DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the UK Space Exploration Working Group

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the UK Space Exploration Working Group UK Space Exploration Working Group Report of the UK Space Exploration Working Group 13 September 2007 UK Space Exploration Working Group The UK Space Exploration Working Group Chair: Prof Frank Close University of Oxford Co-ordinator: Jeremy Curtis STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Science Prof Monica Grady (Chair) Open University Dr Ian Crawford Birkbeck College Prof Jenny Thomas University College London Prof Peter Wilkinson University of Manchester Prof John Zarnecki Open University Technology and Knowledge Transfer Nathan Hill (Chair) STFC Knowledge Exchange Service Dr Ian Gibson BNSC Dr Mike Hapgood STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Chris Lee SciSys/UKspace Dr Steve Welch Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL Commerce Prof Sir Martin Sweeting (Chair) Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd John Auburn Vega/UKspace Dr Andy Hide LogicaCMG Chris McLaughlin Inmarsat Richard Tremayne-Smith BNSC David Williams Avanti Communications Society Prof Frank Close (Chair) University of Oxford Alex Blackwood Careers Scotland Dr Kevin Fong University College London Katy Haswell Engine Media Group Prof Steve Miller University College London Prof Ken Pounds University of Leicester The Group was set up in January 2007 as an ad hoc committee to: • review current global plans for space exploration; • assess what opportunities and benefits exist for UK participation; and • provide advice to BNSC and partners as to which areas the UK should focus on if it wishes to engage in space exploration. This analysis is on behalf of BNSC partners for input to UK Space Board, BNSC Space Advisory Council, PPARC Science Committee (or its successor), BNSC Space Technology Advisory Board and other relevant advisory committees. The views expressed are those of the members of the Group and not necessarily of their institutions. 2 UK Space Exploration Working Group Table of contents 1 Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 7 3 A UK vision for space exploration .................................................................................................. 8 4 Background...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 International context...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Global Exploration Strategy ........................................................................................ 10 4.4 United States................................................................................................................ 10 4.5 Europe (ESA) .............................................................................................................. 12 4.6 Europe (complementary to ESA) ................................................................................ 12 4.7 Russia ..........................................................................................................................13 4.8 Japan............................................................................................................................ 13 4.9 China............................................................................................................................ 13 4.10 India............................................................................................................................. 14 4.11 Canada ......................................................................................................................... 14 4.12 Summary...................................................................................................................... 14 5 Science ..................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Overview: Why do we want (or need) to explore space?............................................ 15 5.2 Moon, Mars and Near Earth Objects ........................................................................... 16 5.3 Earth observation......................................................................................................... 21 5.4 Solar and solar-terrestrial physics................................................................................ 22 5.5 Other planets and planetary bodies.............................................................................. 24 5.6 Beyond the solar system.............................................................................................. 25 5.7 Fundamental physics ................................................................................................... 27 5.8 Space life and medical sciences................................................................................... 28 5.9 Exploration with robots or humans ............................................................................. 29 5.10 What are the consequences of not undertaking the programme? ................................ 30 5.11 Summary...................................................................................................................... 30 6 Technology and knowledge exchange........................................................................................... 31 6.1 Vision ..........................................................................................................................31 6.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 31 6.3 Technologies for UK participation in a space exploration programme....................... 32 6.4 Critical technology areas ............................................................................................. 35 6.5 Level of engagement with the Global Exploration Strategy........................................ 36 6.6 Current and potential strengths.................................................................................... 36 6.7 Collaboration scenarios ............................................................................................... 37 6.8 Mission scenarios ........................................................................................................ 37 6.9 Summary and recommendations ................................................................................. 40 7 Commerce ..................................................................................................................................... 42 7.1 Introduction: Why are commercial considerations important?.................................... 42 7.2 Sources of value .......................................................................................................... 43 7.3 Commercial exploitation routes................................................................................... 49 7.4 Commercial financing and the role of Government .................................................... 49 7.5 Regulatory and legal issues ......................................................................................... 50 7.6 The UK supplier base and its relevance to sources of value ....................................... 51 7.7 Commerce and human spaceflight .............................................................................. 51 7.8 Summary: Commercial benefits of exploration........................................................... 52 8 Society ..................................................................................................................................... 54 8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 54 8.2 Space and education .................................................................................................... 54 8.3 Public support for human space exploration: the taxpayers. ....................................... 58 3 UK Space Exploration Working Group 8.4 Political - the UK’s standing in the world ................................................................... 60 8.5 Scenarios and consequences........................................................................................ 60 8.6 A new era in space exploration.................................................................................... 61 8.7 Summary and recommendations ................................................................................. 61 9 Implementation and scenarios ....................................................................................................... 63 9.1 Programme scenarios................................................................................................... 63 9.2 International collaboration........................................................................................... 68 9.3 Implementation actions................................................................................................ 69 9.4 Costs ............................................................................................................................ 69 10 Synthesis of findings.....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration
    1 ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Burlington House, Piccadilly London W1J 0BQ, UK T: 020 7734 4582/ 3307 F: 020 7494 0166 [email protected] www.ras.org.uk Registered Charity 226545 Report of the Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration Professor Frank Close, OBE Dr John Dudeney, OBE Professor Ken Pounds, CBE FRS 2 Contents (A) Executive Summary 3 (B) The Formation and Membership of the Commission 6 (C) The Terms of Reference 7 (D) Summary of the activities/meetings of the Commission 8 (E) The need for a wider context 8 (E1) The Wider Science Context (E2) Public inspiration, outreach and educational Context (E3) The Commercial/Industrial context (E4) The Political and International context. (F) Planetary Science on the Moon & Mars 13 (G) Astronomy from the Moon 15 (H) Human or Robotic Explorers 15 (I) Costs and Funding issues 19 (J) The Technological Challenge 20 (J1) Launcher Capabilities (J2) Radiation (K) Summary 23 (L) Acknowledgements 23 (M) Appendices: Appendix 1 Expert witnesses consulted & contributions received 24 Appendix 2 Poll of UK Astronomers 25 Appendix 3 Poll of Public Attitudes 26 Appendix 4 Selected Web Sites 27 3 (A) Executive Summary 1. Scientific missions to the Moon and Mars will address questions of profound interest to the human race. These include: the origins and history of the solar system; whether life is unique to Earth; and how life on Earth began. If our close neighbour, Mars, is found to be devoid of life, important lessons may be learned regarding the future of our own planet. 2. While the exploration of the Moon and Mars can and is being addressed by unmanned missions we have concluded that the capabilities of robotic spacecraft will fall well short of those of human explorers for the foreseeable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Situational Awareness
    → SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OUTLINE - Background - Purpose - Aims - Composition - Space Surveillance (SST) - Space Weather (SWE) - Near-Earth Objects (NEO) - Summary 2 BACKGROUND Image: Dan Durda – FIAAA 3 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE SSA PROGRAMME “The objective of the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) programme is to support the European independent utilisation of, and access to, space for research or services, through the provision of timely and quality data, information, services and knowledge regarding the space environment, the threats and the sustainable exploitation of the outer space surrounding our planet Earth.” - ESA Ministerial Council November 2008 4 INTRODUCTION AIMS OF THE SSA PROGRAMME • Independent utilisation of Space – Space assets are critical assets • Guarantee access to Space – Diplomatic, – Political – Regulatory – Technical • Serve EU “Lisbon Objectives” – New Applications – New Jobs – New Markets 5 INTRODUCTION CUSTOMERS FOR SSA SERVICES • European Governments • Space Insurance • United Nations – EU • Space Industry • Defence – National • Energy • Civil Protection – Regional – Surveying • European Space Agencies – Electrical Grid – ESA – Power Supply – National • Network Operations • Spacecraft Operators • Telecommunications – Commercial • Air Traffic Control – Academic • Search and Rescue Entities – Governmental 6 INTRODUCTION Current Objectives 2009 – 2012 • Preparatory Programme – Governance Definition – Data Policy – Architecture – Federation – Precursor Services – Radar Breadboard – Pilot Data Centres 2012
    [Show full text]
  • Mars, the First Results from the Cassini-Huygens Probe Which Landed on Titan and Robotic Space Missions
    OH 404 new.qxd 20/02/2006 11:49 Page 1 OpenHouse Newspaper for staff of The Open University Issue number 404 Jan - Feb 2006 Military Coup by Peter Taylor-Whiffen THOUSANDS of members of the Armed Forces will be numbers are expected to increase by a total of 400 studying Open University MBA courses after the OU learners across all three defence services within five signed a 22-year deal to provide courses for the years. military. A Ministry of Defence statement said: “Individuals at The university will work in partnership with Cranfield all levels from the Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and University to deliver postgraduate education to military the Civil Service will benefit from this investment and the personnel through the Ministry of Defence’s Defence higher level education and training it provides for.” College of Management and Technology (DCMT) – and it’s And Defence Minister Don Touhig added: “We expect expected at least 400 servicemen and women will sign up our Armed Forces to operate in an increasingly complex every year. and demanding environment. We can’t ask this of our “It’s very good news indeed,” said the OU’s Head of Service personnel, and the civilians who support them, Strategic Partnerships, Edmund Dixon. “It’s the reward unless we invest in their ongoing training and for a lot of hard work tendering and then further development. impressing the MoD when we made a shortlist.” “This contract provides access to the very best Cranfield has worked with the DCMT, at Shrivenham, postgraduate education and the flexibility to help equip Wiltshire for many years but its previous contract ended our people to meet these challenges.” last year and other universities were invited to apply.
    [Show full text]
  • MOONLITE : the SCIENTIFIC CASE. IA Crawford1, AJ Ball2, L. Wilson3
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIX (2008) 1069.pdf * MOONLITE : THE SCIENTIFIC CASE. I.A. Crawford1, A.J. Ball2, L. Wilson3, A. Smith4, Y. Gao5 and the UK Pene- trator Consortium6. 1School of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck College, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. 2Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. 3Department of Environmental Science, Lancaster University, UK. 4Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, UK. 5Surrey Space Centre, University of Surrey, UK.6www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/pages/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf. *MoonLITE is a UK-led initiative which is currently the focus of a joint UK-NASA study. (Email: [email protected]). Introduction: The principal scientific importance the lunar crust and upper mantle [4,5]. However, the of the Moon is as a recorder of geological processes deep interior of the Moon was only very loosely con- active in the early history of terrestrial planets (e.g. strained by Apollo seismology due to the geographi- planetary differentiation, magma ocean formation and cally limited coverage of the network (essentially a evolution, etc), and of the near-Earth cosmic environ- triangle between the Apollo 12/14, 15 and 16 sites), so ment throughout Solar System history [1,2]. Although the information obtained on crustal thickness and man- the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions have in tle structure may not be globally representative. There recent years greatly added to our knowledge of the is now a pressing need for a more widely-spaced net- geochemical and mineralogical makeup of the lunar work of lunar seismic stations, including stations at surface, and these observations will soon be supple- high latitudes and on the farside.
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hera Mission
    Dr. Patrick Michel Hera Investigation Team PI Université Côte d’Azur Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur CNRS, Lagrange Laboratory Nice, France The Hera Mission ESA UNCLASSIFIED - For Official Use Hera main aspects Role of space missions at ESA in NEO hazard mitigation • Understanding the problem (deflection modeling and simulations) 2001 • Ground versus space solutions analyses • Assessment of space component options 2002- • 6 parallel phase-0 studies (3 space telescopes, 3 rendezvous) Euneos Nero Earthguard 1 2004 • ESA’s NEO Mission Advisory Panel (NEOMAP) established • Kinetic impactor validation ranked highest importance 2004- • Don Quijote mission selected and studied up to phase-A level 2006 • SANCHO / Proba-IP orbiter up to phase A level studies, small deep-space Don Quijote Ishtar Simone 2008- mission to investigate impactor’s result 2009 • AIDA proposed by NASA: USA/impactor + ESA/impact assessment • ESA phase 0 and phase A studies on the observer spacecraft "AIM” (GSP) 2011- Proba-IP 2016 • Phase B1 study and “consolidation phase” for mission definition (GSTP) • HERA: impact observer spacecraft reformulation and optimization AIM 2017- • Phase B1 implementation + payload + technology breadboards (GSTP+SSA) Several concepts 2019 • DART phase-C kick-off on 15 May 2018 Hera iterated AIDA: An International Planetary Defense Mission U.S. National Research Council Committee “Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies” Recommendation: “If [U.S.] Congress chooses to fund mitigation research at an appropriately high level, the first priority for a space mission in the mitigation area is an experimental test of a kinetic impactor along with a characterization, monitoring, and verification system, such as the Don Quixote mission that was previously considered, but not funded, by the European Space Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • How Earth Got Its Moon Article
    FEATURE How Earth Got its MOON Standard formation tale may need a rewrite By Thomas Sumner he moon’s origin story does not add up. Most “Multiple impacts just make more sense,” says planetary scientists think that the moon formed in the earli- scientist Raluca Rufu of the Weizmann Institute of Science in est days of the solar system, around 4.5 billion years Rehovot, Israel. “You don’t need this one special impactor to Tago, when a Mars-sized protoplanet called Theia form the moon.” whacked into the young Earth. The collision sent But Theia shouldn’t be left on the cutting room floor just debris from both worlds hurling into orbit, where the rubble yet. Earth and Theia were built largely from the same kind of eventually mingled and combined to form the moon. material, new research suggests, and so had similar composi- If that happened, scientists expect that Theia’s contribution tions. There is no sign of “other” material on the moon, this would give the moon a different composition from Earth’s. perspective holds, because nothing about Theia was different. Yet studies of lunar rocks show that Earth and its moon are “I’m absolutely on the fence between these two opposing compositionally identical. That fact throws a wrench into the ideas,” says UCLA cosmochemist Edward Young. Determining planet-on-planet impact narrative. which story is correct is going to take more research. But the Researchers have been exploring other scenarios. Maybe answer will offer profound insights into the evolution of the the Theia impact never happened (there’s no direct evidence early solar system, Young says.
    [Show full text]
  • Moonlite: a UK-Led Mission to the Moon Downloaded from by Guest on 24 September 2021
    CRAWFORD, SMITH: MOONLITE MoonLITE: A UK-led mission to the Moon Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/3/3.11/218588 by guest on 24 September 2021 Ian 1: Farside view of the Moon Crawford as seen by the and Alan Clementine spacecraft. Smith Penetrators discuss the launched by the MoonLITE orbiter scientific would allow surface objectives of investigations in areas not visited by Luna, the proposed Surveyor or Apollo missions. MoonLITE mission. (NASA/JPL/USGS) hile the surface missions to during the Apollo programme (see Wiec- the Moon of the 1960s and 1970s zorek et al. 2006, for a review). Moreover, the Wachieved a great deal, scientifically recent remote-sensing missions have themselves much was also left unresolved. The recent ABSTRACT raised questions that will require new surface plethora of lunar missions (flown or proposed) measurements for their resolution, of which reflects a resurgence in interest in the Moon, not MoonLITE is a proposal for a UK-led one of the most important is the circumstantial only in its own right, but also as a recorder of mission to the Moon that will place four evidence for water ice, and by implication other the early history of the Earth–Moon system and penetrators in the lunar surface in order volatiles, within permanently shaded craters at of the interplanetary environment 1 AU from the to make geochemical and geophysical the lunar poles (Feldman et al. 1998). Sun (e.g. Spudis 1996, Crawford 2004, Jolliff measurements that are impossible from In order to make significant further progress et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
    Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study 2 April 2012 Prepared for the: Keck Institute for Space Studies California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, California 1 2 Authors and Study Participants NAME Organization E-Mail Signature John Brophy Co-Leader / NASA JPL / Caltech [email protected] Fred Culick Co-Leader / Caltech [email protected] Co -Leader / The Planetary Louis Friedman [email protected] Society Carlton Allen NASA JSC [email protected] David Baughman Naval Postgraduate School [email protected] NASA ARC/Carnegie Mellon Julie Bellerose [email protected] University Bruce Betts The Planetary Society [email protected] Mike Brown Caltech [email protected] Michael Busch UCLA [email protected] John Casani NASA JPL [email protected] Marcello Coradini ESA [email protected] John Dankanich NASA GRC [email protected] Paul Dimotakis Caltech [email protected] Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Martin Elvis [email protected] Astrophysics Ian Garrick-Bethel UCSC [email protected] Bob Gershman NASA JPL [email protected] Florida Institute for Human and Tom Jones [email protected] Machine Cognition Damon Landau NASA JPL [email protected] Chris Lewicki Arkyd Astronautics [email protected] John Lewis University of Arizona [email protected] Pedro Llanos USC [email protected] Mark Lupisella NASA GSFC [email protected] Dan Mazanek NASA LaRC [email protected] Prakhar Mehrotra Caltech [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2007
    2007 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine 74 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 Space 0.05g 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth Orbit begins 300 miles 0.95g 100 miles Low Earth Orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Illustration not to scale Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 75 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather infor- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations and operation of those satellites mation, missile warning, com- when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to through a worldwide network of mand and control, and intel- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome ground stations. ligence to the warfighter. of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant Fiscal 2007 dollars 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Fiscal Year 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total 1959 1,841 3,457 240 5,538 1983 13,051 18,601 675 32,327 1960 3,205 3,892
    [Show full text]
  • National Space Programmes 2012 - 2013
    National Space Programmes 2012 - 2013 Introduction projects – a massive injection of innovation into the blood stream of the UK’s space sector. Meanwhile, the Welcome to the second edition of the UK Space programme of scientific instruments has reached a Agency’s National Space Programmes brochure. milestone with the delivery of MIRI for the James Webb This document contains financial and management Space Telescope, the result of over a decade’s hard information about our suite of National Space work by the UK-led European consortium. The national Programmes, provided in order to give you an insight exploration and the Earth observation technology into the wide range of investment we are making in programmes have also made good progress, while the UK’s space sector. both UKube-1 and TechDemoSat-1 are preparing for launch in 2013. It is going to be another exciting year. It is now approaching two years since the Agency’s full establishment. During this time the UK space sector We hope you find the brochure valuable. It’s hard has continued to grow, as has its contribution to the to capture the huge range of projects that the UK economy as a whole, currently thought to be £9.1 Space Agency has underway in a few pages. For billion a year and directly employing 28,900 people. further information and also to download our other The average growth rate of the UK space sector is publications, please see our website: almost 7.5%; the National Space Programmes are in http://www.bis.gov.uk/ukspaceagency place to complement our investments in a range of European Space Agency, European Commission and And don’t forget to sign up for our monthly newsletter bilateral projects in order to further this growth in line and follow us on Twitter - @spacegovuk ! with the six themes of our civil space strategy: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Martian Methane: Rocky Birth, Then Gone with the Wind?
    Meeting Division for Planetary Sciences CAMBRIDGE,U.K.—In the medieval city where Isaac Newton worked on the gravitational laws, about 850 scientists gathered from 4 to 9 September Martian Methane: Rocky Birth, for the 37th meeting of the American Astro- Then Gone With the Wind? nomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences. Last year, a spectrometer on board the Euro- which would then be quickly destroyed by the concentrations of some 10 parts per bil- pean Space Agency’s Mars Express space- oxidation, ultraviolet sunlight, and possibly lion seen in the atmosphere. craft detected methane above areas of the also by electrical activity of atmospheric dust. So where does all the methane go? Given martian surface where there also appears to Atreya says basalt reacts with liquid water that methane concentrations vary widely over be subsurface ice (Science, the martian surface, it must be 1 October 2004, p. 29). Many destroyed too quickly for the gas to researchers hailed the find as pos- Methane muddle. Who’s found the right spread out evenly. The explanation sible evidence that bacteria are liv- concentration, Mars Express or Gemini may lie in the electrostatic charg- ing in the ice and producing the South (inset)? ing of dust particles, says Atreya. gas. After all, almost all the In small dust devils and larger dust methane in Earth’s atmosphere is storms, electric fields as strong as produced by living organisms. 25 kilovolts per meter could be Indeed, says planetary scientist produced. Such voltages would Sushil Atreya of the Uni- break up water molecules, and the versity of Michigan, hydroxyl molecules created would Ann Arbor, many then oxidize methane.
    [Show full text]