Nanotechnology in Space Exploration

A STUDY TO DETERMINE IF NANOTECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE APPLIED TO SPACE EXPLORATION

Mark Edwin Freeman

A Graduate Research Project Proposal Submitted to the Extended Campus in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the Degree of Master of Aeronautical Science

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Extended Campus Cheyenne Center May 2008 A STUDY TO DETERMINE IF NANOTECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE APPLIED TO SPACE EXPLORATION

Mark Edwin Freeman

This Graduate Research Capstone Proposal was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Review Committee Member, Dr. Walter Goedecke, Adjunct Associate Professor, Extended Campus, and the candidate’s Project Review Committee Chair, Dr. David Cross, Associate Professor, Extended Campus, and has been approved by the Project Review Committee. It was submitted to the Extended Campus in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Aeronautical Science

PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE:

______Dr. Walter Goedecke, Ph. D. Committee Member

______Dr. David Cross, Ph. D. Committee Chair

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to my employers at Sandia National Laboratories for their cooperation and assistance in making this research project a reality. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to my wife and children for their patience and support of this work.

iii ABSTRACT

Researcher: Mark Freeman

Title: A Study to Determine if Nanotechnology Should Be Applied To Space Exploration

Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Degree: Master of Aeronautical Science

Year: 2008

Foremost among the challenges facing the U.S. space program are improving the performance, reliability, and cost effectiveness of spacecraft. Recent advances in the field of nanotechnology promise techniques that will meet these challenges through molecular scale manufacturing of sensors, machines, and computers. These nanometer sized devices have the potential to revolutionize spacecraft design. A major factor in implementing nanotechnology will be public acceptance. Innovations such as irradiated food and genetically engineered crops have faced tremendous resistance from consumers, leading to the near abandonment of the technology. This study will determine if there is specific statistical evidence from the general public to indicate acceptance of nanotechnology applications in space exploration.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION

Background of the problem 1

Researcher’s Work Setting 4

Statement of the Problem 4

Limitations 5

Assumptions 5

Definition of Terms 6

Acronyms 7

II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction 7

Summary 13

Risks and Concerns 14

Statement of the Hypothesis 16

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Model 17

v Survey Population 18

The Data Collection Device 18

Instrument Pretest 19

Instrument Reliability 19

Instrument Validity 20

Procedures 20

IV RESULTS 21

V DISCUSSION 38

VI CONCLUSIONS 42

VII RECOMMENDATIONS 43

REFERENCES 44

APPENDIX A

Survey Instrument 47

APPENDIX B

Survey Results 51

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Statement 1 22

2 Statement 2 23

2.1 Responses to statement 2 by age 24

3 Statement 3 25

4 Statement 4 26

5 Statement 5 27

6 Statement 6 28

7 Statement 7 29

8 Statement 8 30

9 Statement 9 31

10 Statement 10 32

11 Statement 11 33

12 Statement 12 34

13 Statement 13 35

14 Statement 14 37

15 Statement 15 37

vii 1 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

The potential for economic and scientific advancement based on nanotechnology is enormous. One of the greatest potential beneficiaries of this advancing technology will be the field of space exploration. The ability to reduce payload weight and control flight and propulsion systems with nanometer sized computers, machines, and materials could revolutionize space travel. Since nanoscience and nanotechnology are relatively new, the public is not generally aware of the great advances being made. Public opinion will be critical to the success or failure of this new technology as government funding and laws are often shaped by public perception.

A significant gap continues to exist between researchers of nanotechnology development on the one hand and politicians and consumers on the other (Kelsall, 2005).

Researchers tend not to understand potential implications and consequences of nanotechnology on society. Politicians, social scientists, and the public tend not to understand what nanotechnology is and where potential applications may lead to in the areas of drugs and nano sized machines. Their potential effects on everyday life are dramatic. Given the public resistance against genetically modified organisms and other biotechnology inventions, it is quite possible that similar concerns could arise regarding nanotechnology. Assessments and discussions about the ethical, legal, and social aspects of nano technology are in the early stages of development. Current potential issues related to nanotechnology involve the potential toxicity of nanoparticles and carbon nanotubes. Nanoparticles are 100 nm in diameter or smaller. They can be produced by a

2 number of methods, including wet chemical processes (reacting chemicals in solution), mechanical processes (grinding and milling), vacuum deposition, and gas phase synthesis

(Koo, 2006). Depending on the method of fabrication, nanoparticles can be produced in a variety of sizes, chemical compositions, and shapes, all with or without surface coating.

Each of these factors influences how nanomaterials will interact with living cells and tissues.

Skin exposure to carbon materials is known to increase the incidence of skin diseases such as carbon fiber dermatitis, respiratory tract infections, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, and even cancer (Fischer, 2005). Workers who are repeatedly exposed to high levels of carbon materials are most at risk. In the light of those findings, researchers have started to investigate whether the carbon exposure and skin disease relationship applies to carbon nanotubes as well.

Initial dermatological testing by the University of Warsaw to determine the effects of exposure of human skin to single wall carbon nanotubes showed that the nanotubes do not cause skin irritations or allergic reactions. Risks associated with nanomaterials will need to be fully analyzed where both hazards and exposure levels are determined. Both dose response and exposure response studies are needed to determine risks. Since only a small number of such studies have been performed on nanomaterials, the characterization of the human health risks to the various types of nanomaterials is far from complete.

Nanotechnology is an emerging field in a very early stage of development.

Beyond a small circle of experts in academics, industry, and government, few people really understand the potential for biomedical technology. The most common life-

3 threatening conditions worldwide are cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and infectious diseases. Nanostructured materials may be included in the future in medical devices such as pacemakers and drug dispensing machines to treat cardiovascular diseases. Currently, no cures exist for certain forms of cancer and the chemotherapy and radiation used to treat other types of cancer produce severe side effects. Nanodrug delivery may help to reduce such side effects. Nanoparticles applied in new imaging techniques and diagnostic chips may help identify cancers and other diseases in early phases of development so they may be easier to cure.

In recent years nanobiotechnology has witnessed an increase in interest towards nanoparticles and their biological effects and applications. These include bottom-up and molecular self-assembly as well as the biological effects of naked nanoparticles and nanosafety. Drug encapsulation, nanotherapeutics, and unique nanoparticles for use in imaging and diagnostics are also of medical interest. Some of the most promising applications of biologically inspired nanoparticles have been in tissue and cell specific drug delivery. The nanoparticles made of biopolymers, such as bacterial spores and viruses, are naturally uniform in size and offer precise control for targeting groups of cells and their components (Schwarz, 2004). In addition, these biological nanoparticles may be produced relatively easily and at low cost. All of these applications have the potential to improve human survivability in on Earth as well as in space.

4 Researcher’s Work Setting

As a Master’s degree candidate in the field of Aeronautical Science, the researcher is knowledgeable in the research methods necessary to perform this study.

Also, as a student at a nationally recognized university, the researcher has access to a large source of peer reviewed publications in the area of concern.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this capstone project is to perform a study of the current state of nanotechnology, the applicability of nanotechnology to space exploration, and the public perception of nanotechnology. Public opinion, whether positive, negative, or neutral, may influence the future of space exploration. It is therefore a topic worthy of study.

Limitations

This study will be limited in scope to survey participants that work for the same employer as the researcher. This group has been chosen due to financial and time constraints. Since the respondents will be employees of a company involved in scientific pursuits, they may posses a bias in favor of technical solutions that would not be found in the general population. The effects of this bias should be negligible as the employees in question form a cross section of working Americans with diverse backgrounds.

A unique condition of the study is that the topic is new and has not had a lot of exposure among the general population. Since the respondents are diverse and many are employed in technical fields, it is assumed that they will be at least as aware of nanoscience as the average American. Also, since the purpose of the survey is to determine what the public thinks, not what the public knows about nanotechnology, the newness of the technology should not be a negative factor in the study.

5 Assumptions

This study is based on the assumption that respondents will answer the survey honestly. This is a minor concern since the respondents will have little motivation to be deceitful in an anonymous survey. Another important fact assumed to be true is that it matters what the public’s opinion is. Since our political structure is that of a democracy, with representatives that must occasionally answer to voters, assuming that the public’s opinion matters is a reasonable assumption. A third assumption of this study is that nanotechnology will deliver in its potential to significantly impact space exploration.

Definition of Terms

Nano – generally, placing nano before any term indicates that the activity takes place at the nano scale, 100 nano-meters (nm) or smaller. For comparison, a human hair is

1000nm in diameter.

Nanoscience – manipulation and control of matter on the atomic and molecular scale

Nanoparticles – particles 100 nm in diameter or smaller

6 Acronyms

ERAU – Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

GCP – Graduate Capstone Project

JPL – Jet Propulsion Laboratory

NASA – National Aeronautical and Science Administration

NCI – National Cancer Institute

NSF – National Science Foundation

7 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELAVENT LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Introduction

Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation or self-assembly of individual atoms,

molecules, or molecular clusters into structures with dimensions in the 1 to 100

nanometer (nm) range to create materials and devices with new or radically

different properties. By comparison, a human hair is about 10,000 nanometers

thick, or 0.01mm. Some scientists believe that the ability to move and combine

individual atoms and molecules will revolutionize the production of virtually every

human made object and usher in a new technology revolution at least as significant

as the silicon revolution of the 20th century.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the United States is built around five funding themes distributed among the agencies currently funding nanoscale science and technology research. In addition to federal funding, some states are also dedicating considerable funds to nanotechnology (Borisenko, 2004). Long-term basic nanoscience and engineering research currently focuses on fundamental understanding and synthesis of nanometer-size building blocks aimed at achieving breakthroughs in several areas.

These include medicine and health care, chemical and pharmaceutical industries, biotechnology and agriculture, as well as space travel and national security. This funding is intended to provide sustained support for individual investigators and small groups performing fundamental research. Another goal is to promote partnerships between universities, industry, and federal laboratories while encouraging interagency collaboration.

8 The NSF established the Nanobiotechnology Center (NBTC) at Cornell

University as a science and technology facility in 2000. The NBTC applies the tools and processes of nano and microfabrication to build devices for studying biosystems while learning from nature how to create better micro to nanoscale devices. The center’s work involves nanofabricated materials that incorporate cellular components on their own length scales such as proteins and DNA. Nanobiotechnology also offers opportunities in the areas of biological functionalities in relation to inorganic biological interfaces. The center utilizes nanofabricated research tools to probe biological systems, separate biological components for characterization, and engineer biological components into useful devices.

A major focus of NASA is advancing and exploiting the zone of convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology related to space exploration.

NASA envisions aerospace vehicles and spacecraft made from materials ten times stronger and less than half the weights of current materials. Such equipment will include embedded sensors, actuators, and devices to monitor internal health during extended space missions and perform self repairs of vehicles. Information systems and science systems based on nanoscale electronics will extend beyond the limits of silicon, leading to the capability to conduct highly complex missions with nearly autonomous spacecraft.

Key areas of NASA research and technology development involve high performance aerospace materials including carbon nanotubes and high temperature nanoscale composites, ultrahigh density low power space-durable information systems, electronics, and sensor systems (Reith, 2003). Also, super sensitive robust spacecraft systems are under investigation, as well as systems for on mission human health care. NASA’s

9 investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology involve contributions to several laboratories, including Ames, Langley, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), along with externally supported research. The earliest priorities in nanotechnology included biomedical sensors and medical devices. Major efforts in later programs included manufacturing techniques for single walled carbon nanotubes for structural reinforcement, electronic, magnetic, lubricating, and optical devices; chemical sensors and biosensors. Also under study are tools for developing autonomous devices that can sense, articulate, communicate, and function as a network. This could make it possible to extend human presence beyond the normal senses through robotics that utilize nanoelectronics, biological sensors, and artificial neural systems.

NASA invests up to $1 million per year toward understanding the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology, with a focus on the area of monitoring human health. University research centers are given opportunities to arrange research by student and postdoctoral fellows, including opportunities to work at NASA centers.

One basic NASA nanoscience program focused on biomolecular systems research which included a joint NASA/National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiative (Borisenko, 2004). A second focus is on biotechnology and structural biology. NASA wishes to advance and exploit the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology.

Collaboration is particularly important for NASA. It recognizes the importance of importing technologies from other private and government agencies. Because nanotechnology is in its infancy, the broad spectrum of basic research knowledge performed by other agencies would benefit NASA. NASA will concentrate primarily on

10 its unique needs such as low-power devices and high-strength materials that can perform with exceptional autonomy in a hostile space environment.

A joint program with NCI involved noninvasive human health monitoring through identification and detection of molecular signatures. This resulted from a common interest in the area of study. NASA looks to NSF sponsored work for wide-ranging data arising from fundamental research and emphasizes work in direct support of the grand challenge areas the agency selects for focus in collaboration with the Department of

Defense (Goddard, 2003). These areas include aerospace structural materials, radiation- tolerant devices, high-resolution imagery, noninvasive human health monitoring via identification and detection of molecular signatures, and biosensors, as well as the

Department of Energy lab on a chip for environmental monitoring. NASA has significantly increased university participation in nanotechnology programs by competitively awarding three university research, engineering, and technology grants that began in FY 2003.

One area of focus of these grants is bionanotechnology fusion. Each award is about three million dollars annually for 5 years, with an option to extend the award up to an additional 5 years. NASA’s Office of Aerospace Technology in Washington, D.C. established seven University Research Engineering and Technology Institutes (URETIs), each in an area of long-term strategic interest to the agency. The University of California at Los Angeles specializes in the fusion of bionanotechnology and information technology.

Princeton and Texas A&M Universities specialize in bionanotechnology materials and structures for aerospace vehicles. These new partnerships give NASA much-needed

11 research assistance in nanotechnology. All of the individual projects within the institutes have industry as well as university support.

The primary role of each university-based institute is to perform research and development that both increases fundamental understanding of phenomena and moves fundamental advances from scientific discovery to basic technology. The institutes also provide support for undergraduate and graduate students, curriculum development, personnel exchanges, learning opportunities, and training in advanced scientific and engineering concepts for the aerospace workforce (Schulte, 2005).

Economically, a sensible strategy for nanotechnology is to focus on niche markets to solve problems that have no currently available established technological solutions.

While it is likely that many markets are relevant for nanotechnology, the health care and life science fields may be the best areas for concentration. An early example of a niche market device is the lab on a chip diagnostic technology that is both economical and easy to use. The Department of Energy was an early promoter of this strategy. It performed work for the federal government’s competence centers by investigating the potential of nanotechnology and its application to various sectors such as medicine, pharmacy, and biology.

The competence centers that were set up in 1998 are currently bringing together research organizations and major industries in an effort to stimulate transfers of nanotechnology. This policy follows the example that gave the German biotechnology sector a start. Other governments and organizations may have their own ideas about potential applications to pursue. Technological and economic developments are moving

12 rapidly and many foreign competitors are working toward developing the same applications for their own purposes.

For the United States and national policy makers, the relevance of research is not restricted to economic issues such as employment or the competitiveness of industries.

The research funded with taxpayer money has priorities that include better health care, sustainable industry, higher quality of life, as well as other benefits. At this early stage of development, it is easy to forecast that nanotechnology will contribute to better medicines and biomedical technologies.

Potential Uses of Nanotechnology

The potential uses of nanotechnology in space applications are mind boggling.

For example, solar cells containing nanolayers or nanorods could significantly increase the amount of electricity converted from sunlight. Computer memory devices utilize of the spin state of electrons could hold thousands of times more data than today's memory chips. Molecular devices that mimic processes within living cells could help humans to survive in the hostile environment of space. Clusters of nanocatalysts could help destroy environmental pollutants (Reith, 2003). All of these uses could be adapted for use in space.

Researchers are currently using ion implantation techniques to create lightweight aluminum composites that are as strong and durable as the strongest steel (Tsu, 2005).

Nanostructured semiconductor materials may enable high efficiency, low power lasers to be used for high-speed communications. Biosensors that use molecular bundles similar to those found in living cells are being created that could warn people when traces of

13 harmful chemical or biological agents are detected. Again, all of these applications will impact spacecraft design and space exploration.

Risks and Concerns

Potential uses of nanotechnology by the military and civilian government are far ranging and could be a cause of concern to the public. Debate over who will own the products of nanotechnology are inevitable as vast sums of money will be at stake. Also, the potential risks to human health from nanoparticles are virtually unexplored. It remains to be seen how engineered nanoparticles will interact with the human immune system. Current toxicological methods are unprepared for the new risks that will arise from the use of nanoparticles. Frequent exposure at low levels can possibly present some risks due to cumulative effects over time. Exposure levels to nanomaterials can vary, depending on the original form of the exposed material and the method of exposure, such as breathing, direct dermal exposure, or injection. An important issue is defining acceptable exposure levels through response studies that will provide data on chronic and acute exposure to a given nanomaterial (Rotkin, 2005).

Biomedical applications of nanotechnology promise to improve life styles and lead to better medical treatments, particularly for diseases for which existing treatments have undesirable side effects or diseases that have no treatments at present. Since the public is for the most part unaware of nanotechnology, one can only guess how the public will receive and perceive consumer products derived from nanotechnology. Few nano products exist to date and the few that are available have not encountered significant public resistance. However, as applications grow and as other interested parties become

14 active, consumers may develop stronger acceptance or resistance to nanotechnology- enhanced products.

The genetically modified food products for consumers are a case in point. Public fears can determine the progress or lack of progress of technological applications.

Throughout the 1990s, the public generally was oblivious to the existence and risks of genetically modified foods. That was until the publication of a controversial study reporting that rats fed with genetically modified potatoes suffered damage to vital organs.

This led to multiple news stories, a general public backlash, and a swift government response. In 1998, the European Commission placed a moratorium on the importation and cultivation of genetically modified foods by member states. Public fears were inflamed more by rumors than by scientific knowledge. The result of this outcry was that genetically modified foods were removed from the market. The moratorium was later lifted in July 2003, but strict labeling requirements were placed on all foods derived from genetic modifications.

While the great majority of the public may often be silent on a controversial issue, at times it can speak out and significantly affect the pace of technological developments.

Sometimes the public does this through consumption decisions, as in the case of the rejection of genetically modified foods. At other times, the public acts politically through referendum or demonstration, although these are not common approaches. So far, the public has not been a major player in the debate about the risks of nanotechnology.

Nanomaterials such as nanoparticles, quantum dots, nanotubes, and others can be viewed technically as chemicals. Currently, more than twenty million known chemicals are indexed by the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Abstract Service. Of these

15 twenty million, approximately six million are commercially available. At present, two hundred thousand are inventoried and regulated. Regulatory agencies generally attempt to focus on chemicals such as benzene, lead, and mercury that are biohazards. The vast majority of chemicals are unregulated.

Only very recently have governments considered regulation of nanomaterials. An umbrella of regulations is already in place for assessing and regulating the hazards new materials impose on human health and the environment. A key factor will be to determine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to regulate new nanomaterials and devices or whether they require amendments. Under current rules in the United States, nanomaterial based substances used in consumer products would be regulated under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act and be administered by the US

Consumer Product Safety Commission. No pre-market certification or approval is currently required for nanomaterials (Reith, 2003).

Discussions about regulation started in the US five years ago. During a workshop in the fall of 2003, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars based in

Washington, D.C. brought together experts in public policy, science, and engineering to discuss the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Administrated by the EPA, it is an existing framework that has regulated toxic substances in the US since 1976. The discussion was to determine if the act could apply to nanotechnology. Specifically, the participants considered, among other things, whether the TSCA would apply to the safety of and exposure to nanomaterials such as nanoparticles, fullerenes, and carbon nanotubes.

If the “Significant New Use Rule” of the act applies, the EPA could investigate the effects of nanomaterials prior to their manufacture and require post production testing for

16 exposure. Manufacturers, processors, and importers would then be subject to regulation.

Conclusions published in the report titled Nanotechnology and Regulation: A Case Study

Using the Toxic Substance Control Act stated that “The very nature of nanotechnology is likely to challenge the existing regulatory structure and cause confusion both on the side of industry and the government concerning the role of regulation.”

In conclusion, it remains to be seen whether the current regulations can apply to the production and use of nanomaterials. In some cases, it may be appropriate to revise existing laws, classifications, and labeling standards. Rules regarding the manufacture, use, and disposal of nanomaterials may be needed following studies of their impact on human health and the environment.

Summary

In summary, the object of this proposed project is to perform an opinion study to determine public opinion of nanotechnology applications in space exploration using the methods which will be outlined in Chapter III.

Statement of Hypothesis

Nanotechnology will have a positive effect on human society in general and on space travel in particular. The first alternate hypothesis is that nanotechnology will have only a minimal impact on space travel in the future. The null hypothesis is that there is no opinion on nanotechnology.

17 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Model

This study used the causal comparative method of research. A survey was the best way to efficiently and economically answer the research question, which involved asking specific questions about nanotechnology applications in space. A convenience sample was used to validate the hypothesis.

Survey Population

The population for this research was selected by the researcher to include a diverse group of workers that served as the source of data. The population was categorized into groups of those with high school diplomas, college graduates, and post college graduates. High school graduates are those that have either obtained a high school diploma or equivalent. The next group consisted of college graduates that have obtained a four year degree. The last group contained those that have obtained a master’s or doctoral degree.

The Data Collection Device

A five point Likert scale was used in the survey to obtain the level of responses to selected topic specific questions from each participant. Ethical standards were be observed at all times, ensuring that subjects were not deceived or injured by the survey.

The survey instrument is presented in Appendix A. Statement one, “I am aware of nanotechnology research” determines if the reader is at least aware of nanotechnology and qualifies as a candidate to continue the survey. Statement two, “I believe that nanotechnology could have a positive impact on space exploration” addresses whether or

18 not the responder has a positive, negative, or neutral opinion of nanotechnology. This statement will relate to the alternate or null hypothesis. Statement three “I believe that nanoresearch is important” allows the participant to indicate an attitude about nanotechnology and relates to the null hypothesis. Statement four, “I believe that nanotechnology could make space exploration more cost effective” addresses the public perception of the usefulness of nanotechnology. Statement five, “I believe that space exploration can improve life on Earth” considers sentiment toward space exploration in general and whether or not it has a positive impact on our home planet. Statement six, “I believe that manned space exploration should continue” addresses the question of whether manned versus unmanned space exploration should be a national priority.

Statement seven, “I believe that nanotechnology should be incorporated in future manned spacecraft” addresses potential issues regarding human contact with nanotechnology in space. Statement eight, “I am familiar with the concept of carbon nanotubes” indicates participant knowledge of a basic building block of nanotechnology. Statement nine, “I believe that nanotechnology is safe” would indicate a positive overall attitude toward nanotechnology and the level of concern over safety issues. Statement ten, “I believe that nanotechnology should be strictly regulated by the government” asks the participant if enough concerns exist to make government control of nanotechnology a priority.

Statement eleven, “I believe that self replicating nanomachines could pose a threat to humanity” addresses the participant’s potential fears and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Statement twelve, “I believe that nanotechnology could revolutionize medical care” measures sentiment toward the uses of nanotechnology in society at large.

19 Statements thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen collect participant information regarding gender, age, and education.

Instrument Pretest

A small scale trial of the survey was conducted by distributing a preliminary version of the survey to students of Embry-Riddle University, Cheyenne Center. The feedback from this pretest was used to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the survey.

Distribution Method

The survey was distributed by hand to the researcher’s co-workers at a department meeting. The first 50 people to accept a survey were used in this study. Presumably, only those who wished to participate in the survey took the time to complete it. The survey location was a windowless room in an office building near Los Angeles

International Airport. There were no distractions from outside noise due to the construction of the meeting room. Upon completion of the survey, the survey documents were sealed in a large envelope and transported to the researcher’s home.

Instrument Reliability

Reliability of the instrument was maximized by insuring that survey questions were direct and unambiguous. The five point Likert scale helped participants to select a measurement of their level of knowledge and the strength of their opinions. Results can be affected by the emotional state of the respondent. However, by distributing the survey in an environment outside of the normal work environment, emotional stress was at a very low level.

20 Instrument Validity

Every effort was made to insure that the survey prepared by the researcher accurately measured the public’s opinion of nanotechnology applications in space exploration. Instrument validity was also ensured by the author’s committee.

Procedures

Post tabulation survey results are mathematically expressed and tested by parametric statistical analysis methods. The demographic and topical questions help to categorize responses based on educational level and their familiarity with space related issues. Results are reported using descriptive statistics such as mean, median, mode, and standard deviation and are reported in chapter four.

21 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter will look at each question in the survey and the descriptive statistics used to analyze the results. Each question will be explained and will be accompanied by a graph showing a representation of the outcome. A total of 50 surveys were distributed to co-workers of the researcher. All 50 surveys were completed and all 50 surveys were used in the calculations.

The first question of the survey was created to evaluate the participant’s basic familiarization with nanotechnology. Questions 2 through 12 are designed to measure the attitude of the respondent to various aspects of nanotechnology. The remaining questions gathered demographic information about the participants.

22 Statement #1: I am aware of nanotechnology research. This statement was to determine if there was a rudimentary knowledge of nanotechnology. All 50 participants said “yes.”

0 yes no

Figure 1. Statement 1

23 Statement #2: I believe that nanotechnology could have a positive impact on space exploration. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement allows the participant to express an opinion relating to nanotechnology and space exploration. Results relate directly to the statement of the hypothesis.

MEAN: 3.260

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

STANDARD DEVIATION: 1.454

14 12 12 11

10 8 8

2 0 0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

20 16 15

10 3 5

0 Agree Disagree

Figure 2.1. Responses of participants over age 44 to statement #2.

Statement #3: I believe that nanoresearch is important. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This question relates to the hypothesis statement as well as the null hypothesis and provides a good insight into general attitudes.

MEAN: 3.500

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

5 5 1 0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

26 Statement #4: I believe that nanotechnology could make space exploration more cost effective. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This question determined if participants feel that nanotechnology is not only doable, but worth doing. The goal of this statement is to determine if nanotechnology is not only doable, but efficient.

MEAN: 2.500

MEDIAN: 2.000

MODE: 2.000

10 10 7

0 0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

27 Statement #5: I believe that space exploration can improve life on Earth. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement considers sentiment toward space exploration in general and whether participants believe that it has a benefit to residents of Earth.

MEAN: 3.140

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

14 12 12

10 9 8 8

0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

28 Statement #6: I believe that manned space exploration should continue. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement asks the participant to consider space exploration separately from the subject of nanotechology.

MEAN: 3.760

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

15 12 11 10

29 Statement #7: I believe that nanotechnology should be incorporated into future manned spacecraft. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement relates directly to the hypothesis statement.

MEAN: 4.200

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

30 STANDARD DEVIATION: 0.078

5 3 2 0 0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Statement #8: I am familiar with the concept of nanotubes. This statement tested a more specific knowledge of nanotechnology and one of its more promising aspects.

0 yes no

Statement #9: I believe that nanotechnology is safe. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. Responses indicate an overall attitude toward nanotechnology and the level of concern over safety issues

MEAN: 2.940

MEDIAN: 2.500

MODE: 2.000

10 7 5 5 5

Statement #10: I believe that nanotechnology should be strictly regulated by the government. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement measures if the participant feels that enough concerns exist to make government control of nanotechnology a priority.

MEAN: 3.000

MEDIAN: 3.000

MODE: 2.000

6 5 5 3

Statement #11: I believe that self replicating nanomachines could pose a threat to humanity. The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. This statement addresses the participant’s potential fears and attitudes toward nanotechnology.

MEAN: 2.560

MEDIAN: 2.000

MODE: 2.000

Statement #12: I believe that nanotechnology could revolutionize medical care.

The response options were strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree.

This statement measures sentiment toward uses of nanotechnology in society at large and in health care specifically.

MEAN: 3.260

MEDIAN: 4.000

MODE: 4.000

14 12 12 11

10 8 8

2 0 0 Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Statement #13: My gender is…The choices were male or female.

45 40 40

15 10 10

0 Male Female

Figure 13. Statement #13

Statement #14: The participants were asked to state their age.

12 11 11

10 9 8 8 7

0 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Blank

Statement #15: Years of college completed.

45 40 40

15 10 10

0 2-4 years 5 or more

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Chapter V analyzes the results and considers the statistical significance of each question in relation to the other questions within the survey. Utilizing Student’s t-test and Pearson’s chi square, the researcher tabulated the results and possible considerations for the statistical parameters that followed. The researcher used Excel to perform the calculations. Excel returns a probability, not a critical value. Alpha was set at .05 so that results of .95 or greater, or .05 or smaller were statistically significant and will be discussed.

Statement #1: I am aware of nanotechnology research was asked to determine if participants have a basic knowledge of nanotechnology. The strong positive response to this question demonstrated that this was the case.

Statement #2: I believe that nanotechnology could have a positive impact on space exploration had a Pearson’s chi square result of 1.00. This result shows a majority of participants believing that nanotechnology is the right technology to lead to improvements in space exploration. The responses to this question, however, were bimodal, with 30 on the agreement side, 20 disagreeing, and none neutral. The only significant factor linked to any category was that those over the age of 44 were more likely to disagree. This could reflect an attitude of skepticism regarding new technology among older participants. Figure 2.1 shows that of the 19 participants age 45 or older, 15 or 78.9 percent disagreed with this statement.

40 Statement #3: I believe that nanoresearch is important had a Pearson’s chi square result of 0.98. This statement shows that the participants believe strongly that nanoresearch should continue to move forward and that the results will be beneficial to mankind. It provides strong support for the hypothesis of this paper.

Statement #4: I believe that nanotechnology could make space exploration more cost effective had a Pearson’s chi square result of 0.01. Another bimodal response, results showed 14 participants agreeing and 36 disagreeing, and none neutral. The significant factor linked to any category in this case was the level of education. Nearly all of the participants with 5 or more years of college disagreed with this statement.

Coming from a group that is familiar with managing large civilian and government projects, it would seem to indicate that those with the highest education feel that while nanotechnology is good, it may not be inexpensive. The participant’s experience may show that technology can add functionality, but possibly at greater cost.

Statement #5: I believe that space exploration can improve life on Earth had 4 neutral responses and 25 agreeing or strongly agreeing while 20 disagreed or strongly disagreed. Younger participants were more likely to disagree with this statement, possibly showing that younger people have been less influenced by the U.S. space program than older participants who lived through the manned moon missions.

Statement #6: I believe that manned space exploration should continue had a

Pearson’s chi square result of 1.00. This shows strong sentiment among participants that is supportive of manned space travel and exploration. It should also follow that this attitude will be supportive of nanotechnology if it is shown to help advance the cause of space exploration.

41 Statement #7: I believe that nanotechnology should be incorporated into future manned spacecraft had a Pearson’s chi square result of 1.00. This is another statistically significant result that shows strong participant support for both manned space exploration and nanotechnology. In conjunction with the other statements showing similar strong support for nanoscience and space exploration, this statement helps to build a strong case for public support of this new science.

Statement #8: I am familiar with the concept of nanotubes tests the knowledge of participants. The large positive response to this question indicates that the participants have familiarity with nanotechnology and the issues surrounding it.

Statement #9: I believe that nanotechnology is safe had a Pearson’s chi square test result of 0.16. The bimodal response to this statement shows that the public may need some assurance and that there will need to be oversight or regulation of nanotechnology. This represents a potential hurdle for promoters of nanotechnology.

There was no demographic category links to the responses.

Statement #10: I believe that nanotechnology should be strictly regulated by the government was another bimodal response. With 21 agreeing, 5 neutral, and 25 disagreeing, it is clear that opinion is split in this area. Those agreeing tended to be younger participants, less than 44 years of age, possibly demonstrating more distrust of government and business than their older peers.

Statement #11: I believe that self replicating nanomachines could pose a threat to humanity had a Pearson’s chi square result of 0.02. The response to this statement shows little distrust of nanotechnology by the majority of respondants. Female

42 respondents were most likely to agree with this statement, while those with the most education were likely to disagree. There was no demographic age link to responses.

Statement #12: I believe that nanotechnology could revolutionize medical care had a Pearson’s chi square result of 0.39. The majority agree with this statement which shows support for nanotechnology applications toward humans as well as with machines and spacecraft. The bimodal results again showed that older participants were more likely to disagree, showing possible caution based on experience.

Statements #13, #14, and #15 gathered demographic data that revealed that the participants overall were well educated, diverse in age and more likely to be male than female.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

Chapter I focused on the background of the problem and the research question.

Chapter II was a review of relevant literature and technology of the nanotechnology.

This chapter also established the alternate hypotheses to be tested as well as the null hypothesis. Chapter III explained the procedures in which the data was to be gathered and analyzed along with establishing the reliability and validity of the study. Chapter IV examined each question from the questionnaire and then performed analysis using descriptive statistics such as mean, median and mode, and bimodality. The Student’s t- test was used to determine if a particular question would reject the null hypothesis alone.

To reject the null hypothesis the tests were done with a = .05 confidence. Chapter V further analyzed the questions using the Pearson’s chi square method to determine if the questions would match the expected answers and used parametric statistics to discern statistically significant questions.

Finally, results in this chapter indicate the null hypothesis to be rejected. The evaluation supporting the hypotheses used the data of a convenient sample from the researcher’s place of employment. The results yielded strong support showing that the sample believed nanotechnology should be applied to future space travel and that the public does feel that this technology is important and valuable, although worthy of oversight. The final chapter, Chapter VII, will conclude with the researcher’s recommendations.

CHAPTER VII

RECOMMENDATIONS

The previous chapter discussed the research as a whole and concluded the findings of this project. There are some aspects of the project that I would have done differently absent the constraints of time and money. For example, a larger sample group would decrease the margin for error. Also, the group tested was of above average education, with none of the participants having less than two years of college.

Additionally, the participants probably had more general knowledge of nanotechnology than the general public. This may have given the group more insight into the potential benefits as well as the pitfalls of this new science. A larger and more random sample group might offer better parametric results to support the research. The data available was plentiful, but any new research should take advantage of the rapidly expanding pool of information on the subject.

REFERENCES

Berube, D. M. (2006). Mems and microstructures in aerospace applications. Boca Raton,

FL: Taylor & Francis.

Borisenko, V. E. (2004). What is what in the nanoworld: a handbook on nanoscience and

Nanotechnology. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

Chen, G. (2005). Nanoscale energy transport: A parallel treatment of electrons and

molecules. New York: Oxford.

Fecht, H. J. (2004). The nano-micro interface: Bringing the micro and nano worlds

together. Weinheim: Wiley VCH.

Fischer, J. E. (2005). Dual-use technologies: inexorable progress, inseparable peril.

Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press.

Goddard, W. A. (2003). Handbook of nanoscience, engineering, and technology. Boca

Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Hughes, M. (2003). Nanomechanics in engineering and biology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC

Press.

Kelsall, R. W. (2005). Nanoscale science and technology. Cichester, England: John

Koo, J. H. (2006). Polymer nanocomposites: Processing, characterization, and

applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

46 Kotov, N. A. (2006). Nanoparticle assemblies and superstructures. Boca Raton, FL:

Taylor & Francis.

Lyshevski, S. E. (2005). Nano- and micro-electromechanical systems. Boca Raton, FL:

CRC Press.

Masuhara, H., & Nakanishi, H. (2003). Single organic nanoparticles. Berlin: Springer.

OECD. (2004). Space 2030: Exploring the future of space applications. Paris, France:

Osiander, R. (2006). Mems and microstructures in aerospace applications. Boca Raton,

FL: Taylor & Francis.

Rieth, M. (2003). Nano-engineering in science and technology: An introduction to the

world of nano-devices. Singapore: World Scientific.

Rotkin, S. V. (2005). Applied physics of carbon nanotubes. New York: Springer.

Schulte, J. (2005). Nanotechnology: Global strategies, industry trends, and applications.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Schwarz, J. A. (2004). Dekker encyclopedia of nanoscience and nanotechnology. New

York: Dekker.

Tsu, R. (2005). Superlattice to nanoelectronics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Wolf, E. L. (2004). Nanophysics and nanotechnology: An introduction to modern

concepts in nanoscience. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

CONCEPT SURVEY

My name is Mark Freeman and I am working towards fulfilling my requirements for a Master of Science degree from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.

One of my degree requirements is the completion of a Graduate Research Project. This survey is the research instrument used to gather data for this project. Your assistance in completing this survey will provide invaluable, anonymous data pertinent to this research topic

Thank you for your time and help. If you would like an executive summary of my findings, please provide your name and address below (your personal information will not be used nor reflected in my report):

Name: ______

Address: ______

______

NANOTECHNOLOGY SURVEY

Please CIRCLE the answer for each statement that best describes your opinion

Statement 1. I am aware of nanotechnology research. YES NO

Statement 2.

I believe that nanotechnology could have a positive impact on space exploration.

Definitely Agree Somewhat Agree Undecided Somewhat Disagree Definitely Disagree

Statement 3.

I believe that space exploration is important.

Statement 4.

I believe that nanotechnology could make space exploration more cost effective.

Statement 5.

I believe that space exploration can improve life on Earth.

Statement 6.

I believe that manned space exploration should continue.

Statement 7.

I believe that nanotechnology should be incorporated in future manned spacecraft.

Please continue to the next page

Statement 8. Are you familiar with the concept of YES NO carbon nanotubes?

Statement 9.

I believe that nanotechnology is safe.

Statement 10.

I believe that nanotechnology should be strictly regulated by the government.

Statement 11.

I believe that self replicating nanomachines could pose a threat to humanity.

Statement 12.

I believe that nanotechnology could revolutionize medical care.

Statement 13. My gender is MALE FEMALE

Statement 14.

The following category best describes my age

Less than 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-55 Greater than 55

Statement 15.

The following describes my highest degree completed

High School or 2 year or 4 year Graduate Degree or No Degree Equivalent Degree College Degree Higher

Please feel free to add comments. Thank you!

APPENDIX B SURVEY RESULTS

SURVEY RESULTS

Survey # S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Chi Sq Expect

1 Yes 4 5 5 4 4 5 Yes 3 4 3 2 5 2 Yes 2 5 4 2 2 4 Yes 5 4 4 2 5 3 Yes 2 2 1 2 4 4 Yes 4 2 5 4 5 4 Yes 5 4 4 1 4 3 Yes 4 4 4 2 5 5 Yes 2 3 5 4 5 4 Yes 3 2 4 5 5 6 Yes 5 4 5 2 2 5 Yes 5 3 5 3 5 7 Yes 4 4 4 2 2 2 Yes 4 5 5 5 5 8 Yes 5 5 4 5 4 4 Yes 3 2 4 2 5 9 Yes 1 2 1 2 3 3 Yes 4 2 5 1 5 10 Yes 2 4 4 2 4 5 Yes 5 3 4 2 5 11 Yes 2 2 2 2 4 2 Yes 2 4 4 4 5 12 Yes 1 2 2 1 5 5 Yes 4 2 4 2 5 13 Yes 2 4 4 2 5 4 Yes 5 5 5 5 5 14 Yes 2 3 4 4 4 5 Yes 5 4 4 2 5 15 Yes 5 2 2 2 2 4 Yes 2 2 4 4 5 16 Yes 4 5 5 2 4 5 Yes 4 2 4 2 5 17 Yes 2 2 2 5 2 4 Yes 4 4 5 1 5 18 Yes 1 4 2 2 5 5 Yes 3 3 4 4 5 19 Yes 2 3 5 2 4 5 Yes 4 2 5 3 5 20 Yes 2 2 1 2 1 1 Yes 1 1 2 2 5 21 Yes 1 4 4 4 3 4 Yes 4 2 4 4 5 22 Yes 2 2 2 2 2 4 Yes 4 4 5 4 5 23 Yes 2 4 4 2 4 5 Yes 3 2 4 2 5 24 Yes 2 1 1 1 5 2 Yes 4 2 4 1 5 25 Yes 4 4 5 2 2 5 Yes 4 2 2 2 5 26 Yes 2 4 4 5 2 5 Yes 5 5 4 3 5 27 Yes 2 1 4 2 4 4 Yes 4 4 4 2 5 28 Yes 1 2 2 2 4 4 Yes 4 4 5 5 5 29 Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes 4 2 5 5 5 30 Yes 4 1 4 4 5 5 Yes 3 2 4 2 5 31 Yes 2 3 1 4 2 4 Yes 3 3 5 4 5 32 Yes 4 2 4 2 4 4 Yes 4 4 4 2 5 33 Yes 2 5 5 5 2 4 Yes 4 2 4 4 5 34 Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 Yes 3 5 2 1 5 35 Yes 2 2 2 4 4 4 Yes 5 2 4 2 5 36 Yes 2 4 4 2 1 3 Yes 3 5 5 3 5 37 Yes 2 2 4 2 4 4 Yes 4 2 4 4 5 38 Yes 4 5 5 2 4 2 Yes 2 4 4 2 5 39 Yes 2 2 4 4 3 3 Yes 3 2 4 4 5 40 Yes 2 4 4 2 1 4 Yes 4 4 5 2 5 41 Yes 1 2 1 2 4 4 Yes 4 5 4 5 5 42 Yes 2 4 4 2 1 4 Yes 5 4 5 3 5 43 Yes 2 2 2 2 1 2 Yes 3 4 3 2 5 44 Yes 2 2 2 2 3 4 Yes 2 2 4 2 5 45 Yes 2 2 4 4 1 2 Yes 4 4 5 1 5 46 Yes 4 3 5 2 5 5 Yes 5 5 5 4 5 47 Yes 1 2 1 2 1 4 Yes 5 4 4 4 5 48 Yes 4 4 5 1 1 2 Yes 2 2 4 2 5 49 Yes 4 4 5 4 5 5 Yes 5 2 5 5 5

50 Yes 2 2 1 2 5 5 Yes 5 4 5 4 5

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 Descriptive Statistics Mean N/A 3.800 3.500 2.500 3.140 3.760 4.200 n/a 2.940 3.000 2.560 3.260 Median N/A 4.000 4.000 2.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 n/a 2.500 3.000 2.000 4.000 Mode N/A 4.000 4.000 2.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 n/a 2.000 2.000 2.000 4.000 Standard Deviation N/A 1.125 0.953 1.199 1.400 1.001 0.782 n/a 1.284 1.212 1.146 1.454 Chi square 1.00 0.98 0.01 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.28 0.02 0.39 t test 0.851 0.055 0.005 0.136 0.016 0.851 0.016 0.065 0.000 0.675