Roadmap to a Space Faring Civilization

Home , Colonization of the Moon, JP Aerospace, NASA Academy, Space Act Agreement

ROADMAP TO A SPACE FARING CIVILIZATION

Suggestions for the commercial development of space.

NASA ACADEMY Goddard Space Flight Center August 2008

Version 1.0 08.07.08 Dedication

This paper is dedicated to Dr. Gerald Soffen, for his visionary creation and love of the Academy

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this project.

Ken Davidian NASA Headquarters

Dr. Joseph DiRienzi NASA Academy

William Pomerantz X PRIZE Foundation

Introduction

Exploring and developing new frontiers has been a basis for economic growth and sustained development in the world throughout history. Private development of these frontiers has created countless jobs and vast fortunes. The next great frontier is space. Leaving the planet in search of information, entertainment, and resources will be a driving force in the future of our economies and will be required to sustain the current standards of living to which so many have become accustomed. Humankind is capable of exploring and developing space, and this paper will describe how to accelerate this expansion by facilitating the commercial development of space.

Definitions

Space faring civilization – A space faring civilization is defined as one with frequent, safe, reliable, and economically stable transport to space. This would include commercial access to space for both crew and cargo. The civilization would have a permanent off-planet presence and would be permanently exploring the solar system with human and robotic missions. Finally this civilization would utilize resources from space and have mutual commercial trade between Earth and sites such as Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, asteroids and beyond. Commercial development – fostering industrial profits based on the free-market sale and purchase of space-related products. This industry would serve government and non-government customers, but ultimately will exist independent of government funding. Space development – private investment in space technologies, capabilities, and infrastructure such that commercial entities work in and profit from space.

The Roadmap

Below is an outline of the proposals we have generated to overcome the current and future hurdles of commercial space development. These topics are explained and detailed in the Roadmap section of the paper.

I. Commercial Development Policy 1. Make agency-wide policy 2. Continue dialogue with commercial sector II. Commercial Technology Transfer 1. IPP, SBIR, STTR a. Sustain/increase funding for programs b. Promote companies after funding is over c. Provide technical assistance d. Monitor and better document economic impact of spin-offs e. NASA-developed software should be open source when possible 2. Commercial product usage a. Continue to use when possible b. Commercial should be first choice when available

III. Infrastructure 1. Launch sites a. Phase out government funding when private funding is sufficient b. Expand FAA-AST funding to facilitate licensing of launches/vehicles 2. Launching to LEO a. Continue to fund COTS b. Exercise COTS-D option for commercial crew transport c. Purchase commercial transport when available 3. Orbital refueling a. Continue verbal support of idea b. Offer technology demonstration prize for cryogenic on-orbit fuel storage c. Support private construction by being customer 4. Lunar surface delivery a. Develop Funded Space Act Agreement i. Direct cargo delivery ii. Cargo delivery with automated rendezvous and docking 5. Lunar surface transportation a. Share dust mitigation and other technologies when possible b. Self-dependent technology application by other entities 6. Communication and data relay a. Replace/supplement DSN for lunar operations i. Earth and lunar orbit relays ii. Evolvable and updatable satellites iii. Government regulated, commercially operated IV. Accelerators 1. Public engagement a. Facilitate public connection to individual astronauts b. Create more astronaut-to-public communication (TV, internet, etc.) c. Engage the public with interaction capabilities d. Better explain mission objectives e. Clearly convey the risks of each mission 2. Educational engagement a. Excite students with long-term destination-driven program b. Government and private education support i. Funding to ensure science and math teachers have background in subjects ii. Educate students about benefits of science and technology c. Private company engagement i. Expand internship and co-op programs to train future workforce 3. Start-up companies a. Organizations such as Space Angels Network should be expanded b. Companies must show mutual respect for each other c. Design business plans with milestone technologies to market d. Engage non-aerospace investment markets (tourism, entertainment, biotech, energy, etc.) 4. Space based solar power a. Continue funding in solar cell technology b. Assign project to specific agency (DoE recommended) i. Energy Research and Development Organization c. Initial congressional funding of small $10 million feasibility study d. NASA should continue to fund and operate Power Beaming Challenge

5. Biotechnology in space a. Private utilization of International Space Station i. Federal subsidies for initial ISS research launch costs ii. Support expanded micro-gravity research iii. Charge for ISS usage based on timetable as commercial capabilities emerge 6. Prizes a. NASA must invest more in prizes b. Proposed lunar environment characterization prizes i. NASA only pays for successful data ii. Private companies can generate added income to missions c. Further prizes proposed for other key technology demonstrations V. Government Policy 1. Liability a. Extend launch liability indemnification (Currently expires December 31, 2009) 2. Anchor tenancy a. Laws and regulations around anchor tenancy must be clarified b. NASA should sign anchor tenancy agreements with commercial space transportation companies i. Definite end date required 3. ITAR a. Evaluate United States Munitions List to remove technology currently available from other countries i. Allow American companies to compete in these markets b. Streamline licensing process i. Continue/complete change to electronic licensing system ii. Provide free training for companies about ITAR compliance c. Clarify guidelines on ITAR regulations and regulated materials d. Inform the public and Congress of consequences of legislation on emerging sector 4. Intellectual property rights a. IP must be protected when private companies work with NASA i. Continue support of Bayh-Dole Act, Stevenson-Wydler Act, Technology Transfer Act ii. NASA Policy should be to grant IP waivers when requested b. International patent protection is needed i. Technology development in space must be protected c. NASA Advisory Council (NAC) role should be expanded i. Give budget to fund cutting edge research – similar to NACA ii. Administer funds to appropriate researchers to drive research on specific technical hurdles 5. Historical Moon a. Protect historic sites until framework for preservation is in place i. Leave certain artifacts for on-site observation ii. Return others for research and Earth-based museums b. International agreement on preservation is needed 6. Lunar property a. Legislation should be international among space faring nations i. Historic sites should be internationally protected ii. Private ownership should be based on utilization and improvement of area iii. Moon can no longer be considered ―common heritage of all mankind‖

Conclusions

Other sections of the paper include a look at the feasibility of commercial space as well as what a successful space faring civilization may look like. These considerations are addressed to show the context and importance of a robust commercial space sector. Possible benefits might include new jobs, new technologies, and higher standards of living. NASA could also see direct benefits from a thriving commercial space sector, which might include cheaper space rated hardware and access to space as a result of open market competition between providers. Savings at NASA have the potential to allow the agency to focus more resources on deep space exploration and cutting edge technology research.

This future is fully realizable and work towards these goals must begin now. Many more hurdles and suggestions than addressed here will appear. This paper aims to take the next small step and be the basis for further study. The collective genius of entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators will be required to solve the many obstacles that will stand in the way. As past generations conquered the untamed seas to develop the ―new world‖ or traversed the vast plains to tame the ―wild west,‖ this one must set out with determination to overcome the shackles of gravity. It is imperative for the future that free-market capabilities and commercial entities extend humanity into space.

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1 1.0 Feasibility of Commercial Space Development ...... 3 1.1 Space Industry Overview ...... 3 1.1.1 Performance of the Space Industry to Date ...... 3 1.1.2 Projections ...... 4 1.2 Commercial Space Demands ...... 4 1.3 New Space ...... 6 1.4 Catalysts ...... 6 1.4.1 The US Space Exploration Policy ...... 6 1.4.2 NASA‘s Attitude and Actions ...... 7 1.4.3 NASA‘s Budget ...... 7 1.4.4 Challenges and Prize Competitions ...... 7 1.4.5 Space Angels Network ...... 8 1.4.6 Space Tourism ...... 8 1.5 Launch Costs ...... 8 1.6 Airline Analogue ...... 9 1.6.1 Cargo ...... 9 1.6.2 Cargo to People ...... 9 1.6.3 Prizes Revitalize the Industry ...... 10 The Roadmap ...... 11 2.0 Commercial Development Policy ...... 12 3.0 Commercial Technology Transfer ...... 14 4.0 Infrastructure ...... 16 4.1 Transportation...... 16 4.1.1 Launch Sites ...... 16 4.1.2 Transport to Low Earth Orbit ...... 17 4.1.3 Orbital Re-fueling ...... 17 4.1.4 Lunar Surface Delivery ...... 20 4.1.5 Lunar Surface Transportation ...... 21 4.2 Communications and Data Relay ...... 22 4.2.1 The Deep Space Network ...... 22 4.2.2 Communications Systems ...... 23 5.0 Accelerating Factors ...... 25 5.1 Engagement ...... 25 5.1.1 Public Engagement ...... 25 5.1.2 Education Engagement ...... 26 5.2 Start-up Company Investment ...... 26 5.3 Space Based Solar Power ...... 27 5.4 Biotechnology in Space ...... 29 5.4 Prizes ...... 31 5.4.1 Background ...... 31 5.4.2 Lunar Characterization Prize Proposal ...... 31 5.4.3 Potential Future Lunar Prizes: ...... 32 6.0 Policy ...... 33

6.1 Liability Indemnification and Anchor Tenancy ...... 33 6.2 International Traffic in Arms Regulations ...... 35 6.2.1 Effects on the Aerospace Industry ...... 36 6.2.2 ITAR and International Collaboration ...... 36 6.2.3 Future Work ...... 38 6.2.4 Conclusion ...... 39 6.3 Intellectual Property ...... 39 6.3.1 NASA and Intellectual Property ...... 40 6.3.2 Territory Based Intellectual Property ...... 40 6.3.3 NASA and the Freedom of Information Act ...... 41 6.3.4 Encouraging Private Industry through Government Research ...... 42 6.3.5 ITAR and Intellectual Property ...... 43 6.3.6 Conclusions and Future Work ...... 44 6.4 Historical Moon Preservation ...... 45 6.5 Lunar Property ...... 45 6.5.1 Antarctic Treaty ...... 46 6.5.2 Outer Space Treaty ...... 46 6.5.3 Moon Treaty ...... 47 6.5.4 Future Legislation ...... 47 6.5.5 Conclusion ...... 49 7.0 Roadmap Summary ...... 50 8.0 Elements of Success ...... 51 8.1 Terrestrial Benefits of Lunar Colonization ...... 51 8.1.1 Science ...... 51 8.1.2 Economics ...... 52 8.1.3 Engineering ...... 54 8.1.4 Political ...... 55 8.2 A Typical Day on the Moon ...... 57 8.2.1 Near Term Operations ...... 57 8.2.2 Mid Term ...... 57 8.2.3 Far Term ...... 58 8.3 A Lunar Society ...... 58 8.3.1 Lunar Inhabitants ...... 58 8.3.2 Governance/ Unique Cultural Concerns ...... 58 Appendix A ...... A-3 2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center ...... A-3 Appendix B ...... B-2 B.1 – Feasibility of Commercial Space ...... B-2 B.1.1 - Industry Overview ...... B-2 B.1.2 - New Space Companies ...... B-6 B.1.3 - Catalysts ...... B-9 B.1.4 - Airline Analogue ...... 13 B.2 – Agreements and partnerships ...... B-16 B.3 - Success case studies ...... B-17 B.3.1 – IPP ...... B-17

B.3.2 – SBIR ...... B-17 B.4 - Spacesuit Development : Case study ...... B-19 B.5 – Highway System ...... B-25 B.6 – Satellite Cell Phones Case Study ...... B-27 B.7- ITAR Historical Overview ...... B-28 B.8 - Case Study of European Patent Convention and the European Community Patent...... B-30 B.10 - Introduction to life support ...... B-35 B.10.1 - Crew characteristics ...... B-38 B.10.2 - Life Support Subsystems Estimations ...... B-39 B.10.3 - External Interfaces Estimations ...... B-47 Appendix C ...... C-2 C.1 – Space Act Agreement Background ...... C-2 C.2 - Nonreimbursable COTS Agreements ...... C-4 C.3 - COTS Agreement Summary ...... C-5 C.4 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission – Landing Systems ...... C-7 C.5 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission - Automated Rendezvous and Docking ...... C-9 C.6 - Case Study: the Ansari X Prize ...... C-13 C.7 - NASA Centennial Challenges ...... C-15 C.8 - Prize Development Process ...... C-17 C.9 - Prize Competition Guidelines ...... C-21 C.10 - Sample Prize Development Process ...... C-23 C.11 - List of Select Aerospace Prizes ...... C-29 C.12 – Current Characterization Plans ...... C-36

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Projected demand curve for passenger space flight ...... 5 Figure 2: Budget Comparison - NASA and Biotech Research ...... 29 Figure 3 : Diagram of Roadmap from the Moon to Mars ...... 56

Table 1: Revenue of the space industry ...... 3 Table 2: New Space Company Sales/Employees ...... 6 Table 3:Large Contractors Company Sales/Employees ...... 6 Table 4: Approximate Launch Costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)...... 8 Table 5: Benefits of Orbit Re-Fueling Depot ...... 18 Table 6 : Element Concentrations in Lunar Regolith and Earth ...... 53

Introduction

Since the beginning, humanity has responded to gravity with defiance. We rose up on two legs to gaze out over the grasslands of Africa and witness the options of our future. Dissatisfied with limited vision, it is our nature to turn over every rock, traverse the highest mountain range, see past the blueness of our sky, peer beneath the waves, and chart the planets beyond our solar system. We prefer to behold the options for our future before they are upon us. We are planners; without sight of the world beyond, our planning is flawed. We cannot hold back or contain the physical forces of nature, but we have a well-documented history of subverting their effects. We create shelters, construct dams, sail the untamed seas, and fly the open sky. We have never paused in setting forth to defy the physical forces of nature that limit our expansion and knowledge of the unknown. For the first time in human history, we struggle to take the next step toward our destiny. We stumble in our journey to understand our origins and the relationship we have with the infinite variables that comprise our universe.

Nearly forty years have passed since the first human being set foot on the Moon. These forty years have seen the highest rate of technological advancement in human history. The question remains: Why haven‘t we set out to inhabit space? Clearly, this goal has been set, the notion embraced; it is something our culture has come to expect without considering the investment required for such an achievement. As human beings, it is a function of our species to wonder and seek. It is intrinsic to our nature to define the unknown.

In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 called for a civilian agency to exercise control of aeronautical and space activities. The agency‘s purpose, the Act declares, is the ―expansion of human knowledge of the phenomena in the atmosphere and space.‖ The document is clear: As Americans we are to seek out new ways of understanding the universe beyond; we are not assigned to understand only the phenomena nearest us. NASA was formed and delegated the task of defining relevant questions and seeking out the answers regarding all things from the realm of our atmosphere to the edge of our universe. This is perhaps the most ambitious and demanding request made by any government in human history. Merely one government agency, or even an entire government, cannot meet the requirements of such an achievement. In the past forty years we have learned that in order to meet the goal defined in the 1958 Space Act we must call on private industry. We must be motivated as a people to make the sterile corners of space habitable. Mankind‘s predisposition to private enterprise and free trade has led to the exploration of the New World and the domestication of the ―Wild West.‖ History has shown that a noble cause coupled with free trade can motivate man to achieve anything. NASA has taken preliminary steps in aiding the creation of the space industry. This industry has managed to carve out a small foothold. Now is the time to nurture this fledgling industry into a thriving, productive entity, capable of thrusting the human race into its next phase of evolution.

The next most logical step towards human habitation of space is exploring and developing the Moon. The reasons why we should press towards this goal are many. Humans are fragile in the vast vacuum of space. In order to minimize our vulnerability we require life support, refueling stations, and emergency shelters to shield us from unpredictable space hazards. It is our ignorance of space phenomena and hazards that make the habitation of our

Moon so appealing during this stage of our space readiness. Where better to learn and develop our abilities in space than our own Moon? It is the only planetary body we have already reached and arguably the one we have most examined besides our own. Furthermore, it is within technological reach.

The resources on our Moon have yet to be defined fully. We hope for water, Helium-3, and metals. Additionally, the Moon as an orbiting body of Earth is a resource in its self. Much research is currently taking place regarding a lunar solar or nuclear power plant able to beam electricity back to earth.

Our new understanding of extra-terrestrial hazards such as massive asteroid impacts and powerful gamma ray bursts highlights our planet‘s vulnerability. These events are bound to reoccur. In order to increase our likelihood of survival we must diversify our planetary portfolio. Today, Europeans are storing away millions of seeds within frozen arctic caves. In a worst case scenario under the extremes of a mass extinction event, we will need a store of life to re-inhabit an ailing planet. Why limit our store of such importance to our own fragile poles? Our Moon could serve as an excellent vault for life.

Ultimately, we are desperate to ignore one obvious fact, but it remains and looms over us, weighing on our psyche. Our precious planet is limited. The fine balance of life nurturing resources it offers is finite. Our current rate of expansion requires that we seek out or create resources and alternate hospitable environments soon. It is time we look squarely at our options as a life form aware of its own mortality. Shall we seek out new places to inhabit or embrace our destiny as a temporary but rare phenomena confined to a small unique planet? Do we care if our family called the human race occupies a minuscule portion of universal history? Or, is it our nature to carve out a presence in the universe that offers influence and perhaps enlightenment to other life forms we may encounter? Making no decision is a decision in itself. It is time we throw open the gates to space by calling on the masses. Let us utilize mankind‘s ability to create habitats in the uninhabitable. The hope for profit and a better life have driven mankind to the edges of our world. The same hope can drive them to the bounds of our universe.

1.0 Feasibility of Commercial Space Development

This section examines the feasibility of the development of commercial space with an overview of the industry, a survey of the demand in the market and a summary of existing private new space companies. Also, this section describes the major catalysts that assist with commercial development and shows that launch costs of commercial vehicles are comparable to those of government vehicles. Finally a case study has been prepared to show how a parallel market, commercial airlines, was developed from a government to a private industry.

The space industry will be defined as ―the production, manufacture, support, or operation of any good, service, facility, vehicle, or piece of equipment in space, or for the testing of space- related technology‖ (1).

1.1 Space Industry Overview

1.1.1 Performance of the Space Industry to Date

Four major areas have dominated the space industry: satellite communications, space transportation, global positioning systems, and remote sensing. In 2000, these contributed $80.47 billion to the national economy, of which approximately $67 billion came from satellite communications. Demand for more satellites dropped off steeply and the industry struggled at the turn of the century; it has since re-stabilized and shown growth in profits. According to the Space Report 2008, the space industry grew by 11% in 2007, with global revenues over $251 billion. The biggest contributor is commercial satellites (55%), most notably direct-to-home satellites (26%), which increased by 19% over 2006-2007. Satellite production has been the groundwork of the industry, flourishing in the past decade from consumer need for GPS, mobile phones, and satellite TV. As seen in table 1, other major contributors are government spending and commercial infrastructure. In addition, growth of the workforce in the space industry was larger than in the overall private sector (2).

Revenue of the Space Industry in 2007 Commercial Satellite Services 55% $138.83 B Direct-To-Home (DTH) 26% US Government Spending 22% Commercial Infrastructure 7% US Government Spending 25% $62.55 B Commercial Infrastructure 14% $34.35 B International Government Spending 6% $14.7 B Infrastructure Support <1% $0.7 B Space Commercial Transportation <1% $0.04 B Table 1: Revenue of the space industry (2) .

Spaceports have played a minor role in the past but are growing as New Space companies become better able to launch into orbit and sub-orbit. Between 2006 and 2007, 7 non-federally funded spaceports opened (3).

It is important to realize that the industry, though dependent on the government as a customer, is dominated by commercial satellite services. As a whole, it has a basis in commercial products, showing that commercial space is feasible and that corporations in space are already a reality.

1.1.2 Projections

The future of the space market is uncertain but appears positive. The activities that have supported the industry for the past decade, while not projected to rise noticeably, appear to be stable. NASA‘s budget is projected to remain at approximately $18 billion, with increases only for inflation. The New Space sector, defined roughly as private startup companies that do not rely on government contracts, is beginning to grow. Success by companies like Space Adventures and Scaled Composites is paving the way for future companies and bringing investment dollars. New Space companies are developing launch vehicles, landers and even a space hotel, creating an open market in which anyone who can surmount the high barriers of entry can participate; no company has a large market share or dominates any services. The existence of new prizes such as the Google Lunar X PRIZE and the support they have drawn is a testament to the feasibility of commercial space exploration.

According to Peter Diamandis, ―there are two major markets available today… One is tourism and the other is entertainment. In the future it will be resources… That will be the trillion-dollar market‖ (4). There are many possibilities and avenues to successfully profit from the space industry, although the timeline for commercial space presence is difficult to predict.

1.2 Commercial Space Demands

Demands exist for the private sector in space. The following outlines present and potential future demands.

Direct demands for commercial space development: Intellectual curiosity: expansion of human frontiers o Scientific collaboration with government, non-government exploration systems o Education Entertainment o Tourism: sub-orbital, eventually orbital or to the Moon o Artistic activity in space . Mass media: broadcasts, internet and/or advertising

o Sports: in order to maintain health or for recreation Technology development Transportation: providing transportation system (see figure 1 (5)) o Management of launch sites for higher launch efficiency/frequency o Development and operation of transportation vehicles . i.e. SpaceX outsourcing by NASA Falcon1 - Small rocket, $7M~8.5M per flight, ~670 kg payloads to LEO) Dragon: 7 passengers or 2.5 tons under unmanned flight to ISS, projected 2009 o Transportation systems on the Moon will be required in future Communication o Satellites . GPS system for Earth, Moon or Mars . Internet . Phone: communication tool on Earth or in space o Non-satellite . Communication bases in space or on the Moon Investment / Prizes Utilizing space resources o Power/Energy: potential space solar/nuclear power generation systems o Essential resources Medical science o Medical treatment; more effective surgery and/or rehabilitation o Pharmaceuticals: research or development under space environments Space structures: fueling stations, rescue systems, orbiting hotels, repair facilities Insurance: space tourism, production reliability Pollution management: space debris, waste materials

Figure 1: Projected demand curve for passenger space flight 5

1.3 New Space

The feasibility of using space as a commercial resource is apparent even in today‘s industry environment. Space offers several applications to private industry, including satellite TV and radio, Global Positioning System applications, and remote sensing. Additionally, so- called New Space companies, which tend to be privately funded and highly susceptible to costs, have fared quite well in the market. The following overview offers some examples of such companies:

New Space company numbers:

Blue Origin XCOR Aerospace Bigelow Aerospace 2007 Sales $11.9 mil. $1.1 mil. $2.7 mil 2007 Employees 100 32 40 Table 2: New Space Company Sales/Employees

Contractor numbers:

Boeing Lockheed Northrop European Aeronautic Martin Grumman Defense and Space Company 2007 Sales $66.387 bil. $41.862 bil. $32.018 bil. $52.025 bil 2007 159,300 140,000 122,600 116,805 Employees (2006) Table 3:Large Contractors Company Sales/Employees

1.4 Catalysts

1.4.1 The US Space Exploration Policy

Perhaps the most visible catalyst to the commercialization of space is President George W. Bush‘s announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration, which lays out the challenge to return man to the Moon by 2020. The President encouraged commercial involvement by creating a commission of private and public sector experts to advise on its implementation (6). Creating this commission places the private sector at the forefront of the policy and allows it to have a voice in developing the future of space exploration.

1.4.2 NASA’s Attitude and Actions

NASA recently launched a pro space commercialization baseline in their 2006 Strategic Plan, which established six goals to be followed through the next ten years to meet the Vision, one of which is to ―Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector‖ (7).

NASA is also a catalyst because of its current and planned actions, which include: Centennial Challenges (Prizes) NASA would like to complete by 2012 at least one prize competition for ―independently designed, developed, launched, and operated missions related to space science or space exploration‖ (7). Expand the number of Launch Service Providers to include emerging companies Intellectual property rights will be awarded for technology and systems developed (7). Space Act Agreements The current Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program which is to provide transportation for cargo and/or crew to the ISS by 2010 Development of the Innovative Partnerships Program This program allows NASA to leverage the private sector‘s capabilities for future mission while fostering the growth of the industry.

1.4.3 NASA’s Budget

During the peak of the Apollo program in 1966, NASA‘s budget was 6% of the annual federal budget (8). Today, NASA‘s budget makes up approximately .6% of the federal budget. Furthermore, the Apollo Program made up 34% of NASA‘s annual budget (9), while its successor, the Constellation Program, receives only 17% of NASA‘s annual budget (10). NASA‘s inadequate funding requires the commercialization of space to fulfill the Vision.

1.4.4 Challenges and Prize Competitions

Major catalysts for the involvement of private companies are the contests and challenges presented by the X PRIZE Foundation and NASA. These generate excitement and encourage investment in the space industry through private investors, universities and small companies. For example, during the Ansari X- Prize, which had a purse of $10 million, an estimated total of $100 million was spent by 26 teams (11). The challenges presented allow many new companies to form and allow small existing companies to develop technology products without having to compete against well established Aerospace giants.

1.4.5 Space Angels Network

A very big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels Network. The Space Angels Network is an organization whose members promote the development of aerospace-related industries and technologies with a return on private investments (12). Space Angels provides a forum for entrepreneurs to present their ideas in front of early-stage investors (13).

1.4.6 Space Tourism

A final catalyst for the development of the commercial space industry is the growth of the Space Tourism market. As NASA and other international government agencies continue to explore space, the public is becoming more interested and intrigued by what lies beyond our planet. NASA does not have the resources, nor the authority to get the public to space, so in order to fill this demand private companies must emerge and supply opportunities for Space Tourism. One present example is the success of Virgin Galactic‘s and Scaled Composites‘ suborbital tourism venture, which has generated around $30 million in registration revenues (14).

1.5 Launch Costs

Approximate Launch Costs for Active Vehicles to LEO 6 Launch Vehicle Launch Cost ($ x10 ) Payload Capacity (kg) Cost per kg ($/kg) 1,2 Ariane 5 211 21000 10048 1,3 Atlas V 147 20520 7164 4 Delta IV Heavy 271 22950 11808 5 *Falcon 9 Heavy 94.5 29610 3191 1,6 H-2A 109 10000 10900 1,7 Long March CZ-2C 30 2400 12500 1,7 Long March CZ-2D 18 3100 5806 1,7 Long March CZ-3A 67 8500 7882 1,7 Long March CZ-3B 85 12000 7083 1,7 Long March CZ-4B 42 4200 10000 1,8 Pegasus 15 450 33333 1,9 Proton 95 22000 4318 1,10 Soyuz U 48 7200 6667 1,10 Soyuz ST 61 7800 7821 11 Space Shuttle 418 28803 14512 12 Taurus 24 1250 19200 * in development Table 4: Approximate Launch Costs to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). All values are approximate since actual launch costs are dependent on many factors.

Sources: [1] Encyclopedia Astronautica. Cost, price, and the whole darn thing. 2008(July 26), [2] Arianespace, "Ariane 5 user's manual," November, 2004. [3] Lockheed Martin Corporation, "Atlas launch system mission planner's guide," 2004 [4] United Launch Alliance, "Delta," 2006. [5] Space Exploration Technologies, "Falcon 9 Heavy Overview," vol. 2008, [6] The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, "H series (Japanese rockets)," vol. 2008, [7] Wikipedia, "Long March Rocket," vol. 2008, July 25. 2008. [8] Orbital Sciences Corporation, "Pegasus patented air launch system fact sheet," 2008. [9] Wikipedia, "Proton Rocket," vol. 2008, July 15. 2008. [10] Encyclopedia Astronautica, "Soyuz," vol. 2008, 2008. [11] Futron Corporation, "Space transportation costs: Trends in price per pound to orbit 1990-2000," September 6, 2002. [12] Delft University of Technology - Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, "MiMiR mission for Moon ice research final REport," June, 2001.

As seen in table 1, the cost of commercial launches is comparable to that of government launch vehicles. Note that if development continues as expected, SpaceX‘s Falcon 9 Heavy – a commercially developed rocket – will be the cheapest available launch vehicle.

1.6 Airline Analogue

The pervasive presence of the government in the current space industry has led many to question the feasibility of commercial space endeavors. However, by looking at aviation, which successfully made a similar leap from experimental government endeavors to a significant business market, the questions surrounding a commercial space industry are answered.

1.6.1 Cargo

Large-scale peace time aviation use began primarily as mail service through the Army for the United States government. Once the feasibility of airmail was firmly established, through government contracts and phased transition, the government transferred airmail service to the private sector by way of competitive bids (15). A similar transition could potentially be seen with space cargo. Currently the United States uses government operated systems in the form of the Shuttle and Russian programs to transport cargo to the ISS. Programs like COTS have the opportunity to see the same success as the airmail endeavors.

1.6.2 Cargo to People

Once commercial airmail proved successful, airlines moved to passenger flight, with the first real success being Henry Ford‘s ―Tin Goose,‖ trusted because of the Ford name (15). Other airlines quickly followed and passenger numbers soared. A similar surge of public acceptance of commercial human space flight is potentially possible if companies like SpaceX garner enough respect to establish a trust with flyers.

1.6.3 Prizes Revitalize the Industry

Charles Lindbergh‘s famous trans-Atlantic flight took aviation from a fledgling endeavor to a booming industry practically overnight. Made possible by the Orteig Prize, the flight spurred U.S. airline passenger numbers to grow between 1926 and 1929 by 3,000%, from 5,782 to 173,405 (16). Prizes like the X PRIZE, already seen to be successful in many respects, have the potential to create similar effects on the space industry. See [Appendix C] for the Prizes case study.

The Roadmap

The Roadmap aims to initiate discussion on potential difficulties and proposed suggestions related to the commercial development of space. It is important to note that NASA is not capable of removing all the barriers faced by commercial space. NASA is positioned as the trailblazer that has helped to initialize off-planet endeavors, but it does not have the power, resources, or legal authority to be solely responsible for developing an industry to exploit this new frontier. The capabilities added by commercial activity in space have the potential to lower operational costs to NASA and facilitate its exploration of the solar system.

2.0 Commercial Development Policy

As the current world leader in space activities, NASA plays a vital role in fostering commercial involvement and economic expansion into space. This responsibility was recognized in the 2006 strategic vision: ―NASA will engage in collaborations that will help expand the commercial space sector in order to support NASA‘s mission: to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research‖ (17). The most effective way NASA can assist in the commercial development of space is to be a good collaborator and customer to private enterprise.

In support of NASA‘s strategic goal to encourage partnerships with the commercial sector, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) created the ESMD Commercial Development Policy (ECDP), which consists of a set of policy elements that will create a positive feedback relationship between both sectors in regards to the development and support of commercial space capabilities. This policy addresses the standards that the commercial sector should fulfill to maintain a successful partnership with NASA, a relationship that will allow them to gain certain benefits such as intellectual property ownership, market share and involvement in NASA‘s exploration architectures. ECDP‘s main objective is the development of the commercial space industry to make it capable of accomplishing NASA exploration mission goals at lower costs, ideally through fixed price contracts. The policy relies on the market to determine which commercial sectors are viable and should receive government support. In the future, ECDP will be used throughout the agency as an evaluation criteria for any relevant program, project, or activity that requests funding or concurrence.

In an effort to better address the potential issues, ECDP lays out targeted barriers to entry. The first is initial funding required for commercial space companies. ECDP proposes to address this issue with direct investments in the form of Funded Space Act Agreements (FSAA), general encouragement of commercial space companies, and prizes. A second barrier mentioned is the production of commercial space goods and services. The proposed solution provides companies access to NASA‘s assets. Third is the issue of demand for commercial space goods and services. ECDP proposes to establish demand through ―funded agreements that provide positive incentives to the company to attract a customer base that is separate from NASA‖ (17).

To accomplish the task of overcoming these barriers, ECDP lays out several policy elements. In order to mitigate the risks associated with traditional FSAAs, ECDP proposes a multiphase implementation of prizes, FSAAs, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12 contracts to narrow down the proposed investments. Once contracts are made, ESMD will attempt to ―conduct business with its contractual partners within private sector business norms‖ (17). ECDP proposes a commercial applications selection criteria in Small Business Innovations Research (SBIR), and similar proposals, for the evaluation process preceding NASA-business agreements. And finally, ECDP proposes non-tangible support of commercial space in the form of attendance and involvement in meetings and conferences to symbolize the agency‘s interest in this sector.

ECDP outlines an evaluation method for proposed programs: The effectiveness and feasibility of the proposal, both from the standpoint of ―meeting a NASA goal‖ and ―meeting a

12 real business goal‖ (17), will be examined. In addition to cost-benefit and supply-demand analysis, ECDP will also consider the potential of a project with respect to leveraging collaboration between NASA and the private sector.

Finally, ECDP will also look at the possibility of initiating changes in laws and regulations that impede the goals of ECDP. At the very least, it will seek to understand the laws in order to best facilitate a smooth cooperation between the private sector and NASA.

3.0 Commercial Technology Transfer

This section will address how NASA can be a good business partner by examining multiple programs and opportunities for cooperation. NASA is known as one of the largest organizations to innovate, develop and utilize new technology. Long-term exploration missions will require cooperation between the private sector and NASA, which will in turn foster an industry more equipped and willing to support space exploration.

Recognizing the usefulness of the commercial sector in the development of space, NASA has developed systems for sharing technology with the private sector. These include ‗spin-offs,‘ and the Innovative Partnership Program (IPP).

The IPP encourages NASA innovators to participate in sharing their technology, thereby expanding the applications of the new technology while increasing the efficiency and quality of the development process. An efficient development of technology is crucial to successful and sustainable space ventures.

Thus far, the IPP office has had relative success in achieving technology transfer. In FY 2006 over 200 partnerships were established, more than 50 license agreements for applications and 750 new technologies were submitted and evaluated, and more than 400 agreements for commercial application of NASA developed software were completed (18).

See Appendix B.3.1 for detailed explanations of how the IPP works.

Other programs that play a role in technology transfer are the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer program (STTR). These were created to stimulate technological innovation in the private sector. They provide opportunities for small companies and other research institutions to participate in government- sponsored research efforts to contribute to NASA missions and offer potential commercial applications. Currently all ten NASA centers participate in SBIR and STTR programs. Between 1983 and 2000 there were 6,957 SBIR contracts awarded nationally. It has been determined that the SBIR/STTR programs have provided a stable revenue stream in research and development, where the problem of shrinking discretionary funds is profound. Funding for SBIR contracts in 2005 was $107.5 million, with STTR programs receiving another $12.9 million (19).

Despite the successes of these programs (see RSFC-B RM-2), there exists room for improvement. NASA should be more proactive with alumni companies and should help to open additional financial and marketing doors for these companies. Many of these companies possess technical expertise but have limited experience in marketing and distribution. D. A. Comstock has suggested that NASA could help such companies by: Establishing relationships with the companies by providing opportunities for these to exhibit their products at open houses, workshops, and trade fairs. Being available as a broker and financial ―matchmaker.‖ Being available for assistance in technical needs

In regards to the medical and life sciences companies, NASA should be in the position to investigate complaints and mediate settlements between the companies and other government agencies such as: o The NIH - for joint research ventures purposes. o The FDA-in order to help speed-up the regulatory approval o Other agencies that purchase life sciences goods and services (the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs)

NASA should not establish a formal new program to implement these recommendations. It has been suggested that there should be a change in the working dynamic between government and industry, which would require the following governmental actions: Being proactive with companies that perform research and development in order to encourage commercial development. Monitoring the development of commercial spin-offs. o Better documenting/publishing the economic impact of spin-off technologies Proving through actions its availability to the industry in order to aid in developing joint ventures, providing assistance in technical needs, and providing services to the companies after the formal funding has ended. (20)

4.0 Infrastructure

4.1 Transportation

One general requirement for a space faring civilization is the ability to get to and from space. Focusing on the Moon, transportation can be broken into three parts: transportation to low earth orbit (LEO), transport from LEO to the lunar surface, and transportation on the lunar surface. Facilitating these three parts will be the topic of the following section. Presently, getting to LEO is one of the most challenging and expensive aspects of space activity, but there are several other aspects that must be considered in transportation.

4.1.1 Launch Sites

The location of a launch site dictates the cost of insurance, constraints on debris and stages falling back to the Earth, as well as the cost of fuel and launch vehicle transport. Launch facilities must be able to track the vehicle after it has launched and, in the U.S., must also obtain permission from the FAA to launch. All of these limit the availability of launch sites to very specialized locations, requiring significant infrastructure investment. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation lists 15 active launch sites under American supervision. There are seven federal spaceports, eight non-federal spaceports and eight proposed non-federal space ports. Among the proposed non-federal spaceports is Spaceport America in New Mexico, which will be used by Virgin Galactic as its world headquarters. Additionally, Lockheed Martin has committed to continued rocket testing at the site. Sierra County, New Mexico voted to raise taxes in order to fund the construction of Spaceport America (21). Two economic impact studies for the long and short term forecast Spaceport America‘s economic activity to reach $552,780,000, creating 4,320 jobs, by 2020. The facility is designed for the commercial space industry and integrates space tourism as a key component (22).

Other Commercial Spaceports (23):

Mojave Civilian Aerospace Test Center, Mojave, California Southwest Regional Spaceport, Las Cruces, New Mexico Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island California Spaceport, Western Commercial Spaceport, Lompoc, California Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Wallops Island, Virginia Spaceport Florida Authority, Cape Canaveral, Florida

4.1.2 Transport to Low Earth Orbit

Transport from Earth to LEO is perhaps the most challenging step in space travel. While the Ansari X PRIZE sparked increased research and commercial investment in sub-orbital transportation, orbital transportation still lacks any major catalysts to drive investment and competition to lower costs. One major problem is the low demand for such services and the level of government control. The current outward-looking architecture is very good for orbital launch companies as it presents a possible privately-managed market in which private companies will not have to compete with the government.

To help increase the development of orbital transportation, NASA created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program. This agreement provides financial and technical assistance to both Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation. SpaceX received $278 million, while Orbital Sciences Corporation received $170 million (24). The COTS program consists of four specific service areas (25) :

Capability A: External cargo delivery and disposal - delivers cargo (payloads) that operate directly in the space environment to a LEO test bed and provides for its safe disposal.

Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal - delivers cargo (payloads) that operates within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed and provides for its safe disposal.

Capability C: Internal cargo delivery and return - delivers cargo (payloads) that operate within a volume maintained at normal atmospheric pressure to a LEO test bed and provides for its safe return to Earth.

Capability D (Option): Crew transportation - delivers crew to a LEO test bed and provides for safe return to Earth.

This is a revolutionary program for jump-starting an orbital transportation market. NASA is allowing commercial industry an opportunity to be the agency‘s primary transport carrier to orbit so that it can focus on leaving LEO and going on to the Moon.

4.1.3 Orbital Re-fueling

Once in orbit, additional fuel is needed to travel from the Earth to the Moon. This fuel historically has been carried up with the same vehicle that was required to travel to LEO, travel to the Moon, travel down to the lunar surface, and travel back from the lunar surface to the Earth. Even considering a destination of geosynchronous orbit (GEO), a large amount of fuel is required to transit from LEO. It has been stated that approximately 72% of the cost of a lunar voyage involves getting to LEO (26). To reduce these costs it is proposed that an orbital refueling station be constructed. While a LEO station would be the likely first step, stations in

GEO, lunar orbit, or on the surface of the Moon are also reasonable. These are long-term projects that would be more appropriate for commercial development, with NASA as a costumer.

Initially it is expected that fuel will be launched from Earth. The benefit of a fueling station would thus come from the ability to leverage rockets that are much cheaper than NASA launch systems. It would be possible to launch numerous cheaper vehicles to fuel the station and deliver the fuel for less than the estimated $10,000/kg it would cost to launch it on a NASA launch system.

A Boeing presentation made the feasibility case for an orbital fuel depot and also quantified the possible benefits of such a system: At a low government price of $10,000/kg in LEO, 250 MT of fuel for two missions per year is worth $2.5 billion. Boeing‘s plan is to build the depot by pieces with modules based on the upper stage of the Delta launch vehicle. Two depots would provide redundancy, each one with a total capacity of 175 tons of liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen (25 tons for the lander, 125 for the rocket, with margins for boil-off and other contingencies). And while a few of the necessary parts and operations still have to be developed and matured, they are plausible—and critical for other applications as well (27) (28).

Current With Depot Lunar Missions Landed Mass: 18t 51t Lunar Surface Payload: 2t 35t Sorties (with ESAS landed mass): 1 2 GTO Mission (167kn x 35,788 kn x 27º) Delta IV H: 13t 35t Atlas V 551: 9t 23t GSO Mission Delta IV H: 6t 18t Atlas V 551: 4t 10t Interplanetary Injection (C3 = 0) Delta IV H: 10t 20t Atlas V 551: 7t 15t

Table 5: Benefits of Orbit Re-Fueling Depot (28)

The proposal also identified the risk of building such architecture: Cryo fluid management technology not matured SpaceX fails to successfully deploy Falcon 9 Other customers fail to materialize Unable to sign long-term purchase agreement Lunar missions cancelled, delayed or reduced rate Maximum LEO price less than required for minimum Return on Investment (ROI)

NASA opts to use Ares V as tanker; accepts less capability per mission and forgoes two-sortie mission.

Another interesting proposal is to categorize launches by their payload. Propellant, air, water, and food are worth many thousands of dollars per kilogram in orbit but can be obtained at rates of around a dollar per kilogram on Earth. The Aquarius System proposes that these consumables be launched alone in a vehicle much cheaper than those required to launch high- value, irreplaceable payloads. Conventional studies show that allowing launch reliability to be reduced significantly; to between 0.67 and 0.8, would result in reduced launch costs of an order of magnitude. While this success rate may seem low from traditional launch safety perspectives, it is routinely accepted in terrestrial low-cost delivery systems. Aqueducts and high-tension power lines, for example, routinely lose one-third of their payload en route, yet they are highly successful and commonly used. The Aquarius launcher concept is a simple, low-margin, pressure-fed, floating-launched vehicle. Its design strategy allows mission reliability reduction to the extent that net delivery cost to orbit is minimized proportionally with the low value of its one-ton payloads. Such a vehicle could supply a depot in orbit and would benefit space businesses by reducing launch cost and risk for other missions which would no longer need to carry extra fuel.

Primary technical issues that exist for a fuel depot include dealing with the zero-gravity environment and cryogenic liquid fuel storage. The surface tension of cryogenic fuels presents a problem in tanks. Cryogenic liquid fuels also must be cooled to remain cryogenic. This is a challenging thermal controls problem in orbit. Additionally, the liquid in the tanks is continually floating around and thus presents controls issues. To begin to alleviate these issues it was suggested by NASA that a $5 million prize be offered for demonstrating cryogenic fluid management technologies for liquid hydrogen and oxygen storage tanks in orbit. Developing a high-efficiency cryogenic fluid storage and transfer system could significantly lower the cost and complexity of space exploration missions and enable new commercial space markets. It is highly suggested that a prize such as this be offered in the near future. [Appendix C]

One other suggestion, from Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., involves a public-private partnership to develop ‗trade-routes,‘ consisting of space hubs where cargo and fuel can be transferred from vehicle to vehicle. These stations might be placed in LEO, GEO, and/or the Lagrange points, as well as in orbit around the Moon. LTS‘s proposal introduces the idea of having a system of vehicles with differing specialized capabilities. If the possibility of purchasing space aboard rockets that would deliver cargo to LEO and then transferring to a lower-cost/lower-speed ―tug‖ vehicle were available, commercialization of space and the Moon could happen incrementally and would therefore be more realistic. In other words, the private sector might begin by managing transportation to station infrastructure at LEO or the Lagrange points as mentioned above, and move towards the Moon at a slower pace than NASA, in a supporting role.

4.1.4 Lunar Surface Delivery

The next step after LEO is to transfer to the Moon. Current NASA plans are to establish a long-term lunar base. Going on this assumption it is proposed that NASA develop a Space Act Agreement for a lunar cargo delivery demonstration flight. The justification of a commercial cargo delivery system for the lunar surface is similar to that of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program for the International Space Station. It is hoped that services provided by the commercial sector will provide a cheaper cargo delivery alternative for a potential lunar base. A Space Act Agreement for a cargo delivery demonstration mission would also enhance the capabilities of the American aerospace industry. With commercial lunar cargo delivery available, new markets have the chance to emerge. As a commercial cargo provider begins providing services to entities other than NASA, it is possible that the cost of each individual flight will go down or stabilize.

Following a procurement plan similar to that of NASA‘s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program would seem like a logical step for commercial cargo delivery to the lunar surface. A lunar transportation system would be inherently less concerned with cargo disposal than its orbital counterpart. Any waste from a lunar establishment could be stored in nearby. Not only does this decrease technical requirements for a transportation system, but this waste could eventually be utilized in some way.

The concept of pressurized cargo versus unpressurized cargo is also inherently different in commercial lunar cargo delivery. Cargo will have to be transported from landing zones to habitation zones. The cargo delivery vehicle will not dock directly to the lunar habitat. Instead, the commercial cargo delivery system could transport removable pressurized modules that could be transported to a lunar settlement. Initially, the cargo will mainly be consumables, such as oxygen, food and water.

The challenges of such a Space Act Agreement would include developing a commercial polar landing capability, an autonomous landing system, and as a potential option in the SAA the ability to perform automated rendezvous and docking. The ability to land is quite clear, but a polar landing would likely be required to service the proposed lunar base at the lunar south pole. Automated rendezvous and docking (ARD) would be an option necessary to dock with an orbital fuel or transport depot. This prize and all of its associated technical challenges, requirements, and options are detailed in Appendix C.4.

If an economic, privately-owned lunar transportation system was developed, this could be immediately applicable to a commercial space industry. Eventually, if this program is successful, NASA should enter Space Act agreements for cargo return and human crew demonstration missions. All of these demonstration missions should be followed by contracts for cargo delivery/return or crew transfer. Not only could this system provide economical access to a lunar settlement for NASA, but the very existence of such a system will allow for the accelerated commercial development of the lunar surface.

4.1.5 Lunar Surface Transportation

Once transportation to the Moon has been accomplished, whether solely by NASA and its Constellation vehicles or by a combination of NASA and commercial vehicles, the next issue with both robotic and human activities is how supplies, resources, people, etc. are transported around the surface. As lunar resources begin to be exploited this transportation issue will be particularly important. In the development of a transportation infrastructure the mitigation of negative lunar environmental effects must be considered. Such an infrastructure or technology, once developed, could be offered to other agencies or private companies to reduce the cost of lunar operations.

A fully-fledged lunar surface transportation infrastructure will be a very long-term project, and is at present far out of the scope of NASA‘s Exploration Policy. However, there are several proposals on the subject, including dust mitigation techniques that might increase transport possibilities, as well as vehicle longevity and performance.

One such suggestion involves implementing the discovery that due to the high concentrations of nano-phase Fe0, the lunar soil can be melted at around 12000C, more quickly than the time it takes to boil water using a standard microwave oven. The suggested applications include a ―paving‖ vehicle that melts the soil into glass-like surfaces using microwaves, to make roads that could be used by other vehicles. Alternatively, the microwaves could be equipped by all lunar surface vehicles as a single-user mitigation device. The technology, if successful, could be additionally applied to the creation of landing pads, large-scale antenna dishes, as well as the production of glass and oxygen (29) (30).

NASA has also begun research on a pseudo-infrastructure system for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), which includes research into the development of regolith excavation and transport vehicles for the production of oxygen and hydrogen (31). Such a system would be necessary if NASA is to support its own lunar base, but might also be used by other agencies or companies to commercially develop such resources. Additional ideas that exclude the use of wheeled or purely surface vehicles include implementing vertical take-off and landing vehicles and the necessary launch and landing pads to control dust dispersion, as well as a very long-term project that would involve a lunar ―cable-car,‖ completely avoiding contact with the ground and thereby preventing any direct dust disturbance.

A proper transportation infrastructure on the lunar surface is a long-term project that ought to be considered in preparation for the Exploration Policy, but cannot be expected in the form of a complicated system such as a cable-car, especially if it were to be funded by NASA. A much more plausible system for transportation would indeed be the implementation of dust mitigation techniques, perhaps one of those mentioned previously. NASA has begun development of surface vehicles for its programs including ISRU, but it would be unreasonable to expect that such vehicles would be available for public use. The technology, however, should be shared in some way with others on the Moon to prevent wasteful spending on the part of other agencies or private companies.

Similarly, demanding that NASA dedicate time and money to building lunar roads for the private sector to use would be economically unfeasible and entirely inefficient, as well as restrictive to commercial activities. Some elementary dust-mitigation infrastructure developed around landing and resource sites might be reasonable, but in the early stages of lunar development transportation and exploration by private companies must be self-dependent, potentially including government-provided technologies, with the possibility of a government- run surface infrastructure available in the long-term. Current transportation infrastructure efforts should focus more on Earth launch systems to LEO and the Moon, especially considering NASA‘s limited budget.

4.2 Communications and Data Relay

Communication and data relay capabilities are very important to any lunar mission, governmental or otherwise. As NASA prepares to begin mission for its Exploration Policy, a reliable system of communication must be considered and implemented. The Deep Space Network (DSN) is currently used by all sorts of spacecraft and scientific missions, and its largest antennas are prioritized for missions that travel much farther than the Moon (the first, and arguably most important, destination of the Policy), and so would make a poor choice for dedicated and permanent Earth-Moon communication.

4.2.1 The Deep Space Network

The Deep Space Network, NASA‘s Apollo Mission communications and navigations provider, began under contract to the U.S. Army with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which was transferred to NASA in 1958. The DSN provided communications and tracking for remotely controlled Moon missions as well as the Apollo missions, and was made into a separate system of communications that is managed and operated independently. To avoid the need for a separate communications system to be developed for every posterior spacecraft mission, the DSN was made to accommodate and provide communications to all deep space missions. To support this responsibility, the DSN was given its own research and development accountability. It has thus been successful in the development of large parabolic antennas and is currently a leader of tracking, communication, telemetry, navigation and signal processing. The DSN, which currently consists of three facilities worldwide, is an ―international network of antennas that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the universe. The network also supports selected Earth- orbiting missions‖ (32).

The DSN sells its services through proposals. However, its resources are limited, and the number of missions requiring reliable Earth to deep space communication grows every year. The growth of the DSN is limited due to being governmentally run, and its resources and future requirements no longer meet. Additionally, the hardware infrastructure is reaching the end of its life, and competitiveness with legacy, or extended, missions disconcerts current mission

22 proponents. Looking forward, the DSN‘s crucial role in space exploration is mired by inefficiency and ineffectiveness, as well as government agency bureaucracy.

4.2.2 Communications Systems

A number of ideas regarding the implementation of an Earth-Moon communications infrastructure have been formulated, most from very technical perspectives (33) (34) (35). These ideas suggest the use of Low, Medium, and Geosynchronous Earth Orbits (LEO, MEO, GEO, respectively) as well as of the Lagrange points or lunar polar orbits for placement of satellite constellations for transmitting data. It is suggested that two satellites in Earth-Moon Lagrange points 1 and 2 would suffice to provide nearly 100% coverage of the Moon for communication on both the near- and far-sides (33).

An important consideration for this infrastructure is that it be evolvable, such that technology and hardware advancement be easily incorporated to quickly improve functionality and capability. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) infrastructure proposal (34) suggests initially three satellites in lunar polar orbit, and assumes also the use of the DSN as a terrestrial receiver, with the possibility of using other ground stations presented as viable. Finally, it is also suggested that infrastructure implementation happen over time with long-term goals in mind, and through opportunistic or auxiliary rather than dedicated launches. It should be noted that these proposals suggest technological strategies for a communications infrastructure that seem to assume the total responsibility of NASA.

A communications and data relay infrastructure is most plausible using a combination of existing technologies and ground receivers, such as the DSN, that will be replaced over time, and an evolvable constellation of satellites. However, this infrastructure, although regulated by either the U.S. government or an international governing body should be developed and/or maintained either partially or entirely by the private sector. Additionally, the use of the infrastructure should not be limited to use by NASA, or international space agencies, but rather open to the public based on a proposal and/or auctioning system. Long-term planning should include complete privatization in the future. The DSN should be employed minimally, optimally as simply a stepping-stone for the first generation of lunar communication satellites, and should be quickly replaced for more effective and resource-efficient use.

While initially the most robust economic support for lunar satellite development may be governmentally driven in form of research orbiters, short-term consumer driven economic opportunities are likely especially as various teams and millions of dollars are invested in the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Public demand for space imagery and science is historically high. Video games and entertainment industry demand for imagery may be the largest source of non- governmental revenue in the short term for lunar enterprises. Additionally, the imagery from such satellites, if properly positioned by a commercial entity, could generate large internet traffic and possible revenue from ad sales on internet sites. Academic purchasing of lunar satellite imagery and rover/lander data is also highly probable.

Historically, government investment in both communication and transportation infrastructure has been quite significant, from the government subsidized trans-Atlantic telegraph lines to the U.S. Interstate Highway system [Appendix B.5]. Governments have laid the groundwork for commercial development in the past, and governmental support of the aforementioned systems will help in the inclusion of the Moon and space in the Earth‘s economic sphere of influence. If the suggestions presented here are followed, it is hoped that this development will be accelerated.

5.0 Accelerating Factors

The following section will focus on hurdles and suggestions related specifically to funding and business opportunities for the commercial development of space. All space activities are risky and require large investments, and no matter if this investment is made by government or private sources, the outcome must be beneficial for the funding to be sustained. In a commercial sense, success is almost always defined as a monetary return on investment and such success leads to more funding and growth of the industry. For government programs, the return is not always monetary, but a return must still be shown.

5.1 Engagement

5.1.1 Public Engagement

NASA funding depends on political and public support for NASA‘s activities, and funding will be sustained only if public support is sustained. The challenge is how to excite the public and congressional representatives so that spending in space is not only maintained, but increased. In the past, foreign influences such as the Soviet Union‘s launch of Sputnik, were the drivers for increased spending. Currently, broad, exciting, and long-term stimulation must come from within.

The current exploration policy of NASA has potential to excite the public. Returning to the Moon with a clear objective to do more than leave flags and footprints will generate great interest in the program. In order to increase support, the public will need to be informed and engaged in the space program. Two examples of this that simultaneously engaged and excited the public were the X PRIZE Cup and NASA‘s presence at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival.

This report proposes two very broad but important suggestions. During the Apollo program, the public‘s connection with individual astronauts combined with the knowledge of the extreme risks of space travel generated great public interest. This same model should be used today.

Engaging the public is difficult, and this paper provides suggestions to help overcome the challenge. One suggestion is to stream online data directly from missions so that viewers can pick the camera angle or the data feeds that they want to see. This will allow younger users to build their own mission control. Hands on engagement can be achieved through activities such as creating lunar rover models that people can test drive. Even low-fidelity working models will excite the public. More suggestions are summarized as follows: Allow for more ISS and Shuttle in-flight astronaut-to-public communication beyond NASA TV (television interviews, webcasts, etc.) Engage the public – give opportunities to interact Help the public to get to know the astronauts as people Better explain the reasons behind each mission

Better convey the extreme risks that go along with each mission

The return on investment for the government‘s engagement has potential to be seen through increased NASA budgets. Since NASA fosters the commercial development of space in many ways, such an increase in the budget could help to accelerate these activities.

5.1.2 Education Engagement

Another major impact of public engagement is focused almost entirely on the nation‘s youth. The Apollo program shows that if young people are engaged by a robust, destination driven space program, they are more likely to choose a technical field of study.

Since the commercial development of space requires a skilled and motivated workforce, outreach and student engagement are extremely important. All private companies should engage youths in their space activities. Both government and private funding should be expanded to ensure that math and science courses are taught by instructors with true math and science backgrounds. Students should study math and science because they see the benefits and the cool things that it can be used for, not because they need to know it for a test. High school graduates who have chosen a technical field should be engaged as early as possible as interns and co-ops so that they are better prepared for industry when they graduate. Without the proper investment, a future workforce will not exist.

5.2 Start-up Company Investment

One major obstacle to the commercialization of the space industry is the lack of financing, funding and investment for new companies. All companies that are trying to break into the space industry need a tremendous amount of capital. Currently much of this is being provided by personal fortunes which are capable of making initial investments of anywhere from half a million dollars to several billion dollars (36). In recent years corporate billionaires, such as John Carmack, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk, have invested hundreds of millions, which has created the beginnings of a New Space market. Other companies started by people without a personal fortune must seek private investment and funding. These companies also need long term, low cost financing in order to have a chance to be successful (37).

Currently the demand for space products is not high enough to drive an entire industry, but to ride the back of the bio-tech, energy, tourism, or entertainment industries would help fuel investment and need. Space companies focusing on areas that investors can relate to will help bring in new investments. As the industry stands, investors and angels are weary of spending money in what has been seen as an unreliable and untested new arena. Many banks and investors are unwilling to give large amounts of capital and funding to space start-up companies because there is no successful model for comparison (37). Investors are also hesitant because of the steep risk-reward ratio. Investors will be forced to wait for years for what is currently a modest and often uncertain return. It is much safer for any venture capitalist to invest in a more

26 well known and understood industry where the risk can be easily calculated and where the return will come quickly (37). Finally, people are very hesitant to invest in the industry because there are no exit strategies (38). Additional hurdlers addressed elsewhere in the paper are outlined in Appendix B.1 in the context of start-up companies.

The issue of financing for space start-up companies is beginning to be addressed. A very big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels Network. The Space Angels Network is an organization whose members ―share a common passion for promoting the development of aerospace-related industries and technologies while also making a solid return on private investments‖ (12). This network is without a doubt a catalyst for the commercialization of space because it is a group of investors and entrepreneurs that are waiting and willing to give money to private space companies. Space Angels provides a forum via an e- newsletter, an online deal database and deal screening events for entrepreneurs to present their ideas in front of ―early-stage investors who are actively looking for investment opportunities in aerospace-related industries‖ (13). This is very beneficial because, as mentioned above, securing start-up investment is a challenge for space start-ups. Other groups of early stage investors exist such as the Boston Harbor Angels, who invest in space and aviation as well as many other technology areas (39). Details on both of these Angel groups can be found in the Appendix B.1.

These angel networks interested in space will hopefully expand and have the ability to accelerate the development of the industry. Efforts should be made by private space companies to assist each other in this new sector. This mutual respect is important because poor relationships and the creation of bad reputations will turn away potential investors.

Another suggestion is that commercial space companies design milestone technologies into their business plans. These would be products created on the way to a longer-term goal. Milestones such as these would allow companies to initiate cash flow and help to alleviate some of the added costs and risks of long term investments. Additionally, space companies focusing on areas that investors can relate to, such as pharmaceuticals, biotech, tourism, entertainment, and energy will also help to bring in new investments. As companies begin to succeed, it is very likely that more investors will enter the commercial space industry and help to accelerate its development.

5.3 Space Based Solar Power

The focus will now shift to a look at suggestions to increase business opportunities for commercial space, and this section focuses on the energy market. Energy is a necessity in everyday life, and the demand for energy is constantly increasing. Energy is one of the most important and valuable resources on the planet. Energy markets are well known to investors and have the potential to attract many non-aerospace companies.

Space based solar power (SBSP) is a way to generate electricity in space for use on Earth. SBSP consists of large solar panel arrays in Earth-orbit that collect energy directly from the sun and transmit it to Earth-based receiving stations wirelessly. Recent studies show that SBSP is technically feasible with current technologies.

SBSP should be developed for many reasons. SBSP is a clean, reliable, and plentiful source of energy. Solar arrays based in North America can generate 125-375 W/m2 of power, but 1366 W/m2 of energy could be captured by space based solar arrays (40). SBSP directly supports the goals of the US National Space Policy and Vision for Space Exploration, which seeks to promote international and commercial participation in space. SBSP is a clean alternative to both finite fossil fuels and nuclear power, which produces hazardous nuclear waste. SBSP has the potential to increase international cooperation and enable a true space faring civilization.

There are two main components of SBSP. The first is the conversion of solar energy into power, and the second is transmitting this power to Earth wirelessly. Solar panels are a technology that is continuing to improve. Solar panels have demonstrated 28% efficiencies at room temperature, and projections estimate efficiencies of 50% reached within the next two decades (41). Wireless power beaming has also been demonstrated in the past. For example, 30 kW of power was beamed over 1 mile by JPL in 1975 (42). NASA is also currently offering a prize challenge for power beaming technology demonstration. Details on this prize can be found in Appendix C.11.

The major obstacle to developing and improving SBSP is a lack of organization and funding. Since the National Security Space Office (NSSO) SBSP study came out in fall 2007, no funded work has been completed. The first step is to determine who should be in charge of coordinating the development. Although SBSP clearly involves space, it is mainly an energy technology, and therefore should be managed by someone such as the DOE. An organization within or directed by DOE, such as Energy Research and Development Organization (ERDO), which preceded DOE and no longer exists, should take responsibility.

At this point in development, a relatively small amount of funding is necessary. We propose funding on the scale of $10 million, and it can easily be justified to congress as a small investment into new technology that will help us attain energy independence. A small amount of successful funded research should grow exponentially when the technology potential is seen and pursued by industry and universities. Since it was first proposed in the 1960s, approximately $80 million has been spent in the study of SBSP. In contrast, since the 1950s, approximately $21 billion has been spent for the development of fusion power (40). Government funding for SBSP should be increased to a comparable level.

The other major factor preventing SBSP development is high launch costs and the lack of easy access to space. According to the SBSP Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study by (NSSO), construction of a single SBSP satellite would require at least 120 launches. In general, launch costs are the only major factor limiting the development and use of space, and SBSP will encourage companies to develop technology to decrease these costs. SBSP will catalyze the development of commercial access to space, and in the same way, development of commercial access to space will catalyze the use of SBSP.

It is impossible to put a price tag on SBSP because the technologies involved still need to be developed and demonstrated. For example, the current specific power of solar arrays is 180 W/kg, but is expected to improve to 1000 W/kg over the next two decades (41). Technologies

28 such as this should be able to be applied to many things other than SBSP along the way, and that should offset the cost of development. Once SBSP is actually deployed in space and customers purchase its electric power, it will pay for itself.

5.4 Biotechnology in Space

Another business opportunity with significant growth and investment potential is biotechnology. Biotechnology, a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry, is one of the largest, most profitable industries on the planet. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, at the end of 1995, 1,415 biotechnology companies existed in the United States, of which 329 were publicly traded (43). These companies alone were worth $410 billion. In 2005, the Biotech industry reported earnings of $50.7 billion, and $19.8 billion was spent on research in the U.S., with the top five companies spending $130,000 per employee on research and development. As seen in the chart below, these companies‘ research budgets are higher than NASA‘s total budget.

Biotech Research vs NASA Budget

Billions of 15 Dollars 10

0 Biotech Research 2000 2001 2002 2003 NASA Budget 2004 2005 Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NASA Budget $13.4 $14.3 $14.8 $14.9 $15.2 $15.7 Biotech Research $14.2 $15.7 $20.5 $17.9 $19.6 $19.8 Figure 2: Budget Comparison - NASA and Biotech Research

Biotech statistics from Ernst & Young LLP; BioWorld NASA statistics from the US OMB

The biotech industry performs rapid research and produces many of products, continuously moving to the next big market or new drug. With their high profits and desire to expand, biotech companies have taken great interest in space research, which may prove to be a gold mine for the first company willing to take it seriously.

Since its beginning, the International Space Station (ISS) has been seen as a great opportunity for biotech companies to perform research in zero-gravity environments. Scientists and businessman alike, all anticipating access to the station, have been frustrated by the lack of time they have been permitted to use it. In 2005, the ISS was named a national lab, yet it remains to be extremely underutilized. Noting the intrinsic value of an orbital laboratory, biotech may be ready to advance its markets into space.

The most notable recent success has an experiment performed by SPACEHAB, a space company aimed at extending space based products to the consumer market. On May 30, 2008, SPACEHAB, signed a Space Act agreement with NASA, making them one of the first commercial groups to have access to the station and guaranteeing them space on all but one of the remaining shuttle flights (44). Thomas Pickens III, CEO of SPACEHAB, stated that this ―is expected to revolutionize a myriad of industries,‖ and ―will have a significant social and economic impact and shows great promise of saving lives and providing thousands of new jobs in the coming years" (45).

That sentiment, shared by many throughout the biotech and other industries, has become one step closer to reality. SPACEHAB‘s recent agreement with NASA comes after successfully testing a salmonella vaccine aboard the ISS during STS-123 in March 2008. The Texas-based company flew tests again onboard STS-124, validating the previous results, leaving SPACEHAB with a vaccine which they will present to the Food and Drug Administration, hopefully start human tests as early as October (44), and market the vaccine in the next 2 to 3 years (46). SPACEHAB saw the potential market and have demonstrated promising results. Salmonella, chosen as a test case long before the most recent outbreaks, is the most common food poisoning agent in the United States. It affects over 40,000 people per year and is responsible for a loss of productivity valued at billions of dollars annually (47). According to the Center for Disease control, 400 people a year die of acute salmonellosis (48). Salmonella diarrhea is also one of the top 3 causes of infant mortality worldwide. Due to its widespread affects and previous experiments that showed salmonella was more virulent in microgravity, SPACEHAB targeted this vaccine as one that could prove the concept of vaccine development in space.

SPACEHAB has made great progress in opening up the ISS to corporate use. They have set a precedent and paved groundwork for working with NASA to use the ISS. By proving the capability of such a business model, SPACEHAB has demonstrated that a market is possible. After a decade of very little corporate activity aboard the station, NASA and private companies need to capitalize on these recent successes for the benefit of both groups.

Other organizations, such as the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National Institute of Health, and Department of Agriculture, are interested in conducting research on the station and need to pursue a course of action to fund such projects. One option that could increase the utilization of ISS by private companies would be if the government agencies mentioned above instituted a program to partially subsidize delivery costs for various experiments. These subsidies would only be used to initiate private interest in the research, but they could be continued if specific research is deemed necessary by one of the agencies. Once private industry is given an opportunity experiment aboard ISS, the companies would be

30 expected to utilize the station under agreement with NASA. Currently this is offered at no cost. However, as the market develops and private capabilities begin to emerge, NASA should begin to charge for private use of the ISS. Based on a strict timetable, this cost should be increased to match fair market value. This will help NASA offset ISS operating costs.

Biotech, with its large investments in research, is a great industry to target for such a venture, and SPACEHAB, Inc. has shown it is possible. Agencies could set aside funds, in the form of grants valued at $250,000 each. Assuming a conservative launch cost of $30,000 per kg, with these agencies giving $2 million, launch costs for 8 experiments could be subsidized. The experiments should require minimal attention from the astronauts onboard. Such a program would get companies seriously thinking about the possibility of a venture into space, creating a large potential market. In the future, corporations will be launching to private space stations, such as Bigelow modules.

Enticing corporations from biotech and other non-aerospace industries to enter low earth orbit will increase demand in the commercial space market. If a significant return on investment can be proven with this model it will help to pave the way for cooperation between private industry and NASA.

5.4 Prizes

5.4.1 Background

A proven way of accelerating an industry is through the use of prizes. Prize competitions are challenges proposed in areas in which increased involvement by private individuals or the commercial sector is sought. Prize competitions attract innovative people who are driven by passion, prestige, and personal achievement. Throughout history, prize competitions have been used to foster crucial development in many areas [Appendix C]. Prizes can create heroes, reflecting the level of visibility of the prize and the level of commitment of the general public. An example of this is Charles Lindbergh.

The Ansari X PRIZE initiated the commercial development of sub-orbital space flight. The new Google Lunar X PRIZE has started a new, commercial race to the Moon. In order for man to get back to the Moon, NASA and the private industry will be forced to complete lunar characterization missions to determine the locations of the best landing sites, habitable regions and available resources.

5.4.2 Lunar Characterization Prize Proposal

Currently, little is known about the lunar craters, especially those that lie in permanent shadows at the poles. A good way to gain this information is to create a new prize to complement the current missions planned by various space agencies. The goal will be to provide key measurements and information about the environment in these permanently shadowed craters. Such a competition would involve universities and other research entities, and develop

31 interest among the scientific community all around the world. Moreover, a prize competition can create a global scientific competition centered on lunar issues which will be advantageous for the return to the Moon. The instruments used may be secondary payloads on other robotics/manned lunar missions, and may then provide another source of cash-flow for emerging lunar delivery companies.

If successful, not only would this prize provide valuable data on the environment in permanently-shadowed lunar craters, but it would verify a new prize model. This new model would provide smaller purses for data that could be used as a secondary funding source for commercial lunar missions. If this prize were successful, similar scientific prizes could be planned. These prizes would not necessarily be the primary mission of a spacecraft, but instead provide an additional opportunity for private companies to make a return on their investment. In the future, it is hoped that when these companies design a business model around landing a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon, that they can choose a few appropriate prizes and receive compensation for the data they collect. The model proposes that NASA would more or less buy the data that it wants and in the prize format would only pay if the data were collected successfully.

This prize is detailed more thoroughly in Appendix C. The appendix also has further information on follow-on prize suggestions listed below.

5.4.3 Potential Future Lunar Prizes:

Thermal Characterization - Temperature data collection Radiation Characterization - Measure radiation levels for a given period of time Regolith Drilling Techniques - Test methods for drilling in-situ, preferable automated with low mass and power requirements Dust Mitigation Techniques or Systems - Competition to design device or process to abate lunar dust contamination Nighttime Power Management - Design power systems to survive the lunar night Robotic Geology Assistant - System used by astronauts to run geological analysis on collected samples Penetrator Design Competition - Design penetrator that would go to a certain depth and survive hard impact.

There are many more hurdles and various other possible business markets and accelerators. Those listed above are merely a start. To truly open up space to commercial development, many more ideas, inventions, and innovations will be required. It is thus very fortunate that free market societies such as ours thrive on such challenges. As markets evolve and demand grows entrepreneurs will be attracted to the limitless potential of space based companies. This can already be seen in the recent explosion in interest for sub-orbital space travel.

6.0 Policy

While the goal of this paper is to have the development of space entirely commercial, government involvement is still unavoidable. Aside from being a customer or a partner, government also dictates policy decisions affecting the development of space. These policies include laws, treaties and regulatory bodies. This section will address the important policy issues affecting the development of commercial space as it moves beyond Low Earth Orbit.

6.1 Liability Indemnification and Anchor Tenancy

One of the laws helping the commercial industry is Public Law 108-428, which extends the liability indemnification regime from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2009 (49). The government requires commercial launch companies to have private liability insurance for each launch up to approximately $500 million. While expensive, the launch and insurance industries are capable of covering such a cost. The difficulty is covering the billions of dollars of potential liability insurance (50). The Amendments to the Commercial Space Launch Act of 2004 laid out provisions for the indemnification of the liability above $500 million in order to help the launch service providers cope with such a large cost.

The liability indemnification regime has been an extremely successful program since its inception in 1988. It has allowed American launch providers to keep their costs low, which helps lower the expenses to satellite providers and those who use satellite services. Foreign launch companies are subsidized by their governments and thus have similar coverage. The indemnification levels the playing field and allows American companies to compete with foreign competitors and protects U.S. launch providers, their customers, and subcontractors. It ensures financial responsibility and fiscal security, allowing companies to operate without risking the company‘s future with each launch. The indemnification is vital to national security since it protects companies that also launch U.S. civil and military payloads. All of this encourages U.S. space transportation scientists and engineers to develop safer, more cost effective and more efficient methods of getting to space (51).

Fortunately, these benefits to the commercial industry have come with no adverse side- effects to the American public. The liability indemnification regime has cost the U.S. taxpayer nothing since it began in 1988. It allows the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers to benefit from efficiencies created by the commercial launch providers. It creates an environment that encourages and facilitates the commercial space transportation industry. It also bolsters the U.S. economic and national security, advances foreign policy, and generates hundreds of highly technical and highly skilled jobs (51).

While the liability indemnification regime has greatly benefitted the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, American companies still have a hard time competing with foreign companies that are subsidized by their government and can therefore offer better protection and lower prices (51) (52). A more aggressive policy needs to be implemented to help American companies catch up with foreign companies like Arianespace. One such policy could be for NASA to sign anchor tenancy agreements with commercial space transportation companies. 33

Anchor tenancy is defined by 15 U.S.C 5802 as ―an arrangement in which the United States Government agrees to procure sufficient quantities of a commercial space product or service needed to meet Government mission requirements so that a commercial venture is made viable‖ (53). Such an agreement would give the commercial space transportation industry the boost that it needs.

An ideal implementation of anchor tenancy would be for NASA to use normal procurement procedures and open the contract for bidding to all of the commercial space transportation companies. NASA would select the company that could build the launch vehicles best suited to the mission parameters. They would sign a contract with the chosen company specifying how long NASA would remain an anchor tenant. With the guarantee of NASA launches, the company would be able to invest significant time and money into the development of new, reliable launch vehicles. This would help attract other non-government customers and even foreign customers. The success of the company would build confidence in the viability of the commercial space transportation industry, which would attract venture capitalist who would invest in start-up companies. The industry would continue to grow and attract more companies, driving costs down and increasing efficiency. After the completion of the contract, NASA would become a normal customer and buy launch vehicles and services as a commercial item.

There would have to be a definite end date for the contract. Otherwise, companies that did not get the contract would fail because they cannot compete with both foreign and domestic companies. Without competition and a guaranteed customer base, the contracted company would have little motivation to decrease costs and would not be able to compete with foreign companies.

Two pieces of legislature currently dictate NASA anchor tenancy contracts. The first is NASA FAR Supplement 1812.7000, which states:

Prohibition on guaranteed customer bases for new commercial space hardware or services. Public Law 102-139, title III, Section 2459d, prohibits NASA from awarding a contract with an expected duration of more than one year if the primary effect of the contract is to provide a guaranteed customer base for, or establish an anchor tenancy in, new commercial space hardware or services. Exception to this prohibition may be authorized only by an appropriations Act specifically providing otherwise (54).

The second is 15 U.S.C. 5806 Anchor tenancy and termination liability Part (a), which states:

Anchor tenancy contracts Subject to appropriations, the [NASA] Administrator or the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may enter into multiyear anchor tenancy contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the appropriate Administrator determines that—

1. The good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as appropriate; 2. The commercially procured good or service is cost effective; 3. The good or service is procured through a competitive process; 4. Existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States Government have been specifically identified; 5. The long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued Government market or other nonreimbursable Government support; and 6. Private capital is at risk in the venture (55).

There is some debate about which piece of legislation should set the precedence for anchor tenancy, or even if the two legislations are in conflict. In order for NASA and the U.S. government to help the commercial space transportation industry, the rules for anchor tenancy need to be made clear and must enable NASA to establish anchor tenancy. The benefits of anchor tenancy to the U.S. government would be similar to the benefits of the liability indemnification regime, but on a much larger scale.

6.2 International Traffic in Arms Regulations

One policy that is slowing the growth of commercial space sector is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR is designed to monitor trade conducted by parties of the United States of items and ideas pertaining to defense to insure that any exchange will not injure the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. ITAR is administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a branch of the Department of State, and was created by section 22USC2788 of the Arms Export Control Act and Executive Order 11958. The main objective of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations is to avert the proliferation of sensitive or high tech weapons and technologies by regulating the export of these items. While ITAR concerns items that are considered to be military in nature, the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) administered by the Department of Commerce, concerns the export of those items considered to have dual-use applications that are mostly commercial but can also be military.

The term export is defined by ITAR as the release of a defense article to a party outside of the United States (whether foreign or U.S. Citizen), the disclosure of defense technical data to a non U.S. citizen or the carrying out of a defense related service for the benefit of a non-citizen. In some circumstances, it is absolutely necessary to violate the export guidelines set forth in ITAR. In these cases, an export license must be obtained from the Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing within the Department of State. These authorizations are not uncommon, but they must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and take weeks or sometimes months to obtain. Individuals found to be in violation of ITAR, without the appropriate license, could face criminal charges of up to one million dollars in fines and ten years of imprisonment per violation. For an item to fall under the export control of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, it must be named in Section 38 or 47 of the Arms Export Control Act. This section, better known as the

United States Munitions List (USML), enumerates 20 classes of items considered to be defense articles. The items of specific concern to the space industry include, but are not limited to: launch vehicles, rocket technology, ablatives, control equipment, range finding electronics, guidance systems, training electronics, personal protective equipment, propellant and any spacecraft (manned and unmanned), or associated equipment. In short, ITAR governs basically every technology concerning space flight. With regard to the future of space exploration, ITAR is definitely an issue worthy of addressing. See Appendix B.7 for a historical overview of ITAR.

6.2.1 Effects on the Aerospace Industry

The problems stemming from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations are complex and far reaching. Perhaps the most import issue arising from ITAR is the cost of compliance to the policy. This issue is especially relevant when considering that many of the companies on the forefront of commercial space are small compared to the normal government defense contractors. The burden of filing for export license review, in terms of money and time lost, is felt universally. However, large defense companies are acquainted with the licensing process and often have a full staff dedicated to streamlining the process. Smaller companies, like many New Space companies, are not so fortunate as to have full time staff dealing only with obtaining these licenses. In addition, these companies are often unfamiliar with the process. This increases the amount of time it takes them to receive a license and makes it more likely that the license will not get approved. The costs incurred are also more heavily felt by the smaller companies that the large ones. This creates a high barrier of entry into the space industry and ultimately hinders the ability of the smaller space companies to compete in the global marketplace.

Another area of concern with ITAR is its effect on the United States aerospace industry as a competitor in the global market. Because the process to obtain export licenses can be so costly, foreign customers often choose to deal with ITAR-free or non-U.S. companies. According to research done by the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Industry and Security, between 2003 and 2006, the US share in the global market has decreased by 20% for all commercial communications satellites and by 10% for geosynchronous satellites. The reported loss of all foreign sales due to ITAR during the four year period was $2.35 billion. Furthermore, the study found that the average yearly cost of compliance industry-wide was $49 million. Many countries who would usually buy from the United States are instead researching the technologies themselves, which is essentially proliferating the same technology that ITAR is intended to protect.

6.2.2 ITAR and International Collaboration

ITAR hinders one of the essential ingredients of a successful commercial space industry, which is international collaboration. The scientific community benefits greatly when universities and labs from all around the world can work together. This becomes difficult to do considering all of the roadblocks imposed by ITAR. Because ITAR kills the free flow of information from partner to partner, other countries will often leave the United States out when working on

36 international projects. This could become increasingly problematic as these partnerships will be needed for the difficult tasks that lay ahead on the road into space. ITAR has already caused several problems on current international space missions. For example, when the Mars Phoenix Lander was being built, the Canadian team responsible for one of the instruments had to work blindly to interface the instrument with the rest of the spacecraft because the US team could not share technical information about the on board computer or software. The commercial space industry has already hit numerous ITAR snags as well. The concept of space tourism was nearly delayed indefinitely when Virgin Galactic could not view technical documents for SpaceShipOne, the sub-orbital space vehicle they had just recently purchased from the Ansari X Prize winning team Scaled Composites. However, Virgin Galactic was finally granted a license and was able to obtain the equipment and documentation that it had already legally purchased.

ITAR was amended in 2002 in response to issues with foreign nationals conducting research at institutions of higher learning. The amendment to ITAR allows foreign students and faculty at an institution of higher learning to be involved with ―fundamental research‖ relating to space technology. While the amendment did help to address the primary concern, it created an entirely different set of issues. First, despite the fact that fundamental research is defined within the document, it is not necessarily clear as to when the research is no longer fundamental. Because of this, students who are foreign nationals at some universities are not allowed to participate in space technology related research. This is also causing some professors to ―dumb down‖ their curriculum for fear of violating ITAR and being subject to criminal penalties. This is denying some students of an education that would prove very valuable, not only to themselves but to the entire space industry. This amendment only opened up a small portion of all space related research to foreign students because it only applies to research conducted independently by the institution. The most cutting edge university research is often done in collaboration with professional research laboratories or aerospace companies, thus barring foreign nationals from working on these research projects. ITAR makes it difficult for aerospace companies within the United States to obtain access to the expertise of foreign nationals, as they are not allowed access to all of the necessary information.

The problems associated with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations will persist as the commercial space market continues to grow. It is possible that there will be an increase in failures of international space missions as a result. This is because the U.S. participants may be forced to downgrade essential mission components in order to make them ITAR-friendly, thus losing access to the hardware that may be better suited for mission specifications. Also, as the demand for space ports and launch sites increases, expect to see even more problems hamstringing U.S. companies who wish to launch on foreign soil or with a foreign launch service provider. Currently, missions launching with foreign launch service providers are required to have an armed guard at all times to watch over the payload from delivery to launch, imposing yet another unnecessary cost for the parties involved.

6.2.3 Future Work

While it is obvious that the International Traffic in Arms Regulations is hurting the commercial space industry, some form of export control is certainly necessary. In order to address the growing and changing atmosphere of the space industry a top to bottom reworking of ITAR is the best solution. However, this is not likely to happen anytime in the near future. Drastically changing ITAR would most likely involve removing certain items from the United States Munitions List. Unfortunately, doing this may be looked at as an attempt to decrease national security, which in the current political climate would be a very risky thing for any elected official to do. There is also no widespread push to change ITAR because most people outside of the aerospace and defense community are ignorant to the unintended effects of the policy. Another effective, but probably unrealistic solution, would be the removal or at least reduction to the USML Article XV, ―Space Systems and Associated Equipment.‖ It is arguable that of everything on the USML, spacecraft are the least likely to be a national security threat and should not be considered a defense article. However, this becomes more complex considering that some spacecraft are equipped with propulsion systems, for example, that are similar to technology that could be used on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM‘s). Even the reversal of the 1999 Strom Thurmond Authorization, which placed communications satellites back on the USML, would go a long way in alleviating some of the burdens imposed by ITAR. This too becomes difficult because placing communications satellites back under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce would require an act of Congress.

Fortunately, there are a variety of short term improvements that can be implemented to help reduce the unintended consequences of ITAR. One option would be to do a full evaluation of everything on the USML. If a technology is already available from other countries that are willing to sell it internationally, then there is no reason that the United States should not be able to do the same. The purpose of ITAR is to prevent the proliferation of high technology related to defense. If that technology is already available elsewhere, then ITAR has no purpose to serve.

Another option would be to streamline the licensing process through a few different methods. The first is to create a fully electronic system. This change is already underway and should help to reduce the processing costs and time required to physically create and mail hardcopies of license applications. Also, licenses should be obtained more easily by companies who have consistently proven themselves. This could also be applied to companies who work very closely with the governments of foreign allies to the United States, like Great Britain or Israel. Of course, this too can be difficult because it ignores the possibility of changes in allegiance. Companies who must deal with obtaining export licenses should have access to better ITAR training. This would help the smaller, inexperienced companies who are writing their first export control applications. This would greatly simplify the process and lead to a decrease in the amount of time lost due to denied licenses or uncertainties. In addition, clearer guidelines as to what constitutes ITAR regulated materials would help to reduce uncertainties and probably help to prevent unneeded export license requests.

6.2.4 Conclusion

These are only a few of the ideas that would to help reduce the unintended effects of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The general public must be made aware of the far- reaching consequences of the legislation because that is the best way to incite change. Amending ITAR is the only way that the United States can play a prominent role in the development of commercial space. Commercial space, like almost all industries today, can only thrive if it is a global industry. The ability to export space technology is very valuable and can help to accelerate the industry and decrease the U.S. trade deficit.

6.3 Intellectual Property

Another concern for the emerging space industry is the security of intellectual property (IP). Intellectual property rights play a large role in encouraging and sustaining innovation because IP drives development and profits. If the United States and NASA want to be leaders in the future of space exploration, the issues of intellectual property regarding space must be considered and addressed. In this section, the major barriers to a sustainable space faring civilization will be brought forward and questions will be posed regarding the future of IP in space.

According to Janene L. Landenberger‘s paper titled Protection of Intellectual Property in Space, Intellectual Property is an asset which may be legally owned and requires intelligence to develop, or it can be information which requires protection because of its security level. For the future commercial development of space, we are most concerned with intellectual property as an asset or industrial property.

Intellectual Property as an asset can be further divided into the categories of patents, trademarks, and copyrights (56). Of these categories, patents are the biggest draw for private industry because of the money that can be made in the creation of space-related technology.

Within the field of patents there are five subcategories (57): 1) Inventions made on earth for space applications 2) Inventions made on earth for terrestrial applications as a result of space activities 3) Inventions made in outer space for terrestrial applications 4) Inventions made in outer space for space applications 5) Inventions patented on earth for special applications used in outer space

For any inventions made on Earth, the patent system, though flawed on an international scale, already exists. However, for inventions made in space (e.g. on the surface of the Moon) the framework for patent protection does not yet exist.

As commercial industry expands further into space, this lack of regulation and protection will prove to be a major disadvantage. Companies will be hesitant to get involved if the millions of dollars they spend developing a technology can be stolen by the next company to arrive. Thus, any sustainable space faring civilization will require a more concrete and permanent system for patents.

6.3.1 NASA and Intellectual Property

As stated in Vision for Space Exploration, one of the primary missions of NASA and future government endeavors in space is to ―promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security and economic interests‖. A large part of fulfilling this mission involves intellectual property and the NASA‘s management of patents. As a government agency that deals heavily with contractors and advanced technologies, investments by NASA can greatly stimulate and drive the commercial industry in positive or negative directions.

By the same token, because NASA is a government agency funded by U.S. taxpayers, there is a belief that any byproduct of their research should be public domain (58). It cannot be commercialized and sold, or else it‘s almost as if the public is paying twice: first to build the product, then to purchase and use it. To prevent this and encourage free flow of science from NASA, there is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which although is a good thing, can have some detrimental effects on private industry, which will be discussed in more detail in a later section.

However, in order to properly stimulate private industry and the commercial sector, NASA‘s technological assets must be made into marketable and innovative products that will spur commercial and economic growth (59). In order to create a marketable product, some sort of intellectual property protection is required both for contractors who develop technology through contracts with NASA and for researchers and innovators within NASA itself. The government has already taken steps to deal with this issue through acts such as the Bayh-Dole Act, the Stevenson-Wydler Act, and the Technology Transfer Act. Each of these documents provide the opportunity for private industry to obtain patents while developing products for NASA and for NASA to grant the IP to private companies, particularly smaller companies.

Overall, the FOIA and acts such as Bayh-Dole demonstrate the need for NASA to balance the free flow of information with IP protection for private companies. As the commercial space industry grows, NASA will have more opportunities to encourage growth with the management of intellectual property. By properly managing intellectual property rights, NASA can serve as a catalyst in the commercialization of government funded endeavors (60).

6.3.2 Territory Based Intellectual Property

Currently, patents are administered on a national basis. Inventions can be protected on an international level, but such protection requires individual licenses to be obtained in every

40 nation. No single international patent system exists. Within this nationalized system, patent grants and protection exist on a territorial basis. More specifically, any patent license obtained applies only in that nation‘s territory. There are issues associated with terrestrial patents, but it becomes even more complicated when addressing patents for space, especially concerning national territory.

One example illustrating this problem is that of research done in microgravity. Any form of research in microgravity, particularly in a spacecraft, is not technically U.S. soil (61). Thus, any invention that results from that research does not immediately fall under the U.S. patent umbrella. However, as with ships in international waters, spacecraft are considered by the U.N. Outer Space Treaty to be the territory of the nation of origin. Any research done on the International Space Station U.S. modules can be patented in the U.S. because the work is considered to be produced in U.S. territory (57).

Difficulties arise in this reasoning when private industry is considered. If Bigelow Aerospace, for example, does research within one of its space stations, is any resulting invention patentable in the U.S.? Does the space within the module qualify as U.S. territory? What if the research is not done within a capsule, but in the vacuum of space itself? According to the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, no nation can claim territorial rights to space, so if research is done in the vacuum of space, in which nation can the patent be sought from?

Even more difficulties arise when considering the lunar surface. According to the U.N. Moon Treaty, no nation can claim territory on the Moon. However, no such specifications are made about private companies. Thus, private industry is not prohibited from claiming lunar property and then doing research on that land. However, if that land must belong to the private company and not a nation, the land cannot technically be within any nation‘s territory. Thus, the territorial based application of Intellectual Property Protection does not apply, and any invention created on the Moon is not patentable by normal conventions.

Keeping these issues in mind, reform of the current patent process is needed. This change can come in the form of international cooperation or a reform of property rights and land management in space, or even a combination of the two. Regardless, a change is needed to ensure that private companies can protect their intellectual property and remain profitable.

6.3.3 NASA and the Freedom of Information Act

As mentioned previously, because NASA is a publically funded government agency, any information created by NASA should be public domain. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is part of insuring that this occurs, making much research done by NASA freely accessible to the general public. However, the lack of information protection has some implications in regard to intellectual property.

More specifically, the FOIA affects the intellectual property protection of any private contractor doing work for NASA. The FOIA can, in some instances, force unrestricted public

41 release of information disclosing an invention, posing a barrier to patentability (58). If the information can be freely accessed and used, no protection is provided by obtaining a patent.

Fortunately, this issue with FOIA is dealt with effectively by the Bayh-Dole Act, which provides patent security to private companies. However, even with this legislation, intellectual property protection relies primarily on the government‘s good will. First, NASA or any government agency can claim intellectual property rights to an invention by claiming that it concerns national security. Second, in order to retain the intellectual property, even by the Bayh- Dole Act, a company must apply for and be granted a waiver by NASA. The IP is not immediately given to the company. As such, it is recommended that NASA create a policy of granting waivers on request.

6.3.4 Encouraging Private Industry through Government Research

One of major barriers to entry in the aerospace field is the expense involved in the cutting-edge research necessary for success. Many small companies do not have the funds or the facilities necessary to succeed in the industry.

A similar problem was encountered in the beginning of the airline industry and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was instrumental in jump starting the industry by providing the necessary research to develop the commercial industry. NACA was founded on March 3, 1915 as a government agency and was given the responsibility of carrying out, promoting, and institutionalizing aeronautical research. Specifically, the Congress act that created NACA states, "...It shall be the duty of the advisory committee for aeronautics to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution...‖ Basically, the goal of NACA was to conduct cutting-edge aeronautics research in order to propel both the military and civilian aviation fields.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created from NACA in 1958. A published statement by the Director of NACA stated:

―It is of great urgency and importance to our country both from consideration of our prestige as a nation as well as military necessity that this challenge [Sputnik] be met by an energetic program of research and development for the conquest of space. . . . It is accordingly proposed that the scientific research be the responsibility of a national civilian agency working in close cooperation with the applied research and development groups required for weapon systems development by the military. The pattern to be followed is that already developed by the NACA and the military services. . . . The NACA is capable, by rapid extension and expansion of its effort, of providing leadership in space technology.‖

Following this statement, NACA was reassigned to take on the task of both aeronautics and space research, as well as to carry out the creation of the United States space program.

Currently, there exists a NASA Advisory Council (NAC), which is the formal successor to NACA. Their objective is to provide council to the NASA Administrator on programs and issues of importance to the agency. NAC could be expanded to handle the same responsibilities for the space and aeronautics fields as NACA handled solely for the aeronautics field prior to its transformation into NASA. In this scenario, NAC would be given funding and serve as a selection committee to fund and direct cutting edge space research at any organization. If NAC were to take on this assignment, the commercial development of space would be made much easier because the expensive, cutting-edge research that holds back many companies from entering the aerospace market would be made publicly available. However, the free flow of information must also be tempered with the ability to receive patents off of the research provided by NAC. The industry will only be sustainable if the technologies developed by the companies receiving the information are patentable.

6.3.5 ITAR and Intellectual Property

As with many factors in developing a space faring civilization, ITAR poses a significant barrier to intellectual property reform, particularly in the realm of international patent protection. With any patent, whether international or domestic, all information regarding the invention, including technical specifications, must be released. However, for any technology covered under ITAR, the technical specifications cannot be released beyond the United States. Thus, any invention that contains ITAR protected technologies cannot be patented internationally. Without a patent, there is nothing preventing an international competitor from gaining rights to someone else‘s idea. If the United States wishes to remain competitive in the international space industry, major reforms are needed to ITAR to allow for international protection of innovation.

An additional concern for the future is invention in space. Though it is not an issue addressed by ITAR, there is the possibility that ITAR technologies could be used for creating new inventions in space. Because territorial boundaries are less defined in space, this poses an interesting question about the applicability of ITAR to anything invented in outer space. Also, it raises an interesting question: will ITAR protected technologies be allowed to be used in the invention process in outer space?

The intention of this section is not to give an answer to this and many other questions regarding the future of ITAR. However, the questions brought forth here, and others that have not been mentioned, need to be considered sooner rather than later. There are serious concerns about how the process is currently administered, and it is evident that many reforms are necessary.

6.3.6 Conclusions and Future Work

The major question of where a space-made invention can be patented must be answered. As mentioned above, no nation state can own property in space, and thus has no territory for which current patent policy can apply.

One possible solution to this problem would be to internationally harmonize the patent process. A universal international patent process and protection system would remove the need for territorial legislation. No matter where an invention is born, it would be able to be patented because the necessity for state territory no longer exists.

While some steps have been made towards unifying the patent process through agreements such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, a complete solution has not been offered. The best example of an attempt at harmonization can be found in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the European Community Patent.[Appendix B.8] The EPC provides the legal framework for a unified European patent application office and enforcement agency. However, each member nation within the EPC has a great deal of autonomy within the system, both in granting and enforcing patent legislation. Thus, the EPC is only the first step. The European Community Patent, however, finishes this process for the intention of the community patent is to provide consistent patent rights across Europe. The consequence of this would be to create universal market conditions across all markets dealing in European trade, which is currently hindered by differing patent rights in the various countries in Europe.

There are many obstacles to this legislation such as language barriers, and as of now, very little progress has been made towards accomplishing the goals of the Community Patent. However, regardless of obstacles, Europe has indentified a universal patent system as an issue worth consideration and discussing, leaving options open for the future.

An additional benefit from an international patent system would be broader patent protection than currently offered to a company under national patent systems. As competition in space becomes more international, private companies in the US will have to compete not only in the domestic market, but internationally as well. World-wide patent protection will help with this competition, allowing US companies to be confident that their product can be bought only from them and not a foreign competitor.

However, creating an international patent system could have effects on various industries, such as pharmaceuticals, that could hurt third world countries that have very little interest with intellectual property rights. Also, with broader patent protection comes more danger of monopolies and trusts. Increased patent protection may block out small companies unable to break into the market because of the cost of licensing. Thus, while an international system appears to be appropriate, it must be thoroughly discussed and studied.

With the above considerations in mind, one of the most important characteristics of any reform to policy regarding intellectual property in space is flexibility. Any legislation at this

44 point would be pre-emptive, and while not necessarily a negative point, it does imply that assumptions about the future state of technology will be contained within any legislation. While predictions can be made about where space technology will be in 20 years, the accuracy of such predictions cannot be assured. Issues that are now believed to be the major issues of Intellectual Property Rights may change with technology.

Of course, such inevitabilities do not imply that this policy should not be reformed at all, but that any inherent predictions and assumptions must be documented and seriously considered. We must not lock ourselves into a system with no opportunities for reform. It is important to allow the opportunity to reform easily as the issues become more prevalent. This way, the legislation can be molded to match the times and state of technology. No reforms are ever perfect or meant to stand for all time. As long as this is kept in mind, with any policy, great potential exists for success.

6.4 Historical Moon Preservation

Thus far, this paper has addressed some of the necessary requirements for commercially developing space with a focus on the Moon. Journeying into the future and looking back as a human race, it is important to honor past heroes and accomplishments. Among those accomplishments, perhaps one of the greatest of human history, are man‘s first steps on the Moon. A return to the Moon has implications for the past because the historical sites, that have thus far been preserved, are now in danger of being disturbed. Prior to making this return trip to the Moon, it is important to consider the preservation of historic lunar sites. Historical preservation on the Moon is considered at length in Appendix B.9.

6.5 Lunar Property

These sites and artifacts require preservation because we believe in the future humans will live, work, and play on the Moon. If the general public is to one day live and work in thriving communities on the Moon, Mars, and beyond, precedence must be set now to ensure the stability of such future settlements. The United States and other space faring nations must establish a set of rules and regulations pertaining to the ownership of private property by a government or private entity.

A major obstacle to commercial space development is the current lack of international agreement over the formulation of a set of binding legal rules for the development of celestial body resources. Land claims recognition will be necessary. This way, a privately funded space settlement could make a profit by selling land back to the public on Earth and by exploiting lunar resources. Without property rights, private companies cannot undertake such a grand economic venture, and investors will not commit to supporting the already expensive and risky endeavors of those companies.

There have already been several attempts at space law over the years. The existing space law treaties, including the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty) and the 1979 Agreement on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Moon Treaty), made great strides by raising key issues that must be addressed in such legislation. Unfortunately, they lack sufficient detail for thorough regulation and have failed to gain necessary consensus among the prominent nations in space exploration. Therefore, building on previous work, a satisfactory piece of legislation is necessary to safeguard the investments of private companies and individuals as well as to propel NASA's space exploration policy forward.

6.5.1 Antarctic Treaty

A basis for space law can be taken from Antarctica because of its similarly harsh environment, potential for science research, and lack of ownership. Expeditions to explore and study the region began around the 1820s, and Antarctica was only recognized as a continent in 1840. Since then, many countries have erected stations that operate seasonally and throughout the year. With many countries operating stations and conducting research, one can see how they would quickly become territorial over their areas, leading Australia, Chile, and Argentina to ―claim Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) rights or similar over 200 nautical mile extensions seaward from their continental claims." Many other countries do not acknowledge these claims, however. In fact, such claims are not recognized by 21 out of 28 Antarctic consultative nations that have not made any territorial assertions. With such disagreement over land rights, the need for general consensus on Antarctic policy became apparent. Hence, the Antarctic Treaty was signed by 12 nations in 1959, who became the original 12 consulting nations on Antarctic policy. Many other nations, with strong research presence on the continent, have agreed to the treaty and have become consulting nations. There are still other nations who have agreed to the treaty and are granted observation status at consultative meetings. The treaty recognizes the importance of maintaining Antarctica as a peaceful region, prohibiting military establishments and nuclear activity. In accordance with this sentiment, the treaty also states that all areas of the continent are open to inspection by observers. Therefore, a nation cannot assume that it operates under privacy in Antarctica. Any disputes that may arise are encouraged to be resolved by the parties involved. The issue may be taken to the International Court of Justice if resolution cannot be achieved. The idea of preserving a peaceful area, which everyone can benefit from, is an important theme that space policy can draw from. It should be noted, however, that even with Antarctica there was trouble gaining consensus on all points.

6.5.2 Outer Space Treaty

Many ideas for the Outer Space Treaty were modeled from the Antarctic Treaty. After several years of debate over proposals by the United States and the Soviet Union, a collaborated version of the Outer Space Treaty was finally signed in 1967. A major issue in reaching consensus was arms regulation. Military installations and weapons of mass destruction are explicitly prohibited. The treaty contains many other provisions for safety, calling on the

46 participating States Parties to aid each other in case of potential danger from launching spacecraft or other space hazards. The States-Parties are further encouraged to inform each other and the United Nations Secretary-General of their activities. Another significant point that the treaty makes is that outer space is meant for the peaceful use of everyone. Government claims of sovereignty by occupation or any other means are not allowed. When discrepancies arise between member State Parties to the treaty, they are urged to work matters out between themselves.

However, any attempt at building a lasting lunar settlement will almost have to be a multi-national effort. Currently, there are no U.S. companies that can bear the burden of financing such an undertaking. The building of a settlement will have to be financed and owned by stockholders from many different countries. This cooperation comes with the benefit of ensuring that no one state is capable of monopolizing either resources or property. Partnerships with developing states would give them the opportunity to participate as well as provide scientists, engineers, etc. in exchange for investment in the base.

6.5.3 Moon Treaty

The framers of the Moon Treaty felt that the Outer Space Treaty was unclear on the issue of private property. Article II, paragraph 1 of the Moon Treaty states that "the Moon and it natural resources are the common heritage of mankind." Developing countries often interpret "common heritage" to mean common property of mankind. Thus, the Moon Treaty is unpopular with countries that have free market economies. While prohibiting land ownership, States Parties are allowed to remove samples for scientific study. The Moon Treaty also forbids military actions on the Moon. It urges member State Parties to aid each other when necessary, especially when there are lives in danger. It has not been ratified by any major space power and has been signed by very few states. It is generally agreed upon that the Moon Treaty is non- binding and not a part of international law.

6.5.4 Future Legislation

One current argument is that there is no need for such legislation, because once a space settlement is established a property rights regime will evolve naturally. Although it is certainly logical that property ownership claims will follow the establishment of a permanent settlement, if no advance legislation is passed then initial property claims will not have legitimacy, potentially causing chaos. The President‘s 2004 Commission on Implementation of United States Exploration Policy states that:

The issue of private property rights in space] be recognized and addressed at an early stage in the implementation of the vision, otherwise there will be little significant private sector activity associated with the development of space resources, one of our key goals.

Legal uncertainty will certainly deter companies from developing space. Without the protection that existing regulations would provide, there is little incentive for companies to take the risk or investors to support those companies. A firm law would encompass many key ideas already raised in current legislation. While existing law has failed to gain the consensus needed to be effective, it has shed light on significant points to consider. The theme of banning military operations is an important component of the drive to keep space development peaceful. Many other points, however, have only been ambiguously addressed.

Private property legislation on the Moon should be international and include all of the space faring nations in order to provide for cooperative exploration by future generations. The handful of nations with a significant space presence and that currently have the capability to support private companies, must deal with the issue of private property as the central council for decision-making. It is these nations that will be most affected by the laws developed. Provisions for the inclusion of other countries that become prominent in space activity should also be included, since space is sure to remain a dynamic and developing front. To reach further consensus across the globe, a system of weighted influence could be instituted to include all nations, while ultimately leaving most power to the nations directly involved in space operations.

Property on the Moon can currently be divided into several main categories. Historical regions such as the Apollo landing sites should be considered sacred ground, as is the case with similar places on Earth. Because of its position as a unique platform for scientific research, scientists from the international community will want access to lunar land that has been protected and preserved. These various requirements constitute the need for zoning of lunar land, another issue to be initially addressed and modified as the Moon is developed. For the rest of the lunar land, priority for property claims should be awarded on a ―prior tempore, prior jure‖ (first in time, first to right) basis, with a limit on the amount of land the entity is allowed to claim. The size of the land claims should be determined based on intended use, with standards laid out in legislation by the council. A claim of about 384,000,000 acres (or approximately 4% of the Moon‘s surface), sold at a moderate price of one hundred dollars per acre, would be sufficient to offset the initial cost of establishing a Lunar settlement (62). Although this seems like a generous amount, it is important to keep in mind that space companies will not generate a profit at first by transporting a physical product back to Earth. Initially, the only products that a settlement could profitably sell back to Earth are land deeds that are recognized by the international community.

Also, merely setting foot on the Moon cannot suffice to earn the official rights to property. Ownership should follow use or improvement of the land, or some sort of establishment of presence to be agreed upon by the council of space faring nations. Unfortunately, flexibility must be built into these portions of the new space law as well, to provide for the changes resulting from development. Such policy does leave room for ambiguity or power abuse. To ensure continuity of agreement among participating nations and to account for the dynamic nature of the issues, new legislation must include room for growth and modification.

6.5.5 Conclusion

A key step to successful commercialization of space is the development of legislation that takes into account private property rights on the Moon and related issues. As technology continues to develop, the absence of such a legal framework will become one of the biggest obstacles to commercial space development. Future legislation will have to take into consideration commercial viability, future access and flexibility, and environmental protection of the land. Existing legislation, though ineffective, has laid the base for success by bringing together the space faring nations to raise key issues. Ultimately they will have to agree on laws that allow for all nations and private entities to peacefully benefit from lunar development. The Moon can no longer be considered "common heritage" to all of mankind as we stand at the precipice of lunar development. If the human race is to persevere, it will have to continuously expand and explore beyond Earth, guided by legislation developed now as precedence.

7.0 Roadmap Summary

The preceding Roadmap was written to be a step towards the commercialization of space. To arrive at this goal many more steps will be required. As the hurdles are cleared for commercial development of space, expanded capabilities will be available to private citizens, corporations, and government agencies. NASA specifically would benefit greatly from such commercial capabilities. Open market competition has the potential to drive innovation and lower costs. With such options available, NASA scientists and engineers could buy commercial components and transport for their missions at much lower than current costs. In addition to lower prices, costs for infrastructure could be shared with private entities who would utilize and upkeep facilities for commercial enterprises. In these ways commercial space could be a partner as well as a supplier to NASA. Such a relationship has the potential to greatly increase the science and exploration return on NASA spending.

8.0 Elements of Success

Albert Einstein once said ―Imagination is more important than knowledge.‖ History has shown visualization to be a vital first step in any successful scientific endeavour. When we hold in our mind‘s eye a vision of success it becomes far more attainable A well developed vision of a thriving space industry and populated lunar surface are essential for meeting our goal.

Successful space development means many things to many people. Scientists define it in terms of discoveries made, engineers define it in terms of technology developed, and others define it as simply returning to the Moon. For our purposes, a vision of success will include both a permanent human lunar presence and a state of technological development capable of launching more ambitious missions from the lunar surface. Additionally, our successful vision will include economic stimulus for our terrestrial based economy leading to the eventual exploration of Mars and beyond.

In this section, we use our imagination to present our concept of a hopeful future on the lunar surface. Details of our vision include terrestrial benefits, lunar surface activities, and societal development geared towards aiding our exploration and colonization of additional celestial objects.

8.1 Terrestrial Benefits of Lunar Colonization

The first lunar landing inspired millions to consider human civilization in space. Collaborations between NASA and private sector institutions have lead to the development of technologies aiding our maneuverability in space and enabling us to better understand the universe as a whole. However, our current level of technology is not capable of providing safe travel to remote regions of our solar system. In order to acquire these technologies we require immersion in space as a laboratory. The Moon‘s proximity and resources make it an ideal location for establishing such a laboratory in a permanent lunar settlement. This type of lunar settlement may offer political, economic, scientific, and technological advantages. A more detailed listing of these advantages follows.

8.1.1 Science

a) Astronomy

In the short term, the scientific sector will benefit most from a lunar settlement and space laboratory. The use of scientific instrumentation from the lunar surface reduces many of the atmospheric effects and noise that affect the quality of the data provided by sensitive instrumentation used on Earth. The Moon‘s light exosphere will eliminate most of these constraints and allow us to research other planets and space phenomena impossible to study from our home planet. Instrumentation such as telescopes and radio telescopes would perform more

51 efficiently. Additionally scientists and engineers could design new instrumentation and technologies in order to study more remote regions of the universe.

Space settlement could also facilitate asteroid colonization and mining for rare resources. Moon crossing asteroids would be the ideal choice since their small gravitational pull makes them easier to abandon once mining is complete. It is believed that these asteroids may be a source of raw material that can be used in space construction and colonization. Materials extracted may be of used in propulsion, agriculture, metallurgy, semiconductors, and precious and strategic metals. Certain volatiles such as hydrogen and methane could be used to produce rocket propellant. Rare-earth metals could be used to manufacture structural materials as well as solar photovoltaic arrays to power space and lunar habitats. These solar cells could also be used in a constellation of solar power satellites in orbit around the Earth in order to provide electrical power for its inhabitants. These alternate resource supplies will reduce dependence on our own planet‘s limited resources.

b) Health and Medicine

Studies suggest major medical research benefits may arise in the reduced gravity and hard vacuum environment of the Moon. These areas include the medical treatment of massive injuries, growth of human organs and cartilage, immune systems research, and pharmaceutical research and production. There may be benefits in treating burn and trauma patients, or those with massively degenerative diseases. Moon‘s one-sixth gravity can be very helpful to those with serious injuries that require extensive rehabilitation (business on the Moon). In addition, the lunar environment offers a laboratory necessary for the study of astronaut medical care. This will be essential if we wish to establish ourselves permanently in space and for manned missions to remote regions of the solar system.

For permanent establishments in space, human physiology and psychology research is essential. It is necessary to determine how human behavior will be affected and how we will survive physically and mentally in the space environment. Some relevant studies have been made in the past but more details will be necessary before sending manned missions beyond the Moon. The Moon provides us with a test bed for better understanding human behavior and for the development of coping tools.

8.1.2 Economics

a) Business Space tourism

Studies have estimated that space tourism could grow to a turnover of 100 billion Euros/year with only 10% of ESA‘s budget (63). A similar model could be applied to NASA. This development would sharply reduce the cost of space access and would allow agencies to spend more money on other projects. Space tourism would also generate excitement about space and cause more people to pursue technical careers, resulting in a positive feedback loop for the space industry.

Products

Products manufactured or directly taken from the lunar surface should be made available to the public. This will be a source of revenue and excite the publc.

b) Trade Relationship

In order to understand the potential future relationship between Earth and lunar settlements, one must examine the goods and resources that could be traded. While the Moon would initially experience a large trade deficit, in-situ resource utilization could eventually bring balance. A lunar settlement may never be truly isolated from planet Earth, nor would we want it to be. A vibrant trade industry benefits both parties.

The Moon‘s relatively low gravity makes it an ideal candidate for a spaceport. It is possible that in the future, the Moon will provide cheaper means of manufacturing and launching satellites into Earth orbit. This can only be achieved through the utilization of lunar oxidizers and chemical fuels developed in-situ. Other goods that will be possible to manufacture on the Moon include solar cells (64), circuit boards and computer chips (65). Oxygen can be extracted from the lunar regolith and can be used for a number of applications including life support and rocket propulsion (66). Helium-3 is more plentiful on the Moon than on Earth and is a promising future fuel for nuclear fusion.

Any material that can be manufactured from the lunar regolith could potentially be launched to lunar or Earth orbit economically. The following chart by Järvstråt and Toklu lists the concentration (mass percent) of various elements in the lunar regolith and their potential applications (67).

Element Lunar Highland Lunar Mare Earth Applications Oxygen 45 42 47 Fuel, essential air constituent Silicon 21 21 28 Glasses, ceramics, etc. Solar cells. Aluminum 13 7.0 8.1 Electric wire, structures, mirrors Calcium 11 7.9 3.6 Ceramics, electrical conductor Iron 4.9 13 5.0 Structural steel Magnesium 4.6 5.8 2.1 Metal alloying element Sodium 0.31 0.29 2.8 Chemical processing, Plant nutrient Titanium 0.31 3.1 0.44 High strength metal Chromium 0.085 0.26 0.01 Metal alloying element Potassium 0.08 0.11 2.6 Chemical processing, Plant nutrient Manganese 0.068 0.17 0.095 Metal alloying element Table 6 : Element Concentrations in Lunar Regolith and Earth

It is also likely that a number of high-priced novelty goods will eventually be exported from the Moon. One example would be jewelry manufactured from the lunar regolith. Lunar jewelry holds the potential to be extremely valuable; one estimate values it at approximately ten million dollars for one kilogram (68).

In the long-term, the Moon will not only be used as science and manufacturing platform but also as an entertainment venue. The feats accomplished at lunar sporting events could far surpass their Earth-based counterparts due to the Moon‘s lower gravity. For example, during a diving competition on the Moon, a diver would take more than six seconds to hit the water from a 30-meter board. A high-jumper that could clear a 2.4 meter bar on Earth could clear a 9.4 meter bar at a lunar base. Lunar sports have the potential to be immensely marketable on Earth. What began with Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the surface of the Moon during the Apollo program will one day hopefully expand into a thriving industry (69).

8.1.3 Engineering

a) New technology development

Settlement on the lunar surface will require the development of new technology that will allow human beings to adapt and work under space conditions. This has been one of the factors that have prevented us from executing long term manned missions. Technology development on the Moon will allow us to develop more advanced spacecraft and materials that will help us to not only withstand the harsh space conditions, but to use these conditions to our advantage. These new technologies could later be applied and/or modified to adapt to Earth situations in order to be commercial spinoffs as well as prepare us for the exploration of other destinations in the future such as Mars.

b) Lunar Launch Services

When settlement on the Moon becomes self-sustaining, various items, whether manufactured or mined directly from the lunar surface, will be able to be exported to Earth and LEO. It has been determined that it would cost less to place satellites in LEO from the Moon than from Earth. In the long term, such an advantage will lead the satellite manufacturing companies to the lunar surface. This will increase revenue and allow companies to pursue more missions.

In addition to advantages from an economic standpoint, satellite launches from the Moon would also reduce the probability of experiencing mission complications since the reduced gravity will facilitate the task of placing such objects in space. This would allow engineers to direct their efforts and budget in other projects that may require more time to develop.

c) Lunar mining for resources and alternate energy options on Earth

Due to its strategic position near Earth, the Moon will provide resources for the development of near-Earth space. Its reduced gravity field and abundant resources make it the

54 ideal target to mine for essential materials. The most significant problem of lunar development is the lack of fuel for spacecraft. Despite the abundance of oxygen present in the minerals of lunar regolith, no concentrated sources of hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels have been discovered. If rocket fuel must be imported to the Moon to launch payloads from the Moon, it is very difficult to devise a low cost Moon-to-space transportation system. However, if both the fuel and oxidizer can be obtained locally, a reusable transportation system that can reach lunar orbit at low cost may be feasible. If it exists, this is one of the benefits that water ice at the lunar poles would provide. Even without the existence of water ice, hydrogen deposited on the lunar surface by the solar wind could be retrieved to create fuel.

It has also been suggested that the Moon can be mined in search for new energy resources for Earth. It is believed that solar power generation is a promising area. The overall lunar surface receives as much solar power as the Earth without the obstructing effects of the atmosphere. Studies have suggested that a power grid can be placed in a strategic position on the surface of the Moon so that more than 50% of the grid is always in the sun. This could be a method used to generate power for a Moon base as well as for Earth by linking it via orbital transmitters.

8.1.4 Political

a) Military testing ground

Militarization of space has been a debatable topic since the vision for space exploration was announced. This refers to the development, testing and commercialization of dual-use technologies. The commercialization of dual use technologies would serve to finance and support the development of the lunar base. These technologies have applications in two different economic sectors, such as materials technology that have military and civilian applications. Promising dual-use technologies that may be developed upon settlement on the Moon are self- repairing systems, low gravity and microgravity technology, micro- and nano devices, robotic manipulators, and instrumentation. The Moon would provide the testing ground necessary for such technologies to be developed and later on be commercialized in order to generate income to sustain the lunar base.

b) Space Colonization

Space colonization is the ultimate goal. It has been said multiple times that the future exploration of Mars as well as of the other planets may depend upon prior settlement on one of the other planets. We do not yet possess in depth knowledge about space and have not experimented enough in the space environment to send men directly to Mars. Learning to maintain and manage a Moon will prepare us to carry out similar operations in other areas of the solar system. Only when we master the techniques that guarantee our survival on the Moon will we be able to take the next step forward and accomplish our objective to extend human reach through space.

Moon Base

Science Economic $ Activities on the Moon

Health and Astronomy Tourism Products Medicine

Engineering

Determination of technologies and resources needed to Energy Technology sustain human life in space Resources

Political Expand human presence through Space Mars

Figure 3 : Diagram of Roadmap from the Moon to Mars

In conclusion, settlement on the Moon will provide multiple benefits to Earth as well as enable us to design a roadmap for the colonization of Mars and other planets. Economic and scientific activities on the Moon will catalyze the engineering sector. The economic sector will look to generate money which in part could be directed towards the development of technology. Science will develop medicines and study space conditions that we will have to overcome in order to explore further. After such barriers are overcome, the engineering sector will be in charge of developing the technology needed to actually reach new destinations.

The Moon provides the ideal environment necessary to begin our preparation for a human presence farther into space. Once we have find a way to settle permanently on the Moon, the mentality will be directed towards working in collaboration in order to reach the next goal of a human presence on Mars. The Vision for Space Exploration will continue and we will have the technology and techniques to make it possible.

8.2 A Typical Day on the Moon

Below is a general overview of what activities may be occurring during generic near, mid and far term scenarios on the Moon. Near term is considered to be the initial period of time when the human presence on the Moon is government-funded. Far term is defined to be when industry on the Moon is self-sustaining. Midterm is merely the transition between these two states.

8.2.1 Near Term Operations

In the near term, the human presence on the Moon will consist primarily of astronauts. The most important activity in terms of the commercial development of the Moon will be research into in-situ resource utilization. The astronauts will begin to find solutions to the technical challenges that are inherent with lunar operations. Two challenges that must be undertaken are dust and radiation mitigation. Astronauts will work to determine the optimal method for transporting and utilizing the lunar regolith for radiation shielding and other objectives. Near term operations may also include commercial technology demonstrations, such as cargo delivery systems.

In addition to these missions, astronauts will spend their time establishing a government- funded outpost as planned, utilizing private industry wherever possible. Most of the research conducted at this outpost will be that sponsored by government entities, but it is possible that some private companies will purchase lab space in order to run their experiments.

8.2.2 Mid Term

Commercial cargo delivery flights may become reality, with private companies competing to offer crew delivery and return options. It is feasible that a private company has made a demonstration flight early in this period. In the meantime, NASA can now lease a few advanced inflatable modules on the lunar surface from private companies. With the development of privately owned habitats on the Moon, the development of manned commercial lunar transportation systems may accelerated.

Regolith extraction and processing may have begun, with oxygen production taking place on-site. This can lead to early infrastructure development to use regolith resources for propulsion, energy, and possible construction of satellites and components. This may include the building on launch pads.

8.2.3 Far Term

A thriving commercial industry now exists on the surface of the Moon; all habitats are owned and operated by private industry. NASA and other government agencies can lease modules on the lunar surface. Satellite construction and launch may be occurring. Roads made of sintered regolith now connect the various settlements on the surface. These roads are essential for the delivery of helium-3, which may bring nuclear fusion one step closer to becoming a reality.

NASA, now having established a foothold on the Moon for private industry is free to focus on manned sorties to Mars and beyond. Lunar industry supports Mars missions, by providing consumables produced through ISRU, electronics and other materials readily available. Most of all, living on the Moon has shown mankind how to move beyond its home planet. Perhaps in this far term scenario, lunar inhabitants have become complacent with life on the Moon and look in wonder out to the next destination, whatever that may be.

8.3 A Lunar Society

With the rapidly approaching dawn of commercial spaceflight, it is useful to start thinking about what society on the Moon will be like. Lunar society would be greatly influenced by the work force tasked with making the Moon profitable and habitable. It will consist primarily of NASA and commercial space employees.

8.3.1 Lunar Inhabitants

The successful development of a lunar base would call for international cooperation. Thus, its inhabitants would reflect the various cultures of space faring nations. People on the Moon would consist of scientists, engineers, businessmen, service workers, medical staff, farmers, maintenance workers and tourists. The culture on the Moon will develop naturally as an extension of Earth‘s culture. In the near term lunar populations will consist primarily of highly trained professionals capable of enduring extreme physical and psychological conditions.

8.3.2 Governance/ Unique Cultural Concerns

Space faring nations of the world will need to decide how a lunar base will be run. Depending on the level of independency, the base might have its own justice system and need its own police force, which will be difficult to accomplish in anything but the long-term.

A full-scale medical facility will be needed on the Moon as well. Ill people might need to be isolated at special locations at the base. The medical facility will need to be able to treat and

58 perform high-risk surgeries since a seriously injured person might not be able to last long enough to make the long voyage from the Moon to the Earth. Such a facility will need several medically trained personnel. The funds could come from government as well as from private medical companies or research laboratories.

Another concern for any future bases in space is pregnancy and birth, among other health precautions. Studies will need to be done to show the risks of birth and childrearing on the Moon, as well as risks associated with space travel. Children‘s education will also need to be considered.

Another question for government is how businesses will be supported. The government could exempt taxes for lunar activities, to enable businesses to expand. Such support for corporations would last until the private sector is secure enough to support itself. The government will have to tread carefully along this line.

APPENDIX A: ABOUT NASA ACADEMY 2008

A-1 2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center

“From the stars, knowledge”

A-2 Appendix A

2008 NASA Academy at Goddard Space Flight Center

The NASA Academy is a leadership development summer program for undergraduate and graduate students interested in pursuing careers in space-related fields. The program is designed to present a comprehensive package of information and experiences about NASA, its current and planned science, engineering, education, and technology enterprises, as well as a number of non-technical areas of critical significance such as safety, management, budgeting, personnel and career development, space law, and international cooperation. Students are involved in research in GSFC laboratories, and participate in lectures, workshops and meetings with space community leaders.

Jennifer Allen Massachussetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA Aeronautics and Astronautics Bachelor of Science, June 2010 [email protected]

Andrea Balbas Queens College CUNY New York, NY Geology Bachelor of Science, December 2009 [email protected]

A-3

Bradley Cheetham University of Buffalo Buffalo, New York Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, June 2009 [email protected]

Jennifer Founds University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho Electrical Engineering Master of Science, December 2008 [email protected]

Brandon Hall University of Maryland College Park, MD Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, May 2010 [email protected]

A-4

Juan Lora University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA Astronomy Bachelor of Science, May 2009 [email protected]

Andrew McDonald University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Mechanical Engineering Bachelor of Science, May 2009 [email protected]

Tony Mercer University of California – Berkeley Berkeley, CA Mechanical Engineering/astrophysics Bachelor of Science / Bachelor of Art, 2009 [email protected]

A-5

Kenji Nagaoka The Graduate University for Advanced Studies Kanagawa, Japan Aerospace Engineering Doctor of Engineering, March 2011 [email protected]

Florent Nobelen Institut Supérieur de l‘Aéronautique et de l‘Espace (SUPAERO) Toulouse, France Aerospace Engineering Master of Science, October 2010 [email protected]

Michelle Perez Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, May 2010 [email protected]

A-6

Maxime Rizzo Institut Supérieur de l‘Aéronautique et de l‘Espace (SUPAERO) Toulouse, France Aerospace Engineering Master of Science, October 2010 [email protected]

Lisha Roubert University of Puerto Rico, Cayey Cayey, Puerto Rico Mathematics Bachelor of Science, June 2009 [email protected]

Andrew Schaeperkoetter University of Kansas Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, May 2008 [email protected]

A-7

John Springmann University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, WI Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics Bachelor of Science, May 2009 [email protected]

Michelle Sybouts University of Washington Seattle, Washington Atmospheric Sciences Bachelor of Science, June 2010 [email protected]

Alan Talbott West Virginia University Morgantown, WV Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Bachelor of Science, December 2009 [email protected]

A-8

Jessica Tramaglini Penn State University University Park, PA Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, May 2009 [email protected]

Zhen Zhao University of Maryland College Park, MD Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Science, June 2010 [email protected]

Support Staff for Goddard NASA Academy 2008

David Rosage – Program Director Dr. Joseph DiRienzi – Academy Dean Sherrica Newsome – Operations Manager Tim Montague – Logistics Manager

A-9

APPENDIX B: CASE STUDIES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

B-1

Appendix B

B.1 – Feasibility of Commercial Space

B.1.1 - Industry Overview

A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006 2005[1] 2006 (in Type 2006 Source Description (in $ B) $ B) Commercial $28.70 $33.12 Infrastructure Satellite Satellite Industry 2006 revenue from production of Manufacturing $2.30 $2.92 Association (SIA) commercial satellites (commercial) Federal Aviation Launch Industry 2006 revenue from sale and $1.20 $1.40 Administration (commercial) launch of commercial payloads (FAA) 2006 revenue from mobile terminals, gateways, control Ground Stations and $25.20 $28.80 SIA stations, VSAT/USAT, DBS Equipment dishes, handheld phones and DARS equipment Infrastructure Support $1.04 $1.02 Industries Independent Research Estimate of space industry IR&D Defense Contract and Development $0.16[2] $0.17 not recovered from the Audit Agency (IR&D) government[3] International Insurance $0.88 $0.85 2006 industry premiums Aerospace Commercial Satellite $86.91 $111.14 Services Direct-to-Home $46.00 $55.05 In-Stat 2006 direct-to-home TV revenue television (DTH) XM, Sirius, 2006 revenue from XM, Sirius, Satellite Radio $0.81 $1.59 WorldSpace and WorldSpace 2006 revenue from transponder Fixed Satellite Services $9.80 $11.80 SIA agreements, VSAT services, and (FSS) remote sensing 2006 revenue from MSS satellite Mobile Satellite $1.80 $2.00 SIA services, ranging from Services (MSS) narrowband voice to next

B-2

A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006 2005[1] 2006 (in Type 2006 Source Description (in $ B) $ B) generation broadband Global Positioning System (GPS) Worldwide revenue for all GPS $28.50[4] $40.70 ABI Research Equipment and equipment and chipsets Chipsets Commercial Space Transportation $0.03 $0.03 Services 2006 revenue from Anousheh Orbital $0.02 $0.02 Space Adventures Ansari flight Virgin Galactic, 2006 down payments from Suborbital $0.01 $0.01 Space Adventures customers U.S. Government $57.24 $62.00 Space Budgets Congressional Department of $21.70 $22.50 Research Service FY 2006 Budget Request Defense (DoD) Space (CRS) National Reconnaissance Office $7.50 $9.90 Global Security FY 2006 NRO projection (NRO) National Geospatial Intelligence Agency $2.00 $2.67 Global Security FY 2006 NGA projection (NGA) Missile Defense FY 2006 Budget for U.S. Ballistic $9.00 $9.30 MDA Agency (MDA) Missile Defense Program National Aeronautics and Space $16.10 $16.62 NASA FY 2006 Operating Budget Administration (NASA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric $0.90 $0.96 NOAA FY 2006 Budget Request Administration (NOAA) Department of Energy $0.03 $0.04 DOE FY 2006 Operating Budget (DOE) Federal Aviation $0.01 $0.01 FAA FY 2006 Budget Request Administration (FAA) International Government Space $12.39 $13.46 Budgets

B-3

A Detailed Breakdown of the Global Space Industry for 2006 2005[1] 2006 (in Type 2006 Source Description (in $ B) $ B) European Space FY 2006 Operating Budget $3.70 $3.52 ESA Agency (ESA) Estimate Russia (Roscosmos) $0.70 $0.87 RIA Novosti FY 2006 Reported Budget France (CNES) $0.88[5] $0.85 CNES CNES Budget, excluding ESA FY 2006 Operating Budget, Italy (ASI) $0.40 $0.33 ASI excluding ESA United Kingdom FY 2006 Operating Budget, $0.12 $0.13 BNSC (BNSC) excluding ESA JAXA Public Japan $2.50 $2.15 FY 2006 Operating Budget Affairs India (ISRO) $0.70 $0.82 Space.com FY 2006 Operating Budget Canada (CSA) $0.30 $0.33 CSA FY 2006 Operating Budget World Security 2006 Estimated Annual China (CNSA) $0.50 $1.50 Institute Expenditures FY 2006 Operating Budget, Germany (DLR) $0.30[6] $0.36 DLR excluding ESA 2004 Estimate of non-U.S. Non-U.S. military $2.29 $2.29 Euroconsult military space expenditures, space excluding China TOTAL $186.65 $220.78 [1] Sources for 2005 revenue and budget figures are available in The Space Report 2006. [2] Figure revised by source. [3] DCCA IR&D value, multiplied by the ratio of DoD-wide space R&D to overall R&D. [4] Figure revised by source. [5] Figure revised by source. [6] Figure revised by source. (70)

B-4

Courtesy of the Space Report 2008 (2)

B-5

B.1.2 - New Space Companies

SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation)

One of the winners of funding for the NASA Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services (COTS) competition, SpaceX focuses on the development of launch vehicles, with an aim of reducing satellite launch costs and improving reliability “by a factor of ten.” The company was founded in 2002 by PayPal cofounder Elon Musk, who is now CEO and CTO.

SpaceX has two families of vehicles in use and development: The Falcon, which includes the light-lift Falcon 1 and medium- and heavy-lift Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy, and the Dragon vehicles, designed to move pressurized or unpressurized cargo, and/or crew members. It aims to a commercial re-supply vehicle for the International Space Station after the US Space Shuttle is retired in 2010 (71).

Scaled Composites

Scaled Composites was founded by Burt Rutan in 1982. In May 2004 the company's SpaceShipOne reached the lower levels of space (64 km above Earth), and in June it reached outer space (100 km). In September 2004 SpaceShipOne repeated the feat -- with the weight of two additional passengers -- and in October of that year it successfully completed another flight to space, thus claiming the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE, which required that a privately funded three-person craft successfully go 100 km into space and repeat the feat within two weeks. Now, Scaled Composites is partner with Virgin Galactic to commercialize its suborbital success by building SpaceShipTwo, unveiled in 2008 (72).

Bigelow Aerospace

Bigelow Aerospace plans to develop a working infrastructure for space tourism, including orbital hotels. Robert Bigelow, owner of Budget Suites of America (a $600 million (est.) privately-held company), has planned a long-term project for the development of space tourism, which includes a commitment of several hundred million dollars. The first prototype module, Genesis I, was successfully launched on July 12, 2006; Genesis II was launched on June 28, 2007. In August of 2007, the company announced that instead of launching the Galaxy module in 2008, they would do only ground studies with it and instead accelerate development and flight of the crew-capable Sundancer module (73).

Armadillo Aerospace

Armadillo Aerospace is a very small research and development company that was founded in 2000, and is headed and partly funded by John Carmack, a computer game developer of Doom and Quake fame. It focuses on reusable rocket-powered vehicles,

B-6 particularly vertical takeoff and vertical landing. It has competed in every X PRIZE event, and performed the first flight with an FAA/AST experimental permit. The goal of the company is to reach orbit using its vehicles, potentially with the aim of becoming a contractor for cargo or human transport for government or private industry (74).

Blue Origin

A small company focused on suborbital flight development, particularly for space tourism, Blue Origin was founded by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. It has developed a prototype design of a rocket vehicle named New Shepherd, which has had several successful test flights.

XCOR Aerospace

XCOR is a California-based privately held corporation, dedicated mostly to research and development of reliable, low-cost and reusable rocket engines. It is the developer of the EZ- Rocket, a manned rocket-powered vehicle, upon which its next-generation Lynx Rocket Launch Vehicle is based. The company is funded by angel investors as well as revenue from contracts and consulting services. It is one of two organizations to have received a Reusable Launch Vehicle mission license from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (75).

Arianespace

Arianespace is the world's leading commercial satellite launch company. It is a private European commercial space consortium that has signed contracts for 285 satellite payloads. Arianespace has signed cooperative agreements with Boeing Satellite Systems and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It uses its family of Ariane 1-5 rockets, and will manage the Russian-built Soyuz launcher starting in 2009 from French Guiana Spaceport. Additionally, it will add the Vega vehicle for light- to medium- payloads.

Arianespace was formed in 1980 and, after undergoing a recapitalization in 2004, is controlled by about 23 corporations, primarily aerospace and telecommunications firms (previously there were approximately 45 shareholders in the consortium). Arianespace's largest shareholder is European aerospace and defense giant EADS, which has several international units that have stakes. Other major shareholders include French space agency CNES and French aircraft and rocket engine maker Snecma (76).

US Contractors

Key Numbers Orbital Sciences Boeing Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman Annual Sales 1,084.1 66,387.0 41,862.0 32,018.0 ($ mil.) Employees 3,100 159,300 -- 122,600

B-7

Market Cap ($ mil.) 1,497.5 55,158.0 41,720.3 24,317.5 12-Month Revenue 37.3% 6.9% 7.3% 6.9% Growth 12-Month Net 57.1% 83.7% 16.9% 6.1% Income Growth 36-Month Revenue 66.5% 27.6% 19.4% 7.3% Growth 36-Month Net (69.7%) 147.1% 128.6% 32.2% Income Growth

B-8

B.1.3 - Catalysts

The Vision of Space Exploration

Perhaps the most visible catalyst to the commercialization of space and the encouragement of the involvement of the private sector is President George W. Bush‟s announcement of the new Vision of Space Exploration. In this announcement, President Bush lays out the challenge for the space program to complete the ISS by 2010, create and use a new manned spacecraft (Crew Exploration Vehicle) by 2014 and return man to the Moon by 2020. In his speech the President encourages commercial involvement by stating, “I will also form a commission of private and public sector experts to advise on implementing the vision that I've outlined today” (6). This commission was hand selected by the White House and was charged with reporting to the President in four months.

Creating this commission greatly furthers commercial involvement in the industry because it places the private sector at the forefront of the policy and allows them to have a voice. If the private companies have a voice in the policy of space exploration, there is a much higher probability that more companies will get involved because they will have the feeling that they have some control. A small amount of control over the direction of the industry is a major catalyst to private investment, because control means that there is much less risk involved in the venture.

NASA’s Attitude and Actions

A second major catalyst for the development of the commercial industry is the attitude and actions of NASA. NASA recently launched a very pro space commercialization baseline in their 2006 Strategic Plan. In this Strategic Plan, they established six goals that are going to be followed through the next ten years to meet the Vision for Space Exploration. The fifth strategic goal of this plan was to “Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector” (7). This basic attitude bodes well for the commercial industry, because it shows that NASA is willing to support a fairly new industry, and it will help it to grow and flourish, rather than squash it. NASA‟s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has also stated in the Strategic Plan that it will “stimulate new ideas and invite private entrepreneurs to provide space capabilities from the private sector” (7). Overall NASA‟s attitude is a catalyst because they are encouraging and looking for commercial involvement.

NASA is also a catalyst because of its current and planned actions. As of right now NASA has setup up prizes known as Centennial Challenges, which invite private companies to compete and develop new technology systems (77). NASA would like to complete by 2012 at least one prize competition for “independently designed, developed, launched, and operated missions related to space science or space exploration” (7). Besides prize competitions NASA is also stimulating the growth of a private industry by looking to expand their number of launch service providers to include emerging US companies. NASA will try to encourage the development of the launch sector by awarding intellectual property rights for technology and systems developed (7). NASA has also worked to encourage commercial involvement through Space Act Agreements, like the current Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS)

B-9 program which is hoped to provide transportation for crew and cargo to the ISS by 2010. Finally NASA has developed the Innovative Partnerships Program, which will focus on partnering the US private sector with NASA‟s interests to produce technologies for future missions (7). This program allows NASA to leverage the private sector‟s capabilities, while fostering the growth of the industry. All of these actions and programs coordinated by NASA further the growth of the private industry.

NASA’s Budget

Another factor that pushes for the commercialization of the space industry is the current state of NASA‟s budget. NASA‟s annual budget in 2004 at the announcement of President Bush‟s Vision of Space Exploration was 15.559 billion US dollars (all numbers are adjusted for 2007 inflation). Four years later, after this initiative to go back to the Moon and onto Mars, the budget has only increased about 5 billion dollars, as 20.949 billion dollars is being proposed for FY 2009 (78). This budget while increasing is not increasing enough to allow NASA to complete the Vision entirely its own. NASA doesn‟t have enough money to continue with the ISS, complete its current projects and send man back to the Moon with only a 5 billion dollar increase in their budget.

Operations at NASA are much different as we head back to the Moon for the second time, than they were when we journeyed to the Moon in the days of the Apollo Program. During the Apollo program (July 1969 to December 1972) NASA‟s budget peaked in 1966 and the total budget was 6% of the annual federal budget (8). Today, NASA‟s budget makes up less 1% of the federal budget. Furthermore, the Apollo Program made up 34% of NASA‟s annual budget (9), while its successor the Constellation Program receives only 17% of NASA‟s annual budget (10). All of these factors point to the result that NASA has significantly less funding with which to perform their journey back to the Moon. Thus, there is no way that NASA will be able to travel to the Moon completely under government funding as it did in the Apollo Program. NASA‟s lack of adequate funding leads to the commercialization of space because there is work that they don‟t have the resources to complete that will need to be done to fulfill the Vision.

Space Angels Network

A very big proponent for the growth of the private space industry is the Space Angels Network. The Space Angels Network is an organization whose members “share a common passion for promoting the development of aerospace-related industries and technologies while also making a solid return on private investments” (12). This network is without a doubt a catalyst for the development for the commercialization of space because it is a group of investors and entrepreneurs that are waiting and willing to give money to private companies. Space Angels provides a forum via an e-newsletter, an online deal database and deal screening events for entrepreneurs to present their ideas in front of “early-stage investors who are actively looking for investment opportunities in aerospace-related industries” (13). This is very beneficial because one of the biggest obstacles, (which will be addressed later) is that it is very hard for space companies to find sufficient funding and investors. Other groups of early stage investors exist such as the Boston Harbor Angels, who invest in space and aviation as well as many other technology areas (39).

B-10

Challenges and Prize Competitions

A major catalyst for the involvement of private companies is the contests and challenges presented by the X PRIZE Foundation and NASA. With these challenges hype is generated and money is poured into the space industry through private investors, universities and small companies as they compete to be the first to develop the technology and complete the challenge. The Ansari X Prize for example featured a $10 million prize for a spacecraft that was capable of carrying the weight of three people to 100 km above the Earth‟s surface, twice in two weeks. For this prize the 26 teams competing spent a combined total of over $100 million, which is ten times the prize value (11). Also, since the prize has been won by Scaled Composites with SpaceShipOne, over $1.5 billion dollars in public and private spending has occurred for development of the private spaceflight industry (11). This prize alone developed by the X PRIZE Foundation shows how invaluable these contests and challenges are to the development of the private sector.

The challenges presented by the X PRIZE Foundation allowed many new companies to form and allowed small existing companies like Armadillo Aerospace and Scaled Composites to develop technology products without having to compete against well established Aerospace giants like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing. X PRIZEs allow the industry to grow and flourish so that there will no longer just be three of four large companies that run the private sector.

NASA‟s prizes known as Centennial Challenges are also beneficial to the private industry because their mission is to “Encourage the participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development” (77). Centennial challenges provide an arena where all of the space companies can compete against each other for the development of crucial technology at their own expense and effort. NASA challenges are not as beneficial to the formation of private companies as X PRIZEs are, but they do provide another area for successful private companies to invest, compete and earn money.

Community and Public Outreach Events

Community and public outreach events like the X PRIZE Cup are catalysts to the commercialization of space because they energize the public and generate support for the industry. The X PRIZE Cup is a space expo that was started in 2004 where airplanes and rockets fly together for crowds of up to 85,000 people (79). These types of events can be considered catalysts because they involve the public in the industry. The public becomes thrust into the action of the emerging technology scene for the Space Industry, and their interest is peaked. The public‟s intensified interest is critical because the more excited the public is about space, the more stable the market will become, and the more investment there will be by private industry.

Space Tourism

B-11

A final catalyst for the development of the commercial space industry is the growth of the market for Space Tourism. As NASA and other international government agencies continue to explore space, the public is becoming more interested and intrigued by what lies beyond our planet. Space Tourism provides the public with the opportunity to explore this interest and makes space accessible to a wider range of people, rather than just a select astronaut core.

Space Tourism is a major catalyst for commercial development, because NASA is not interested in helping get the public to space. NASA more importantly does not have the resources or the budget to do so. But, still the demand to go to space remains and in order to fill this demand, the private companies must emerge and supply opportunities for Space Tourism.

Currently the market for Space Tourism is in an early development phase as many new companies are starting up and presenting new experiences and products to the public. One current opportunity presented by Bigelow Aerospace, the inventors and manufacturers of inflatable orbiting modules, is the “Fly Your Stuff” Program. In this program, Bigelow will fly personal items in their Genesis II module and take pictures of the items floating in space (80). Bigelow‟s end goal is to develop inflatable habitats, which could function as a suborbital space hotel (81). A second major experience that is in development by Virgin Galactic, are suborbital space tourism flights. These flights are going to take the public to space beginning around 2010 and ticket prices will be about $200,000.00 US dollars (81). Many other companies, like Space Adventures, XCOR, and RocketPlane Limited, are looking to compete with Virgin Galactic as space airlines as they begin to develop their own suborbital spaceflight programs. In addition to suborbital flights, Space Adventures is currently conducting orbital flights by flying private citizens on the Russian Soyuz to the International Space Station for $20 million US dollars (82). Many opportunities are being developed for Space Tourism by private companies, but there is room for many more once in a lifetime adventures.

The key to Space Tourism being a catalyst to the commercialization of space is that the government is unwilling to participate in the market, but the demand for this market is still thriving. This flourishing new industry of Space Tourism provides a great economic opportunity for the private companies.

B-12

B.1.4 - Airline Analogue

The space industry thus far has been primarily used for government use, minus a few commercial satellite applications and recent space tourism ventures. This often leads many to question the feasibility of a commercial space industry. However, aviation successfully made a similar leap from experimental government endeavors to a significant business market.

Cargo

Early use of aviation technology took place primarily in government. “[In 1917], Congress appropriated $100,000 for an experimental airmail service that was to be conducted jointly by the Army and the Post Office between Washington and New York, with an intermediate stop in Philadelphia” (15). First proposed by the post office as a way to give valuable time to new army pilots, the government airmail service was formed. “During the first three months of operation, the Post Office used Army pilots and six Jenny training planes of the Army (JN-4Hs). On August 12, 1918, the Post Office took over all phases of the airmail service, using newly hired civilian pilots and mechanics and six specially built mail planes from the Standard Aircraft Corporation. […] by using airplanes the Post Office was able to shave 22 hours off coast-to- coast mail deliveries” (83). The same year that Congress passed the Contract Mail Act, President Calvin Coolidge appointed a board to recommend a national aviation policy that would be the “Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA), and gave the new agency power to

B-13 regulate airline tariffs, airmail rates, interline agreements, mergers, and airline routes. Its mission was to preserve order in the industry, holding rates to reasonable levels while at the same time nurturing the still financially-shaky airline industry by protecting carriers from unbridled competition” (83).

On February 2, 1925, Congress passed a law "to encourage commercial aviation and to authorize the Postmaster General to contract for mail service" (83). The Post Office immediately invited bids for its routes by commercial aviation. By the end of 1926, 11 out of 12 contracted airmail routes were operating. The first commercial airmail flight in the United States occurred on February 15, 1926. The transition from government to commercial aviation was seen as well with the communication networks. Originally the army set up beacons for nighttime navigation. After one year, the post office took over control of the guidance system and expanded the network of beacons.

Cargo to People

As commercial airlines took over, the Post Office Department transferred its lights, airways, and radio service to the Department of Commerce, including 17 fully equipped stations, 89 emergency landing fields, and 405 beacons. Terminal airports, except those in Chicago, Omaha, and San Francisco, which were government properties, were transferred to the municipalities in which they were located. Some planes were sold to airmail contractors; others were transferred to interested government departments. By September 1, 1927, all airmail was carried under contract. Once the feasibility of airmail was firmly established, and airline facilities were in place, the government moved to transfer airmail service to the private sector by way of competitive bids. The legislative vehicle for the move was the 1925 Contract Air Mail Act (83). “Henry Ford, the automobile manufacturer, was among the first successful bidders for airmail contracts, winning the right in 1925 to carry mail from Chicago to Detroit and Cleveland aboard planes his company already was using to transport spare parts for his automobile assembly plants. More importantly, he jumped into aircraft manufacturing and in 1927 produced the Ford Trimotor, commonly referred to as the "Tin Goose." It was one of the first all-metal planes, made of a new material called duralumin that was almost as light as aluminum and twice as strong. It also was the first plane designed primarily to carry passengers rather than mail. [. . .] its sturdy appearance, combined with the Ford name, had a reassuring effect on the public's perception of flying” (83).

Prizes Revitalize Industry

Early on, many of the other companies who flew the mail started carrying passengers on airmail flights. In 1926, airlines in the US carried 6,000 passengers. By 1930, passengers flying on US airlines had soared to 400,000. Thus the shift from cargo to passengers began. This transition was significantly catalyzed by the effect of Charles Lindbergh‟s trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. Lindbergh‟s $15,000 flight was supported and made possible by the Orteig Prize. Set up by a wealthy private citizen, the $25,000 prize spurred numerous attempts at the flight, and led to Lindbergh‟s success, which in turn led to a huge growth in the aviation industry. The winner of the 1930 Best Woman Aviator of the Year Award, Elinor Smith Sullivan, said that before Lindbergh's flight, "people seemed to think we [aviators] were from outer space or something. But after Charles Lindbergh's flight, we could do no wrong. It's hard to describe the

B-14 impact Lindbergh had on people. [His flight] changed aviation forever because all of a sudden the Wall Streeters were banging on doors looking for airplanes to invest in. We'd been standing on our heads trying to get them to notice us but after Lindbergh, suddenly everyone wanted to fly, and there weren't enough planes to carry them” (84). Over the remainder of 1927 applications for pilot's licenses in the U.S. tripled, the number of licensed aircraft of all types quadrupled, and U.S. Airline passengers grew between 1926 and 1929 by 3,000% from 5,782 to 173,405 (16). The support and competitive nature of the prize created the opportunity for investors to take seriously something as risky as aviation, and because of it, the industry was revitalized and took significantly critical steps to the thriving sector it is today.

Analogue

We propose that a similar shift can successfully occur from government and small civilian ventures in space to a significant commercial space sector. Aircraft moved from government cargo, in the form of airmail, to contracted cargo, to independent passenger flights. Currently space flight is still reserved mostly for government ventures, but with programs such as Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), the shift to contracted cargo is already visible. Additionally, some companies are slowly moving toward small-scale passenger flights into space. The use of prizes was an obvious catalyst in the aviation industry. The beginnings of some similar effects can be seen with X PRIZEs, and such endeavors should be significantly pursued in order to encourage investors and supporters to be involved with the space industry. Looking back at the evolution of the aviation industry, a framework strikingly similar to that of current space endeavors is apparent. Based upon that analog, it can be predicted that commercial space development is possible.

B-15

B.2 – Agreements and partnerships

There are many different paths for an innovator to choose from within the Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) when seeking a relationship with a commercial entity. One such path is termed the “Partner/License Agreement”, in which the first step occurs when a “civil servant employee or contractor informs IPP of his or her innovation through New Technology Reports (NTR‟s)” (85). The technology is evaluated based on its potential for success in non- NASA applications. After securing IP rights and patents, the IPP office seeks out commercial partners to work with the technology. From here, there are options regarding the form of the partnership.

Agreements might include direct transfer of technology or a joint development project. These may include a Non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement (SAA) in which “NASA and the partner both contribute resources and/or technology; research must be relevant to a NASA mission or program. Data /results usually are shared between the two parties.” The agreement could also take the form of a Reimbursable SAA where a “partner uses NASA resources and agrees to reimburse NASA for the use of its facilities, personnel, and equipment; research should be relevant to NASA.” The three other forms of agreements are an Exclusive Patent License, in which “The right to be the only organization (other than the U.S. government) allowed to manufacture or use NASA technology,” a Partially Exclusive Patent License in which “exclusive rights are limited to a particular application area, geographic region, or other stipulation,” and a Nonexclusive Patent License in which “The right to be one of multiple partners allowed manufacturing or using NASA technology.”

B-16

B.3 - Success case studies

B.3.1 – IPP

In 2007 BSG Wireless licensed “NASA Goddard Space Flight Center‟s (GSFC) Hilbert- Huang Transform (HHT) technology to help improve signal reception capability in radio frequency (RF) communications. Initial testing at Goddard indicates that applying HHT to degraded RF signals can significantly improve the detected signal, enabling better reception and more accurate signal transmission. BCG Wireless is exploring the applicability of this HHT capability for devices including radio frequency identification (RFID) chips and cellular communications systems” (84). BCG Wireless LLC, a small start-up company affiliated with the Emerging Technology Center* (ETC), which is a technology incubator in Baltimore, Maryland, utilized a Reimbursable SAA for this technology transfer from GSFC. “Collaboration between Goddard and BCG Wireless began in 2004 when the company was part of ETC. ETC made BCG Wireless aware of HHT and its capabilities. After evaluating the technology, BCG Wireless suggested that HHT may be applicable to RF devices, and collaborated with Goddard to conduct research to validate this hypothesis. This research was conducted as part of [the SAA], signed in January 2005. Based on the positive findings, BCG Wireless submitted a license application and worked with Goddard‟s Innovative Partnerships Program (IPP) Office to finalize the agreement, which was signed in July 2006” (84). The technology originated at NASA, and at the request of BSG was developed further. “A revolutionary, adaptive set of signal-analysis algorithms, HHT was developed at Goddard in 1995 by Dr. Norden Huang as part of oceanic wave research. Unlike precursor technologies, HHT provides an effective method for analyzing nonlinear and nonstationary signals while improving the accuracy of linear- and stationary-signal analysis. The technology‟s first application within NASA was analysis of wing-flutter tests and the next generation of aircraft design at NASA Dryden Flight Center. The technology has also contributed to Shuttle mission safety by testing the tiles that insulate the Shuttle in space for the Shuttle Return to Flight Project following the Columbia accident. [. . .]Research conducted at Goddard [. . .], with the support of BCG Wireless indicated that HHT may be very beneficial for RF signal analyses. Using a simple RFID kit, researchers introduced noise that degraded the RF signal. When the researchers then introduced the HHT algorithm, they were able to extract the signal, despite the noise. This testing validates that HHT can be used to improve signal reception for RF devices, which may also help preserve battery life and improve usability [. . .] With a license in place, BCG Wireless is initially working to apply HHT to RF applications such as RFID and cellular systems to improve reception, battery life, and usability. Given the success of initial research with Goddard, the company is also considering further collaborative research with NASA” (84).

B.3.2 – SBIR

One of the major success stories of technologies developed from NASA and later commercialized comes from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. A water filtration device was designed to provide safe and affordable drinking water to different sectors around the world. It was a result of the work of NASA‟s Marshall Space Flight Center engineers who were also

B-17 working on creating a regenerative Environmental Control and life support system (ECLSS), which consists of a complex system of devices intended to sustain astronauts living on the ISS and the astronauts that will travel to the Moon and Mars. The devices make use of the available resources by turning wastewater from respiration, sweat, and urine into drinkable water. This would be a major breakthrough due to the fact that the ISS astronauts currently receive their water from Russian delivery missions and from a device that recycles moisture from respiration into a limited amount of drinking water. This water replenishment is a costly endeavor. With the ECLSS, engineers are working to make the process more efficient. A similar device developed from such technologies is now available through Water Security Corporation Inc., of Sparks, Nevada. It is designed to make use of the available resources by turning wastewater into drinkable water. Water Security Corporation, Inc. now owns the patents for the commercial use of this technology and has begun to offer its services to the diverse sectors around the world. The company‟s terrestrial water treatment device was recognized as a Certified Space Technology by the Space Foundation and was awarded the Certified Space Technology Seal because it effectively applies space-based knowledge to Earth situations in order to improve our life quality.

A second example was developed through several Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts with NASA‟s Johnson Space Center and the U.S. Department of Defense‟s Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). In the 1980s, Johnson awarded Autonomous Technologies Corporation a Phase I SBIR contract to develop technology for autonomous rendezvous and docking of space vehicles to service satellites. During Phase II of the Johnson SBIR contract, Autonomous Technologies developed a prototype range and velocity imaging LADAR to demonstrate technology that could be used for this purpose. The partnership resulted in a new eye-tracking device for LASIK surgery, called LADAR Tracker. Eye-tracking devices must be able to sample the eye‟s position at a rate of at least 1,000 times per second to keep up with the involuntary or saccadic movements. The LADAR Tracker measures eye movements at a rate of 4,000 times per second which is four times the established safety margin. In addition to this, the LADAR Tracker also employs a closed-loop system, which keeps the device locked on the eye at all times. This allows eye movement information to be continuously relayed to the system which in turn allows the system to compensate for the movements. The device is manufactured by Alcon Laboratories, of Fort Worth, Texas, and is used in conjunction with the company‟s LADARVision 4000 system for LASIK surgery, which is being, used by eye surgeons across the country.

B-18

B.4 - Spacesuit Development : Case study

Since their inception, spacesuits have been developed and built by private industry. Spacesuits for the initial Gemini and Apollo space walks were initially produced by a partnership of Hamilton Sundstrand and subcontractor ILC Dover (or ILC Inc.). The A7 was the primary suit and maintained a 100% success rate throughout its lifetime. At the discontinuation of the Apollo program ILC Dover suffered due to a lack of interest or market in the spacesuit business. Cutbacks and layoffs quickly left the company in difficult financial circumstances and they were forced to move into other industries and markets. But as the Space Shuttle and Skylab programs began it was clear a newer more maneuverable spacesuit would be needed and ILC Dover and Hamilton Sundstrand secured this new contract. The space shuttle program has lasted over 20 years with the partnership maintaining their contract, providing spacesuits, and developing new spacesuit technologies. However, as NASA again begins to retool to return to the Moon and move on to Mars, spacesuit designs are in need of change so that they will be prepared for the harsh extraterrestrial environments. The spacesuit contract was again put to bid, but instead of the ILC Dover and Hamilton Sundstrand group, NASA selected Oceaneering International to develop the spacesuits for the Orion program. Selection of Oceaneering as the spacesuit developer “completes the spaceflight hardware requirements for the Constellation Program's first human flight in 2015," according to Jeff Hanley, the Constellation program manager. As NASA pushes to the Moon it is important that private corporations follow and become a permanent presence in space. The spacesuit market is a small market, but is well suited for a study of how non-aerospace engineering companies like ILC Dover, a clothing manufacturer, and Oceaneering, an underwater oil and diving company, can affect and invest in the space industry.

Suits from Oceaneering for the future NASA programs on the Moon www.oceaneering.com

B-19

ILC Dover

The corporation that would eventually design and build the spacesuits that would walk on the Moon, the International Latex Corporation, were in 1947 producing girdles, bras, baby pants, life rafts, life vests, and anti-exposure clothing (86). This example of a company beginning in a non-Aerospace market and moving into the space market shows how a company can take advantage of skills and processes used here on Earth that can be expanded for space applications, bringing more profit and expertise to the company, in more markets. 1947 saw the Latex Corporation divide into four divisions, the Metals division, the Playtex division, the Chemical division, and the Pharmaceutical Division. The Playtex division created the textile and rubber products, while the Metals division originated from a group that built custom racks to display the Playtex products. The first step away from local Earth-based markets like textiles and metals occurred in 1947 when the Metals division received a contract from the Air Force and Navy to build high altitude pressure helmets. They used their expertise in metal working that again came from building metal racks, to build helmets for pilots! The Metals division sought new markets and new ideas, in which they could properly use their capabilities. Even if the helmet industry didn‟t seem like an industry with large profit margins, it was still an opportunity which the Metals division took up and it paid off. This first step, into the helmet industry is what would catapult the company into the flight suit market and later into the spacesuit business.

The corporation of only 30 people geared up to produce this specialty product for the military, and at the same time continued development in the area of plastics, creating new methods for bending plastics. Because they had an affiliation with the military, working on a crucial part of a flight suit, in 1956 the contract was enlarged and ILC Dover was commissioned to develop high altitude pressure suits. Their abilities to work with plastic made them an understandable choice, but the primary reason the contract was awarded to ILC Dover was a result of their helmet making. They already had a foothold in the top part of the suit and the military saw an opportunity to have ILC transfer into producing full suits. And with their previous experience in rubber processes, they resolved issues about how to bend joints in high pressure suits using rubber manufacturing techniques.

By 1962 the company was subcontracted by Hamilton Standard (now Hamilton Sundstrand) to build the joints on the Apollo The space suit worn by Neil Armstrong. Space Suit. In 1965 Hamilton Standard dropped www.fi.edu ILC as a subcontractor. Facing lawsuit for breach of contract, NASA held an open competition, in which any company could enter a spacesuit. 3 companies competed, Hamilton Standard, the David Clark Company, and ILC. ILC‟s suit proved far superior even to Hamilton Standards and they won contract, as prime contractors. Even though they were slated as subcontractors, they had the expertise to manufacture the entire suit, including joints and helmet. A small

B-20 subcontractor had developed and used all their expertise to win the lead subcontractor spot on a major NASA endeavor. There were a few specialty parts they did not have the capability to build, but they had the know-how and experience to build most of the suit to be used on the Moon. This was the beginning of big contracts between ILC and NASA that would sustain their business for the next decade. Initially the number of employees quadrupled to 200. In 1966 and 1967 the International Latex Corporation officially split into three separate entities, one of which was ILC Industries, which would later become ILC Dover. In 1968 the companies reported number of employees was 755. Minor spinoff groups were working for the US military developing different kinds of inflatables, while others were working on motorcycle and snowmobile helmets. However, these groups were small with 90% of the companies revenue coming from the NASA funded space suit project.

ILC developed the first spacesuit in human history to be used in extra vehicular activity, the A7L. The A7L can be considered to have a perfect success record, with no major failures throughout its lifetime, spanning the Apollo 7 to Apollo 14 missions. The first spacesuit on another terrestrial body, the ILC developed suit, was used by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and others to navigate the lunar surface. A small company that began in fabrics, migrated to the space industry, and built a garment that survived the harshest environment known to man, space. For each mission 15 one-time use, custom made suits with 11 layers, each estimated at $2 million, had to be prepared (87). Each astronaut on the main crew needed 3, 1 for training, 1 for flight, and 1 for back-up, and each of the backup astronauts needed 2, 1 for flight and 1 for training. Thus without operating costs, which were also significant, spacesuits for 1 mission reached an estimated $30 million, and these suits would all be discarded upon safe return from the Moon. For Apollo 15 through Apollo 17 the Commander and LM pilot had slightly redesigned suits, the A7L-B, that provided more mobility at the joints.

ILC had a corner on the spacesuit market and by Apollo A7L 1970 the company expanded to 900 people. The ILC EVA Moonsuit/Spacesuit contract continued through Apollo and on to the Skylab www.wonderworksweb.com Space Station program. ILC also began buying smaller companies and extending into other industries such as balloons, parachutes, goggles, and other types of cooling vests. But even with the expansion into other industries, disaster struck as the Skylab program was discontinued and spacesuits were no longer needed for any operation. With NASA not needing spacesuits, there were zero customers in the market for spacesuits. Over a 2 year period ILC Dover‟s workforce suffered enormous cutbacks, downsizing over 95%, from over 900 employees to only 25. ILC Dover, though interested in moving into other industries, did not have near enough investment in industries besides spacesuits and nearly fell apart. ILC Dover was not prepared for their business to sharply end. This example of a company operating in a one-dimensional space market is important for current companies. If space companies fail to invest and expand, when

B-21

NASA no longer needs their products, which may be inevitable, there company is out of business and will end. Not only do non-Aerospace companies need to invest in the space industry, but companies in the space industry need to invest in other markets as well. However, the expansion into other industries did keep the company afloat, with contracts for military goggles and hazardous suits bringing in some money. They did maintain a slight contract with NASA developing intra-vehicular use suits.

As the US Space Program moved forward, the Space Shuttle became NASA‟s next venture. ILC Dover capitalized and won the contract to develop the new spacesuits for the Space Shuttle and quickly retooled. In 1977 they were awarded the primary contract to develop the new suits. The company subcontracted to Hamilton Standard and grew to 100 employees. By 1983 the corporations‟ suit was successfully used on STS-6, for the first EVA of the shuttle era.

ILC Dover received again received major NASA support for spacesuit development and upkeep. However, even more than before, ILC Dover began to seriously expand into other industries, pushing barriers in pressure suits, inflatable balloons and aerostats, helmets, goggles, hazardous suits, parts for aircraft, airbags, air lifting devices, and memory polymers. ILC Dover did not want remain a one-dimensional market, whose fate was decided by 1 unstable government market. They worked Shuttle EMU/MMU Suit with both Government and Private organizations, www.guard-lee.com/suits.html pursuing both Military contracts, and available private markets. Some projects had little production, such as the 3 420,000 ft3 aerostats developed for the Air Force, or developmental projects that never expanded beyond the research phase, while others were produced by the millions. Chart 1 illustrates all of ILC Dover‟s business since 1965 when the Apollo Spacesuits were commissioned. As is seen, ILC has shown major expansion with a wide variety of products, over many industries, including the Aircraft Parts Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Aircraft Vehicle Industry, Plastics Industry, Construction Industry, Chemical Industry (Waste Management), and even Sporting Goods Industry. Using the Space Industry as a platform they were able to create a diversified profile of products and services. Such a profile makes them extremely competitive in the current market. In the same way ILC Dover transitioned from a textile company to a space company, they had now transformed from a space-only company to a diversified company.

Product Year Corporation Approximate Number Apollo Lunar Spacesuit 1962 NASA Barrier Bag (for 1967 Commercially Sold

B-22 cartridge cases for munitions) Inflatable Structures US Air Force, 384 and Walls Commercially Sold Riot Helmets and Face Commercially Sold Shields Motorcycle Helmets Commercially Sold Inflatable Boats 1968 US Air Force 1000 GOGGS (Ski Goggles) 1971 Commercially Sold Cool Vest 1973 Commercially Sold Aerostat 1974 US Air Force Goggles 1975 US Military ~100,000 Chemturion hazardous 1977 US Army/ suit Commercially Sold Cyclocrane 1980 Development Only (Aerostat with wings) Propellant Handlers 1981 NASA/ 550 Ensemble suits US Air Force Collapsible Fuel and US Army 5,280 Water Tanks M43 Hood/Mask 1982 US Military Torpedo Recovery Rocket Bags Research/Navy Air-inflated 1983 Aerojet 1,318,680 Decelerator Systems (AIDS) 1991 Alliant 100,000 Techsystems Collective Protective 1986 Army System (M28 Hazardous Suit) AERP Hodd/Mask 1987 Boeing 595 K Balloon Systems 1988 General Electric 5 Chemical Biological Commercially Sold Protective Mask (M40) Ram Air Decelerator 1989 Honeywell 1,843,000 Cup Spinner Cones for Jet 1990 Garret Engine Corp Engines Integrated Hood Mask Boeing, 5,300 (PIHM) 1991 Air Force 10,500 Upper Pressure 1992 Boeing Garment, Lower G Garment, Air-Cooling Garment Aerostat Balloons 1992 Loral 8

B-23

(275,000 ft3) 1993 Air Force 3 (420,000 ft3) Vapor Guard Tank Reichold Chemical Cover Corp. Hybrid Airship 1994 Zeppelin Envelope Airbag Landing Jet Propulsion Lab System (Mars Pathfinder Mission) Integrated Ballistic 1995 741 Helmet Fuel Cells FPT Industries Ltd. Lightship envelopes 1995 American Blimp 6, Ongoing Corp Space Rigidizable 1996 TRW Development only Antenna Inflatable Lunar NASA Development only Habitat Hasty Hide Shelter Military Flexible Power Eli Lilly Transfer System AirCrane 2001 CargoLifter (with TCOM and Uretek) ISAT Antenna 2004 DARPA 1 Structure (inflatable shape memory polymer) Materials for radome 2005 Raytheon 1 structure of Sea Based X-Bad Radar System FlexMixer Commercially Sold (with Wave Biotech) (Pharmaceutical Customers) (86) Companies in non-Aerospace industries must realize that investing and developing products in the space industry can and will lead to many marketable earth-based products, bringing increased profit and expertise.

B-24

B.5 – Highway System

A transportation infrastructure has long been recognized by governments to be of crucial importance, particularly from the points of view of defense and the economy. At the end of the 20th century, transportation (in a very general sense) accounted for approximately 18% percent of the GNP. In 1989, the typical American household spent $27,810, of which $5,187 went toward transportation.

Throughout American history, a transportation infrastructure has preceded successful trade and economic expansion, whether in the form of ports, canals, railroads, highways or airports. In terms of interstate or even intercontinental trade, “transportation allows each geographic area to produce whatever it does best and then to trade its product with others. In addition to direct trades, it is also possible to use transportation to link together a number of different steps in the production process, each occurring at a different geographic site.” Also, transportation has historically opened markets, such that significant economies can be born out of large-scale single-resource production, and promoted competitiveness (88).

Although historically late in its implementation, the US National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is the world‟s most extensive automobile transportation network. It contains more than 45,000 miles of roadways, and sustains over 20% of the nation‟s traffic, although it makes up only 1% of the roads system. The project was started by a recommendation from the Clay Committee, established in 1954 by President Eisenhower, after which the Federal Aid Highway Act and the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 provided funding for an accelerated program of Highway construction. The system was funded students.engr.ncsu.edu/ite/grad.html primarily by the federal government, with resources that included the Highway Trust fund, where funds from the newly established gasoline tax were placed (89).

From (90), key findings of “Productivity and the Highway Network: A Look at the Economic Benefits to Industry from Investment in the Highway Network” by Nadiri and Manuneas: • Industry Costs: Interstate highway investments have lowered production and distribution costs in virtually every industry sector. Cost elasticities – the percentage change in industry costs for a given percentage change in highway capital -- for each of the 35 industry sectors indicated that an increase in highway capital reduced costs in all but three industry sectors. On average, U.S. industries realized production and distribution cost savings averaging 24

B-25 cents annually for each dollar invested in the non-local road system.

• Productivity: The term refers to the value of output per dollar of input for all factors of production. Interstate highway investments have made significant contributions to U.S. productivity growth, but the magnitude of the impacts have declined over time. During the 1950s, highway network investments‟ contribution to annual productivity growth was 31 percent; it averaged 25 percent in the 60s; by the 1980s, it contributed 7 percent to U.S. productivity growth in the 1980s.

• Net Social Rate of Return: This term refers to the net benefits to private industries (net of depreciation of highway capital stock) that share use of the public highway or non-local road network. The term “social” refers to the fact that the highway network is a shared investment by all industries in the economy. Net rate of social return on highway capital was about 35% in the 1950s and 60s; it declined to about 10% in the 1980s, or just about equal to rates of return on private capital. Nonetheless, the overall contribution to social welfare from Interstate highway investment has been enormous over the life cycle of the interstate system.

B-26

B.6 – Satellite Cell Phones Case Study

Satellite cell phones networks have not been financially viable in the past. Several companies, having investor interest, high technological capabilities and high expert expectations, have failed to attract costumers, and filed for bankruptcy.

Iridium, one of the first companies to offer satellite cell phone service, originally offered services that were comparable or superior to standard ground-based operations, but failed to achieve profitability because consumer interest in their very expensive services was low. Furthermore, Iridium operated on a constellation of 66 LEO satellites that had short lifetimes, and were very difficult and expensive to maintain. Standard cell phone services operate by ground radio technology, and nowadays have multiple functions which make them more attractive, such as email, cameras, and navigation.

After spending $5 billion to develop its system, Iridium was bought for $25 million, and its commercial services have yet to attract consumers. However, Iridium has standing contracts, including with the U.S. Department of Defense, and its obvious technical usefulness, as demonstrated by television coverage and global cell phone coverage may yet entice the public.

Other companies attempted using MEO and GEO networks, but either failed to get financial backing or implement fully-functional infrastructures. See (91) for several examples, and a more complete case study of Iridium.

B-27

B.7- ITAR Historical Overview

For as long as defense technology has been around, there has been a need to control what parties have access to that technology. Certain defense articles in the hands of the wrong parties could have disastrous consequences, not just for some countries but even mankind as a whole. This has always been the guiding principle behind export control. The latter half of the 20th century has demonstrated, more than ever before, the need for export controls to protect national security interests. Much of today‟s export control policy has stemmed from the 1950‟s and 1960‟s. During the Cold War there was an obvious motivation to prevent the Soviet Union and its allies from obtaining defense related information from the United States, specifically technology relating to nuclear armaments. The intent was to prevent the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would certainly unsettle the fragile geopolitical climate. Aside from nuclear weapons, it has also always been necessary to prevent the export of any information that could potentially violate national security interests. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations were created for just that purpose, to define what technologies were sensitive and to regulate who has access to them by defining under what circumstances they are allowed to be transferred.

The International Traffic of Arms Regulations has only been changed a few times over its lifespan. Prior to 1992, the export of anything having to do with commercial communications satellites was considered to have military applications and thus fell under the control of ITAR. However, in order to increase the number of United States communications satellite launches, government contracts were given to Chinese launch providers who would perform the launches for similar prices to that of US launch providers. In order to circumvent the export control issues with this contract transfer, communications satellites were moved over to the control of the Department of Commerce as a dual-use technology, thus significantly decreasing the barriers for export. Within a two year period of the creation of the directive, nine commercial launches of US communications satellites were carried out by Chinese launch service providers. Much debate occurred over the transfer of communications satellites to the control of the Department of Commerce and the switch was not fully complete until 1996.

Within a few years of the dual-use transfer, two Chinese launches carrying United States communications satellites failed, leading to a full investigation into the causes of the failure. During this review process, sensitive data relating to the design and construction of the launch payloads was transferred to the Chinese government. It was later deemed that this occurred without the proper licenses from both the Department of State and the Department of Commerce. In 1999, in response to repeated Chinese attempts to obtain high technological information about the US communication satellites, all satellites were transferred back over to the control of the Department of State. The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization placed all satellites in the USML Category XV “Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment.” This includes scientific satellites as well as most satellite components such as ground control telemetry and radiation hardened microelectronics.

More recently in 2002, ITAR was amended to address problems dealing with higher education and space research. Under previously existing ITAR policy, it was forbidden for

B-28 students who are foreign nationals to be involved with space related research at the university level. The amendment to ITAR allows foreign nationals who are students or faculty of an institution of higher learning to be involved with “fundamental research” relating to space technology. Fundamental research is broadly defined within ITAR as “basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community.” This amendment only applies to research done independently by a university and is not valid if there is an additional party involved.

B-29

B.8 - Case Study of European Patent Convention and the European Community Patent.

Currently, there is no single, centrally enforceable, European Union-wide patent. However, the European Patent Convention dismisses the need to file separate patent applications and centralizes the prosecution in one language. With the EPC, the system for protecting an invention in several European countries is greatly simplified, since the EPC does away with the need to apply for a separate patent in each country.

However, the situation is not as universal as first appearances suggest. Though the application process is unified, each member nation in the EPC must individually approve the patent. Thus, a European patent is not a patent across Europe but instead a group of national patents in each Contracting State designated by the inventor. Each patent exists independently from the same patent in a different nation, except for opposition procedure. Thus, one nation may choose to void a patent, but this will not affect the validity of the other patents. Additionally, almost all patent proceedings necessary after the patent is issued, for example, renewal and revocation, are determined under national law.

An additional complication in the EPC is the need for translation of patents into the various languages of the member nations. This can add a great deal of cost for the inventor who is forced to pay for expensive translations in order to file patent documentation. Though some work has been done to eradicate this problem by designating official languages of the EPC, there are still problems to be dealt with.

Though, The European Patent Convention has enabled great progress in making patent grant simpler within the European Union, there is still much to be done. The next step is similar legislation to the European Community Patent. The Community Patent‟s goal is to create a level playing field in the markets of the European Union by providing a more efficient and less expensive way to ensure patent protection across the entire European market.

However, there is some opposition to the establishment of an EU-wide patent policy, particularly from larger businesses. If the Community Patent is to be supported by this group, it would have to deal with national issues such as translation and enforcement. By the same token, a new patent policy would mean a new enforcement agency and there are concerns about the level of competence of such an agency. If a patent could be lost due to inexperience and inefficiencies in a new agency, businesses will be unwilling to apply for EU-wide patents.

In addition, the language and translation issue has also been responsible for hindering progress on the establishment of a community patent. Dismissing entirely the need for translation is near impossible, but translation is one of the largest costs in the current process. With these issues in mind, many larger businesses are hesitant to change from the known and tested current process for a completely untried unified system without major incentive. Overall, the work of the EU on the EPC and the Community Patent demonstrate some of the major issues involved in harmonizing the patent system into an international system. Issues like language and enforcement will be serious issues, but the progress made by the European Union in harmonizing their patent system may prove to be a good test case for a more international agreement. B-30

B.9 - Why is historical preservation necessary on the Moon?

Just as we have preserved terrestrial artifacts that mark great achievements of the human race, we seek to preserve similar artifacts on the lunar surface. The lunar artifacts represent major accomplishments in the history of mankind and range from such things as the first human footsteps on the Moon to the first manned spacecraft to land on the surface. Man‟s first steps on the Moon have been compared to the technical feat of the ancient pyramids of Egypt. Given such importance, can such monuments be dismissed just because they are on the lunar surface and beyond the normal jurisdiction of any regulatory body? Artifacts on the Moon warrant preservation and such preservation must begin now. The key to historical preservation is that it must occur preemptively. If we wait until protection becomes an issue, it may be too late. We cannot preserve something once it is destroyed.

Unlike on Earth, there is a large possibility that some of the steps made by the first astronauts on the lunar surface are still there. Comparable to the first creature who crawled out of the ocean onto land, these steps represent a turning point in our destiny as species. It is very likely that most steps made by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are still in pristine condition, just as they were when they were made. Wouldn't the possibility of seeing such a site in person be worth the attempt to preserve it? If we are to preserve anything, discussion about this must begin now. A protection policy must be an item of serious consideration in future space policy.

What is the goal of historical preservation ?

As mentioned before, the objects on the lunar surface represent major accomplishments in human history. They are tangible evidence of our success and the spirit of exploration in every human. They represent our past and our future and are inspiring, demonstrating that humankind has the potential to walk on soils other than those on Earth, and if we have done it once before, we can do it again. Preserving these objects allows us to archive these major accomplishments and inspire us to continually reach for the stars.

The point of preservation is to allow these items to be visited and to be seen. There is no point to preserve these objects if no one will ever have access to see them. In addition, much science can be done on objects currently on the Moon upon their return to Earth. Through this kind of archeology, it was discovered that Earth-borne bacteria can survive the harsh space environment when astronauts of the Apollo 12 mission were able to extract components from the Surveyor 3 spacecraft that had landed on the Moon more than two years earlier. We could learn even greater things about the lunar environment from studying the objects that have been on the Moon for decades. However, this science can only be accomplished if the objects are preserved.

B-31

Approaches to Preservation

The first step to creating regulations for historical preservation is to define how artifacts are to be preserved. For the objects on the lunar surface, there are two main actions that can be taken: leave the items on the Moon and protect them on site or return them to Earth for preservation.

Leave and Protect

The Apollo 11 lander would be impressive to see in person no matter where it was, but seeing it at Tranquility base would be awe-inspiring. For this reason, objects that are firsts of any kind on the Moon should remain on the Moon. Such items include: the first artificial human made object on the Moon, the first lunar lander, the first footprints, the first lunar rover and the first US flag. This list is by no means exhaustive, and as man returns to the Moon, this list may increase. An additional consideration for in situ preservation is the impact on the commercial space industry. Locations such as Tranquility Base provide the perfect tourist destinations for future space tourism. Who wouldn‟t want to spend their vacation days on the Moon visiting the site of the first human steps on another planetary body? Tranquility Base would lose such appeal if it were the victim of vandalism.

Return to Earth

As with any type of travel, not everyone will be able to afford traveling to the Moon, at least not initially. However, this should not mean that they will never see an object that has been on the lunar surface. For many of the items on the Moon, there is no strong argument for why they should be preserved on the Moon. Many other historical objects should be returned to the Earth for preservation in terrestrial museums.

The rationale behind this approach is twofold. One is for scientific interests. There is much we can learn about the lunar surface and the long term effects of the lunar environment on hardware from the items returned from the Moon. An example of science from returned items is the Apollo 17 lander, Challenger. Samples were taken from Challenger prior to launch to allow for pre-launch documentation. These samples were taken with the intention of a later comparison of the pre-launch samples with returned samples from the lunar surface. This would allow scientists to better document the toll the lunar environment takes on hardware and improve past designs. The second rationale is to promote commercial industry. Returning items from the Moon does not need to be a government run task, private industry could develop the technology to return items from the Moon. This could be the first stage of developing the cargo transfer industry between the Moon and Earth.

Steps toward In-Situ Resource Utilization

Once the objects and the locations for lunar preservation are determined, the next step is to evaluate what infrastructure is necessary to preserve the sites for future visitation. Although the long term goal is to open the historical sites for visitors, initially the sites should be isolated

B-32 until the best method for preservation has been identified. In some cases, we do not currently have the technology necessary to assess what is needed to preserve the sites and will need to wait until that technology can be developed. Additionally, isolating the site will help to prevent looters; both human and robotic. We do not want a situation like the Titanic, where those who were the first to find it were able to take whatever they could find.

However, we wish to stress that the eventual goal is to allow the site to be visited. Thus, the next step in preservation is to determine some way to preserve the site so that it can be viewed. If we simply preserve these artifacts in pristine condition without allowing anyone to see them, they lose their meaning. Though initially we may isolate an object to better assess the situation, the site must eventually be opened to visitation.

To take Tranquility Base as an example, the first step should be to establish a perimeter around the lander and the still surviving footprints. The next step will be to assess the current state of the lander and footprints once we have a way to do so without marring them in any way. Once the situation has been properly assessed, a way for people to approach the lander and visit the footprints should be determined. For example, a catwalk or glass dome could be constructed that would protect that lander and footprints from tourists.

Political Issues involved As with many things in space, there are political issues involved in historical preservation. According to the Outer Space Treaty, no nation can own property on the Moon. Once again using Tranquility Base as an example, the US cannot legally establish a perimeter around the lander. Thus, a major question in the future of historical preservation is whether or not historical preservation should be an international enterprise. Only with some claim to the land will the US be able to preserve objects in-situ on the lunar surface, and this may not be possible without international agreement. Additionally, a purely domestic policy is not enforceable. If a foreign company decided to visit the site and destroy the footprints, there would be nothing the United States could do.

Additionally, the objects on the Moon do not belong to the United States alone. The first artificial object on the Moon was launched by Russia, and because it is a first, it should be preserved in-situ. However, the US cannot attempt to preserve Russian spacecraft without permission, since the vehicle belongs to the government of Russia. Since we wish to preserve things for the good of humankind, the nation of origin should not affect whether or not an object is preserved. In order for this to be true, any agreements regarding historical preservation needs to be international. Any international agreement is difficult to write and establish. However, a great first step would be a courtesy agreement not to disturb any nation‟s property currently on the lunar surface. This would provide the time necessary to establish a broader and more defined agreement.

At the same time, while we should strive for international cooperation, we should also make sure that we do not neglect our own artifacts in our insistence for international cooperation. An international policy would be best, but it would be better to have a domestic

B-33 policy than to have nothing. Historical Preservation is an important concern in the future of space exploration and should not be ignored.

Conclusion

The issues involved in historical preservation are complicated and will be difficult to solve. With that in mind, it is important to start this process now. Creating regulation will take time and if we wait until there is a tangible danger to artifacts on the Moon, it will be too late. By the time any agreement comes into effect, the damage will have been done. We must make sure that artifacts are protected until they can be preserved before there is once again a presence on the Moon. One day the site of Tranquility Base will inspire the next generation of space explorers, and to make that future a definite eventuality, we must start down a path of international protection now.

B-34

B.10 - Introduction to life support

Introduction

The general plan for the development of space exploration is to build and sustain a functional inhabited Moon base. In this part we briefly study the main aspects of what is required to support life on the surface of the Moon. Once these requirements for a Moon base are met, they will indicate an important first milestone on the road to success: the Moon base will be ready.

According to NASA‟s study “Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Documents” (ALS) by Anthony J. Hanford in 2004, life support can be divided in two general parts. The first deals with all the life support subsystems which can be separated from the second part, the external interfaces. The interfaces will link the subsystems together in a complex way in order to make the base functional.

This study gathers several elements that help understand life support. Reading the ALS document is highly recommended for further information.

The life support problem can be divided into Support Subsystems on the one hand, and External Interfaces on the other hand.

Table of the Subsystems Subsystem Description Life Support System Interfaces Air The Air Subsystem stores and maintains Biomass, Food, Thermal, the vehicle cabin atmospheric gases, Waste, Water, Crew, EVA including pressure control, overall Support, Human composition, and trace constituents. The Accommodations, In-Situ Air Subsystem is also responsible for fire Resource Utilization, detection and suppression and vacuum Integrated Control, Power services. Biomass The Biomass Subsystem produces, stores, Air, Food, Thermal, Waste, and provides raw agricultural products to Water, Crew, In-Situ the Food Subsystem while regenerating air Resource Utilization, and water. This subsystem is not present in Integrated Control, Power a solely physicochemical life support system. Food The Food Subsystem receives harvested Air, Biomass, Thermal, agricultural products from the Biomass Waste, Water, Crew, EVA Subsystem, stabilizes them as necessary, Support, Human storing raw and stabilized agricultural Accommodations, Integrated products, food ingredients, and Control, Power, Radiation prepackaged food and beverage items. The Protection Food Subsystem transforms the raw agricultural products into a ready-to-eat B-35

form via food processing and meal preparation operations. In the absence of the Biomass Subsystem, this subsystem operates only on prepackaged, stored products. Thermal The Thermal Subsystem is responsible for Air, Biomass, Food, Waste, maintaining cabin temperature and Water, Crew, Cooling, EVA humidity within appropriate bounds and Support, Human for rejecting the collected waste heat to the Accommodations, Integrated Cooling Interface. Note: Equipment to Control, Power remove thermal loads from the cabin atmosphere normally provides sufficient air circulation. Waste The Waste Subsystem collects and Air, Biomass, Food, Thermal, conditions waste material from anywhere Water, Crew, EVA Support, in the habitat, including: packaging, human Integrated Control, Human wastes, inedible biomass, and brines from Accommodations, Power, other subsystems such as the Water Radiation Protection Subsystem. The Waste Subsystem may sterilize and store the waste or reclaim life support commodities, depending on the life support system closure and/or mission duration. Water The Water Subsystem collects wastewater Air, Biomass, Food, Thermal, from all possible sources, recovers and Waste, Crew, Cooling, EVA transports potable water, and stores and Support, Human provides the water at the appropriate Accommodations, In-Situ purity for crew consumption and hygiene Resource Utilization, as well as external users. Integrated Control, Power, Radiation Protection (92)

B-36

Table of the External Interfaces

(92)

B-37

B.10.1 - Crew characteristics

The metabolic rate is an important factor that characterizes a crewmember, as it will directly affect his air, food, and water consumption, as well as his heat and waste production.

Table: Metabolic Rate Gender Age (years) Metabolic rate [kJ/CM-d] 18-30 1.6*(61.5*mass + 2.075) Female 30-60 1.6*(36.40*mass + 3.469

18-30 1.7*(64.02*mass + 2.841) Male 30-60 1.7*(48.53*mass + 3.678) (93)

Time allocation for nominal crew This table shows typically scheduled time in space, and can potentially be used for a base on the Moon.

(92)

B-38

B.10.2 - Life Support Subsystems Estimations

Air Subsystem

Typical control values of the air system are given in the following table.

Assumptions Parameter Units Lower Nominal Upper Carbon Dioxide Generated kg/CM-d 0.466 0.998 2.241 Oxygen Consumed kg/CM-d 0.385 0.835 1.852 p(CO2) for Crew kPa 0.031 0.4 0.71 p(CO2) for Plants kPa 0.04 0.12 p(O2) for Crew kPa 18.0 18.0 - 23.1 23.1 (92) Total pressure is one of the most important issues. It is generally preferred to use normal sea-level pressure because that is the condition under which most data is collected and because people can live satisfactorily for extended periods under these conditions. Others, however, prefer lower pressures, to reduce the mass of required gas, the mass of the vehicle, etc. Reduced pressure normally entails increasing the percentage of oxygen relative to other gases in the cabin atmosphere, which increases the risk of fire.

In the case of a lunar base, the objective is to recycle as much as possible. However, the only source of oxygen on the Moon would be vegetables used for agriculture purposes, but given the plants used, recycling will be of little efficiency. Indeed, plants which produce a maximum of food while minimizing volume, mass and waste will not be green plants, which are the most photosynthesis-efficient.

Biomass Subsystem

Plants offer the greatest opportunity for self-sufficiency and, possibly, cost reduction for long-duration missions, but at the same time have some of the greatest unknowns. An attempt has been made to estimate the mass of a plant growth system on the surface of an extraterrestrial body such as the Moon or Mars. Two uncertainties that must be dealt with are the cost of power, and the availability of water locally. The role of the Biomass Subsystem is to determine what kind of plants, how much and what facilities are necessary to supply the Food Subsystem with its basic needs.

In addition, fresh food is crucial to crew welfare, and nutritionists generally recommend deriving food from original sources such as grown plants and/or livestock. Because livestock production is more expensive even terrestrially, early in-situ food production will likely concentrate on growing crops. Since shipped fresh foodstuffs from crops are heavier than dehydrated or low-moisture foods due to the significant mass associated with natural moisture, plants will probably be grown on an extraterrestrial body.

B-39

In order to develop a plant growth system, a lot of parameters must be taken into consideration. As it is not the topic of this paper, these parameters are hereunder listed but will not be detailed. Also, the needs may depend on the type of plants, for each plant requires different amounts of light and water, a different soil, etc.

Lighting: electrical lighting might provide the necessary lighting o Number of lamps o Type of lamps . Power electrical/light . Wavelengths . Mass o Time of light per day/Photoperiod (24hours? 12 hours?) Irrigation o Ballasts o Mechanization system Surface needed o Ground/shelves o Soil . Terrestrial soil (mass!) . Martian/lunar soil o Growing area dimensions o Planting density Plants o Number of plants o Type of plants . Light . Growth period Air o Oxygen o Carbon dioxide o Pressure o Humidity

The basic inputs of the Biomass Subsystem are the type and number of plants. Once this data is available, all other parameters can be deduced. As a result, to have these parameters, analyzing food subsystem might help.

B-40

Food Subsystem

Food, though historically omitted from life support analysis, has significant impacts on closure and the cost of crew support. In particular, food, if grown on-site, can regenerate some or all of the crew‟s air and water. If more than about 25% of the food, by dry mass, is produced locally, all the required water can be regenerated by the same process. If approximately 50% or more of the food, by dry mass, is produced on site, all the required air can be regenerated by the same process.

The crew food energy requirement will depend on the crew itself, its lean body mass in particular, and the amount of physical work it performs. Extravehicular activity (EVA), for example, requires additional food energy compared with crews conducting only intravehicular activities (IVA) because more physical work is typically associated with an EVA. Unless specified otherwise, this document assumes an average body mass of 70 kg, and an intravehicular metabolic requirement of 11.82 MJ per Crew Member per day, which are derived from NASA data (1991).

The basic role of the Food Subsystem is to fulfill human needs: humans have to be provided the daily Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) of vitamins and minerals to be healthy. An adult must eat 2,000 Calories per day. When astronauts travel into space, NASA scientists determine how much food will be needed for each mission. For example, an astronaut on the ISS uses about 1.83 pounds (0.83 kilograms) of food per meal. About 0.27 pounds (0.12 kilograms) of this weight is packaging material.

However, space tourists or long-time inhabitants of a lunar base/city may want more food, of a better quality. That is why the Food Subsystem should take into consideration both variety and quality, which could have a tremendous impact on crew morale and the success of a long-duration mission. Also, food storage should be carefully studied: refrigeration equipment and packaging are serious issues to be discussed.

Several pick-and-eat vegetable crops have been identified for possible growth in transit on long-duration missions. These crops will provide the crew with added nutrition and variety. Veggies, unlike prepackaged foods, will add bright colors, crisp textures and fresh aromas to the crew‟s menu.

B-41

Menu Masses for Diets Using Advanced Life Support Crops and Resupplied Foods

(92) When the crew arrives at its destination, the lack of fertile soil on the lunar and Martian surfaces will make growing a garden impossible. Instead, astronauts will build hydroponic growth labs, where pick-and-eat vegetables, as well as white and sweet potatoes, soybeans, wheat, rice, peanuts and dried beans, can be grown. The latter crops would require processing to convert raw goods, such as wheat, into foods like bread and pasta.

To make food processing a reality, specialized equipment will be needed for each crop grown. The Martian food processing equipment will be much smaller than standardized equipment and will use minimal water, power and crew time. If harvested crops cannot be grown, bulk ingredients such as packaged soybeans or wheat berries can be sent with the crew on the mission to be used later.

Concluding, the whole point of the Food Subsystem consists in providing safe, nutritious and appetizing food while minimizing volume, mass and waste.

B-42

Thermal Subsystem

Thermal management, in terms of its most direct impact on a spacecraft, maintains temperatures throughout the vehicle. Or, from another perspective, thermal energy, or heat, transfers from regions of high temperature to regions of low temperature. The thermal management hardware regulates when and how thermal energy transfers from regions of high temperature within the spacecraft to regions of low temperature outside of the spacecraft so that all components within the spacecraft are maintained between their prescribed temperature limits.

Thermal management may be subdivided in several ways. One organization classifies thermal management as either passive or active. Passive thermal management hardware encourages or inhibits heat transfer as the heat passes directly through the hardware and eventually to the external environment, radiating from the vehicle‟s entire external surface. Active thermal management hardware acquires thermal loads near where the loads are generated and then transports those loads to some other portion of the vehicle before the loads are discharged to the environment by specifically designed radiating surfaces.

The Thermal Subsystem must ensure that the temperature stays stable inside a vehicle, a base or a city, and must manage both passive and active thermal hardware using as less energy as possible.

Waste Subsystem

The Waste Subsystem collects waste materials from life support subsystems and interfaces. Commonly, wastes are perceived as materials with no further utility. More widely, wastes might include crew metabolic wastes, food packaging, wasted food, paper, tape, soiled clothing, brines, inedible biomass, expended hygiene supplies, and equipment replacement parts from the other subsystems.

Current NASA spacecraft waste-handling approaches essentially rely on dumping and storage. On Shuttle missions or aboard ISS, most waste is stored and returned to Earth with little or no processing. Consequently, the volume of wastes can be significant. In future long- duration missions, wastes may be disposed directly, or they may be processed.

Here is a list of all the wastes that should be taken into account by the Waste Subsystem. Each item should be treated in order to minimize the stored mass and volume that cannot get rid of, and to recycle it as much as possible. Equipment waste Experiment waste Human/metabolic waste o Hairs o Finger and toe nails o Urine o Feces o Skin cells

B-43

o Menses o Mucus and saliva solid Food Packaging and Adhered Food Inedible Biomass and Wasted Crop Materials Laundry: Clothing, Towels and Wash Clothes Papers and wipes Medical wastes Hygiene products

For instance, if it is not easy to treat papers or wipes in a space station, it will become easy within a lunar base, where appropriate equipment will be available. Similarly, it is difficult to get rid of feces aboard the shuttle, but they could be easily disposed of in an advanced base, using them as fertilizers for the agriculture, with little processing.

Water Subsystem

Water may not be the most time-critical life support commodity, but water regeneration streams are the most massive. Further, water quality is also of great concern with respect to crew safety. No single technology has proven adequate for water regeneration to date. Instead, a suite of complementary technologies must be employed. In the past, power use has driven water regeneration. However, other infrastructure costs are also important.

A human daily drinks a total of 2.7 kg of water. But a human consumes much more water: they wash themselves, brush their teeth, do laundry, wash their plates, etc. Hopefully, water can be recycled which enables to survive with an affordable amount of water.

On the space station, people will wash their hands with less than one-tenth the water that people typically use on Earth. Instead of consuming 50 liters to take a shower, which is typical on Earth, denizens of the ISS will use less than 4 liters to bathe. However, space tourists or long-duration inhabitants of the Moon will want some comfort, so an average of 25 liters for a shower, if environment-friendly showers can be designed.

B-44

Here is a table of human needs in different situations, in kg per Crew Member per day:

(92) Here is a table of wastewater generation rate, in kg per Crew Member per day:

(92) One would notice that the water usage rates and wastewater generation rates sometimes differ, as a quick comparison of both tables confirms. In some cases, either the water usage or wastewater generation rates are unknown. In other cases, water usage does not correspond to wastewater generated and sent to the Water Subsystem, varying with the configuration of the system using the water.

Anyway, this shows that recycling is indispensable. Without a careful recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth would be required to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station, or 10,000 pounds per person. By recycling, we can go down to 2,000 pounds.

B-45

However, humans are not alone to consume water: plants and animals, assuming some could be present in an advanced base or city, need water as well. It can be assumed that plants will not be too demanding in water, thanks to GMOs, but they have to be taken into account by the Water subsystem.

In addition, the Water Subsystem must ensure that the recycled water is safe to drink or use, by managing its chemical components and their concentration. There is a strong link with the Food subsystem here, as water contains a lot of minerals and vitamins men require to live.

B-46

B.10.3 - External Interfaces Estimations

Extravehicular Activity Support

This preliminary data is useful to keep mind the major difference of physics on the Moon: Mean acceleration due to 1.620 gravity (m/s²) Fractional gravity 0.165 compared to Earth Normal Weight of a 70kg – crew 113 (16.5% of Earth Normal) member (N)

These differences will induce a large modification of behaviors while operating an EVA.

Description of Lunar operations and requirements

During the transit, it seems very unlikely to plan any EVA, but in case of extreme emergency. The suits and other interfaces that are necessary for EVA will then be built after on- site EVA requirements. Thanks to a good experience in EVAs in Low Earth Orbit, humans have learned a lot and can then provide better concepts for space suits.

According to present rules on EVAs, each Sortie requires at least two crewmembers in the same time. We can reasonably think that it is going to be the same for EVAs on the surface of the Moon. Traditionally, the EVAs in LEO last 8 hours, and again we think it can perfectly be applied for activities on the Moon. The next table describes crucial figures about losses and required Airlock volumes. We are supposing 5 EVAs per week (one each day, except for the week-end, based on the week on Earth).

B-47

Table: Extravehicular Activity Values Units Nominal

Human metabolic rate during EVA MJ/CM-h 1.06

EVA Crewmember Hours per Week CM-h/week 80

EVA Sorties per week Sorties/week 5

Cooling water losses kg/CM-h 0.19

Oxygen Losses kg/Cm-h 0.15

Airlock Volume m3 4.25 (94)

This important table summarizes how the average human body works during an EVA:

Table: Extravehicular Activity Metabolic Loads

(92)

Human Accommodations External Interface

Clothing will require several interfaces associated with life support, even if it rarely is part of a life support study: for ISS, clothes are always resupplied by cargo. This approach is no longer available if we think about a sustainable base on the Moon. One has to think about an appropriate washing/drying system. Its main characteristics will be its mass and the losses in water vapor it induces.

This table shows a proposal of a new washer/dryer system for space habitats. Authors have assumed that clothes have a useful life of 40 laundry cycles.

B-48

(95)

In-Situ resource utilization external Interface

Human capability for In-Situ resource utilization (ISRU) is crucial to further exploration of the solar system. Even if in the case of the Moon, a cargo system can still be imagined, it will remain extremely expensive and non-efficient. Moreover, the Moon is the only body with which we can imagine a working cargo exchange system, due to the proximity with the Earth. Sending crucial resources to Mars via regular cargo supply should not be an option.

This table provides estimation of the required mass per year to compensate the on-site consumables.

(96)

Abbreviations: ECLSS = Environmental Control and Life Support System LSAM = Lunar Surface Access Module

These ISRU technologies will have to be demonstrated through various primary landings on the surface (robots or humans), and will have to be validated before the permanent presence on the Moon is decided.

B-49

General Life Support Summary (see next page)

This diagram consists of 14 different subsystems, which can fall into two main categories: support subsystems and external subsystems. All these subsystems depend on one another. All those interdependencies enable the general space system to be reliable, sustainable, and to be able to face (nearly) all kinds of issues.

The General Life Support diagram has been simplified to remain understandable and clear. Although all the subsystems are necessary to the system, this diagram focuses only on three major subsystems: The Crew subsystem, chosen because the main objective of a lunar outpost/base/city is to enable humans to live The Biomass subsystem, chosen because of its peculiar links with the other subsystems The EVA (Extra-Vehicular Activity) subsystem, chosen to illustrate an ordinary mission outside the lunar base Also, the Thermal, Cooling, Power and Integrated control subsystems have been grouped because they interact with nearly all the other subsystems and their role can often be summarized by "provides energy to", "manages and controls", "keeps the temperature constant". Therefore, it would be pointless to repeat those roles every time.

Thus, all the interdependencies do not appear in this diagram, but all the details can be found in the tables located above.

Conclusion

This part of the appendices is a brief description of the basic needs for humans to live on the Moon, and can easily be extended to Mars. Life support is a concern which has to be dealt with in the Roadmap, for men will not be able to live on the Moon or in space without their basic needs being fulfilled.

The next step of the life support capabilities would be to detail thoroughly all the needs of every subsystem and foremost to study more accurately the interdependencies between the different subsystems, which have to be studied as a whole, not as independent entities.

B-50

Crew 1. Takes care of, manages 2. Eats 3. Uses, lives in 4. Is supplied with energy by, can live thanks to, controls all subsystems thanks to 5. Collects, uses 6. Uses and depends on during EVA missions 7. Is protected from radiations thanks to 8. Drinks, uses 9. Produces, recycles thanks to 10. Breathes thanks to

Biomass 1. Needs, uses 2. Produces 3. Needs, uses 4. Uses 5. Is supplied with energy by, can develop thanks to 6. Produces

EVA Support 1. Provides crew with 2. Manages during EVA missions 3. Provides crew with, manages

B-51

4. Provides crew with 5. Is supplied with energy by, enables crew to have energy during missions, manages temperature 6. Uses, collects soil/rocks from

B-52

APPENDIX C: PRIZES AND SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS

C-1

Appendix C

C.1 – Space Act Agreement Background

Introduction

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958 gives the Administrator the following authorization:

“…to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may deem appropriate, with any agency or instrumentality of the United States, or with any State, Territory, or possession, or with any political subdivision thereof, or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution.

Agreements that can be classified as „other transactions‟ have been traditionally referred to as a „Space Act Agreements.‟

Types of Agreements

NASA Policy Directive 1050.1H outlines NASA‟s current agreement policy. Space Act agreements can be divided into three categories: funded, reimbursable and nonreimbursable.

a. Reimbursable – This type of agreement allows for a partner to transfer funds to NASA as reimbursement for a service NASA has provided. NPD 1050.1H states: “NASA undertakes Reimbursable Agreements when it has unique goods, services, and facilities, not being fully utilized to accomplish mission needs, which it can make available to others on a noninterference basis, consistent with the Agency's missions.”

b. Nonreimburasable – A nonreimbursable agreement is reached when both NASA and a partner agree to exchange services for mutual benefit without the exchange of funds. Both parties bear the cost of their individual participation.

c. Funded – These agreements allow NASA to transfer funds to a partner in order to accomplish a NASA objective. NPD 1050.1H clearly states that “Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.”

For all agreements, a financial analysis must be performed to ensure that the agreement is reasonable and fair.

Agreement Specifications

All agreements (with few exceptions) must include the following provisions (Quoted/Paraphrased from NPD 1050.1H):

C-2 a. Respective responsibilities of NASA and the agreement partner. b. Responsibilities or performance milestones that are stated with sufficient clarity to support preparation of cost estimates, sound management planning, and efficient agreement administration. c. Clearly defined financial commitments, including a statement that NASA's performance of the agreement is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. d. Resource commitments providing that NASA usage of facilities, equipment, and personnel shall have priority over the usage planned in the Agreement. e. Allocation of risk between NASA and the agreement partner. f. Allocation of intellectual property rights implicated by or created under the agreement. g. Termination rights and obligations. h. A fixed expiration date for the agreement based either on a certain date or upon completion of the obligations under the agreement, whichever occurs first.

C-3

C.2 - Nonreimbursable COTS Agreements

Nonreimbursable agreements were made with SPACEHAB, PlanetSpace, t/Space, SpaceDev and Constellation Services International for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (97). These agreements give NASA the ability to aid these companies in any way that they see fit without the exchange of funds.

Typical non-reimbursable agreement activities and responsibilities are listed below (98) :

Private Company Responsibilities

Conduct its development program according to the specific identified milestones Provide NASA with data regarding its progress towards the milestones Conduct a quarterly meeting with NASA regarding the past quarter‟s milestones, demonstrating that the success criteria have been met. NASA Responsibilities Provide a point of contact for the partner within the Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office Provide a library of relevant NASA data/information including, but not limited to, projected requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) for cargo transportation services as well as ISS visiting vehicle requirements Provide program know-how regarding the ISS visiting vehicle o Resources will be provided on an as-available basis by the Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office. Review data provided by agreement partner Attend quarterly meetings with agreement partner regarding the past quarter‟s milestones

C-4

C.3 - COTS Agreement Summary

Company Agreement Type Date of Agreement Notes COTS Round I Falcon 9 launch Funded August 2006 vehicle Space Exploration Dragon Technologies (1) ($278 million) Spacecraft

COTS Round I 207 million ($32.1 million Funded Rocketplane Kistler August 2006 – spent before (2), (2a) September 2007 cancellation) (Cancelled) K-1 Launch vehicle

COTS Round II Taurus II launch Funded Orbital Sciences vehicle February 2008 Corporation (3) Cygnus ($170 million) spacecraft

Transformational CXV spacecraft Space Corporation Nonreimbursable January 2007 (4) DreamChaser Spacecraft, SpaceDev (5) Nonreimbursable June 2007 Atlas V launcher

ARCTUS Nonreimbursable June 2007 – June SpaceHab (6), (7) spacecraft (Cancelled) 2008

Silver Dart PlanetSpace Nonreimbursable January 2007 spacecraft Incorporated (8)

Constellation LEO Express Services Nonreimbursable June 2007 spacecraft International (9)

(1) "Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration (COTS)." NASA.gov. 15 June 2007. NASA.

C-5

(2) – "Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and Kistler Aerospace Corporation and Rocketplane Limited, Inc. for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration (COTS)." NASA.gov. 15 June 2007. NASA. .

(2a) – "NASA to Open New Competition for Space Transportation Seed Money." NASA.gov. 18 Oct 2007. NASA. .

(3) "NASA Selects Orbital To Demonstrate New Commercial Cargo Delivery System For The International Space Station." Orbital Sciences Newsroom. Orbital Sciences Corporation. .

(4) "About t/Space." Transformational Space Corporation. .

(5) "SpaceDev Advanced Systems." SpaceDev. .

(6) "Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and SPACEHAB, INC. for Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities." NASA.gov. 15 June 2007. NASA. .

(7) Cowing, Keith. "Spacehab Cancels COTS Space Agreement With NASA." SpaceRef.com. 26 June 2008. .

(8) "NASA Signs Agreement with Planetspace for Development of Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities." Planetspace. 01 Feb 2007. 5 Aug 2008 .

(9) "Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Constellation Services International, Inc. for Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities ." NASA. 5 Aug 2008 .

C-6

C.4 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission – Landing Systems

Introduction

Landing on the Moon is no small feat. Landing at a precise location is even more difficult. During the days of Apollo, a lander could only land at an accuracy of 1 kilometer, combining a skillful pilot with the best technology available. Any hope of creating a lunar base will require a much more accurate landing technology. Additionally, for the progression of science, landings will need to be accurate to land at more interesting, but also potentially more dangerous places. Excursions out of the lunar module are dangerous journeys and the shorter time spent traveling enables the astronauts to perform more engineering duties safely. The sites selected for landing will not be as safe as the Apollo sites. Thus it is imperative to develop a technology that can land a cargo ship safely and avoid dangers, but also within a fairly close distance of a base.

Current Status

In the future lunar missions will most likely need to land at Shackleton Crater, a crater at the south pole of the Moon. The crater has regions on the rim which are always under light. One of the problems with these regions is that they are rocky, have dangerous inclines and smaller areas available for landing than the locations selected for the Apollo program. These kinds of regions need to be visited by probes in addition to eventual manned missions. Ever more accurate landings will be required when a lunar base is selected because the lander will need to land very close to the base.

To accomplish these demanding requirements, NASA has started a program called ALHAT (Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology). This program is intended to achieve certain goals to ensure the capability to land at precise locations. The first goal is to develop an active sensor for measuring topography. The second goal is to develop terrain analysis algorithms. The requirements for success of this technology is that it should be able to detect a .3 m high object, 5 degrees of slope, and land in any lighting condition (99). Additionally, a lander should be able to land within 1000 meters of a target to be accurate for sorties. This should be done unaided by other devices and maps. Also, the lander should be able to land within tens of meters of an objective with assets and/or maps in place (99). Such assets would include landing beacons put in place at the target site. Maps also will be needed with very high resolution. The resolution that is needed is even higher than that which will be provided by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).

As a result, ALHAT will also include additional capabilities. ALHAT will use technology to take high resolution images rapidly while in flight. These will most likely be made using LIDAR, though what kind has not yet been determined. Scanning LIDAR is not as good, but it is more developed; the hope is that flash LIDAR will soon be a ready technology. Scanning LIDAR takes data and requires many readings and transformations to create data that is legible. Flash LIDAR takes all the data at once but is not yet ready for space uses (99).

Other concerns are that ALHAT needs to be able to handle variable lighting conditions. During the Apollo missions, landing conditions were very restricted. The sun had to be rising C-7 within a precise range to be judged safe enough for pilots to see the landscape well enough. For future missions, the angle of light hitting the surface of Shackleton Crater will be only 1.5 degrees, likely to create long shadows. Additionally, missions to the Moon must not be restricted to only certain periods of the year (99).

To verify the successes of ALHAT, field tests must be made to ensure the safety of expensive probes and the safety astronauts. Additionally, high fidelity Monte Carlo simulations will be done to ensure the quality of the software.

Requirements for Cargo Delivery Landing System

Having reviewed the required capabilities of ALHAT, the following are proposed requirements for a lunar cargo delivery vessel. These would be subject to rigorous revision and updates as the requirements for a base on the Moon become clearer.

Land in any lighting conditions, to enable landing conditions at polar and equatorial locations Identify and avoid hazards that could be of size great enough to cause problems landing, but also unloading. There should be a region capable of travel and carrying cargo surrounding the cargo delivery vessel. The size of this region will be determined by the cargo and the method of unloading. Land at slope of about 5 degrees of slope Land within 10s of meters of required location with maps or assets or onboard sensors Additional requirements might be imposed due to the structural concerns of a cargo vessel and also the ability to unload the cargo vessel. Be tested using Monte Carlo Simulations and Field tests as necessary and possible

C-8

C.5 - Lunar Cargo Delivery Demonstration Mission - Automated Rendezvous and Docking

Rendezvous and docking in space is not a new technology, it has been used since the early days of the Space Program and it is still a piece of technology that is critical to space exploration today. Most rendezvous and docking processes up to this point have been completely manually controlled. The procedure of making the rendezvous and docking process automated stands against strong opposition because the astronauts will be removed from the driver‟s seat and replaced by a computer and highly complex algorithm system. However, in order for man to go back to the Moon and continue to explore the solar system it will be necessary to develop and use this technology regularly.

While this would not be a requirement for a direct mission to the lunar surface, if transportation architecture is developed that requires cargo delivery to lunar orbit or orbital refueling, this requirement becomes pertinent.

Current Docking Systems

Shuttle Capabilities:

The United States Space Shuttle Orbiter uses the Russian developed Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) to dock with the International Space Station (ISS). This system uses a series of guide petals which latch onto the passive capture ring on the ISS. After the guide petals have made contact and the vehicles have been joined, a series of twelve active and passive structural hooks are connected to provide an airtight seal. This design evolved from an earlier docking system design from the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. For this system, the crew manually controls the docking by continuously adjusting the position until the Orbiter is properly aligned within four degrees of pitch, yaw and roll with the ISS (100).

The advantage to this docking mechanism is that it is a highly tested and flight proven system. The disadvantage to this system is that is prone to human error since the Orbiter is always pilot controlled and has no automated docking capabilities. A second disadvantage is that because of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2004 it will be illegal for the US to purchase any additional parts for the mechanism after 2012 (100). Thus the US must find a new way to rendezvous and dock their vehicles because they will not be able to use Russian technologies.

Soyuz Capabilities:

The Soyuz‟s docks with the ISS by a probe and cone mechanism that is not androgynous. The Orbital Module of the Soyuz contains the probe mechanism, while the cone is mounted on the ISS (100). The Kurs sensor system is used to control the rendezvous and proximity operations leading up to the actual dock. With this docking system, the Soyuz has the ability to complete Automated Rendezvous and Docking (ARD) and crew piloted docking similar to the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The ARD is the preferred method of docking, and with this

C-9 method the crew will only manually control the docking if the “pre-defined docking parameters are exceeded” (100).

The advantage of this system is that the Soyuz has ARD capabilities that allow human error to be greatly reduced. With an ARD system and the very powerful Kurs sensors there is much less risk involved, unlike the docking of the Orbiter. The main disadvantage of the Soyuz is that the docking system is not androgynous and the mechanical portions of the docking mechanism must be specific to this system.

Current and Future Developments

Orion Requirements:

The Orion vehicle that is being developed by Lockheed Martin for NASA to ferry man back to the Moon and on to Mars is required to have ARD capabilities. The Orion vehicle represents the opportunity to introduce and develop new technology such as relative sensors, and docking hardware (101).

The Low Impact Docking System (LIDS) that is currently being developed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is being used as the baseline for Orion. The LIDS is an androgynous system with a “closed loop feedback and load sensing electromagnetic capture ring” that is very similar to the APAS system is used by the Space Shuttle Orbiter. The main difference between these two systems is that the LIDS allows for ARD unlike the APAS (100).

The main advantage to the LIDS system is that it is androgynous. The disadvantage to this system is that it is not a flight proven and it is still in the early development phase. A second disadvantage is that in order to dock with the ISS a LIDS adapter will need to be added to the station. Despite these disadvantages, the requirements made for Orion demonstrate a change in the thinking and the technological approach to rendezvous and docking.

Developments by Lockheed Martin:

In addition to developments of systems for the Orion vehicle, Lockheed Martin also developed two ARD systems under the Human and Robotic Technology (H&RT) program. The H&RT was created by NASA following the announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration and was used to develop technologies that would be needed for the Vision. Lockheed worked on these two systems for a year until the program was cancelled and then continued on with testing and development for multiple years under an Independent Research and Development effort.

The first system that Lockheed developed is the Multi-functional Common Mating Port (MCMP). The MCMP is an androgynous docking system that can be used to autonomously rendezvous and dock two small satellites in orbit. This system allows the satellites to form a stiff mechanical connection and a few direct electrical connections. This system is best for soft docking situations like “satellite servicing and structure assembly” (100).

C-10

The second system that Lockheed developed is the Attenuating Docking System (ADS). The ADS is not an androgynous system, like the MCMP. The ADS allows for docking of larger vehicles because it has a larger capture envelope and a damping mechanism (100).

Both of these systems are designed for unmanned vehicles and are still undergoing testing and validation (100).

Orbital Express Program:

The Orbital Express Program (OEP) was a Space technology experimentation and test mission operated by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) (102). The OEP demonstrated the ability to autonomously separate and re-mate two spacecraft, as well as transfer propellant, a spare flight computer and a battery. This program gave the United States its first successful ARD experience in space with unmanned vehicles (100). This was a giant step in the technological development of ARD systems, but the technology must be more thoroughly tested and proven before it can be used on manned spacecraft.

Requirements for Space Act Agreement for Cargo Transportation System Demonstration

Automated rendezvous and docking is a key enabling technology that will be needed to accomplish future missions planned by NASA and because of this, it is a requirement for this Space Act Agreement for Cargo Transport (100). Automated rendezvous and docking will help with on orbit assembly of larger units, crew exchange between vehicles, and the supply of orbital stations and depots (100). Automated rendezvous and docking is one of the many critical steps that must be taken to reach a sustainable space exploration program.

In order for a company to complete ARD they will be faced with many technical challenges that include the refining of sensors, relative and absolute navigation, and ARD hardware and software. The focus of the ARD requirement should be on the hardware and software that will need to be developed; because once it is developed it can be adapted to the vehicles that will be used to accomplish the Vision for Space Exploration.

Potential Requirements

1. Complete ARD with another spacecraft in space.

Automated rendezvous and docking will require a significant change in mindset, but it will provide large cost savings, risk reduction and the opportunity for many more mission modes (103).

ARD will be cost effective because a common set of generic docking algorithms can be used by multiple spacecraft, which will reduce the amount of software that will need to be developed. Costs will also be reduced because since manned control is no longer a primary part of rendezvous and docking, astronaut training can be greatly reduced.

C-11

ARD will also prove to be a risk reduction technology because as computers take over, there is little room for human error. The process will be much more accurate and precise because it will be controlled by on-board computers and complex algorithms (101).

2. Complete ARD without Ground Systems Communication

The lack of ground communication is a critical requirement because in distant planetary missions ground communication is not an option because it will take too long for a satellite and spacecraft to relay data back and forth during the docking process (103).

3. Complete ARD with an androgynous docking mechanism

An androgynous system is much more beneficial to the future exploration of space, because it is easier and cheaper to design future compatible vehicles. If one autonomous androgynous system can be developed by the US, than all future US spacecraft can be made to fit that specific system.

C-12

C.6 - Case Study: the Ansari X Prize

Origin of the Prize

The well-known Ansari X Prize created in 1996, was the first prize organized by the X Prize Foundation which was founded by Peter Diamandis in 1995. Diamandis was inspired by the Orteig Prize while reading the book The Spirit of St. Louis, and had the ambition to develop private access to space.

Fundraising

Diamandis had difficulty raising the required funds ($10 million): “I [Diamandis] finally placed a bet in an insurance policy, negotiating a multi-million dollar policy payment against a $10 million payout if the flights were successfully made by January 1, 2005. The premium for the policy was paid by Anousheh Ansari, and her name was given to the Prize” (104).

The Competition

The Ansari X Prize was a $10 million Prize offered to the first team to fly to an altitude of 100km twice in two weeks. The ship was required to have the capability to carry three people (or one pilot and a 2-people equivalent weight).

Twenty-six teams competed from 7 different countries for the prize and the total global investment was more than $100 million. The Prize was won on October 4, 2004, after three successful flights of the SpaceShipOne, designed and built by Burt Rutan, a legendary figure in aviation. Even after the Prize was over, several teams continued their work and scheduled several flights for passengers to go into space. Burt Rutan is currently designing a second spaceship which can carry five passengers, called SpaceShipTwo. Rutan now works with Richard Branson‟s Virgin Galactic, who is anticipating the emerging market of human space flight and wants a fleet of carriers to fly people into suborbital space. This operation with Virgin Galactic certainly makes Burt Rutan‟s company the best suited to launch the suborbital space market (which is not necessarily the case for all winning teams).

Lessons Learned & Impact

The Ansari X Prize was a revolution in private space flight. The private-companies-with- private-investment system reached success with much less money than any government-based initiative could expect.

One big issue was to build an appropriate regulatory system which would allow the private space flight market to grow in the United States. This regulatory system which was created shortly before the completion of SpaceShipOne allows private companies to launch their own experimental vehicles into space. Had the foundations of the systems not been established, SpaceShipOne would not have been allowed to fly. After the Ansari X Prize, Congress and the FAA built a more refined regulatory environment and created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation which provides permits for launch proposals, launch and re-entry proposals as

C-13 well as re-usable suborbital vehicles. This newly designed regulatory system makes United States the most attractive country to develop private human space flight in the world.

The Ansari X Prize definitely mitigated some doubt about commercial human space flights. It has been much easier for Peter Diamandis to raise money for the X PRIZE foundation after the Prize was won, and he earned respect and attention from the space industry. Investors now know that they can trust the prize model, and a huge amount of prizes were born out of the Ansari X Prize, in all the fields of science.

The Ansari X Prize was an “alternative financing engine” Peter Diamandis). Like the Orteig Prize, the Ansari X Prize proved that a prize could generate a total investment from all the donor‟s funds of a value ten times more than the actual purse. Moreover, the donors‟ funds used for the purse are effectively used because they are only paid and distributed if there is a winner.

One major lesson learned from this prize is that they began with a challenging, yet surmountable problem. Instead of beginning with an orbital flight, which is a much more complex challenge, a suborbital flight was targeted. A comparison can be made with aviation challenges, as the prize for the crossing of the English Channel occurred prior to the Orteig Prize, designed to cross the Atlantic Ocean – these represent two very different levels of aviation technology maturity.

As Diamandis‟ ambition was to convince the public that commercial spaceflight was possible, the Ansari X Prize had a very high visibility, which also helped to promote financial support of the teams (105). The X Prize Foundation kept supporting the competing teams by telling their stories, in order to reach the publics‟ perception

Concerning media coverage, the weakest aspect of the X Prize, according to Peter Diamandis himself, was that it was impossible to say where and when the Prize would be won. The competing teams were from several countries, and advanced at different speeds. It was also impossible to say whether the challenge could be won or not.

C-14

C.7 - NASA Centennial Challenges

The recent Centennial Challenges program launched by NASA is a stepping stone to apply the Prize philosophy to the aerospace field. This may be a new era for the use of prizes by a major U.S. government organization, as NASA is experimenting with the introduction of prizes to spur technology developments for its own goals.

The Centennial Challenges are founded on basic rules that are relevant to the prize culture. These six main lessons have been learned over the years from historic prizes and they include:

The simpler, the better

Objectives must be easily understood and should avoid complex rules and complex verification.

The correct level of difficulty

The balance has to be found between a Prize which would be too easy and one which would be too hard; a large degree of freedom has to be given to the competitors to let them choose the right pathway to fit the basic requirements.

Follow-On Opportunities

A prize is more successful when short-term economic opportunities can be found by the competitors.

Interest & Excitement

The prize has to create interest among potential competitors, investors, and foster public excitement.

Prize programs cannot stand alone

The purse is rarely enough to achieve the prize itself, it requires private investments which will almost always exceed the value of the prize.

Properly define the Prize

A prize might be won without fostering the development of the required technology. This would make the prize a failure, because the main goal is to foster the creation of something new.

Considering all of these lessons and guidelines, the difficulty is defining a prize that fosters innovation and is still feasible.

C-15

NASA‟s application of the Prize model lends credibility to the idea that the prize philosophy can be adapted to the development of space. It is extremely advantageous for NASA to use the prize model because prizes can provide investment with a high risk of failure which would otherwise be unacceptable for the government. In addition, the purse is only a fraction of what it would cost to NASA to actually produce the solution on their own.

These prizes are simple and relevant to the NASA program, and may make NASA goals more understood by the public.

C-16

C.8 - Prize Development Process

This part of the paper is a reflection on the process of designing a prize competition. It will provide the interested reader with the main elements that are necessary in such a process, as well as propose various questions and suggestions of an outline for a potential paper to build a good prize proposal.

This section was written largely with the assistance and guidance of the X Prize Foundation.

Prize Competition Proposal Outline

1) Introduction

Context This section explains the general issue and/or context in which the prize will take place. It can show a major lack in one particular field or the potential of a new market, which can each be the purpose of the prize. The Prize as a solution Introduces the concept of the prize and explains how it will address the current unknown, develop the potential market, and solve the general issue. The goal of the prize has to be clearly defined and simple. Success and Follow-ons What will be considered successful? What can be the follow-ons of the prize? What further developments are expected?

2) Benefits

This section has to show what partners, companies and/or organizations this Prize will involve, as well as show if the Prize will contribute to a specific policy (e.g. : NASA policy), or a country’s goals and missions. The prize designers must categorize all sectors which can be impacted by the prize development, and its success.

3) Polling Potential Interest

One of the major works which has to be accomplished in creating a prize is to poll interest among experts, scientists and investors, to be sure that the project is feasible, well received and supported. Interviews will also help the prize designers have a better idea of the reasonable prize requirements, as well as a fair purse amount which will be awarded. The prize-design committee has to address these three major questions:

Who might compete? How much might they spend? When will someone win?

C-17

These questions can be preliminarily answered by comparing and reviewing the information received by the interviewees.

Polling Methodology

We recommend short interviews of anywhere from 30 min to 1hour based on specific questionnaires (15-20 questions). Interviewees can be broken into three separate categories:

Mission experts: These people will bring their expertise on the technical aspect and feasibility of the prize Potential teams or team partners: This group includes private companies, universities, and individuals Potential financiers: This could include potential financers for the teams or for the purse

Two important tasks have to be realized in order for this large survey to occur:

Find potential interviewees in all three of these categories - talk to as many people as possible in order to compare opinions and raise new ideas Establish precise questions on the topic- Categorize these questions into three different questionnaires, one questionnaire for each group of interviewees

Important methodology elements of the questionnaire:

First and foremost, each interviewee should be informed that their responses will be kept confidential.

The questionnaires should:

Tackle technical, business, and legal issues Incorporate public outreach questions Incorporate a few questions for general brainstorming Collect opinions from the interviewees on several options for the design of the prize

The committee designing the prize and interviewing these three groups of people must include experts who will be able to analyze this survey, and adapt the answers to the prize development process.

4) Mission feasibility study

The goal of this part is to determine if the objectives of the prize are feasible in a realistic time frame. The balance will have to be found between a prize which will be too difficult and a prize which will be trivial, from a technological point of view. The interviews will help the committee experts to properly design their prize.

C-18

A good prediction of the state of technology in the years to follow the prize announcement is necessary here. It is critical to estimate what environment this prize may be developed and solved in, especially if the completion of the prize requires bridging a large technological gap.

The feasibility study can be supported by preceding prize analyses.

5) Purse distribution – tradeoff of various options

The committee will refine its preliminary study and the projected amount of purse.

This part explains the final calculation for the amount of purse. This section finalizes the prize amount as compared to the purse amount in the preliminary study which was just an estimate of the development cost for a sample team. The calculations that are performed may use scale factors taken from theoretical studies or preceding prizes, or the number may be rebuilt from scratch.

This section is also where additional options are developed, concerning secondary prizes and bonuses. Tables are well-suited for showing the trade-off, as this part will not be lengthy.

6) How will the Prize engage the public

This portion shows the committee's plans for external communication that will be used to actively engage the public. It will explain how the prize design committee team will build its own prize's philosophy, and organize events surrounding the prize competition. Events that can be organized around the prize include preliminary competitions, technology demonstrations, web casts, blogs, public shows, and public award ceremonies. This section will also show how the prize design team plans to involve private industry, students, universities and the government.

A preliminary budget may be suggested here, which can serve as a business plan.

7) Summary

In order to be successful, it is necessary to have the simplest prize possible. This summary is very important because it simplifies the prize and breaks down the elements of the prize so that it can be understood by all audiences. We suggest that the Prize be summarized and presented as an ID- page in the following outline:

Name of the prize: The more direct, the better Purse size: Time to achieve prize's objectives: -An estimation of the time frame that the Prize will be won in Description: -This should be split up into tasks of the challenge, and the tasks should be arranged in order of highest priority first -Each task description should be no longer than a couple of sentences Goal of overall prize:

C-19

-What the prize seeks to achieve at its conclusion Expected participation: -A listing of potential teams, companies or demographic markets Judging & Evaluation: -The judging and evaluation process that will determine a winner Main issues: -Explains the main challenges that teams will have to face Narrative: -Optional short text including any additional relevant information that did not fit anywhere else in the ID format

8) Appendix

List of contacts A list of the people that were interviewed, and were used as references. This list of contacts can be categorized according to the three sections of Mission Experts, Potential teams, and Potential financiers.

Questionnaires A list of all the questions that were asked in the interviews will be identified by their respective group (Mission Experts, Potential Teams, and Potential Financers).

All data and results The sorting, review, analysis and conclusion of the interviews is present in this section.

Philosophy of the prize This is an optional portion of the paper where the philosophy of the prize can be explained.

General interest in prizes Optional section where various resources are gathered, summarized, and sorted in some way, to show the general interest in prizes from various parties.

C-20

C.9 - Prize Competition Guidelines In order to design a successful prize competition, a number of simple guidelines must be followed. The items listed below are important considerations when designing a prize.

1) Define a goal, not a method for achieving that goal (105)

Competitors must have the freedom to choose how they will solve a given problem. The more requirements that are defined for a prize the less innovative the solution for the Prize will be. As witnessed during the Ansari X PRIZE, a plethora of diverse ideas came about; if the problem had been over constrained, the more innovative concepts such as SpaceShipOne may have never been allowed to compete.

2) Allow competitors the option to address other markets as they see fit (105)

The goal of prize competitions in the space industry is to seed and foster commercial development. One of the difficulties that aerospace companies have encountered is the lack of commercially viable operations in the industry. No commercial opportunities should be blocked during prize competitions as long as they do not interfere with the primary objectives of the Prize.

3) Allow participants to keep intellectual property (IP) rights (106)

If the goal of prize competitions is to foster innovation, it is essential that competitors maintain the rights to the system that they develop. If the prize organization were to demand that the innovator surrender rights to his or her system "at the extreme such a requirement would likely discourage potential entrants from participating for fear that if they won, they would lose control over their innovations." (NSF, 26) If competitors maintain IP rights, there is a greater likelihood of future profit

4) The goals of the prize should be simple and easily understood (105) (106)

This recommendation exists for multiple reasons. Clear competition goals allow the public to understand and become invested in the prize competition. In general, prize competitions should also avoid lengthy periods of testing, judging and verification. For example, in two of the most successful and well-known prizes in human history, the Ansari X PRIZE and the Orteig Prize, it was immediately apparent when the objectives had been met.

5) Resulting innovation has the potential to lead to future commercial opportunities (105)

It is essential that any prize competition lead to future commercial opportunities. One benefit of a prize competition is that the competitors often invest more money into developing their system than the prize itself is worth. It is the promise of future profit that makes this method financially plausible. If prizes were conducted in areas where no future opportunities exist, there would be no reason to invest beyond the size of the purse.

C-21

6) Goal should be lofty, yet achievable - should accelerate development in field (106)

It is essential that a rigorous feasibility study be undertaken in order to determine if a prize concept is technically and economically feasible. This is not to say however that the goals of the prize are to be trivial; they should represent what is on the edge of technical feasibility. Competitions should aim to accomplish a goal that would otherwise not occur during the duration of the prize. Goals for prize competitions should be placed at the edge of the current state of the art technology.

C-22

C.10 - Sample Prize Development Process

This section will provide an example of a prize development process. The following is a concept that calls for a prize for performing environmental characterization of the lunar surface. While this mission may prove to be unfeasible due to the inclusion of permanently-shadowed craters, our hope is that the general type of prize competition could be adapted to more accessible locations.

Context

On January 14, 2004 President George W. Bush announced his New Vision for the Space Exploration Program, and he challenged the United States to get man back on the lunar surface by 2020. In order for man to get back to the Moon, NASA and the private industry will be forced to complete lunar characterization missions in order to determine where the best landing sites, habitable regions and available resources exist. Currently there is a lot of information available about the lunar surface, but little is known about the lunar craters, specifically those that lie in permanent shadows at the poles. There are international missions (LRO, LCROSS, Chandrayaan I, Luna-Glob) that are being planned to explore these polar lunar craters. However, these missions will only conduct imaging and will seek to find if water ice exists in the craters' depths.

The Lunar Prize that we are creating will go beyond these future missions and will conduct a complete characterization of a permanently shadowed crater, which has never been done before by anyone in the space community.

Prize as a Solution

We think a good way to gain this crucial information is to create a new Prize to complement the current missions planned by the various space agencies. The goal will be to provide key measurements and information about the environment in permanently shadowed craters. Such a competition is well-suited to involve universities and other research entities, as well as develop interest among the international scientific community. Moreover, a prize competition can create a global scientific competition centered on lunar issues, which will be advantageous for the return to the Moon. This is opportunity for independent organizations to be involved in the international effort for the exploration of the solar system. The instruments used to process the characterizations may be secondary payloads on other robotics/manned lunar missions, and may thus provide another source of cash-flow for these missions.

Success and Follow-ons

If successful, not only would this prize provide valuable data on the environment in permanently-shadowed lunar craters, but it would verify a new prize model. This new model would provide smaller purses for data that could be used as a secondary funding source for commercial lunar missions. If this prize were successful, similar scientific prizes could be planned. These prizes are not necessarily the primary mission of a spacecraft, but instead C-23 provide an additional opportunity for private companies to make a return on their investment. In the future, it is hoped that when these companies design a business model around landing a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon, that they can choose a few appropriate prizes and receive compensation for the data they collect. Potential future prize competitions include temperature, radiation and micrometeorite characterization. In addition, simple technology demonstrations prize could also be of use, such as dust mitigation or drilling cores in the lunar regolith.

Polling Interest

This section contains a list of questions aimed toward mission experts, potential competitors and financiers. If the prize was designed further this section would contain the results of the polling.

Mission Experts

1) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most necessary, how would you rank the necessity of the currently selected characterization plan? a. Is this prize timely? 2) What aspects of the lunar environment need to be further characterized in order to support a sustained human or robotic presence on the Moon? a. What are the applications of this information? 3) What data is necessary to make this characterization successful? a. What mission profile will allow for this data to be collected? 4) Are these instruments appropriate as a secondary payload? 5) What do you see as prize parameters and specifications? Why? 6) How long do you think it would take for this challenge to be won? 7) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most feasible, how would you rank the feasibility of this prize competition? Why? a. What do you feel is the biggest technical challenge related to this prize? 8) How would the support of NASA affect the likelihood of success? a. What kind of support would you like to see NASA provide? 9) What do you think is an appropriate purse size? 10) How can universities be involved in the prize competition? a. What is the benefit? 11) Who are potential parties interested in funding this prize? 12) How do you monitor teams‟ progress? a. What would you define as key milestones? i. What type of notification should be given for these milestones? 13) How much money is this data worth? To NASA? To industry?

Potential Teams

C-24

a. What are the applications of this information? 3) What do you see as prize parameters and specifications? Why? 4) How long do you think it would take for this challenge to be won? 5) How much money do you think it would take to successfully complete this project? a. What do you think is an appropriate purse size? 6) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most feasible, how would you rank the feasibility of this prize competition? Why? a. What do you feel is the biggest technical challenge related to this prize? b. Explain mission profile recommended by experts: How does this affect the feasibility? 7) How would the support of NASA affect the likelihood of success? a. What kind of support would you like to see NASA provide? 8) Would you support university involvement in the prize competition? a. What are the benefits and disadvantages? 9) How would you like to interact with the administrator of the prize? a. How often would you like to provide progress reports? 10) Would you be open to certain public outreach activities such as keeping a regular blog of progress updates? 11) On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most interested, how would you rank your interest in this prize? Why? a. What can make this prize more attractive?

Financiers

1. What would you hope to gain in supporting a prize competition? 2. Do you feel supporting a prize of this magnitude is a worthwhile investment? a. If not, what would make this investment worthwhile? 3. What do you feel are the risks and rewards of financially supporting a prize or a competitor? 4. How much money do you feel is a reasonable purse for this prize? 5. Do you feel that this prize will generate economic activity in the aerospace industry? a. Will this potential cash-flow encourage commercialization of the Moon? 6. What would make financiers interested in supporting this prize competition? a. Would you be interested in supporting this prize competition in anyway, financially or otherwise? b. Would you be interested in supporting a competitor in anyway, financially or otherwise? 7. Would you support foreign participation in this prize competition? 8. What proportion of teams‟ funds should be from private investors?

Mission Feasibility Study

Radiation Environment

For interplanetary missions, such as manned missions back to the Moon, it will be necessary to know more about the radiation that the astronauts will encounter. Radiation in space is a huge problem because sudden solar storms and flares could cause the astronauts to

C-25 become extremely sick, or perhaps even die (107). During the Apollo Program, the longest missions were only a little over week, with the astronauts spending only a couple of days on the lunar surface. Going back to the Moon now with President Bush‟s vision will require much longer stays of weeks and months on the lunar surface. As humanity pushes forward, NASA and the international space community must be prepared to deal with this question of lengthy exposure to and protection from space radiation.

Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) have not had to deal as much with the effects of space radiation because the station is situated in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and it is still protected somewhat by the Earth‟s magnetic field (108) (109). Journeying to the Moon though will raise serious radiation issues as the astronauts are forced to travel outside Earth‟s protective field. A trip to the Moon has actually been considered by some to be more dangerous than a journey to Mars because once the astronauts arrive at the lunar surface, the Moon has no atmosphere and thus no natural shielding to protect them (108).

The two main types of radiation that the astronauts will have to face in interplanetary missions are solar particle events and galactic cosmic rays (GCR) (110). Solar particle events are unpredictable events in which particles from the Sun are shot into space following solar flares (111). This form of radiation is not unidirectional and will cause the need for shielding in all directions (110). Solar particle events will be dangerous on the Moon because the Moon lacks a strong magnetic field that is “capable of deflecting flare particles” (109). The second form of radiation, GCRs occur more often than solar particle events and are more hazardous but they are easier to predict. GCRs are made up of heavy, high energy ions of elements that have had all their electrons stripped from them as they travel through the galaxy at velocities near the speed of light. These rays are hazardous because they can virtually pass through matter (spacecraft, spacesuits and astronauts) without hindrance (111).

There may be regions on the lunar surface where there is less radiation present and where it may be more beneficial to setup lunar habitats and bases. One such region of lesser radiation might be in the depth of a permanently shadowed lunar crater. It has been shown that on the Moon‟s surface because of the lunar shadow, radiation is reduced by a factor of two (112). Based off of this information, it is logical to conclude that in a permanently shadowed crater the space radiation should be further reduced and provide a natural form of radiation protection to the astronauts. Being situated in a crater may also help to mitigate some of the radiation because the lunar regolith can be used to absorb and stop most protons from a solar particle event or GCRs. This in-situ resource can help reduce the radiation to more manageable levels (113). However, being in a crater could also provide added radiation danger because of the chance of secondary deflection of rays and particles off of the crater walls.

Before deciding where it is best to settle and construct habitats on the Moon, lunar craters need to be explored. It is critical that we send a rover or lander down into one of the permanently shadowed craters to see what radiation conditions exist, because these craters may not be as susceptible to space radiation. Lunar craters have not been heavily explored yet and because of their geography and unique conditions, yet they may be the best option for protection from space radiation for extended stays on the lunar surface.

C-26

Water Detection

The search for water is something of enormous importance to any future long-term operations on the Moon. Current launch costs for one kilogram of water to go to the Moon are about $2,000-$20,000 (114). Additionally, to make matters worse, water is a relatively dense and heavy molecule.

Water will have enormous potential in the future on a Moon base for a large variety of uses. Most obviously, water will be needed for drinking, cleaning, and cooking. Water is something that man cannot live without. Water can also be used for things like growing plants on the Moon. The growth of plants in space would be very beneficial towards maintaining a healthy atmosphere at the lunar base. Plants are a source of fresh food, which would definitely be a welcomed change to the common freeze dried food that is sent into space with the astronauts.

Water can also be broken down by electricity into molecules. From it molecular structure, water can be further separated into hydrogen and oxygen atoms which in turn have their own unique uses. The oxygen most obviously can be used as breathable air, as well as for rocket fuel. Hydrogen can also be used as rocket fuel. If ships could be refueled on the Moon or be refueled in space with resources from the Moon, launching things into orbit and beyond would become significantly cheaper.

So now the question of is there water on the Moon becomes key for future missions, because water sustains life. A follow up question that must be asked if water is found is will there enough water for it to be of practical use? Astronomers believe that if water is on the Moon it will most likely to be found in the permanently shadowed craters. This is hypothesized because since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the sun causes the lit side of the Moon to be very hot, quickly evaporating any water that is on the surface. This means that any water exposed to sunlight would boil off the surface of the Moon and leave the Moon since the gravity is so weak. Thus it is believed that water could really exist only in the permanently shadowed craters at the poles.

There are several things that back this theory up. In 1996, the Clementine spacecraft used a special kind of radar to study the surface of the Moon. The results of this instrument came back with a strong possibility of very large deposits of water in the north and south poles. Later the Lunar Prospector in 1998 detected large amounts of hydrogen using Neutron Spectrometer at the poles. It is believed that these hydrogen atoms are contained in water molecules.

Another cause for hope is that very recently, NASA scientists discovered that there were very small particles of water inside some of the lunar rocks retrieved during the Apollo missions. So there is at the least definite proof that water exists on the Moon, whether it is in quantities that are helpful for men has yet to be determined (115).

C-27

Electrostatic Environment

The electrostatic environment of the Moon is something that is not yet fully understood by NASA scientists. This data is of vital importance to understand for future missions. Lunar dust has been widely thought to be one of the most pressing concerns for future missions. The Apollo astronauts quickly recognized the problems that lunar dust could pose in the future when they were on the lunar surface. The lunar dust is very fine and charged so that it sticks to the suits of the astronaut, to the point of almost making them unusable. The dust could also pose a problem inside of the spacecraft, because it is impossible to get all of the dust off of the spacesuits. In addition, the dust may prove to be toxic if inhaled, causing significant respiratory symptoms. NASA is furiously working on technology to mitigate the effects of the dust and minimize its effects on future operations on the Moon. An important part of these studies is to understand what causes the dust to be electrostatically charged.

It is currently believed that the dust becomes charged due to solar wind. The sun releases charged particles and most of these are stopped from entering Earth by the Earth‟s magnetosphere. The Moon though has no magnetosphere, and thus is not protected from these charged particles which bombard the surface. The sunlit side of the Moon becomes positively charged, while the dark side of the Moon becomes negatively charged. An interesting question is to know what the permanently dark craters are like and how they interact with the permanently lit regions. Do they have a charge difference? There is a charge difference between the dark side of the Moon and the light side of the Moon of hundreds of volts. If there is indeed a similarly large voltage difference at the line between the permanently dark regions and the permanently lit regions of the crater, this could make things much more complicated for anyone or anything traveling between the two regions.

Another concern is the line between the light and the dark sides of the Moon. There are theories that there could be dust storms at this line. This could be of particular concern if a base was built near Shackleton Crater at the southern pole. Dust particles could be electrostatically repulsed from the surface of the Moon and literally float. Complex interactions with the magnetotail and the particles inside it could create dust storms and create severe problems for astronauts and probes. It is important that the dust environment be characterized in a meaningful way.

C-28

C.11 - List of Select Aerospace Prizes

America’s Space Prize Sponsors: Bigelow Aerospace Status: America‟s Space Prize was established by Bigelow Aerospace in 2004.

Rules: The rules were made to encourage the development of an orbital vehicle that could dock with Bigelow Aerospace‟s inflatable station modules by an American company. The prize offered was $50 million. The vehicle needed to perform two orbital flights carrying 5 people within 60 days of each other by 2010 (116).

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? Since 2004, it has largely disappeared from radar. To further encourage the development of an orbital vehicle, in 2007 Bigelow promised a $760 million contract to an orbital vehicle that could provide transportation to its station modules (117). In early 2008, it was announced that Bigelow was in discussions with Lockheed Martin to man-rate its Atlas V rockets and to develop a vehicle that could go to its modules (118).) In hindsight, it appears that Bigelow was a little ambitious with setting the date for completion of the prize.

Participants: Several teams were speculated to compete, including InterOrbitalSystems (119), JP Aerospace (120), and SpaceDev (121). SpaceX was disqualified because it accepted government funding (122).

Apophis Mission Design Competition Sponsors: The Planetary Society Status: This competition has been won in 2008 by a team led by SpaceWork Engineering, Inc. of Atlanta (Georgia).

Rules: Teams must design a mission to rendezvous with a potentially dangerous asteroid, and tag it, allowing scientists on Earth to track it. The required accuracy should allow scientists to know whether or not the asteroid will impact the Earth. Apophis was used as the near-Earth asteroid in the competition. In 2029, it will come closer to Earth than the satellites in geostationary orbit.

How does this contribute to commercial development of space?

C-29

This allows private companies as well as universities to be involved in the design of complex missions, fostering their interest in space. Teams were from 20 different countries, which demonstrates that prizes can span several engineering cultures while focusing on a common issue.

Participants:: Foresight (SpaceWorks Engineering, Inc., SpaceDev Inc.), United States A-Track (Deimos Space, EADS Astrium, University of Stuttgart, University of Pisa), Europe Apex (EADS Astrium Ltd.), United Kingdom Many student teams were also participating : Pharos (Georgia Institute of technology), United States Oracle (Monash University, Clayton Campus), Australia RA (University of Michigan), United States

Centennial Challenge – Lunar Lander Challenge Sponsors: Northrop Grumman Status: The challenge has not been won last year (Armadillo Aerospace missed the goals by 7 seconds). In 2008 the competition takes places on October 24th.

Rules: The teams must build a rocket-powered vehicle with vertical take-off and landing capabilities, and that travels horizontally. During the competition the vehicle will have to take- off, move to another spot, land, then take-off again and land back at the original take-off point.

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? Successful completion of the prize will force private companies to acquire key technologies for the future vehicles on the Moon. Thus these vehicles and technologies may interest NASA for its missions, as well as other companies that have commercial interest on the Moon. It is a necessary step on which will rely many commercial activities related to the colonization of the Moon.

Participants: Armadillo Aerospace BonNova Phoenicia Paragon TrueZer0 Unreasonable Rocket

All of these teams are US-based.

C-30

Centennial Challenges - 2008 Power Beaming (Climber Competition) Sponsors: The challenge is administered by The Spaceward Foundation and funded by NASA‟s Centennial Challenges program. Status: The competition for this event takes place in late September at a location to be determined. This prize was announced in 2005 and has been offered yearly since.

Rules: The climber cannot be more than 50 kg while carrying a maximum amount of payload. They will be scored by taking into account the climber‟s weight, payload weight, and speed of ascent. The overall prize is called Elevator2010 to facilitate the development of technology necessary for a space elevator by 2010. For this prize, a climber vehicle will climb a 1 km tether with a payload. The climber is powered via solar cells which are powered by a laser on the ground. The foundation has $2 million to distribute in prizes for accomplishing these goals. If a vehicle climbs 2m/s, then it could win $900,000. If a climber climbs at 5m/s, then it can win $1,100,000. Other teams that climb will follow a formula that will calculate the amount of prize money that they win.

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? A space elevator would hopefully dramatically decrease the launch costs to a point of an eventual $100/kg, a huge drop in price from modern rockets which can run over $24,000 for the Ariane V (123) .

Participants: Many of the teams that are competing for this prize consist of universities and other small businesses.

Centennial Challenges - 2008 Tether Strength Competition Sponsor: The challenge is administered by The Spaceward Foundation and funded by NASA‟s Centennial Challenges program. Status: The competition for this event takes place in September 2008. This prize was first announced in 2005 and has been offered every year since then (124).

Rules: The tether can weigh only 2 grams, it must be at least 2 meters long, and less than 200 mm wide. To win the purse of $1 million provided by NASA‟s Centennial Challenges and administered also by The Spaceward Foundation, a tether must beat a house tether and perform better than a certain competition specified requirement. The prize is then distributed among the competing teams in amounts determined by using a specific formula. The rules are still being formulated to some extent.

How does this contribute to commercial development of space?

C-31

One of the requirements for a space elevator also is to create a tether that is light enough but also strong enough to fulfill the rigorous requirements needed for such a venture. Nanotubes are believed to be the most possible material that can allow for these requirements.

Participants: Many of the teams that are competing for this prize consist of universities and other small businesses.

Centennial Challenges - Astronaut Glove Sponsors: NASA sponsors the prize and it is managed by Volanz Aerospace, Inc. Status: In 2007 Peter Homer won the prize of $200,000 for his glove design (125). According the NASA website another purse of $400,000 is planned for Spring 2009, but no details could be located.

Rules : The purpose of this challenge is to develop glove joint technology, which will result in a highly dexterous and flexible glove that can be used by astronauts over long periods without the fear of wear and tear or leaks. A competitive glove must meet a series of minimum performance requirements before it can be entered into the competition. In the competition the glove must then go through a series of tests, such as the Joint Force Test, the Structural Pressure Test, Dexterity and Flexibility Test, and a Burst Test. The glove that has the highest scores, which are above the Baseline Glove (“The bladder-restraint portion of the Glove currently certified for use by NASA on the International Space Station, the Phase VI EVA Glove (126)(2)”) will win the prize of $200,000. (2)

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? This challenge has contributed greatly to the commercialization of space, because the winner Peter Homer developed his own private company to produce spacesuit gloves. Today his company has a contract to make gloves for another company that is producing spacesuits for the private suborbital spaceflight industry. This is just one example of how a Centennial Challenge not only led to the development of a very useful technology but also a new private company.

Participants: The likely participants are small US companies or single engineers. The competition is open to teams and individuals. The competitions is also open to foreign participants, but the team leader must be a US citizen and the organization must be either based in the US or have offices in the US.

Centennial Challenges - Lunar Regolith Excavation Sponsors: NASA sponsors the prize and the California Space Education & Workforce Institute manages the prize (127). The challenge is co-hosted by California Space Authority (CSA) and the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo College of Engineering (128). The

C-32 event is sponsored by Diani Building Corporation, Empirical Systems Aerospace, and the California Business Transportation and Housing Agency (128).

Status: This is an ongoing prize that teams compete every year for. In the 2007 competition no one won the purse, so there will be another round of competition on August 2-3, 2008.

Rules: The teams must use a fully autonomous system to excavate the most lunar regolith simulant in 30 minutes from a square sandbox. The system used must not exceed 150 Watts, averaged over the time of the attempt. The excavation hardware that the teams use must also not exceed 70kg. Those teams that complete the challenge successfully and excavate the most regolith are eligible to receive First, Second or Third Prize of $500,000, $150,000.00 and $100,000 respectively in US dollars (129).

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? This prize tackles the problem of construction techniques on the Moon. If this prize results in a new way to move the regolith without a lot of power and heavy machinery, private companies can use this technique to help construct their own products on the Moon. Also, this may help some private companies who are looking into the possibility processing and using the natural resources of the Moon, because excavating is the first crucial step in this process.

Participants: There will be at least 20 team returning from the 2007 competition who will try again for the purse this year in 2008. Most of the teams are made up of university students (125).

N-Prize Sponsors: A private organization called the N-Prize Group Status: The challenge is ongoing and the rules went into effect on May 6, 2008. The contest will end on 19:19:09 (GMT) on the 19th September 2011, and it may be continued if no one has won the prize.

Rules: “The N-Prize is a challenge to launch an impossibly small satellite into orbit on a ludicrously small budget, for a pitifully small cash prize.” The N-Prize challenges participants to put a satellite with a mass of between 9.99 and 19.99 grams into orbit around Earth. The participants must prove that the satellite has completed at least 9 orbits, and the cost of launch, not including ground facilities must be less than £999.99. The first team to do this will receive a cash prize of £9, 999.99 (130).

How does this contribute to commercial development of space?

C-33

This competition is very helpful to commercial development because it tackles one of the biggest problems in the space industry: high launch costs. This prize is directed at finding and developing a launch technique that will be extremely in expensive. If launch costs are dramatically reduced, that will be one barrier of entry to the commercialization of space that will be brought down.

Participants: Team Nebula, United Kingdom Team Epsilon Vee, United States Team Vulcan, South Africa Team ASATA, Australia Team Generation Space, United States Team Odyssey, United States

V-Prize Name of Prize: V-Prize Status: The V-Prize is a prize currently under development. There are current hurdles to overcome before this prize is even feasible, including international treaties and regulatory issues.

Rules: The prize is for a commercial vehicle that can fly from the US to Europe within one hour. The craft will launch from Virginia (thus the V-Prize) and land in a country yet to be determined. The expiration date on the prize is July 1, 2013, coinciding with the expiration date of the Spaceflight Liability and Immunity Act of Virginia, a law which releases the company from liability for passenger injury. This expiration date could be subject to change, especially if it is planned that the law will be extended. The prize value will be from $10-25 million (131).

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? This prize would encourage the development of quick trans-Atlantic travel and ensure that Virginia and its spaceport would have a presence in the future of the space industry.

1 - de Brem, Paul. "The V-Prize: one hour to Europe." The Space Review 27 Aug 2007 6 Aug 2008 .

Centennial Challenge - MoonROx Challenge

Sponsors: Prize sponsored by NASA Centennial Challenges Program, administrated by California Space Education and Workforce Institute Status: Ongoing

C-34

Rules: A $1 million dollar purse will be awarded to the first team that can demonstrate the ability to extract 2.5kg of breathable oxygen from lunar regolith simulant in four hours. The prize expires in July 2009. The equipment cannot weigh more than 50 kilograms, power cannot exceed 10 kW and the system must be reusable (131).

How does this contribute to commercial development of space? “The production of oxygen from materials on the Moon has been a subject of great interest to NASA for many years. Most scenarios for human activity on the Moon involve the use of its natural resources. There is a large amount of oxygen on the Moon, but it is bound up in compounds and extracting it may require large amounts of power and large, massive machinery. This challenge seeks novel approaches to oxygen production with systems that are small, lightweight and require small amounts of power. Advancements in this field would enable much more capable human establishments on the Moon and eventually at other destinations in the solar system” (132).

Participants: University teams and the private sector have expressed interest but no teams have registered as of January 2008 (133).

C-35

C.12 – Current Characterization Plans

Type of Mission Launch Date Scientific Objectives China (CNSA) Three-dimensional image mapping of lunar geological structures -Detailed images of the lunar pole regions

Chang'e 1 (In Analyze the existence and distribution of 14 chemical conjunction with Orbiter 24-Oct-07 elements on the Moon ESA)1,21 Measure the depth of the lunar soil

To explore the cislunar space environment, specifically the space weather Duplicate of Chang'e 1

2,3,22 Further Chang'e 1 Mission Objectives Chang'e 2 Orbiter 2009

Investigate possible landing sites for the future lander and rover Objectives are unclear and are currently being planned

Future Planned Lander, 22,23 2012 Transmit video footage Rover Rover Analyze soil samples and complete in-situ testing in preparation for the 2017 sample return mission Lander, Future Planned Rover, Sample Return 2017 23 Return Land and return to the Earth with lunar soil and rock Mission Vehicle samples for scientific research Japan (JAXA)

Study the Origin of the Moon and its geological evolution

Global survey of the Moon -Obtaining data on elemental abundance -Mineralogical composition Selenological and -Topography Engineering -Geology Orbiter 14-Sep-07 Explorer- SELENE -Gravity (Kaguya)4,5,6 -Lunar and solar-terrestrial plasma environments

Develop critical technologies for future lunar exploration -Lunar polar orbit injection -Three-axis attitude stabilization -Thermal control -Radio Science and Communication

C-36

Study internal structure, composition and origin of the Moon through the following methods: Cancelled- -Observe Moonquakes and heat flow by inserting 7 Orbiter, Possibly penetrators LUNAR-A Penetrator Contracted for -Observe the lunar surface by imagery. Luna-Glob Investigate and determine whether or not the Moon has a core Testing and validation of technologies for sample & return missions from the Moon -In-situ analysis and returned sample analysis -Integrated landing system Orbiter, -Navigation system for pin-point landing & 8 Lander, autonomous obstacle avoidance - SELENE 2 Mid 2010's Rover Power generation system for an extended period of Penetrator time -Surface mobility to support material sampling, analysis and instrumentation

Investigate the origin of the Moon European Space

Agency (ESA) Comprehensive inventory of key chemical elements on the lunar surface

Investigation of the theory that the Moon was created by a violent collision of a smaller planet with Earth

Test a solar-powered ion thruster propulsion system Small Missions for

Advanced Research Orbiter 27-Sep-03 Test the use of miniaturized instruments, which are and Technology 1 9 considered to be more efficient (SMART 1)

Search for frozen water at the Moon's south pole where the surface is never exposed to sunlight

Map the lunar surface by way of X-ray and infrared imaging, taking images from several different angles so that it can produce a 3D map United States of

America (NASA) Provide Global Lunar data, such as: -Day and night temperature maps -Global geodetic grid -High resolution color imaging -The Moon's UV albedo

Lunar No earlier than Characterize the lunar radiation environment and the Reconnaissance Orbiter November 24, potential impacts Orbiter (LRO)10 2008 Collect orbital thermal mapping data -Surface and subsurface temperatures

Identify cold traps and ice deposits and, as well as landing hazards (rough terrain)

C-37

Search for surface ice and frost in the polar regions

Generate high resolution maps of the hydrogen distribution

Collect Space and lunar radiation environment measurements

Measure landing site slopes, lunar surface roughness, and generate a high resolution 3D map of the Moon

Provide images of permanently shadowed regions by using ultraviolet imaging

Identify the Moon's permanently lit and shadowed areas by analyzing lunar surface elevations

Collect high resolution black and white images of the lunar surface -Images of the lunar poles with resolutions down to 1m

Image the lunar surface in color and ultraviolet

Analysis and characterization of the impact plume from Lunar Crater No earlier than Centaur Upper Stage striking a permanently shadowed Observation and November 24, Impactor region near the south pole of the Moon Sensing Satellite 2008, on board 11 -Looking for water, hydrocarbons and hydrated (LCROSS) LRO materials Measure the gravity field in extreme detail Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory Orbiter 2011 The gravity field information will be used to X-ray the Moon (GRAIL)12 to reveal the Moon's subsurface structures and thermal history Characterize the atmosphere and the lunar dust environment

Determine the global density, composition, and time variability of the lunar atmosphere

Lunar Atmosphere Test a new spacecraft design called the "Modular Common and Dust Orbiter 2011 Bus" Environment Explorer 13 -Flexible, low cost, rapid turn around spacecraft (LADEE)

Determine if the Apollo astronaut sightings of diffuse emission at 10s of km above the surface were Na glow or dust

Collect critical data on dust impactor environment India (ISRO)

C-38

High-resolution remote sensing of the Moon in visible, near infrared(NIR), low energy X-rays and high-energy X-ray regions

Create a 3D atlas (with spatial and altitude resolution of 5- 10m) of both near and far side of the Moon

Conduct mapping of the lunar surface for the following elements in the permanently shadowed north and south pole regions: -Magnesium (Resolution of about 25km) -Aluminum -Silicon Chandrayaan I14 Orbiter 19-Sep-08 -Calcium -Iron -Titanium -Radon (Resolution of about 20km) -Uranium -Thorium

Search for surface or sub-surface water-ice on the Moon, specially at lunar poles

Observation of X-ray spectrum greater than 10 keV and stereographic coverage of most of the Moon's surface with 5m resolution, to provide new insights in understanding the Moon's origin and evolution Chandrayaan II (Joint Orbiter, mission with the 2011-2012 In situ chemical analysis and resource exploration of the 15 Rover Russia) lunar surface Russia

(Roscosmos) Explore the south pole craters for water ice that may exist in Orbiter, the permanently shadowed regions Luna-Glob16 Lander, 2012 Penetrator Conduct seismic experiments through the use of the 13 penetrators that will be scattered around the lunar surface -Helps further the investigation of the Moon's origin United Kingdom

(BNSC)

Use of penetrating seismometers to investigate the lunar Moon Lightweight interior to analyze Moonquakes and heat flows Interior and Telecoms Orbiter, 2012 Experiment Penetrator Determine the chemical and physical structure of the Moon’s (MoonLITE)17,18 interior from the data from the seismometers

Demonstration of high data rate telecoms at the Moon 17,19 In-situ geological dating of basalts at the northern Oceanus MoonRaker Lander 2013 Procellarum Germany (DLR)

C-39

Map the Moon geomorphologically, geochemically and geophysically with resolutions down to less than 1m

Global imaging coverage of the lunar surface -Stereo resolutions of less than 1 m -Spatial resolutionof the spectral bands of less than 10 m

Global Mapping of the ultraviolet (0.2 – 0.4 μm) and mid- infrared (7 - 14 μm) wavelengths, that have so far been Lunarer uncovered Erkundungsorbiter - engl.: Lunar Orbiter 2012 Global coverage and subsurface detection of the regolith Exploration Orbiter with vertical resolutions of about 3 m down to a few ten (LEO)20 meters -Investigates the regolith’s structure on a millimeter scale for the first 2 m

Detailed measuring of the lunar gravity field and magnetic field from a low orbit -Enables geophysical investigation of the lunar far side.

Monitoring of new impacts with the use of a flash detection camera

REFERENCES

1. Opgenoorth, H. ―Chang'e-1 - new mission to Moon lifts off.‖ ESA News. 24 Oct 2007. 09 July 2008 .

2. Staff Writers Beijing (XNA), (2008, February 26). ―China To Launch Chang'e-2 Lunar Probe Around 2009.‖ Space Daily. 26 Feb 2008. 09 July 2008 .

3. ―Chinese Lunar Exploration Program.‖ Wikipedia. 2008. 09 July 2008 .

4. ―KAGUYA (SELENE).‖ Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. 2007. 10 July 2008 .

5. Okumura, H., Matsui, K., Sobue, S., Takizawa, Y. and SELENE Project. ―Overview of SELENE(KAGUYA) and HDTV Movie show.‖ NASA- LCROSS Workshop at ARC. 29 Feb 2008. 10 July 2008 .

C-40

6. Fang, L. ―Kaguya(SELENE) - JAXA Lunar Obiter Mission (Japan, 2007).‖ CCTV.com. 10 Oct 2007. 10 July 2008 .

7. ―LUNAR-A.‖ JAXA- Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. 2008. 10 July 2008. .

8. Hashimoto, T. ―Robotic Lunar Exploration Scenario- JAXA Plan.‖ European Space Agency. May 2006. 08 July 2008 .

9. ―SMART-1 Fact Sheet.‖ European Space Agency. 26 Feb 2007. 07 July 2008 .

10. ―Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2008. 08 July 2008 .

11. Day, B. ―LCROSS- Mission.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Sep 2006. 09 July 2008 .

12. Hautaluoma, Grey. ―Solar System Exploration: News & Events.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 11 Dec 2007. 10 July 2008 .

13. Williams, G. ―NASA Science- Missions- LADEE.‖ National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 02 Apr 2008. 11 July 2008 .

14. ISRO. ―Chandrayaan-1 Objectives.‖ Indian Space Research Organization. 16 Jan 2007. 09 July 2008 .

15. Staff Writers New Delhi (PTI), ―China India And Russia Begin Talks On Chandrayaan-II.‖ Space Daily. 19 Dec 2007. 08 July 2008. .

16. Covault, C. ―Russia Plans Ambitious Robotic Lunar Mission.‖ Aviation Week. 04 June 2006. 11 July 2008 .

17. Maddock, J. ―Europe forges long-term strategy for Space Exploration.‖ Physics and Astronomy Research Council. 10 Jan 2007. 11 July 2008 .

C-41

18. ―NASA may support UK in ground-breaking MoonLITE mission.‖ Gizmag. 20 Feb 2008. 12 July 2008 .

19. Davies, P. & et. al. "UK LUNAR SCIENCE MISSIONS." IEEE Xplore. 2008. 12 July 2008 .

20. Jaumann, R, & et. al. ―Lunar Exploration Orbiter (LEO).‖ Geophysical Research Abstracts, EGU General Assembly 2008. 2008. 12 July 2008 .

21. Enjie, L. ―Payloads of Chang‘e-1--China‘s Lunar Exploration Program.‖ China National Space Administration. 08 Mar 2007. 09 July 2008 .

22. CRI. ―China to launch Chang'e-1 duplicate in 2009.‖ CHINA.ORG.CN. 2 Dec 2007. 9 July 2008 .

23. Guodong, D. ―China to launch Chang'e-2 lunar probe around 2009.‖ China View. 22 Feb 2008. 9 July 2008 .

C-42

Sources

Billings, Linda. "How Shall we Live in Space? Culture, Law and Ethics in Spacefaring Society." Space Policy 22.4 (2006): 249-55.

Christol, Carl Q. "International Outer Space Law." Space Policy 3.1 (1987): 65-71.

Danilenko, Gennady M. "International Law-Making for Outer Space." Space Policy 5.4 (1989): 321-9.

―Intellectual Property and Space Activities.‖ International Bureau of WIPO 2004.

Kempf, Robert F. "Legal Ramifications of Intellectual Property." Government Information Quarterly 7.2: 197.

Landenberger, Janene L. "Protection of Intellectual Property in Space." Booz, Allen, & Hamilton Matte, N. M. "Legal Implications of the Exploration & Uses of the Moon & Other Celestial Bodies." Acta Astronautica 30 (1993): 423-42.

Reynolds, Glenn H. "Legislative Comment: The Patents in Space Act." Forum on Space Law 3.Spring Issue (1990).

Von der Dunk, Frans G. "The Role of Law with Respect to Future Space Activities." Space Policy 12.1 (1996): 5-8.

Williams, Vernon E. ―Intellectual Property Rights at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center.‖ NASA Technical Memorandum 106731., 1994.

Williamson, Mark. "Lunar Exploration and development—A Sustainable Model." Acta Astronautica 57.2-8 (2005): 161-6.

―A Renewed Spirit of Discovery.‖ The White House: President George W. Bush. 3 Aug 2008 .

―ESMD Commercial Development Policy (ECDP)‖. NASA: Exploration and Science Mission Directorate. 3 Aug 2008 .

―NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1.‖ NASA. 3 Aug 2008 .

Noichim, Chukeat. ―The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space of the EU and Thailand.‖ Thailand Lawyers Attoneys & Legal Services. 3 Aug 2008 .

―US National Space Policy.‖ Office of Space Commercialization. 3 Aug 2008 . ―Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies‖. Office for Outer Space Affairs. 2006. United Nations. 05 July 2008 .

―The Antarctic Treaty‖. Office of Polar Programs. 26 Jan 2007. National Science Foundation. 05 July 2008 .

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Unites States Department of State. 05 July 2008 .

―United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea‖. The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center. 2007. United Nations. 05 July 2008

The World Factbook. 19 June 2008. Central Intelligence Agency. 05 July 2008 < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html#Intro>.

Dinerman, Taylor. "ITAR's Failure." The Space Review. 17 Mar. 2008. 21 July 2008 .

Finarelli, Margaret, and Joseph Alexander. Space Science and the Internatinoal Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop. Rep.No. Space Studies Board, National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academies P, 2008.

Kennedy, Jack. "ITAR Has Hamstrung the American Space Industry." Spaceports. 12 June 2006. 21 July 2008 .

Livingston, David, prod. "Interview with Ann Ganzer, Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy." The Space Show. 12 Feb. 2006.

"Official ITAR and Ammendments." US State Department - Policy - Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. 2 Apr. 2008. 3 July 2008 .

Taylor, Alan, ed. Defense Industrial Base Assessment: US Space Industry. Rep.No. Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. Dayton, 2007.

R. Lee, Hunt and Hunt Lawyers, "Property and Mining Rights for Lunar Mining Operations in the Absence of International Consensus on the Moon Agreement" 54th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, Bremen IAC-03-IAA.10.2.02 (Sep. 29-3, 2003): 1-11.

Wasser, Alan and Jobes, Douglas. "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive?" Journal of Air Law and Commerce 73.1 (2008): 38-78.

"National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended)." NASA History Division. 18 Feb 2004. 5 Aug 2008 .

"NPD 1050.1H." NASA Online Directives Information System. 29 Nov 2006. NASA. .

Epp, Dr. Chirold D., and Thomas B. Smith. "The Autonomous Precision Landing and Hazard Detection and Avoidance Technology (ALHAT)." NASA. 2006. 5 Aug 2008 .

Fehse, Wigbert. "Automated Docking and Rendezvous of Spacecraft." Cambridge University. 2003. 6 Aug 2008 .

K. Davidian. ―Prizes, Prizes‘ Culture, and NASA‘s Centennial Challenges,‖ NASA Headquarters.

Krohmal, Benjamin. "Prominent Innovation Prizes And Reward Programs." Knowledge Ecology International . 01 Mar 2007. 6 Aug 2008 .

Pidwirny, Michael. "Solar radiation." The Encyclopedia of Earth. 2008. 6 Aug 2008 .

Barry, Patrick L.. "Prospecting for Lunar Water." Science @ NASA, 6 Aug 2008 .

Dalton, Brad. "Water on the Moon?." SPACE.com, 6 Aug 2008 .

Philips, Dr. Tony. " The Moon and the Magnetotail." Science @ NASA. 09 Jun 2005. NASA. 6 Aug 2008 .

"X PRIZE Foundation Announces Ten Teams Vying for Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge." SpaceRef.com. 05 Aug 2008. X Prize Foundation. 6 Aug 2008 .

"2008 Power Beaming (Climber) Competition." The Spaceward Foundation. 2008. 6 Aug 2008 .

Braukus , Michael and Metzada Shelef. "NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges' Prizes." NASA News. 23 Mar 2005. 6 Aug 2008 .

Raitt, Dr. David and Dr Bradley Edwards. "THE SPACE ELEVATOR: ECONOMICS AND APPLICATIONS." International Astronautical Congress. 2004. 6 Aug 2008 .

"2008 Tether Strength Competition." The Spaceward Foundation. 2008. 6 Aug 2008 .

―European Patent Office‖ European Patent Office. Jul 2008

Krohmal, Benjamin. "Prominent Innovation Prizes And Reward Programs." Knowledge Ecology International . 01 Mar 2007. 6 Aug 2008 .

Taylor, Lawrence A. and W. David Carrier III. "Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which Processes Are Best and Why?." AIAA Journal Dec 1992 03 Aug 2008.

H. Benaroya, "Doing Business on the Moon." 55th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law, Vancouver, British Columbia, Oct. 4-8, 2004

M. B. Duke, R. J. Gustafson, E. E. Rice, "Mining of Lunar Polar Ice." Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 36th, Reno, NY, January 12-15 1998

Schmitt, Harrison. "Mining the Moon." Popular Mechanics October 2004 3 Aug 2008 .

S.D. Ross, "Near-Earth Asteroid Mining." Control and Dynamical Systems, California Institute of Technology MC 107-81, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA, 2001, p. 1-24

"Columbus Leaves Europe, Heads for America." NASA. 23 May 2006. 3 Aug 2008 .

"Kibo Japanese Experiment Module." NASA. 23 Nov 2007. 3 Aug 2008 .

US Government Accountability Office, "NASA‘S DEEP SPACE NETWORK: Current Management Structure Is Not Conducive to Effectively Matching Resources with Future Requirements." US Government Accountability Office. Apr 2006. 4 Aug 2008 .

Mudgway, Douglas J.. "Uplink-Downlink, A History of the Deep Space Network 1957-1997." NASA. 2001. 4 Aug 2008 .

Benaroya, Haym, Leonhard Bernold, and Koon Meng Chua. "Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases." Journal of Aerospace Engineering April 2002 .

D.A. Comstock, D. L. (D.A. Comstock, D. Lockney, ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects for Future Benefits‖, AIAA ConfeSeptember 18-20 2007 ). ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects for Future Benefits‖. AIAA Conference and Exposition , AIAA2007- 6283.

"Innovative Partnerships Program." NASA. 10 July 2008. 5 Aug 2008 .

―Blue Origin Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company. .

―Xcor Aerospace.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company. .

―Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company. .

―The Boeing Company.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company .

―Lockheed Martin Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company .

―Northrop Grumman Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company .

―European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company EADS N.V.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company .

Taylor, Lawrence A. and W. David Carrier III. "Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which Processes Are Best and Why?." AIAA Journal Dec 1992 03 Aug 2008.

M. B. Duke, R. J. Gustafson, E. E. Rice, "Mining of Lunar Polar Ice." Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 36th, Reno, NY, January 12-15 1998

Schmitt, Harrison. "Mining the Moon." Popular Mechanics October 2004 3 Aug 2008 .

S.D. Ross, "Near-Earth Asteroid Mining." Control and Dynamical Systems, California Institute of Technology MC 107-81, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA, 2001, p. 1-24

"Columbus Leaves Europe, Heads for America." NASA. 23 May 2006. 3 Aug 2008 .

"Kibo Japanese Experiment Module." NASA. 23 Nov 2007. 3 Aug 2008 .

Mudgway, Douglas J.. "Uplink-Downlink, A History of the Deep Space Network 1957-1997." NASA. 2001. 4 Aug 2008 .

Benaroya, Haym, Leonhard Bernold, and Koon Meng Chua. "Engineering, Design and Construction of

Lunar Bases." Journal of Aerospace Engineering April 2002 .

D.A. Comstock, D. L. (D.A. Comstock, D. Lockney, ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects for

Future Benefits‖, AIAA ConfeSeptember 18-20 2007 ). ―NASA‘s legacy of Technology and Prospects for Future Benefits‖. AIAA Conference and Exposition , AIAA2007-6283.

"Innovative Partnerships Program." NASA. 10 July 2008. 5 Aug 2008 http://www.ip.nasa.gov/partnership_devel.htm>.

―Blue Origin Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company.

―Xcor Aerospace.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company. .

―Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, Llc.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company. .

―The Boeing Company.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company

―Lockheed Martin Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company

―Northrop Grumman Corporation.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company

―European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company EADS N.V.‖ Hoover‘s Online a D&B Company

Citations

1. 2008.06.16 Presentations Give to NASA Goddard Academy: Commercial Space PPT. Davidian, Ken. s.l. : , 2008. 2. The Space Report 2008: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. s.l. : The Space Foundation, 2008. p. . 3. US Spaceports. s.l. : FAA, 07 July 2008. p. . 4. Olsen, Stephanie. Q&A: Space entrepreneur shoots for the moon | CNET News.com. 1 Oct 2007. pp. . 5. The Coming Space Industry Revolution and its Potential Global Impact. Collins, P. 2, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Vol. 6, pp. 21-33. 6. President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration. The White House: President George W. Bush. [Online] January 2004, 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov/new/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html. 7. 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. NASA. [Online] 2006. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142302main_2006_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf. 8. Lloyd, Robin. CNN - NASA has aged -- but has it grown up? - July 13, 1999. CNN.com. [Online] July 13, 1999. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/specials/apollo/stories/nasa.then.and.now/index.html. 9. Human Space Flight (HSF) - Apollo History. NASA. [Online] 2002. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apollo. 10. FY 2007 Budget Request Summary. NASA. [Online] 2007. http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/142459main_FY07_summary.pdf. 11. Ansari X PRIZE | X PRIZE Foundataion. [Online] http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize>.. 12. Space Angels Network: About Us. Space Angels Network. [Online] http://www.spaceangelsnetwork.com/aboutus.php. 13. Space Angels Network: Entrepreneurs. Space Angels Network. [Online] http://www.spaceangelsnetwork.com/entrepreneurs.php. 14. Virgin Galactic News - GEORGE WHITESIDES AS SENIOR ADVISOR. Virgin Galactic. [Online] June 21, 2007. http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/news.php. 15. Koop, Matthew. 1900-1920 History. Aviation Resources Center. [Online] 1998. http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/4294/history/1900_1920.html#earlycompanies. 16. Jennings, Peter and Brewster, Todd. The Century. New York : Doubleday, 1998. 0-38548- 327-9. 17. NASA: Exploration and Science Mission Directorate. ESMD Commercial Development Policy (ECDP). Commercial Space Wiki. [Online] http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/ESMD+Commercial+Development+Policy+(ECDP). 18. Goddard HHT Shows Promise for Radio Frequency Communications. NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center. [Online] September 27, 2007. http://techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov/SS- bcg.html. 19. Dunbar, Brian. Dryden News-From Concept to Capability. NASA. [Online] July 24, 2005. http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryden/news/X- Press/stories/2005/20051130_aerovations_frmConcept2Capability.html.

20. Measuring the Economic Returns from Successful NASA Life Sciences Technology Transfers. Hertzfield, H. 4, December 2002, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 27, pp. 311-320. 21. Sierra County Voters Approve Spaceport Tax. Spaceport America. [Online] July 2008. http://www.spaceportamerica.com/news/press-releases/18-spaceport-press-articles/110-sierra- county-voters-app-tax.html. 22. New Mexico Commercial Spaceport Economic Impact Study. Futron Corporation. [Online] December 30, 2005. http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/reports/NewMexicoReport_lowres.pdf. 23. Space Rocket Launch Sites Around the World. Space Today Online. [Online] 2004. http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/LaunchSites.html. 24. Dickey, Beth. NASA Partners with Orbital Sciences for Space Transport Services. NASA. [Online] February 19, 2008. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08058_COTS_Selection.html. 25. Space Act Agreement between National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Space Exploration Technologies Corp for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration. NASA. [Online] May 30, 2006. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/189228main_setc_nnj06ta26a.pdf. 26. Commercial Transportation & Lunar Surface Mining. Houston : s.n., October 1-5, 2007, Enabling Exploration: The Lunar Outpost and Beyond. 27. O'Neill, Ian. Building a Moon Base: Part 4- Infrastructure and Transportation. Universe Today. [Online] March 22, 2008. http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/22/building-a-base-on- the-moon-part-4-infrastructure-and-transportation/. 28. Ruess, Florian. Habitats for Extreme Environments. [Online] 2008. http://www.he- squared.com/. 29. Taylor, Larry. Return to the Moon: This Time to Stay. s.l. : Tennessee Space Grant Consortium, 2006. 30. Taylor, Lawrence A., et al. The Lunar Dust Problem: From Liability to Asset. AIAA. [Online] February 01, 2005. http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSEC05_1205/PV2005_2510.pdf. 31. NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Incorporation and Development Plans. Sanders, Jerry and Larson, Bill. October 02, 2007, Presentation at Lunar Exploration Analysis Workshop. 32. About the Deep Space Network. NASA- Jet Propulsion Laboratory. [Online] December 08, 2005. http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/about.html. 33. Developing Architectures and Technologies for an Evolvable NASA Space Communication Infrastructure. Bassin, Kul and Hayden, Jeffery. July 2004. 34. Stadter, P. A. A Scalable Small-spacecraft Navigation and Communication Infrastructure for Lunar Operations. IEEExplore. [Online] [Cited: August 4, 2008.] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10432/33126/01559349.pdf. 35. Carney, Matthew D. and al., et. AEGIS: A Navigation and Communications Infrastructure for the Moon and Mars. Lunar and Planetary Institute. [Online] 2005. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/rascal/forum2005/presentations/utah_2_paper.pdf. 36. The Space Review: Opening wallets, closing windows. The Space Review: Essays and Commentary about the Final Frontier. [Online] April 30, 2007. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/860/1.

37. The Business of Commercializing Space. Livingston, DM. s.l. : Presented to Mars Society, August 13, 1998. 38. Foust, Jeff. The Space Review: Lawyers, insurance, and money: the business challenges of NewSpace. The Space Review: Essays and Commentary about the Final . [Online] March 26, 2007. 39. Boston Harbor Angels: Who We Are. Boston Harbor Angels. [Online] http://www.bostonharborangels.com/. 40. Space-based solar power as an opportunity for strategic security. s.l. : National Space Security Office, October 10, 2007. Tech. Rep. Release 0.1. 41. Novel space-based solar power technologies and architectures for earth and beyond. Howell, JT, et al. 2005, International Astronautical Federation - 56th International Astronautical Congress, pp. 4083-4092. 42. The history of power transmission by radio waves. Brown, W.C. 1984, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech, Vols. MTT-32, pp. 1230-42. 43. Biotechnology Industry Facts. Bio. [Online] 2008. http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp. 44. Iannotta, Becky. Spacehab Eyes Biomedical Research Opportunites Aboard ISS. Space News. [Online] June 23, 2008. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/080623-busmon- spacehab-biomed.html. 45. SPACEHAB FINALIZES AGREEMENT WITH NASA FOR USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION. SPACEHAP. [Online] May 30, 2008. http://www.spacehab.com/news/2008/08_05_30_1.htm. 46. Peterson, Patrick. Worms may yield salmonella vaccine. FloridaToday.com. [Online] July 12, 2008. http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080712/NEWS02/807120332/1006/ NEWS01. 47. Space Florida Spacehab Release. SPACEHAB. [Online] May 30, 2008. http://www.spacehab.com/news/2008/Space%20Florida%20Spacehab%20Release%205-30- 08.pdf. 48. Disease Listing: Salmonellosis General Information. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. [Online] May 21, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/salmonellosis_gi.html. 49. H.R.5245 An Act. [Online] October 8, 2004. http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Bills%20Signed%20into%20Law--11-2004.pdf. 50. Mahone, Bruce L. Prepared Testimony of Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Space Policy Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. [Online] June 10, 1999. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/astwg/barriers99.pdf. 51. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. Meeting Minutes. [Online] October 18, 2001. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/18oct01.htm. 52. Futron Corporation. Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990- 2000. [Online] September 6, 2002. http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf.

53. NASA Office of the General Counicl. [Online] November 4, 1994. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/15usc5802.html. United States Code, 15 U.S.C 5802. 54. NASA FAR Supplement. [Online] November 1, 2004. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/1812.doc. 55. NASA Office of the General Council. [Online] November 4, 1994. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/15usc5806.html. United States Code, 15 U.S.C 5806. 56. Protection of Intellectual Property in Space. Landenberger, Janene L. Booz, Allen, & Hamilton. 57. Noichim, Chukeat. The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Outer Space of the EU and Thailand. Thailand Lawyers Attoneys & Legal Services. [Online] http://asialaw.tripod.com/articles/ipspacenoichim.html. 58. Legal Ramifications of Intellectual Property. Kempf, Robert F. 197, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 7.2. 59. NASA Technology Commercialization Process w/ Change 1. NASA. [Online] http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=7500&s=1. 60. Intellectual Property Rights at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center. Williams, Vernon E. 1994, NASA Technical Memorandum 106731. 61. Legistlative Comment: The Patents in Space Act. Reynolds, Glenn H. 1990, Forum on Space Law, Vol. 3. 62. "Space Settlements, Property Rights, and International Law: Could A Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs To Survive? Wassner, Alan and Douglas, Jobes. 1, 2008, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 73. 63. The Economic Benefits of Space Tourism to Europe. Collins, P. 2006, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 59, pp. 400-411. 64. Landis, Geoffrey A. Lunar Production of Solar Cells. The Artemis Project, Private Enterprise on the Moon. [Online] 2004. http://www.asi.org/adb/02/08/solar-cell-production.html. 65. Prospects of Commercial Activities on a Lunar Base. Benaroya, H. 2, 2001, Solar System Development Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-19. 66. Production of Oxygen on the Moon: Which Processes Are Best and Why? Taylor, Lawrence A. and Carrier III, W David. December 03, 1992, AIAA Journal. 67. Design and Construction for Self-sufficiency in a Lunar Colony. Jarvstrat, Niklas and Cengiz, Toklu. 2004 : s.n., ASEM 2004. 68. Woodcock, Gordon R. Economic Prospects for Lunar Industries. AIAA. [Online] http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1995/PV1995_4066.pdf>.. 69. Lunar Ball Games and Other Sports. Tera, Fouad and Wasserburg, G.J. Lunar and Planetary Institute. 70. The Space Report 2006. The Space Report. [Online] http://www.thespacereport.org/executive_summary.pdf. 71. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation - SpaceX. SpaceX. [Online] http://www.spacex.com. 72. Scaled Composites, LLC. Scaled Composites. [Online] http://www.scaled.com. 73. Bigelow Aerospace: Commercial Spacecraft and Complexes. [Online] http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/.

74. Armadillo Aerospace - Home. Armadillo Aerospace. [Online] http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home. 75. XCOR Aerospace. XCOR Aerospace. [Online] http://www.xcor.com. 76. Arianespace. Arianespace. [Online] http://www.arianespace.com/site/index.html. 77. Innovative Partnerships Program. NASA. [Online] http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov. 78. NASA Budget. Wikipedia. [Online] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget. 79. X Prize Cup | X Prize Foundation. X Prize. [Online] http://space.xprize.org/x-prize-cup. 80. SPACE.com -- Bigelow Orbital Modules: Accelerated Space Plans. Space.com. [Online] November 22, 2006. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/061122_bigelow_sundancer.html. 81. SPACE.com -- Bigelow Aerospace Aims for an International Market. Space.com. [Online] April 10, 2007. http://www.space.com/news/070410_nss_bigelow.html. 82. Grafik. Space Adventures: Orbital Spaceflight. Space Adventures. [Online] http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=orbital.welcome. 83. History of Airmail at the Post Office. About.com. [Online] 1997. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmailus3.htm. 84. Our Story: The X Prize Heritage. Diamandis, Peter. s.l. : The X-Prize Foundation, 2004. 85. Ibrahim, Abdul. The Technology Transfer Spin-Out Process. NASA. [Online] April 11, 2005. http://ipp.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources-ttprocess4.html. 86. ILC Dover History. ILC Dover. [Online] http://www.ilcdover.com/company/images/ILC_Dover_History.pdf. 87. Spacesuits. NASA. [Online] http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf. 88. Transportation Economics. Encyclopedia Britanica. [Online] Encyclopedia Britanica Online, 2008. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603153/transportation-economics. 89. Roads and Highways. Encyclopedia Britannica. [Online] Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2008. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/505109/road. 90. The Economic Impact of the Interstate Highway System. Interstate 50th. [Online] http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2.pdf. 91. Good Technology, Bad Management: A Case Study of the Satellite Phone Industry. Lim, Jaejoo, Klein, Richard and Thatcher, Jason. 2, 2005, Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. XVI. 92. Advanced Life Support Baseline Values and Assumptions Documents. Hanford, Anthony J. 2004. 93. Nutritional Requirements for International Space Station Missions up to 360 days. Lane, et al. Houston, TX : Johnson Space Center. JSC-28038. 94. Rouen, M.N. Houston, TX : Johnson Space Center, 2001. 95. Jeng, F. and Ewert, M. K. Trade study on laundry system for Advanced and ISS missions. Houston, TX : NASA/Johnson Space Center, 2002. 96. Simon, Tom and Sacksteder, Kurt. In-Situ Resource Utilization Development & Incorporation plans. s.l. : NASA - Techology Exchange Conference, November 2008. 97. NASA Signs Commercial Space Transportation Agreements. NASA. [Online] June 18, 2007. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jun/HQ_07138_COTS_3_Unfunded_SAAs.html. 98. Nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement Between The National Aeronautics And Space Administration and SPACEHAB, INC for Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities. NASA. [Online] June 15, 2007. www1.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/180947main_SAA-Spacehab.pdf.

99. Epp, Chirold D., Robertson, Edward A and Brady, Tye. Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology. IEEExplore. [Online] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4505446/4526225/04526297.pdf?tp=&isnumber=4526225&arnum ber=4526297. 100. Approach and Capture for Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking. Timmons, K. K. and Ringelberg, J.C. 2007, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 101. Challenges of Orion Rendezvous Development. Goodman, J. L., Brazzel, J. P. and Chart, D. A. 2007, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit. 102. Lt. Colonel Kennedy, F. Orbital Express. DARPA Tactical Technology Office. [Online] 2007. http://www.darpa.mil/orbitalexpress/index.html. 103. Wertz, James R. Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking Technologies - Status and Prospects. SPIE Aerospace Symposium. [Online] April 21, 2003. http://www.smad.com/analysis/spie03.pdf. 104. X Prize Foundation: Revolution through Competition. Hoyt, D. and Phillis, J. 2006, Stanford Graduate School of Business, pp. Case SI-90. 105. Lunar Robotic Landing Challenge - External Study. Diamandis, P., et al. 2006, X Prize Foundataion. 106. Prize, Committee on the Design of an NSF Innovation. Innovation Inducement Prizes at the National Science Foundation. National Research Council. [Online] 2007. http://commercialspace.pbwiki.com/f/NRC+report+on+NSF+prizes+2007.01.pdf. 107. University of Washington. Earth's Protective Magnetic Field. Astronomy. [Online] December 13, 2007. http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=6390. 108. Britt, Robert Roy. Surviving Space: Risks to Humans on the Moon and Mars. Space.com. [Online] January 20, 2004. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html. 109. Radiation Hazard in Space. Miroshnichenko, Leonty I. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 110. Landis, Geoffrey A. Magnetic Radiation Shielding: An Idea Whose Time Has Returned? AIAA. [Online] 1991. http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html. 111. NASA Facts - Understanding Space Radiation. NASA. [Online] October 2002. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/radiation.pdf. 112. Radiation Analysis for the Human Lunar Return Mission (NASA Technical Paper 3662). Wilson, J. W. and al., et. Hampton, VA : NASA Langley Reserach Center, 1997. 113. Miller, J. and al., et. Radiation Shielding Properties of Lunar Regolith and Regolith Simulatn. NLSI Lunar Science Conference (2008). [Online] 2008. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nlsc2008/pdf/2028.pdf. 114. Williams, David. Ice on the Moon . NASA. [Online] March 26, 2007. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html. 115. Hsu, Jeremy. Water Discovered in Moon Samples. Space.com. [Online] July 09, 2008. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080709-moon-water.html. 116. David, Leonard. Exclusive: Rules Set for $50 Million 'America's Space Prize'. Space News. [Online] November 08, 2004. http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_bigelow_041108.html. 117. Shiga, David. Bigelow Aerospace to offer $ 760 million for spaceship. New Scientist. [Online] October 25, 2007. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12836.

118. Terms for Launch Services. Bigelow Aerospace. [Online] February 05, 2008. http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/news/?Terms_For_Launch_Services. 119. Boyle, Alan. Space races set sights on orbital frontier. MSNBC-Technology & Science. [Online] October 08, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199370/. 120. JP Aerospace Information update AND JPA will compete for the Bigelow American Space prize. The Space Fellowship. [Online] January 25, 2005. http://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=731. 121. SpaceDev, INC. [Online] 2008. http://www.spacedev.com. 122. Foust, Jeff. Bigelow Aerospace‘s big day at the rodeo. The Space Review. [Online] July 24, 2006. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/667/1. 123. Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-2000. Futron Corporation. [Online] September 06, 2002. http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf. 124. Braukus, Michael and Shelef, Metzada. NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges' Prizes. NASA News. [Online] March 23, 2005. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083_Centennial_prizes.html. 125. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Astronaut Glove. Innovative Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008. http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm#glove>.. 126. Astronaut Glove Challenge 2006. Spaceflight America, Vloanz Aerospace Inc. [Online] October 24, 2006. http://www.spaceflightamerica.org/. 127. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Lunar Regolith Excavation. Innovative Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008. http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm#regolith. 128. About the Regolith Excavation Challenge. 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge. [Online] 2007. http://regolith.csewi.org/about. 129. Competition Rules. 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge. [Online] 2008. http://regolith.csewi.org/files/Regolith-Rule-Book-2008.pdf. 130. Rules in Full. The Official Site for the N-Prize. [Online] http://www.n-prize.com/. 131. About the Moon Regolith Oxygen Extraction (MoonROx) Challenge. Moon ROx Challenge. [Online] 2007. http://moonrox.csewi.org/about. 132. Centennial Challenges Descriptions and Resources- Lunar Oxygen Production or MoonROx. Innovative Partnerships Program. [Online] July 14, 2008. http://centennialchallenges.nasa.gov/cc_challenges.htm. 133. Spacebound! California Space Authority. [Online] http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/spacebound-08-v23/. 134. al., Dickey Beth and et. NASA Partners with Orbital Sciences for Space Transport Services. NASA. [Online] February 19, 2008. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08058_COTS_Selection.html. 135. Stadter, P. A. and al., et. A Scalable Small-spacecraft Navigation and Communication Infrastructure for Lunar Operations. IEEExplore. [Online] [Cited: August 4, 2008.] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10432/33126/01559349.pdf.