SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2013 - American Astronautical ...

1SPACE TIMES•September/October2013

THE MAGAZINE OF THE AMERICANASTRONAUTICAL SOCIETY

ISSUE 5–VOLUME 52

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2013

2 SPACE TIMES•September/October2013

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2013

ISSUE 5–VOLUME 52

T H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E A M E R I C A N A S T R O N A U T I C A L S O C I E T Y

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE Government Shutdown Impact on Space Activities and AAS 3

FEATURE Energomash: 3, 2, 1 . . . liftoff! 4 Engineers at Russian rocket engine supplier NPO Energomash are using test and simulation tools to accurately predict modal vibration and dynamic loads in turbine rotors for next-generation international launch vehicles. byStephenGlad

What goes up . . . doesn’t come down quickly enough! 6 Space debris objects are accumulating in space at a greater rate than the natural rate of orbit decay that brings them back down to Earth. byMarkSeymour

Language Protocols in Human Spaceflight 10 The difficulty of the language barrier in international human spaceflight missions is generally overlooked, with the notable exception by those who have flown or directly supported such missions. Astronauts and their support teams have been vocal about this challenge, which has far-reaching impacts upon their missions. byMeganAnsdell

BOOK REVIEW Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and Space 19 ReviewedbyMattBille

SNAPSHOTS OF THE 6TH WERNHER VON BRAUN MEMORIALSYMPOSIUM 20

UPCOMING EVENTS 23

ON THE COVERFRONT:AboardtheInternationalSpaceStation,NASAastronautKarenNybergcaughtthereflectionofEarth’shorizononthestation’ssolararraysatsunsetonSeptember18.(Source: NASA/Karen L. Nyberg)BACK:Allhuman-madespaceobjectsresultfromthenear-5000launchessincethestartofthespaceage.About65%ofthecataloguedobjects,however,originatefrombreak-upsinorbit–morethan240explosions–aswellasfewerthan10knowncollisions.Scientistsestimatethetotalnumberofspacedebrisobjectsinorbittobearound29000forsizeslargerthan10cm,670000largerthan1cm,andmorethan170millionlargerthan1mm.(Source: ESA)

www.twitter.com/astrosociety

www.youtube.com/user/astrosociety

www.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety

www.slideshare.net/astrosociety

Follow AAS on:

6352 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102Springfield, VA 22152-2370 USA

Tel: 703-866-0020 ♦ Fax: [email protected] ♦ www.astronautical.org

AAS OFFICERSPRESIDENT LynD.Wigbels,RWI International Consulting ServicesEXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT J.WalterFaulconer,Strategic Space Solutions, LLCVICE PRESIDENT–TECHNICAL DavidB.Spencer,Pennsylvania State UniversityVICE PRESIDENT–PROGRAMS HarleyA.ThronsonVICE PRESIDENT–PUBLICATIONS RichardD.BurnsVICE PRESIDENT–STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH MaryLynneDittmar,Dittmar Associates, Inc.VICE PRESIDENT–MEMBERSHIP LarryRichardson,United Launch AllianceVICE PRESIDENT–EDUCATION LanceBush,Challenger Center for Space Science EducationVICE PRESIDENT–FINANCE PaulEckert,Federal Aviation AdministrationVICE PRESIDENT–INTERNATIONAL SusanJ.Irwin,Euroconsult USA, Inc.VICE PRESIDENT–PUBLIC POLICY EdwardGoldstein,Aerospace Industries AssociationLEGAL COUNSEL FranceskaO.Schroeder,Fish & Richardson P.C.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JamesR.Kirkpatrick,American Astronautical Society

AAS BOARD OF DIRECTORSTERM EXPIRES 2013RonaldJ.Birk,Northrop GrummanVinceDeFrancisci,USRAPeggyFinarelli,George Mason University/CAPRRobFulton,Orbital Sciences CorporationRebeccaL.Griffin,Rebecca Griffin SpaceHalE.Hagemeier,AltamiraMollyKennaMacauley,Resources for the FutureKathyJ.NadoLesaB.RoeWoodrowWhitlow,Jr.

TERM EXPIRES 2014PeterM.Bainum,Howard UniversityRobertH.Bishop,Marquette UniversityMarkK.Craig,SAICLauraDelgadoLópez,IGES/Space and Technology Policy Group, LLCJ.R.Edwards,Lockheed MartinZigmondV.Leszczynski,VCSFA/MARSPatrickMcKenzie,RUAG Aerospace USA Inc.SuneelSheikh,ASTER Labs, Inc.PatriciaGraceSmith,Patti Grace Smith ConsultingGreggVane,Jet Propulsion Laboratory

TERM EXPIRES 2015A.WilliamBeckman,The Boeing CompanyVincentC.Boles,The Aerospace CorporationDavidA.King,Dynetics, Inc.CarolS.Lane,Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.KimLuu,Air Force Research LaboratoryIanW.Pryke,National Research CouncilFrankA.Slazer,Aerospace Industries AssociationMarciaS.Smith,Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC

SPACE TIMES EDITORIAL STAFFEDITOR,JeffreyP.Elbel

PHOTOANDGRAPHICSEDITOR,DianeL.ThompsonPRODUCTIONMANAGER,DianeL.Thompson

SPACE TIMESispublishedbimonthlybytheAmericanAstronauticalSociety,aprofessionalnon-profitsociety.SPACE TIMES isfreetomembers of theAAS. Individual subscriptionsmaybe orderedfromtheAASBusinessOffice.©Copyright2013bytheAmericanAstronauticalSociety,Inc.PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.ISSN1933-2793.

PERIODICALSSPACE TIMES,magazine of theAAS, bimonthly, volume 52,2013—$80domestic,$95foreign(Toorder,contact theAASat703-866-0020.)The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences,quarterly,volume59,2012(Toorder,contactSpringerat1-800-777-4643.)

REPRINTSReprintsareavailableforallarticlesinSPACE TIMESandallpaperspublishedinThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences.

3

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

SPACE TIMES•September/October2013

AAS–AdvancingAllSpace

LynD.Wigbels [email protected]

Government Shutdown Impact on SpaceActivities and AAS

AsIwritethis,thegovernmenthasfinallyreopenedafterovertwoweeksofpoliticalgrid-lockhereinWashington.NASAwasparticularlyhithardbytheshutdownwithapproximately98%ofitsemployeesfurloughed.WhiletheISSandexistingsatellitemissionscontinuedtooperate,dataanalysiswasnotsupported,andpreparationforfuturemissions–withafewexceptionssuchasMAVEN–weresuspended.AsimilarapproachwasadoptedbyNOAAandUSGS.Thecostandscheduleimpactsonagencyprogramsandprojectsareonlynowbeingassessed,butthereisnodoubtthattheshutdownhadasignificantimpactonspaceactivitiesaswellasgovernmentandsomeindustryemployees.Whileemployeesarewidelyreportedtobeexcitedandrelievedtobebackatworksupportingtheactivitiestheyholddear,itisnotclearwhatthelong-termimpactwillbeontheirmoraleandcommitmenttogovernmentservice.WithCongressonlypostponingdecisionsonthefiscalchallengesfacingthecountryaswellasonsequestration,thereisfearthatgridlockwillonceagaingripWashingtonatthebeginningof2014.Weallhopeinsteadthatthedramaticexperiencefromthelastfewweekswillleadtodiscussionandnegotia-tiononthesecriticalissues.

Closertohome,AASwatchedasthethreatofagovernmentshutdowngrewinSeptemberandlookedattheimpactitmighthaveonthe6thAnnualVonBraunSymposiumplannedinHuntsvilleOctober7-9inconjunctionwiththeHuntsvilleNationalSpaceClub’sVonBraunDinner.Whenthegovernmentshutdownoccurred,welostourNASAspeakersandattendance.However,wedecidedtoholdtheeventanywaybasedonthestrengthoftheprogramandthenumberofexcellentnon-governmentspeakersalreadyontheprogram.TheplanningcommitteefoundoutstandingreplacementsforalloftheNASAspeakers.Whileattendancewasdownfromlastyear,theSymposiumwasstillwellattended,andimmediatefeedbackfromthoseattendingwasallpositive.

Ourdecisiontowebcastthefirstmorningoftheconferenceresultedin2700peoplesigningontoviewWayneHale’skeynoteaddressandthefirstpanelthatfocusedonexploration,SLSandOrion.Theabilityofwebcasting,coupledwithTwitter,tosodra-maticallyexpandthereachofAASeventsisamazing.Webcastingthefirstmorningofthe2ndAnnualISSResearchandDevelop-mentConferencelastJulyalsoenabledAAStoreachawideraudience.Basedonthissuccess,weplantoincludelivestreamingofportionsoffutureAASeventssothatwecontinuetoexpandouraudience.

CongratulationsandmanythankstoAASExecutiveDirectorJamesKirkpatrickandthePlanningCommitteefororganizinganexcellentVonBraunSymposiuminthemostdifficultoftimes!TheircommitmenttotheSymposiumandeffortstoquicklyfillintheholesoftheagendaensuredaverysuccessfulconferenceappreciatedbyallattendees.Lookingtonextyear,the7thAnnualVonBraunSymposiumwillbeheldOctober27-29,2014.

Fortheremainderof2013,AASisactivelyplanningandsupportinganumberofkeyeventsinWashington.InNovember,wewillbeholdingthisyear’sfifthCorporateandInstitutionalMembersBreakfastwithNASAAssociateAdministratorRobertLightfoot,aneventfeaturingtheNOVAfilm“EarthFromSpace,”andapaneldiscussiononinternationalcooperationinspace.Weareco-sponsoringthe“AffordingMars”workshopinDecember.AdditionalCorporateandInstitutionalMembersBreakfastsarebeingplannedinthenextfewmonths.

Despiteadifficultyear,ourSocietyremainsstrongandiswellpositionedtoweathertheseuncertaintimesthankstothecom-mitmentandactiveinvolvementofitsmembers.IwelcomeyourthoughtsandideasonhowAAScanmoveforwardaswellasyourcontinuedinvolvementintheSociety’sactivities.


Energomash: 3, 2, 1 … liftoffbyJohnKrouse

Russian rocket engine supplier uses simu-lation tools to predict modal and dynamic loads

EngineersatRussianrocketenginesup-plierNPOEnergomash are using test andsimulationtoolstoaccuratelypredictmodalvibrationanddynamicloadsinturbinero-torsfornext-generationinternationallaunchvehicles.

With a heritage that dates back to the1940s,NPOEnergomashisoneofthelead-ingdevelopersofliquid-fuelrocketengines.Their designs for kerosene/liquid-oxygenpropulsionsystemsarerecognizedassomeof themost efficient and powerful in theworld.

Inrecentyears,theseengineshavebeenused in awide range of spacecraft.Morethan1,500 launcheshavebeenmadewiththeRussianFederalSpaceAgency’sSoyuzrockets.Theserocketspropelsatellitesintoorbitaswellaspeopleandequipment.Des-tinationsincludetheSovietMirspacestationin thepast,andcurrently theInternationalSpaceStation.

TheAtlasIIIUSorbital launchvehicleis poweredbyNPOEnergomash engines,as is theAtlasV,which is thenewestand

Figure 1. Producing 1.7 million pounds of thrust, the RD-170 designed and manufactured by NPO Energomash is one of the most powerful and fuel efficient kerosene/liquid-oxygen engines in the world.

most powerful of the family. CurrentlyunderdevelopmentistheAngaraseriesofRussianlaunchvehicles,intendedtobethenext-generationsuper-heavy-liftworkhorse.TheheavyAngaraserieswillbecapableofputtingpayloadsweighing asmuch as 28tons intoorbit,while themiddleand lightversionsareabletotransportpayloadsof14tonsand2tonsrespectively.

Major engineering challengesOneofthemajorchallengesindevelop-

ing such powerful engines is accuratelydeterminingvibrationsandloadsofcriticalcomponents,suchastheturbinerotor.Thisrotorisoneofthemostdynamicallystressedassembliesoftheliquid-fuelrocketengine.Knowing the amplitude and frequency ofthesedynamicloadsisespeciallyimportantin thedevelopmentof reusable rocket en-gines,althoughsingle-missionenginessuchasthosedevelopedfortheAtlasEvolvedEx-pendableLaunchVehicle(EELV)programaretypicallydesignedforthreeorfiveflightcyclesasanaddedmarginofsafety.

Directlymeasuring rotor loads duringactual engine burn is impractical due toextremetemperatures,highpressurelevels,

and poor access to rapidlymoving parts.On the other hand,mathematicalmodelsformethodssuchasfiniteelementanalysismaydeviatefromreal-worldrotorbehaviorbecauseofvariabilityinmaterialproperties,damping properties of the assembly, partgeometries,manufacturing processes andjoint configurations.All thismay lead toseriouserrorsindynamicloadassessment,andinsubsequentdurabilityandfatiguelifeestimates that relysolelyonmathematicalpredictions.

Correcting finite element models for ac-curate predictions

Theaccuracyofmathematicalpredictionscanbeincreasedappreciablythroughamul-tidisciplinaryapproachusingexperimentalmodaltestresultsdoneinthelabtocorrecterrorsinthefiniteelementmodel.AtNPOEnergomash,thistypeofmodel-correctionapproachwas recently investigated usingmodal analysis technology fromLMS In-ternational.

Specifically, test and simulation toolswereusedforestablishingtheimpactexcita-tionexperiment,measuringstructuralvibra-tions, analyzing results, identifyingmodaleigenfrequencies, correlating experimentalmeasurementswith predicted results, andcorrectingthefinite-elementmodelforoneoftheirengines.NPOEnergomashengineersalsoworkwithLMStechnologyinordertoincreasethisengine’sdurability.

Technicalassistanceandsystemtrainingon the projectwas providedbyOctava, apartnerofLMSInternationalintheRussianFederation.“WearehonoredthatLMStech-nologywas selectedbyNPOEnergomashfor such an important role in their long-rangeworkdeveloping rocket engines forinternationallaunches,”saidSergeyPanov,Octava chief application consultant andheadoftheengineeringsupportteamfortheNPOEnergomashproject.“TheirselectiondemonstratesconfidenceinthetechnologybehindLMStestandsimulationtoolsaswellastheexpertiseofourapplicationengineersforaprojectofthisscope.”

Turbine rotor testingTovalidatetheapproach,testswereper-


Fig. 2: Modal test results (left) show how a 29-blade, 21 kg rocket engine turbine rotor (right) deforms at 1168.3 Hz, one of 20 eigenfrequencies identified by LMS Test.Lab.

formedbyNPOEnergomashengineersona29-bladenickelalloyturbinerotormeasur-ing340mmindiameterandweighing21kg.Testswere conducted using a 40-channelLMSSCADASIIIdataacquisitionsystemandLMSTest.Labforsignalprocessingandanalysis.Therotorspecimenwashitsequen-tially at 187 pointswith an instrumentedhammerwhilemeasurementswere takensimultaneouslyat6locations.Ideallocationsfor impact and accelerometers placementwere determined usingLMSVirtual.Labsimulationtools.

LMSTest.LabPolyMAX readily iden-tified more than 20 eigenfrequencies,automatically highlighting resonances onstraightforwardplots,sothattheengineerscouldvisuallyidentifynaturalfrequenciesinminutesinsteadofspendinghourslookingthroughrawdata.LMSVirtual.LabCorrela-tionsoftwarethencomparedtestmeasure-mentsandpredictedresultsusingaModalAssuranceCriteria(MAC)matrixdiagramthat showedwhere the two types of dataalignandwheretheydiverge.Inthiscase,theMACdiagramindicatedthattheeigen-frequenciesidentifiedthroughtestingwereonaveragemorethan8%higherthanthosepredicatedbyfinite-elementcalculations.

“Asensitivityanalysisoftheresultsus-ingLMSVirtual.LabOptimizationsoftwareindicatedthatadjustingmaterialpropertiessuch asYoung’smodulus and density ofthe shroud ring surrounding the rotorwasthe bestway to correct thefinite-elementmodel,”notedVladimirTkach,leadengineer

and designer atNPOEnergomash. “TheLMS software indicated parameters thatshouldbechangedthatwerenotobvious.”

Thesecorrectionsweremadetothemath-ematicalmodel.Asubsequentfinite-elementanalysis for all major eigenfrequenciesshowedaclosecorrelationwithinanaver-age of 2%– an appreciable improvementthatwillenableNPOEnergomashengineerstobetterdesignfuture turbinerotorsmorecloselymatched to engine service-life re-

Fig. 3. The Soyuz TMA-13 spacecraft arrives at the launch pad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakh-stan, Friday, Oct. 10, 2008 for launch Oct. 12 to carry Expedition 18 Commander Michael Fincke, Flight Engineer Yury V. Lonchakov and American Spaceflight Participant Richard Garriott to the International Space Station. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)

The late John Krouse was contributing editor to LMS News of Leuven, Belgium. Space Times regrets news of his passing. For more information, contact Stephen Glad with Structured Information in Waterford, Michigan. (Email – [email protected]; Telephone – 248-952-5664; Website – http://www.lmsintl.com/)

quirements.


What goes up … doesn’t come down quickly enough!– a comprehensive multi-disciplinary study of the space debris problem by a Project Team of the International Space University’s Space Studies ProgrambyMarkSeymour

ABSTRACT

Highintheskiesabove,whatcanbecon-sidered among humanity’s greatest tech-nological achievements speed along theirorbitsaroundourEarth.Thesesatellitesareour“eyesinthesky,”keepingwatchoverusfromaboveandlookingoutintothecos-mosbeyondour planet. Satellites are ourworkhorses, enablingour information-agesociety,gatheringvastamountsofdataonthe state of ourworld, relayingour com-municationsfromonecorneroftheglobetoanother,andprovidinghighlyaccuratetimeandpositionfixes.Butwhatgoesupdoesnoteasilycomedown.LongaftersatelliteshavereachedtheirEndOfLife(EOL),orrocketshavereleasednewsatellitesintoorbit,thesespentlaunchvehiclesanddefunctsatellitescanremaininorbitaroundtheEarthforalongperiodoftime,becominghighlydan-gerousprojectilesthatposearealdangertootherobjectswhosepathstheycross.Theybecomespacedebrisobjects,andsuchob-jectsareaccumulatinginspaceatagreaterratethanthenaturalrateoforbitdecaythatbringsthembackdowntoEarth.

ItisbecomingparticularlycrowdedinLowEarthOrbit(LEO),theareaofspacefrom~100kmto~2000kminaltitude.ManyvitalscientificandcommercialsatellitesoperateinLEO.Our daily lives have become sodependentontheseEarth-orbitingsatellitesand related technology, thathumanityhastaken the services of these satellites forgranted.Manyofusareblissfullyunawareof justhowimmediate the threatofspacedebrisistooursatellitesandourwayoflife.

This article summarizes the results of ateamprojectonspacedebriscompletedbyparticipantsoftheInternationalSpaceUni-versity(ISU)duringthe2012SpaceStudies

Program,toformulateacomprehensiveso-lutiontothegrowingspacedebrisproblem.

INTRODUCTION

Spacedebris is commonlydefinedas anyman-madeobjectthatisstillinorbitaroundtheEarthbutno longerperformsausefulfunctionandhasbecomeahazardtooper-atingsatellitesandanymannedpresenceinspace.Spacedebrisrangesinsizefromtinyobjectsaroundamillimeterindiametertointactlargesatellitesandrocketbodiesthatare several thousand kilograms inmass.Therearepresentlyabouttwentythousandcatalogedandtrackeddebrisobjects,allofwhichhavesufficientlyhighorbitalvelocity(typically~7km/s)thatthekineticenergyreleasedinacollisionwithoneofthemisusuallyenoughtodestroyorrenderinoper-ablewhateverishit.

The threat of debris is notmerely a con-cept.Satelliteoperatorsarereceivingmorefrequentpredictionsof‘nearmisses’wheretheyhavebeenadvisedtotakeevasiveac-tiontoavoidapotentialcollision.Atleastoneknowncollisionbetweenanoperationalsatelliteandspacedebrishasoccurredre-cently(Iridium-Cosmosin2009),andothercollisionshavebeensuspected.Notonlyaresuchcollisionscatastrophicforthesatellitethat is hit, but thevery act of destructiondisintegratesthesatelliteintothousandsofnewpiecesofspacedebris.Suchnewfrag-mentscanthengoontohitotherobjectsinspace,withtherealdangerofacascadingeffectwheredebriscreationreachesachainreactionofexponentialgrowthindebrisob-jects.Intheworstcasescenario,entireorbitsandaltituderangescouldbecomeunusable.The prediction of a cascading effectwasbasedonamodelproposedbyCour-PalaisandKesslerasfarbackas1978;thecurrent

observedgrowthindebrisobjectpopulationseems to follow this “KesslerSyndrome”model, showing a steady increase in ob-servedtotaldebrispopulation,acceleratedby discrete jumpswhen large objects arehitandfragment.

AREAS OF STUDY

TheISUTeamdividedthestudyofthede-brisproblemintothreemaindisciplines.Thetechnical challenges of removing existingdebrisareperhapsthosemoststudiedbyvar-iousagenciesandindustries,soonegroupwas assigned to investigate and proposesolutionsforactivedebrisremoval(ADR).Another group tackled passivemitigationapproaches,andthethirdgroupstudiedandformulatedthepolitical,legal,andfinancialframeworkthatwouldbeneededtorealizeanyactivedebrisremovalsystemsorfurtherpassivemitigationmeasures.

The current status of space debris mitiga-tion and removal

Research by the ISUTeam showed thatmanyspaceagencies,industry,andspace-faringnationshaveagreedinprinciplewithasetofdebrismitigationguidelinesrecom-mendedbytheUnitedNationsCommitteeforthePeacefulUsesofOuterSpace(UNCOPUOS) and the Inter-AgencyDebrisCoordination Committee (IADC). Oneexampleofsuchguidelinesisthe“25YearRule”thatrequiressatellitestobebuiltwithtechnologythatwillbeusedtodeorbitthesatellitewithin25yearsafter itsEOL.Astheseareonlyguidelines,therearecurrentlyno enforceable actions possible or takenagainstviolators.

Whilenationsandagencieshavebeenkeentodesign-oncompliancewiththe“25year


rule”intotheirmissions,therealityhasbeenthatfewmissionoperatorsperformedade-orbitattheendoftheoperationallifetime,orloweredthealtitudesothatthespacecraftwould burn up in the atmospherewithin25years.With thegreatexpenseofspacemissions and the high costs of replacingagingsatellites,missionsareoperatedforaslongaspossible,addingtothespacedebrisproblemwhentheyinevitablyfail(ashaverecentmissionsENVISAT,RadarSat-1,andothers).

Active Debris Removal

ThegroupstudyingActiveDebrisRemoval(ADR) tackled the problem according tothesizesofthedebrisobjects,aseachsizeposesitsownuniquechallenges.Thefirsttaskwas to examine existing conceptualstudiesandthefewdemonstrationmissionsortechnologiesthathavealreadyflowninspace,whethertheyweredirectlyusedfordebrisremovalornot.

Forthelowestaltitudeobjects,ground-basedlasersareanoption,usingthepressureoflight to slow the debris down enough to

causeittore-enter.Buttocontrolthecontin-uedgrowthofthedebrispopulation,itisfarbettertotargetremovalofthelargestdebrisobjectswhiletheyarestillrelativelyintact,beforetheybreakuporcollidewithotherobjectstodrasticallyincreasethepopulationofindividualpiecesofdebris.

Forlargedebrisobjectsover30cmdiameter,existing concepts forADRmechanismssuchasgrapplenetsandroboticarmswerestudied.Otherpromisingareasofresearchincludeattachingelectrodynamicandmo-mentum tethers to largedebrisobjects, tointeractwiththeEarth’smagneticorgravita-tionalfieldrespectively,sothattheresultingincreaseddraggraduallydeorbitstheobject.A particularly interesting approach is toattach inflatableballoons todefunctsatel-litesorother largedebrisobjects, therebyincreasingtheirsurfacearea,which,inturn,increasesatmosphericdrag.

Recommended Technical Solutions for Active Debris Removal

Thestudies intodebris removal technolo-giesonthewholespectrumofdebrissizes

andmomentumconfigurations resulted inseveral concrete recommendations, all ofwhich can be implementedwith today’stechnology.

SOLUTION 1: SpiderSat

SpiderSatisanADRmissiontargetingde-functmicro-,mini-andsmallsatellites,andpiecesofdebrislargerthan10cmdiameter.TheSpiderSatconceptisadedicatedADRsatelliteequippedwithremovalmechanismsthatcanbeappliedtoseveraldebrisobjects.Thismakesthemissionhighlyefficient,asit canbringdownmultiple debris objectsthattotalgreaterthanthemassofSpiderSatitself.Debris removal by SpiderSat is a two-stageprocess: afterSpiderSat locates andapproaches a debris object, a tethered,expandingnet isfired towards thedebris.Thenetenvelopesandcapturesthedebris,laterdrawingtightarounditsothatitisheldfirmly.Aballoonattachedtothenetwouldthen be inflated and rigidized to a greatvolume,presentingalargesurfaceareatotheatmosphere,resultinginalargeamountofatmosphericdrag.Overtime,theballoonwill accelerate the process of deorbitingthedebrisobject caught in thenet; in themeantime, SpiderSatwill continue on torendezvouswithotherdebris.

DeployableballoonsforuseinspaceareatahighTechnologyReadinessLevel(TRL)and could be ready for use in amissionsuch asSpiderSat in the near future.Thetechnology for a deployable net that cancapture debris object is lessmature, andthisareawouldnecessitatefurtherresearchandtesting.

SOLUTION 2: CHASER

Largerdebrisobjects,whichrequiremorecomplexrendezvous(duetotheirhighan-gularmomentum)andcaptureoperations,requiretheuseofdifferenttechnology.Thesuggested solution for this classofdebrisobjects in the >1meter diameter rangerequiresachaserspacecraft:alarge,three-axis-controlledspacecraftusingionpropul-siontorendezvouswithpreviously-selectedlargedebrisobjecttargets.

Thechaserwillbeequippedwithadock-Figure 1: SpiderSat mission concept


ingmechanismspecifictothetargetdebrisobject - eitheradocking ringclamp,oraroboticgrapplemechanism.Thechaserwillbringthedebrisobjectunderstableattitudecontrol,andthenfirealarge,primarychemi-calpropulsionengine.Thisburnwillbeusedtoinitiateacontrolledre-entryofthecom-binedbody,targetinganoceansplashdownforanypiecesofthedebrisobject–andthechaser spacecraft– thatmight survive re-entry.Eachchaserspacecraftwouldbringdownalargedebrisobjectmanytimesitsownmass.Ifseveralchaserspacecraftcanshare a launchvehicle, the systemwouldachieveanimpressivelyhighdebris-mass-removed-per-launchratio.

Medium-sizeddebrisobjectsaround~10cmindiameterwouldbedeorbitedby apro-posed Laser Orbital Deorbit Removal(LODR) system,whereby high-poweredground-basedlaserswouldusephotonmo-mentum transfer to reduce thevelocityofdebrisobjectsupto1000kmaway,untiltheobjectsre-enterandburnupontheirown.

Passive Debris Mitigation Strategies

Thesecondgrouplookedatmitigationstrat-egiestopreventnewspacecraftandrocketsfromaddingtothedebrispopulations.ThisOrbitalDebrisMitigation (ODM) groupgathered data on the level of complianceand effectiveness ofUNCOPUOSdebris

Figure 2: Chaser mission concept

mitigationmeasures, formulating somestraight-forward rules and suggestions forspacecraftandrocketdesigngoingforward,which should have a considerable impactinpreventingnewly-launchedobjectsfrombecomingspacedebris.

TheODMgroupmadethefollowingstate-mentsofrecommendation:

1. We recommend that the use of long-term degradable materials be investigated for use in building satellites and launch vehicles.

Thismeasurewillhelpspacecraftandrocketbodiescompletelyburnuponre-entry.

2. We recommend updating ISO standards to optimize spacecraft body shielding against debris object collisions.

Apushtostandardizeshieldingrequirementsfornewspacecraftandrocketswillhelpen-sureauniformlevelofprotectionforthesevehiclesandincreasetheirsurvivability.

3. We recommend greater debris object tracking capability and accuracy, and greater computational power applied to debris object conjunction analysis.

The improvement of collision predictionaccuracywillhelpwithpreventingavoid-ablecollisionsandwillsupportfutureADR

missions.

4. We recommend that any deliberate de-struction of an on-orbit spacecraft or a de-bris object be only carried out below 200km.

Thisissimplytoavoidanydeliberatecre-ationofdebris– shouldamalfunctioningsatelliteor largedebris itemposinga riskneedtobeshotdown,itshouldbeperformedatanaltitudewhereallfragmentswillquick-lyre-enterandburnupintheatmosphere.

5. We recommend all spacecraft and launch vehicle upper stages be passivated.

Passivationreferstothedeliberatereleaseoffuelorotheron-boardfluids,run-downofbatteriesandsoon.Suchmeasurescanpre-emptexplosionsoftenseeninrocketbodies,orasuddenincreaseinangularmomentumassuchbodiesrupturetheirfuellinesandventtospace,increasingthespinrateofthemainbody.

6. We recommend that the “25-year rule” become mandatory in national law.

Makingthisrulemandatorywouldrequireentitiesapplying for launchpermission toprovideproofofpassiveoractiveon-boardtechnologiestoensurethatobjectsarede-orbitedwithin25years.

7. We recommend the continued careful management of ‘slots’ in geostationary orbit.

Here thegeostationaryorbitof communi-cationssatelliteswouldbecarefullymoni-tored,andmeasureswouldbetakentoavoidovercrowdingandthecreationofdebrisinthisvitalorbit.

8. We recommend the mandatory inclusion of passive deorbiting techniques on all new spacecraft.

Suchtechnologiescouldincludeaninflat-ableballoondevice,whichwouldbeinde-pendentofmainspacecraftorlaunchvehiclesystems, to be commanded fromGroundto inflate atmissionEOL.Othermethodsinclude using optical reflectors on space-craft and launch vehicles to aid tracking,andaddinggrapplepointsonspacecrafttoenablepotentialfutureADRmissions.The


groupalsosuggestedequippingspacecraftwith active identification transponders tosupporttrackingfromGroundandinorbit.

The Political, Financial, and Legal As-pects of Space Debris

The ISUTeam’s third group performeda comprehensive review of the nationaland international policies, regulations,andorganizational challenges involved intackling spacedebris, concluding that theexistingframeworkisnoteffectiveforpre-ventingdebrispopulationgrowth.Aseriesof concrete recommendationsweremade,the implementation ofwhich couldmakea significant leap fromwhat seems to bethecurrent“hopeforthebest”approach,toembarkingonacourseofpositiveaction.Therecommendationsareasfollows:

1. We recommend that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) extends its purview to orbital traffic.

This body already coordinates theman-agement of global airspace; therefore, itrepresents a validmodel for internationalmanagement of the space domain. ICAOwould develop safety regulations for op-erations in the space domain, establish aregulatory framework for governing useofthespacedomain,andmandateasafetycertificationprocessthatspace-faringenti-tiesmustfollowinordertobeallowedtooperateinspace.

2. We recommend the immediate creation of an international organization to carry out orbital debris removal.

Thisentity,dubbed“IODRO”forInterna-tionalOrbitalDebrisRemovalOrganization,would include all currentmember statesoftheIADC.IODRO’smandatewouldbeto coordinate and implement all researchand development, and later the design,financing, implementation and operationofActiveDebrisRemovalsystems,takinglegalresponsibilityforADRmissionsand“ownership” of captured debris. IODROwouldbeestablishedasalegalentityandlaunchingstate,andwouldhavetheauthor-itytoenforcelawsrelatedtospacedebris.TheISUSpaceDebrisTeamProjectReportdescribesa50-yearplanfortheevolutionof

IODROanditsfutureactivities.

3. We recommend the development and international adoption of Orbital Debris Removal Guidelines, to be implemented and enforced as national law.

AnentitysuchastheIADC,theUNorevenIODROcouldtakeonthetaskofformulat-ingasetoflaws,whichindividualnationswouldadoptandratifyintheirjurisdiction,so that all nations follow a common andenforceableapproach.

4. We recommend that the International Standards Organization (ISO), create a certification for “clean” or “debris free” launch vehicles and satellites.

Such launchvehiclesand satelliteswouldbeawardedthecertificationforhavingin-builtpassiveandactivemeasurestoavoiddebriscreation,sufficienttomeetorexceedallnationalandinternationalstandards,andthusoffera“goldstandard”thatbuyersoflaunchvehiclesandsatellitescouldusetoensureadherencetonationallaws.

5. We recommend that the mandate of the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs be extended.

WiththebackingoftheUNGeneraAssem-bly,OOSAshouldbegivenadditionaltasks,withthebackingoftheUnitedNationsGen-eralAssembly,toperformpro-activerolesinthefacilitationofthegrantingof‘removalrights’betweenstates(forexample,whereadebris-object-owningnationwouldgiveanentitylikeIODROpermissiontointercept,captureandre-enteritsdebrisobject,whiledisclaiming any liability) and establish aregisterofcertifiedActiveDebrisRemovalmissions/organizations.

Financing the Solution

TheISUreportmakesthecaseforfinancingorbitaldebrismanagementmeasures-bothpassiveandADRmissions-throughaneco-nomicanalysisofthe“value”ofspace,usingsuchsourcesastheWorldSpaceReportandtheFederalAviationAdministrationtogath-erfiguresrepresentingthetotal“cost”ofallsatelliteslaunchedinaparticularyear,andtherevenuethatthesemissionsgenerated.

The group obtained figures ofUS$11.9billionworth (bymanufacturing cost) ofsatellites launched in2011, countingbothgovernmentandcommerciallaunches;thegroupalsofoundanexpectationthatcom-mercialEarthObservationmissionswouldgenerateUS$4.45billioninrevenuebytheyear2020.

Withthesefigures,itishardnottojustifyspendingmoney tosavemoney -protect-ingtheinvestmentandrevenue-generatingpotentialinherentinspaceassets.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The ISUSpaceDebris ProjectTeamhastackled the space debris problem from avarietyofangles–technological,political,financial,legal,andorganizational–withthehopeof demonstrating that if coordinatedactionistakenonabroadrangeoffronts,theexponentialincreaseofthedebrispopulationcanbeslowed,andevenonedayreversed.

TheISUProjectReportmakesacompellingcasetotakeontheconcretestepsneededtoachieve theultimategoalof regularADRmissions,significantdebrisremoval,andthesignificantreductioninthecreationofnewdebris.Kessler’sSyndromemightbeavertedyet.ThefullreportisavailabletothepublicthroughtheISUwebsiteatwww.isunet.edu,andinterestedreadersarehighlyencouragedtoobtainacopy.

The author, Mark Seymour, ISU Partici-pant, SSP 2012, acknowledges the work of the ISU Space Debris Project team on which this article is based and the project support provided by the following organi-zations: National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Ames Research Center and Johnson Space Center; Centre natio-nale d’études spatiale; COM DEV Canada, the European Space Operations Centre of the European Space Agency; TU Delft; TU Braunschweig; NSL Satellites; George Washington University; HÉC Montréal; Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies; The Planetary Society; McGill University; Antwerp Space; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; the Inter-national Association for the Advancement of Space Safety; D-Orbit S.R.L.


Language Protocols in Human SpaceflightbyMeganAnsdell

Winner of the 2011 Sacknoff Prize for Space History, the paper was originally published in the Volume 18 #4 issue of “Quest: The History of Spaceflight,” www.spacehistory101.com. Launched in 2011, the Sacknoff Prize for Space History was established to encourage research and writing efforts among university students in the area of space history. The winning paper receives a cash prize, a plaque, pub-lication in Quest, and presentation of the paper to The Society of History of Tech-nology’s Albatross aerospace committee.

* * * * * * * * * *

Shuttle-Mir astronautMike Foaleonce said, “When I realized that IwasgoingtobesenttoRussiatodothisjobontheMir,itwasquitecleartomethatsuddenlylanguageisamuch,muchmoreimportantpartofthiswholeexperience.”Foaleremembersknowingthathewouldhaveto“stopdoingallthosethingsyoulikedoinginyourfreetime…Iwasgoingtohavetostopforthenexttwoyears…Instead, Ionly readRussian.”Althoughpeople call Foale “gifted” for his “highaptitudeoflanguage,”hisresponseisthat“Idon’tbelievethat’sreallyso.Ibelieveit’s because Imade that decision toputthosehoursin.”1

Indeed,mostpeopleoverlookthedif-ficulty and importance of the languagebarrierininternationalhumanspaceflightmissions,with the notable exceptionofthosewho have flown or directly sup-ported them.Although therehasbeenastrikinglackofformaldiscussiononthisissue,astronautsandtheirsupportteamshavebeenremarkablyvocalaboutwhatthey consider to be a significant chal-lengewithfar-reachingimpactsontheirmissions.

Yet,ahistoricalanalysisofthreepastinternational human spaceflight pro-grams—theApollo-SoyuzTest Project(ASTP), the Shuttle-Mir Program, and

the International Space Station (ISS)—reveals that their language protocolshave been significantly influenced bygeopoliticalfactors.Thishasresultedinsub-optimal operational environmentsthat have adversely affected the overallefficiencyandsafetyoftheseprograms.

Language protocols, therefore,maybeanidealareatobegininstitutingfun-damentalchangesininternationalhumanspaceflightendeavorsthatarebecomingincreasinglymultinationalwhilealsofac-ingflatortighteningbudgetenvironments.

The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project:The Language of the Listener

On17July1975, twocountrieswithclashingideologiesanddistinctlydifferentculturescompletedthefirstinternationalrendezvous anddockingof two crewedspacecraft inorbit.Thisoccasionofco-operation, known as theApollo-SoyuzTestProject, differeddramatically fromprevious years of the space era,whichwerecharacterizedbyintensecompetitionbetweentheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnion.Moreover,thiseventoccurredinthemidstoftheColdWar,duringwhich“therewere a lot of imaged scenariosaboutwhatthreats,militarythreats,couldbe constituted andwouldderive fromanewtheaterlikespace.”2

Nevertheless, by the early 1970s theColdWarhad“thawedenough toallowtheUnitedStatesandtheSovietUniontoconsiderajointmannedspacemission.”3Discussionsofpotentialcooperationbe-tweenthetwosuperpowersinspacehadbeenunderwayforoveradecadeleadinguptoASTP,thoughmostlyinfieldsrelatedtoscienceandsatelliteapplications.TheWhiteHouse,however,didnottakeco-operationinhumanspaceflightseriouslyuntilspacebecame“animportantingredi-entinNixon’spolicyofdétentewiththeSovietUnion.”4Thislargerforeignpolicyagendaaimedto“loosentensionsbetweentwo superpowers and to pursue shared

interests in thefieldsof science,health,andspaceinthespiritoffriendshipandcamaraderie.”5

PresidentRichardNixon signed thefirstformalagreementforASTPduringavisittoMoscowinMay1972.Asstatedinthisdocument,theprimarypurposeofASTPwas to develop “compatible ren-dezvousanddockingsystemsofUnitedStatesandSovietmannedspacecraftandstationsinordertoenhancethesafetyofmannedflightinspaceandtoprovidetheopportunityforconductingjointscientificexperiments in the future.”6Ultimately,the project consisted of the rendezvousanddockingofanAmericanApollo-typespacecraftwithaSovietSoyuz-typecap-sule, followedwith crewmember visitstoeachother’sshipsaswellasjointandseparatescientificexperiments—alloverthecourseofjustseveraldays.

Yet,ASTPwasmuchmore than anengineeringflight testwith science ex-periments.Aspreviouslydiscussed,itwaspartoftheNixonadministration’sgreater“policy of détente.”Moreover, itwas awayforNASAtoclosethegapbetweenthe lastApollomissionandfirstShuttleflight,giventheagency’stighteningbud-getundertheNixonadministration.

Planningbeganwithoutprecedentforhowtocarryoutsuchamission.Althoughtechnicalaspectsconsumedmuchoftheearly stages,NASA’sASTPmanager,GlynnLunney,rememberedthat itsoon“becameclearthatweneededtogooverand clarify, besides a set of technicaldescriptionsofhowthesesystemsmightwork,howwouldweworktogether,howwouldwe handle public affairs, howwouldwehandlecommunications,andsoonandsoon.”7Neithersidehadtheupperhandintermsoftechnology,yetbothwereadamantinprotectingtheirowninterests,while at the same time demonstratingclose cooperation for political reasons.ThelanguageprotocolforASTP,andinparticular how it evolved, reflected this


environment.Thelanguagebarrierwasaparticular

concern to the crewmembers ofASTP.They discussed the subject in officialdocuments leadingup to theflight, andhave also revisited the topic in theirmemoirs.AleskeiLeonov,commanderoftheSoyuz-typespacecraft,wasespeciallyvocalabouttheissue.

Just over a year before themission,Leonovreportedthat“Thereisyetanotherproblemthatwe,asSovietcosmonauts,just asourAmerican colleagues, regardas very important.This is the languageproblem.”8A year after the successfulcompletionofASTP,hewrotethatfromtheverybeginning“overcomingthelan-guagebarrierwasputontheagendaalongwiththetechnicalandcontrolproblems.Withoutthis,onecouldnoteventalkaboutasuccessfulcompletionoftheprogram.”9Indeed,whencomparingthetechnicalandlanguage challenges ofASTP, Leonovstated that they“mayhavehaddifficul-tiesmasteringeachother’slanguage,butwiththetechnicalsidethingsweremuchsimpler.”10

SimilarsentimentswerepresentontheAmerican side.ThomasStafford, com-mander of theApollo-type spacecraft,recalledthatwhentheybegandiscussionsonhowtheprojectwouldwork,“eachex-changewascomplicatedbythelanguagebarrier,andbywildlydifferentapproachestosolvingproblems. Iwasgladwehadthree years to get ready to fly.”11DekeSlayton, dockingmodule pilot for theApollo-type spacecraft, remembered he“spentalotoftimeinthesimulatortrain-ingtoflythecommandmodule…thatpartof the trainingwent smoothly.The lan-guagestuffwastherealbear,however.”12

Slayton recalled, “When I added upthehourslater,IfoundIspentmoretimestudyingRussian than doing any otherkindoftrainingforApollo-Soyuz.”13Ac-cordingtoLeonov,eachASTPcrewmem-berspentroughly1,000hoursinlanguagelessonsleadinguptothemission.14Evenwith such intensive training, Slaytonadmitted,“Ineverreallygotcomfortablewith theRussian language to theextentthatIcouldhaveconversations.Partlythiswasbecauseweconcentratedontechnical

exchanges…Icouldbarelygetalonginasocial setting.”15The samewas true ontheSoviet side;Leonovalso confessed,“LearningEnglish did prove themostdifficultpartofourtraining…frequentlyIsatupuntilaftermidnightmemorizingwords…Allthesame,myEnglishisnoth-ingtobragabout.AllIcansayisthattheU.S.astronautshadasmuchtroublewiththeRussianlanguage.”16

Interestingly, there appears to havebeenanelementofcompetitioninlearningeachother’s language.Stafford realizedduringhisfirsttrainingvisittotheSovietUnioninNovember1973“onethingthatwas clearwas that the cosmonauts hadcaughtupandpassedusinthelanguagerace…eachof theSoyuzcrewmembershad anEnglish instructorwith himdayand night.”17 Slayton also rememberedhow“seeingthattheRussiansweregettingmuchbetter inEnglishmadeus realizewe’dbetter get serious, and right aboutthistimewegotseveraladditionalinstruc-tors.”18Indeed,StaffordhadcalledChrisKraft,thencenterdirectoroftheMannedSpacecraftCenterinHouston,19totellhimthat“wewerenotgoingtobesuccessfulinthismissionwithoutmoreRussianinstruc-tors…instructorsonweekends,or6A.M.ormidnight,theyhadtobeavailable.”20

The originalASTP agreement calledforeachcrewmembertospeaktheirownlanguage, regardless of whether theywere speaking to aSoviet orAmericancrewmember.21Thus, themain trainingfocusduringthesummerof1974wasonensuringallcrewmemberscouldatleastreadandunderstandbasictechnicalcom-mands in eachother’s language.Crewsspent hours “literally following scriptsforavarietyofsituationsweexpectedtoencounter.”However,theysoonfoundthatapproachtobe“insufficienttocarryouttherequiredprocedures.”22

Itwastheastronautsandcosmonautsthemselves who drove the completereversal of theASTP languageprotocolduring that same summer.According toStafford,itallbeganatapartywhenheandcosmonautAnatolyFilipchenkoau-tomaticallytriedtocommunicateineachother’s language; they realized that this

Portrait of the Apolllo-Soyuz crewmembers (Source: NASA)


arrangement resulted in them“naturallyspeakingmore slowly and distinctly.”23Theypresentedtheideaof“conversinginthelanguageofthelistener”24totheothercrewmembersandflightplannersthenextday.Because“nobody thoughtwhatwehadwasworkingespeciallywell,weallagreedtogiveitatry.Itbecameourstan-dardmethod.”25Fromthenon,AmericanastronautsspoketoSovietcosmonautsinRussian,whileSovietcosmonautsspoketoAmericanastronautsinEnglish.

Thisapproachworkedwellintermsofachievingbothoperational andpoliticalgoalsofthemission.Notonlydidopera-tionsgosmoothlyduringflight,butalsotelevision audiences backonEarthwit-nessedSoviet cosmonautsgivinga touroftheirSoyuz-typespacecraftinEnglish,followedbyAmericanastronautsshowingtheirApollo-type capsule inRussian.26These televised exchanges conveyedtheunprecedentedextentofcooperationbetween these twosuperpowersand theclosenessthatthecrewsestablishedduringyearsoftrainingtogether.

Directly after themission, Leonovconfirmed that theASTP approach of“conversing in the language of the lis-tener”was “entirely justified” for thatspecificmission.27However,healsonotedthat“insubsequentspaceexpeditionsthedurationoftheflightwillbesignificantlyincreased and the number of participat-ingcountrieswillgrow,”therebyposingquestionsof“whichlanguagewillbethemostacceptableforcrewsspeakingmanylanguages?Howdoesonepreparepeopleforovercomingthelanguagebarrier?”28

These statements remain true today.ASTP’slanguageprotocoladdressedop-erationalconstraintsarisingfromhavingonlyacoupleofyearstoprepareforamis-sionlastingjustafewdays.Atthesametime,itwasconsistentwiththemission’sforeignpolicygoalofillustratingcoopera-tionbetweenthetwosuperpowersoftheColdWar.Thisapproach,however,lacksapplicabilitytofuturehumanspaceflightprograms,whichwillmostlikelyinvolveexpandedmultinational cooperation inlong-termmissionsbeyondEarthorbit.

Leonov’s questions, unfortunately,

remainunanswered.

Shuttle-Mir Program: Russian Station, Russian Rules

ASTPandShuttle-Mirwereverydif-ferentprogramsinmanyrespects,includ-ingtheirinitialmotivations,geopoliticalcontexts, andmission durations.WhileASTPwasaimedatdemonstratingcoop-erationbetweentwosuperpowersduringawaningColdWar,theShuttle-Mirpro-gramwasdrivenbythebudgetaryrealitiesand geopolitical threats of a post-ColdWarera.

The early 1990s sawbothAmericanandRussian space programs strugglingtoestablishclearpurposeandvisionwithincreasingly limited resources.NASAwasfightingCongresstokeepaliveSpaceStationFreedom—a substantially over-budgetandbehind-schedulecooperativeeffort among theUnited States, Japan,Europe,andCanadatobuildanorbitingstation.At the same time, the recentlyestablishedRussianSpaceAgency(RSA)desperatelyneededfundingtokeepMirinorbitgiventheuncertainbudgetarycondi-tionsofthenewRussianFederation.Thepost-ColdWar chaoswas also creating

securityconcernsontheAmericanside,inparticularthetransferofSoviet-eramissiletechnologytocountriesunfriendlytotheUnitedStates.

Both sides saw that the Shuttle-Mirprogramcouldaddressthesechallenges.BysendingitsastronautstoMir,NASAcouldgainvaluableexperienceinspacestation operations. In exchange, RSAcould obtain funds fromNASA to helpkeepitsstationinorbit.BykeepingRus-sian engineers engaged in joint spaceactivities,theUnitedStatescouldpreventtheproliferationofmissiletechnologytopotentiallyhostileregimes.29

AlthoughShuttle-Mirbeganasastand-alone program, it soon became PhaseOneofathree-phaseagendafortheISSprogram—evolved fromSpace StationFreedom after the official inclusion ofRussiaasastationpartnerin1993.PhaseOnewasmeant to prepareNASA andRSA forworking together on buildingandoperating the ISS, as theywere thetwopartnerscontributingthemosttothestationintermsofresourcesandhardware(PhaseTwo consisted of ISS assembly,whilePhaseThreewas to be the actualoperationoftheISS).30

The Apollo-Soyuz handshake (Source: NASA)


TheShuttle-Mir program ultimatelyincluded11Shuttleflightsandsevenlong-durationstaysofNASAastronautsaboardMir, fromFebruary1994 to June1998.ThesevenNASAastronautswhostayedonMirduringthistimewere,inorderofflight,NormThagard, ShannonLucid,JohnBlaha,JerryLinenger,MikeFoale,DavidWolf,andAndyThomas.

While Shuttle-Mirwas clear in pur-pose, itwas turbulent inmanyotherre-spectsincludingitspolitical,managerial,technical, and safety aspects.AlthoughAmericanandSovietspaceprogramshadbecome close duringASTP, the SovietUnion’sinvasionofAfghanistanin1979

severed the relationship.31Moscow’sspace infrastructure had also undergoneseriousdecay,withStarCity’sbuildingsliterallycrumbling.32

Trust issues therefore arose on bothsides.Staffordrememberedbeingwarnedduringtheearlystagesoftheprogram’snegotiationsinMoscowof“Russiancon-cernsthatAmericawasgoingtousethepretextofcooperationto‘suckup’theirtechnology at bargain rates.”33 FormerNASAastronautBryanO’Connor,duringhisvisittoMoscowinJuly1992,had“realconcernsabouthowwecanensureagood,safe operating environment for [NASApersonnel]”giventhestateoftheRussian

spaceprogram,whathecalled“onehellofanenvironment.”34

Given these circumstances, it is notsurprisingthatastronautselectionwasaproblemforNASA.NotonlydidtheRus-siansrequirethateveryAmericantoflyonMirbespaceflightexperienced,butwhenNASAmanagementwent looking forcandidatesinearly1992,“Theyweren’tstampeded.”35Outofover100astronautsinthecorps,only“aboutelevenortwelve”volunteered.36Mostwereastronautveter-answho,asThagarddescribed,“thoughtitwasaneatthingtodo…itwasarideonaSoyuzrocket,itwastraininginRussia,anditwaslong-duration…whichwouldbe

Suttle-Mir (Source: NASA)


unlikeanythingthatI’dexperiencedintheShuttleProgram.”37ButasBlaharecalled,“aspeoplestartedhearingreportsback,Ithinkthevolunteerlistdiminished.”38

During the program’s operationalyears,ongoingtechnicalproblemsraisedsignificantsafetyconcerns.InthecourseofjustLinenger’sstintonthestation,therewasafirethatlastedroughly15minutes,anearmissofaProgresscargoshipcrashingintoMir,andcoolantleaksthatreleasedtoxicchemicalsandraised temperaturesonMirtoover90degreesFahrenheit.Themost serious accident occurred in June1997duringFoale’sstayonMir;aProg-resscargoshipactuallycollidedwiththestation,causingalossofairpressureandresultinginalife-threateningsituationforthecrew.Althoughdisasterwasaverted,theeventraisedthepossibilityofprogramcancellationdue to concerns of “an ag-ingspacecraftthathaslongexceededitsoriginaldesignlifeandisexhibitinganin-creasingnumberofin-flightanomalies.”39

Intheend,Shuttle-Mirwascompleted,thoughsomesaynotentirelysuccessfully.BlahabelievedthatNASAachievedonlyhalfofthemission’spurpose—howtousetheShuttletoserviceaspacestation—butfailedtoaccomplishtheotherhalf—howto train for and execute long-durationspacemissions.40Thisstrugglewithlong-duration spacemissionswas reflectedinNASA’s approach toward addressingShuttle-Mir’slanguageprotocol;althoughtherequirementthatallShuttle-Mirastro-nautscommunicateinRussianappearedrelatively straightforward, it requiredmuchmore preparation and resulted inmuchfurther-reachingimplicationsthaninitially anticipated byNASAmanage-ment.

Indeed,comparedtothediversesetofoperationalandpoliticalchallengeslead-inguptoandduringtheShuttle-MirPro-gram,thelanguageprotocolappearsrela-tivelysimple:anyoneflyingaboardMirhadtospeakRussian.NASAmanagementcertainlythoughtthiswasanundemand-ingrequirement;whenlanguageteachersinsisted that itwould take twoyears ofconcentrated Russian training beforeastronauts could undertake cosmonaut

traininginStarCity,NASAmanagementreplied: “These are astronauts.They’resmarter than normal people.They onlyneedfivemonths.”41

Language, however,was a key chal-lenge in the eyes of thePhaseOne as-tronauts and their support teams.Manyof the69intervieweesforNASA’sOralHistoryProject on theShuttle-Mir Pro-grambroughtupthelanguageissue.Inhisinterview,BlahaevensaidwhileatStarCityandalsoafterreturning,hecontinu-ally“toldeveryseniorpersonatNASA…that thebiggestmistakeNASAmadeintheRussian-AmericanMirprogramwasinadequate Russian language trainingbeforewearrivedinthetrainingprograminStarCity.”42

BecauseNASA’s language trainingregimedevelopedalongsidetheprogram,“all seven crewmembers had differentRussian language preparation beforetheywent toRussia.”43 Ingeneral,afterbeingassignedtoaShuttle-Mirmission,NASAastronautsreceivedsomeformofclassroominstructionintheUnitedStatesto prepare for their StarCity training,whichwasconductedentirelyinRussianandculminatedinoralexamsonMirandSoyuztechnicalsystems,whichtheyhadtopassinordertofly.

Thisadhocapproachtolanguagetrain-ing resulted in varying experiences foreachofNASA’sShuttle-Mirastronautsastheytrainedforandflewtheirmissions.Foale believed that his particular com-mitmenttolearningtheRussianlanguageresultedinasmootheradjustmenttohisRussiancrewmates,somethingwithwhichother PhaseOne astronauts struggled.44LinengerhadaparticularlydifficulttimeintegratingwithhisMircrewmembers,inpartduetohisstrugglewiththeRussianlanguage.45

Languagedifferencesnotonlylimitedcrewsocialinteractions,butalsocausedadditional stress onNASA astronauts.Blaha believed that the PhaseOne as-tronauts underwent unnecessary straindue to inadequate language preparationfromNASA,statingthat“notadequatelypreparingpeopleintheRussianlanguagebeforetheywentthroughthegatesofStar

City…made everything for each crewmemberthree,four,fivetimesasdifficultasitneededtobe.”46

Indeed,NASAPhaseOne astronautswerenotfluentinRussian.Lucidbelievedthatlanguagewasabarrierforanythingbeyond simple conversation because“thereweretimeswhenyouwouldreallylike toget intoamore in-depthconver-sationon topics andyou’dvery rapidlycomeup to the limitofwhatyoucoulddealwith.”47Thagardsaidhecouldclaimfluencyin“technicalRussian”butneverin “conversationalRussian” because hecouldreadRussiantechnicaldocuments“asiftheywereinEnglish”butcouldonlyunderstand“maybe25percent”ofRussiannewsbroadcasts.48

Languagebarriersalsoaffectedopera-tionalefficienciesbetweenthestationandtheground.AlthoughMircrewmemberscouldspeakRussian,otherNASAperson-nel only spokeEnglish.Blaha recalledhowthisprotocolwasted“valuable”timeduringcallsbetweenMirandRussianmis-sioncontrolbecausehe“listenedtoalloftheRussiandiscussionswiththeground”andthen“listenedtotheAmericanswhentheygotontheradiotellingmeinEnglishwhatIalreadyhadheardinRussianfivehoursearlier”andsometimes“theirEng-lishversionwasn’texactlyright.”49More-over,thesubtletiesofscienceexperimentswere particularly difficult to conductthrough translators; BillGerstenmaierhas described his frustration in havingtowork through interpreters to prepareLucid’sscienceexperimentspriortoherarrivalonMir.50

Americanswerealsoconcernedaboutthe safety issues arising from languagebarriers.AlettertoCongressfromNASA’sOffice of InspectorGeneral inAugust1997stated,“Thagard,Lucid,andBlahaall agreed that better proficiency in theRussian language is necessary for safeoperations on theMir.They all agreedthat language proficiencies should beimproved for all crewmembers aboardtheISS.”51

Insum,theShuttle-Mirlanguagepro-tocol—usingRussian as the program’ssingleoperatinglanguage—wasstraight-


forward aswell as realistic given thatNASAastronautswereessentiallyguestsonanentirelyRussian-builtstation.How-ever,thelanguage-relatedissuesthataroseduring the Shuttle-Mir Programweremuchmorecomplicatedthanthelanguageprotocolitself.Thelessonslearnedfromthis experience indicate that, evenwitha single operating language, adequatetrainingiscriticalfornotonlybettercrew-crewandcrew-groundrelations,butalsomaximizingefficiencyandsafetyduringmissionoperations.

International Space Station: The Grav-ity of Implicit Language Rules

NASAhadbeendevelopingplansforacrewedspacestationwellbeforePresidentRonaldReaganannounced,inhisStateoftheUnion address on25 January1984,thathewas“directingNASAtodevelopapermanentlymannedspacestationandtodoitwithinadecade.”Reaganopenlyinvited other countries to participate inthe initiative, originally called Space

StationFreedom, and sent then-NASAAdministratorJamesBeggstoseekpos-siblepartners.

ThisnotionofinternationalcooperationwasnotasurprisetoNASA,aspossibleinternationalinvolvementhad“beenthesubject of extensive discussion” dur-ingtheearly1980s,whenNASAbeganseekingU.S.governmentapprovalofitsspacestationproposal.52Dueinlargepartto technology transfer concerns on theAmericanside,itwasnotuntil1988thattheoriginalpart-ners—theUnitedStates,Japan,Europe,andCanada—signed thefirst formal commitment to develop thestation.ThisoriginalagreementidentifiedtheUnitedStatesastheprimarycontribu-torandmanagingpartnerforthestation,withtheotherpartnersprovidingdiscreteaugmentationstotheAmerican-builtcorestructure“withminimalinterfacestoanycriticalpathorinfrastructureelements.”53

Space StationFreedom underwentvarious redesigns aimed at keeping theprogramalivethroughoutthelate1980s

andearly1990sforanumberofreasons,most notably theChallenger accident,costandscheduleoverruns,andcongres-sionaloppositionandmicromanagement.In1993,almostadecadeafterReagan’sinitialannouncement,SpaceStationFree-domhadcosttheUnitedStates$10billionwithlittlehardwaredevelopedandnonelaunchedintoorbit.Thatyear,Congressnearlypassedabillthatwouldhavecan-celledtheprogramentirely.SpaceStationFreedomsurvivedbyjustonevote.54

Ayearlater,however,thesameCon-gresssupportedtheprogrambya123-votemargin.55The reason for this notablechangewastheinclusionofRussiaasastationpartner.Aspreviouslydiscussed,thisplanhadbothtechnicalandpoliticaladvantagesfortheUnitedStates.TheRus-sianshadconsiderablymoreexperienceinbuildingandoperatingspacestations,sothepartnershipwasclearlybeneficialforNASA.Moreimportant,thisU.S.-Russianpartnership in space aligned the stationwith PresidentWilliam [Bill]Clinton’shigh-priority foreign policy agenda; inreturn for theUnited States providingfunds toRussia for technical assistanceonthestation,theRussianswouldadhereto theMissileTechnologyControlRe-gime.56WiththeinclusionofRussiaasasignificantpartner,SpaceStationFreedombecametheInternational Space Station.

AlthoughNASAretainedadominantrole in ISS decisionmaking, “coordina-tion in the early planning phases indi-cated a consideration of foreignpartnerinterests and objectives unprecedentedin space cooperation hitherto.”57Whilenotintendedinitsoriginalform,theISSbecame a program inwhich theUnitedStatesdependedon its foreignpartners,in particularRussia.The core structureoftheISStransformedfromasingleU.S.moduletotwomodules,oneRussianandoneAmerican,with theRussianservicemodule,Zarya,launchedfirstin1998.

Major contributions from the otherISSpartnershavefollowedandassemblyofthestationisnowcomplete.Althoughyears behind schedule and billions ofdollarsoverbudget,theISSisatrulymul-tinationalendeavorthatallowsforlarger

Astronaut Foale and Cosmonauts Lazutkin and Tsibliyev brief ground control in June 1997 after a Progress cargo ship collided with the Mir station. (Source: NASA)


crews and better-equipped laboratoriesthatwillbeavailabletogreaterrangeofusersoverthenextdecadeastheISSentersitsutilizationphase.Itsoftensub-optimalandimplicitlanguageprotocols,however,reflectthecontinuinginfluenceoflargergeopoliticalfactorsonhumanspaceflight.

EnglishistheofficiallanguageoftheISS, explicitly required by each of thestation’s fourMemorandumsofUnder-standing (MOUs) betweenNASA andeachoftheotherpartners.WhiletheuseofRussianasanotherprimary languageisnotexplicitlymentionedinanyoftheISSagreements,theirtextwascraftedwiththisinmind.58RussianthereforeemergedasanimplicitlyrequiredlanguageontheISSduetoseveralfactors,someassociatedwithoperationalrequirementsandothersmuchmorepoliticalinnature.

ThroughMir,Russianhadbecomethe“centrallanguage”forhumanspaceflightactivitiesbecausesomanycountrieshadflowntheirastronautsaboardthestationunder the requirement thatRussianwasthe operating language.59Yet, Englishwas designated the official language oftheISSbecausetheprogramwasinitiallyanAmerican-led endeavor; the originalagreement for Space StationFreedomcitesEnglishasthesingleoperatinglan-guagewithallcrewmemberstobetrainedinHouston,andtheEnglishrequirementcarriedovertotheISSMOUsevenafterthepartnershipexpandedtoincludeRus-sia.60

TheadditionofRussiapresentedlan-guageprotocolissues,however,becauseitentailedsubstantialRussiancontributionstothestationandalsodesignatedStarCityasatrainingcenterinadditiontoNASA’sHouston facilities.Consequently,Rus-sianbecameakeylanguagefortheISS,in large part because of the operationalrequirements necessitated byRussia’sessential contributions to crew training,launch services, station hardware, andoperationalsupport.61

This relationship is reflected, albeitimplicitly, in the ISSMOUs.Article 21inallfouroftheISSMOUsstates,“TheworkinglanguageforallactivitiesunderthisMOUwillbetheEnglishlanguage…

Theforegoingprincipledoesnotprecludethe use of another languagewhen suchuseisaccepted, inspecificinstances,asagreed by the Parties.”NASA’sMOUwithRSA, however, has a unique lan-guagerulethatisabsentfromtheothers.ItsArticle 11.8 recognizes thatEnglishisthemainoperatinglanguageforcrewactivitiesbutalsostates,“Otherlanguagesmaybeusedwhenappropriate,consistentwithsafetyrequirementsandtheconceptof an integrated crew.The [MultilateralCrewOperationsPanel]will define thelanguage to be used for crew training.”

WhileArticle 21 clearly identifiesEnglishastheprimaryworkinglanguageof the station, the intendedmeaning ofArticle11.8intheNASA-RSAMOUap-pearsvagueatfacevalue.Althoughthisunique stipulation does not specificallymention theRussian language, it wasincluded to accommodate the relativelylast-minute addition ofRussia as a keypartnerintheISSprogram.62Indeed,non-RussiancrewmemberstrainedinStarCityandlaunchedaboardtheSoyuz,therebynecessitatingaworkingknowledgeoftheRussianlanguage.

This additional stipulation in theNASA-RSAMOUhashadimportantim-pactsonlanguageusageonboardtheISS.Today, crewmembers use bothEnglishandRussian.Thechoicetypicallydependson the language of the provider of thevehicleormodule,asthatdeterminesthelanguageinwhichproceduresarewrittenandgroundsupport isprovided.63Thus,EnglishisusedonAmericanvehiclesandmodules,whileRussianisusedonRussianvehiclesandmodules.

Canadian, Japanese, and Europeanpartners typically useEnglish for theiroperations andprocedures, though theircrewmembers can also speakRussian.64ThisisinlargepartbecausetheSoyuzistheonlyemergencyescapevehiclefortheISS(allU.S.programstodevelopsuchavehiclewerecancelled),therebyrequiringISScrewmemberstotrainintheRussianlanguage so that they can operate theSoyuzinanemergencysituation.65Japa-neseandEuropeancrewmembers speaktheirownlanguagesundercertaincircum-

stances,suchaswhentheycommunicatewiththeirpersonnelonthegroundaboutpressreleasesorscienceexperiments.66

Theselanguageprotocols,thoughflex-ibletoaccommodatethemultinationalen-vironmentoftheISS,haveledtoconcernsaboutthesafetyandefficiencyofstationoperations.Most notably, interpretersupportisdeeplyembeddedintotheISSprogram;translationteamsforEnglishandRussianareconstantlypresentatmissioncontrolcentersinMoscowandHouston,respectively, resulting in “heavy costs”tothepartners.67Moreover,thisrelianceon translators,who are not necessarilytrainedin thetechnicalaspectsofspaceoperations,cancausesubstantialcontenttobemissedormisunderstoodonthefirstread-down.68 Interestingly, the JapanesealsoindicatedtherequirementofspeakingbothEnglishandRussiannotablylimitedtheiravailableworkforce.69

Language usage on the ISSwill nodoubtcontinuetoevolve,inperhapsun-expectedways.Forexample,theRussianlanguagebecamemoreimportantforISSoperationsthanoriginallyintended,inpartbecauseofunforeseenchallengeswiththeU.S.Shuttle—including its lower-than-anticipatedflightrates,groundingaftertheColumbiaaccident,andretirementnearlya decade before the end of ISS utiliza-tion.70ThisincreaseduseofRussianforISS operationsmaychange,however, ifAmericancompaniescurrentlydevelopingcommercialcrewcapabilitiestoprovideISStransportationservicesaresuccessful.

Looking Forward: Optimizing Lan-guage Protocols for Human Spaceflight

The abovehistorical analysis revealsthefar-reachingimpactsoflanguagepro-tocolsontheefficiency,safety,andsocialaspectsofinternationalhumanspaceflightprograms.Moreover, it illustrates thesub-optimizing influenceofgeopoliticalfactors on language-related issues, sug-gestingthatopportunitiesexisttoimprovelanguageprotocoldecisionsforfuturehu-manspaceflightprogramsastheybecomeincreasinglymultinational.

Theimportanceoflanguageprotocolswithregardstosafetyandefficiency,how-


ever,isoftenunderestimated.Althoughtherehasbeenastrikinglack

offormaldiscussiononthisissue,thosewhohaveflownordirectlysupportedsuchmissionsareremarkablyvocalaboutwhatthey consider to be one of the greatestchallengesoftheirexperiences.

BillGerstenmaier–whowasstationedinRussiatosupportShannonLuciddur-ingherShuttle-Mirmissionand isnowthe associate administrator ofNASA’sHumanExplorationandOperationsMis-sionDirectorate–believes thatasinglelanguageshouldbeusedinthefuturebe-causeoftheefficiencybenefits.Requiringastronautstolearnmorethanonelanguagesignificantlyimpedesmissionexecution,and allowingmore than one languagewouldlikelyresultinongoingwranglingamongparticipantstohavetheirlanguagerequiredaswell.71

Shuttle-Mir astronautMichael Foalebelievesacommonlanguagehelpsnew-comers to a program “knowwhere tostart,”whichwill be particularly usefulin anticipated human space explorationframeworks that intend to expand par-ticipationbeyondtraditionalpartners.72Intermsofsafety,heremembersmiscommu-nicationsduetolanguagebarrierscausedissuesinthepast;substantialcontentcanbelostduringtranslations,oftenbecauseinterpretersaretrainedinlinguisticsbutnotinthetechnicalaspectsofspaceop-erations.

As space exploration endeavors be-come increasinglymultinationalwhilealsofacingtighterbudgetenvironments,fundamentalchangesareneeded toem-phasizemore efficient usage of limitedresourceswhile still preserving opera-tional safety. Language protocolsmaybe amanageable starting point.As theinternationalspacecommunitybeginstocollectivelyplanitsstepsbeyondtheISS,effortsshouldincludeinstitutionalizingasingle,standardizedlanguage.

About the AuthorMegan Ansdell performed this work while at the George Washington Uni-versity’s Space Policy Institute, where

she obtained a Master’s degree in International Science and Technology Policy in 2011. She also has a Master’s degree in Space Management from the International Space University (2009) and a bachelor’s in astrophysics from the University of St. Andrews (2008).

NOTES1MichaelFoale, interviewedbyRe-

beccaWright,CarolButler, and FrankTarazona,31July1998,JSCOralHistoryProject.

2GlynnLunney,interviewedbyCarolButler,18October1999,JSCOralHistoryProject,2.

3DonaldSlayton,Deke!,(NewYork:TomDohertyAssociates,1994),277.

4 JoanHoff, “ThePresidency,Con-gress, and theDeclaration of theU.S.SpacePrograminthe1970s,”Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership,ed.RogerLauniusandHowardMcCurdy(Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1997),112.

5 JenniferRoss-Nazzal, “Détente onEarth and in Space:TheApollo-SoyuzTestProject,”OAHMagazineofHistory(July2010):29.

6Agreement concerning cooperationintheexplorationanduseofouterspaceforpeacefulpurposes,U.S-U.S.S.R.,May24,1972,U.N.T.S.12115,at120.

7Lunney,14.8AleskeiLeonov,Apollo-Soyuz Test

Flight,NASATechnicalTranslationF-16386(Washington,DC:NASA1975),5.

9Aleskei Leonov,The Problem of Crew Interrelationships in International Space Flights,NASATechnicalTransla-tionF17001 (Washington,DC:NASA,1976),15.

10Aleskei Leonov,The Sun’s Wind (Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1977),19.

11ThomasStafford,We Have Capture,(Washington,DC: SmithsonianBooks,2002),61.

12Slayton,291.13Slayton.292.14Leonov,The Problem of Crew In-

terrelationships in International Space Flights,15.

15Slayton,291.16Leonov,The Sun’s Wind,18.17Stafford,171.18Slayton,292.19NowtheJohnsonSpaceCenter.20Stafford,171.21Stafford.,175.22Stafford,175.23Stafford,175.24Leonov,The Problem of Crew In-

terrelationships in International Space Flights,16.

25Stafford,175.26Full transcript of theASTPflight

can be found at http://history.nasa.gov/astp/gallery.html.

27Leonov,The Problem of Crew In-terrelationships in International Space Flights,16-17.

28Leonov,16-17.29BryanBurrough,Dragonfly (New

York:HarperCollins Publishers, 1998),35.

30Burrough.,35-36.31Burrough,249.32Stafford,242;Burrough,251-255.33Stafford,229.34Burrough,254.35Stafford,238.36NormanThagard, interviewedby

RebeccaWright,PaulRollins,andCarolButler,16September1998,JSCOralHis-toryProject,3.

37Thagard,2.38JohnBlaha,interviewedbyRebecca

Wright, PaulRollins, andAndreaHoll-man,24August19998,JSCOralHistoryProject,15.

39NASAOfficeoftheInspectorGen-eral,Administrator’s Letter to Congress Concerning the Shuttle Mir Program(Washington,DC:19August1997).

40Blaha,1.41Blaha,16.42Blaha,15.43Blaha,16.44 Foale, JSCOralHistory Project,

35-36.45Stafford,254.46Blaha,16.47 Shannon Lucid, interviewed by

MarkDavison,RebeccaWright,andPaulRollins,17June1998,JSCOralHistory


Project,21.48Thagard,31.49Blaha,7.50WilliamGerstenmaeir,interviewed

byRebeccaWright,SummerBergen,andCarolButler, 22 September 1998, JSCOralHistoryProject,5.

51 NASAOffice of the InspectorGeneral.

52JohnLogsdon,Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Participation in Space Station Freedom,MonographsinAerospaceHistory#11(Washington,DC:NASAHistoryDivision,1998),3.

53EligarSadeh,“Technical,Organi-zational andPoliticalDynamics of theInternational Space Station program,”SpacePolicy20(2004):173.

54JJMoss,“Spacestationgets1-votereprieve,”The Washington Times(24June1993).

55HenryLambright,“LeadingChangeatNASA:TheCaseofDanGoldin,”Space Policy23(2007):35.

56Lambright,35.57Sadeh,173.58SteveMirmina,interviewwiththe

author,13March2011,NASAHeadquar-ters,Washington,DC.

59DavidWolf,interviewedbyRebeccaWright,PaulRollins,andMarkDavison,23June1998,JSCOralHistoryProject,18.

60LynnCline, interviewedwith theauthor, 26 January 2011,NASAHead-quarters,Washington,DC.

61Cline.62Mirmina,interviewwiththeauthor.63MichaelFoale,phoneinterviewwith

theauthor,23February2011.64 ShannonLucid, phone interview

withtheauthor,9February2011.65Lucid.66Cline,interviewwiththeauthor.67Foale,interviewwiththeauthor.68Foale.69NealNewman, interviewwiththe

author, 3 February 2011,NASAHead-quarters,Washington,DC.

70Cline,interviewwiththeauthor.71WilliamGerstenmaeir, interview

withtheauthor,1February2011,NASAHeadquarters,Washington,DC.

72Foale,interviewwiththeauthor.

Guidelines for Submitting Articlesfor Publication in SPACE TIMES

SPACE TIMES is a magazine, as opposed to a technical journal, and articles are written in active voice with a clear explanation of technical concepts. The tone leans more toward conversational rather than formal. Articles are written for a well-educated audience that has a great interest in space topics but may not necessarily be familiar with your specific topic.

Virtually any topic involving space science, technology, exploration, law, or policy may be covered. Issues relevant to the civil, commercial, and military and intelligence space sectors alike are also welcomed.

Feature articles (600-3,500 words), op-eds (500-1,500 words), and book reviews (600 words or less) are accepted. Exceptions are handled on a case-by-case basis.

Articles must be submitted in Microsoft Word format, Times New Roman font, 10.5 pt. Other formatting is handled by the production manager during the editing process.

Submission of photos or other visual support is strongly encouraged but is not required. If graphics are submitted, the images must be provided in JPG format in high resolution of at least 300 dpi (CMYK for color and grayscale for black and white). PDFs may also be accepted, depending on the item. Caption(s) and source(s) of the image(s) must be provided.

Visuals may not be embedded in the final submitted article but must be provided separately. However, a copy of the article with the visuals embedded should be provided for layout purposes. Proof of permission from the owner of any photos or other visuals, or contact information for the owner if permission has not been secured prior to submission of an article, should be provided.

Articles must include: (1) a title; (2) a one to two sentence summary of the article for index purposes (optional); (3) if applicable, subheadings providing separation between major sections of the article; (4) a one to two sentence byline/author biography which will appear at the end of the article; and (5) the current mailing address of the author(s). Five complimentary copies of the issue in which the article appears will be mailed to each author. A PDF of the article will be emailed upon request only to the primary author. The full magazine is also available in PDF at www.astronautical.org.

The standard submission deadline is the 15th of the month prior to the issue date (i.e., December 15 for the Janu-ary/February issue). Please submit articles or inquiries to [email protected], or contact Diane Thompson at the AAS office at 703-866-0020.


BOOK REVIEW

Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and Space

Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and SpacebyJohnYoungandJamesHansen.Gainesville,Florida:UniversityPressofFlorida,2012.

JohnYoungisthedeanoftheAmeri-can astronaut corps,withmissions onGemini,Apollo, and theSpaceShuttleand some importantNASA leadershippositionstoboot.Soit’snotsurprisingthathismemoirsfill414pagesofsmaller-than-usualtype.Thisiseasilythemosttechnical of the astronaut autobiogra-phies,andreadersmayneedtolookupafewterms.Somesections,suchastheoneonShuttlelandingsites,couldhavebeentelescopedwithoutlosingthepoint.Nonetheless,thisiscompellingread-

ing.FromhisdaysasaNavytestpilotthrough astronaut selection and hisGemini flight,Young details the chal-lengeofmovingfromairtospacewithyou-are-theredetail.WhendescribinghisApollo10and16flights,hemakesapointofsayingwhatateamefforttheprogramwas,creditingsomeunsungengineersbyname.YoungpresentsavividdescriptionofworkingontheMoonandtheproblemstobeawareof ifwe return.As forhiscomrades,hepraisesNeilArmstrongbutthinksBuzzAldrinwas“notassmartashethoughthewas.”YoungwaschiefoftheAstronautOf-

ficeintheleanyearsbetweenApolloandShuttle.HewritesthatSkylabwasde-liberatelydesignedwithashortlifespantoforcebuildingofatruespacestation,buthedoesn’tdocumentthis.Younghadconsiderableinputonthe

Shuttle(thoughhewantedanall-reusablesystem) and flew its firstmission.HelikedtheShuttle’sperformance,although

ReviewedbyMattBille

hemakes clear it never flewwithoutpotentially serious glitches arising. (Ahumanizing feature ofYoung’swritingishiswillingnesstoadmithewasscaredbyproblemsonhisspaceflights.)Youngthought declaring the Shuttle “opera-tional”wasridiculousandledtounsafeoperations.Youngworkedwell with Johnson

SpaceCenter directorGeorgeAbbey,butsaysalmostnothingabouthim.Thisis an unfortunate omission, asYoungcould have shed light on controversiessuchasAbbey’ssecretivecrewselectionprocess,whichhistorianAndrewChaikindescribedasinstillingconfusionandfear.Everybookhassomeglitches.Forever

YoungincludesamisquotationfromH.G.WellsandsomejumpsbetweenEnglishandmetricunits.MistakeslikesayingtheLunarModule(LM)hadthreelegsandtheApollo10LMhadnolegsinstalledarejarring.HansensaysdeadlinesandYoung’savailability–theastronautwasillduringpartof thewritingtime- ledtotheerrors,whichwillbefixedinthenextprinting.YounglaudstheShuttle-Mirmissions

withnomentionoftheirsafetyproblems,whichisoddsincehespendsagreatdealofthebookaddressingsafety.Heisdeep-lycriticalofaNASAculturethatdidn’tputsafetyfirst,thoughhedidnotforeseethetwoShuttleaccidents.HeknewtherewereO-ringproblemsbutthoughttheywerebeinghandled,andhefearedorbitaldebrismorethanlaunchdebris.In recounting his testimony before

theRogersCommissiononChallenger,Youngstressesthattoomuchimportantinformation,includingtheseriousnessoftheO-ringproblems,neverreachedhis

office.Youngalsosayshefounddeliber-atelysabotagedO-ringswhenhevisitedMortonThiokol,buthegivesnodetails.YoungendorsedtheVisionforSpace

Exploration,andheisharshlycriticalofthechangesundertheObamaadminis-tration.HearguesforamoreambitiousAmerican space program, not only forthesakeofexplorationbut tomeet thethreat of Earth-crossing asteroids andtheneedforcleanpower(althoughsomeof thespacepowerdiscussionisprettyspeculative).Allquibblesaside,thisisaveryimpor-

tantcontributiontospacehistory.Younghasauniqueperspectiveandalifetimeofexperiencetoshare.Ifthisbookisn’tfor everyone, it’s amajor resource forunderstandingof thepastandplanningforthefutureinspaceflight.

Matt Bille is a former Air Force officer, now a freelance science writer and his-torian in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He coauthored the NASA-sponsored history The First Space Race: Launch-ing the World’s First Satellites (Texas A&M, 2004). Reach him through his website at www.mattwriter.com.


6TH WERNHER VON BRAUN MEMORIAL SYMPOSIUM

Snapshots of the 6th Wernher vonBraun Memorial Symposium

Young professionals

Audience on opening morning

Mary Lynne Dittmar, panel moderator

Julie Van Kleeck, Charlie Precourt, and Virginia Barnes

Buffet lunch Networking


Mark Your CalendarOctober 27-29, 2014

7th Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium

The University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsville, Alabama

Commercial Cargo and Crew panel

Virginia Barnes Rick Navarro

Frank Slazer with student poster award winners

Jim Kirkpatrick

Photos courtesy of The Boeing Company/Eric Shindelbower


Membership ApplicationMembership Type Member.........................................$100

Senior Member..................... $115 Fellow (renewal only)............ $115 Retired................................. $50 Teacher (K-12)...................... $45 Student (full-time)................. $45

___________________________________________________________________________________________Mr./Mrs./Ms./Dr. LastName FirstName

___________________________________________________________________________________________Title Organization

___________________________________________________________________________________________Address

___________________________________________________________________________________________City State ZipCode

___________________________________________________________________________________________

703-866-0020

. Payment Method Check VISA AMEX MasterCard___________________________________Credit Card Number

____________________________________Expiration Date

____________________________________Signature

Mail to: AAS 6352RollingMillPlace,Suite102 Springfield,VA22152-2370Fax to: 703-866-3526

Membership Benefits Include: Subscriptions toThe Journal of the Astronautical Sciences (quarterly)andSPACE TIMES magazine(bi-monthly),aswellasreducedratesatallAASevents.VisittheAASwebsiteforadditionalinformationaboutbenefits.

www.astronautical.org www.twitter.com/astrosocietywww.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety

A popular way of donating to an organization is through a gift by means of a will (i.e., to make a bequest). You may decide to consider either a general bequest to the AAS or a bequest targeted to an existing or new AAS scholarship or an award fund. These bequests are deductible against estate and inheritance taxes.

There are also tax advantages when making charitable donations to the AAS while you are living. Such gifts could contribute to the memory of someone who has passed away or be made in the honor of a person who is still alive. In addition, special occasions offer opportunities for gifts to be directed to the Society.

As a final note, although the AAS is able to provide suggestions for charitable giving, your financial or legal advisor should be consulted about such actions.

Charitable Giving and the AAS


UPCOMING EVENTS

January26-30,2014* AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics MeetingLaFondaonthePlazaSanteFe,NewMexicowww.space-flight.org

January31-February5,2014Annual Guidance and Control ConferenceBeaverRunResortBreckenridge,Coloradowww.aas-rocky-mountain-section.org

March4-6,2014Robert H. Goddard Memorial SymposiumScience and Exploration: Engineering the FutureGreenbeltMarriottGreenbelt,Marylandwww.astronautical.org

April26-27,2014USA Science and Engineering FestivalWashington,DCwww.usasciencefestival.org

June13-15,2014Student CanSat CompetitionAbilene,Texaswww.cansatcompetition.com

June17-19,20143rd Annual International Space Station (ISS)Research and Development ConferenceHyattRegencyMcCormickPlaceChicago,Illinoiswww.astronautical.orgAbstract Deadline:February14,2014

* AAS Co-sponsored Meetings

AAS Corporate Members a.i. solutions, Inc. Aerojet Rocketdyne The Aerospace Corporation Air Force Institute of Technology Analytical Graphics, Inc. Applied Defense Solutions, Inc. Arianespace Auburn University Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. The Boeing Company CASIS Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) dataCon, Inc. Dittmar Associates, Inc. Dynetics Edge Space Systems, Inc. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Euroconsult USA, Inc. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. International Space University Jet Propulsion Laboratory JHU / Applied Physics Laboratory KinetX, Inc. Leverage Dynamics LLC Lockheed Martin Corporation Marquette University Noblis Northrop Grumman Orbital Sciences Corporation The Pennsylvania State University Phillips & Company Qwaltec RWI International Consulting Services Science Applications International Corporation SGT, Inc. Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC Space Dynamics Lab / Utah State University SpaceX The Tauri Group Technica, Inc. Texas A&M University United Launch Alliance Univelt, Inc. Universities Space Research Association University of Alabama in Huntsville University of Florida University of Texas at Austin Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority /

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Women in Aerospace

Thank you for your continued support!

AAS Events Schedule

Renew or join AAS atwww.astronautical.org

24

6352RollingMillPlace Suite102 Springfield,VA22152-2370

AddressServiceRequested

NonProfitOrg.U.S.Postage

PAIDPermit#161Lancaster,PA

SPACE TIMES•July/August2013www.facebook.com/AmericanAstronauticalSociety www.twitter.com/astrosociety www.youtube.com/user/astrosociety

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2013 - American Astronautical ...

Documents

Transcript of SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2013 - American Astronautical ...