DOCSLIB.ORG

Future Directions for International Space Collaboration for Exploration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future Directions for International Space Collaboration for Exploration IAC- IIASL B3.8-E7.7 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE COLLABORATION FOR EXPLORATION Zoe Szajnfarber Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Thomas M. K. Coles Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Anthony C. Wicht Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Annalisa L. Weigel, PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA, USA [email protected] Abstract—This paper analyses potential future collaborative Yet, while international partnerships become increasingly space exploration architectures in terms of i) the technical prevalent, echoes of cold war space mentalities in the form of capabilities of contributing partners; and ii) the constraints protectionist tendencies and prestige-oriented posturing still imposed by internal and international politics. We find that when underpin internal political agendas. And these internal agendas international partners are considered endogenously, the constrain the set of politically feasible alternatives. The impact argument for a “flexible path” approach is weakened substantially. This is because a) international contributions can of internal politics is particularly evident in the current debates make “moon first” economically feasible; and b) characteristics over US Space Policy. Unwilling to give up space of proposed “flexible path” approaches may preclude “leadership,” yet unwilling to fund a program that could international involvement due to the disproportionate risk that achieve it, NASA has been continuously asked to achieve too those contributions inherently bear. This could have serious much, with too little. The most obvious way out of this implications for future collaborations. We also note that while dilemma is for the US to take a leadership role in a global there are multiple feasible collaborative architectures, there is exploration strategy; however the details of such an approach currently substantial overlap among what the international are far from clear. partners are identifying as potential niche contributions. Potential international partners have political needs as well. Acknowledgements – The authors would like to thank 2LT George R. With newfound technical capabilities, comes an expectation to Sondecker for his contributions to the writing of this paper. Each of be treated as a “first class partner.” While many of the the country-specific sections draw heavily on group work conducted traditional partners respect the complexity of the US internal as part of MIT’s graduate space policy seminar [16.891] in spring decision making process, there is a limit to how many 2010; we thank the students for their efforts. unilateral changes in direction they will tolerate. Defining an exploration strategy that i) leverages the I. INTRODUCTION comparative advantages of contributing nations, ii) fits within Sustainable space exploration is a challenge that no one the resources of contributors, and iii) establishes a sufficiently nation can do on its own. (Global Exploration Strategy, p.2) important position for all, is a complex problem. It is not one Space exploration is an immense undertaking, both that will be solved in this paper. Our goal is merely to add technically and financially, that no one nation can accomplish some clarity to an ongoing debate. In negotiations, managing on its own. This reality has been acknowledged explicitly in ambiguity is a common strategy for achieving consensus, but international framework documents, and implicitly through in specifying alternatives it is counterproductive. As collaborative bi- and multi-lateral undertakings by all the academics, we have the luxury of addressing that ambiguity major players in the space arena. For the first time, there are directly and examining tradeoffs. multiple space agencies ready and capable of making To that end, section II examines the strategies and program significant technical contributions to a global initiative. elements that have been proposed and defines the terms as we will use them. Section III then analyzes the perspectives of 4 1 space agencies in terms of their priorities and capabilities. equipment. Note that a complete international architecture Combined these pieces form the basis for section IV, which could possibly include additional lander designs, as cargo- only landers would also be beneficial. explores the “tradespace” of possible collaborative Surface While the robotic precursor missions will employ some contributions, by focusing on strategies that are both Robotics similar technology, “surface robotics” refers specifically to technically and politically feasible.[1] The paper concludes by the pressurized rovers and assistive robotics that will discussing the key issues that it identifies. facilitate human exploration. Surface A specific scenario for a lunar mission has yet to be chosen, Habitation but pressurized habitation modules and associated Modules infrastructure will be required for any sustained human II. EXPLORATION CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS presence. These could be delivered by cargo-only landers, likely based on the lunar surface access module. One key challenge in discussing potential roles and In-orbit This refers to any orbital infrastructure that supports an opportunities for coordination in the context of a global assembly or exploration mission. Although not required by exploration architecture is the ambiguity that remains in the refueling Constellation, a number of ideas have been suggested to definition of key elements and objectives. As a basis for the enhance future missions; these include refueling and lunar orbit infrastructure to support crew exchange or provide a discussion that follows, this section seeks to clarify the key safe haven for astronauts.[3],[4] concepts used in this paper. These definitions are provided in As presented in Table 1, some program elements are much Table 1 in the context of lunar exploration with examples from more clearly defined than others. This reflects the reality of the Constellation program. the development; while some of the Constellation elements have already begun testing, operational concepts for surface Table 1 – Definition of program elements activities have yet to be rigorously defined. These less clearly Program Definition element defined elements are where international contributions are Robotic In agreement with the 2010 ISEGC reference architecture expected to be focused. They are also the elements that won’t precursor [1], these are defined as fulfilling several related functions: be needed (or are at least most subject to change) if target missions characterizing the lunar environment, resource prospecting, destinations continue to change. materials testing, and demonstrating technology and Since President Bush proposed his Vision for Exploration operations concepts. This will require some combination of orbiters, rovers, instruments, communication networks and in 2004, several unique exploration strategies and frameworks related infrastructure. have been articulated, each with different implicit and explicit Crew Capsule Designated Orion in the Constellation plans, the capsule is destinations and architectural requirements. In order to clarify designed to be capable of transporting four astronauts from the alternatives that are currently on the table, and their Earth for short to medium duration space journeys (for example to lunar orbit). By itself, Orion was not designed implications for international collaboration and program to provide the radiation protection necessary for longer elements, the below section provides a brief summary of the duration space flight (such as to the journey to Mars orbit). evolution of the various proposed strategies as well as a Any additions to the crew capsule (or separate crew living discussion of the potential paths. quarters) are considered as part of the crew capsule in this analysis. A. Evolution of the US Exploration Program Crew Launch This refers to any human-rated rocket capable of launching Vehicle a crew capsule to LEO. Under the Constellation plans, Ares In response to President Bush’s Vision for Space I was designed to launch the capsule into LEO for Exploration, NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study rendezvous with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS) and lunar of 2005 formally defined the Constellation program. This surface access module. Earth The Earth Departure Stage (EDS) is the main propulsion plan emphasized minimizing cost by reusing existing departure system that would send the crew capsule and lunar surface hardware designs and established the goal of landing on the Stage (EDS) access module or a cargo lander from LEO to the Moon. moon by 2020 with the eventual objective of reaching Mars. Under the Constellation plans, it is the second liquid stage Constellation led to the development of the Ares I launch of the Ares V rocket. Although any lunar spacecraft requires appropriate propulsion, the term EDS in this paper vehicle to replace the retiring shuttle as well as programs for refers only to the EDS required for hardware launched by a the Orion Crew Capsule, the Ares V heavy launch vehicle and Heavy Lift Vehicle. It is assumed that any robotic missions the Altair Lunar Module [5]. or supplementary cargo deliveries launched on smaller Over the next five years, key contracts were let and rockets will require only a simpler EDS that will not be separately considered here. Some architectures call for the development began on Orion,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Near-Earth Asteroids Accessible to Human Exploration with High-Power Electric Propulsion
    AAS 11-446 NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS ACCESSIBLE TO HUMAN EXPLORATION WITH HIGH-POWER ELECTRIC PROPULSION Damon Landau* and Nathan Strange† The diverse physical and orbital characteristics of near-Earth asteroids provide progressive stepping stones on a flexible path to Mars. Beginning with cislunar exploration capability, the variety of accessible asteroid targets steadily increas- es as technology is developed for eventual missions to Mars. Noting the poten- tial for solar electric propulsion to dramatically reduce launch mass for Mars ex- ploration, we apply this technology to expand the range of candidate asteroid missions. The variety of mission options offers flexibility to adapt to shifting exploration objectives and development schedules. A robust and efficient explo- ration program emerges where a potential mission is available once per year (on average) with technology levels that span cislunar to Mars-orbital capabilities. Examples range from a six-month mission that encounters a 10-m object with 65 kW to a two-year mission that reaches a 2-km asteroid with a 350-kW system. INTRODUCTION In the wake of the schedule and budgetary woes that led to the cancellation of the Constella- tion Moon program, the exploration of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) has been promoted as a more realizable and affordable target to initiate deep space exploration with astronauts.1,2 Central to the utility of NEAs in a progressive exploration program is their efficacy to span a path as literal stepping stones between cislunar excursions and the eventual human
    [Show full text]
  • AAS SFMC Manuscript Format Template
    Proof-reading draft. Final version will be made available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.62412 PASSIVE SORTING OF ASTEROID MATERIAL USING SOLAR RADIATION PRESSURE D. García Yárnoz,* J. P. Sánchez Cuartielles,† and C. R. McInnes ‡ Understanding dust dynamics in the vicinity of asteroids is key for future science missions and, in the long-term, for asteroid exploitation. This paper ana- lyzes the feasibility of manipulating asteroid material by means of solar radia- tion pressure. A novel method is proposed for passively sorting material as a function of its grain size or density, where solar radiation pressure is used as a passive in-situ ‘mass spectrometer’. A simplified analysis shows that in prin- ciple this method allows an effective sorting of regolith material. This could have immediate applications for a sample return mission, and for industrial scale in-situ resource utilization to separate and concentrate regolith according to par- ticle size or composition. INTRODUCTION Asteroids are regarded as prime targets for space exploration missions. This interest is justi- fied as asteroids are among the least evolved bodies in the Solar System and can provide a better understanding of its formation from the solar nebula [1]. Under NASA’s flexible path plan [2], * PhD Researcher, Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK. † Research Fellow, Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory. ‡‡ Director, Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory. 1 asteroids have also become attractive targets to be visited by crewed missions, with the benefit of not requiring the capability to land in and take-off from a deep gravity well.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Steps for Environmental Control and Life Support Systems Development for Deep Space Exploration
    48th International Conference on Environmental Systems ICES-2018-276 8-12 July 2018, Albuquerque, New Mexico The Next Steps for Environmental Control and Life Support Systems Development for Deep Space Exploration Mark Jernigan1 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058 Robyn Gatens2 and Jitendra Joshi3 NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. 20546 and Jay Perry4 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 Throughout the life of the International Space Station (ISS), NASA has developed, deliv- ered and operated a suite of progressively more capable environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) components and assemblies. These efforts have resulted in substan- tially reducing the supply chain necessary to sustain crews in flight and garnering invaluable lessons for sustained long term operations of the equipment. Currently, the ISS provides a unique platform for understanding the effects of the environment on the hardware. NASA’s strategy, already underway, is to evolve the ISS ECLSS into the Exploration ECLSS and perform a long-duration demonstration on ISS in preparation for deep space missions. This includes demonstrations of upgrades and/or new capabilities for waste management, atmos- phere revitalization, water recovery, and environmental monitoring. Within the Advanced Exploration Systems Program under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partner- ships (NextSTEP) model, NASA intends to revise the architecture developed for ISS to make the systems completely independent of the Earth supply chain for the duration of a deep space crewed mission by increasing robustness, including prospective system monitoring to anticipate failures, designing for maintenance, repair and refurbishment, reducing spare part count through use of common components, and grouping subsystems into modular pal- lets to minimize interfaces and reduce complexity.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation
    SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee 1 SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION 2 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION “We choose...to do [these] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...” John F. Kennedy September 12, 1962 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee 3 SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION Table of Contents Preface .......................... ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ..... ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2.0 U.S. Human Spaceflight: Historical Review ............................................................................ 27 Chapter 3.0 Goals and Future Destinations for Exploration ........................................................................ 33 3.1 Goals for Exploration ............................................................................................................... 33 3.2 Overview of Destinations and Approach .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Augustine Report”
    Joint ESPI-DGAP-FRS-IFRI-SWP-ISPL Policy Memorandum Europe’s Reaction to the “Augustine Report” October 2009 1. Introduction The Summary Report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, (“Augustine Report”), released in mid-September, 1 has received considerable attention in the space policy community and in public debate. Its findings directly impact U.S. partnership with Europe. Therefore, Europe must be prepared to respond to any possible consequences. This Joint Memorandum by European think tanks aims to analyse the context and content of the Augustine Report, evaluate the echo it received and sketch a suitable way forward for Europe in reaction to any implementation of the Report’s findings. 2. The Augustine Report and its political context In May 2009, the White House had charged a committee of high ranking experts, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, to assess U.S. human spaceflight plans and to generate appropriate options. The so-called Augustine Report is a summary to be followed by the Committee’s final report, which is not yet available. The review is part of a broader political effort to evaluate the current situation of U.S. space plans, with other assessments going on in the field of security. This includes an interagency effort led by U. S. NSC to release a new Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), a new Nuclear Posture Review and a new National Space Policy in 2010. The White House is also looking at a reform of the ITAR rules. 1 Summary Report of the Review of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 26.03.2021R. Średnioterminowe Scenariusze Rozwoju Przemysłu
    1 ŚREDNIOTERMINOWE SCENARIUSZE ROZWOJU PRZEMYSŁU KOSMICZNEGO W POLSCE GRUDZIEŃ 2020 2 3 1. WPROWADZENIE Trzecia dekada XXI wieku zapowiada się wyjątkowo interesująco. Z pewnością globalny sektor kosmiczny zmieni swój kształt i zasięg w porównaniu z dwiema pierwszymi dekadami tego stulecia. Ponadto to właśnie w trakcie lat dwudziestych człowiek najpewniej powróci na Księżyc, tym razem na stałe i w „międzynarodowym składzie”. Dojdzie także do serii ambitnych misji marsjańskich, których zwieńczeniem będzie sprowadzenie próbek materii z Czerwonej Planety (około 2031 roku). Wiele wydarzy się również w bezpośrednim otoczeniu Ziemi: pojawią się megakonstelacje poszerzające możliwości telekomunikacyjne. Nowe państwa dołączą do grona operatorów własnych satelitów lub nawet systemów satelitarnych. Prywatne firmy oraz państwa będą realizować niezależne, ambitne plany, w tym rozwoju nowych rakiet, systemów obserwacji Ziemi, a nawet eksploracji przestrzeni BEO (Beyond Earth Orbit), w szczególności na Księżycu i wokół niego. Oczywiście jest możliwe, że wiele z tych planów nie zostanie zrealizowanych w zakładanym czasie. Pandemia koronawirusa SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), która „rozlała się” po całym świecie w 2020 roku, według wstępnych prognoz może wpłynąć na wysokość dostępnych funduszy. W konsekwencji istnieje poważne ryzyko opóźnienia niektórych z dużych programów kosmicznych, w tym tych eksploracyjnych. Czy w Polsce istnieje już świadomość tej zmiany branży kosmicznej? Jakie są możliwości wsparcia budowy innowacyjnych rozwiązań, które mogą być ważne z perspektywy Polski lub Europy? Co jest potrzebne, by krajowy sektor kosmiczny mógł wkroczyć na ścieżkę szybkiego rozwoju? W niniejszym studium pt. „Średniookresowe scenariusze rozwoju przemysłu kosmicznego w Polsce” zaprezentowane zostały wnioski i rekomendacje dotyczące możliwych kierunków rozwoju branży kosmicznej w Polsce. Zakres studium to 10 najbliższych lat, czyli do 2031 roku.
    [Show full text]
  • Synergies of Robotic Asteroid Redirection Technologies and Human Space Exploration
    Synergies of Robotic Asteroid Redirection Technologies and Human Space Exploration John R. Brophy , Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Louis Friedman ,Executive Director Emeritus, The Planetary Society Nathan J. Strange, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Thomas A. Prince . Director, Keck Institute for Space Studies, Caltech Damon Landau, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Thomas Jones . Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Russell Schweickart , B612 Foundation Chris Lewicki , Planetary Resources, Inc. Martin Elvis , Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics David Manzella ,NASA Glenn Research Center, USA 10/2/ 2014 Louis Friedman IAC 2014 1 3 Year Study (2011-2014) • Initial Study Results – ARM uniquely enables human exploration of a celestial body beyond the Moon by 2025 – Spacecraft and Mission are feasible within current program – Requires and develops Solar Electric Propulsion • Follow-on Study Results – SEP provides significant advantages for humans to Mars – A series of increasingly deep-space missions is enabled with asteroid redirection technology – Asteroid resources can be exploited for human space flight – Strong synergy exists with commercial and planetary defense objectives 10/2/ 2014 Louis Friedman IAC 2014 2 The ARM Spacecraft Capture a Small Asteroid Pick up a Boulder 10/2/ 2014 Louis Friedman IAC 2014 3 Asteroid Redirect Mission Design (NOTIONAL) 5) Asteroid Operations: rendezvous, characterize, deploy capture mechanism, capture, and despin (60 days) Asteroid Orbit 4) SEP low-thrust 6) SEP redirect cruise
    [Show full text]
  • The First Human Asteroid Mission: Target Selection and Conceptual Mission Design
    The First Human Asteroid Mission: Target Selection and Conceptual Mission Design Daniel Zimmerman,∗ Sam Wagner,∗ and Bong Wiey Asteroid Deflection Research Center - Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-2271 President Obama has recently declared that NASA will pursue a crewed mission to an asteroid by 2025. This paper identifies the optimum target candidates of near-Earth objects (NEOs) for a first crewed mission between 2018 and 2030. Target asteroids in the NEO database with orbital elements that meet predetermined requirements are analyzed for mission design. System architectures are then proposed to meet the require- ments for five designated NEO candidates. Additional technology which can be applied to crewed NEO mis- sions in the future is also discussed, and a previous NEO target selection study is analyzed. Although some development of heavy launch vehicles is still required for the first NEO mission, design examples show that a first mission can be achieved by 2025. The Ares V and the Orion CEV are used as the baseline system architecture for this study. Nomenclature a Semi-major Axis (AU) AU Astronomical Unit BOM Burnout Mass CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle e Eccentricity EDS Earth Departure Stage EOR Earth Orbit Rendezvous H Absolute Magnitude i Inclination (deg) Isp Specific Impulse (s) ISS International Space Station JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory LEO Low-Earth Orbit LH2 Liquid Hydrogen LOX Liquid Oxygen MWe Megawatt Electrical MT Metric Ton NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEO Near-Earth Object OT V Orbital Transfer Vehicle RSRM Reusable Solid Rocket Motor SSME Space Shuttle Main Engine T LI Trans Lunar Injection V ASIMR Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket ∆V Velocity Change (km/s) ∗Graduate Research Assistant, Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Path Dependence in NASA's
    Institutional path dependence in NASA’s human spaceflight program: a case study of technological evolution and persistence by Trevor W. Waddell MPP Essay Submitted to Oregon State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy Presented May 21, 2013 Commencement June 17, 2013 Master of Public Policy essay of Trevor W. Waddell presented on May 21, 2013. APPROVED: _________________________________________________________________ Denise Lach, representing Sociology _________________________________________________________________ Jacob Hamblin, representing History of Science _________________________________________________________________ Jack Higginbotham, representing College of Science, Space Programs _________________________________________________________________ Trevor Waddell, Author 2 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 2. Background ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Overview of NASA and the U.S. Human Spaceflight Program ........................................... 8 2.2. Case Study History .............................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) ........................................................................ 11 2.2.2 Project Constellation ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Flexible Path for Human and Robotic Space Exploration
    A Flexible Path for Human and Robotic Space Exploration David J. Korsmeyer1 and Robert R. Landis2 NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, USA R. Gabriel Merrill3 and Daniel D. Mazanek4 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681, USA Robert D. Falck5 NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, 44111, USA Robert B. Adams6 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 35812, USA During the summer of 2009, a flexible path scenario for human and robotic space exploration was developed that enables frequent, measured, and publicly notable human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). The formulation of this scenario was in support of the Exploration Beyond LEO subcommittee of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee that was commissioned by President Obama. Exploration mission sequences that allow humans to visit a wide number of inner solar system destinations were investigated. The scope of destinations included the Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange points, near-Earth objects (NEOs), the Moon, and Mars and its moons. The missions examined assumed the use of Constellation Program elements along with existing launch vehicles and proposed augmentations. Additionally, robotic missions were envisioned as complements to human exploration through precursor missions, as crew emplaced scientific investigations, and as sample gathering assistants to the human crews. The focus of the flexible path approach was to gain ever-increasing operational experience through human exploration missions ranging from a few weeks to several years in duration, beginning in deep space beyond LEO and evolving to landings on the Moon and eventually Mars. I. NASA Support of the Review of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Dynamics of Twenty-First-Century Space Power
    The Changing Dynamics of Twenty-First-Century Space Power James Clay Moltz1 Abstract Many recent assessments of space power have posited a US decline and predicted a gloomy future in comparison to China and Russia. However, such analyses—based almost exclusively on state-run activities— present only part of the picture. In the twenty-first century, a new form of bottom-up, net-centric, commercially led space innovation is emerg- ing that promises cheaper and more timely technological developments to those nations that can effectively tap into them, thus reshaping tra- ditional definitions of space power. This study first sets a baseline by focusing on Cold War space power determinants, next analyzes recent changes among the three leading spacefaring nations, and then looks into the future, factoring in the expanded role of commercial space start- ups and military space alliances. The article concludes that new forms of networked space power could put the United States in a more favor- able position than countries relying on state-controlled innovation and development. Traditional measures of space power have focused on the activities of a nation’s military and civil space programs. This common emphasis comes from the Cold War when the United States and the Soviet Union created well-funded, government-run, and largely military-led (and sometimes secret) space programs to “show the flag,” support their operational forces and intelligence needs, and prevent surprise nuclear attacks. Since James Clay Moltz is chairman of the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Post- graduate School, where he also holds a joint professorship in the Space Systems Academic Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go from Here?
    NASA HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 Serial No. 112–038 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 68–319PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia PAUL D. TONKO, New York SANDY ADAMS, Florida JERRY MCNERNEY, California BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama Tennessee FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) CONTENTS Thursday, September 22, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]