DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The 2008 Annual Report of the International Space Exploration Coordination Group Released March 2009 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 4 Part 1: The Role of the ISECG 1.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………. 6 1.2 Working Groups of the ISECG …………………………………………………… 7 1.2.1 Enhancement of Public Engagement …………………………………………… 7 1.2.2 Establishment of Relationships with Existing International Working Groups …. 7 1.2.3 The International Space Exploration Coordination Tool (INTERSECT) ……. 8 1.2.4 The Space Exploration Interface Standards Working Group (ISWG) ………….. 8 1.2.5 Mapping the Space Exploration Journey ………………………………………... 8 Part 2: Current and Near-Term Activities of ISECG Members 2.1 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) …………………………………………………………… 10 2.1.1 The International Space Station (ISS) …………………………………………… 10 2.1.2 Emerging Government Capabilities …………………………………………….. 10 2.1.3 Emerging Commercial Providers ……………………………………………….. 11 2.2 Beyond LEO – The Moon and Mars ……………………………………………….. 11 2.2.1 Moon ……………………………………………………………………………… 11 2.2.2 Mars ………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Part 3: Progress in 2008 towards Opportunities for Integrated and Collaborative Space Exploration 3.1 Robotic Network Science – The International Lunar Network ……………………… 16 3.2 Joint Development for Robotic Exploration – Mars Sample Return ………………………… 17 3.3 Collaborative Human Exploration of the Moon ……………………………………… 18 3.4 An Eventual Human Mission to Mars ………………………………………………. 19 Part 4: Summary and Way Forward …………………………………………………… 20 ANNEX I: Highlights of Space Agencies' Exploration Activities ASI/Italy ………………………………………………………………………………….. 26 BNSC/United Kingdom ………………………………………………………………….. 28 CNES/France ……………………………………………………………………………... 30 CSA/Canada ……………………………………………………………………………… 32 CSIRO/Australia …………………………………………………………………………. 34 DLR/Germany ……………………………………………………………………………. 36 ESA/Europe ………………………………………………………………………………. 38 JAXA-JSPEC/Japan ……………………………………………………………………… 40 NASA/United States of America …………………………………………………………. 42 NSAU/Ukraine ……………………………………………………………………………. 44 2 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 International Space Exploration Coordination Group Annual Report: 2008 Introduction This second Annual Report of the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) and its sub-working groups provides highlights of their activities during the past twelve-months including the progress of its Workplan, work ahead, the major space exploration accomplishments of its members including future opportunities, and progress in implementing the Themes described in The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination. In addition, this ISECG Annual Report, as with the 2007 edition, provides an opportunity for agencies to update the international community on their individual space exploration plans – this information will be found in the Annex. The Annual Report is intended to keep all exploration stakeholders, including other exploration related coordination groups, better informed of the ISECG's work and progress implementing the Global Exploration Strategy Framework document. Efficient, beneficial and public supported Space Exploration can only be accomplished as an international endeavour involving a diverse stakeholder community comprising; space agencies and their policy/funding governments, industry, scientific institutions, academia, and non-profit groups. The ISECG is facilitating this dialogue and understanding. 4 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 5 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 Part 1 The Role of the ISECG 1.1 Overview The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) was born out of The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination (GES or Framework Document) that was prepared by fourteen space agencies1 and published in May 2007. The GES elaborates a vision for the peaceful robotic and human space exploration, including a common set of key space exploration themes, focusing on destinations within the Solar System where humans may one day live and work. This focus on human activity puts low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars into particular focus of the ISECG. The Framework Document also established the framework for the creation of the ISECG. The GES/Framework Document was clear concerning the Principles and Resulting Requirements that would govern the ISECG. The guiding Principles are: • Open and Inclusive (open to any agency with a vested interest in space exploration) • Flexible and Evolutionary (to meet changing needs and circumstances) • Effective (work to an agreed Work-Plan with deliverables useful to all stakeholders) • Mutual Interest (meet the needs of all stakeholders) The Terms of Reference (TORs) for the ISECG were formally adopted at the first meeting of the ISECG held in Berlin in November 2007. The primary purpose of the ISECG is to provide a forum for space agencies to discuss their interests, objectives and plans in space exploration with the view to working collectively towards the further development and implementation of the entire scope of the Global Exploration Strategy set out in the Framework Document. The expected benefits of this coordination are to increase robustness, safety and cost effectiveness of individual and collective exploration goals, and to facilitate the ability of participating agencies to engage in productive bilateral or multilateral discussions, while preserving their autonomy. This will contribute to strengthening the sustainability of global space exploration. In addition the ISECG will strive to promote interest and engagement in space exploration activities throughout society worldwide. The scope of the ISECG activities are broad and strategic, and focused on developing non- binding findings, recommendations and other outputs as necessary for use by participating agencies. In this regard the ISECG is different from other similar groups. The latter, such as the International Mars Exploration Working Group, having a more destination or discipline focus. Importantly, it is not the intent of the ISECG to either duplicate the work or govern the work of other coordination groups, but rather to "work with" them to ensure that ISECG Workplan activities are being covered. 1 In alphabetical order: ASI (Italy), BNSC (United Kingdom), CNES (France), CNSA (China), CSA (Canada), CSIRO (Australia), DLR (Germany), ESA (European Space Agency), ISRO (India), JAXA (Japan), KARI (Republic of Korea), NASA (United States of America), NSAU (Ukraine), Roscosmos (Russia). “Space Agencies” refers to government organizations responsible for space activities. 6 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 From the outset it was agreed that the ISECG would perform its work through an agreed Workplan with each activity being undertaken by a working-group comprising members with a particular interest and expertise in the subject. The Workplan is updated periodically as required such that it is always current, i.e., it is not an annual Workplan. Each Working-Group has a concrete deliverable(s). The ISECG and its Working Groups meet regularly via teleconference, as well as face-to-face meetings, and the ISECG meets in Plenary at least once a year. During the Plenary session agencies share the latest developments in their exploration programs and review the progress of the Workplan Working Groups. The ISECG is supported by a small permanent Secretariat, provided by ESA. The second meeting of the ISECG was held in Montreal, Canada in July 2008 and the third meeting was held in Yokohama, Japan in March 2009. For more information on the ISECG, its publications and for Agencies to request membership please contact the ISECG Secretariat at: [email protected]. The ISECG will soon have a dedicated website. 1.2 Working Groups of the ISECG The ISECG accomplishes its tasks throughout the year through the work of several working groups. These working groups are introduced below, and in some cases described in more detail in corresponding sections of this report. 1.2.1 Enhancement of Public Engagement This Working Group, led by DLR, is identifying the key elements for public engagement that could be used by participating Agencies to promote exploration. 1.2.2 Establishment of Working Relationships with Existing International Working Groups As already mentioned it is not the intent of the ISECG to either duplicate the work or govern the work of other coordination groups, but rather to work with them to ensure that ISECG Workplan activities are being covered. This Working Group, led by CNES, has identified those international bodies of particular relevance to the ISECG and is ensuring that these groups are familiar with the work of the ISECG – the ISECG Annual Reports are one informing mechanism. In addition the ISECG has identified areas, which would greatly benefit from close contact between ISECG and existing working groups. Examples of such activities include: (a) development of exploration data archiving and distribution standards as might be addressed by the International Planetary
Recommended publications
  • Report of the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration

    Report of the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration

    1 ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Burlington House, Piccadilly London W1J 0BQ, UK T: 020 7734 4582/ 3307 F: 020 7494 0166 [email protected] www.ras.org.uk Registered Charity 226545 Report of the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration Professor Frank Close, OBE Dr John Dudeney, OBE Professor Ken Pounds, CBE FRS 2 Contents (A) Executive Summary 3 (B) The Formation and Membership of the Commission 6 (C) The Terms of Reference 7 (D) Summary of the activities/meetings of the Commission 8 (E) The need for a wider context 8 (E1) The Wider Science Context (E2) Public inspiration, outreach and educational Context (E3) The Commercial/Industrial context (E4) The Political and International context. (F) Planetary Science on the Moon & Mars 13 (G) Astronomy from the Moon 15 (H) Human or Robotic Explorers 15 (I) Costs and Funding issues 19 (J) The Technological Challenge 20 (J1) Launcher Capabilities (J2) Radiation (K) Summary 23 (L) Acknowledgements 23 (M) Appendices: Appendix 1 Expert witnesses consulted & contributions received 24 Appendix 2 Poll of UK Astronomers 25 Appendix 3 Poll of Public Attitudes 26 Appendix 4 Selected Web Sites 27 3 (A) Executive Summary 1. Scientific missions to the Moon and Mars will address questions of profound interest to the human race. These include: the origins and history of the solar system; whether life is unique to Earth; and how life on Earth began. If our close neighbour, Mars, is found to be devoid of life, important lessons may be learned regarding the future of our own planet. 2. While the exploration of the Moon and Mars can and is being addressed by unmanned missions we have concluded that the capabilities of robotic spacecraft will fall well short of those of human explorers for the foreseeable future.
  • Of 13 Human Mars Mission Design – the Ultimate Systems Challenge

    Of 13 Human Mars Mission Design – the Ultimate Systems Challenge

    Human Mars Mission Design – The Ultimate Systems Challenge John F. Connolly a, B. Kent Joostenb, Bret Drakec, Steve Hoffmanc, Tara Polsgroved, Michelle Ruckera, Alida Andrewsc, Nehemiah Williamsa a NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, john.connolly- [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] b Consultant,2383 York Harbour Ct., League City, TX 77573, [email protected] c The Aerospace Corporation, 2310 E El Segundo Blvd, El Segundo, California 90245, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] d NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama 35812, [email protected] Abstract A human mission to Mars will occur at some time in the coming decades. When it does, it will be the end result of a complex network of interconnected design choices, systems analyses, technical optimizations, and non-technical compromises. This mission will extend the technologies, engineering design, and systems analyses to new limits, and may very well be the most complex undertaking in human history. It can be illustrated as a large menu, or as a large decision tree. Whatever the visualization tool, there are numerous design decisions required to assemble a human Mars mission, and many of these interconnect with one another. This paper examines these many decisions and further details a number of choices that are highly interwoven throughout the mission design. The large quantity of variables and their interconnectedness results in a highly complex systems challenge, and the paper illustrates how a change in one variable results in ripples (sometimes unintended) throughout many other facets of the design.
  • Human Mars Architecture

    Human Mars Architecture

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Mars Architecture Tara Polsgrove NASA Human Mars Study Team 15th International Planetary Probe Workshop June 11, 2018 Space Policy Directive-1 “Lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities. Beginning with missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations.” 2 EXPLORATION CAMPAIGN Gateway Initial ConfigurationLunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (Notional) Orion 4 5 A Brief History of Human Exploration Beyond LEO America at DPT / NEXT NASA Case the Threshold Constellation National Studies Program Lunar Review of Commission First Lunar Architecture U.S. Human on Space Outpost Team Spaceflight Plans Committee Pathways to Exploration Columbia Challenger 1980 1990 2000 2010 Bush 41 Bush 43 7kObama HAT/EMC MSC Speech Speech Speech Report of the 90-Day Study on Human Exploration of the Moon and Mars NASA’s Journey to National Aeronautics and November 1989 Global Leadership Space Administration Mars Exploration and 90-Day Study Mars Design Mars Design Roadmap America’s Reference Mars Design Reference Future in Reference Mission 1.0 Exploration Architecture Space Mission 3.0 System 5.0 Exploration Architecture Blueprint Study 6 Exploring the Mars Mission Design Tradespace • A myriad of choices define
  • Spring 2018 Undergraduate Law Journal

    Spring 2018 Undergraduate Law Journal

    SPRING 2018 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL The Final Frontier: Evolution of Space Law in a Global Society By: Garett Faulkender and Stephan Schneider Introduction “Space: the final frontier!” These are the famous introductory words spoken by William Shatner on every episode of Star Trek. This science-fiction TV show has gained a cult-following with its premise as a futuristic Space odyssey. Originally released in 1966, many saw the portrayed future filled with Space-travel, inter-planetary commerce and politics, and futuristic technology as merely a dream. However, today we are starting to explore this frontier. “We are entering an exciting era in [S]pace where we expect more advances in the next few decades than throughout human history.”1 Bank of America/Merrill Lynch has predicted that the Space industry will grow to over $2.7 trillion over the next three decades. Its report said, “a new raft of drivers is pushing the ‘Space Age 2.0’”.2 Indeed, this market has seen start-up investments in the range of $16 billion,3 helping fund impressive new companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX. There is certainly a market as Virgin Galactic says more than 600 customers have registered for a $250,000 suborbital trip, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Katy Perry, Ashton Kutcher, and physicist Stephen Hawking.4 Although Space-tourism is the exciting face of a future in Space, the Space industry has far more to offer. According to the Satellite Industries 1 Michael Sheetz, The Space Industry Will Be Worth Nearly $3 Trillion in 30 Years, Bank of America Predicts, CNBC, (last updated Oct.
  • Gnc 2021 Abstract Book

    Gnc 2021 Abstract Book

    GNC 2021 ABSTRACT BOOK Contents GNC Posters ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Poster 01: A Software Defined Radio Galileo and GPS SW receiver for real-time on-board Navigation for space missions ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Poster 02: JUICE Navigation camera design .................................................................................................... 9 Poster 03: PRESENTATION AND PERFORMANCES OF MULTI-CONSTELLATION GNSS ORBITAL NAVIGATION LIBRARY BOLERO ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Poster 05: EROSS Project - GNC architecture design for autonomous robotic On-Orbit Servicing .............. 12 Poster 06: Performance assessment of a multispectral sensor for relative navigation ............................... 14 Poster 07: Validation of Astrix 1090A IMU for interplanetary and landing missions ................................... 16 Poster 08: High Performance Control System Architecture with an Output Regulation Theory-based Controller and Two-Stage Optimal Observer for the Fine Pointing of Large Scientific Satellites ................. 18 Poster 09: Development of High-Precision GPSR Applicable to GEO and GTO-to-GEO Transfer ................. 20 Poster 10: P4COM: ESA Pointing Error Engineering
  • Aerospace Dimensions Leader's Guide

    Aerospace Dimensions Leader's Guide

    Leader Guide www.capmembers.com/ae Leader Guide for Aerospace Dimensions 2011 Published by National Headquarters Civil Air Patrol Aerospace Education Maxwell AFB, Alabama 3 LEADER GUIDES for AEROSPACE DIMENSIONS INTRODUCTION A Leader Guide has been provided for every lesson in each of the Aerospace Dimensions’ modules. These guides suggest possible ways of presenting the aerospace material and are for the leader’s use. Whether you are a classroom teacher or an Aerospace Education Officer leading the CAP squadron, how you use these guides is up to you. You may know of different and better methods for presenting the Aerospace Dimensions’ lessons, so please don’t hesitate to teach the lesson in a manner that works best for you. However, please consider covering the lesson outcomes since they represent important knowledge we would like the students and cadets to possess after they have finished the lesson. Aerospace Dimensions encourages hands-on participation, and we have included several hands-on activities with each of the modules. We hope you will consider allowing your students or cadets to participate in some of these educational activities. These activities will reinforce your lessons and help you accomplish your lesson out- comes. Additionally, the activities are fun and will encourage teamwork and participation among the students and cadets. Many of the hands-on activities are inexpensive to use and the materials are easy to acquire. The length of time needed to perform the activities varies from 15 minutes to 60 minutes or more. Depending on how much time you have for an activity, you should be able to find an activity that fits your schedule.
  • MOONLITE : the SCIENTIFIC CASE. IA Crawford1, AJ Ball2, L. Wilson3

    MOONLITE : the SCIENTIFIC CASE. IA Crawford1, AJ Ball2, L. Wilson3

    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIX (2008) 1069.pdf * MOONLITE : THE SCIENTIFIC CASE. I.A. Crawford1, A.J. Ball2, L. Wilson3, A. Smith4, Y. Gao5 and the UK Pene- trator Consortium6. 1School of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck College, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. 2Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. 3Department of Environmental Science, Lancaster University, UK. 4Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, UK. 5Surrey Space Centre, University of Surrey, UK.6www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/pages/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf. *MoonLITE is a UK-led initiative which is currently the focus of a joint UK-NASA study. (Email: [email protected]). Introduction: The principal scientific importance the lunar crust and upper mantle [4,5]. However, the of the Moon is as a recorder of geological processes deep interior of the Moon was only very loosely con- active in the early history of terrestrial planets (e.g. strained by Apollo seismology due to the geographi- planetary differentiation, magma ocean formation and cally limited coverage of the network (essentially a evolution, etc), and of the near-Earth cosmic environ- triangle between the Apollo 12/14, 15 and 16 sites), so ment throughout Solar System history [1,2]. Although the information obtained on crustal thickness and man- the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions have in tle structure may not be globally representative. There recent years greatly added to our knowledge of the is now a pressing need for a more widely-spaced net- geochemical and mineralogical makeup of the lunar work of lunar seismic stations, including stations at surface, and these observations will soon be supple- high latitudes and on the farside.
  • Mars, the Nearest Habitable World – a Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration

    Mars, the Nearest Habitable World – a Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration

    Mars, the Nearest Habitable World – A Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration Report by the NASA Mars Architecture Strategy Working Group (MASWG) November 2020 Front Cover: Artist Concepts Top (Artist concepts, left to right): Early Mars1; Molecules in Space2; Astronaut and Rover on Mars1; Exo-Planet System1. Bottom: Pillinger Point, Endeavour Crater, as imaged by the Opportunity rover1. Credits: 1NASA; 2Discovery Magazine Citation: Mars Architecture Strategy Working Group (MASWG), Jakosky, B. M., et al. (2020). Mars, the Nearest Habitable World—A Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration. MASWG Members • Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado (chair) • Richard Zurek, Mars Program Office, JPL (co-chair) • Shane Byrne, University of Arizona • Wendy Calvin, University of Nevada, Reno • Shannon Curry, University of California, Berkeley • Bethany Ehlmann, California Institute of Technology • Jennifer Eigenbrode, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center • Tori Hoehler, NASA/Ames Research Center • Briony Horgan, Purdue University • Scott Hubbard, Stanford University • Tom McCollom, University of Colorado • John Mustard, Brown University • Nathaniel Putzig, Planetary Science Institute • Michelle Rucker, NASA/JSC • Michael Wolff, Space Science Institute • Robin Wordsworth, Harvard University Ex Officio • Michael Meyer, NASA Headquarters ii Mars, the Nearest Habitable World October 2020 MASWG Table of Contents Mars, the Nearest Habitable World – A Comprehensive Program for Future Mars Exploration Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................
  • Constellation Program Overview

    Constellation Program Overview

    Constellation Program Overview October 2008 hris Culbert anager, Lunar Surface Systems Project Office ASA/Johnson Space Center Constellation Program EarthEarth DepartureDeparture OrionOrion -- StageStage CrewCrew ExplorationExploration VehicleVehicle AresAres VV -- HeavyHeavy LiftLift LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle AltairAltair LunarLunar LanderLander AresAres II -- CrewCrew LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle Lunar Capabilities Concept Review EstablishedEstablished Lunar Lunar Transportation Transportation EstablishEstablish Lunar Lunar Surface SurfaceArchitecturesArchitectures ArchitectureArchitecture Point Point of of Departure: Departure: StrategiesStrategies which: which: Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree ProvidesProvides crew crew & & cargo cargo delivery delivery to to & & from from the the Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree within acceptable schedule moonmoon within acceptable schedule Are consistent with capacity and capabilities ProvidesProvides capacity capacity and and ca capabilitiespabilities consistent consistent Are consistent with capacity and capabilities withwith candidate candidate surface surface architectures architectures ofof the the transportation transportation systems systems ProvidesProvides sufficient sufficient performance performance margins margins IncludeInclude set set of of options options fo for rvarious various prioritizations prioritizations of cost, schedule & risk RemainsRemains within within programmatic programmatic constraints constraints of cost, schedule & risk ResultsResults in in acceptable
  • LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B

    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B

    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE FOR LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B. Robinson∗ A trade study was conducted with the objective of comparing and contrasting the radiometric naviga- tion performance provided by various architectures of lunar-based navigations assets. Architectures considered consist of a compliment of two beacons located on the lunar surface, and two orbiting bea- cons that provide range and range-rate measurements to the user. Configurations of these assets include both coplanar and linked constellations of frozen elliptic orbiters and halo orbiters. Each architecture was studied during the lunar-approach, lunar-orbit, and landing phases of a South Pole lunar sortie mis- sion. Navigation filter performance was evaluated on the basis of filter convergence latency, and the steady state uncertainty in the navigation solution. The sensitivity of the filter solution to Earth-based tracking augmentation and availability of range measurements was also studied. Filter performance was examined during the build up of the lunar-based navigation system by exploring different combi- nations of orbiting and surface-based assets. 1 INTRODUCTION The objective of the work outlined in this document is to conduct a parametric trade intended to evaluate some proposed constellations of moon-orbiting navigation and communication beacons. These orbiting beacons are intended to support the lunar missions of NASA’s Constellation program. This study is sponsored by the flight performance systems integration group at JPL (FPSIG), whose work is funded by the NASA Constellation program office. The work outlined in this report will focus on investigating lunar network aided navigation performance during near lunar phases of baseline missions proposed by the Constellation program.
  • NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113Th Congress

    NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113Th Congress

    NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113th Congress Daniel Morgan Specialist in Science and Technology Policy July 11, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43144 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress NASA: Issues for Authorization, Appropriations, and Oversight in the 113th Congress Summary Spaceflight fascinates and inspires many Americans, but in a time of constrained federal budgets, it must compete with a multitude of other national priorities. As the 113th Congress conducts oversight and considers authorization and appropriations legislation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an overarching question is how NASA should move forward within budget constraints. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) set a new direction for NASA’s human spaceflight programs. For access to low Earth orbit, including the International Space Station (ISS), it confirmed NASA’s plans to develop a commercial space transportation capability for both cargo and astronauts. The first commercial cargo flight for ISS resupply was conducted in May 2012. Pending the planned availability of commercial crew transportation in 2017, NASA is paying Russia to carry U.S. astronauts to and from the ISS on Soyuz spacecraft. Issues for Congress include the cost, schedule, and safety of future commercial crew services, as well as the need for alternatives if commercial providers do not succeed. For human exploration beyond Earth orbit, the 2010 NASA authorization act mandated development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch Orion into space.
  • Annual Report of S.P

    Annual Report of S.P

    ANNUAL REPORT OF S.P. KOROLEV ROCKET AND SPACE PUBLIC CORPORATION ENERGIA FOR 2019 This Annual Report of S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation Energia (RSC Energia) was prepared based upon its performance in 2019 with due regard for the requirements stated in the Russian Federation Government Decree of December 31, 2010 No. 1214 “On Improvement of the Procedure to Control Open Joint-Stock Companies whose Stock is in Federal Ownership and Federal State Unitary Enterprises”, and in accordance with the Regulations “On Information Disclosure by the Issuers of Outstanding Securities” No. 454-P approved by the Bank of Russia on December 30, 2014 Accuracy of the data contained in this Annual Report, including the Report on the interested-party transactions effected by RSC Energia in 2019, was confirmed by RSC Energia’s Auditing Committee Report as of 01.06.2020. This Annual Report was preliminary approved by RSC Energia’s Board of Directors on August 24, 2020 (Minutes No. 31). This Annual Report was approved at RSC Energia’s General Shareholders’ Meeting on September 28, 2020 (Minutes No 40 of 01.10.2020). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT RSC ENERGIA ............................. 6 1.1. Company background .........................................................................................................................6 1.2. Period of the Company operation in the industry ...............................................................................6 1.3. Information about the purchase and sale contracts for participating interests, equities, shares of business partnerships and companies concluded by the Company in 2019 ..............................................7 1.4. Information about the holding structure and the organizations involved ...........................................8 2. PRIORITY DIRECTIONS OF RSC ENERGIA OPERATION ........................ 11 2.1.