA/Lockheed Martin)

ON THE COVER

Astrodynamics MeetsSomewhere in Time“Beyond fantasy. Beyond obsession. Beyond time itself ... “

After stepping off the ferry onto Mackinac Island, I took a carriage to the hotelwhich was hosting the AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference. During theride, I noticed a poster emblazoned with the eye-catching tagline above. “Wow, this isreally innovative publicity for our conference,” I thought. When we got a little closer,I saw that it was actually a poster for Somewhere in Time, a movie from 1980 that wasfilmed at the island’s Grand Hotel. Though it may have been a misconception, it wasn’ta bad experience to build expectation.

And the expectation was exceeded. Our AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference was held this year on August 19-23at Mackinac Island, Michigan. This conference has a distinguished forty year history of uniting specialists from around theworld to discuss solutions to thorny problems and to share cutting-edge techniques. The quality of the papers and their authors’expertise make the oft-used phrase “world class” truly justified here.

About 170 papers were presented in twenty-four sessions. Subjects ranged from space debris to atmospheric density analyses,from planetary mission trajectories to large space structure dynamics, and from Cassini operations at Saturn to STEREOoperations observing the Sun-Earth system. The authors were sent by government agencies, leading universities, and high-techcompanies from sixteen countries. In fact, every continent but Antarctica was represented.

Dr. Roger Launius of the National Air and Space Museum delivered a plenary address entitled “Space: Journeying Toward theFuture.” This talk highlighted the contributions of our community in light of Sputnik’s fiftieth anniversary this year.

Noteworthy awards were presented at the conference as well. Dr. Shannon Coffey received the prestigious and well-deservedAIAA Mechanics and Control of Flight Award. And it was my honor to present Purdue University’s Dr. Kathleen Howell with theAAS President’s Award in recognition of her dedication and contribution as Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of the AstronauticalSciences for fifteen years.

The Astrodynamics Specialist Conference is organized and carried out by AAS volunteers. These people are bringing to lifeour AAS Strategic Plan which says, “we are dedicated to harnessing the energy and capability of our members to make adifference.” Heartiest congratulations and many thanks to AAS General Chair Rich Burns, AIAA General Chair Dr. Dan Scheeres,AAS Technical Chair Dr. Ron Proulx, and AIAA Technical Chair Dr. Tom Starchville for an exciting and worthwhile conference.And heartiest congratulations and many thanks to all of the other volunteers who made this important conference a reality for thecause of advancing astronautics.

Mark [email protected]


Putting NASA’s Budget in Perspectiveby Jeff Brooks

“I think we should solve our problemshere on Earth before we go into space.”

This line, or some approximation of it,has been heard countless times by nearlyevery advocate of space exploration. Formany critics, it seems to sum up thetotality of their thinking on the subject.Not a few politicians invoke this sentimenton those rare occasions when spaceexploration comes up in politicaldiscourse.

In October of 2006, on the 49thanniversary of the Sputnik launch, CBSNews anchor Katie Couric summarizedthis attitude when she concluded hernightly broadcast by saying, “NASA’srequested budget for 2007 is nearly $17billion. There are some who argue that

money would be better spent on solidground for medical research, socialprograms or in finding solutions topoverty, hunger and homelessness. I can’thelp but wonder what all that moneycould do for people right here on planetEarth.”

When space advocates hear thisargument, it is difficult not to becomeirritated - or even a little angry. Whensomething that one cares a great dealabout is treated with such disparagement,getting upset is a natural reaction.However, responding with irritation andanger does not help. If anything, it merelystrengthens others in the belief that spaceexploration should not be a nationalpriority.

It is important for space advocates tounderstand that this opinion is not heldby people because they are hostile tospace exploration itself, but because theylack sufficient information. Thanks to themainstream media, which oftenemphasizes space-related stories onlywhen something goes horribly wrong, ageneral impression has been created thatspace exploration does nothing more thanproduce a rather small amount ofscientific information. Further, it isassumed that this science has littlepractical use and carries an enormouscost to the taxpayer. Once people havereached a comfortable belief about anissue, getting them to change theiropinions is no easy task.

Regarding the assumption that NASAdiverts resources from efforts to solveterrestrial problems, it is obvious to thosewho are knowledgeable about the

potential of a robust space program thatsolutions to many of Earth’s problems areto be found in space. However, for thepurposes of this essay, we shall limitourselves to examining NASA funding.How does that funding compare to thatof programs which are often cited asmore deserving than the space agency?

According to budget documentsobtained from the Government PrintingOffice, the national budget for 2007 totalsabout $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion,spending on NASA accounts for 0.58%of this number. During the mid-1960s,despite pressures of the Vietnam wareffort and President Johnson’s GreatSociety programs, NASA spendingconsumed more than five percent of thefederal budget.

How does NASA’s budget comparewith the amount spent by the federalgovernment on social programs? In the2007 budget, the funding for socialprograms (calculated here as the budgetsfor the Department of Health and HumanServices, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Veterans Affairs, SocialSecurity, Agriculture, and Labor) adds upto a whopping $1.581 trillion. For every$1 the federal government spends onNASA, it spends $98 on these socialprograms. If spending on social programswere reduced by one percent, NASA’sbudget could be nearly doubled.

Do people who speak as if thecountry’s social problems would besolved if only we devoted NASA’s moneyto social programs seriously believe thatan increase from $1.581 trillion to $1.597trillion would make an appreciable

The Space Station, seen here in its most recentconfiguration, is often criticized as a waste ofgovernment expenditure because of its slowconstruction and dependence upon the Space

Shuttle program. (Source: NASA)


Jeff Brooks is a non-profit professionaland political activist who lives inAustin, Texas. In addition to being apassionate advocate for spaceexploration, he has worked on avariety of consumer, environment,and government reform issues. Healso writes the blog Movement for aNew Renaissance. This article firstappeared in the July 2 issue of TheSpace Review (online).

difference? Note that we are onlyconsidering federal spending here. Notincluded in these estimates are vastamounts of money that state and localgovernments spend on social programs.Needless to say, state and localgovernment funding of space explorationis negligible.

How does NASA spending compare toother big government expenditures?Compare, for example, NASA’s budgetwith the United States defense budget.The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609billion to defense, not including the budgetfor the Department of Homeland Security.This is nearly thirty-eight times theamount of money spent on NASA. If oneincludes funding for the Department ofHomeland Security, defense spendingtotals $652.5 billion. This figure is morethan forty times NASA’s budget.

While few question the need tomaintain a strong military in an uncertainpolitical climate, some might consider itexcessive for the United States to spendmore on its military than the next fifteenbiggest defense spenders put together -particularly since most of those countriesare American allies. Furthermore, thereare surely a great number of militaryprograms of questionable value, in additionto sound military programs whose pricetags nonetheless raise eyebrows.

Each B-2 stealth bomber costs UStaxpayers roughly $2.2 billion. Comparethis to the New Horizons robotic missionto Pluto, which will answer fundamentalquestions about the solar system. Thisprogram was nearly canceled for lack offunds. The total cost of the New Horizonsmission, including the launch vehicle, was$650 million. In other words, the entireNew Horizons mission to Pluto consumedless than one third of the cost for a singleB-2 bomber.

One can argue forever regarding themerits of government social programs,how much should be spent on our military,or whether the government should relyon borrowed money. What one cannotargue, however, is that space explorationgets a very small slice of the pie.Compared to the behemoths ofgovernment spending, NASA is a pigmy.That it achieves so much with such asmall share of the federal budget isastonishing.

There is also the matter of payinginterest on the national debt. At the timeof this writing, the US Treasury officestated that the United States carries debtin the amount of $8,835,268,597,181.95.Merely paying the interest on this massivedebt load every year costs a significantamount of money. In 2006, the federalgovernment allocated about $400 billionto this task. This figure was over 23.5times NASA’s allocation in 2007. Asfederal debt increases, these interestpayments will only continue to grow.

An artist’s concept of the New Horizonsspacecraft as it approaches Pluto and its largestmoon, Charon, in July 2015. (Source: NASA/JohnsHopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/

Southwest Research Institute)

When one looks at the numbers, thesuggestion that we should “solve ourproblems on Earth before we go intospace” is revealed to be a blatantlymisguided. Even assuming that solvingsocial or geopolitical problems was asimple matter of allocating sufficientmoney (a highly questionable notion initself), it is clear that diverting NASAmoney to other programs would makelittle difference.

With regard to funding of spaceexploration, it is time for space advocatesto stop playing defense and start playingoffense. Without slackening efforts toprotect funding for critical NASA projects,we must begin to push for increases infunding for space exploration. We mustreframe the entire debate in Washingtonon this issue. Politicians should startasking “how much can we spend” forspace exploration, rather than “how muchcan we cut.”

As a final observation, recall that NASAspending comprised more than five percentof the federal budget during the headydays of the Apollo program. If NASAreceived five percent of the federal budgettoday, its annual funding level would be$139.2 billion dollars. Imagine what thespace agency could do with that level ofsupport.

Let’s make it happen.

The scientific discovery of the Mira star’s comet-like tail, which is shedding material that will become new stars and planets, was not covered bymedia as much as damaged shuttle tiles and astronaut gloves. (Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech)


Experiencing Microgravityby Lynn F. H. Cline

It started innocently enough; it wasjust another of the many e-mails that Ireceive every day. The subject linecontained the baffling title “RGSFOPinvite.” It turned out to be an invitationfor me to participate in NASA’s ReducedGravity Student Flight OpportunitiesProgram (RGSFOP). This was a chancefor me to experience some thirty parabolicmaneuvers aboard an aircraft, as studentsconducted research experiments.

I will admit to being both excited bythe opportunity and afraid. Havingexperienced motion sickness in the past,I worried that I would be one of thosepeople who helped the aircraft earn itsnickname as “the vomit comet.” Afteraccepting my boss’ encouragement to gofor it, I accepted the invitation.

As part of the flight preparationprocess, NASA required a Federal AviationAdministration Class III medical exam.Fortunately, we have an Aviation MedicalExaminer on site here at NASA. I had justcompleted my annual physical, so up-to-date information was readily available.

After filling a few forms, I wasapproved to go to the next steps, whichinclude physiological training and achamber test. This involved taking a classin which a series of very enthusiasticinstructors explained the effects oftraveling to high altitude upon the humanbody. After scaring us with all the adverseimpacts of exposure to this environment,such as hypoxia and hyperventilation, wethen suited up to go into a hyperbaricchamber. The goal? To induce hypoxia!The idea was to demonstrate the effectsof reduced barometric pressure changes,and allow students to practice principlesand techniques learned in the classroom.In other words, a mild form of hypoxiawas induced so we could recognize ourindividual responses to it.

We were each fitted with a cap andmask with a long hose to attach to the

Donning head-gear required for barometric pressure tests, Lynn Cline (bottom right) sitswith college students from around the nation in preparation for their microgravity flight.

(Source: JSC/ZeroG)

oxygen system. Someone commentedthat we looked like elephants. We enteredthe chamber, plugged into the oxygensystem, and received instructions onoperating the equipment. The chamberincluded a balloon and an inflated rubberglove hanging from the ceiling, whichprovided a way to easily note changes inpressure. We spent 30 minutes on oxygenfor denitrogenation to minimize the riskof decompression sickness. Then wesimulated a flight profile ascending at5,000 feet per minute, leveling off at abarometric pressure level equivalent to25,000 feet in altitude.

Once there, those sitting on my sideof the chamber were asked to remove ourmasks and given sheets of paper withsome simple exercises on them. Theseincluded some mathematical problems,and some questions designed to provokethought, such as “list eight states thatbegin with ‘M’.”

More important than completing theseexercises was to note our hypoxiasymptoms at one minute intervals for fiveminutes. I recorded that I felt flushed,and had fuzzier vision than usual. Mostof all, I had trouble concentrating. I keptstaring at the paper, knowing that I wassupposed to do something with it, but Iwas having trouble figuring out exactlywhat! Other students felt numbness intheir fingers or tingling sensations. Oneperson looked like he was hyperventilating.The point made was that people experiencea variety of symptoms. Each studentlearned to recognize theirs, in order to beable to know how to handle thosesymptoms in the event of a pressure losswhile onboard the aircraft during thereduced gravity flight.

I also had the opportunity to observethe readiness review with the studentgroups, which was held in the aircrafthangar on the day before our flight. I was


Lynn Cline is Deputy AssociateAdministrator for Space Operationsat NASA and a member of the AASBoard of Directors.

Using handholds to keep herself from floatingabout the aircraft cabine and into studentexperiments, Lynn Cline experiencesmicrogravity. (Source: JSC/ZeroG)

In order to simulate micro- and hyper-gravity,ZeroG pilots must pitch the aircraft at extremeangles to dive and climb into their parabolic

flight plan. (Source: JSC/ZeroG)

privileged to join students from CornellUniversity, Portland State University, theUniversity of California at San Diego, theUniversity of Michigan, and Wichita StateUniversity. The students were bright,enthusiastic and articulate.

Experiments included test of a roboticsystem implementing control momentgyroscopes for lower power, a studyabout passive separation of two-phaseflows in fluids, and a transmural pressuresimulator aimed at reducing astronaut re-adaptation to gravity post-flight. Thereviewers asked questions about theexperiment operations, and some lastminute adjustments were requested tomeet safety requirements.

The students had established twoteams, with one team to fly on May 3and the other to fly on May 4. They hadthe green light to load their experimentson the aircraft.

The next morning we arrived for ourflight. Those of us who hadn’t gottenflight suits already were issued one. Ourpre-flight preparations includedmedication to reduce the likelihood ofmotion sickness. We were cleared forflight and invited to board the aircraft.

The aircraft has several rows of seatsin the aft area, which were used duringtakeoff and landing. The remainder of theaircraft was open, with runners down thefloor used to secure the experiments. Thewalls were padded and had cloth strapsmounted high on the side walls to use ashandholds.

Our flight profile called for thirty-twoparabolas. Each parabolic pattern providedabout thirty seconds of hypergravity (about1.7G’s) as the plane climbed to the top ofits arc. Once the plane started to “noseover” the top of the parabola and descendtoward Earth, the plane experienced abouttwenty-five seconds of microgravity. Weflew thirty parabolas which reached zero-g. We also flew one parabola that achievedthe equivalent of lunar gravity, and one atthe level of gravity on Mars.

The instructors had suggested we sitor lay down during ascent. I was surprisedat how heavy I felt. I could raise my arm,but it took effort. Equally surprising wasthe quick transition to just the opposite –floating.

The student experiments were large, andI was very mindful of the students focusedon getting data. I didn’t want to floataimlessly and risk bumping into them. Thestudents strapped themselves to the flooror used handles built into the equipment toremain in place in order to recordmeasurements, observe experiments oradjust equipment.

The sensation of floating waswonderful, but it was so brief! I found ithard to maneuver, and repeatedly endedup near the ceiling of the aircraft. I didn’tstray too far from the handholds so that Icould prepare to land in an area clear ofstudents when we approached the nextpull. After a few tentative lifts, Imaneuvered to another location and got abit bolder. As we neared the end of eachweightless parabola, a crewmember criedout “feet down,” warning us to positionourselves for the next pull.

At one point, I was walking forward toview the flight from the cockpit. Before Igot all the way forward, we reached theheaviest part of the parabolic climb inhypergravity. I found I couldn’t go anyfurther. I collapsed to my knees and stayedthere until we hit microgravity. At thatpoint, I was able to float forward and intothe cockpit. It was amazing to watch thealtimeter spin ridiculously fast as the planewent steeply up and then down again.There may be some things it’s better notto know!

I did get a little queasy about half-waythrough. When offered the chance to spinsummersaults, I declined. I did manageto float upside down without incident.The veterans of these flights clearly hadadapted to this environment. They wereable to easily maneuver, take video andphotos, and assist the students. I enviedthem their facility with this environment.

When we simulated lunar gravity,most of us did the Apollo-style bunnyhop. Even a little bit of gravity meant wewere back to standing on the floor insteadof instantly floating up in the air. Itproved easy to walk in the Martiangravity, which provided neither a heavypull nor a floating sensation. After thisexperience, everyone reluctantly returnedto their seats for the flight back to base.

The flight gave me a new appreciationfor the environment in which ourastronauts work. It also gave me hopefor our future. With students of thiscaliber having an interest in space, I seethat we do have a next generation tocarry on human exploration of space.Would I go again? Yes, withouthesitation!


Do You Know Where Your Satellite is Tonight?Insufficient Capability for an Essential butMisunderstood Taskby Dave Finkelman

One of the most important spaceendeavors - tracking satellites anddetermining their orbits - is also amongthe least understood and appreciated. Ifwe take knowledge of current and futuresatellite location for granted, ourcontinued ability to determine thatinformation is jeopardized. The objectiveof this article is to refresh understandingand explain problems that must beovercome.

Do you know where your satellite istonight? Perhaps you do. A few nationalspace tracking networks might also know,but the rest of us do not. Why don’t we?Satellites travel in circular or ellipticalorbits, don’t they? Their behavior ispredictable and repeatable, isn’t it?Satellites in geostationary orbits even stayin one place relative to the Earth. So whydo we need sophisticated radars andtelescopes to keep track of them?

Most tasks assigned to satellitesdemand extremely accurate orbits.

Distances, angles, and times must beknown precisely so that we can at leastquantify inevitable uncertainties. Howcan we determine orbits that well? Howdo we know where the satellites may havemigrated when they were out of sight?

Newton, Flamstead, Kepler, Leibnitz,Huygens, and Galileo made diligentobservations and contributed immenselytoward understanding of the motion oforbiting objects. As instruments andobservations advanced, differences werenoted in orbits from those predicted bytwo-body or linearized three-body motion.The degree to which these great men wereincorrect is the essence of anastrodynamicist’s profession.

Satellites do not describe preciselyelliptical or circular orbits. They are, infact, unpredictable, and to a significantdegree not repeatable. Astrodynamicistsmay know this, but many of those whodepend on satellites do not.

Satellite orbits are not perfect ellipses

or circles because the Earth’s gravitationalfield is not uniform. Satellites in differentplaces experience varying gravitationeven if they are at the same altitude. TheEarth’s mass is not uniformly distributed,nor is the Earth perfectly spherical. Theoceans and the Earth’s molten core arecontinuously in motion. This dynamicsoup is influenced by the Moon and otherbodies. There are even tides in the Earth’scrust.

As Earth is viewed from increasingdistance, it gradually appears that its massis concentrated at a point. Non-uniformmass distribution, however, is an essentialfactor for low Earth orbits. Thepredominant effects are static, but thereare noticeable dynamic components withperiods of hours or days. The GravityRecovery and Climate Extraction(GRACE) mission documents these non-uniformities by monitoring the separationbetween two satellites which are severalhundred kilometers apart and located incommon, very stable polar orbits.

The relatively static portions ofgravitational perturbations cause orbits toprecess about the Earth’s axis. Theseforces make the semi-major axis of theorbit ellipse rotate about the Earth’s centerwithin the satellite’s orbital plane. Thislowest order (J2) effect makes Sunsynchronous satellite orbits possible.Exploitation of this gravitational non-uniformity allows a satellite to alwaysview the earth with the same lightingconditions. To this order ofapproximation, there is a uniquerelationship between altitude andinclination for which the orbit precessesaround Earth’s axis at the same rate that

Using non-uniform gravity data collected by the GRACE satellite, gravity maps of Earth can beused to create accurate satellite orbit predictions. (Source: NASA/University of Texas Center

for Space Research)


the Earth revolves around the Sun. Sun-synchronous orbits do not exist inNewton’s simple two-body problem withconcentrated masses.

If non-uniform gravity wereneglected, satellite positions propagatedmerely hours into the future would differfrom their actual locations by hundredsof kilometers.1 This is enough of adisparity that we would not be able toobserve the satellites if sensors weredirected to their predicted locations.

Atmospheric drag also influences low-Earth orbiting satellites greatly.Atmospheric effects are important up toaltitudes of many hundreds of kilometers.Though atmosphere is sparse at thataltitude and drag is small, it is stillnoticeable relative to the diminishinggravitational forces at high altitude.Atmospheric drag is the principal reasonthat orbits decay and satellites descend,yet it is very difficult to predict dragforces due to the volatility of our spaceenvironment.

Drag is uncertain for a number ofreasons. The orientation of satellites inorbit varies, often in unintended ways. Thearea that the satellite presents to therelative wind is uncertain. Uncertaintiesin the atmosphere’s composition are asignificant source of disparity.Atmospheric density can vary appreciablyin the course of a single satellite orbit.We fly satellites with well-knownspherical drag coefficients in order toinfer atmospheric variations, once wehave confidence in the knowledge of non-uniform gravitation.2 Therefore, physicalmodels of the atmosphere depend to someextent on the model of the Earth’sgravitation. This model was developedwhen atmospheric density variations wereinferred from orbit observations.

Nearby massive bodies influence theorbits of satellites. If the Moon’sgravitation is strong enough to cause tideson Earth, it must also affect satelliteorbits. We need to know something aboutthe distribution of mass within the Moonin order to predict the perturbation. Thiscauses more uncertainty.

Finally, radiation pressure can beappreciable relative to gravitation whenspacecraft are far from the Earth. Inaddition to incident solar radiation, inputsinclude radiation reflected or emitted fromthe Earth. Momentum transfer fromphotons to spacecraft surfaces issignificant for geostationary andgeosynchronous orbits. Photon-induceddrag varies as the satellite moves and theEarth rotates. There is at least diurnalvariation.

Geostationary satellites are not actuallygeostationary. If the satellite orbit has anyinclination or eccentricity, the orbit willrotate and precess. Radiation pressure,multi-body gravitation, and other effectswill also change the orbit. Leftunattended, a satellite in even the mostcircular and equatorially oriented orbit willdrift in its orbit around the Earth.

Orbit Determination and SatelliteTracking

Determining orbits requiresobservations, physical hypotheses, andcomputational techniques. To say it moreaccurately, orbits are actually “estimated,”not precisely determined. We test ourphysical hypotheses against observationsand determine the degree to which ourhypotheses match reality. Measures of asolution’s quality, called “covariances,”are essential; they reveal the degree ofuncertainty in the satellite states wepredict. Almost no widely availablesources of orbit data reveal covariances.As a result, those who rely on widelydistributed orbit data seldom know howlong mean orbits3 remain sufficientlyvalid. Therefore, it is very important thatthese users are provided with new meanorbit elements frequently.

For centuries, scientists havedetermined orbits using observations fromthe Earth. Radars gather precise rangemeasurements on satellites. They are lessprecise in azimuth and elevation, whichdepend on mechanical measurementsrather than electronic measurements.Even the registration of elements of aphased array radar relies on “imprecise”

physical measurements. Telescopes candetermine azimuth and elevation precisely(often taking advantage of magnificationto perceive very small angles), but theydo not measure range at all. The GlobalPositioning System (GPS) makes itpossible to determine orbits from onboardmeasurements, which are subject tochanging and often unfavorable geometryand the errors introduced by a rapidlymoving platform. GPS is not precise tomillimeter resolution when it is riding ona satellite that moves at a rate ofkilometers per second.

Each of these sources is imprecise toa degree that affects many modern satelliteapplications. Sophisticated data fusionschemes can combine all of these sourcesin a profound, mathematically consistentmanner to achieve results more precisethan any of the independent contributions.While this technology is a greatadvancement, the process still demandscontinuous measurement and estimation.

An artist’s concept of the GRACE spacecraftperforming high-resolution variable gravity

mapping of Earth. (Source: NASA)

The perturbations to Newton’s two-body problem described above are not anexhaustive set. Additional influencesinclude relativistic effects and multiplebody gravitation. There are many physicalhypotheses about the characteristics ofthe atmosphere, and guidelines for whichobservable quantities are the best“proxies” to represent atmosphericdensity variations.4

Determining orbits is a highly nonlinearactivity, mathematically speaking.


Changes in solutions are not proportionalto changes in independent variables orchanges in the specification of the problem(such as the Earth’s gravitational field).The numerical solution of the governingequations is plagued by small differencesin large quantities. While the differencebetween observation locations may be justa few kilometers, the satellite may bethousands of kilometers away.

The process of orbit determination is ajourney of linear approximations,simplifying mathematics and moderatingnonlinearity by focusing on small changes.Linearization restricts the time intervalover which orbits can be predicted. Themost widely used techniques (“GeneralPerturbations”) still linearize around atrusted nonlinear solution or precise initialorbit and develop “differential corrections”to that solution.

There are also a variety of “semi-analytical” techniques that substituteapproximate closed-form formulas forsome of the numerical integration.Numerics are simplified by developinganalytical expressions - approximateequations which don’t require complexnumerical schemes. Such approximationswere necessary to estimate orbitssufficiently in operationally meaningfultime spans when computational capabilitywas insufficient.

Full, nonlinear numerical solutions(“Special Perturbations”) have been inexistence for many years, but suchtechniques have only recently been appliedto the entire space population as permittedby advances in computational capability.

Insufficient ObservationThe world doesn’t contain enough

sensors to keep track of satellites withsufficient coverage and frequency. Thisproblem overshadows imprecisemeasurements, approximate physics, andnumerical and mathematical difficulties.

The European Space Agency (ESA) haspublished a survey of the world’s spacesurveillance capability.5 Radars dominatelow-Earth orbit observations, andtelescopes are most productive for highand geostationary orbits. Most radars only

“contribute” observations, and are notdedicated to observing satellites. TheUnited States BMEWS and PAVE PAWSradars are a good example. Severalscientific radio telescopes, such as theMIT Lincoln Laboratory Haystack facility,also contribute satellite observations whentime allows.

Optimal distributions of sensors arenot available— most are concentrated inthe Northern Hemisphere. Two sensorson the equator 90 degrees apart inlongitude with hemispherical coverageand unlimited range should “see” all butgeostationary satellites at least once everysix hours. In reality, that degree ofcoverage cannot be achieved. There arefew feasible locations that meet the 90degree equatorial criterion, and six hoursmay be much too long to observe andestimate the intense influence of non-gravitational forces on low-Earth orbitingsatellites.

Amid these difficulties, those who ownand operate satellites have the bestpossible observations of their ownsatellites. Long period, pseudo-randomcodes imposed on satellite downlinks canbe used to range very precisely, just asGPS receivers determine “pseudo-range”to GPS satellites. However, satelliteowner/operators can communicate withtheir satellites only from sparse groundstations. Without external data, theycannot observe or estimate where theirsatellites are between contactopportunities. If they relied on totallypredictive (“open loop”) tracking basedupon past observations, they could literally“lose” their satellite. These entities

The World Wide Space Surveillance Radardistribution. (Source: Dave Finkelman)

compensate for the growing uncertaintyby using large search and capturevolumes, and by interrogating the skywith much more energy than wouldotherwise be necessary. Satellite contactsare also much shorter.

Many independent analyses haveexplored optimal sensor distributions forspecific criteria, such as the minimumvalue of the longest gap betweenobservations of selected satellites sets.None is very practical or affordable.6

We must always live with uncertainsatellite locations. The question becomes:“How much uncertainty is acceptable, andfor which satellites?”

The Significance of Orbit DeterminationWho cares if we know exactly where

any particular satellite is? Why is thisinformation so important?

There are several classes of satelliteusers: those who launch satellites, satelliteoperators, satellite service providers,satellite service users, and governmentagencies bound to protect and preservespace capabilities.

It’s a big sky, but satellites areconcentrated in just a small fraction of it.There are few launch sites, and debrisfrom past launches can persist at thoselatitudes. Therefore, it is prudent forsatellite launch service providers to checkfor obstructions before launch activitybegins.

Satellite operators need to know wheretheir satellites are in order to providepromised services. They must also avoidphysical or radio frequency interference(RFI) impingement upon other satellites.The same comments about crowdedportions of the sky apply, including thegeostationary region and polar orbits.

Satellite service providers such asDirectTV or Sirius Satellite Radio need tokeep their satellites on track in order tofulfill service commitments. Those whoneed to contact non-geostationarysatellites must have their antennas trackthe satellites across the sky.

Users have to know where satellitesare, and the user community extends farbeyond casual recreation. National


Dave Finkelman is the Senior Scientistat Analytical Graphics’ Center forSpace Standards and Innovation inColorado Springs, CO, and chairmanof ISO TC20/SC14/WG3, SpaceOperations and Ground Support.

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) remote locations must be ableto contact search and rescue satellites.Environmental monitoring tasks, such astracking electronically tagged wildlife,require knowledge regarding whichsatellites can retrieve uplinked data.

Imaging and surveillance requireprecise and virtually continuous orbitinformation to determine access. Theymust also be able to register images in aprescribed reference frame - one that isn’tmoving as the satellites are.

The government also has a duty tomonitor space for untoward acts towardspaceborne assets, and to preserve accessand the orbital environment.

Almost everyone should care wheresatellites are. Almost everyone dependson satellite services and information.

Concerns and RemediesAdvancing commerce greatly burdens

orbit determination. More satellites andmore debris require more precise andtimely assessment of satellite motion. Thisproblem is so complex that the mostmodern computer architectures andprecise observations are insufficient forsome of the most important applications.There are many avenues to improve thesituation without compromising nationalsecurity or proprietary interests. We needto clear obstructions from these paths.Below, a few of these obstructions arenamed along with suggestions for theirmitigation.

1. Orbit data are incomplete. Importanttasks require quantified uncertainty,therefore covariances should be revealed.The International Standards Organizationis addressing this concern with a standardand consensus-driven scheme for orbitdata transfer. This could take severalyears, but the community is free to adoptthis emerging standard as consensusgrows.

2. Sensors are sparsely distributed.This problem should be attacked firstthrough worldwide data sharing. Thesensors currently in place do notincorporate collaboration amongthemselves, yet collaboration should be a

high priority. Every trustworthy sourceshould contribute its observations towardbuilding a more robust orbit determinationprocess. Sensors should be dedicated tosatellite tracking rather than a best effortamong other demands. A well-selected setof additional sensors should be funded andbuilt. ESA is considering some.

3. Orbit data are not widely availableand are often not in formats most efficientfor the broad user community. Even theNASA Orbit Information Group (OIG)could not meet all community needs,leading to several no-cost, value-addedsecondary providers. The Air Force-sponsored Space-Track service,established under PL 108-36, madefundamental orbit data more widelyavailable. However, it cannot meet thecommunity’s needs at the existing levelof effort.

4. Quantitative observations ofsatellites in orbit are not well enoughcharacterized or sufficiently shared withinthe community that needs orbitinformation. The worldwide laser rangingnetwork consists of more than thirty sitesamong countries whose national interestsare not always congruent. It is a paragonof international collaboration for mutualbenefit. However, it examines a small setof satellites expressly outfitted withreflectors and traveling in benign orbits.This network establishes a benchmark forcalibrating other sensors. Within theconstraints of each nation’s interests andsecurity, greater collaboration and dataexchange would enhance the quality andavailability of satellite orbit knowledge.

ConclusionThe significance of timely and precise

orbit information is masked from thebroad user community which depends onsatellites. The small community dedicatedto determining and disseminating orbitdata is underappreciated and oftenignored. Fiscal pressures diminish thealready insufficient capability. Upgradesto the former Naval Space SurveillanceFence have been delayed for many years.The PARCS radar in North Dakota andFPS-85 in Florida are annually in fiscal

jeopardy; system-wide surveillanceperformance characterizations wouldhighlight their importance. Essential orbitdata dissemination capabilities, such as theNASA Orbit Information Group, havedisappeared.

It is hoped that this article willilluminate the difficulty of the task athand, and describe the significance ofsatellite orbit knowledge well enough toarrest this unfortunate trend.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Footnotes1 David A.Vallado, Fundamentals ofAstrodynamics and Applications, SpaceTechnology Library, Kluwer AcademicPress, 2001, ISBN 0-7923-6903-3.2 Yu. P. Gorochov and A.I. Nazarenko,“Methodical Points in Building Models ofFluctuations of the AtmosphericParameters,” Astronomicheskii SovetAkademii Nauk SSSR, Vol 80, 1982.3 In the simple two-body representation, sixquantities, called orbit elements, aresufficient to describe an orbit forever(eccentricity, semi-major axis, inclination,argument of perigee, right ascension of theascending node, and true anomaly). Theseare called “classical” or “Keplerian” elementsets. When other forces are considered,these represent a “mean” or “osculating”orbit upon which perturbation effects areimposed.4 It is difficult to measure atmosphericdensity explicitly; however, density isrelated to pressure, temperature, thecomposition of the atmosphere, and otherquantities that can be measured directly.These other quantities are called “proxies.”5 Monitoring Space – Efforts Made byEuropean Countries, Heiner Kilnkrad, ESA/EOC, Darmstadt, Germany, Nov 2004.6 “European Space Surveillance SystemStudy – Final Report, Donath, et. al., ESOCContract 16407/02/D/HK(SC), DocumentDPRS/N/158/04/CC, 10 Dec 2004.


CALL FOR PAPERS ABSTRACT DEADLINE: November 1, 2007

Friday–Wednesday, February 1-6, 2008Beaver Run Resort and Conference Center, Breckenridge, Colorado

31st AAS Guidance and Control Conference

We are currently seeking abstracts for potential papers for the conference. The deadline for abstract submission is November 1,2007, however, the selection process is on-going and we have limited presentations, so the earlier you can submit your abstractthe greater chance for acceptance. The conference will have the following sessions. Their themes are listed as well as thesession chairpersons to contact for abstract submission. Sessions 1 through 8 are the traditional international sessions, andSession 9 will be ITAR-restricted (allowed attendance US Only).

Session 1 – “Advances in Guidance and Control”Some projects require innovative G&C solutions that are outside the realm of conventional thinking. The papers in this sessionwill focus on the latest in theoretical developments, cutting-edge hardware, unique mission possibilities, system architecture,autonomous operations, and system modeling and testing.

Contact: Jim Chapel, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-9462 – [email protected] Lander, Advanced Solutions, 303-979-2417 – [email protected]

Session 2 – “Technical Exhibits”The Technical Exhibits Session is a unique opportunity to observe displays and demonstrations of state-of-the-art hardware,design, and analysis tools and services applicable to the advancement of guidance, navigation, and control technology. The latestcommercial tools for GN&C simulations, analysis, and graphical displays are demonstrated in a hands-on, interactive environment,including lessons learned and undocumented features. Associated papers not presented in other sessions are also provided andcan be discussed with the author. Come enjoy an excellent complimentary buffet and interact with the technical representativesand authors. This session takes place in a social setting and family members are welcome!

Contact: Scott Francis, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-8253 – [email protected] Jackson, Lockheed Martin Ret., 303-985-1972 – [email protected]

Session 3 – “Space Environment”Space environments influence the design of missions on many levels. Space debris and radiation effects constrain the requiredshielding for spacecraft and GN&C components. Vehicle control performance is limited by the effect of disturbances, includingaerodynamic, gravity gradient, solar radiation pressure, and magnetic torques. Orbital perturbations impact mission planning toview various ground and celestial targets. This session will feature papers which discuss the effect of the space environment onthe design of GN&C components, spacecraft control systems, and mission designs.

Contact: Ian Gravseth, Ball Aerospace, 303-939-5421 – [email protected] Osborne, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-5867 – [email protected]

Session 4 – “GN&C Fault Management”The design of GN&C systems to be either single or multiple fault tolerant has many impacts on spacecraft complexity, V&V, andultimately cost. As today’s space missions become more complex, even incorporating various aspects of entry, rendezvous,docking, and sample return, the tolerance for mission failure continues to decrease. Coupled with the increasing upset andlatching susceptibility of commercial electronic parts, the need for innovative approaches to GN&C system fault tolerance isbecoming paramount. This session explores the state-of-the-art system approaches to GN&C fault tolerance, and unique andinnovative aspects of such design, including the use of functional redundancy and unconventional techniques.

Contact: Mary Klaus, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-971-2724 – [email protected] Jolly, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-971-6758 – [email protected]


CALL FOR PAPERS

Session 5 – “Deep Space Navigation”How do we get to destinations in deep space? This session seeks papers on the means. The Deep Space Network, radio andoptical data types, and maneuver analysis and planning are the grist, down to arcana-like B-planes and K-matrices. Papers coverhistory, current configurations, hardware and software, and future plans. Errors are especially important: tracking data; solarsystem modeling; disturbances; and maneuver execution; all culminating in the Pioneer problem.

Contact: David Sonnabend, Analytical Engineering, 303-530-9641 – [email protected] McQuerry, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-971-5264 – [email protected]

Session 6 – GN&C Panel Session “2058: The Future of GN&C in 50 Years”In 1957, the dawn of the Space Age began with the launch of Sputnik. Today, a mere 51 years later, we are still learning andgrowing as an industry with new technologies and methodologies to accomplish the Guidance and Navigation needs of ourmissions. Step forward to 2058, and there will be even more possibilities for GN&C. The question to our panelists: What willGN&C look like 50 years from now? This lively new session will draw on industry experts from around the world to discusstheir individual perspectives on the future.

Contact: Christine Mollenkopf, Ball Aerospace, 303-939-5444 – [email protected] Speed, Ball Aerospace, 303-939-5322 – [email protected]

Session 7 – “Human Exploration GN&C Challenges”This session focuses on the recent work to provide humans improved access to earth orbit and beyond. Papers will includerecent work for the Orion spacecraft and Ares launch vehicle projects, Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS),Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), H2 Transfer Vehicle (HTV), Progress, and other related programs that are supporting humanexploration. In addition to programs, key technologies are addressed such as ascent, rendezvous, proximity operations, docking,transit, and return beyond earth orbit, entry, autonomy, and aspects of human rating.

Contact: Dave Chart, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-6875 – [email protected] Chambers, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-9912 – [email protected]

Session 8 – “Recent Experiences”Lessons learned through experience prove most valuable when shared with others in the GN&C community. This session, whichis a traditional part of the conference, provides a forum for candid sharing of insights gained through successes and failures. Pastconferences have shown this session to be most interesting and informative.

Contact: Heidi Hallowell, Ball Aerospace, 303-939-6131 – [email protected] Wilson, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-971-4799 – [email protected]

Session 9 – “Space Situational Awareness (US Only)”Recent events have underscored the current and near-term vulnerability of critical space assets to numerous types of attacks.Fundamental to preventing or responding to such attacks is simply the awareness that the event is in progress, and distinguishingit from natural events. This session surveys the GN&C concepts underlying Space Situational Awareness and explores keydriving issues and developments.

Contact: Bill Frazier, Ball Aerospace, 303-939-4986 – [email protected] May, Lockheed Martin SSC, 303-977-6620 – [email protected]

We look forward to seeing you at the conference!

Michael Drews, 2007 Conference Chair Ron Rausch, Board ChairpersonLockheed Martin Space Systems Company AAS Rocky Mountain SectionPhone: 303-971-3622 Phone: [email protected] [email protected]


AAS NEWS

AAS International Space University ScholarshipReportby Kirk Kittell

I spent summer 2006 at theInternational Space (ISU) UniversitySummer Session Program (SSP) inStrasbourg, France, thanks to ascholarship from AAS. I’ve been long,long overdue to tell my story about it.Though the folks at AAS shouldn’tappreciate this delay—sorry, Jim!—it hasgiven me time to reflect on the ten weeksthat I spent there and what it has meant.

First thing you should know: I’m acynic. In a previous life, I’ve been tofuzzy space conferences and drank theKool Ade. I packed a fair amount ofskepticism in my bag to France, just incase ISU really was Space Camp orStarfleet Academy as my friendssuggested.

The first surprise was that I was oneof the younger SSP participants, having

Ping pong finals at the International Space University Summer Session Program – Japan vs. China(Source: Kirk Kittell)

just finished my MS at the University ofIllinois in May 2006. This was the lowerend of the age spectrum, the bottom 10percent. From there, my colleagues rangedfrom PhD students in a variety of subjects(geomatics, engineering, pathology, andmore) to where the majority came from:the real world. There was a missionmanager from COMDEV in Canada;engineers from NASA, Boeing, and FAAin the US; a physics teacher fromNorway; a business strategist from Spain;a captain from the French Air Force;lawyers and scientists and engineers fromESA; staff from the China AerospaceScience and Technology Corporation(who are hosting the 2007 SSP); and onand on.

The point: I spent the summer workingwith people who had decades of

experience in the industry. It was adifferent environment and a welcomesurprise.

SSP is divided into four major groupsof activities: lectures, workshops,department activities, and team projects.Lectures and departments were organizedinto disciplines ranging from engineeringto law and policy. There were three teamprojects: international collaboration inremote sensing (my team), use ofnanotechnology in space missions, and aclosed-loop lunar habitat. Workshopswere held on numerous topics wheneverexperts came to the campus. With onlyone exception, each week consisted ofsix days of activity and one day of rest;rest is not a hallmark of the ‘InsufficientSleep University’ program.

The lectures were informative—Iknew nothing about astrobiology, exportcontrol laws, or satellite communicationfrequency bands prior to ISU. This wasthe common academic aspect of theprogram. Understandably, depth in eachsubject was sacrificed for breadth;subjects that I had studied in detail forone or two semesters were shoehornedinto one or two hours. It was a designdecision.

The workshops were quite interesting.Two stand out clearly in my memory. Thefirst was a small satellite workshop runby the University of Stuttgart to give us ataste of the systems engineering approachto building satellites. This was one of theactivities of SSP that nudged me towardmy current career as a systems engineer.An added twist was that this was the firstintimation that working in a close, intensegroup with people who mostly spokeEnglish as a second language was going


AAS NEWS

Americans at the 2006 ISU Summer Session (Source: Kirk Kittell)

Kirk Kittel is a systems engineer forOrbital Sciences Corporation andrecipient of the 2006 AAS Lady MamieNgan Memorial Scholarship to ISU.

to be a challenging experience — forthem and me.

The second workshop I remember asone of my most memorable experiences,called simply “International Negotiations.”It was performed as a game. There werefour teams of five, Red, Yellow, Green,Blue, each representing a different nation,each with a different budget for spaceassets, each with different requirements.One team was required to fund two Earthobservation missions, a manned missionto the Moon, and other science missions;other teams would have a differentarrangement of missions that wererequired; one team was not allowed todisclose its requirements. The commontheme is that each team had requirementsbeyond what they could fund alone. Thisrequired some missions to be jointmissions.

The game consisted of three turns,each lasting an hour. At the beginning ofeach turn teams received an index cardwith instructions, which sometimesmodified their budget for that turn orimposed limits on who they could partnerwith to fund a mission. After three turns,

the winning team would be the one thatfulfilled their requirements. Soundssimple, no? It was three hours ofconniving, sending parts of your team tonegotiate with other teams, persuadingothers that you were trying to help thoughyou knew the real goal was to win.

The result: no team won. The exercisealtered my perception in how youapproach a problem that requiresnegotiation. They didn’t teach us that inmy engineering courses.

The team project was the most intenseand educational experience of the summer.Imagine the inputs: 35 people, varyinglevels of English comprehension, varyingbackgrounds and levels of experience,plus a summer of already intense work.The output of this was to produce a 100-page report and 45-minute presentationon our topic. The trick was to do this infour weeks with regularly scheduledreviews. Our report – SOL: EarthObservation Systems for Small Countriesand Regions – turned out well, and hasbeen presented by our team membersafter ISU at several conferences. Itfocused on Alsace, Catalonia, and

Mauritius as model regions where existingspace assets could be utilized to benefitlocal economies and disaster managementagencies.

I was one of the three editors on theteam report. This meant learning to workon a 24-hour report editing cycle with mytwo colleagues as the deadlineapproached. I took the most lessons homefrom this activity, things that I remembernow at work. It was quite an experienceto produce a technical report with somany inputs in such a short timeframe,and I’m glad I did it.

In the time since SSP 2006, it has beeninteresting to see how the ISU networkworks, since our SSP 2006 contacts havebeen aggregated into all of the ISUcontacts. I am now a systems engineerat Orbital on the Launch Abort Systemfor the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle,which is a direct result of contact withISU alumni. When people are traveling toa major space industry hub such asHouston or Los Angeles, the networkbuzzes with plans to meet. (On the dayof submitting this report, there is an ISUDC dinner in Reston.) We hear when ourfriends switch from industry togovernment or vice versa, and whenthey’ve ascended to higher positions.

I don’t know how much of this youwill trust from me – ISU does sound likeStarfleet Academy in name, I’m afraid –but if you ever meet me at the AASGoddard Memorial Symposium orNational Conference, please ask me aboutmy experience there. I’ll reiterate that itwas a great experience and that youshould consider sending your owndeveloping employees as NASA, FAA,Boeing, and others do. I’m glad that AAShas taken a leading role in ISU andthankful that they chose me for last year’sscholarship.


2007 AAS NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND54th ANNUAL MEETING - DRAFT PROGRAM

AAS NEWS

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 125:30 – 8:00 p.m. Networking Reception for all Registrants and NextGen Invitees

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 137:00 a.m. Corporate Sponsor Breakfast with JSC Center Director Michael Coats

7:30 a.m. General Registration / Networking / Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m. Welcome and IntroductionMark Craig, VP/Manager, Space and Ocean Systems Solutions, SAICAAS President

9:10 a.m. Opening Remarks and Introduction of Keynote SpeakerMichael Coats, Director, NASA Johnson Space Center

9:15 a.m. Carl Sagan Memorial Lecture and Award PresentationMaria T. Zuber, E.A., Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Head of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric,and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (confirmed)

10:00 a.m. BREAK

10:15 a.m. Session 1: Celebrating NASA’s Heritage – Fifty Years of Discovery and AchievementBecause this 54th AAS meeting falls in the 50th anniversary year of the founding of NASA, the opening panel willlook back over those five decades. They will discuss the “wake-up call” of the Sputnik launch and how the U.S.space program and our competitiveness in the space race emerged, and then focus on the missions accomplishedand lessons learned since 1958. Panelists will discuss “Fifty Years of Discovery and Achievement” in the areasof human spaceflight, astronomy, and planetary science. The panelists will also discuss the significant impactthese achievements will have on the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Moderator: Joe Alexander, National Academy of Sciences (confirmed)Panelists: TBD

12:00 p.m. LuncheonGuest Speaker: TBD

1:30 p.m. Session 2: The Next Fifty Years – Goals and ChallengesViewing the future through a rapidly changing, technology driven lens.· Responsibility to Provide Environment and Tools to Motivate NextGe· Role of Federal Government, Academia and Private Sector

November 12-14, 2007South Shore Harbour Resort, Houston, Texas

“Celebrating Fifty Years – But, What’s Next?”(Check www.astronautical.org for updates)


AAS NEWS

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13 (continued)(Session 2: The Next Fifty Years – Goals and Challenges - continued)· What Stories Will NextGen Have for Their Grandchildren in 20

Moderator: Lon Rains, VP, Editorial, Space News (invited)Panelists: Doug Cooke, Deputy AA, NASA/ESMD (confirmed)

Paul Spudis, Lunar Scientist and Member, President’s Commission on VSE, APL (confirmed)Mr. Bretton Alexander, Executive Director, X-Prize Foundation (confirmed)

3:00 p.m. Session 3 – Future Leaders View the Future

Moderator: TBDPanelists: TBD

4:45 p.m. Adjourn

7:00 p.m. Pre-Banquet Reception

7:30 p.m. Awards BanquetGuest Speaker: TBD

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 148:00 a.m. Registration / Networking / Continental Breakfast

9:00 a.m. Opening KeynoteNeil Milburn, VP, Federal Liaison & Program Manager, Armadillo Aerospace (confirmed)

9:30 a.m. Session 4 – ISS: Critical Applications Beyond 2010Detailed discussion of ISS as a National Laboratory

Moderator: TBDPanelists: TBD

11:30 a.m. LuncheonGuest Speaker: TBD

1:15 p.m. Session 5: NASA’s Partnership with the International Community

Moderator: Lyn Wigbels, RWI International Consulting Services (confirmed)Panelists: TBD

3:00 p.m. BREAK

3:15 p.m. Session 6 – Public Policy Focus — New Champions in 2009?

Moderator: Bill Adkins, President, Adkins Strategies, LLC (confirmed)Panelists: TBD

4:30 p.m. Closing RemarksMark Craig, VP/Manager, Space and Ocean Systems Solutions, SAICAAS President

5:00 p.m. Closing Reception


AAS NEWS

KATHIE HOWELL HONOREDThe AAS recently honored Dr. Kathie Howell, Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. She was presentedwith the President’s Recognition Award by Mark Craig during the Astrodynamics Specialist Conference in Mackinac Island,Michigan. The award was in recognition of achieving the impressive milestone of 15 years as Editor of the Journal. She took onthe job in 1992, after serving over three years as Managing Editor. Dr. Howell is an AAS Fellow and received the prestigious AASDirk Brouwer Award in 2004.

AAS JOURNAL RANKED IN THE TOP 10The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences was recently ranked number 4 out of all aerospace engineering journals by Eigenfactor,which measures a journal’s prestige based on per article citations and also the overall value provided by all of the articlespublished in a given year. Congratulations to Editor Kathie Howell, Managing Editor Hank Pernikca, and all the Associate Editors!The Journal has been published continuously since 1954. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, published by Elsevier, was rankednumber one.

FORGING THE FUTURE OF SPACE SCIENCEThe Space Studies Board of the National Research Council is kicking off a year long series of public lectures and colloquia incities across the country and abroad. “Forging the Future of Space Science – The Next 50 Years” will celebrate the spectacularachievements of space and earth science, examine new discoveries in both fields, and look ahead at what the next 50 years maybring. See http://tinyurl.com/2ztgmn for complete information.

SPACE RELATED EVENTS OF INTERESTSeptember 24-28, 2007 – 58th International Astronautical CongressTouching Humanity: Space for Improving the Quality of LifeHyderabad, Indiawww.iac2007.org

October 17-19, 2007 – Short Course: The U. S. Government Space SectorGeorge Mason UniversityArlington, Virginia

November 9-12, 2007 – SEDS National ConferenceSpaceVision 2007Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, Massachusettswww.spacevision.seds.org/index.php

November 15, 2007 – Sputnik 50th Anniversary ReceptionEmbassy of the Russian FederationWashington, DCInformation will be posted on the AAS web site when available.

November 16, 2007 – Sputnik 50th Anniversary SymposiumUniversity of Maryland University CollegeAdelphi, MarylandInformation will be posted on the AAS web site when available.


AAS NEWS

SPACE RELATED EVENTS OF INTEREST (continued)February 20-22, 2008 – ISU’s 12th Annual SymposiumSpace Solutions to Earth’s Global ChallengesInternational Space University Central CampusStrasbourg, Francewww.isunet.edu

July 2-4, 2008 – 5th International Workshop on Constellations and Formation FlyingEvpatoria City, UkraineConference Topics• Analysis and synthesis of space systems• Global navigation satellite systems• Satellite systems for monitoring• Others TBD

Call for PapersPapers will be selected on the basis of abstracts of 300–500 words and should be submitted by e-mail attachment. Papers shouldbe prepared using Microsoft Word 6.0, font size 14, Times New Roman, and printed through one space without equations andfigures. Abstracts should contain the following information: title of paper; author(s) name(s); and affiliation. English will be theworking language of the Workshop. Abstracts should be sent before March 1, 2008 to the Organizing Committee, as well as theregistration form and registration fee.

Location / TransportationEvpatoria City is located in Crimea, Ukraine on the coast of the Black Sea. Options to reach Evpatoria include: direct flight toSimferopol (capital of Crimea); flight to Kiev-Simferopol; or flight to Moscow-Simferopol. The distance between Simferopoland Evpatoria is about 60 km (approximately one hour by taxi). Participants should take a taxi from the Simferopol airport.

Social ProgramA Social Program will be available during the Workshop. Sevastopol, Bachtchisarai, Yalta, Novi Swet, Foros, and Balaklava areavailable for visiting. Participants may also visit one of the world’s largest radio telescopes with a 70–meter antenna, other deepspace communication facilities, and the Crimean astronomical observatory.

Registration FeeThe fee for participation in the Workshop is 500 Euros. This fee includes access to all sessions, the abstract book, and thewelcome reception, and should be paid by registration or by a bank transfer to the “Space-Education” Fund:

SWIFT CODE OF SDM-BANK: SJSCRUMMCorr. Acc. # 91-273037-1121 with UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIASWIFT CODE OF UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: BOFC US 33 NYKIn favor of account 40703840200030000004

AccommodationsThere are many hotels in Evpatoria City. The Local Organizing Committee recommends PLANETA Hotel, where the Workshopwill be held. A single room costs not more than 100 Euros, including breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Address of the Local Organizing CommitteeMAI, Department 604, Volokolamskoye shosse 4, Moscow À-80 125993 RUSSIAVeniamin V. Malyshev, ChairmanE-mail: [email protected] OR [email protected]: 7 495 158 43 55Fax: 7 495 943 41 83 OR 7 495 158 58 55


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

FROM NAZIS TO NASA:The Life of Wernher von BraunReviewed by Mark Williamson

From Nazis to NASA: The Life of Wernhervon Braun, by Bob Ward, SuttonPublishing, 2006, 368 pages, £19.99,ISBN 0-7509-4303-3 [hardcover]

Mark Williamson is an independentspace technology consultant andauthor.

Wernher von Braun has been thesubject of many books. Given his leadingrole in German and American rocketryfrom World War II to the Apollo program,this is understandable. Still, what cananother book add to the historical record?

To answer that question, one must firstconsider the author. Bob Ward coveredvon Braun’s rocket team for years as areporter for The Huntsville Times andtrade periodical correspondent. Heactually met the man, so that’s a goodstart. Ward writes modestly in hispreface: “We became acquainted in aworkaday way early on in that span oftwo decades.”

Noting that the period from the late1970s to the late 1990s produced “nearlya dozen books … about von Braun andhis rocket team,” Ward opines that “nonehad dealt fully with the total man: not onlythe professional figure, but also thepersonality, … the ‘human side’ of thiscomplex man.” Ward began thissubstantial biographical effort in 1998,believing he could “bring new insights andjournalistic objectivity to the story.”

Over one hundred interviewscontributed to this book. Ward’s list ofinterviewees is impressive, includingWalter Cronkite, John Glenn, James VanAllen and William Pickering.Interestingly, Ward also acknowledges the“selfless help” of Ernst Stuhlinger andFred Ordway. The latter pair authoredwhat might be considered a competingpublication - Wernher von Braun:Crusader for Space.

Presented in twenty-two chapters withjournalistic titles such as “To the Manor

Born,” “Encounters with Hitler” and“Perigee in Washington,” From Nazis toNASA finds a rare balance for a historybook: it boasts solid reference materialand the legitimacy of one-on-oneinterviews, but it is composed by a storywriter, rather than a compiler of facts.Those who have attempted to penetratethe texts of some professional spacehistorians will recognize the value of thisunderrated skill. The book’s anecdote-per-page style makes it easily readableand informative, providing from the firstchapter a growing appreciation for itssubject.

Ward’s talent, which was developedas editor of The Huntsville Times, isevident in his ability to choose engagingquotes. Following an excerpt duringwhich children in the Yucatan junglechase von Braun for autographs, Wardquotes von Braun’s “favourite autographstory.” In the late 1950s, an Americanschoolgirl requested two autographs.“But why do you want two?” von Braunreplied. The girl answered sweetly,“Because for two of yours I can [get]one of Elvis Presley’s.”

Although von Braun’s story wasintended to be self-effacing, theimplication that he was half as famousas Presley speaks volumes. In fact,Hollywood made a film about von Braun’slife when he was still in his forties.Television featured him in prime time, andvon Braun’s face graced magazinecovers.

Naturally, the question surfacesregarding von Braun’s wartimeinvolvement and forced labour used

during production of the V-2. Wardreports the standard evidence andconcludes that von Braun’s “feelings onthe moral issue of using slave labour couldnot later be known with certainty.” As anappendix, Ward includes a letter on “moralresponsibility,” written by von Braun inresponse to a critic. War is, by nature,an event which alienates, brutalizes andisolates ordinary people. In light of this,von Braun gives a reasonable account ofhimself, especially since he was, at onepoint, arrested and imprisoned by the SShimself.

Space technology engages theimagination. The people who create suchtechnology can be equally fascinating.There will always be a market forbiographies of space pioneers such as vonBraun. They help to place technology inhistorical context and give it humanperspective. Although several biographiesof von Braun are available, you would dowell to read this one before delving intomore clinical tomes authored byprofessional space historians. Onceyou’ve finished From Nazis to NASA,you’ll doubtless be equipped and eager toread more about this unique characterfrom the Space Age.


NOTES ON NEW BOOKS

CONTACT WITH ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS:Our Hopes and Fears about EncounteringExtraterrestrialsReviewed by De Witt Douglas Kilgore

Contact with Alien Civilizations: OurHopes and Fears about EncounteringExtraterrestrials, by Michael A. G.Michaud, Copernicus Books, 2007, 460pages, $27.50, ISBN 0-387-28598-9[hardcover]

Michael Michaud’s Contact withAlien Civilizations is a well-informed,impressively researched presentation ofan often fantastical subject. The bookopens with a survey of Western interestin the idea of extraterrestrial beings. Itthen explores the impact of the DrakeEquation in founding modern SETI, andconsiders what we can suppose aboutalien intelligence. The book closes withideas regarding how to prepare for newsthat humanity may not be alone in theuniverse.

This brief review does not do justiceto Michaud’s densely packed treatment.He cast a broad net, giving attention toideas and debates that surround detectionor contact with extraterrestrialintelligence. SETI advocates such asFrank Drake, Jill Tarter, and Carl Saganshare space with skeptics Ernst Meyer,Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. Theperspectives of hard science arejuxtaposed with the contributions ofsocial scientists, historians and literarycritics such as Stephen Dick, JaredDiamond, and Mark Rose. Science fictionand popular science writers such as OlafStapledon and David Brin are includedas well. The resulting interdisciplinarystew is substantial and rewarding.

On the other hand, this book lacks astrong narrative drive which would keepa casual reader interested. There is somerepetition and belaboring of points.

Perhaps in recognition of this, the book isstructured like an introductory textbook.Chapters are divided by informational sub-headings. Bold-faced sections entitled“Mind-Stretcher” or “A Mirror Image”interject speculative asides within the moreprosaic text. Boxed sections containing awide variety of information and second-thought breakouts provide counterpoint forthe main discussion. Modulating the text inthis way often helps illuminate complex anddifficult subjects. It can tire or distract theless studious reader, though. WhateverMichaud’s ambition may have been forproviding a general introduction to SETI,this is not a book for the absolute beginner.

Michaud is mostly evenhanded in histreatment of the debates and positions hepresents. However, anyone who hasfollowed his previous work on theimplications of communicating withextraterrestrials will recognize the dominanttheme of this book. It is a vigorouslymounted argument that Active SETI shouldnot be undertaken by a small group ofscientists, no matter how well intentioned.He argues that attempting to communicatewith another intelligent species “is a cultural

De Witt Douglas Kilgore is AssociateProfessor of English and CulturalStudies at Indiana University and theauthor of Astrofuturism: Science,Race and Visions of Utopia in Space.

and political act whose consequencesare not predictable.” The last quarter ofContact with Alien Civilizations istherefore concerned with arguing for thekinds of interdisciplinary collaborationsbetween the sciences and socialsciences that he sees as critical fortranslating or managing anextraterrestrial message or visit.

What follows from this is Michaud’scontention that no intellectual elite shouldbe allowed to control a contact. Somesort of democratic or internationalgovernmental process should beestablished to set policy for a responsein the name of all humanity. He argues,in other words, that the politician, thecitizen, and the scientist each have rolesto play in any viable contact scenario.

There is certainly much to disagreewith. For example, while Michaud doessubscribe to the idea that alien encounterwould change humanity, his politicalrealism provides no insight as to howsuch change might unfold. Hisperspective, however, is earned fromlong experience as a foreign servicediplomat. It is a unique point of viewwhich helps to make this book valuable.Michaud’s experience disciplines hisnotion of how humans behave, and whatwe might expect from aliens withenough technological and culturalproximity to easily communicate withus. I’d recommend this book as idealfor anyone interested in a broad but stilldetailed view of a thought-provokingsubject.


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

___________________________________________________________________________________Title Company

___________________________________________________________________________________Address

___________________________________________________________________________________City State Zip Code

___________________________________________________________________________________Phone E-mail

Membership TypeMember .............................. $85Affiliate ............................ $85Senior Member .............. $100Retired .............................. $35Teacher (K-12) ................. $35Student (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

CORRECTION: The Abstract Submission Deadline for the 18th AAS/AAIA Space Flight MechanicsMeeting is October 7, 2007. It was listed as October 27 in the May/June 2007 issue of SPACETIMES (Volume 46:3).

Have you recently relocated or changed jobs? We valueyour membership and do not want you to miss anypublications or correspondence. Please notify theAAS Business Office of any changes to your contactinformation.


UPCOMING EVENTS

*AAS Cosponsored Meetings

AAS Events ScheduleThe 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 CorporationEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityGeneral Dynamics AISGeorge Mason University, CAPRHoneywell Technology Solutions, Inc.Jacobs Technology, Inc.Jet Propulsion LaboratoryKinetX, Inc.Lockheed Martin CorporationN. Hahn & Co., Inc.NoblisNorthrop Grumman Space TechnologyOrbital Sciences CorporationRaytheonSAICThe Tauri GroupTechnica, Inc.Texas A&M UniversityUnivelt, Inc.Universal Space NetworkUniversity of FloridaUtah State University / Space Dynamics Lab.Virginia TechWomen in AerospaceWyle Laboratories

AAS CORPORATE MEMBERS

In Memorium

November 13-14, 2007AAS National Conference and54th Annual MeetingCelebrating Fifty Years - But, What’s Next?South Shore Harbour ResortHouston, TexasFor information: www.astronautical.org

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

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

March 5-6, 200846th Robert H. Goddard MemorialSymposiumGreenbelt Marriott HotelGreenbelt, MarylandFor information: www.astronautical.org

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

Charles T. Force, AAS Fellow and former Associate Administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Communications,passed away on August 9, 2007, at the age of 72. Charles joined NASA in 1965 as director of the Guam trackingstation which was used to support the Apollo lunar landings, and would later go on to help develop, construct, andemploy NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, known as TDRSS.


6352 Rolling Mill PlaceSuite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2354

Address Service Requested

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit #565

Springfield, VA

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · the magazine of the american astronautical...

Documents

Transcript of THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY · the magazine of the american astronautical...