Space Chronicles

ALSO BY NEIL DEGRASSE TSON
The Plato Files
Death by Black Hole Origins
Ld¡I€ 1 U PvI5 L8ßg
To all those who have not forgotten how
to dream about tomorrow
CONTENTS
Editor' s Note
Prologue
Space Politics
PARTI.WHY
1 . The Allure of Space
2. Exoplanet Earth
3. Extraterrestrial Life
4. Evil Aliens
5. Killer Asteroids
6. Destined for the Stars
7. Why Explore
8. The Anatomy of Wonder
9. Hap Birthday NASA
1 0. The Next Fifty Years in Space
1 1 . Space Options
12. Paths to Discovery
PART II. HOW
13. To Fly
14. Going Ballistic
1 5. Race to Space
16. 2001Fact vs. Fiction
17. Launching the Right Stuff
18. Things Are Looking Up
19. For the Love of Hubble
20. Happ Anniversar, Apollo 1 1
21. How to Reach the Sky
22. The Last Days of the Space Shuttle
23. Propulsion for Deep Space
24. Balancing Acts
25. Happ Anniversar, Star Trek
26. How to Prove You' ve Been Abducted by Aliens
27. The Future of US Space Travel
PART III. WHY NOT
28. Space Travel Troubles
29. Reaching for the Stars
30. America and the Emergent Space Powers
31. Delusions of Space Enthusiasts
32. Perchance to Dream
33. By the Numbers
34. Ode to Challenger, 1986
35. Spacecraft Behaving Badly
36. What NASA Means to America's Future
Epilogue
The Cosmic Perspective
Ap dices
A. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, As Amended
B. Selected Statutor Provisions Aplicable to NASA
C. A Half Centur of NASA Spending 1959-2010
O. NASA Spending 1959-2010
E. NASA Spending as a Percentage of US Federal Government
Spending and of US GOP 1959-2010
F. Space Budgets: US Goverment Agencies 2010
G. Space Budget: Global 2010
H. Space Budgets: US and Non-US Goverments 2010
Acknowledgments
Index
EDITOR' S NOTE
Back in the mid- 1990s, Neil deGrasse Tyson began writing his
much-loved �Universe" column for Natural History magazine. At
that time, the magazine was hosted, both financially and
physically, by the American Museum of Natural History, which
also hosts the Hayden Planetarium. In the summer of 2002, by
which time Tyson had become the Hayden' s director, the
museum' s shrinking budget and changing vision led to the
placement of the magazine in private hands. That' s when I
became a senior editor at Natl History and, more specifically,
Tyson' s editor-a relationship still in force, though both of us
have now, separately, moved on from the magazine.
You wouldn't think an erstwhile art historian and curator
would be the ideal editor for Tyson. But here's the thing: he cares
about communication, he cares about fostering science literacy,
and if, together, we can produce something that I comprehend and
that sounds good to him, then we've both succeeded.
It's been more than half a century since the Soviet Union put a
small, beeping metal sphere into Earth orbit, and not much less
than half a century since the United States sent its first astronauts
for a stroll on the Moon. A wealthy individual can now book a
personal trip to space for $20 million or $30 million. Private US
aerospace companies are testing vehicles suitable for ferrying
crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station.
Satellites are becoming so numerous that geosynchronous orbit is
almost running out of room. Tallies of wayward orbital debris
larger than half an inch now number in the hundreds of thousands.
There is talk of mining asteroids and concer about the
militarization of space.
During the opening decade of the present century in America,
blue-ribbon commissions and reports initially fostered dreams not
only of a swift US manned return to the Moon but of more distant
human space travel as well. NASA's budgets have not matched its
mandates, however, and so its recent achievements beyond
Earth's atmosphere have involved human activities only within
low Earth orbit, and only robotic activities at greater distances. In
early 201 1 NASA warned Congress that neither prevalent launch�
system designs nor customary funding levels are capable of
getting the United States back to space by 2016.
Meanwhile, other countries have hardly been asleep at the
wheel. China sent up its frst astronaut in 2003; India plans to do
the same in 2015. The European Union sent its first probe to the
Moon in 2004; Japan sent its frst in 2007; India sent its frst in
2008. On October 1, 2010, the sixty-first National Day of the
People' s Republic, China carried out a flawless launch of its
second unmanned Moon probe, whose job is to survey possible
landing sites for China's third Moon probe. Russia, too, is
planning a return visit. Brazil, Israel, Iran, South Korea, and
Ukraine, as well as Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK,
all have firmly established, highly active space agencies. Some
four dozen countries operate satellites. South Africa has just
formed a national space agency; someday there will be a pan-Arab
space agency. Multinational collaboration is becoming de rigueur.
Beyond as well as within America, most of the world' s scientists
recognize that space is a global commons-a domain appropriate
only for collectivity-and they expect collective progress to
continue despite crises, limitations, and setbacks.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has thought, written, and spoken about all
these things and many more. In this volume we have collected
fifteen years' worth of his commentaries on space exploration,
organizing them within what seemed to us an organic framework:
Part I-"Why," Part II-"How," and Part III-"Why Not." Why
does the human animal wonder about space, and why must we
explore it? How have we managed to reach space thus far, and
how might we reach it in the future? What obstacles prevent the
fulfllment of the space enthusiasts' daring dreams? A dissection
of the politics of space opens the anthology; a deliberation on the
meaning of space completes it. At the very end are indispensable
appendices: the text of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of
1958; extracts of related legislation; charts showing the space
budgets of multiple US government agencies and multiple
countries, as well as the trajectory of NASA spending over the
course of half a century in relation to total federal spending and
the overall US economy.
Eventually, if not as astronauts then as atoms, we'll all be
caught up in the blizzard of icy dust, the electromagnetic
radiation, the soundlessness and peril that constitute space. Right
now, though, Tyson is onstage, ready to usher us through
catastrophes one minute and crack us up the next. Listen up,
because living off-planet might lie ahead.
AVIS LANG
PROLOGUE
bgaCBPolitics
You develop an instant global consciousness. a people orientation, an intense
dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulÛion to do something
about it. Frm out there on the moon, internatlonal politcs look so petty. You
want t grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a
mlilion miles out and say. "Look at that!"
~£bc+üMn:us/íAPOlO 14 »¯üo/+c1974
Some people think emotionally more often than they think
politically. Some think politically more often than they think
rationally. Others never think rationally about anything at all.
No judgment implied. Just an observation.
Some of the most creative leaps ever taken by the human mind
are decidedly irrational, even primal. Emotive forces are what
drive the greatest artistic and inventive expressions of our species.
How else could the sentence �He' s either a madman or a genius"
be understood?
It's okay to be entirely rationa1. provided everybody else is too.
But apparently this state of existence has been achieved only in
fiction, as in the case of the Houyhnhnms, the community of
intelligent horses that Lemuel Gulliver stumbles upon during his
early eighteenth-century travels (the name "Houyhnhnm"
translates from the local language as �perfection of nature"). We
also find a rational society among the Vulcan race in the
perennially popular science-fiction series Star Trek In both
worlds, societal decisions get made with eficiency and dispatch,
devoid of pomp, passion, and pretense.
To govern a society shared by people of emotion, people of
reason, and everybody in between-as well as people who think
their actions are shaped by logic but in fact are shaped by feelings
or nonempirical philosophies-you need politics. At its best,
politics navigates all these mind-states for the sake of the greater
good, alert to the rocky shoals of community, identity, and the
economy. At its worst, politics thrives on the incomplete
disclosure and misrepresentation of data required by an electorate
to make informed decisions, whether arrived at logically or
emotionally.
On this landscape we fnd intractably diverse political views,
with no obvious hope of consensus or even convergence. Some of
the hottest of the hot-button issues include abortion, capital
punishment, defense spending, fnancial regulation, gun control,
and tax laws. Where you stand on these issues correlates strongly
with your political party' s portfolio of beliefs. In some cases it's
more than correlation; it's the foundation of a political identity.
All this may leave you wondering how anything productive can
ever happen under a politically fractious government. As
comedian and talk-show host Jon Stewart observed, if con is the
opposite of pro, then Congress must be the opposite of progress.
\ntil recently, space exploration stood above party politics.
NASA was more than bipartisan; it was nonpartisan. Specifically,
a person's support for NASA was uncorelated with whether or
not that person was liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican, urban or rural, impoverished or wealthy.
NASA's placement in American culture further bears this out.
The ten NASA centers are geographically distributed across eight
states. Following the 2008 federal election, they were represented
in the House by six Democrats and four Republicans; in the 2010
election that distribution was reversed. Senators from those states
are Similarly balanced, with eight Republicans and eight
Democrats. This "left-right" representation has been a persistent
feature of NASA's support over the years. The National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 became law under Republican
president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Democratic president John F.
Kennedy launched the Apollo program in 1961. Republican
president Richard M. Nixon' s Signature is on the plaque left on
the Moon in 1969 by the Apollo 1 1 astronauts.
And maybe it's just coincidence, but twenty�four astronauts
hail from the swing state of Ohio-more than from any other state
-including John Glenn (America' s first to orbit Earth) and Neil
Armstrong (the world's first to walk on the Moon) .
If partisan politics ever leaked into NASA's activities, it tended
to appear on the fringes of operations. For example, President
Nixon could, in principle, have dispatched the newly
commissioned USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier to pluck the
Apollo 1 1 command module from the Pacific Ocean. That would
have been a nice touch. Instead he sent the USS Hornet, a more
expedient option at the time. The Kennedy never saw the Pacific,
and was in dry dock in Portsmouth, Virginia, for the July 1969
splashdown. Consider another example: With top cover from the
industry-friendly Republican president Ronald Reagan, Congress
passed the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which not
only allowed but also encouraged civilian access to NASA-funded
innovations related to launch vehicles and space hardware,
thereby opening the space frontier to the private sector. A
Democrat might or might not have thought up that legislation, but
a Republican Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives
both passed it, and the concept is as American as a moonwalk.
Lne could further argue that NASA's achievements transcend
nations. Stunning images of the cosmos from the Hubble Space
Telescope have brought the distant universe into focus for
everyone with an Interet connection. Apollo astronauts have
appeared on postage stamps from other countries, including Dubai
and Qatar. And in the 2006 documentary In the Shadow of the
Moon, Apollo 1 2 astronaut Alan Bean, the fourth person to walk
on the Moon, comments that during his international travels
people would jubilantly declare, "We did it!" They didn't say,
"You did it! " or "America did it! " The moonwalkers, though 83
percent military and 100 percent American male, were emissaries
of our species, not of a nation or political ideology.
Although NASA has historically been free from partisanship,
it's been anything but free from politics itself, driven especially
by international forces much greater than any purely domestic
initiatives can muster. With the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 ,
the world' s first artificial satellite, America was spooked into the
space race. A year later. NASA itself was birthed in a climate of
Cold War fears. Mere weeks after the Soviets put the frst person
into orbit, the United States was spooked into creating the Apollo
program to the Moon. Over that time, the Soviet Union beat us in
practically every important measure of space achievement: frst
spacewalk. longest spacewalk, first woman in space. frst docking
in space, first space station, longest time logged in space. By
declaring the race to be about reaching the Moon and nothing else.
America gave itself permission to ignore the contests lost along
the way.
Having beaten the Russians to the Moon, we declare victory
and-with no chance of their putting a person on the lunar surface
-we stop going there altogether. What happens next? The
Russians "threaten" to build massive space platforms equipped to
observe all that happens on Earth' s surface. This decades-long
effort, which begins in 1971 with a seres of Salyut (Russian for
"salute") space modules, culminates with space station Mir
(Russian for "peace"), the world's first permanently inhabited
space platform. whose assembly began in 1986. Once again, being
reactive rather than proactive to geopolitical forces, America
concludes that we need one of those too. In his 1984 State of the
Union address, President Reagan announces rather urgent plans to
design and build Space Station Freedom, with nations friendly to
our politics joining the effort. Though approved by Congress, the
project's full scope and expense does not survive 1989, the year
that peace breaks out in Europe as the Cold War draws to a close.
President Clinton collects the underfunded pieces and, by 1993,
puts into play a reconceived platform-the International Space
Station (some assembly required)-that calls for the participation
of former archenemy Russia. This strategic move offers wayward
Russian nuclear scientists and engineers something interesting to
do other than make weapons of mass destruction for our emergent
adversaries around the globe. That same year would see the
cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, an expensive
physics experiment that had been approved in the 1980s during a
Cold War Congress. Unaffordable cost overruns are the reason
usually cited for the cancellation, but one cannot ignore the
politically abrasive fact that the space station and the collider
would both be managed in Texas. amounting to more pork than
any state deserves in a single budget cycle. History. however,
offers an even deeper reason. In peacetime. the collider did not
enjoy the same strategic value to America' s national security as
did the space station. Once again, politics and war trumped the
urge to discover.
Other than military alliances, the International Space Station
remains one of the most successful collaborations of countries.
Besides Russia, participating members include Canada, Japan,
Brazil, and eleven member nations of the European Space
Agency: Belgium, Denmark. France, Germany. Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland. and the United
Kingdom. Citing human rights violations, we exclude China from
this collaboration. But that's not enough to stymie an ambitious
country. Undeterred, China births an independent manned space
program, launching Yang Liwei as its first taikonaut in 2003. Like
the frst American astronauts, Yang was a fighter pilot. The choice
of Yang, together with other posturings within China's space
program, such as the kinetic kill of a defunct but still-orbiting
weather satellite by a medium-range ballistic missile. causes some
American analysts to see China as an adversary. with the capacity
to threaten US access to space as well as US assets that reside
there.
Wouldn' t it be a curious twist of events if China's vigorous
response to our denial of their participation in the International
Space Station turns out to be the very force that sparks another
series of competitive space achievements in America, culminating
this time around in a manned mission to Mars?
Êveraged over its history. NASA spends about $100 billion in
today' s dollars every five or six years. Hardly anywhere in that
stream of money have NASA's most expensive initiatives
(including the Mercury. Gemini, and Apollo programs, propulsion
research, the space shuttle. and the space station) been driven by
science or discovery or the betterment of life on Earth. When
science does advance, when discovery does unfold, when life on
Earth does improve, they happen as an auxiliary benefit and not as
a prmary goal of NASA's geopolitical mission.
Failure to embrace these simple realities has led to no end of
delusional analysis of what NASA is about, where NASA has
been, and where NASA will likely ever go.
On July 20, 1989, twenty years to the day after the Apollo 1 1
Moon landing, President George Bush Sr. delivered a speech at
the National Air and Space Museum, using the auspicious
anniversary to announce the Space Exploration Initiative. It
reaffirmed the need for Space Station Freedom, but also called for
a permanent presence on the Moon and a manned voyage to Mars.
Invoking Columbus, the president likened his plan to epic
episodes of discovery in the history of nations. He said all the
rght things, at the right time and the right place. So how could the
stirrng rhetoric not have worked? It worked for President
Kennedy on September 12, 1962, at Rice University Stadium in
Houston. That's when and where he described what would
become the Apollo program, declaring, with politically
uncommon fiscal candor: �To be sure, all this costs us all a good
deal of money. This year's space budget is three times what it was
in January 1961 , and it is greater than the space budget of the
previous eight years combined."
Maybe all Bush needed was some of that famous charisma that
Kennedy exuded. Or maybe he needed something else.
Shortly after Bush's speech, a group led by the director of
NASA's Johnson Space Center presented a cost analysis for the
entire plan that reported a coffer-constricting, Congress-choking
price tag of $500 billion over twenty to thirty years. The Space
Exploration Initiative was dead on arrival. Was it any more costly
than what Kennedy asked for, and got? No. It was less. Not only
that, since $1 00 billion over five or six years represents NASA's
baseline funds, thirty years of that spending level gets you to the
$500 billion mark without ever haVing to top up the budget.
The opposite outcomes of these two speeches had nothing do
with political will, public sentiment, persuasiveness of arguments,
or even cost. President Kennedy was at war with the Soviet
Union, whereas President Bush wasn't at war with anybody.
When you're at war, money flows like a tapped keg, rendering
irrelevant the existence or absence of other variables, charisma
included.
Meanwhile, space zealots who do not properly factor the role
of war into the spending landscape are delusionally certain that all
we need today are risk-taking visionaries like JFK. Couple that
with the right dose of political will, they contend, and we surely
would have been on Mars long ago, with hundreds if not
thousands of people living and working in space colonies.
Princeton space visionary Gerard K. O'Neill, among others,
imagined all this in place by the year 2000.
The opposite of space zealots-space curmudgeons-are those
who are certain that NASA is a waste of taxpayer money and that
funds allocated via NASA centers are the equivalent of pork�
barrel spending. Genuine pork, of course, is money procured by
individual members of Congress for the exclusive benefit of their
own districts, with no tangible gain to any other. NASA. by and
large, is the opposite of this. The nation and the world thrive on
NASA's regional innovations, which have transformed how we
live.
Here' s an experiment worth conducting. Sneak into the home
of a NASA skeptic in the dead of night and remove all
technologies from the home and environs that were directly or
indirectly infuenced by space innovations: microelectronics,
GPS, scratch-resistant lenses, cordless power tools, memory�foam
mattresses and head cushions, ear thermometers, household water
filters, shoe insoles, long-distance telecommunication devices,
adjustable smoke detectors, and safety grooving of pavement, to
name a few. While you're at it, make sure to reverse the person's
LASIK surgery. Upon waking, the skeptic embarks on a newly
barren existence in a state of untenable technological poverty,
with bad eyesight to boot, while getting rained on without an
umbrella because of not knowing the satellite-informed weather
forecast for that day.
Yhen NASA's manned missions are not advancing a space
frontier, NASA's science activities tend to dominate the nation's
space headlines, which currently emanate from four divisions:
Earth Science, Heliophysics, Planetary Science, and Astrophysics.
The largest portion of NASA's budget ever spent on these
activities briefly hit 40 percent, in 2005. During the Apollo era,
the annual percentage hovered in the mid-teens. Averaged over
NASA's half century of existence, the annual percentage of
spending on science sits in the low twenties. Put simply, science is
not a funding priority either for NASA or for any of the members
of Congress who vote to support NASA's budget.
Yet the word �science" is never far from the acronym �NASA"
in anybody's discussion of why NASA matters. As a result, even
though geopolitical forces drive spending on space exploration,
exploring sp:ce in the n:me of scienc pl:ys hettef in pllhlic
discourse. This mismatch of truth and perceived truth leads to two
outcomes. In speeches and testimonies, lawmakers fnd
themselves overstating the actual scientific return on manned
NASA missions and programs. Senator John Glenn, for instance,
has been qUick to celebrate the zero-G science potential of the
Interational Space Station. But with its budget of $3 billion per
year, is that how a community of researchers would choose to
spend the cash? Meanwhile, in the academic community,
pedigreed scientists heavily criticize NASA whenever money is
spent on exploration with marginal or no scientifc return. Among
others of that sentiment, the particle physicist and Nobel laureate
Steven Weinberg is notably blunt in his views, expressed, for
example, in 2007 to a Space.com reporter during a scientifc
conference at Baltimore' s Space Telescope Science Institute:
The Interational Space Staton is an orbital turkey .. .. No important science has
come out of it. I could almost say no science has come out of it. And I would go
Iwyonrt ThaT anrt sy ThaT Thl whol! m:mnll spac!fghT prngl<lll. which I� so
enonnously expensive, has produced nothing of scientific value .
. . . NASA's budget is increasing. with the increase being driven by what I see
on the part of the president and the administrators of NASA Ü an infantile
fxation on putting people into space. which has little or no scientific value.
Only those who believe deep down that NASA is (or should be)
the exclusive private funding agency of scientists could make
such a statement. Here' s another: an excerpt from the resignation
letter of Donald U. Wise, NASA's chief lunar scientist. Though
less acerbic than Weinberg' s statement, it shares a kindred spirit:
I watched a number of basic management decisions being made, shifting
priorities. funds and manpower away from maximization of exploration
capabilities . .. toward the development of large new manned space systems.
Until such time as [NASA[ determines that science is a major function of
manned space fight and is to be supported with adequate manpower and funds,
any other scientist in my vacated position would also be likely t expend his time
futilely.
With these comments submitted as evidence, one might suppose
that NASA's interest in science has ebbed since the old days. But
Wise's letter is, in fact, from the old days: August 24, 1969,
thirty-five days after we first stepped foot on the Moon.�
What an ivory-tower luxury it is to lament that NASA is
spending too little on science, Unimagined in these complaints is
the fact that without geopolitical drivers, there would likely be no
NASA science at all,
Êmerica' s space program, especially the golden era of Apollo
and its influence on the dreams of a nation, makes fertile rhetoric
for almost any occasion. Yet the deepest message therein is often
neglected, misapplied, or forgotten altogether. In a speech
delivered at the National Academy of Sciences on April 27, 2009,
President Barack Obama waxed poetic about NASA's role in
driving American innovation:
President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science
and math education. from grade school to gaduate school. And Just a few years
later. a month after his address to the 1961 Annual Meeting of the National
Academy of Sciences. President Kennedy boldly declared before a joint session
of Congress that the United States would send a man to the moon and return him
safely to the earth.
The sclentific community rallied behind this goal and set about achieving it.
And it would not only lead t those frst steps on the moon: it would lead to giant
leaps in our understanding here at home. That Apollo program produced
technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems:
sensors to test for hazardous gases: energ-saving building materials: fire­
resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers. More broadly. the enormous
investment in that era-in science and technolog, in education and research
funding-produced a great outpouring of curiosity and creativity, the benefits of
which have been incalculable.
What' s stunning about Obama's message is that the point of his
speech was to alert the academy to the proposed Amercan
Recovery and Reinvestment Act-legislation that would place the
budgets of the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy' s Office of Science, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology on a path to double over the coming
years. Surely NASA's budget would be doubled too? Nope. All
NASA got was a directive on how to differently allocate a billion
dollars of the money it was already spending. Given that space
exploration formed the rhetorical soul of the president' s speech,
this move defies rational, political, and even emotional analysis.
For his second State of the Union Address, delivered January
26, 201 1 , President Obama once again cited the space race as a
catalyst for scientific and technological innovation. That original
�Sputnik moment" -crystallized in Kennedy' s 1961 speech to a
joint session of Congress-is what got us to the Moon and set the
highest of bars for Amerca's vision and leadership in the
twentieth century. As the president rightly recounted, �We
unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and
millions of new jobs." Citing the hefy investments that other
countries are making in their technological future, and the tandem
failing of America' s educational system to compete on the world
stage, Obama declared the disturbing imbalance to be this
generation's Sputnik moment. He then challenged us by 2015 to
(1) have a million electric vehicles on the road and (2) deploy the
next generation of high-speed wireless to 98 percent of all
Americans-and by 2035 to (1) derive 80 percent of America's
electricity from clean energy and (2) give 80 percent of
Americans access to high-speed rail.
Laudable goals. all of them. But to think of that list as the
future fruits of a contemporary Sputnik moment dispirits the space
enthusiast. It reveals a change of vision over the decades, from
dreams of tomorrow to dreams of technologies that should already
have been with us.
Ìollowing the February 1 , 2003, loss of the Columbia space
shuttle orbiter and its crew of seven, the public and press, as well
as key lawmakers, called for a new NASA vision-one with its
sights set beyond low Earth orbit. What better time to reassess a
program than afer a disaster? Makes you wonder, however, why
the Challenger disaster in 1986, which also resulted in the loss of
a seven-person crew, did not trigger a similar call for a renewed
NASA mission statement. Why? In 1986, nothing much was
happening in the Chinese space community. By contrast, on
October 15, 2003, China launched its frst taikonaut into Earth
orbit, becoming just the third nation tojoin the spacefarers' club.
A mere three months later, on January 15, 2004, the Bush
White House announced a brand-new Vision for Space
Exploration. The time had finally arrived for the United States to
leave low Earth orbit again.
The vision was a basically sound plan that also called for
completion of the International Space Station and retirement of
NASA's space shuttle workhorse by decade' s end, with the
recovered funds used to create a new launch architecture that
would take us back to the Moon and onward to more distant
places. But beginning in February 2004 (with my appointment by
President Bush to the nine-member Commission on
Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, whose
mandate was to chart an afordable and sustainable course of
action) , I began to notice a pall of partisanship descending on
NASA and on the nation's space policy. Strong party allegiances
were clouding, distorting, and even blinding people' s space
sensibilities across the entire political spectrum.
Some Bush-bashing Democrats, predisposed to think politically
rather than rationally, were qUick to criticize the plan on the
grounds that the nation could not afford it, even though our
commission was explicitly charged with keeping costs in check.
Other Democrats argued that the space vision offered no details
regarding its implementation. Yet supportive documents were
freely available from the White House and from NASA. Consider
also that President Bush delivered his speech on the plan at
NASA's DC headquarters. No sitting president had ever done
such a thing. To cover the West Coast, Bush tasked Vice
President Cheney to speak at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratories
in Pasadena, California, on the same day. (By way of comparison,
President Kennedy' s May 25, 1961. address to a joint session of
Congress contains only a couple of paragraphs urging that a Moon
mission be funded.) Other disgruntled Democrats, still
fulminating about the controversial election in 2000 and feeling
deep dissatisfaction with Bush's first term in office, commonly
qUipped that we should instead send Bush to Mars.
All told, the criticisms were not only underinformed but also
betrayed a partisan bias I hadn't previously encountered during
my years of exposure to space politics-although I am happy to
report that afer all the knee-jerk reactions ran their course, the
2004 Vision for Space Exploration secured strong bipartisan
support.
Yith Barack Obama in office beginning in 2009, the level of
vitriol from extreme Republicans exceeded even that of the
extreme Democrats who found nothing praiseworthy in anything
President Bush ever said, thought. or did. On April 15, 2010,
Obama delivered a space policy speech at the Kennedy Space
Center in Florida that I happened to attend. Factoring out
Obama's Kennedyesque charisma and undeniable oratorical skills,
I can objectively say that he delivered a powerful, hopeful
message for the future of America's space exploration-a vision
that would lead us to multiple places beyond low Earth orbit,
asteroids included. He also reaffirmed the need to retire the space
shuttle and spoke longingly of Mars. President Obama even went
one step further, suggesting that since we've already been to the
Moon, why return at all? Been there, done that. With an advanced
launch vehicle-one that leapfrogs previous rocket technologies
but would take many years to develop-we could bypass the
Moon altogether and head straight for Mars by the mid-2030s,
right about when Obama expects 80 percent of Americans to
abandon cars and planes, and instead travel to and fro via high­
speed rail.
I was there. I felt the energy of the room. More important, I
resonated with Obama's enthusiasm for NASA and its role in
shaping the American zeitgeist. As for coverage of the speech, a
typical headline in the Obama-supportive press was "Obama Sets
Sights on Mars." The Obama-resenting press. however, declared:
�Obama Kills Space Program. " You can't get more partisan than
that.
Scores of protesters lined the Kennedy Space Center's
surrounding causeways that day. wielding placards that pleaded
with the president not to destroy NASA. In the weeks to follow,
many people-including marquee astronauts-felt compelled to
choose sides. Two moonwalkers sharply critical of Obama's plan
to cancel the return to the Moon testified before Congress: Neil
Armstrong of Apollo 1 1 and Eugene Cernan of Apollo 17,
pOignantly presented as the frst and the last to step foot on the
Moon. On the other hand, Neil Armstrong' s command-module
partner Buzz Aldrin was strongly supportive of Obama's plan and
had accompanied the president to Florida aboard Air Force One.
Either Obama had given two different speeches at the Kennedy
Space Center that morning and I heard only one of them. or else
everyone in the room (myself included, perhaps) was suffering
from a bad case of selective hearing.
Indeed. the president did deliver more than one speech that day
-or rather, his single coherent plan had different consequences
for different people. As an academic with a long-term view, I
focused on Obama's thirty-year vision for NASA, and I celebrated
it. But to somebody who wants uninterrupted access to space. in
their own country' s launch vehicle, controlled by their own
country' s astronauts, any halt to our space access is simply
unacceptable. It's worth remembering that during the halt in
shuttle launches that followed the Columbia tragedy, the Russians
were happy to �shuttle" our astronauts back and forth to the
Interational Space Station aboard their reliable Soyuz capsule.
So the stipulation that American access to orbit shall always and
forever be in a craft of our own manufacture may be an example
of pride overiding practicality. And by the way. there was barely
a peep back in 2004 when President Bush first proposed to phase
out the shuttle. President Obama was simply following through on
Bush's plan.
Taken at face value. the opposite reactions to Obama's words
need not refect a partisan divide. They could simply be honest
differences of opinion. But they weren' t. Views and attitudes split
strongly along party lines, requiring olive-branch compromises in
Congress before any new budget for NASA could be agreed upon
and passed. A letter I was invited to submit to lawmakers­
reaffirming NASA's value to America' s identity and future while
also urging a swift solution to the impasse-became a twig on one
of those olive branches. A bipartisan posse of solution-seeking
congressmen attempted to alter the president's proposal and the
associated budget for NASA in a way that would appease the
fundamentally Republican-led resistance. They sought to
accelerate the design and construction of the heavy�lift launch
architecture that would enable the first manned mission beyond
low Earth orbit since the Apollo era's Saturn V rocket. This
deceptively simple adjustment to the plan would help close the
gap between the tWilight of America' s shuttle launches and the
dawn of a new era of launch capability-and, as a consequence,
preserve aerospace jobs that the Obama plan would have
destabilized.
Jobs? Is that what it's about? Now it all made sense. I' d
thought the real issue was the cultural imperative of continuous
access to space and the short-term fate of the manned program.
Surely that's what all the protest placards meant, as well as the
associated anti-Obama rhetoric. But if jobs are what really matters
to everybody, why don't they just say so? If I were a shuttle
worker at any level-especially if I were a contractor to NASA in
support of launch operations-then the gap between the phaseout
of the shuttle and the next rocket to launch beyond Earth is all I
would have heard in the president' s speech. And if new,
nonderivative, uncertain launch technologies would be reqUired to
achieve the vision, then the downtime for manned space fight in
America would also be uncertain, which means the only thing
certain in the face of these uncertainties is that I' d be out of ajob.
Since the shuttle is a major part of NASA operations, and
NASA's industrial partners are spread far and wide across the
American countryside, an unemployment ripple gets felt in many
more places than the causeways of Florida' s Space Coast.
President Obama's speech did include mention of funded
retraining programs for workers whose jobs would be eliminated.
He also noted that his plan would erase fewer jobs than his
predecessor's Vision for Space Exploration would have done­
had it been implemented-although he put a positive spin on that
fact by asserting, �Despite some reports to the contrary, my plan
will add more than 2,500 jobs along the Space Coast in the next
two years compared to the plan under the previous
administration. "
That line received immediate applause. I wonder what the
reaction in the room would have been if Obama's statement were
mathematically equivalent but more blunt: "Bush's plan would
have destroyed 1 0,000 jobs; my plan would destroy only 7,500."
Applause notwithstanding, Obama's message fell flat in the
hearts and minds of entire corps of skilled technologists who had
forged their multi decade careers on doing whatever it took to get
the shuttle into orbit. So anybody who didn't like President
Obama before the speech at the Kennedy Space Center now had
extra reasons to brand him as the villain: In 1962 there were two
spacefarng nations. Fifty years later, in 2012, there would still be
two spacefaring nations. But Amerca wouldn' t be one of them.
It's now retrospectively obvious why nary a mention of jobs
appeared in the anti-Obama protest mantras: nobody but nobody,
especially a Republican, wants to be thought of as someone who
sees NASA as a government jobs program, although that
comment has been made before-not by a politician, but by a
comedian. The always candid and occasionally caustic Wanda
Sykes allots two full, disdainful pages of her 2004 book Yeah I
Said It to NASA's exploits. On the subject of jobs: �NASA is a
billion dollar welfare program for really smart darks. Where else
are they going to work? They're too smart to do anything else."
Êmong the reasons one might take issue with Obama's space
vision, there' s a far deeper one than the ebb and fow of jobs. In
an electoral democracy, a president who articulates any goal for
which the completion lies far beyond his tenure cannot guarantee
ever reaching that goal. In fact, he can barely guarantee reaching
any goal whatsoever during his time in office. As for goals that
activate partisan sensitivities, a two-term president faces the
additional risk of multiple biennial shifts in the ruling parties of
Congress.
Kennedy knew full well what he was doing in 1961 when he
set forth the goal of sending a human to the Moon "before this
decade is out." Had he lived and been elected to a second term, he
would have been president through January 19, 1969. And had the
Apollo 1 launchpad fire that killed three astronauts not delayed
the program, we would certainly have reached the Moon during
his presidency.
Now imagine, instead, if Kennedy had called for achieving the
goal "before this century is out." With that as a vision statement,
it's not clear whether we would have ever lef Earth. When a
president promises something beyond his presidency, he's
fundamentally unaccountable. It's not his budget that must finish
the job. It becomes another president's inherited problem-a ball
too easily dropped, a plan too easily abandoned, a dream too
readily deferred. So while the rhetoric of Obama's space speech
was brilliant and visionary, the politics of his speech were,
empirically, a disaster. The only thing guaranteed to happen on his
watch is the interruption of America' s access to space.
Every several years for the past several decades, NASA gets
handed a "new direction. " Many different factions within the
electorate believe they know what' s right for the agency as they
fight one another over its future. The only good part about these
battles, enabling hope to spring eternal, is that hardly anybody is
arguing about whether NASA should exist at all-a reminder that
we are all stakeholders in our space agency' s uncertain future.
Lollectively, the selections in this volume investigate what
NASA means to America and what space exploration means to
our species. Although the path to space is SCientifically
straightforward, it is nonetheless technologically challenging and,
on too many occasions, politically intractable. Solutions do exist.
But to arrive at them, we must abandon delusional thinking and
employ tools of cultural navigation that link space exploration
with science literacy, national security, and economic prosperity.
Thus equipped, we can invigorate the nation' s mandate to
compete internationally while at the same time fueling the
timeless urge to discover what lies beyond the places we already
know.
• •• CHAPTER ONE
THE ALLURE OF SPACE:
Ìor millennia, people have looked up at the night sky and
wondered about our place in the universe. But not until the
seventeenth century was any serious thought given to the prospect
of exploring it. In a charming book published in 1640, A
Discourse Concering a New WOld & Another Planet, the
English clergyman and science buff John Wilkins speculates on
what it might take to travel in space:
[
Y
let I do seriously, and upon good grounds, affirm I possible, to make a flying
chariot, in which a man may sit and give such a motion UIO it as shall convey
him through the air: and this, perhaps, might be made large enough to carry divers
men at the same time . . . . We see a great ship swim Ü well as a small cork; and
a eagle fe in the air as well Ü a little gnat. . .. So that notwithstanding all [the[
seemIng Impossibilities. tis likely enough there may be a means Invented of
Joureying t the Moon: and how happy they shall be that are frst successful in
this attempt.
Three hundred and thirty�one years later, humans would indeed
land on the Moon, aboard a chariot called Apollo 11, as part of an
unprecedented investment in science and technology conducted
by a relatively young country called the United States of America.
That enterprise drove a half century of unprecedented wealth and
prosperity that today we take for granted. Now, as our interest in
science wanes, America is poised to fall behind the rest of the
industrialized world in every measure of technological
proficiency.
In recent decades, the majorty of students in America's science
and engineering graduate schools have been foreign-born. Up
through the 1990s, most would come to the United States, earn
their degrees, and gladly stay here, employed in our high-tech
workforce. Now, with emerging economic opportunities back in
India, China, and Easter Europe-the regions most highly
represented in advanced academic science and engineering
programs-many graduates choose to return home.
It's not a brain drain-because American never laid claim to
these students in the frst place-but a kind of brain regression.
The slow descent from America's penthouse view, enabled by our
twentieth-century investments in science and technology, has been
masked all these years by self-imported talent. ÌH the next phase
of this regression we will begin to lose the talent that trains the
talent. That's a disaster waiting to happen; science and technology
are the greatest engines of economic growth the world has seen.
Without regenerating homegrown interest in these fields, the
comfortable lifestyle to which Americans have become
accustomed will draw to a rapid close.
Before visiting China in 2002, I had pictured a Beijing of wide
boulevards, dense with bicycles as the prmary means of
transportation. What I saw was very different. Of course the
boulevards were still there, but they were filled with top-end
luxury cars; construction cranes were knitting a new skyline of
high-rise buildings as far as the eye could see. China has
completed the controversial Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze
River, the large:L engineering projecL in the world-generating
more than twenty times the energy of the Hoover Dam. It has also
built the world' s largest airport and, as of 2010, had leapfrogged
Japan to become the world' s second-largest economy. It now
leads the world in exports and CO2 emissions.
In October 2003, having launched its frst taikonaut into orbit,
China became the world' s third spacefarng nation (after the
United States and Russia) . Next step: the Moon. These ambitions
require not only money but also people smart enough to figure out
how to tum them into reality, and visionary leaders to enable
them.
In China, with a population approaching 1. 5 billion, if you are
smart enough to be one in a million, then there are 1,500 other
people just like you.
Meanwhile, Europe and India are redoubling their efforts to
conduct robotic science on spaceborne platforms, and there' s a
growing interest in space exploration from more than a dozen
other countries around the world, including Israel, Iran, Brazil,
and Nigeria. China is building a new space launch site whose
location, just nineteen degrees north of the equator, makes it
geographically better for space launches than Cape Canaveral is
for the United States. This growing community of space-minded
nations is hungry for its slice of the aerospace universe. In
America, contrary to our self-image, we are no longer leaders, but
simply players. We've moved backward just by standing still.
|´aaAltitude. in meters, above Earth's surface where Intertional
FederatIon of Aeronautics defnes beginning of space
)an 23. 20t t 9:47 AM
T þhotob¸LanLe¡tch"N\ÍÍLducauona¡¡oundatIon
Íut there' s still hope for us. You can lear something deep about
a nation when you look at what it accomplishes as a culture. Do
you know the most popular museum in the world over the past
decade? It's not the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
It's not the Ufizi in Florence. It's not the Louvre in Paris. At a
running average of some nine million visitors per year, it's the
National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, which
contains everything from the Wright Brothers' original 1903
aeroplane to the Apollo 11 Moon capsule, and much, much more.
Interational visitors are anxious to see the air and space artifacts
housed in this museum, because they're an Amercan legacy to
the world. More important, NASM represents the urge to dream
and the will to enable it. These traits are fundamental to being
human, and have fortuitously coincided with what it has meant to
be American.
When you visit countries that don't nurture these kinds of
ambitions, you can feel the absence of hope. Owing to all manner
of politics, economics, and geography, people are reduced to
worrying only about that day's shelter or the next day's meal. It's
a shame, even a tragedy, how many people do not get to think
about the future. Technology coupled with wise leadership not
only solves these problems but enables dreams of tomorrow.
For generations, Americans have expected something new and
better in their lives with every passing day-something that will
make life a little more fun to live and a little more enlightening to
behold. Exploration accomplishes this naturally. All we need to
do is wake up to this fact.
Åhe greatest explorer of recent decades is not even human. It's
the Hubble Space Telescope, which has offered everybody on
Earth a mind-expanding window to the cosmos. But that hasn't
always been the case. When it was launched in 1990, a blunder in
the design of the optics generated hopelessly blured images,
much to everyone's dismay. Three years would pass before
corrective optics were installed, enabling the sharp images that we
now take for granted.
What to do during the three years of fuzzy images? It's a big,
expensive telescope. Not wise to let it orbit idly. So we kept
taking data, hoping some useful science would nonetheless come
of it. Eager astrophysicists at Baltimore' s Space Telescope
Science Institute, the research headquarters for the Hubble, didn't
just sit around; they wrote suites of advanced image-processing
software to help identify and isolate stars in the otherwise
crowded, unfocused fields the telescope presented to them. These
novel techniques allowed some science to get done while the
repair mission was being planned.
Meanwhile, in collaboration with Hubble scientists, medical
researchers at the Lombardi ComprehenSive Cancer Center at
Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC,
recognized that the challenge faced by astrophysicists was similar
to that faced by doctors in their visual search for tumors in
mammograms. With the help of funding from the National
Science Foundation, the medical community adopted these new
techniques to assist in the early detection of breast cancer. That
means countless women are alive today because of ideas
stimulated by a design faw in the Hubble Space Telescope.
You cannot script these kinds of outcomes, yet they occur
daily. The cross-pollination of disciplines almost always creates
landscapes of innovation and discovery. And nothing
accomplishes this like space exploration, which draws from the
ranks of astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, engineers, and
planetary geologists, whose collective efforts have the capacity to
improve and enhance all that we have come to value as a modern
society.
How many times have we heard the mantra "Why are we
spending billions of dollars up there in space when we have
pressing problems down here on Earth?" Apparently, the rest of
world has no trouble coming up with good answers to this
question-even if we can't. Let's re-ask the question in an
illuminating way: "As a fraction of your tax dollar today, what is
the total cost of all spaceborne telescopes, planetary probes, the
rovers on Mars, the Interational Space Station, the space shuttle,
telescopes yet to orbit, and missions yet to fly?" Answer: one-half
of one percent of each tax dollar. Half a penny. I' d prefer it were
more: perhaps two cents on the dollar. Even during the storied
Apollo era, peak NASA spending amounted to little more than
four cents on the tax dollar. At that level, the Vision for Space
Exploration would be sprinting ahead, funded at a level that could
reclaim our preeminence on a frontier we pioneered. Instead the
vision is just ambling along, with barely enough support to stay in
the game and insuffcient support ever to lead it.
So with more than ninety-nine out of a hundred cents going to
fund all the rest of our nation' s priorities, the space program does
not prevent (nor has it ever prevented) other things from
happening. Instead, America's former investments in aerospace
have shaped our discovery-infused culture in ways that are
obvious to the rest of the world. whether or not we ourselves
recognize them. But we are a sufficiently wealthy nation to
embrace this investment in our own tomorow-to drive our
economy, our ambitions, and. above all, our dreams.
• •• CHAPTER lV O
EXOPLANET EARTH:
Yhether you prefer to crawl, sprint, swim, or walk from one
place to another, you can enjoy close�up views of Earth's
inexhaustible supply of things to notice. You might see a vein of
pink limestone on the wall of a canyon, a ladybug eating an aphid
on the stem of a rose, a clamshell poking out of the sand. All you
have to do is look.
Board a jetliner crossing a continent, though, and those surface
details soon disappear. No aphid appetizers. No curious clams.
Reach cruising altitude, around seven miles up, and identifying
major roadways becomes a challenge.
Detail continues to vanish as you ascend to space. From the
window of the International Space Station, which orbits at about
225 miles up, you might find London, Los Angeles, New York, or
Paris in the daytime, not because you can see them but because
you leared where they are in geography class. At night their
brilliant city lights present only the faintest glow. By day, contrary
to common wisdom, with the unaided eye you probably won't see
the pyramids at Giza, and you certainly won't see the Great Wall
of China. Their obscurity is partly the result of having been made
from the soil and stone of the surrounding landscape. And
although the Great Wall is thousands of miles long, it' s only about
twenty feet wide-much narrower than the US interstate
highways you can barely see from a transcontinental jet.
ItEarh were size of a school-room globe, you'd find Shuttle and Space Station
orbiting 3/8th of an inch above its surface
Aþr 19. 2010 o:o3
__
Indeed, from Earth orbit-apart from the smoke plumes rising
from the oil-field fires in Kuwait at the end of the frst Gulf War
in 1991, and the green-brown borders between swaths of irrigated
and arid land-the unaided eye cannot see much else that' s made
by humans. Plenty of natural scenery is visible, though: hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, ice floes in the North Atlantic, volcanic
eruptions wherever they occur.
From the Moon, a quarter-million miles away, New York,
Paris, and the rest of Earth' s urban glitter don't even show up as a
twinkle. But from your lunar vantage you can still watch major
weather fronts move across the planet. Viewed from Mars at its
closest, some thirty-five million miles away, massive snow­
capped mountain chains and the edges of Earth's continents
would be visible through a good backyard telescope. Travel out to
Neptune, 2. 7 billion miles away-just down the block on a cosmic
scale-and the Sun itself becomes embarrassingly dim, now
occupying a thousandth the area on the daytime sky that it
occupies when seen from Earth. And what of Earth itself A speck
no brighter than a dim star, all but lost in the glare of the Sun.
Êcelebrated photograph taken in 1990 from the edge of the solar
system by the Voyager 1 spacecraft shows how underwhelming
Earth looks from deep space: a "pale blue dot," as the American
astronomer Carl Sagan called it. And that's generous. Without the
help of a picture caption, you might not find it at alL
What would happen if some big-brained aliens from the great
beyond scanned the skies with their naturally superb visual
organs, further aided by alien state-of-the-art optical accessories?
What visible features of planet Earth might they detect?
Blueness would be first and foremost. Water covers more than
two-thirds of Earth' s surface; the Pacific Ocean alone makes up
an entire side of the planet. Any beings with enough equipment
and expertise to detect our planet' s color would surely infer the
presence of water, the third most abundant molecule in the
universe.
If the resolution of their equipment were high enough, the
aliens would see more than just a pale blue dot. They would see
intricate coastlines, too, strongly suggesting that the water is
liquid. And smart aliens would surely know that if a planet has
liquid water, the planet's temperature and atmospheric pressure
fall within a well-determined range.
Earth's distinctive polar ice caps, which grow and shrink from
the seasonal temperature variations, could also be seen optically.
So could our planet's twenty-four-hour rotation, because
recognizable landmasses rotate into view at predictable intervals.
The aliens would also see major weather systems come and go;
with careful study, they could readily distinguish features related
to clouds in the atmosphere from features related to the surface of
Earth itself.
Åime for a reality check: We live within ten light-years of the
nearest known exoplanet-that is, a planet orbiting a star other
than the Sun. Most catalogued exoplanets lie more than a hundred
light-years away. Earth's brightness is less than one-billionth that
of the Sun, and our planet's proximity to the Sun would make it
extremely hard for anybody to see Earth directly with an optical
telescope. So if aliens have found us, they are likely searching in
wavelengths other than visible light-or else their engineers are
adapting some other strategy altogether.
Maybe they do what our own planet hunters typically do:
monitor stars to see if they jiggle at regular intervals. A star's
periodic jiggle betrays the existence of an orbiting planet that may
otherwise be too dim to see directly. The planet and host star both
revolve around their common center of mass. The more massive
the planet, the larger the star's orbit around the center of mass
must be, and the more apparent the jiggle when you analyze the
star's light. Unfortunately for planet-hunting aliens, Earth is puny,
and so the Sun barely budges, posing a further challenge to alien
engineers.
Radio waves might work, though. Maybe our eavesdropping
aliens have something like the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto
Rico, home of Earth's largest Single-dish radio telescope-which
you might have seen in the early location shots of the 1997 movie
LO1lOc|, based on a novel by Carl Sagan. If they do, and if they
tune to the right frequencies, they'll certainly notice Earth, one of
the �loudest" radio sources in the sky. Consider everything we've
got that generates radio waves: not only radio itself but also
broadcast television, mobile phones, microwave ovens, garage­
door openers, car-door unlockers, commercial radar, military
radar, and communications satellites. We're just blazing­
spectacular evidence that something unusual is going on here,
because in their natural state, small rocky planets emit hardly any
radio waves at all.
Co if those alien eavesdroppers tum their own version of a radio
telescope in our direction, they might infer that our planet hosts
technology. One complication, though: other interpretations are
possible. Maybe they wouldn' t be able to distinguish Earth's
signal from those of the larger planets in our solar system, all of
which are sizable sources of radio waves. Maybe they would think
we're a new kind of odd, radio-intensive planet. Maybe they
wouldn't be able to distinguish Earth's radio emissions from those
of the Sun, forCing them to conclude that the Sun is a new kind of
odd, radio-intensive star.
Astrophysicists right here on Earth, at the University of
Cambridge in England, were Similarly stumped back in 1967.
While surveying the skies with a radio telescope for any source of
strong radio waves, Anthony Hewish and his team discovered
something extremely odd: an object pulsing at preCise, repeating
intervals of slightly more than a second. Jocelyn Bell, a graduate
student of Hewish's at the time, was the first to notice it.
Soon Bell' s colleagues established that the pulses came from a
great distance. The thought that the signal was technological­
another culture beaming evidence of its activities across space­
was irresistible. As Bell recounted in an after-dinner speech in
1976, �We had no proof that it was an entirely natural radio
emission . . . . Here was Ì trying to get a Ph.D. out of a new
technique, and some silly lot of little green men had to choose my
aerial and my frequency to communicate with us." Within a few
days, however, she discovered other repeating signals coming
from other places in our galaxy. Bell and her associates realized
they' d discovered a new class of cosmic object-pulsing stars­
which they cleverly, and sensibly, called pulsars.
Åurs out, intercepting radio waves isn't the only way to be
snoopy. There' s also cosmochemistry. The chemical analysis of
planetary atmospheres has become a lively feld of modem
astrophysics. Cosmochemistry depends on spectroscopy-the
analysis of light by means of a spectrometer, which breaks up
light, rainbow style, into its component colors. By exploiting the
tools and tactics of spectroscopists, cosmochemists can infer the
presence of life on an exoplanet, regardless of whether that life
has sentience, intelligence, or technology.
The method works because every element, every molecule-no
matter where it exists in the universe-absorbs, emits, refects,
and scatters light in a unique way. Pass that light through a
spectrometer, and you'll fnd features that can rightly be called
chemical fngerprints. The most visible fingerprints are made by
the chemicals most excited by the pressure and temperature of
their environment. Planetary atmospheres are crammed with such
features. And if a planet is teeming with flora and fauna, its
atmosphere will be crammed with biomarkers-spectral evidence
of life. Whether biogenic (produced by any or all life-forms),
anthropogenic (produced by the widespread species Homo
S'piens). or technogenic (produced only by technology), this
rampant evidence will be hard to conceal.
Unless they happen to be born with built-in spectroscopic
sensors, space-snooping aliens would need to build a spectrometer
to read our fingerprints. But above all, Earth would have to
eclipse its host star (or some other light source) , permitting light
to pass through our atmosphere and continue on to the aliens. That
way, the chemicals in Earth's atmosphere could interact with the
light, leaving their marks for all to see.
Some molecules-ammonia, carbon dioxide, water-show up
everywhere in the universe, whether life is present or not. But
others pop up especially in the presence of life itself. Among the
biomarkers in Earth's atmosphere are ozone-destroying
chlorofluorocarbons from aerosol sprays, vapor from mineral
solvents, escaped coolants from refrigerators and air conditioners,
and smog from the burning of fossil fuels. No other way to read
that list: sure signs of the absence of intelligence. Another readily
detected biomarker is Earth's substantial and sustained level of
the molecule methane, more than half of which is produced by
human-related activities such as fuel-oil production, rice
cultivation, sewage, and the burps of domesticated livestock.
And if the aliens track our nighttime side while we orbit our
host star, they might notice a surge of sodium from the sodium­
vapor streetlights that switch on at dusk. Most telling, however,
would be all our free-floating oxygen, which constitutes a full
fifth of our atmosphere.
Lxygen-the third most abundant element in the cosmos, after
hydrogen and helium-is chemically active, bonding readily with
atoms of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, sulfur, iron, and so
on. Thus, for oxygen to exist in a steady state, something must be
liberating it as fast as it's being consumed. Here on Earth, the
liberation is traceable to life, Photosynthesis, carried out by plants
and select bacteria, creates free oxygen in the oceans and in the
atmosphere. Free oxygen, in turn, enables the existence of
oxygen-metabolizing creatures, including us and practically every
other creature in the animal kingdom.
We earthlings already know the Signifcance of Earth's
distinctive chemical fngerprints. But distant aliens who come
upon us will have to interpret their findings and test their
assumptions. Must the periodic appearance of sodium be
technogenic? Free oxygen is surely biogenic. How about
methane? It, too, is chemically unstable, and yes, some of it is
anthropogenic. The rest comes from bacteria, cows, permafrost,
soils, termites, wetlands, and other living and nonliving agents. In
fact, at this very moment, astrobiologists are arguing about the
exact origin of trace amounts of methane on Mars and the copious
quantities of methane detected on Saturn' s moon Titan, where (we
presume) cows and termites surely do not dwell.
If the aliens decide that Earth's chemical features are strong
evidence for life, maybe they'll wonder if the life is intelligent.
Presumably the aliens communicate with one another, and
perhaps they'll presume that other intelligent life-forms
communicate too. Maybe that's when they'll decide to eavesdrop
on Earth with their radio telescopes to see what part of the
electromagnetic spectrum its inhabitants have mastered. So,
whether the aliens explore with chemistry or with radio waves,
they might come to the same conclusion: a planet where there's
advanced technology must be populated with intelligent life�
forms, who may occupy themselves discovering how the universe
works and how to apply its laws for personal or public gain.
Lur catalogue of exoplanets is growing apace. After all, the
known universe harbors a hundred billion galaxies, each with
hundreds of billions of stars.
The search for life drives the search for exoplanets, some of
which prouablj luuk like EarLh-nul in deLail, of course, bUl in
overall properties. Those are the planets our descendants might
want to visit someday, by choice or by necessity. So far, though,
nearly all the exoplanets detected by the planet hunters are much
larger than Earth. Most are at least as massive as Jupiter, which is
more than three hundred times Earth's mass. Nevertheless, as
astrophYSiCists design hardware that can detect smaller and
smaller jiggles of a host star, the ability to find punier and punier
planets will grow.
In spite of our impressive tally, planet hunting by earthlings is
still in its horse-and-buggy stage, and only the most basic
questions can be answered: Is the thing a planet? How massive is
it? How long does it take to orbit its host star? No one knows for
sure what all those exoplanets are made of, and only a few of
them eclipse their host stars, permitting cosmochemists to peek at
their atmospheres.
But abstract measurements of chemical properties do not feed
the imagination of either poets or scientists. Only through images
that capture surface detail do our minds transform exoplanets into
�worlds." Those orbs must occupy more than just a few pixels in
the family portrait to qualify, and a Web surfer should not need a
caption to find the planet in the photo. We have to do better than
the pale blue dot.
Only then will we be able to conjure what a faraway planet
looks like when seen from the edge of its own star system-or
perhaps from the planet's surface itself. For that, we will need
spaceborne telescopes with stupendous light-gathering power.
Nope. We're not there yet. But perhaps the aliens are.
• • • CHAPER THREE
EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE:
Åhe first half-dozen or so confirmed discoveries of planets
around stars other than the Sun-dating to the late 1 980s and
early 1990s-triggered tremendous public interest. Attention was
generated not so much by the discovery of exoplanets but by the
prospect of their hosting intelligent life. In any case, the media
frenzy that followed was somewhat out of proportion to the
events.
Why? Because planets cannot be all that rare in the universe if
the Sun happens to have eight of them. Also, the frst round of
newly discovered planets were all oversize gas giants that
resemble Jupiter, which means they have no convenient surface
upon which life as we know it could exist. And even if the planets
were teeming with buoyant aliens, the odds against these life­
forms being intelligent are astronomicaL
Ordinarily. there is no riskier step that a scientist (or anyone)
can take than to make a sweeping generalization from just one
example. At the moment, life on Earth is the only known life in
the universe. but compelling arguments suggest that we are not
alone. Indeed. nearly all astrophysicists accept the high
probability of life elsewhere. The reasoning is easy: if our solar
system is not unusual, then the number of planets in the universe
would, for example, outnumber the sum of all sounds and words
ever uttered by every human who has ever lived. To declare that
Earth must be the only planet in the universe with life would be
inexcusably big-headed of us.
Many generations of thinkers, both religious and scientific,
have been led astray by anthropocentric assumptions and simple
ignorance. In the absence of dogma and data, it is safer to be
gUided by the notion that we are not special, which is generally
known as the Coperican principle. It was the Polish astronomer
Nicolaus Copernicus who, in the mid-lS00s, put the Sun back in
the middle of our solar system where it belongs. In spite of a
third-century M.í. account of a Sun-centered universe (proposed by
the Greek philosopher Aristarchus), the Earth-centered universe
has been by far the most popular view for most of the past two
thousand years. In the West, it was codified by the teachings of
Aristotle and Ptolemy and later by the preachings of the Roman
Catholic Church. That Earth was the center of all motion was self­
evident: it not only looked that way, but God surely made it so.
The Copernican principle comes with no guarantees that it will
gUide us correctly for all scientific discoveries yet to come. But it
has revealed itself in our humble realization that Earth is not in the
center of the solar system, the solar system is not in the center of
the Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way galaxy is not in the
center of the universe. And in case you are one of those people
who think that the edge may be a special place, we are not at the
edge of anything either.
A wise contemporary posture would be to assume that life on
Earth is not immune to the Copernican principle. How, then, can
the appearance or the chemistry of life on Earth provide clues to
what life might be like elsewhere in the universe'!
I do not know whether biologists walk around every day
awestruck by the diversity of life. I certainly do. On our planet,
there coexist (among countless other life-forms) algae, beetles,
sponges, jellyfish, snakes, condors, and giant sequoias. Imagine
these seven living organisms lined up next to one another in size­
place. If you didn't know better, you would be hard pressed to
believe that they all came from the same universe, much less the
same planet. And by the way, try describing a snake to somebody
who has never seen one: �You gotta believe me! There' s this
animal on Earth that (1) can stalk its prey with infrared detectors,
(2) can swallow whole, live animals several times bigger than its
head, (3) has no arms or legs or any other appendage, and yet (4)
can travel along the ground at a speed of two feet per second! "
Íearly every Hollywood space movie includes some encounter
between humans and alien life-forms, whether from Mars or an
unknown planet in a faraway galaxy, The astrophysics in these
films serves as the ladder to what people really care about:
whether we are alone in the universe, If the person seated next to
me on a long airplane flight finds out I' m an astrophysicist, nine
times out of ten she'll query me about life in the universe, I know
of no other discipline that triggers such consistent enthusiasm
from the public.
Given the diversity of life on Earth, one might expect diversity
among Hollywood aliens. But I am consistently amazed by the
film industry's lack of creativity. With a few notable exceptions­
such as the life-forms in The Blob (1958) and 2001: A Space
Odyssey (1968)-Hollywood's aliens look remarkably humanoid.
No matter how ugly (or cute) they are, nearly all of them have two
eyes, a nose, a mouth, two ears, a neck, shoulders, arms, hands,
fingers, a torso, two legs, two feet-and they can walk.
Anatomically, these creatures are practically indistinguishable
from humans, yet they are supposed to have come from another
planet. If anything is certain, it is that life elsewhere in the
universe, intelligent or otherwise, will look at least as exotic to us
as some of Earth's own life-forms do.
Tw�� #3 & "
Just drove by the huge. 30-f tall L-A-X letters near the airport -surely visible
from orbit. Is LA an alien space port?
Jan 23. 2010 9:06 AM
Last day in LA. Like the big LAX letters at airport. the HOLLYWOOD sign is
huge. Visible from space? Must be where aliens land
Jan 28. 20tO 2: 16 PM
The chemical composition of Earth-based life is primarily
derived from a select few ingredients. The elements hydrogen,
oxygen, and carbon account for more than 95 percent of the atoms
in the human body and in all other known life. Of the three, it is
carbon whose chemical structure allows it to bond most readily
and strongly with itself and with many other elements in many
different ways-which is why we say life on Earth is carbon­
based, and why the study of molecules that contain carbon is
generally known as �organic" chemistry. Curiously, the study of
life elsewhere in the universe is known as exobiology, one of the
few disciplines that attempt to function, at least for now, in the
complete absence of firsthand data.
Is life chemically special? The Copernican principle suggests
that it probably isn't. Aliens need not look like us to resemble us
in more fundamental ways. Consider that the four most common
elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, carbon, and
oxygen. Helium is inert. So the three most abundant, chemically
active ingredients in the cosmos are also the top three ingredients
of life on Earth. For this reason, you can bet that if life is found on
another planet. it will be made of a similar mix of elements.
Conversely, if life on Earth were composed primarily of
manganese and molybdenum, then we would have excellent
reason to suspect we're something special in the universe.
Appealing once again to the Copernican principle, we can
assume that an alien organism is not likely to be ridiculously large
compared with life as we know it. There are cogent structural
reasons why you would not expect to fnd a life-form the size of
the Empire State Building strutting around a planet. Even if we
ignore the engineering limitations of biological matter, we
approach another, more fundamental limit. If we assume that an
alien has control of its own appendages, or more generally, if we
assume the organism functions coherently as a system, then its
size would ultimately be constrained by its ability to send signals
within itself at the speed of light-the fastest allowable speed in
the universe. For an admittedly extreme example, if an organism
were as big as the orbit of Neptune (about ten light-hours across),
and if it wanted to scratch its head, then this simple act would take
no less than ten hours to accomplish. Subslothlike behavior such
as this would be evolutionarily self-limiting, because the time
since the beginning of the universe might well be insufficient for
the creature to have evolved from smaller forms.
How about intelligence? When Hollywood aliens manage to
visit Earth, one might expect them to be remarkably smart. But I
know of some that should have been embarrassed by their
stupidity. Surfing the FM dial during a car trp from Boston to
New York City some years ago, I came upon a radio play in
progress that, as best as I could determine, was about evil aliens
that were terrorizing earthlings. Apparently, they needed
hydrogen atoms to survive, so they kept swooping down to Earth
to suck up its oceans and extract the hydrogen from all the H20
molecules. Now those were some dumb aliens. They must not
have been looking at other planets en route to Earth, because
Jupiter, for example, contains more than two hundred times the
entire mass of Earth in pure hydrogen. I guess nobody told them
that more than 90 percent of all atoms in the universe are
hydrogen.
And what about aliens that manage to traverse thousands of
light-years through interstellar space yet bungle their arival by
crash-landing on Earth?
Then there are the aliens in the 1977 film Close Encounters of
the Third Kind, who, in advance of their arival, beam to Earth a
mysterious sequence of numbers that is eventually decoded by
earthlings to be the latitude and longitude of their upcoming
landing site. But Earth's longitude has a completely arbitrary
starting pOint-the prime meridian-which passes through
Greenwich, England, by international agreement. And both
longitude and latitude are measured in unnatural units we call
degrees, 360 of which are in a circle. It seems to me that, armed
with this much knowledge of human culture, the aliens could have
just leared English and beamed the message "We're going to
land a little bit to the side of Devil ' s Tower National Monument in
Wyoming. And because we're ariving in a flying saucer, we
won't need runway lights."
��,���¦´'¨. ,.disembark via ramp? Do they have problems with stairs?
Or are fying saucers just handicap-accessible?
Au_ 21. 2{10 12:00 PM
The award for dumbest movie alien of all time must go to the
entity that called itself V' ger, from the 1983 film Star Trek: The
Motion Pictlre. An ancient mechanical space probe, V' ger had
been rescued by a civilization of mechanical aliens and
reconfigured so that it could accomplish its mission of discovery
across the entire cosmos. The thing grew and grew, acquiring all
knowledge of the universe and eventually achieving
consciousness. In the film, the crew of the starship Enterprise
come upon this now�immense heap of cosmic information and
artifacts at a time when V' ger has been searching for its creator.
Clued in by the badly tarnished letters "oya" on the original probe,
Captain Kirk realizes that V'ger is actually Voyager 6, launched
by earthlings in the late twentieth century. Okay. What irks me is
how V' ger acquired total knowledge of the cosmos yet remained
clueless that its real name was Voyager.
And don't get me started on the 1996 blockbuster
Independence Day. Actually, I find nothing particularly offensive
about evil aliens. There would be no science-fiction film industry
without them. The aliens in Independence Dayare definitely evil.
They look like a genetic cross between a Portuguese man-of-war,
a hammerhead shark, and a human being. But while they're more
creaLively conceived lhan musl Hullywuud aliens, why are lheir
fying saucers equipped with upholstered high-back chairs with
armrests?
I' m glad that, in the end, the humans win. We conquer the
Independence Day aliens by having a Macintosh laptop computer
upload a software virus to the mothership (which happens to be
one-fifth the mass of the Moon), thus disarming its protective
force field. I don't know about you, but back in 1996 Ìhad trouble
just uploading files to other computers within my own
department, especially when the operating systems were different.
There is only one solution: the entire defense system for the alien
mothership must have been powered by the same release of Apple
Computer's system software as the laptop computer that delivered
the virus.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that humans are the only
species on Earth to have evolved high-level intelligence. (I mean
no disrespect to other big-brained mammals. While most of them
cannot do astrophysics, my conclusions are not substantially
altered if you wish to include them.) If life on Earth offers any
measure of life elsewhere in the universe, then intelligence must
be rare. By some estimates, there have been more than ten billion
species in the hiStory of life on Earth. It follows that, among all
extraterrestrial life-forms, we might expect no better than about
one in ten billion to be as intelligent as we are-not to mention
the odds against the intelligent life having an advanced
technology and a desire to communicate through the vast
distances of interstellar space.
dom know that humans who pass by are intelligent, so no reason to think
humans would know if alien super-race did same
)un3. ?1û9.18PM
On the chance that such a civilization exists, radio waves
would be the communication band of choice because of their
ability to traverse the galaxy unimpeded by interstellar gas and
dust clouds. But we humans have had command of the
electromagnetic spectrum for less than a century, To put that more
depressingly: had aliens been trying to send radio Signals to
earthlings for most of human history, we would have been
incapable of receiving them. For all we know, the aliens may have
tried to get in touch centuries ago and have concluded that there is
no intelligent life on Earth. They would now be looking
elsewhere. A more humbling possibility is that aliens did become
aware of the technologically profcient species that now inhabits
Earth, and drew the same conclusion.
Our Copernican perspective regarding life on Earth, intelligent
or otherwise, requires us to presume that liquid water is a
prerequisite to life elsewhere. To support life, a planet cannot
orbit its host star too closely, or else the temperature would be too
high and the planet' s water content would vaporize. Also, the
orbit should not be too far away, or else the temperature would be
too low and the planet' s water content would freeze. In other
words, conditions on the planet must allow the temperature to stay
within the 180°F range of liquid water. As in the three-bowls-of�
food scene in � Goldilocks and the Three Bears," the temperature
has to be just right. (Once when Ì was interviewed about this
subject on a syndicated radio talk show, the host commented,
�Clearly, what you should be looking for is a planet made of
poridge! ")
While distance from the host planet is an important factor for
the existence of life as we know it, a planet's ability to trap stellar
radiation matters too. Venus is a textbook example of this
�greenhouse" phenomenon. Any visible sunlight that manages to
pass through its thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide gets absorbed
by Venus' s surface and then reradiated in the infrared part of the
spectrum. The infrared, in turn, gets trapped by the atmosphere.
The unpleasant consequence is an air temperature that hovers at
about UÛÛ´Ì, which is much hotter than we would expect, given
Venus's distance from the Sun. At that temperature, lead would
sWifty become molten.
The discovery of simple, unintelligent life-forms elsewhere in
the universe (or evidence that they once existed) would be far
more likely-and, for me, only slightly less exciting-than the
discovery of intelligent life. Two excellent nearby places to look
are beneath the dried riverbeds of Mars (where there may be fossil
evidence of life that thrved when waters formerly flowed) and the
subsurface oceans that are theorized to exist under the frozen ice
layers of Jupiter' s moon Europa, whose interior is kept warm by
gravitational stresses from the Jovian system. Once again, the
promise of liquid water leads our search.
Other common prerequisites for the evolution of life in the
universe involve a planet in a stable, nearly circular orbit around a
single star. With binary and multiple star systems, which make up
more than half of all stars in the galaxy, orbits tend to be strongly
elongated and chaotic, which induces extreme temperature swings
that would undermine the evolution of stable life-forms. We also
require suficient time for evolution to run its course. High-mass
stars are so short-lived (a few million years) that life on Earthlike
planets in orbit around them would never have a chance to evolve.
Åhe set of conditions needed to support life as we know it is
loosely quantified through what' s known as the Drake equation,
named for the American astronomer Frank Drake. The Drake
equation is more accurately viewed as a fertile idea rather than a
rgorous statement of how the physical universe works. It
separates the overall probability of finding life in the galaxy into a
set of Simpler probabilities that correspond to our preconceived
notions of suitable cosmic conditions. In the end, after you argue
with your colleagues about the value of each probability term in
the equation, you are lef with an estimate for the total number of
intelligent, technologically profiCient civilizations in the galaxy.
Depending on your bias level-and your knowledge of biology,
chemistry, celestial mechanics, and astrophysics-your estimate
may range from at least one (ours) up to millions of civilizations
in the Milky Way alone.
If we consider the pOSSibility that we may rank as primitive
among the universe' s technologically competent life-forms­
however rare they may be-then the best we can do is to keep
alert for Signals sent by others, because it is far more expensive to
send than to receive. Presumably, an advanced civilization would
have easy access to an abundant source of energy. such as its host
star. These are the civilizations that would be more likely to do
the sending.
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (affectionately
known by its acronym, SETI) has taken many forms. Long-
established efforts have relied on monitoring billions of radio
channels in search of a radio or microwave signal that might rise
above the cosmic noise. The SETI@home screensaver­
downloaded by millions of people around the world-enabled a
home computer to analyze small chunks of the huge quantities of
data collected by the radio telescope at Arecibo Observatory,
Puerto Rico. This gigantic �distributed computing" project (the
largest in the world) actively tapped the computing power of
Interet-connected pes that would otherwise have been doing
nothing while their owners went to the bathroom. More recently,
improvements in laser technology have made it worthwhile to
search the optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum for pulses
of laser light a few nanoseconds in duration. During those
nanoseconds, an intense, directed beam of visible light can
outshine the light of nearby stars, allowing it to be detected from
afar. Another new approach, inspired by the optical version of
SETI, is to keep a lookout across the galaxy, not for sustained
signals, but for brief blasts of microwaves, which would be
relatively cost-effcient to produce on the other end.
The discovery of extraterestrial intelligence, if and when it
happens, will impart a change in human self-perception that may
be impossible to anticipate. My only hope is that every other
civilization isn't doing exactly what we are doing-because then
everybody would be listening, nobody would be sending, and we
would collectively conclude there is no other intelligent life in the
universe.
Even if we don't soon fnd life, we will surely keep looking,
because we are intellectual nomads-curious beings who derive
almost as much fulfillment from the search as we do from the
discovery.
• • • CHAPTER FOUR
EVIL ALIENS:
ÏHIB1ÍBW W11H baH_uj LU§Iu. LÎÎ
San jay Gupta: Here' s a question: Do you believe in UFOs? If so,
you're in some pretty impressive company. British astrophysicist
Stephen Hawking, arguably one of the smartest people on the
planet, thinks there's a good chance that alien life exists-and not
exactly the friendly ET kind. In fact, Hawking envisions a far
darker possibility, more along the lines of the movie War of the
Worlds. In a documentary for the Discovery Channel, Hawking
says the aliens will be big, bad, and very busy conquering planet
after planet. He says they might live in massive ships, and he calls
them nomads who travel the universe conquering others and
collecting energy through mirrors. Mirrors; massive ships; giant,
mean aliens: is it all possible? Let's go up close with Neil
deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York
and, like Hawking, an astrophysicist.
I've been fascinated by this since I was a kid, given the fact
that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, with hundreds of
millions of stars in each galaxy.
Nei deGrse Tyon: Hundreds of billions in each galaxy.
sG: Hundreds of billions of stars-even more. And that probably
means there's life out there somewhere.
NDT' Indeed.
SG: But this idea that aliens will be evil-Hawking paints a picture
that is far less ET and far more Independence Day-is this
speculation?
NDT Yes, but it's not blind speculation. It says more about what
we fear about ourselves than any real expectations of what an
alien would be like. In other words, I think our biggest fear is that
the aliens who visit us would treat us the way we treat each other
here on Earth. So, in a way, Hawking' s apocalyptic fear stories
are a mirror held back up to us.
SG: That's a very different perspective than what Carl Sagan put
out there. He was literally giving away Earth' s location.
NDT Exactly. Sagan provided the return address on a plaque on
the Voyager spacecraft. He wanted to say, �Here's where we are! "
SG: SO why would aliens do what Hawking proposes they'll do?
Some sort of vengeance?
NDT Like I said, no one knows how aliens will behave. They will
have different chemistry, different motives, different intentions.
How can we extrapolate from ourselves to them? Any suspicion
that they will be evil is more a reflection of our fear about how we
would treat an alien species if we found them than any actual
knowledge about how an alien species would treat as.
How ""hi' ld sneezes in space, you ask? Helmet blocks all 40.000 spewed
mucous droplets. So Aliens are safe
)an 15,Zû11 Z.57 PM
SG: We're listening for them right now. My understanding is that
we've been listening for a long time-for anything-and we
haven' t heard a peep from out there. Do you think they're
listening to us right now?
NDT Possibly. The big fear, it seems to me, is that we announce
our presence and then the aliens come and enslave us or put us in
a zoo. Some entertaining science-fiction stories have captured just
those themes.
SG: I never thought to imagine us as living in an alien zoo.
NDT That' s the fear factor. But what are we doing? We're mostly
listening. We have giant radio telescopes pointing in different
directions, with highly sophisticated circuitry that listens to
billions of radio frequencies simultaneously to see if anybody is
whispering on any one of them anyplace in the universe. That's
different from sending signals out. We're not sending signals out
on purpose; we're sending them out accidentally. The expanding
edge of our radio bubble is about seventy light-years away right
now, and on that frontier you'll find broadcast television shows
like I Love Lacy and The Honeymoonersthe first emissaries of
human culture that the aliens would decode. Not much reason
there for aliens to fear us, but plenty of reason for them to
question our intelligence. And, rumors to the contrary, we have
not yet heard from aliens, even accidentally. So we're confronting
a vacuum, ready to be filled with the many fears we harbor.
• • • CHAPTER FIVE
KILLER ASTEROIDS:
Åhe chances that your tombstone will read
�
K
ILLED BY
A
STEROID
"
are about the same as they' d be for
�
K
ILLED IN
A
IRPLANE CRASH+ Only about two dozen people have been killed
by falling asteroids in the past four hundred years, while
thousands have died in crashes during the relatively brief history
of passenger air travel. So how can this comparative statistic be
true? Simple.
The impact record shows that by the end of ten million years,
when the sum of all airplane crashes has killed a billion people
(assuming a death-by-airplane rate of a hundred per year), an
asteroid large enough to kill the same number of people will have
hit Earth. The difference is that while airplanes are continually
killing people a few at a time, [hat asteroid might not kill anybody
for millions of years. But when it does hit, it will take out a billion
people: some instantaneously, and the rest in the wake of global
climatic upheaval.
The combined impact rate for asteroids and comets in the early
solar system was frighteningly high. Theories of planet formation
show that chemically rich gas cooled and condensed to form
molecules, then particles of dust, then rocks and ice. Thereafter, it
was a shooting gallery. Collisions served as a means for chemical
and gravitational forces to bind smaller objects into larger ones.
Those objects that, by chance, had accreted slightly more mass
than average had slightly higher gravity, attracting other objects
even more. As accretion continued, gravity eventually shaped
blobs into spheres, and planets were born. The most massive
planets had sufcient gravity to retain the gaseous envelope we
call an atmosphere.
Every planet continues to accrete, every day of its life, although
at a significantly lower rate than when it first formed. Even today,
interplanetary dust rains down on Earth in vast quantities­
typically a hundred tons of it a day-though only a small fraction
reaches Earth's surface. The rest harmlessly vapozes in Earth's
atmosphere as shooting stars. More hazardous are the billions,
likely trillions, of leftover rocks-comets and asteroids-that
have been orbiting the Sun since the early years of our solar
system but haven' t yet managed to join up with a larger object.
Long-period comets-icy vagabonds from the extreme reaches
of the solar system (as much as a thousand times the radius of
Neptune' s orbit)-are susceptible to gravitational nudges from
passing stars and interstellar clouds, which can direct them on a
long journey inward toward the Sun, and therefore to our
neighborhood. Several dozen short-period comets from the nearer
reaches of the solar system are known to cross Earth's orbit.
As for the asteroids, most are made of rock. The rest are metal,
mostly iron. Some are rubble piles-gravitationally bound
collections of bits and pieces. Most asteroids live between the
orbits of Mars and Jupiter and will never ever come near Earth.
But some do. Some will. About ten thousand near-Earth
asteroids are known, with more surely to be discovered. The most
threatening of them number more than a thousand, and that
number steadily grows as spacewatchers continually survey the
skies in search of them. These are the �potentially hazardous
asteroids," all larger than about five hundred feet across, with
orbits that bring them within about twenty times the distance
between Earth and the Moon. Nobody's saying they're all going
to hit tomorrow. But all of them are worth watching, because a
little cosmic nudge here or there might just send them a little
closer to us.
In this game of gravity, by far the scariest impactors are the
long-period comets-those whose orbits around the Sun take
longer than two hundred years. Representing about one-fourth of
Earth's total risk of impacts, such comets fall toward the inner
solar system from gargantuan distances and achieve speeds in
excess of a hundred thousand miles an hour by the time they reach
Earth. Long-period comets thus achieve more awesome impact
energy for their size than your run-of-the-mill asteroid. More
important, they are too distant, and too dim, throughout most of
their orbit to be reliably tracked. By the time a long-period comet
is discovered to be heading our way. we might have just a couple
of years-or a couple of months-to fund, design, build, and
launch a craft to intercept it, In 1996, for instance. comet
Hyakutake was discovered only four months before its closest
approach to the Sun because its orbit was tipped strongly out of
the plane of our solar system, precisely where nobody was
looking. While en route, it came within ten million miles of Earth:
a narow miss.
The term �accretion" is duller than "species-killing, ecosystem­
destroying impact," but from the point of view of solar-system
history, the terms are the same. Impacts made us what we are
today, So, we cannot Simultaneously be happy that we live on a
planet. happy that our planet is chemically rich, and happy that
dinosaurs don't rule the Earth, and yet resent the risk of a planet�
wide catastrophe,
In a collision with Earth, some of an impactor' s energy gets
deposited into our atmosphere through friction and an airburst of
shock waves. Sonic booms are shock waves too, but they're
typically made by airplanes with speeds between one and three
times the speed of sound. The worst damage they might do is
jiggle the dishes in your china cabinet. But at speeds in excess of
45,000 miles per hour-nearly seventy times the speed of sound
-the shock waves from the average collision between an asteroid
and Earth can be devastating.
If the asteroid or comet is large enough to survive its own
shock waves, the rest of its energy gets deposited on Earth. The
impact blows a crater up to twenty times the diameter of the
original object and melts the ground below. If many impactors hit
one after another, with little time between each strike, then Earth' s
surface will not have enough time to cool between impacts. We
infer from the pristine cratering record on the surface of our
nearest neighbor, the Moon, that Earth experienced such an era of
heavy bombardment between 4.6 billion and 4. 0 billion years ago.
The oldest fossil evidence for life on Earth dates from about 3.8
billion years ago. Before that, Earth's surface was being
relentlessly sterilized. The formation of complex molecules, and
thus life, was inhibited, although all the basic ingredients were
being delivered. That would mean it took 800 million years for
life to emerge here (4.6 billion - 3.8 billion ^ 800 million). But to
be fair to organic chemistry, you must first subtract all the time
that Earth' s surface was forbiddingly hot. That leaves a mere 200
million years for life' s emergence from a rich chemical soup­
which, like all good soups, included liquid water.
Puch of that water was delivered to Earth by comets more than
four billion years ago. But not all space debris is lef over from the
beginning of the solar system. Earth has been hit at least a dozen
times by rocks ejected from Mars, and we've been hit countless
more times by rocks ejected from the Moon.
Ejections occur when impactors car so much energy that,
when they hit, smaller rocks near the impact zone are thrust
upward with sufficient speed to escape a planet' s gravitational
grip. Aferward, those rocks mind their own ballistic business in
orbit around the Sun until they slam into something. The most
famous of the Mars rocks is the first meteorite found near the
Alan Hills section of Antarctica in 1984-ofcially known by its
coded (though sensible) abbreviation, ALH-84001 . This meteorite
contains tantalizing, yet circumstantial, evidence that simple life
on the Red Planet thrived a billion years ago.
Mars has abundant �geo" �logical evidence-dried river beds,
river deltas, floodplains, eroded craters, gullies on steep slopes­
for a history of running water. There' s also water there today in
frozen form (polar ice caps and plenty of subsurface ice) as well
as minerals (silica, clay, hematite �blueberies") that form in
standing water. Since liquid water is crucial to the survival of life
as we know it, the possibility of life on Mars does not stretch
scientific credulity. The fun part comes with the speculation that
life-forms frst arose on Mars and were blasted off the planet's
surface, thus becoming the solar system's first microbial
astronauts, ariving on Earth tojump-start evolution. There's even
a word for that process: panspermia. Maybe we are all Martians.
Matter is far more likely to travel from Mars to Earth than vice
versa. Escaping Earth's gravity requires more than two and a half
times the energy required to leave Mars. And since Earth's
atmosphere is about a hundred times denser, air resistance on
Earth (relative to Mars) is formidable. Bacteria on a voyaging
asteroid would have to be hardy indeed to survive several million
years of interplanetary wanderings before plunging to Earth.
Fortunately, there is no shortage of liquid water and rich
chemistry here at home, so even though we still cannot
defnitively explain the origin of life, we do not require theores of
panspermia to do so.
Lf course, it's easy to think impacts are bad for life. We can and
do blame them for major episodes of extinction in the fossil
record. That record displays no end of extinct life-forms that
thrived far longer than the current Earth tenure of Homo sapiens.
Dinosaurs are among them. But what are the ongoing rsks to life
and society?
House-size impactors collide with Earth, on average, every few
decades. Typically they explode in the atmosphere, leaving no
trace of a crater. But even baby impacts could become political
time bombs. If such an atmospheric explosion occurred over India
or Pakistan during one of the many episodes of escalated tension
between those two nations, the rsk is high that someone would
misinterpret the event as a first nuclear strike, and respond
accordingly. At the other end of the impactor scale, once in about
a hundred million years we're visited by an impactor capable of
annihilating all life-forms bigger than a carry-on suitcase. In cases
such as those, no political response would be necessary.
some people, space Is irrelevant. BUI when the asteroid comes, I bet they'll
think diferently
Aþr ¡3,Zû¡18:4ûPM
What follows is a table that relates average collision rates on
Earth to the size of the impactor and the equivalent energy in
millions of tons of TNT. It's based on a detailed analysis of the
history of impact craters on Earth, the erosion-free cratering
record on the Moon's surface, and the known numbers of
asteroids and comets whose orbits cross that of Earth. These data
are adapted from a congressionally mandated study titled The
Spaceguard Survey: Report of the NASA Interational Near-Earth
Object Detection Workshop. For comparison, the table includes
the impact energ in units of the atomic bomb dropped by the US
Air Force on Hiroshima in 1945 .
- -- ÜÏbÏLÍ ÏÀPLÅb LW ÏPÜÅÏ- - -
Once per
Month
Year
Decade
Century
Millenium
10.000 years
1.000,000 years
100,000.000 years
Ateroid Diameter Impact Energ Impact Energ
(meterslmegatO$li1mb equivent)
3 0.001 0.05
6 0.01 0.5
15 0.2 10
30 2 100
100 50 2.500
200 1,000 50,000
2.000 1.000,000 50.000.000
10.000 100.000,000 5.000.000.000
The energetics of some famous impacts can be located on the
table, For example, a 1908 explosion near the Tunguska River in
Siberia felled thousands of square kilometers of trees and
incinerated the three hundred square kilometers that encircled
ground zero. The culprit is believed to have been a sixty-meter
stony meteorite (about the size of a twenty-story building) that
exploded in midair, thus leaving no crater. The chart indicates that
collisions of this magnitude happen, on average, every couple of
centuries. A much rarer sort of event created the nearly two­
hundred-kilometer-wide Chicxulub crater on Mexico' s Yucatan
Peninsula, which is believed to have been lef by an asteroid
perhaps ten kilometers wide, with an impact energy five billion
times greater than the atomic bombs exploded in World War II.
This is one of those collisions that take place once in a hundred
million years. The crater dates from about sixty-five million years
ago, and there hasn' t been one of similar magnitude since.
COincidentally. at about the same time, Tyrannosaurus rex and
friends became extinct, enabling mammals to evolve into
something more ambitious than tree shrews.
It' s useful to consider how strikes by comets and asteroids impact
Earth's ecosystem. In a fat book titled Hazards Due to Comets
and Asteroids. several planetary scientists do just that regarding
these unwelcome deposits of energy. Here' s a bit of what they
sketched out:
• Most impactors with less than about ten megatons of energy will
explode in the atmosphere, leaving no trace of a crater. The few
that survive in one piece are likely to be iron based.
• A blast of 10 to 100 megatons from an iron asteroid will make a
crater, whereas its stony equivalent will diSintegrate, producing
primarily airbursts. On land, the iron impactor will destroy an
area equivalent to Washington, DC.
• A land impact of 1,000 to 10,000 megatons will produce a crater
and destroy an area the size of Delaware. An oceanic impact of
that magnitude will produce significant tidal waves.
• A blast of 100,000 to 1,000,000 megatons will result in global
destruction of ozone. An oceanic impact will generate tidal
waves on an entire hemisphere, while a land impact will raise
enough dust into the stratosphere to alter Earth's weather and
freeze crops. A land impact will destroy an area the size of
France.
• A blast of 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 megatons will result in
prolonged climatic change and global confagration. A land
impact will destroy an area equivalent to the continental United
States.
• A blast of 100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 megatons, whether on
land or sea, will lead to mass extinction on the scale of the
Chicxulub impact, when three-quarters of Earth's species were
wiped out.
Earth, of course, is not the only rocky planet at risk of impacts.
Mercury has a cratered face that, to a casual observer, looks just
like the Moon. Radio topography of cloud-enshrouded Venus
shows no shortage of craters. And Mars, with its historically
active geology, reveals large, recently formed craters.
At more than three hundred times the mass of Earth, and more
than ten times its diameter, Jupiter' s ability to attract impactors is
unmatched among the planets of our solar system. In 1994, during
the week of anniversary celebrations for the twenty�fifth
anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, comet Shoemaker­
Levy 9, having broken into a couple dozen chunks during a
previous close encounter with Jupiter, slammed-one chunk after
another, at a speed of more than 200,000 kilometers an hour-into
the Jovian atmosphere. Backyard telescopes down here on Earth
easily detected the gaseous scars. Because Jupiter rotates SWiftly
(once every ten hours), each piece of the comet plunged into a
different location as the atmosphere slid by.
In case you were wondering, each piece of Shoemaker-Levy 9
hit with the equivalent energy of the Chicxulub impact. So,
whatever else is true about Jupiter, it surely has no dinosaurs left.
`ou'll be happy to lear that in recent years, more and more
planetary scientists around the world have gone in search of
vagabonds from space that might be heading our way. True, our
list of potential killer impactors is incomplete, and our ability to
predict the behavior of objects millions of orbits into the future is
severely compromised by the onset of chaos. But we can focus on
what will happen in the next few decades or centuries.
Among the population of Earth-crossing asteroids, we have a
chance at cataloguing everything larger than about one kilometer
wide-the size that begins to wreak global catastrophe. An early�
warning and defense system to protect the human species from
these impactors is a reachable goal. Unfortunately, objects much
smaller than a kilometer, of which there are many, reflect much
less light and are therefore much harder to detect and track.
Because of their dimness, they can hit us without notice-or with
notice far too short for us to do anything about them. In January
2002, for instance, a stadium-size asteroid passed by at about
twice the distance from here to the Moon-and it was discovered
just twelve days before its closest approach. Given another decade
or so of data collecting and detector improvements, however, it
may be possible to catalogue nearly all asteroids down to about
140 meters across. While the small stuff carries enough energy to
incinerate entire nations, it will not put the human species at risk
of extinction.
Any of these we should wor about? At least one. On Friday
the 13th, April 2029, an asteroid large enough to fill the Rose
Bowl as though it were an egg cup will fy so close to Earth that it
will dip below the altitude of our communication satellites. We
did not name this asteroid Bambi. Instead, we named it Apophis,
after the Egyptian god of darkness and death. If the trajectory of
Apophis at close approach passes within a narrow range of
altitudes called the "keyhole," then the infuence of Earth's
gravity on its orbit will guarantee that seven years later, in 2036,
on its next trip around, the asteroid will hit Earth directly, likely
slamming into the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii.
The five-story tsunami it creates will wipe out the entire west
coast of North America, dunk Hawaiian cities, and devastate all
the landmasses of the Pacific Rim. If Apophis misses the keyhole
in 2029, we will have nothing to worry about in 2036.
Once we mark our calendars for 2029, we can either pass the
time sipping cocktails at the beach and planning to hide from the
impact, or we can be proactive.
The battle C of those anxious to wage nuclear war is "Blow it
out of the sky! " True, the most efcient package of destructive
energy ever conceived by humans is nuclear power. A direct hit
on an incoming asteroid might explode it into enough small pieces
to reduce the impact danger to a harmless, though spectacular,
meteor shower. Note that in empty space, where there is no air,
there can be no shock waves, and so a nuclear warhead must
actually make contact with the asteroid to do damage.
Another method would be to engage a radiation-intensive
neutron bomb (that' s the Cold War-era bomb that kills people but
leaves buildings intact) . The bomb's high-energy neutron bath
would heat up one side of the asteroid, causing material to spew
forth and thus induce the asteroid to recoil. That recoil would alter
the asteroid's orbit and remove it from the collision path.
A kindler, gentler method would be to nudge the asteroid out of
harm' s way with slow but steady rockets that have somehow been
attached to one side. Apart from the uncertainty of how to attach
rockets to an unfamiliar material, if you do this early enough, then
all you need is a small push using conventional chemical fuels. Or
maybe you attach a solar sail, which harnesses the pressure of
sunlight for its propulsion, in which case you'll need no fuel at all.
The odds-on favorite solution, however, is the gravitational
tractor. This involves parking a probe in space near the killer
asteroid. As their mutual gravity draws the probe to the asteroid,
an aray of retro rockets fres, instead causing the asteroid to draw
toward the probe and off its collision course with Earth.
The business of saving the planet requires commitment. We
must first catalogue every object whose orbit intersects Earth's.
We must then perform precise computer calculations that enable
us to predict a catastrophic collision hundreds or thousands of
orbits into the future. Meanwhile, we must also carry out space
missions to determine in great detail the structure and chemical
composition of killer comets and asteroids. Military strategists
understand the need to know your enemy. But now, for the frst
time, we would be engaged in a space mission conceived not to
beat a spacefarng competitor but to protect the life of our entire
species on our collective planetary home.
Whichever option we choose, we will first need that detailed
inventory of orbits for all objects that pose a rsk to life on Earth.
The number of people in the world engaged in that search totals a
few dozen. I' d feel more comfortable if there were a few more.
The decision comes down to how long into the future we're
willing to protect the life of our own species on Earth. If humans
one day become extinct from a catastrophic collision, it won't be
because we lacked the brainpower to protect ourselves, but
because we lacked the foresight and determination. The dominant
species that replaces us on postapocalyptic Earth might just
wonder why we fared no better than the proverbially pea-brained
dinosaurs.
• • • CHAPER SIX
DESTINED FOR THE STARS:
À1UB0 ÍÐIB1VÍBWW11H LaÍVÍÐbÍH5Í01 1ne^eaIotI1¡mes
Te Converton
NeideGrase Tyn: We need to go back to the Moon. Many people
say, "We've been there, done that, can't you come up with a new
place to visit?" But the Moon offers important technological
advantages. A trip to Mars takes about nine months. If you
haven' t been out of low Earth orbit for forty years, sending people
to Mars for the frst time is a long way to go and a hard thing to
do. A big thrust of the new space vision is to reengage the manned
program in ways that haven't been done during the past decade,
and to recapture the excitement that drove so much of the space
program back in the 1960s.
Calvin Sims: So the reasons to go are to prove that we can do it
again, because we haven' t done H in such a long time, and also to
build consensus for it?
NDT We haven' t left low Earth orbit recently. We have to remind
ourselves how to do that-how to do it well, how to do it
efficiently. We also have to figure out how to set up base camp
and sustain life in a place other than Earth or low Earth orbit. The
Moon is a relatively easy place to get to and test all this out.
cs. NASA has estimated it could cost $ 100 billion, conservatively,
to go to the Moon. Do you think it's prudent to be funding this
effort, especially at a point in our history when we have a war in
Iraq and a lot of domestic demands?
NDT This $100 billion figure needs to be unpacked. It doesn't
come all at once; it's spread over multiple years. And $100
billion, by the way, is only six years of total NASA funding.
America is a wealthy nation. Let's ask the question, "What is
going to space worth to you?" How much of your tax dollar are
you willing to spend for the jourey that NASA represents in our
heart, in our minds, in our souls? NASA's budget comes to one­
half of one percent of your tax bill. So I don't think that's the frst
place people should be looking if they want to save money in the
federal budget. It' s certainly worth a whole percent-personally, I
think it's worth more than that-but if all you're going to give us
is one percent, we can make good use of it.
Destied ror the Stars
NDT In every culture across time, there has always been
somebody wondering about our place in the universe and trying to
come to terms with what Earth is. This is not a latter-day interest;
it's something deeply inherent in what it is to be human. As
twenty-first-century Americans, we're lucky to be able to act on
that wonder. Most people just stood there, looked upward, and
invented mythologies to explain what they were wondering about.
We actually get to build spaceships and go places. That' s a
privilege brought by the success of our economy and the vision of
our leaders, combined with the urge to do it in the first place.
cs. You're saying the primary reason to venture into space is the
quest for knowledge, and that humans are programmed by nature
to satisfy our curiosity and to engage in the sheer thrill of
discovery. Why is the allure so great that we risk human lives to
get there?
NDT Not everyone would risk their life. But for some members of
our species, discovery is fundamental to their character and
identity. And those among us who feel that way then carry the
nation, the world, into the future.
Robots are important also. If I don my pure-scientist hat, I
would say just send robots; I'll stay down here and get the data.
But nobody' s ever given a parade for a robot. Nobody' s ever
named a high school after a robot. So when I don my public­
educator hat, I have to recognize the elements of exploration that
excite people. It' s not only the discoveries and the beautiful
photos that come down from the heavens; it' s the vicarious
participation in discovery itself.
cs. How far are we from having mass space exploration and
experience by the individual person-the colonization of space?
This has been a dream for a long time. Is it twenty years off?
Thirty years?
NDT Anytime I read about the history of human behavior, I see
that people are always finding some reason to fight and kill one
another. This is really depressing. And so I don't know that I trust
human beings to colonize another planet, and to keep those
colonies from becoming zones of violence and conflict. Also, the
future has been a little oversold. Just look at what people said in
the 1960s: "By 1985 there will be thousands of people living and
working in space. " No. It's now 2006, and we've got three people
living and working in space. Delusions come about because
people lose track of the forces that got us into space in the frst
place.
cs. Do you have any desire yourself to venture out and explore
space?
NDT No, never. Part of the popular definition of the word "space"
is, for example, to go into Earth orbit. Well, Earth orbit can be as
low as two hundred miles above Earth' s surface. That' s the
distance from New York to Boston. My interest in space goes
vastly beyond that-to galaxies, black holes, the Big Bang. Now,
if we had ways to travel that far, sure, sign me up. Visit the
Andromeda galaxy? I' m ready to leave tomorrow. But we don't
have a way to do that yet, so I'll sit back and wait for it to come.
The Sun Revolves Around the Earth?
cs. Americans on average know far less about science and
technology than their foreign counterparts. You've said that
unless we take steps to improve scientifc literacy in America, we
are headed for a crisis.
NDT The crisis is happening already. But I' m pleased to report
that people with understanding and foresight are in our midst,
some of whom have served on committees that produce
documents. �A Nation at Risk," the 1983 report by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education, for example,
commented that if an enemy power tried to impose on America
the substandard educational system that exists today, we might
have considered it an act of war. In fact, the report went so far as
to say that America had essentially been �committing an act of
unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament."
cs. Some studies have shown that only about 20 to 25 percent of
the adult population can be considered sCientifcally literate. And
one study found that one American adult in five thinks that the
Sun revolves around the Earth, a notion that was abandoned in the
sixteenth century. Does that surprise you?
NDT Didn't you just ask me whether we're in a crisis? Yes, we
are. And yes, it concerns me deeply. There' s fundamental
knowledge about the physical world that the general public is
oblivious to. And by the way, science literacy is not simply how
many chemical formulas you can recite, nor whether you know
how your microwave oven works. Science literacy is being
plugged into the forces that power the universe. There is no
excuse for thinking that the Sun, which is a million times the size
of Earth, orbits Earth.
cs. This is particularly troubling because so much political debate
has a basis in science: global warming, stem cell research. What
do we do about this?
NDT I can only tell you what I do about it. I hate to say this, but
I've given up on adults. They've formed their ways; they're the
product of whatever happened in their lives; I can't do anything
for them. But I can have some infuence on people who are still in
school. That' s where I, as a scientist and an educator, can do
something to help teach them how to think, how to evaluate a
claim, how to judge what one person says versus what another
says, how to establish a level of skepticism. Skepticism is healthy.
It's not a bad thing; it's a good thing. So I' m working on the next
generation as they come up. I don't know what to do with the rest.
That 80 percent of the adults, I can't help you there.
cs: How do we change the way science is taught?
NDT Ask anybody how many teachers truly made a diference in
their life, and you never come up with more than the fingers on
one hand. You remember their names, you remember what they
did, you remember how they moved in front of the classroom.
You know why you remember them? Because they were
passionate about the subject. You remember them because they lit
a fame within you. They got you excited about a subject you
didn't previously care about, because they were excited about it
themselves. That's what turns people on to careers in science and
engineering and mathematics. That' s what we need to promote.
Put that in every classroom, and it will change the world.
China: The New Sputik
NDT It's sad but true that one of the biggest drivers fueling the
space program in the 1960s was the Cold War. We don't
remember it that way; instead we remember it as, "We're
Americans, and we're explorers. " What actually happened was
that Sputnik lit a flame under our buns, and we said, "This is not
good. The Soviet Union is our enemy, and we have to beat them."
cs. Now China is the competitor. So would you say America's
ambitious new space initiative is being drven by economic and
military goals, especially since China put a man into orbit in 2003
and is close to reaching the Moon?
NDT There' s a proximity in time between the launch of the frst
Chinese taikonaut into orbit, which was October 2003, and a spate
of US documents articulating a "space vision," induding the Bush
administration's Vision for Space Exploration in January 2004
and an executive order that same month establishing the
Presidential Commission on Implementation of United States
Space Exploration Policy, followed by NASA' s Vision for Space
Exploration in February. The space vision does not state, "We're
worred about the Chinese; let's get our people back into orbit,"
but it would be imprudent not to reflect on the political climate in
which these documents were issued. I have no doubt that we're
worred about our ability to compete. Let's not forget that the
vision was announced within a year of the loss of the Columbia
space shuttle. It was in the wake of that loss that people started
asking questions: What is NASA doing with its manned program?
Why are we risking uur lives Lu jusL drive aruuntl lhe bluck, buldly
going where hundreds have gone before? If you're going to put
your life at risk, let it be because you're going somewhere no one
has ever been. It's not about being risk averse: you want the risk
to be matched to the goal.
cs: How far advanced are the Chinese? Can we beat them back to
the Moon?
NDT Of the many comparative statistics between America and
other nations, one of my favorites is that there are more
SCientifically literate people in China than there are college
graduates here in Amerca. When I was on the president's
aerospace commission, we went around the world to study the
economic climate that our own aerospace industry was now
competing in. One of those trips was to China. We met with
government officials and industry leaders in 2002-by the way,
they all had rngs from engineering schools in America-and they
told us, "We're going to put a man in space in a few years. " There
was no doubt in our minds that this would happen, because we
saw the channeling of their resources into this effort. We saw how
they valued it for national pride. We saw how they valued it as an
economic engine. What' s fresh for them is what too many
Americans have taken for granted within our own nation.
cs: Is the militarization of space or the colonization of space by
different countries inevitable as a consequence of our getting
there?
NDT We've got lots of space assets: communications satellites,
weather satellites, CPS. There' s talk of protecting those. Is that
the militarization of space that people refer to? Maybe instead
they're refering to lasers and bombs. If that were the trend, it
would not be good. Militarization would contaminate the purity of
the vision. The vision is to explore. There's nothing purer in the
human spirit than that.
Losing OUf Scentific Edge
es: The United States remains the dominant scientific and
technological power in the world, but foreign competitors are
gaining ground, are they not?
NDT It's not that we're losing our edge; it's that everyone's
catching up with us. The United States maintained our
investments on technological frontiers in the 1 950s, ' 60s, and
'70s. We could have stayed ahead of the world, as we were during
those decades. Yes, everyone caught up with us and leveled the
playing field-but it didn't have to stay that way. And it doesn't
have to stay that way now. Time for us to reinvest in ourselves.
Our nation has the largest economy in the world; it's not out of
our reach to reclaim the leadership we once had.
es: But fewer and fewer students are majoring in science and
engineering, and, in fact, a substantial portion of our scientifc and
technological workforce is foreign-born. Isn't this a concern?
NDT I' m not concerned, per se, that foreign students fll a
substantial part of our educational pipeline in science and
engineering. It's been that way for several decades. America loses
only if those students go home.
es: Is that happening?
NDT Yes, it is. Before, foreign students would come and stay, and
so our investments in them as students produced a return in their
creativity and innovation as workers. They became part of the
American economy.
es: So why are they going back home now?
NDT Because the rest of the world is catching up, and now there
are opportunities back in their native countries-opportunities that
vastly exceed what' s available here.
cs. Isn't the increase, the infusion, of scientific capability good for
science? Isn't that what you want to happen?
NDT It depends what day you catch me and which hat I' m
wearing. It' s easy to speak in terms of wanting to keep America
strong, healthy, and wealthy. But as a scientist, you really only
care about the frontier of science, wherever that frontier arises.
Yes, you want to be on that frontier yourself, but science has
always been interational. In some ways science transcends
nationality, because all scientists speak the same language. The
equations are the same, no matter what side of the ocean you're
on or when you've written them. So ultimately, yes, it's good that
more people are doing science and that more countries embrace
investments in science. Nevertheless, I'll lament the day
Americans become bystanders rather than leaders on the space
frontier.
• • • CHAPER SEVEN
WHY EXPLORE:
\nlike other animals, humans are quite comfortable sleeping on
our backs, This simple fact affords us a view of the boundless
night sky as we fall asleep, allowing us to dream about our place
in the cosmos and to wonder what lies undiscovered in the worlds
beyond, Or perhaps a gene operates within us that demands we
learn for ourselves what awaits us on the other side of the valley,
over the seas, or across the vacuum of space. Regardless of the
cause, the effect is to leave us restless for want of a plan to
discover. We know in our minds, but especially in our hearts, the
value to our culture of new voyages and the new vistas they
provide. Because without them, our culture stalls and our species
withers. And we might as well go to sleep facing down.
• • • CHAPR EIGHT
THE ANATOMY OF WONDER:
Åhese days we wonder about many things. We wonder whether
we will arrive at work on time. We wonder whether the recipe for
corn muffins we got off the Interet will turn out okay. We
wonder whether we will run out of fuel before reaching the next
gas station. As an intransitive verb, wonder is just another word in
a sentence. But as a noun (with the exception of �Boy Wonder,"
the moniker for Batman's sidekick), the word expresses one of
our highest capacities for human emotion.
Most of us have felt wonder at one time or another. We come
upon a place or thing or idea that defies explanation. We behold a
level of beauty and majesty that leaves us without words; awe
draws us into a state of silent stupor. What's remarkable is not
that humans are endowed with thls capacity to feel, but that very
different forces can stimulate these same emotions within us all.
The reverent musings of a scientist at the boundary of what is
known and unknown in the universe-on the brink of cosmic
discovery-greatly resembles the thoughts expressed by a person
steeped in religious reverence. And (as is surely the goal of most
artists) some creative works leave the viewer without words­
only feelings that hover at the limits of the emotional spectrum.
The encounter is largely spiritual and cannot be absorbed all at
once; it requires persistent reflection on its meaning and on our
relationship to it.
Each component of this trinity of human endeavor-science,
religion, and art-lays powerful claim to our feelings of wonder,
which derive from an embrace of the mysterious. Where mystery
is absent, there can be no wonder.
Viewing a great work of engineering or architecture can force
one to pause out of respect for the sublime intersection of science
and art. Projects of such a scale have the power to transform the
human landscape, announcing loudly, both to ourselves and to the
universe, that we have mastered the forces of nature that formerly
bound us to an itinerant life in search of food, shelter, and nothing
else.
Inevitably, new wonders supplant old wonders, induced by
modern mysteries instead of old. We must ensure that this forever
remains true, lest our culture stagnate through time and space.
Two thousand years ago, long before we understood how and why
the planets moved the way they do in the night sky. the
Alexandrian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy
could not restrain his reverence as he contemplated them. In the
Aagest he writes: �When I trace, at my pleasure, the windings
to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my
feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of
ambrosia. "
People no longer wax poetic about the orbital paths of planets.
Isaac Newton solved that mystery in the seventeenth century with
his universal law of gravitation. That Newton' s law is now taught
in high school physics classes stands as a simple reminder that on
the ever-advancing frontier of discovery. on Earth and in the
heavens, the wonders of nature and of human creativity know no
bounds, forcing us periodically to reassess what to call the most
wondrous.
• • • CHAPTER NINE
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, NASA:
Dear NASA.
Happy birthdayl Perhaps you didn't know, but we're the same
age. In the first week of October 1958, you were born of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act as a civilian space agency,
while I was born of my mother in the East Bronx. So the yearlong
celebration of our golden anniversaries, which began the day after
we both turned forty-nine, provides me a unique occasion to
reflect on our past, present, and future.
I was three years old when John Glenn first orbited Earth. I was
eight when you lost astronauts Chaffee, Grissom, and White in
that tragic fire of their Apollo 1 capsule on the launchpad. I was
ten when you landed Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon. And I
was founeen when you stopped going to the Moon altogether.
Over that time I was excited for you and for America. But the
vicarious thrill of the journey, so prevalent in the hearts and minds
of others, was absent from my emotions. I was obviously too
young to be an astronaut. But I also knew that my skin color was
much too dark for you to picture me as part of this epic adventure.
Not only that, even though you are a civilian agency, your most
celebrated astronauts were military pilots, at a time when war was
becoming less and less popular.
During the 1960s, the civil rights movement was surely more
real to me than to you. In fact, it took a directive from Vice
President Johnson in 1963 to force you to hire black engineers at
your prestigious Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville,
Alabama. I found the correspondence in your archives. Do you
remember? James Webb, then head of NASA, wrote to German
rocket pioneer Wernher von Braun, who headed the center and
was the chief engineer of the entire manned space program. The
letter boldly and bluntly directs von Braun to address the "lack of
equal employment opportunity for Negroes" in the region, and to
collaborate with the region' s colleges Alabama A&M and
Tuskegee to identif, train, and recruit qualified Negro engineers
into the NASA Huntsville family.
In 1964, you and I had not yet tured six when I saw picketers
outside the newly built apartment complex of our choice, in the
Riverdale section of the Bronx. They were protesting to prevent
Negro families, mine included, from moving there. I' m glad their
efforts failed. These buildings were called, perhaps prophetically,
the Skyview Apartments, on whose roof, twenty-two stories above
the Bronx, I would later train my telescope on the universe.
My father was active in the civil rights movement, working
under New York City's Mayor Lindsay to create job opportunities
for youth in the ghetto, as the "inner city" was called back then.
Year after year, the forces operating against this effort were huge:
poor schools, bad teachers, meager resources, abject racism, and
assassinated leaders. So while you were celebrating your monthly
advances in space exploration from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo,
I was watching America do all it could to marginalize who I was
and what I wanted to become in life.
1 looked to you for guidance, for a vision statement that I could
adopt and that would fuel my ambitions. But you weren't there for
me. Of course, I shouldn't blame you for society's woes. Your
conduct was a symptom of America's habits, not a cause. I knew
this. But you should nonetheless know that among my colleagues,
I am the only one in my generation who became an astrophysicist
in spite of your achievements in space rather than becaase of
them. For my inspiration, I instead turned to libraries,
remaindered books on the cosmos from bookstores, my rooftop
telescope. and the Hayden Planetarium. After some fits and starts
through my years in school, when becoming an astrophysicist
seemed at times to be the path of most resistance through an
unwelcoming society. I became a professional scientist. I became
an astrophysicist.
Over the decades that followed. you've come a long way­
including, most recently, a presidentially initiated, congressionally
endorsed vision statement that finally gets us back out of low
Earth orbit. Whoever does not yet recognize the value of this
adventure to our nation' s future soon will, as the rest of the
developed and developing world passes us by in every measure of
technological and economic strength. Not only that, today you
look much more like America-from your senior-level managers
to your most decorated astronauts. Congratulations. You now
belong to the entire citizenry. Examples of this abound, but I
especially remember in 2004 when the public rallied around the
Hubble Telescope, your most beloved unmanned mission. They
all spoke loudly, ultimately reversing the threat that the
telescope's life might not be extended for another decade.
Hubble' s transcendent images of the cosmos had spoken to us all,
as did the personal profles of the space shuttle astronauts who
deployed and serviced the telescope. and the scientists who
benefited from its data stream.
Not only that, I've even joined the ranks of your most trusted,
as I served dutifully on your advisory council. I came to recognize
that when you're at your best, nothing in this world can inspire the
dreams of a nation the way you can-dreams carried by a parade
of ambitious students, eager to become scientists. engineers, and
technologists in the service of the greatest quest there ever was.
You have come to represent a fundamental part of America's
identity, not only to itself but to the world.
So, now that we've both turned forty-nine and are well into our
fiftieth orbit around the Sun, I want you to know that I feel your
pains and share your joys. And I look forward to seeing you back
on the Moon. But don't stop there. Mars beckons, as do
destinations beyond.
Birthday buddy, even if! have not always been, I am now your
humble servant.
NEll DEGRASSE TYSON
Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History
• • • CHAPTER TEN
THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS IN
SPACE:
It would be hard to discuss the next fifty years in space without
some reflection on the previous íñ.I happen to have been born
the same week NASA was founded. in early October 1958. That
means my earliest awareness of the world took place in the 1960s,
during the Apollo era. It was also a turbulent decade
internationally, and America was no exception. We were at war in
Southeast Asia, the civil rights movement was under way,
assassinations were taking place. and NASA was heading for the
Moon.
At the time. it seemed clear that the astronauts, whatever
criteria were used to select them. would never have included me.
The astronauts were drawn from the military-all but two of
them. One was Neil Armstrong. a civilian test pilot and
aeronautical engineer-the commander of Apollo 1 1 and the frst
human to step foot on the Moon. The other was Harrison Schmitt,
a geologist. the only scientist to go to the Moon. Schmitt was the
lunar module pilot of Apollo 17, America' s last Moon mission.
Perhaps the most turbulent year of that turbulent decade was
1968, yet that's the year Apollo 8 became the first craft ever to
leave low Earth orbit and go to the Moon. That jourey took place
in December, at the end of an intense and bloody year. During
Apollo 8' s figure-eight orbit, its astronauts took the most
recognized photograph in the history of the world. As the
spacecraft emerged from behind the far side of the Moon, they
pulled out the camera, looked through the window of the
command module, and captured Earth rising over the lunar
landscape. This widely published image, titled Earhrise,
presented Earth as a cosmic object, aloft in the sky of another
cosmic object. It was simultaneously thrilling and humbling,
beautiful and also a little scary.
By the way, the title Earhrise is a bit misleading. Earth has
tidally locked the Moon, which means that the Moon eternally
shows only one side to us. The urge is strong to presume that
Earth rises and sets for observers on the Moon just as the Moon
rises and sets for observers on Earth. But as seen from the Moon's
near side, Earth never rises. It's just always there, floating in the
sky.
Everybody remembers the 1960s as the era of the right stuff,
but it had its share of robotic missions as well. The frst rovers on
the Moon were Russian: Luna 9 and Luna 13. America's Ranger 7
was the first US spacecraft to photograph the Moon's surface. But
those go unremembered by the public, even though they were our
robotic forebearers in space, because there was a much bigger
story being told: only when human emissaries were doing the
exploring did people feel a vicarious attachment to the dramas
unfolding on the space frontier.
Íecause I grew up in America, I took for granted that, by and
large, everybody thinks about tomorrow, next year, five years
from now, ten years from now. It's a popular pastime. If you say
to someone, "So, what are you up to?" they're not going to tell
you what they're doing today. No, they're going to tell you what
they're planning: �I' m saving to go on a trip to the Caribbean," or
"We're going to buy a bigger house," or "We're going to have
two more kids." People are envisioning the future.
Americans are not alone in this, of course. But in some
countries I visit. I speak to people who do not think about the
future. And any country where people do not think about the
future is a country without a space program. Space, I have
learned, is a frontier that keeps you dreaming about what might
get discovered tomorrow-a fundamental feature of being human.
Around the world and across time, every people and every
culture-even those with no written language-has some sort of
story that accounts, mythologically or otherwise, for its existence
and its relationship to the known universe. These are not new
questions. These are old questions. This is an old quest.
Humans are one of very few animals that are perfectly happy
sleeping on their backs. Also, we sleep at night. What happens if
you wake up frm sleeping at night on your back? You see the
stars. It is possible that, of all the animals in the history of life on
Earth, we may be uniquely curous about the sky, and so perhaps
we should not be surprised that we wonder about our place in the
cosmos.
night is our day. Marry astronomers-you'll always know where they are at
night
)u¡ 14,Z10 6:08 AM
Today when we think of distant objects in space, we make
plans to go there. We've gone to the Moon. We talk about the
possibility of going to Mars. The twentieth centur, of course, was
the frst in which the methods and tools of science-and
particularly the methods and tools of space exploration-enabled
us to answer age-old questions without reference to mythological
sources: Where did we come from? Where are we going? Where
do we fit in the universe? Many of our answers have come not
simply because we went to the Moon or to some other celestial
object but because space offers us places from which to access the
rest of the cosmos.
Most of what the universe wants to tell us doesn't reach Earth' s
surface. We would know nothing of black holes were it not for
telescopes launched into space. We would know nothing of
various explosions in the universe that are rich in X-rays, gamma
rays, or ultraviolet. Before we had vistas in space-telescopes,
satellites, space probes-that enabled us to conduct astrophysical
studies without interference from Earth's atmosphere, which we
normally think of as transparent, we were almost blind to the
universe.
When I think of tomorrow' s space exploration, I don't think of
low Earth orbit-altitudes less than about two thousand
kilometers. In the 1960s that was a frontier. But now low Earth
orbit is routine. It can still be dangerous, but it isn't a space
frontier. Take me somewhere new. Do something more than drive
around the block.
Yes, the Moon is a destination. Mars is a destination. But the
Lagrangian points are destinations too. Those are where
gravitational and centrifugal forces balance in a rotating system
such as Earth and the Moon or Earth and the Sun. At destinations
such as those, we can build things. We already have some
experience, brought by building the International Space Station,
which is bigger than most things ever conceived or constructed on
Earth.
If you ask me, "What is culture?" I would say it is all the things
we do as a nation or group or inhabitants of a city or region, yet
no longer pay attention to. It's the things we take for granted. I' m
a New Yorker, and so, for example, I no longer notice when I
walk past a seventy-story building. Yet every tourist who comes
to New York City from any place in the world is continually
looking up. So I ask myself, What do people elsewhere take for
granted in their own cultures?
Sometimes it' s the simple things. Last time Ï visited Italy, I
went to a supermarket and saw an entire aisle of pasta. I had never
seen that before. There were pasta shapes that never make it to the
United States. So I asked my Italian friends, �Oo you notice this?"
And they said no, it was simply the pasta aisle. In the Far East,
there are entire aisles of rice, with choices undreamt of in
America. So I asked a friend who wasn' t born in America,
�What's in our supermarkets that you think I no longer notice?"
And she said, �You have an entire aisle of ready-to-eat breakfast
cereals." To me, of course, that's just the cereal aisle. We have
entire aisles full of soft drinks: Coke and Pepsi and all their
derivatives. Yet that's just the soda aisle to me.
Where am I going with these examples? In America, everyday
items incorporate icons from the space program. You can buy
refrigerator magnets in the shape of the Hubble Space Telescope.
You can buy boxes of bandages decorated not only with Spider­
Man and Superman and Barbie but also with stars and moons and
planets that glow in the dark. You can buy pineapple slices cut
into Cosmic Fun Shapes. And for car names, the cosmos ranks
second after geographic locations. This is the space component of
culture that people no longer notice.
Space rw,�,,,o
Tasty Cosmos: Mars bar. Milky Way bar. MoonPie, Eclipse gum. Orbit gum.
Sunklst, Celestlal Seasonings. No food named Uranus
)u¡ ¡Û, ?¡0 1 ¡:Z8AM
Ceveral years ago I served on a commission whose task was to
analyze the future of the US aerospace industry-which had been
falling on hard times, in part because of the success of Airbus in
Europe and Embraer in Brazil. We went around the world to
explore the economic climate in which American industries are
functioning, so that we could advise Congress and the aerospace
industry how to restore the leadership, or at least the
competitiveness, that they (and we all) may once have taken for
granted.
So we visited various countres in Western Europe and worked
our way east. Our last stop was Moscow. One of the places we
visited was Star City, a training center for cosmonauts where
you'll fnd a strking monument in honor of Yur Gagarn.
Following the usual introductory platitudes and a morning shot of
vodka, the director of Star City just sat back, loosened his tie, and
spoke longingly of space. His eyes sparkled, as did mine, and I
felt a connection I did not feel in England or France or Belgium or
Italy or Spain.
That connection exists, of course, because our two nations, for
a bref moment in history, directed major resources toward putting
people into space. Having engaged in that endeavor has worked
its way into both Russian and American culture, so that we don't
conceive of life without it. My camaraderie with Star City's
director made me think about what the world would be like if
every country were engaged in that enterprise. I imagined our
being connected with one another on a higher plane-beyond
economic and military conflicts, beyond war altogether. I
wondered how two nations with such deep, shared dreams about
human presence in space could have remained such long-standing
adversaries in the post-World War II era.
I have another example of space becoming part of culture.
Three years ago, when NASA announced that an upcoming
servicing mission to fix the Hubble Space Telescope might be
canceled, it became big news in America. Do you know who
played the biggest role in reversing that decision? Not the
astrophysicists. It was the general public. Why? They had
beautified their walls, computer screens, CD covers, guitars, and
high-fashion gowns with Hubble images, and so in their own way
they had become vicarious participants in cosmic discovery. The
public took ownership of the Hubble Space Telescope, and
eventually, after a slew of editorials, letters to the editor, talk�
show discussions, and congressional debates, the funding was
restored. I do not know of another time in the history of science
when the public took ownership of a scientific instrument. Hut it
happened then and there, marking the ascent of the Hubble into
popular American culture.
I won't soon forget the deep feeling of commonality I had
while sitting around schmoozing at Star City with members of the
Russian space community. If the whole world shared such
experiences, we would then have common dreams and everybody
could begin thinking about tomorow. And if everybody thinks
about tomorrow, then someday we can all visit the sky together.
I
a NASA reality show "Lunar Shore" be more popular ta' Jersey
Shore"7 Civilization's future depends on that answer
Na¸ ¡6.2û118:¡8AM
• • • CHAPTER ELEVEN
SPACE OPTIONS
Ï00Ca51 ÍÐIP1VÍ0WW1IH±U1Ía LaÍBÍuHU Nu551Æ0 1Í_Í1UCC1 Í01
Rooonoü}on
julia Galef Our guest in the studio today is Neil deGrasse Tyson, an
astrophysicist and the director of the Hayden Planetarium. Neil is
joining us to talk about the status of the space program today­
what are its current goals, and what practical benefit does the
space program have for our society? And to the extent that it
doesn' t have practical benefits, what are the justifications for
spending taxpayer money on it-or on any other science without
applied benefit?
Neil deGrase Tyn: Let me remind some listeners, or alert them
perhaps for the first time, what it is we' re talking about. The
Obama administration, in the new NASA budget, made some
fundamental changes to the portfolio of NASA' s ambitions. Some
are good; some are neutral: some have been heavily criticized.
The one that has had hardly any resistance, and was broadly
praised, was the urge to get NASA out of low Earth orbit and to
cede that activiy to private enterprise.
Typically, the way our government has birthed new industries
is to make the initial investments before capital markets can value
them. That's where the high risk lies. Innovative ideas become
inventions. Inventions become patents. Patents earn money. Only
when risks are managed and understood do capital markets take
notice. Right now, plenty of business goes on in low Earth orbit­
all the consumer products that thrive on GPS, direct TV, other
satellite communications. These are all commercial markets. So
the thinking is to get NASA back on the frontier, where it belongs.
Masimo Pigliuci: Speaking of low Earth orbit, what exactly has the
space station been doing up there?
NDT Even more than research in Antarctica, the International
Space Station is the prime example of international cooperation­
the largest in human history, aside from the waging of world wars.
Multiple countries h:we gone down to Ant:nrtkH to do
collaborative science research. And no one is making land grabs,
maybe because no one wants to live there. So that helps in the
collaboration: no one wants to be the King of Nothing. Antarctica
is not only a beautiful place but also a unique location for
conducting certain kinds of science-in part because it's cold, so
there's low moisture in the air. And the South Pole happens to be
at high elevation, so you're above layers of atmosphere that would
otherwise interfere with your view of the night sky. As a result,
astrophysics thrives at the South Pole.
The point is, just as Antarctica is an area of considerable
international collaboration, so too is the Interational Space
Station. It also demonstrates that we can build big things in space.
We once thought that a telescope or some other piece of hardware
required a surface on which to build it. But where there's a
surface, there' s gravity-which means the weight of the system
requires structural support. But in orbit everything is weightless,
permitting the building of huge structures that would be inherently
unstable on Earth's surface.
MP: But would you therefore make an exception for the
Interational Space Station, in terms of this issue of privatization
as opposed to goverment funding of research?
NDT You wouldn't necessarily privatize the space station itself
right now, but you' d certainly privatize access to it. You' d sell the
trips there. Why not? That' s really where privatization would frst
reveal itself, according to the new plan. And no one's complaining
about that. Where Obama got in a little bit of hot water was his
cancellation of the NASA plan to return to the Moon.
The Moon is an interesting target. First, it's nearby. And
having already been there means we can go there now with greater
confidence of success, whereas a round trip to Mars involves
dangers both known and unknown. Sending astronauts outside the
protective blanket of Earth's magnetic field would leave them
vulnerable to ionizing radiation from solar flares, which generate
high-energy charged particles that can enter the body and ionize
its atoms.
MP: So would you see a possible Moon station as a stepping-stone
toward a Mars mission?
NDT No, because if you're going to Mars, generally you don't
want to go somewhere else first, because it takes energy to slow
down, land, and take off again. Slowing down requires fuel. If the
Moon had an atmosphere, you could use it to slow down, just as
the space shuttle does as it returns to Earth. That' s why it needs
those famous tiles that dissipate the heat of reentry. If we didn't
have a way to dump the energy of motion, the shuttle would be
unable to stop.
Just an FI: If you blow-torch a shuttle tie to red-hot. i ntime it takes to put
down the torch. tile is back to room temp
Na9,?I¡ ¡I:34
__
Plus, do you bring all your resources with you'! lfyou're taking
a road trip to California, do you attach a supertanker to your car?
Do you bring along a farm? No, you rely on the fact that there' s a
string of Quik Marts between here and California, so that you can
refuel and buy food.
A long-term goal for living and working in space would be to
exploit the resources that are already there. Obama's National
Space Policy does say we should continue to do research on
launch vehicles and rocket technologies that will one day get us to
Mars, but when that day should come was not specified. And
that' s what makes space enthusiasts uncomfortable.
If we were choosing whether to go to the Moon or to Mars,
most
scientists-there are some key vocal exceptions, but I'm talking
about most scientists, myself included-would pick Mars. It has
plenty of evidence for a history of running water and enticing
evidence for liquid water laying recent tracks within the soils. It
also has methane, effusing its way out of a cliff face. What drives
scientists to choose Mars is not just its fascinating geology
(though perhaps we should call it marsology, since �geo-" means
Earth) . Deep down in our quest to know these planetar surfaces
is our ongoing search for life, because every place on Earth where
there's liquid water, there's life.
jG: Can you talk about the advantage of putting a human on Mars,
as opposed to robotic exploration of Mars?
NDT There' s no advantage. That' s the short answer. But let me
provide some nuance. It costs anywhere from twenty to fifty times
more money to send a human to a space destination than it does to
send a robot. Say you're a geologist, and I tell you, �I could send
you to Mars with your rock hammer and maybe a few machines to
make measurements. I can do that once, or I can fund thirty
different rovers that can be placed anywhere you choose on the
Martian surface, and they'll carry the machines that I' d otherwise
be giving to you." Which would you pick?
MP: It seems like a no-brainer to me.
NDT Scientifically, it's a no-brainer. That' s the point. It's because
of the prce difference that any scientist interested in scientific
results would not, could not, with a clear conscience, send a
human there. That leaves two options. Either you seriously lower
the cost of sending humans there, so that it's competitive with
sending robots, or you send a person regardless of the cost,
because a person can do in a few minutes what it might take a
rover all day to do. And that' s because the human brain is more
intuitive about what it's looking at than is the robot you've
programmed. A program represents a subset of what you are, but
it's still not you. And if you're the programmer, can you make a
computer more intuitive than you are? I'll leave that one for you
philosophers.
MP: Before the show we were talking about something very
pertinent to this topiC: how extremely large and expensive projects
got funded historically.
NDT There are really just three justifications for spending large
portions of state wealth-three drivers. One of them is praise of
royalty and deity: activities undertaken in part out of deep respect
and in part out of deep fear of the power for which you're
huilcing the monllment.
MP: We could ask the Pope to fund the mission to Mars.
NDT In principle, yes. However, we live in a time when nation�
states don't commonly undertake such activities. That leaves the
other two drivers I found. One is the promise of economic return;
the other, of course, is war. Ìthink of the pair as the I�don't�want�
to�die driver and the I�don't�want�to�die�poor driver.
We all remember President Kennedy saying, "I believe that this
nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this
decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him
safely to the Earth." These are powerful words; they galvanized
the ambitions of a nation. But this was a speech given to a joint
session of Congress on May 25, 1961, just a few weeks afer the
Soviet Union successfully launched Yuri Gagarin into Earth orbit
-the frst person to get there. Kennedy' s speech was a reaction to
the fact that the United States did not yet have a "man�rated"
rocket, meaning a rocket safe enough for human spaceflight. To
pul a saLelliLe in space, juu lIIighl ue willing Lu experimenl wiLh
cheaper components or design than you'd use for putting a person
up there.
A few paragraphs earlier in that same speech, Kennedy says,
"If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world
between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space
which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all,
as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the
minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a
determination of which road they should take. " This was a battle
Cagainst communism.
MP: It was a political statement.
NDT Period. He could have said, �Let's go to the Moon: what a
marvelous place to explore! " But that' s not enough to get
Congress to write the check. At some point, somebody' s got to
write a check.
jG: Right. The Soviet Union was the catalyst then, and China is
the catalyst now. China's space program is developing, right? And
in the next ten or ffteen years, China may be poised to rval us as
the superpower of the world. So that could potentially spark
another influx and interest in funding space exploration.
NDT A �Sputnik moment."
jG: That' s a good name for it. But the kind of research that might
be justified by that kind of reason might not be the best kind of
scientific research.
NDT Science alone has never been a driver of expensive projects.
Below a certain level, depending on the wealth of a nation, money
can be spent on science without heavy debate. For example, the
price tag for the Hubble Space Telescope, over all its years, is
about $10 to $1 2 billion-less than $ 1 billion per year. That's
comfortably below the radar of criticism for a science project or
for a project not based on the economy or war. Raise the cost of a
project above $20 billion to $30 billion, and if there' s not a
weapon at the other end of the experiment, or you won't see the
face of God, or oil wells aren' t to be found, it risks not getting
funded. That's what happened with the Superconducting Super
CoUider. America was going to have the most powerful particle
accelerator in the world; it was conceived in the late 1970s and
funded in the mid-1980s. Then 1989 comes around. What
happens? Peace breaks out.
MP: I hate when that happens!
jG: It's so inconvenient!
NDT When you're at war, money flows like rivers. In 1945
physicists basically won the war in the Pacifc with the Manhattan
Project. Long before the bomb, and continuing through the entire
Cold War, America sustained a fully funded particle physics
program. Then the Berlin wall comes down in 1989, and within
four years the entire budget for the Super Collider gets canceled.
What happens now? Europe says, "We'll take the mantle."
They start building the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the
European Organization for Nuclear Research, and now we're
standing on our shores and looking across the pond, crying out,
"Can we join? Can we help?"
AP. Ì remember an interesting exchange from those hearings
you're talking about. One senator who was evaluating the
continued expense for the Super Collider said to Steven
Weinberg, a physicist testifying before Congress, "Unfortunately,
one of the problems is that it's hard for me to justify this expense
to my constituents, because, after all, nobody eats quarks." And
then Weinberg, in his typical fashion, pretended to do a little
calculation on the piece of paper in front of him and, as Ì
remember it, said something along the lines of, "Actually,
Senator, by my calculation, you just ate a billion billion billion
quarks this morning for breakfast." In any case, the bottom line is
that large basic-research projects get funded only if they
piggyback on, as you said, the big three.
NO7` Either they have to piggyback on one of them or come in
below the funding threshold for getting scrutinized.
AP. Somebody may reasonably ask, "Should it be otherwise?" In
some sense, the senator brought up a good question: How do Ì
justify this to my constituents?
NO7` Ì claim that even if Weinberg had said, "At the end of this,
you'll get great technological spin-offs," it would still have been
canceled. He would have had to say, "At the end of this, you'll
have a weapon that protects the country. " There's a famous reply,
I don't remember who said it to whom, but it would have played
well here. The senator says to the scientist, "What aspects of this
project will help in the defense of America?" -there it is, plainly
stated: the question of war-and the scientist replies, "Senator, Ì
don't know how it can help in the defense of America, other than
to ensure that America is a country worth defending."
MP: And that, as you know, is a great argument that doesn't fly.
NDT Yes, it makes a good headline, but no, it doesn't gamer the
funding. Unless we're going to believe we're a fundamentally
different kind of population and culture than those that have
preceded us for the past fve thousand years, I'm going to take my
cue from the history of major funded projects and say that if we
want to go to Mars, we'd better fnd either an economic driver or
a military driver for it. Sometimes I half-joke about this and say,
�Let's get China to leak a memo that says they want to build
military bases on Mars. We'd be on Mars in twelve months. "
jG: Do you think there' s any case to be made for the fact that so
many scientific discoveries that end up being incredibly useful
and practical were discovered accidentally, in the course of
exploratory research or completely unrelated research-that the
discoverers got lucky? Can we make that case for space
exploration?
NDT That' s an excellent question. But no, because the time delay
between a serendipitous scientific discovery on the frontier and
the fully developed product that has been engineered, deSigned,
and marketed is typically longer than the reelection cycles of
those who allocate money. Therefore it does not survive. You
can't get politicians to decide to invest this way, because it's
irelevant to the needs of their constituencies. So I don't think
we'll ever go to Mars unless we can find an economic or a
military reason for doing so.
By the way, I know how to justify the $1 00 billion. But my
pitch takes longer than what' s called the �elevator conversation"
with the member of Congress, where you get only thirty seconds
to make your case, and it's your only chance-go! I need maybe
three minutes.
jG: You could stop the elevator.
MP: Or, if you wanted to make the point to the general public
rather than the congressman, you could say, "Here are good
reasons to fund space exploration or basic scientific research in
astrophysics. It's not just my curiosity or my wanting to be paid to
do things I like. "
NDT In fact. we are funding basic research in astrophysics. But
my conversation with you is about the manned space program.
That' s where the expense comes in. That's where all your budget
options come in above the funding threshold for heavy scrutiny,
and you have no choice but to appeal to these great drivers in the
history of culture. As far as basic research goes, we've got the
Hubble telescope; we're going to have a laboratory on Mars in a
few years; we have the spacecraft Cassini in orbit around Saturn
rght now, observing the planet and its moons and its ring
systems. We've got another spacecraft on its way to Pluto. We've
got telescopes being designed and built that will observe more
parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Science is getting done. I
wish there was more of it, but it's getting done.
MP: But not the Large Hadron Collider, which is getting done by
the Europeans.
jG: There' s one other potential case for space travel that we
haven' t really talked about. Earlier you alluded to the idea that if
we become a spacefarng people, we might need to use the Moon
and Mars as a sort of Quik Mart. Do you think we could make the
practical case that we need to venture out into space because Earth
will at some point become uninhabitable?
NDT There are many who make that case. Stephen Hawking is
among them; ]. Richard Gott at Princeton is another. But if we
acqUire enough know-how to terraform Mars and ship a billion
people there, surely that know-how will include the capacity to fx
Earth's rivers, oceans, and atmosphere, as well as to deflect
asteroids. So I don't think escaping to other planets is necessarily
the most expedient solution to protecting life on Earth.
• • • CHAPTER TWLVE
PATHS TO DISCOVERY:
From the Discovery of Places to the Discovery of Ideas
In how many ways does society today differ from that of last year,
last century, or last millennium? The list of medical and scientific
achievements would convince anybody that we live in special
times. It's easy to notice what is different; the challenge is to see
what has remained the same.
Behind all the technology, we're still human beings, no more or
less so than participants in all the rest of recorded history. In
particular, some of the basic forces in organized society change
slowly, if at all; contemporary humans still exhibit basic
behaviors. We climb mountains, wage war, vie for sex, seek
entertainment, and long for economic and political power.
Complaints about the demise of society and the "youth of today"
also tend to be timeless. Consider this pronouncement, inscribed
on an Assyrian tablet circa 2800 B.C.:
Our earth is degenerate these days . . . bribery and COIlptioll abound. children no
longer obey their parents. every man wants to write a book. and the end of the
world i sevidently approaching.
The urge to climb a mountain may not be shared by everyone,
but the urge to discover-which might drive some people to climb
mountains and others to invent methods of cooking-does seem
to be shared, and that tendency has been uniquely responsible for
changes in society across the centuries. Discovery is the only
enterprise that builds upon itself, persists from generation to
generation, and expands human understanding of the universe.
This is true whether the boundary of your known world is the
other side of the ocean or the other side of the galaxy.
Discovery provokes comparisons between what you already
know to exist and what you have just discovered. Successful prior
discoveries ofen help dictate how subsequent discoveries unfold.
To fnd something that has no analog to your own experience
constitutes a personal discovery. To fnd something with no
analog to the sum of the world' s known objects, life-forms,
practices, and physical processes constitutes a discovery for all of
humanity.
The act of discovery can take many forms beyond �Iook what
I've found! " Historically, discoverers were people who embarked
on long ocean voyages to unknown places. When they reached a
destination, they could see, hear, smell, feel, and taste up close
what was inaccessible from far away. Such was the Age of
Exploration through the sixteenth century. But once the world had
been explored and the continents mapped, human discovery began
to focus not on voyages but on concepts.
The dawn of the seventeenth century saw the near­
simultaneous invention of what are arguably the two most
important scientific instruments ever conceived: the microscope
and the telescope. (ot that this should be a measure of
importance, but among the eighty-eight constellations are star
patterns named for each: Microscopium and Telescopium.) The
Dutch optician Antoni van Leeuwenhoek subsequently introduced
the microscope to the world of biology, while the Italian physicist
and astronomer Galileo Galilei turned a telescope of his own
design to the sky. Jointly, they heralded a new era of technology�
aided discovery, whereby the capacities of the human senses
could be extended, revealing the natural world in unprecedented,
even heretical, ways. Bacteria and other simple organisms whose
existence could be revealed only through a microscope yielded
knowledge that transcended the prior limits of human experience.
The fact that Galileo revealed the Sun to have spots, the planet
Jupiter to have satellites, and Earth not to be the center of all
celestial motion was enough to unsettle centuries of Aristotelian
teachings by the Catholic Church and to put Galileo under house
arrest.
Telescopic and microscopic discoveries defied �common
sense." They forever changed the nature of discovery and the
paths taken to achieve it; no longer would common sense be
accepted as an effective tool of intellectual investigation. Our
unaided fve senses were shown to be not only insufcient but
untrustworthy. To understand the world reqUired trustworthy
measurements-which might not agree with one' s preconceptions
-derived from experiments conducted with care and precision.
The scientific method of hypothesis, unbiased testing, and
retesting would rise to significance and continue unabated
thenceforth, unavoidably shutting out the ill-equipped layperson
from modern research and discovery.
Incentives to Discovery
Travel was the method of choice for most historic explorers
because technology had not yet progressed to permit discovery by
other means. Apparently it was so important for European
explorers to discover something that the places they found were
declared "discovered" -and ceremonially planted with fags­
even when indigenous peoples were there in great numbers to
greet them on the shores.
What drives us to explore? In 1969, the Apollo 1 1 astronauts
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin Jr. landed, walked, and frolicked
on the Moon. It was the first time in history that humans had
landed on the surface of another planet. Being Westerners as well
as discoverers, we immediately fell back to our old imperialist
ways-the astronaut-emissaries planted a flag-but this time no
natives showed up to greet us. And the fag needed to have a stick
inserted along its upper edge to simulate the effects of a
supportive, photo-friendly breeze on that barren, airless world.
The lunar missions are generally considered to be humanity's
greatest technological achievement. But I would propose a couple
of modifications to our frst words and deeds on the Moon. Upon
stepping onto the lunar surface, Neil Armstrong said, �That' s one
small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" and then
proceeded to plant the Amercan fag in lunar soil. If indeed his
giant leap was for "mankind," perhaps the flag should have been
that of the United Nations. If he had been politically honest, he
would have referred to "one giant leap for the United States of
America."
The revenue stream that fed America' s era of space-age
discovery derived from tapayers and was motivated by the
prospect of military conflict with the Soviet Union. Major funded
projects require major motivation. War is a preeminent motivator,
and was largely responSible for projects such as the Great Wall of
China, the atomic bomb, and the Soviet and Amercan space
programs. Indeed, as a result of two world wars within thirty years
of each other and the protracted Cold War that followed, scientific
and technological discovery in the twentieth century was
accelerated in the West.
A close second in incentives for major funded projects is the
prospect of high economic return. Among the most notable
examples are the voyages of Columbus, whose funding level was
a nontrivial fraction of Spain's gross national product, and the
Panama Canal, which made possible in the twentieth century what
Columbus had failed to find in the fifteenth-a shorter trading
route to the Far East.
Columbus took three months to cross the Atlantic in 1492. The Shuttle takes 15
minutes
Na¸ ¡6.2û119,3 AM
When major projects are driven primarly by the sheer quest to
discover, they stand the greatest chance of achieving major
breakthroughs-that's what they're deSigned to do-but the least
chance of being adequately funded. The construction of a
superconducting supercollider in the United States-an enormous
(and enormously expensive) underground particle accelerator that
was to extend human understanding of the fundamental forces of
nature and the conditions in the early universe-never got past a
big hole in the ground. Perhaps that shouldn't surprise us. With a
price tag of more than $20 billion, its cost was far out of
proportion to the expected economic returns from spin-off
technologies, and there was no obvious military benefit.
When major funded projects are driven primarily by ego or
self-promotion, rarely do the achievements extend beyond
architecture per se, as in the Hearst Castle in California, the Taj
Mahal in India, and the Palace of Versailles in France. Such lavish
monuments to individuals, which have always been a luxury of
either a successful or an exploitative SOCiety, make unsurpassed
tourist attractions but do not reach the level of discovery.
Most individuals cannot aford to build pyramids; a mere
handful of us get to be the first on the Moon or the frst anywhere.
Yet that doesn' t seem to stop the desire to leave one's mark. Like
animals that delineate territory with growls or urine, when flags
are unavailable ordinary people leave a carved or painted name
instead-no matter how sacred or revered the discovered spot
may be. If the Apollo 1 1 had forgotten to take along the fag, the
astronauts just might have chiseled into a nearby boulder `PEII&
1UZZ WERE HERE-1ÍZÛÍoU. In any case, the space program left
behind plenty of evidence on each visit: all manner of hardware
and other jetsam, from golf balls to automobiles, is scattered on
the Moon's surface as testament to the six Apollo missions. The
litter-strewn lunar soil Simultaneously represents the proof and the
consequences of discovery.
Amateur astronomers, who monitor the sky far more
thoroughly than anybody else, are especially good at discovering
comets. The prospect of getting something named after oneself is
strong motivation: to discover a bright comet means the world
will be forced to identif it with your name. Well-known
examples include Comet Halley, which needs no introduction;
Comet Ikeya-Seki, perhaps the most beautiful comet of the
twentieth century, with its long and graceful tail; and Comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9, which plunged into Jupiter' s atmosphere in
July 1994, within a few days of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
Apollo 1 1 Moon landing. Although among the most famous
celestial bodies of our times, these comets endured neither the
planting of flags nor the carving of initials.
If money is the most widely recognized reward for
achievement, then the twentieth century was off to a good start. A
roll call of the world' s greatest and most influential scientific
discoveries can be found among the recipients of the Nobel Prize,
endowed in perpetuity by the Swedish chemist Alfred Bernhard
Nobel, from wealth accrued through the manufacture of
armaments and the invention of dynamite. The impressive size of
the prize-currently approaching a million and a half dollars­
serves as a carrot for many scientists working in the fields of
physics, medicine, and chemistry. The awards began in 1901, five
years after Nobel's death-which is fortunate because scientific
discovery was just then attaining a rate commensurate with an
annual reward. But if the volume of published research in, say,
astrophysics can be used as a barometer, then as much has been
discovered in the past ffteen years as in the entire previous
history of the field. Perhaps there will come a day when the Nobel
science prizes will be awarded monthly.
Discover and the Etension of Hua Senses
If technology extends our muscle and brain power, science
extends the power of our senses beyond inborn limits. A primitive
way we can do better is to move closer and get a better look; trees
can't walk, but they don't have eyeballs either. Among humans,
the eye is oten regarded as an impressive organ. Its capacity to
focus near and far, to adjust to a broad range of light levels, and to
distinguish colors puts it at the top of most people' s list of
desirable features. Yet when we take note of the many bands of
light that are invisible to us, we are forced to declare humans to be
practically blind-even after walking closer to get a better look.
How impressive is our hearing? Bats clearly fy circles around us,
given their sensitivity to pitch that exceeds our own by an order of
magnitude. And if the human sense of smell were as good as that
of dogs, then Fred rather than Fido might be sniffing out the drugs
and bombs.
The history of human discovery is a history of the boundless
desire to extend the senses, and it is because of this desire that we
have opened new windows to the universe. Beginning in the
1960s with the early Soviet and NASA missions to the Moon and
the solar system' s planets, computer-controlled space probes­
which we can rightly call robots-became (and still are) the
standard tool for space exploration. Robots in space have several
clear advantages over astronauts: they are cheaper to launch; they
can be designed to perform experiments of very high precision
without interference from a cumbersome pressure suit; and since
they are not alive in any traditional sense of the word, they cannot
be killed in a space accident. Nevertheless, until computers can
simulate human curiosity and human sparks of insight, and until
computers can synthesize information and recognize a
serendipitous discovery when it stares them in the face, robots
will remain tools designed to discover what we already expect to
find. Unfortunately, profound insights into nature lurk behind
questions we have yet to ask.
The most significant improvement of our feeble senses is the
extension of our sight into the invisible bands of what is
collectively known as the electromagnetic spectrum. In the late
nineteenth century the German physicist Heinrich Hertz
performed experiments that helped unify conceptually what had
previously been considered unrelated forms of radiation. Radio
waves, infrared, visible light, and ultraviolet were all revealed to
be cousins in a family of light whose members simply differed in
energy. The full spectrum, including all parts discovered after
Hertz's work, runs from the low-energy part, called radio waves,
and extends, in order of increasing energy, to microwaves,
infrared, visible (comprising the "rainbow seven": red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet), ultraviolet, X-rays, and
gamma rays.
Superman, with his X-ray vision, has few advantages over
modern scientists. Yes, he is somewhat stronger than your average
astrophysicist, but astrophysicists can now "see" into every major
part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Lacking this extended
vision, we would be not only blind but ignorant, because many
astrophysical phenomena reveal themselves only in certain
�windows" within the spectrum.
Let's peek at a few discoveries made through each window to
the universe, starting with radio waves, which require very
different detectors from those found in the human retina.
In 1931 Karl Jansky, then employed by Bell Telephone
Laboratories and armed with a radio antenna he himself built,
became the frst human to "see" radio signals emanating from
somewhere other than Earth. He had, in fact. discovered the center
of the Milky Way galaxy. Its radio signal was so intense that if the
human eye were sensitive only to radio waves, then the galactic
center would be one of the brightest sources in the sky.
With the help of some cleverly deSigned electronics, it's
possible to transmit specially encoded radio waves that can then
be transformed into sound via an ingenious apparatus known as a
radio. So, by virtue of extending our sense of sight, we have also,
in effect, managed to extend our sense of hearing. Any source of
radio waves-indeed, practically any source of energy at all-can
be channeled so as to vibrate the cone of a speaker, a simple fact
that is occasionally misunderstood by journalists. When radio
emissions from Saturn were discovered, for instance, it was
simple enough for astronomers to hook up a radio receiver
eqUipped with a speaker; the Signal was then converted to audible
sound waves, whereupon more than one journalist reported that
�sounds" were coming from Saturn, and that life on Saturn was
trying to tell us something.
With much more sensitive and sophisticated radio detectors
than were available to Karl Jansky, astrophysicists now explore
not just the Milky Way but the entire universe. As a testament to
the human bias toward seeing-is-believing, early detections of
radio sources in the universe were often considered untrustworthy
until they were confirmed by observations with a conventional
telescope. Fortunately, most classes of radio-emitting objects also
emit some level of visible light, so blind faith was not always
required. Eventually radio telescopes produced a rch parade of
discoveries, including quasars (loosely assembled acronym of
�quasi-stellar radio source"), which are among the most distant
and energetic objects in the known universe.
Gas-rich galaxies emit radio waves from their abundant
hydrogen atoms (more than 90 percent of all atoms in the cosmos
are hydrogen). Large arrays of electronically connected radio
telescopes can generate very high resolution images of a galaxy's
gas content, revealing intricate features such as twists, blobs,
holes, and filaments. In many ways, the task of mapping galaxies
is no different from that facing ffteenth- and sixteenth-century
cartographers, whose renditions of continents-distorted though
they were-represented a noble human attempt to describe worlds
beyond one's physical reach.
Microwaves have shorter wavelengths and more energy than
radio waves. If the human eye were sensitive to microwaves, you
could see the radar emitted by the speed gun of a highway patrol
ofcer hiding in the bushes, and microwave-emitting telephone
relay towers would be ablaze with light. The inside of your
microwave oven, however, would look no different than it does
now, because the mesh embedded in the door refects microwaves
back into the cavity to prevent their escape. Your eyeballs'
vitreous humor is thus protected from getting cooked along with
your food.
Microwave telescopes, which were not actively used to study
the universe until the late 1960s, enable us to peer into cool, dense
clouds of interstellar gas that ultimately collapse to form stars and
planets. The heavy elements in these clouds readily assemble into
complex molecules whose signature in the microwave part of the
spectrum is unmistakable because of their match with identical
molecules that exist on Earth. Some of those cosmic molecules,
such as NH3 (ammonia) and H20 (water). are household standbys.
Others, such as deadly CO (carbon monoxide) and HCN
(hydrogen cyanide). are to be avoided at all costs. Some remind us
of hospitals-H2CO (formaldehyde) and C2HsOH (ethyl
a1coho1)-and some don't remind us of anything: N2H+
(dinitrogen monohydride ion) and HC4CN (cyanodiacetylene).
More than 150 molecules have been detected, including glycine,
an amino acid that is a building block for protein and thus for life
as we know it. We are indeed made of stardust. Antoni van
Leeuwenhoek would be proud.
Without a doubt. the most important single discovery in
astrophysics was made with a microwave telescope: the heat left
over from the origin of the universe. In 1964 this remnant heat
was measured in a Nobel Prize-winning observation conducted at
Bell Telephone Laboratories by the physicists Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson. The signal from this heat is an omnipresent,
omnidirectional ocean of light-ofen called the cosmic
microwave background-that today registers about 2.7 degrees on
the �absolute" temperature scale and is dominated by microwaves
(though it radiates at all wavelengths). This discovery was
serendipity at its finest. Penzias and Wilson had humbly set out to
find terrestrial sources of interference with microwave
communications; what they found was compelling evidence for
the Big Bang theory. It's a little like fishing for a minnow and
catching a blue whale.
Moving further along the electromagnetic spectrum, we get to
infrared light. Invisible to humans, it is most familiar to fast-food
fanatics, whose French fries are kept lukewarm under infrared
lamps for hours before being purchased. Infrared lamps also emit
visible light, but their active ingredient is an abundance of
invisible infrared photons, which are readily absorbed by food. If
the human retina were sensitive to infrared, then a midnight
glance at an ordinary household scene, with all the lights turned
off, would reveal all the objects that sustain a temperature in
excess of room temperature: the metal that surrounds the pilot
lights of a gas stove, the hot water pipes, the iron that somebody
had forgotten to tur off after pressing crumpled shirt collars, and
the exposed skin of any humans passing by. Clearly that picture is
not more enlightening than what you would see with visible light,
but it's easy to imagine one or two creative uses of such amplified
vision, such as examining your home in winter to spot heat leaks
from the window panes or roof.
As a child, I was aware that. at night, infrared vision would
reveal monsters hiding in the bedroom closet only if they were
warm-blooded. But everybody knows that your average bedroom
monster is reptilian and cold-blooded. Thus, infrared vision would
completely miss a bedroom monster, because it would simply
blend in with the walls and door.
In the universe, the infrared window is particularly useful for
probing dense clouds that contain stellar nurseries, within which
infant stars are often enshrouded by leftover gas and dust. These
clouds absorb most of the visible light from their embedded stars
and re-radiate it in the infrared, rendering our visible-light
window quite useless. This makes infrared especially useful for
studying the plane of the Milky Way, because that' s where the
obscuration of visible light from our galaxy' s stars is at its
greatest. Back home, infrared satellite photographs of Earth's
surface reveal, among other things, the paths of warm oceanic
waters, such as the North Atlantic Drift current, which swirls west
of the British Isles and keeps them from becoming a major ski
resort.
The visible part of the spectrum is what humans know best.
The energy emitted by the Sun, whose surface temperature is
about six thousand degrees above absolute zero, peaks in the
visible part of the spectrum, as does the sensitivity of the human
retina, which is why our sight is so useful in the daytime. Were it
not for this match, we could rightly complain that some of our
retinal sensitivity was being wasted.
We don't normally think of visible light as penetrating, but
light passes mostly unhindered through glass and air. Ultraviolet,
however, is summarily absorbed by ordinary glass. So, if our eyes
were sensitive only to ultraviolet, windows made of glass would
not be much different from windows made of brick. Stars that are
a mere four times hotter than the Sun are prodigious producers of
ultraviolet light. Fortunately, such stars are also bright in the
visible part of the spectrum, which means that their discovery has
not depended on access to ultraviolet telescopes. Since our
atmosphere's ozone layer absorbs most of the ultraviolet and X�
rays that impinge upon it, a detailed analysis of very hot stars can
best be obtained from Earth orbit or beyond, which has become
possible only since the 1960s.
As if to herald a new century of extended vision, the frst Nobel
Prize ever awarded in physics went to the German physicist
Wilhelm Rontgen in 1901 for his discovery of X-rays.
Cosmically, both X-rays and ultraviolet can indicate the presence
of black holes-among the most exotic objects in the universe.
Black holes are voracious maws that emit no light-their gravity
is too strong for even light to escape-but their existence can be
tracked by the energy emitted from heated, sWirling gas nearby.
Ultraviolet and X-rays are the predominant form of energy
released by materal just before it descends into the black hole.
It's worth remembering that the act of discovery does not
require that you understand, either in advance or afer the fact,
what you've discovered. That' s what happened with the cosmic
microwave background. It also happened with gamma-ray bursts.
Mysterious, seemingly random explosions of high-energy gamma
rays scattered across the sky were first detected in the 1960s by
satellites searching out radiation from clandestine Soviet nuclear­
weapons tests. Only decades later did space borne telescopes, in
concert with ground-based follow-up observations, show them to
be the signature of distant stellar catastrophes.
Discovery through detection can cover a lot of territory,
including subatomic particles. But one in particular virtually
defies detection: the elusive neutrino. Whenever a neutron decays
into an ordinary proton and an electron, a member of the neutrino
clan sprngs into existence. Within the core of the Sun, for
instance, two hundred trillion trillion trillion neutrinos are
produced every second, and then pass directly out of the Sun as if
it were not there at all. Neutrinos are extraordinarily difcult to
capture because they have exceedingly minuscule mass and hardly
ever interact with matter. Building an efcient, effective neutrino
telescope thus remains an extraordinary challenge.
The detection of gravitational waves, another elusive window
on the universe, would reveal catastrophiC cosmic events. Hut as
of this writing, these waves, predicted in Einstein's 1916 theory of
general relativity as "ripples" in space and time, have not yet been
directly detected from any source. A good gravitational-wave
telescope would be able to detect black holes orbiting one another,
and distant galaxies merging. One can even imagine a time in the
future when gravitational events in the universe-collisions,
explosions, collapsed stars-are routinely observed. In principle,
we might one day see beyond the opaque wall of cosmic
microwave background radiation to the Big Bang itself. Like
Magellan' s crew, who first circumnavigated Earth and saw the
limits of the globe, we would then have reached and discovered
the limits of the known universe.
Discover and Societ
As a surfboard rides a wave, the Industral Revolution rode the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on the crest of decade-by­
decade advances in people' s understanding of energy as a
physical concept and a transmutable entity. Engineering
technolog replaces muscle energ with machine energ. Steam
engines convert heat into mechanical energy; dams convert the
gravitational potential energy of water into electricity; dynamite
converts chemical energy into explosive shock waves. In a
remarkable parallel to the way these discoveries transformed
earlier societies, the twentieth century saw information technology
rde the crest of advances in electronics and miniaturization,
birthing an era in which computer power replaced mind power.
Exploration and discovery now occulTed on wafers of silicon,
with computers completing in minutes, and eventually in
moments, what would once have required lifetimes spent in
calculations. Even so, we may still be groping in the dark, because
as our area of knowledge grows, so does the permeter of our
ignorance.
What is the cumulative infuence of all this technology and
cosmic discovery on SOCiety, aside from creating more effective
instruments of destruction and further excuses to wage war? The
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the development of
transportation that did not rely on energy from domestic animals
-including the bicycle, the railroad, the automobile, and the
airplane. The twentieth century also saw the introduction of liqUid
fuel rockets (thanks in part to Robert Goddard) and spaceships
(thanks in part to Wernher von Braun). The discovery of
improved means of transportation was especially crucial to
geographically large but habitable nations such as the United
States. So important is transportation to Americans that the
disruption of traffic by any means, even if it occurs in another
country, can make headlines. On August 7. 1945, for example. the
day afer America killed some seventy thousand Japanese in the
city of Hiroshima, with tens of thousands more deaths following
soon afterward, the front page of the New York Times announced,
"FIRST ATOMIC BOMB DROPPED ON JAPAN." A smaller
headline, also on the front page. read, "TRINS CANCELED IN
STRICKEN AREA; Traffic Around Hiroshima Is Disrupted." I don't
know for sure. but I would bet that day' s Japanese newspapers did
not consider traffic jams to be a top news item.
Technological change affected not only destruction, of course,
but also domesticity. With electricity available in every domicile,
it became worthwhile to invent appliances and machines that
would consume this new source of energy. Among
anthropologists, one of the broad measures of the advancement of
society is its per-capita consumption of energy. Old traditions die
hard, though. Lightbulbs were a substitute for candles, but we still
light candles at special dinners; we even buy electric chandeliers
studded with lightbulbs in the shape of candle flames. And of
course car engines are measured in "horse" power.
The dependence on electricity. especially among urban
Americans, has reached irreversible levels. Consider New York
City during the blackouts of November 1965. July 1977, and
August ZÛÛd, when this decidedly twentieth-century luxury
temporarily became unavailable. In 1965, many people thought
the world was going to end, and in 1977 there was widespread
looting. (Each blackout allegedly produced "blackout babies,"
conceived in the absence of television and other technological
distractions.) Apparently, our discoveries and inventions have
gone from making life easier to becoming a requirement for
survival.
Throughout history, discovery held risks and dangers for the
discoverers themselves. Neither Magellan nor most of his crew
remained alive to complete the round-the-world voyage in 1522.
Most died of disease and starvation, and Magellan himself was
killed by indigenous Filipinos who were not impressed with his
attempts to Chrstianize them. Modern-day risks can be no less
devastating. At the end of the nineteenth century. investigating
high-energy radiation, Wilhelm Rontgen explored the properties
of X-rays and Marie Curie explored the properties of radium.
Both died of cancer. The three crew members of Apollo 1 burned
to death on the launchpad in 1967. The space shuttle Challenger
exploded shortly after launch in 1986, while space shuttle
Columbia broke up on reentry in ZÛÛd, in both cases killing all
seven crew members.
Sometimes the risks extend far beyond the discoverers. In 1905
Albert Einstein introduced the equation E = mc 2, the
unprecedented recipe that interchanged matter with energy and
ultimately begat the atomic bomb. Coincidentally, just two years
before the first appearance of Einstein's famous equation, Orville
Wright made the first successful flight in an airplane, the vehicle
that would one day deliver the first atomic bombs in warfare.
Shortly afer the invention of the airplane, there appeared in one
of the widely distributed magazines of the day a letter to the editor
expressing concern over possible misuse of the new flying
machine, noting that if an evil person took command of a plane,
he might fy it over villages filled with innocent, defenseless
people and toss canisters of nitroglycerin on them.
Wilbur and Orville Wright are, of course, no more to blame for
the deaths resulting from military application of the airplane than
Albert Einstein is to blame for deaths resulting from atomic
bombs. For better or for worse, discoveries take their place in the
public domain and are thus subject to patterns of human behavior
that seem deeply embedded and quite ancient.
Discover and the Hua Ego
The history of human ideas about our place in the universe has
been a long series of letdowns for everybody who likes to believe
we're special. Unfortunately, frst impressions have consistently
fooled us-the daily motions of the Sun, Moon, and stars all
conspire to make it look as though we are the center of
everything. But over the centuries we have leared this is not so.
There is no center of Earth's surface, so no culture can claim to be
geometrically in the middle of things. Earth is not the center of the
solar system; it is just one of multiple planets in orbit around the
Sun, a revelation first proposed by Aristarchus in the third century
B.C., argued by Nicolaus Copernicus in the sixteenth century, and
consolidated by Galileo in the seventeenth. The Sun is about
25,000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and
it revolves anonymously around the galactic center along with
hundreds of billions of other stars. And the Milky Way is just one
of a hundred billion galaxies in a universe that actually has no
center at all. Finally, of course, owing to Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species and Descent of Man, it is no longer necessary to invoke
a creative act of divinity to explain human origins.
Scientific discovery is rarely the consequence of an
instantaneous act of brilliance, and the revelation that our galaxy
is neither special nor unique was no exception. The turning point
in human understanding of our place in the cosmos occurred not
centuries ago but in the spring of 1920, during a now-famous
debate on the extent of the known universe, held at a meeting of
the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC, at which
fundamental questions were addressed: Was the Milky Way
galaxy-with all its stars, star clusters, gas clouds, and fuzzy
spiral things-all there was to the universe? Or were those fuzzy
spiral things galaxies unto themselves, just like the Milky Way,
dotting the unimaginable vastness of space like �island
universes"?
Scientific discovery, unlike political confict or public policy,
does not normally emerge from party-line politics, democratic
vote, or public debate. In this case, however, two leading
scientists of the day, each armed with some good data, some bad
data, and some sharpened arguments, went head to head at the
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Harlow
Shapley argued that the Milky Way constitutes the full extent of
the universe, while Heber 1. Curtis defended the opposing view.
Earlier in the century, both scientists had participated in a wave
of discoveries derived primarily from classification schemes for
cosmic objects and phenomena. With the help of a spectrograph
(which breaks up starlight into its component colors the way
raindrops break up sunlight into a rainbow), astrophysicists were
able to classify objects not simply by their shape or outward
appearance but by the detailed features revealed in their spectra.
Even in the absence of full understanding of the cause or origin of
a phenomenon, a well-designed classification scheme makes
substantive deductions possible.
The nighttime sky displays a grab bag of objects whose
classifications were not subject to much disagreement in 1920.
Three kinds were especially relevant to the debate: the stars that
are quite concentrated along the narrow band of light called the
Milky Way, correctly interpreted by 1920 as the flattened plane of
our own galaxy; the hundred or so titanic, roughly spherical
globular star clusters that appear more frequently in just one
direction of the sky; and third (or perhaps third and fourth), the
inventory of fuzzy nebulae near the plane and spiral nebulae
nowhere near the plane. Whatever else Shapley and Curtis
intended to argue, they knew that those basic observed features of
the sky could not be reasoned away. And although the data were
scant, if Curtis could show that the spiral nebulae were distant
island universes, then humanity would be handed the next chapter
in its long series of ego-busting discoveries.
In a casual look at the night sky, stars appear uniformly spread
in all directions along the Milky Way. But in fact, the Milky Way
contains a mixture of stars and obscuring dust clouds that
compromise lines of sight so that it becomes impossible to see the
entire galaxy from within. In other words, you can't identify
where you are in the Milky Way because the Milky Way is in the
way. Nothing unusual there: the moment you enter a dense forest,
you have no idea where you are within it (unless you carved your
initials into a tree during a previous visit). The full extent of the
forest is impossible to determine because the trees are in the way.
Astronomers of the day were fairly clueless as to how far away
things are, and Shapley's estimates of distance tended to be quite
generous, indeed excessive. Through various calculations and
assumptions, he ended up with a galactic system more than
300,000 light-years in extent-by far the largest estimate ever
made before (or since) for the size of the Milky Way. Curtis was
unable to fault Shapley' s reasoning but remained skeptical
nonetheless, calling the assumption "rather drastic." Though
based on the work of two leading theorsts of the day, it was
indeed rather drastic-and those theorists' relevant ideas would
soon be discredited, leaving Shapley with overestimates in stellar
luminosities and, as a result, overestimates in the distances to his
favorite objects, the globular clusters.
Curtis remained convinced that the Milky Way galaxy was
much smaller than suggested by Shapley, proposing that in the
absence of defnitive evidence to the contrary, �the postulated
diameter of 300,000 light-years must quite certainly be divided by
five, and perhaps by ten."
Who was right?
Along most paths from scientific ignorance to scientific
discovery, the correct answer lies somewhere between the extreme
estimates collected along the way. Such was the case here, too.
Today, the generally accepted extent of the Milky Way galaxy is
about 100,000 light-years-about three times Curtis' s 30,000
light-years, and one-third Shapley' s 300,000 light-years.
But that wasn' t the end of it. The two debaters had now to
reconcile the extent of the Milky Way with the existence of high­
velocity spiral nebulae, whose distances were even more highly
uncertain, and which seemed to avoid the galactic plane
altogether, earning the Milky Way the spooky alternative name
�Zone of Avoidance."
Shapley suggested that the spiral nebulae had somehow been
created within the Milky Way and then forcibly ejected from their
birthplace. Curtis was convinced that the spiral nebulae belonged
to the same class of objects as the Milky Way itself, and proposed
that a ring of "occulting matter" surrounded our galaxy-as is true
of so many other spiral galaxies-and might be obliterating
distant spirals from view.
At that point, if I were the moderator, I might have ended the
debate, declared Curtis the winner, and sent everybody home. nut
there was further evidence at hand: the "novae, " tremendously
bright stars that occasionally, and very briefy, appear out of
nowhere. Curtis contended that the novae formed a homogeneous
class of objects that suggested "distances ranging from perhaps
500,000 light-years in the case of the Nebula in Andromeda, to
10,000,000 or more light-years for the more remote spirals."
Given those distances, those island universes would be �of the
same order of size as our own galaxy. " Bravo.
Even though Shapley discounted the concept of the spiral
nebulae as island universes, he no doubt wanted to appear open�
minded. In his summary, which reads like a disclaimer, he
entertained the possibility of other worlds:
But even if spirals fail as galactic systems. there may be elsewhere in space stellar
systems equal to or greater than ours-as yet unrecognized and possibly quite
beyond the power of existing optical devices and present measuring scales. The
modern telescope, however. with such accessories as high-power spectroscopes
and photographic intensiflers. is destined to extend the Inquiries relative to the
size of the universe much deeper into space.
How right he was. Meanwhile, Curtis openly conceded that
Shapley might be on to something with his hypothesis concerning
the ejection of spiral nebulae, and in the course of that concession,
Curtis unwittingly managed to reveal that we live in an expanding
universe: "The repulsion theory, it is true, is given some support
by the fact that most of the spirals observed to date are receding
from US."
By 1925, a mere half decade later, Edwin Hubble had
discovered that nearly all galaxies recede from the Milky Way at
speeds in direct proportion to their distances. But it was self�
evident that our galaxy, the Milky Way, was in the center of the
expansion of the universe. Having been an attorney before
becoming an astronomer, Hubble probably would have won any
debate he might have had with other scientists, no matter what he
argued, but he clearly could muster the evidence for an expanding
universe with us at the center. In the context of Albert Einstein's
general theory of relativity, however, the appearance of being at
the center was a natural consequence of a universe that expands in
four dimensions, with time as number four. Given that description
of the universe, every galaxy would observe all other galaxies to
be receding, leading inescapably to the conclusion that we are not
alone, and we are not special.
And the onward momentum toward insignificance continued
with a vengeance.
In the 1920s and 1930s, physicists demonstrated that the fuel
source in the Sun was the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into
helium. In the 1940s and 1950s astrophysicists deduced the
cosmic abundance of elements by describing in detail the
sequence of thermonuclear fusion that unfolds in the cores of
high-mass stars that explode at the end of their lives, enriching the
universe with elements from all over the famed periodic table, the
top fve being hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.
That very same sequence (except for helium, which is chemically
inert) pops up when we look at the chemical constituents of
human life. So, not only is our existence as human beings not
special; neither are the ingredients of life itself.
So there you have it: the capsule summary of how cosmic
discovery began by glorfying God, descended into glorfying
human life, and ended up by insulting our collective human ego.
Te Future of Discover
When (or if space ever becomes our final frontier, it will
represent uncharted teritores akin to those the ancient explorers
dreamed of conquerng. The coming voyages to space may be
economically driven, for example by the intent to mine million­
ton asteroids for their mineral resources. Or perhaps the voyages
will be motivated by survival, spurred by the intent to spread the
human species around the galaxy as much as possible so as to
avoid total human extinction from a catastrophic, once-in-a�
hundred-million-year collision with a comet or asteroid.
The golden era of space exploration was no doubt the 1960s. At
that time, though, the Significance of the space program was
somewhat muddled in many urban centers because of widespread
poverty, crime, and problem-ridden schools. Five decades later,
the significance of the space program remains muddled in many
urban centers because of widespread poverty, crime, and problem�
rdden schools. But there's a fundamental difference. In the 1960s,
discoveries in space were something that people looked forward
to. Today many people-including me-are looking back at them.
I remember the day, and the moment, when the Apollo 1 1
astronauts stepped foot on the Moon. That landing, on July 20,
1969, was of course one of the twentieth century's greatest
moments. Yet I found myself somewhat indifferent to the event­
not because I couldn't appreciate its rightful place in human
history, but because I had every reason to believe that trips to the
Moon would soon take place monthly. Frequent Moon voyages
were simply the next step; little did I know there would be a furry
of them in the twentieth century. followed by nothing for decades.
Yes, the funding stream for the space program had been
primarily defense-driven. Cosmic dreams, and the innate human
desire to explore the unknown, were of lesser import. But the
word �defense" can be reinterpreted to mean something far more
important than armies and arsenals. It can mean the defense of the
human species itself. In July 1994 the equivalent of more than
200,000 megatons of TNT was deposited in Jupiter's upper
atmosphere as comet Shoemaker-Lev 9 slammed into the planet.
If that kind of collision happens on Earth while humanity is
present. it would very likely result in the abrupt extinction of our
species.
Defense of our existence mandates a very real agenda. To
achieve it, we must acquire maximal understanding of Earth's
climate and ecosystem. so as to minimize the risk of self­
destruction, and we must colonize space in as many places as
possible, thereby proportionally reducing the chance of species
annihilation owing to a collision between Earth and an asteroid or
comet discovered by an amateur astronomer.
The fossil record teems with extinct species. Many of them,
before disappearing, thrived far longer than the current Earth
tenure of Homo sapiens. Dinosaurs are extinct today because they
did not build spacecraft. Were no funds available? Did their
politicians lack foresight? More likely it was because their brains
were tiny. And the absence of an opposable thumb didn't help
either.
For humans to become extinct would be the greatest tragedy in
the history of life in the universe-because the reason for it would
be not that we lacked the intelligence to build interplanetary
spacecraft. or that we lacked an active program of space travel,
but that the human species itself turned its back and chose not to
fund such a survival plan. Make no mistake: the path to discovery
inherent in space exploration has become not a choice but a
necessity, and the consequences of that choice affect the survival
of absolutely everyone. including those who remain thoroughly
unenlightened by the multitude of discoveries made by their own
species throughout its time on Earth.
• • • CHAPTER THIRTEEN
TO FLY:
In anelent days two aviators procured to themselves wings. Daedalus flew safely
through the middle air, and was duly honoured in his landIng. Icarus soared
upwards t the sun till the wax melted which bound his wings, and his flight
ended in a fiasco. In weighing their achIevements perhaps there is something to
be said for Icarus. The classic authorities tell us. of course, that he was only
"doing a stunt": but I prefer to think of him as the man who certainly brought to
light a serious constructional defect in the flying-machines of his day [and[ we
may at least hope to learn from h journey some hints to build a better machine.
-IRARTUR EDDNGTN 5wrs & Atoms (927)
For millennia, the idea of being able to fy occupied human
dreams and fantasies. Waddling around on Earth' s surface as
majestic birds flew overhead, perhaps we developed a form of
wing envy. One might even call it wing worship.
You needn' t look far for evidence. For most of the history of
broadcast television in America, when a station signed off for the
night, it didn't show somebody walking erect and bidding
farewell: instead it would play the �Star Spangled Banner" and
show things that fly, such as birds soaring or Air Force jets
whooshing by. The United States even adopted a flying predator
as a symbol of its strength: the bald eagle. which appears on the
back of the dollar bill, the quarter, the Kennedy half dollar. the
Eisenhower dollar, and the Susan B. Anthony dollar. There' s also
one on the foor of the Oval Ofce in the White House. Our most
famous superhero, Superman, can fly upon donning blue
pantyhose and a red cape. When you die, if you qualify, you
might just become an angel-and everybody knows that angels (at
least the ones who have eared their wings) can fly. Then there's
the winged horse Pegasus; the wing-footed Mercury; the
aerodynamically unlikely Cupid; and Peter Pan and his fairy
sidekick, Tinkerbell.
Our inability to fly often goes unmentioned in textbook
comparisons of human features with those of other species in the
animal kingdom. Yet we are qUick to use the word �flightless" as
a synonym for �hapless" when describing such birds as the dodo
and the booby, which tend to find themselves on the wrong end of
evolutionary jokes. We did, however, ultimately lear to fly
because of the technological ingenuity afforded by our human
brains. And of course, while birds can fy, they are nonetheless
stuck with bird brains. But this self-aggrandizing line of reasoning
is somewhat flawed, because it ignores all the millennia that we
were technologically flightless.
I remember as a student in junior high school reading that the
famed physicist Lord Kelvin, at the turn of the twentieth century,
had argued the impossibility of self-propelled flight by any device
that was heavier than air. Clearly this was a myopic prediction.
But one needn' t have waited for the invention of the first airplanes
to refute the essay's premise. One merely needed to look at birds,
which have no trouble flying and, last I checked, are all heavier
than air.
Space
USAirForce has styled bird wings as symbol. But we now fy at speeds that'd
vaporize a bird. & In space. wings are useless
St 3û. 2û1û ¡.û1PM
If something is not forbidden by the laws of physics, then it is,
in principle, possible, regardless of the limits of one's
technological foresight. The speed of sound in air ranges from
seven hundred to eight hundred miles per hour, depending on the
atmospheric temperature. No law of physics prevents objects from
going faster than Mach 1 , the speed of sound. But before the
sound "barrier" was broken in 1947 by Charles E. "Chuck"
Yeager, piloting the Bell 2-1 (a US Army rocket plane) , much
claptrap was written about the impossibility of objects moving
faster than the speed of sound. Meanwhile, bullets fired by high�
powered rifes had been breaking the sound barrier for more than
a century. And the crack of a whip or the sound of a wet towel
snapping at somebody' s buttocks in the locker room is a mini
sonic boom, created by the end of the whip or the tip of the towel
moving through the air faster than the speed of sound. Any limits
to breaking the sound barrier were purely psychological and
technological.
During its lifetime, the fastest winged aircraft by far was the
space shuttle, which, with the aid of detachable rockets and fuel
tanks, exceeded Mach 20 on its way to orbit. Propulsionless on
retur, it fell back out of orbit, gliding safely down to Earth.
Although other craf routinely travel many times faster than the
speed of sound, none can travel faster than the speed of light. I
speak not from a naivete about technology's future but from a
platform built upon the laws of physics. which apply on Earth as
they do in the heavens. Credit the Apollo astronauts who went to
the Moon with attaining the highest speeds at which humans have
ever flown: about seven miles per second at the end of the rocket
bum that lifted their craft beyond low Earth orbit. This is a paltry
1/250 of one percent of the speed of light. Actually, the real
problem is not the moat that separates these two speeds but the
laws of physics that prevent any object from ever achieving the
speed of light, no matter how inventive your technology. The
sound barrier and the light barier are not eqUivalent limits on
invention.
The Wright brothers of Ohio are, of course, generally credited
with being "frst in flight" at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, as that
state's license-plate slogan reminds us. But this claim needs to be
further delineated. Wilbur and Orville Wright were the frst to fly
a heavier-than-air, engine-powered vehicle that carried a human
being-Orville, in this case-and that did not land at a lower
elevation than its takeoff point. Previously, people had flown in
balloon gondolas and in gliders and had executed controlled
descents from the sides of cliffs, but none of those efforts would
have made a bird jealous. Nor would Wilbur and Orville' s frst
trip have turned any bird heads. The first of their four flights-at
10: 35 A.M. eastern time on December 17, 1903-lasted twelve
seconds, at an average speed of 6.8 miles per hour against a 30�
mile-per-hour wind. The Wright Flyer, as it was called, had
traveled 120 feet, not even the length of one wing on a Boeing
747.
Íven after the Wright brothers went public with their
achievement, the media took only intermittent notice of it and
other aviation firsts. As late as 1933-six years afer Lindbergh's
historic solo flight across the Atlantic-H. Gordon Garbedian
ignored airplanes in the otherwise prescient introduction to his
book Major MysteIes of Science:
Present day life i sdominated by science as never before. You pick up a telephone
and within a few minutes you are talking with a frend in Paris. You can travel
under sea in a submarine, or circumnavigate the globe by air in a Zeppelin. The
radio carries your voice to all parts of the earth with the speed of light. Soon,
television will enable you to see the world's greatest spectacles Ü you sit in the
comfort of your living room.
But some jouralists did pay attention to the way flight might
change civilization, After the Frenchman Louis BIeriot crossed
the English Channel from Calais to Dover on July 25, 1909, an
article on page three of the New York Tmes was headlined
�FRENCHMAN
P
ROVES AEROPLANE No Toy," The article went on to
delineate England' s reaction to the event:
Editorials in the London newspapers buzzed about the new world where Great
Briain's insular strength is no longer unchallenged: that the aeroplane Is not a toy
but a possible instrument of warfare. which must be taken into account by
soldiers and statesmen, and that it was the one thing needed to wake up the
English people to the importance of the science of aviation.
The guy was right. Thirty-five years later. not only had
airplanes been used as fighters and bombers in warfare but the
Germans had taken the concept a notch further and invented the
V -2 to attack London. Their vehicle was significant in many
ways. First, it was not an airplane; it was an unprecedentedly large
missile. Second, because the V -2 could be launched several
hundred miles from its target, it basically birthed the modern
rocket. And third, for its entire airborne journey after launch, the
V-2 movpd tmdpf thp infll1pncp of gf<vity <lonp; in othPf words_ it
was a suborbital ballistic missile, the fastest way to deliver a
bomb from one location on Earth to another. Subsequently, Cold
War "advances" in the design of missiles enabled military power
to target cities on opposite sides of the world. Maximum fight
time? About forty-five minutes-not nearly enough time to
evacuate a targeted city.
While we can say they're suborbital, do we have the right to
declare missiles to be fying? Are falling objects in flight? Is Earth
�flying" in orbit around the Sun? In keeping with the rules applied
to the Wright brothers, a person must be onboard the craft and it
must move under its own power. But there' s no rule that says we
cannot change the rules.
1nowing that the V -2 brought orbital technology within reach,
some people got impatient. Among them were the editors of the
popular, family-oriented magazine Coler's, which sent two
jouralists to join the engineers, scientists, and visionaries
gathered at New York City's Hayden Planetarium on Columbus
Day, 1951, for its seminal Space Travel Symposium. In the March
22, 1952, issue of Coler's, in a piece titled "What Are We
Waiting For?" the magazine endorsed the need for and value of a
space station that would serve as a watchful eye over a divided
world:
In the hands of the West a space station. permanently established beyond the
atmosphere. would be the greatest hope for peace the world h ever known. No
nation could undertake preparations for war without the certain knowledge that it
was being observed by the ever-watching eyes aboard the ·sentinel in space." It
would be the end of the Iron Curtains wherever they might be.
We Americans didn't build a space station; instead we went to
the Moon. With this effort, our wing worship continued. Never
mind that Apollo astronauts landed on the airless Moon, where
wings are completely useless, in a lunar module named afer a
bird. A mere sixty-five years, seven months, three days, five
hours, and forty�three minutes afer Orville left the ground, Neil
Armstrong gave his frst statement from the Moon's surface:
"Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed."
The human record for �altitude" does not go to anybody for
having walked on the Moon. It goes to the astronauts of the ill­
fated Apollo 13. Knowing they could not land on the Moon after
the exploSion in their oxygen tank, and knOWing they did not have
enough fuel to stop, slow down, and head back, they executed a
single figure-eight ballistic trajectory around the Moon, swinging
them back toward Earth. The Moon just happened to be near
apogee, the farthest point from Earth in its elliptical orbit. No
other Apollo mission (before or since) went to the Moon during
apogee, which granted the Apollo 13 astronauts the human
altitude record. (After calculating that they must have reached
about 245,000 miles "above" Earth's surface, induding the orbital
distance from the Moon's surface, I asked Apollo 13 commander
Jim Lovell, �Who was on the far side of the command module as
it rounded the Moon? That single person would hold the altitude
record." He refused to tell.)
In my opinion, the greatest achievement of fight was not
Wilbur and Orville's aeroplane, nor Chuck Yeager's breaking of
the sound barrer, nor the Apollo 1 1 lunar landing. For me, it was
the launch of Voyager 2, which ballistically toured the solar
system' s outer planets. During the fybys, the spacecrafts
slingshot trajectories stole a little of Jupiter's and Saturn' s orbital
energy to enable its rapid exit from the solar system. Upon
passing Jupiter in 1979, Voyager's speed exceeded forty thousand
miles an hour, sufficient to escape the gravitational attraction of
even the Sun. Voyager passed the orbit of Pluto in 1993 and has
now entered the realm of interstellar space. Nobody happens to be
onboard the craft, but a gold phonograph record attached to its
side is etched with the earthly sounds of, among many things, the
human heartbeat. So with our heart, if not our soul, we fly ever
farther.
• • • CHAPTER FOURTEEN
GOING BALLISTIC:
In nearly all sports that use balls, the balls go ballistic at one time
or another. Whether you're playing baseball, cricket, football,
golf, jai alai, soccer, tennis, or water polo, a ball gets thrown,
smacked, or kicked and then briefly becomes airborne before
returing to Earth.
Air resistance affects the trajectories of all these balls, but
regardless of what set them in motion or where they might land,
their basic path is described by a simple equation found in Isaac
Newton's Principia, his seminal 1687 book on motion and
gravity. Some years later, Newton interpreted his discoveries for
the Latin-literate lay reader in The System of the World, which
includes a description of what would happen if you hurled stones
horizontally at higher and higher speeds. Newton first notes the
obvious: the stones would hit the ground farther and farther away
from the release pOint, eventually landing beyond the horizon. He
then reasons that if the speed were high enough, a stone would
travel Earth' s entire circumference, never hit the ground. and
retur to whack you in the back of the head. If you ducked at that
instant, the object would continue forever in what is commonly
called an orbit. You can't get more ballistic than that.
The speed needed to achieve low Earth orbit (affectionately
called LEO) is just over seventeen thousand miles per hour­
sideways-making the round trip about an hour and a half. Had
Sputnik 1 , the frst artifcial satellite, and Yuri Gagarn, the frst
human to travel beyond our atmosphere, not reached that speed,
they would simply have fallen back to Earth.
Newton also showed that the gravity exerted by any spherical
object acts as though the object's entire mass were concentrated at
its center. As a consequence, anything tossed between two people
on Earth' s surface is also in orbit-except that the trajectory
happens to intersect the ground. This was as true for Alan B.
Shepard's fifteen-minute ride aboard the Mercury spacecraft
Freedom 7 in 1961 as it is for a golf drve by Tiger Woods, a
home run by Alex Rodriguez, and a ball tossed by a child: they
have executed what are sensibly called suborbital trajectories.
Were Earth' s surface not in the way, all these objects would
execute perfect, albeit elongated, orbits around Earth' s center.
And although the law of gravity doesn' t distinguish among these
trajectores, NASA does. Shepard' s journey was mostly free of air
resistance, because it reached an altitude where there's hardly any
atmosphere. For this reason alone, the media promptly crowned
him America' s frst space traveler.
Suborbital paths are the trajectories of choice for ballistic
missiles. Like a hand grenade that arcs toward its target after
being hurled, a ballistic missile �flies" only under the action of
gravity after being launched. These weapons of mass destruction
travel hypersonically, fast enough to traverse half of Earth's
circumference in forty-fve minutes before plunging back to the
surface at thousands of miles an hour. If a ballistic missile is
heavy enough, the thing can do more damage just by falling out of
the sky than can the explosion of the conventional bomb it carries.
The world' s first ballistic missile was the Nazis' V-2 rocket,
designed by German scientists under the leadership of Wernher
von Braun. As the frst object to be launched above Earth's
atmosphere, the bullet-shaped, large-finned V-2 (the "V" stands
for Vergeltangswafen, or "Vengeance Weapon") inspired an
entire generation of spaceship illustrations. Afer surrenderng to
the Allied forces, von Braun was brought to the United States,
where in 1958 he directed the launch of the frst US satellite.
Shortly thereafter, he was transferred to the newly created
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where he
developed the rocket that made America's Moon landing possible.
Yhile hundreds of artificial satellites orbit Earth, Earth itself
orbits the Sun. In his 1543 magnum opus, De Revolltionibls,
Nicolaus Copericus placed the Sun in the center of the known
universe and asserted that Earth plus the five known planets­
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn-executed perfect
circular orbits around it. Unknown to Copernicus, a circle is an
extremely rare shape for an orbit and does not describe the path of
any planet in our solar system. The actual shape was deduced by
German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler, who
published his calculations in 1609. The frst of his laws of
planetary motion asserts that planets orbit the Sun in ellipses.
An ellipse is a fattened circle, and the degree of fatness is
indicated by a numerical quantity called eccentricity, abbreviated
e. If e equals zero, you get a perfect circle. As e increases from
zero to one, your ellipse gets more and more elongated. Of course,
the greater your eccentricity, the more likely you are to cross
somebody else's orbit. Comets that plunge toward Earth from the
outer solar system have highly eccentric orbits, whereas the orbits
of Earth and Venus closely resemble circles, with very low
eccentricities. The most eccentric �planet" (now officially a dwarf
planet) is Pluto, and sure enough, every time it goes around the
Sun, it crosses the orbit of Neptune, behaving suspiciously like a
comet.
wo," Üb", ""y planets orbit in ellipses & not some other shape. Newton had to
invent calculus to give an answer
Na¸ ¡4.2û103:23AM
The most extreme example of an elongated orbit is the famous
case of the hole dug all the way to China. Contrary to the
expectations of our geographically challenged fellow Americans,
China is not opposite the United States on the globe. The southern
Indian Ocean is. To avoid emerging under two miles of water, we
should dig from Shelby, Montana, to the isolated Kerguelen
Islands.
Now comes the fun part.
Jump in. You now accelerate continuously in a weightless,
free-fall state until you reach Earth' s center-where you vaporize
in the fierce heat of the iron core. Ignoring that complication, you
zoom right past the center, where the force of gravity is zero, and
steadily decelerate until you just reach the other side, by which
time you have slowed to zero velocity. Unless a Kerguelenian
instantly grabs you, you now fall back down the hole and repeat
the journey indefinitely. Besides making bungee jumpers jealous,
you have executed a genuine orbit, taking an hour and a half­
about the same amount of time as the Interational Space Station.
Come orbits are so eccentric that they never loop back around
again. At an eccentricity of exactly one, you have a parabola; for
eccentricities greater than one, the orbit traces a hyperbola. To
picture these shapes, aim a fashlight directly at a nearby wall.
The emergent cone of light will form a circle. Now gradually
angle the flashlight upward, and your circle distorts into ellipses
of higher and higher eccentricities. When your light cone points
straight up, any light that still falls on the nearby wall takes the
exact shape of a parabola. Tip the fashlight away from the wall a
bit more, and you've made a hyperbola. (Now you have
something different to do when you go camping.) Any object with
a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory moves so fast that it will never
retur. If astronomers ever discover a comet with such an orbit,
we will know that it has emerged from the depths of interstellar
space and is on a one-time tour through the inner solar system.
Newtonian gravity describes the force of attraction between
any two objects anywhere in the universe, no matter where they
are found, no matter what they are made of, and no matter how
large or small they may be. For example, you can use Newton's
law to calculate the past and future behavior of the Earth-Moon
system. But add a third object-a third source of gravity-and
you severely complicate the system's motions. More generally
known as the three-body problem, this menage ù trois yields
richly varied trajectories whose tracking usually requires a
computer.
Some clever solutions to this problem deserve attention. In one
case, called the restricted three-body problem, you simplify things
by assuming the third body has so little mass compared with the
other two that you can ignore its presence in the equations. With
this approximation, you can reliably follow the motions of all
three objects in the system. And we're not cheating. Many cases
like this exist in the real universe-the Sun, Jupiter, and one of
Jupiter's itty-bitty moons, for instance. In another case drawn
from the solar system, an entire family of rocks moves around the
Sun a half-billion miles ahead of and behind Jupiter but in the
same path. These are the Trojan asteroids, each one locked in its
stable orbit by the gravity of Jupiter and the Sun.
Another special case of the three-body problem was discovered
in recent years. Take three objects of identical mass and have
them follow each other in tandem, tracing a figure eight in space,
Unlike those automobile racetracks where people go to watch cars
smashing into each other at the intersection of two ovals, this
setup takes better care of its participants. The forces of gravity
require that the system �balance" for all time at the point of
intersection, and, unlike the complicated general three-body
problem, all motion occurs in one plane, Alas, this special case is
so odd and so rare that there is probably not a single example of it
among the hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and perhaps
a few examples in the entire universe, making the figure-eight
three-body orbit an astrophysically irrelevant mathematical
curiosity,
Íeyond one or two other well-behaved cases, the mutual gravity
of three or more objects eventually makes their trajectories go
bananas. To picture how this happens, position several objects in
space. Then nudge each object according to the force of attraction
between it and every other object. Recalculate all forces for the
new separations. Then repeat. The exercise is not simply
academic. The entire solar system is a many-body problem, with
asteroids, moons, planets, and the Sun in a state of continuous
mutual attraction. Newton worried greatly about this problem,
which he could not solve with pen and paper. Fearing the entire
solar system was unstable and would eventually crash its planets
into the Sun or fling them into interstellar space, he postulated that
God might step in every now and then to set things right.
The eighteenth-century French astronomer and mathematician
Piere-Simon de Laplace presented a solution to the many�body
problem of the solar system more than a century later in his
treatise Mecanique Celeste. But to do so, he had to develop a new
form of mathematics known as perturbation theory. The analysis
begins by assuming that there is only one major source of gravity
and that all the other forces are minor yet persistent-exactly the
situation that prevails in our solar system. Laplace then
demonstrates analytically that the solar system is indeed stable
and that you don't need new laws of physics to show this.
But how stable is it? Modem analysis demonstrates that on
timescales of hundreds of millions of years-periods much longer
than the ones considered by Laplace-planetary orbits are chaotic.
That leaves Mercury vulnerable to falling into the Sun, and Pluto
vulnerable to getting fung out of the solar system altogether.
Worse yet, the solar system might have been born with dozens
more planets, most of them now long lost to interstellar space.
And It all started with Copernicus's simple circles.
t´.,.·¬.-.unstable for 2-star systems. Must orbit far from both. Fools planet to
it orbits ,ust i-star
)u¡ 14,?1û6.û3 AM
If you could somehow rise above the plane of the solar system,
you would see each star in our Sun's neighborhood moving to and
fro at ten to twenty kilometers a second. Collectively, however,
those stars orbit the galaxy in wide, nearly circular paths, at
speeds in excess of two hundred kilometers a second. Most of the
hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way lie within a broad,
flat disk, and-like the orbiting objects in all other spiral galaxies
-the clouds, stars, and other constituents of the Milky Way thrive
on big, round orbits.
If you continue to rise above the plane of the Milky Way, you
would see the beautiful Andromeda galaxy, two and a half million
light-years away. It's the spiral galaxy closest to us, and all the
currently available data suggest we're on a collision course,
plunging ever deeper into each other's gravitational embrace.
Someday we will be a twisted wreck of strewn stars and colliding
gas clouds. Just wait six or seven billion years. With better
measurements of our relative motions, astronomers may discover
a strong sideways component in addition to the motion that brings
us together. If so, the Milky Way and Andromeda will instead
swing past each other in an elongated orbital dance.
Yhenever you're going ballistic, you're in free fall. Each of the
stones whose trajectory Newton illustrated was in free fall toward
Earth. The one that achieved orbit was also in free fall toward
Earth, but our planet's surface curved out from under it at exactly
the same rate as it fell-a consequence of the stone's
extraordinary sideways motion. The International Space Station is
also in free fall toward Earth. So is the Moon. And, like Newton's
stones, they all maintain a prodigious sideways motion that
prevents them from crashing to the ground.
A fascinating feature of free fall is the persistent state of
weightlessness aboard any craf with such a trajectory. In free fall,
you and everything around you fall at exactly the same rate. A
scale placed between your feet and the foor would also be in free
fall. Because nothing is squeezing the scale, it would read zero.
For this reason, and no other, astronauts are weightless in space.
But the moment the spacecraft speeds up or begins to rotate or
undergoes resistance from Earth's atmosphere, the free-fall state
ends and the astronauts weigh something again. Every science�
fiction fan knows that if you rotate your spacecraft at just the right
speed, or accelerate your spaceship at the same rate as an object
falls to Earth, you will weigh exactly what you weigh on your
doctor's scale. Thus, during those long, boring journeys, you can
always, in principle, simulate Earth gravity.
Another notable application of Newton' s orbital mechanics is
the slingshot effect. Space agencies often launch probes from
Earth that have too little energy to reach their planetary
destinations. Instead, the orbital wizards aim the probes along
cunning trajectories that swing near a moving source of gravity,
such as Jupiter. By falling toward Jupiter in the same direction as
Jupiter moves, a probe can gain as much speed as the orbital
speed of Jupiter itself, and then sling forward like ajai alai ball. If
the planetary alignments are right, the probe can repeat the feat as
it swings by Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune in turn, stealing more
energy with each close encounter. Even a one-time shot at Jupiter
can double a probe' s speed through the solar system.
Down at the other end of the mass spectrum, there are creative
ways to entertain yourself. I've always wanted to live where
gravity is so weak that you could throw baseballs into orbit and
effectively play catch with yourself. It wouldn' t be hard. No
matter how slow you pitch, there' s an asteroid somewhere in the
solar system with just the right gravity for you to accomplish this
feat. Throw with caution, though. If you throw too fast, e could
reach 1, and you'd lose the ball forever.
• • • CHAPTER FIFTEEN
RACE TO SPACE:
Lne foodlit midnight in early October 1957, beside the river Syr
Darya in the Republic of Kazakhstan-while offce workers in
New York were taking their afernoon break-Soviet rocket
scientists were launching a two-foot-wide, polished aluminum
sphere into Earth orbit. By the time New Yorkers sat down to
dinner, the sphere had completed its second full orbit, and the
Soviets had informed Washington of their triumph: Sputnik 1 ,
humanity's frst artificial satellite, was tracing an ellipse around
Earth every ninety�six minutes, reaching a peak altitude of nearly
six hundred miles.
The next morning, October 5, a report of the satellite's ascent
appeared in Pravda, the ruling Communist Party's official
newspaper. (�Sputnik," by the way, loosely translates to �fellow
traveler.") Following a few paragraphs of staight facts, Pravda
adopted a celebratory tone, ending on a note of undiluted
propaganda:
The successful launching of the first man-made earh satellite makes a most
important contribution to the treasure-house of world science and culture.
Artificial earth satellites will pave the way t interplanetary travel and apparently
our contemporaries will witness how the freed and conscientious labor of the
people of the new socialist society makes the most daring dreams of mankind a
reality.
The space race between Uncle Sam and the Reds had begun.
Round one had ended in a knockout. Ham radio operators could
track the satellite' s persistent beeps at 20.005 megacycles and
vouch for its existence. Bird-watchers and stargazers alike-if
they knew when and where to look-could see the shiny little ball
with their binoculars.
And that was only the beginning: the Soviet Union won not
only round one but nearly all the other rounds as well. Yes, in
1969 America put the first man on the Moon. But let's curb our
enthusiasm and look at the Soviet Union's achievements during
the frst three decades of the Space Age.
Besides launching the first artificial satellite, the Soviets sent
the first animal into orbit (Laika, a stray dog, the first human
being (Yuri Gagarin, a military pilot), the first woman (alentina
Tereshkova, a parachutist), and the frst black person (Arnaldo
Tamayo-Mendez, a Cuban military pilot). The Soviets sent the
first multi person crew and the first interational crew into orbit.
They made the first spacewalk, launched the first space station,
and were the frst to put a manned space station into long-term
orbit.
T=-rz& fl8
50 yrs ago. Yurl Gagarin i slaunched into orbit by Soviets. He's
the 4th mammal species to achieve thi s feat
Aþr ¡Z,Zû¡l 1û.û4 AM
Just an FI: First mammals t achieve orbit. in order: Dog, Guinea
Pig, Mouse, Russian Human, Chimpan2ee, American Human
Aþr ¡Z,Zû¡1 1û.ZÛ AM
They were also the first to orbit the Moon, the first to land an
unmanned capsule on the Moon, the first to photograph Earthrise
from the Moon, the frst to photograph the far side of the Moon,
the frst to put a rover on the Moon, and the first to put a satellite
in orbit around the Moon. They were the first to land on Mars and
the first to land on Venus. And whereas Sputnik 1 weighed 184
pounds and Sputnik 2 (launched a month later) weighed 1, 120
pounds, the first satellite America had planned to send aloft
weighed slightly more than three pounds. Most ignominious of
all, when the United States tried its first actual launch after
Sputnik-in early December 1957-the rocket burst into fames at
the (suborbital) altitude of three feet.
In July 1955, from a podium at the White House, President
Eisenhower' s press secretary had announced America' s intention
to send "small" satellites into orbit during the International
Geophysical Year Duly 1957 through December 1958). A few
days later a similar announcement came from the chairman of the
Soviet space commission, who maintained that the first satellites
shouldn't have to be all that small and that the USSR would send
up a few of its own in the �near future."
And so it did.
In January 1957, the Soviet missile maven and ultrapersuasive
space advocate Sergei Korolev (never referred to in the Soviet
press by name) warned his government that Amerca had declared
its rockets to be capable of flying "higher and farther than all the
rockets in the world," and that �the USA is preparing in the
nearest months a new attempt to launch an artificial Earth satellite
and is willing to pay any price to achieve this priority. " His
warning worked. In the spring of 1957, the Soviets began testing
precursors to orbiting satellites: intercontinental ballistic missiles
that could lof a two-hundred-pound payload.
On August Z1, their fourth try, they succeeded. Missile and
payload made it all the way from Kazakhstan to Kamchatka­
some four thousand miles. TASS, the official Soviet news agency,
uncharacteristically announced the event to the world:
A few days ago a super-long-range, intercontinental multistage balli stic missile
was launched . . . . The flight of the missile took place at a very great, hitherto
unattained, altitude. Covering an enonnous distance in a short tme. the missile hit
the assigned region. The results obtained show that there I s the possibiliy of
launching missiles into any region of the terrestrial globe.
Strong words. Strong motives. Enough to spook any adversary
into action.
Meanwhile, in mid-july the British weekly New Scientist had
informed its readers about the Soviet Union' s growing primacy in
the space race. It had even published the orbit of an impending
Soviet satellite. But America took little notice.
In mid-September Korolev told an assembly of scientists about
the imminent launches of both Soviet and American �artificial
satellites of the Earth with scientifc goals. " Still America took
little notice.
Then came October 4.
Cputnik 1 kicked many heads out of the sand. Some people in
power went, well, ballistic. Lyndon B. johnson, at the time the
Senate majority leader, warned, "Soon [the Soviets] will be
dropping bombs on us from space like kids dropping rocks onto
cars from freeway overpasses." Others were anxious to downplay
both the geopolitical implications of the satellite and the
capabilities of the USSR. Secretary of State john Foster Dulles
wrote that the importance of Sputnik 1 "should not be
exaggerated" and rationalized America' s nonperformance thus:
�Despotic societies which can command the activities and
resources of all their people can often produce spectacular
accomplishments. These, however, do not prove that freedom is
not the best way."
On October 5, under a page-one banner headline (and alongside
coverage of a fu epidemic in New York City and the showdown
in Little Rock with the segregationist Arkansas governor, Orval
Faubus) , the New York Times ran an article that included the
following reassurances:
Military experts have said that the satellites would have no practicable military
application in the foreseeable future . . . . Their real signifcance would be in
providing scientists with important new information concerning the nature of the
sun. cosmic radiation, solar radio interference and static-producing phenomena.
What? No military applications? Satellites were simply about
monitoring the Sun? Behind-the-scenes strategists thought
otherwise. According to the summary of an October 10 meeting
between President Eisenhower and his National Security Council,
the United States had �always been aware of the cold war
implications of the launching of the first earth satellite." Even
America' s best allies "require assurance that we have not been
surpassed scientifically and militarily by the USSR."
Eisenhower didn't have to worry about ordinary Americans,
though. Most remained unperturbed. Or maybe the spin campaign
worked its magic. In any case, plenty of ham radio operators
ignored the beeps, plenty of newspapers ran their satellite articles
on page three or five, and a Gallup poll found that 60 percent of
people questioned in Washington and Chicago expected that the
United States would make the next big splash in space,
Êmerica' s cold warriors, now fully awake to the military
potential of space, understood that US postwar prestige and power
had been challenged. Within a year, money to help restore them
would be pumped into science education, the education of college
teachers, and research useful to the military.
Back in 1947, the President' s Commission on Higher
Education had proposed as a goal that a third of America's youth
should graduate from a four-year college. The National Defense
Education Act of 1958 was a key, if modest. push in that
direction. It provided low�interest student loans for
undergraduates as well as three-year National Defense
Fellowships for several thousand graduate students. Funding for
the National Science Foundation tripled right after Sputnik; by
1968 it was a dozen times the pre-Sputnik appropriation. The
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 hatched a new, full�
service civilian agency called the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration-NASA. The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, or DARPA, was born the same year.
All those initiatives and agenCies funneled the best American
students into science, math, and engineering. The government got
a lot of bang for its buck; graduate students in those fields, come
wartime, got draft deferments; and the concept of federal funding
for education got validated.
But some kind of satellite, built by any means necessary, had to
be launched ASAP. Luckily, during the closing weeks and
immediate afermath of World War II in Europe, the United States
had acquired a worthy challenger to Sergei Korolev: the German
engineer and physicist Wernher von Braun, former leader of the
team that had developed the terrifying V -2 ballistic missile. We
also acquired more than a hundred members of his team.
Instead of being put on trial at Nuremburg for war crimes, von
Braun became America's savior, the progenitor and public face of
the US space program. His first high-profe task was to proVide
the first rocket for the frst successful launch of America' s first
satellite. On January 31 , 1958-less than four months after
Sputnik 1 's round-the-world tour-he and his rocketeers got the
thirty-pound Explorer 1 , plus its eighteen pounds of scientific
instrumentation, into orbit.
A object in orbit has high Sideways speed so it falls to Earth at exacty the same
rate that the round Earth curves below it
Na¸ ¡4. 2ûI0 I¡.56AM
Ìisposal of dead weight was a key to their success. If you want
to reach orbital speeds-Just over seventeen thousand miles an
hour-you'd better unladen your rocket at every opportunity.
Rocket motors are heavy, fuel tanks are heavy, fuel itself is heavy,
and every kilogram of unnecessary mass schlepped into space
wastes thousands of kilograms of fuel. The solution? The
multistage rocket. When the first-stage fuel tank is spent, throw it
away. Run out of fuel in the next stage; throw that away too.
Jupiter-C, the rocket that launched Explorer 1, weighed 64,000
pounds at takeoff, fully loaded. The final stage weighed 80.
Like the R-7 rocket that launched Sputnik 1, the jupiter-C was
a modified weapon. The science was a secondary, even tertiary,
outgrowth of military R&D. Cold warriors wanted bigger and
more lethal ballistic missiles, with nuclear warheads crammed
into the nose cones.
High ground is the military' s best friend, and what ground
could be higher than a satellite orbiting no more than forty�five
minutes away from a possible target? Thanks to Sputnik 1 and its
successors, the USSR held that high ground until 1969, when,
courtesy of von Braun and colleagues, the USA's Saturn V rocket
took the Apollo 1 1 astronauts to the Moon.
Today, whether Americans know it or not, a new space race is
under way. This time, Amerca faces not only Russia but also
China, the European Union, India, and more. Maybe this time the
race will be one between fellow travelers rather than potential
adversaries-more about fostering innovations in science and
technology than about struggling to rule the high ground.
• • • CHAPTER SIXTEEN
200t-FACT VS. FICTION:
Åhe long-awaited year has come and gone, There was no escape
from the relentless comparisons between the spacefaring future
we saw in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odysey and the
reality of our measly earthbound life in the real 2001. We don't
yet have a lunar base camp, and we have not yet sent hibernating
astronauts to Jupiter in outsize spaceships, but we have
nonetheless come a long way in our exploration of space,
Today, the greatest challenge to human exploration of space,
apart from money and other political factors, is surviving
biologically hostile environments, We need to send into space an
improved version of ourselves-doppelgangers who can somehow
withstand the extremes of temperature, the high-energy radiation,
and the meager air supply, yet still conduct a full round of
scientific experiments,
Fortunately, we have already invented such things: they're
space robots, They don't look humanoid and we don't refer to
them as "who," but they conduct all of our interplanetary
exploration, You don't have to feed them, they don't need life
support, and they won't get upset if you don't bring them home,
Our ensemble of space robots includes probes that are monitoring
the sun, orbiting Mars, intercepting a comet's tail, orbiting an
asteroid, orbiting Saturn, and heading to Jupiter and Pluto.
Four of our early space probes were launched with enough
energy and with the right trajectory to escape the solar system
altogether, each one carrying encoded information about humans
for the intelligent aliens who might recover the hardware.
Even though humans have not left footprints on Mars or on
Jupiter's moon Europa, our space robots at these worlds have
beamed back to us compelling evidence of the presence of water.
These discoveres fire our imaginations with the prospect of
finding life on future missions.
We also maintain hundreds of communication satellites, as well
as a dozen space-based telescopes that see the universe in
different bands of light, including infrared and gamma rays. In
particular, the microwave band allows us to see the edge of the
observable universe, where we find evidence of the Big Bang.
And so, we may have no interplanetary colonies or other
unrealized dreamscapes, but our presence in space has been
growing exponentially nonetheless. In some ways, space
exploration in the real 2001 strongly resembles that of Kubrck's
movie. Apart from our fock of robotic probes, we have a feet of
hardware in the sky. Just as they do in 2001 the movie, we've got
a space station. It was assembled with parts delivered by reusable,
docking space shuttles (which happened to say "NASA" on the
side instead of "Pan Am"). And, as in the movie, the space station
has zero-G flush toilets, with complicated instructions, and plastic
pouches of unappealing astronaut food.
As far as I can tell, the only things Kubrick's movie has that we
don't have are Johann Strauss' s "Blue Danube" waltz flling the
vacuum of space, and a homicidal mainframe named HAL.
• • • CHAPR SEVENTEEN
LAUNCHING THE RIGHT STUFF:
In 2003 the space shuttle orbiter Columbia broke into pieces over
central Texas. A year later, President George W. Bush announced
a long-term program of space exploration that would return
humans to the Moon and thereafter send them to Mars and
beyond. Over that time, and for years to come, the twin Mars
Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, wowed scientists and
engineers at the rovers' birthplace-NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory UPL)-with their skills as robotic field geologists.
The confuence of these and other events resurrects a perennial
debate: with two failures out of 135 shuttle missions during the
life of the manned space program, and its astronomical expense
relative to robotic programs, can sending people into space be
justified, or should robots do the job alone? Or, given society's
sociopolitical ailments, is space exploration something we simply
cannot afford to pursue? As an astrophysicist, as an educator, and
as a citizen, I'm compelled to speak my mind on these issues.
Modern societies have been sending robots into space since
1957, and people since 1961 . Fact is, it's vastly cheaper to send
robots-in most cases, a fiftieth the cost of sending people.
Robots don't much care how hot or cold space gets; give them the
right lubricants, and they'll operate in a vast range of
temperatures. They don't need elaborate life-support systems
either. Robots can spend long periods of time moving around and
among the planets, more or less unfazed by ionizing radiation.
They do not lose bone mass from prolonged exposure to
weightlessness, because, of course, they are boneless. Nor do they
have hygiene needs. You don't even have to feed them. Best of
all, once they've finished their jobs, they won't complain if you
don't bring them home.
So if my only goal in space is to do science, and I' m thinking
strictly in terms of the scientific retur on my dollar, I can think of
no justification for sending a person into space. I' d rather send the
ffty robots.
But there' s a flip side to this argument. Unlike even the most
talented modem robots, humans are endowed with the ability to
make serendipitous discoveries that arise from a lifetime of
experience. Until the day arrives when bioneurophysiological
computer engineers can do a human-brain download on a robot,
the most we can expect of the robot is to look for what it has
already been programmed to find. A robot-which is, after all, a
machine for embedding human expectations in hardware and
software-cannot fully embrace revolutionary scientific
discoveries. And those are the ones you don't want to miss.
In the old days, people generally pictured robots as a hunk of
hardware with a head, neck, torso, arms, and legs-and maybe
some wheels to roll around on. They could be talked to and would
talk back (sounding, of course, robotic). The standard robot
looked more or less like a person. The fussbudget character
C3PO, from the Star Wars movies, is a perfect example.
Even when a robot doesn't look humanoid, its handlers might
present it to the public as a quasi-living thing. Each of NASA's
twin Mars rovers, for instance, was described in jPL press packets
as having "a body, brains, a 'neck and head,' eyes and other
'senses,' an arm, 'legs,' and antennas for 'speaking' and
'listening. ' " On February 5, 2004, according to the status reports,
"Spirit woke up earlier than normal today . . . in order to prepare
for its memory 'surgery.' " On the 19th the rover remotely
examined the rim and surrounding soil of a crater dubbed
Bonneville, and "after all this work, Spirit took a break with a nap
lasting slightly more than an hour."
In spite of all this anthropomorphism, it's pretty clear that a
robot can have any shape at all: it's simply an automated piece of
machinery that accomplishes a task, either by repeating an action
faster or more reliably than the average person can, or by
performing an action that a person, relying solely on the five
senses, would be unable to accomplish. Robots that paint cars on
assembly lines don't look much like people. The Mars rovers
looked a bit like toy flatbed trucks, but they could grind a pit in
the surface of a rock, mobilize a combination microscope-camera
to examine the freshly exposed surface, and determine the rock's
chemical composition-just as a geologist might do in a
laboratory on Earth.
It's worth noting, by the way, that even a human geologist
doesn' t go it alone. Unaided by some kind of eqUipment, a person
cannot grind down the surface of a rock; that' s why a field
geologist carries a hammer. To analyze a rock further, the
geologist deploys another kind of apparatus, one that can
determine its chemical composition. Therein lies a conundrum.
Almost all the science likely to be done in an alien environment
would be done by some piece of eqUipment. Field geologists on
Mars would lug it around on their daily strolls across a Martian
crater or outcrop, where they might take measurements of the soil,
the rocks, the terrain, and the atmosphere. But if you can get a
robot to haul and deploy all the same instruments, why send a
field geologist to Mars at all?
Lne good reason is the geologist's common sense. Each Mars
rover was deSigned to move for about ten seconds, then stop and
assess its immediate surroundings for twenty seconds, then move
for another ten seconds, and so on. If the rover moved any faster,
or moved without stopping, it might stumble on a rock and tip
over, becoming as helpless as a Galapagos tortoise on its back. In
contrast, a human explorer would just stride ahead, because
people are quite good at watching out for rocks and cliffs.
Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in the days of NASA's
manned Apollo flights to the Moon, no robot could decide which
pebbles to pick up and bring home. But when the Apollo 17
astronaut Harrison Schmitt, the only geologist (in fact, the only
scientist) to have walked on the Moon, noticed some odd orange
soil on the lunar surface, he immediately collected a sample. It
turned out to be minute beads of volcanic glass. Today a robot can
perform staggering chemical analyses and transmit amazingly
detailed images, but it still can't react effiCiently, as Schmitt did,
to a surprise. By contrast, packed inside the field geologist are the
capacities to walk, run, dig, hammer, see, communicate, interpret,
and invent.
Of course when something goes wrong, an on-the-spot human
being becomes a robot's best friend. Give a person a wrench, a
hammer, and some duct tape, and you' d be surprised what can get
fixed. Afer landing on Mars, did the Spirit rover just roll right off
its platform and start checking out the neighborhood? No, its
airbags were blocking the path. Not until twelve more days had
passed did Spirit' s remote controllers manage to get all six of its
wheels rolling on Martian soil. Anyone on the scene on January 3
could have just lifted the airbags out of the way and in mere
seconds given Spirit a little shove.
Let's assume, then, that we can agree on a few things: People
notice the unexpected, react to unforeseen circumstances, and
solve problems in ways that robots cannot. Robots are cheap to
send into space but can make only a preprogrammed analysis.
Cost and scientific results, however, are not the only relevant
issues. There' s also the question of exploration.
The frst troglodytes to cross the valley or climb the mountain
ventured forth from the family cave not because they wanted to
make a scientific discovery but because something unknown lay
beyond the horizon. Perhaps they sought more food, better shelter,
or a more promising way of life. In any case, they felt the urge to
explore. It may be hardwired, lying deep within the behavioral
identity of the human species. How else could our ancestors have
migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia, and onward to North
and South America? To send a person to Mars who can look
under the rocks or find out what' s down in the valley is the natural
extension of what ordinary people have always done on Earth.
Many of my colleagues assert that plenty of science can be
done without putting people in space. But if they were kids in the
1960s, and you ask what inspired them to become scientists,
nearly every one (at least in my experience) will cite the high�
profile Apollo program. It took place when they were young, and
it's what got them excited. Period. In contrast, even if they also
mention the launch of Sputnik 1, which gave birth to the space
era, very few of those scientists credit their interest to the
numerous other unmanned satellites and space probes launched by
both the United States and the Soviet Union shortly after Sputnik.
So if you're a frst�rate scientist drawn to the space program
because you'd initially been inspired by astronauts rocketing into
the great beyond, it's somewhat disingenuous of you to contend
that people should no longer go into space. To take that position
is, in effect, to deny the next generation of students the thrill of
following the same path you did: enabling one of our own kind,
not just a robotic emissary, to walk on the frontier of exploration.
Yhenever we hold an event at the Hayden Planetarium that
includes an astronaut, I've found there's a Significant uptick in
attendance. Any astronaut will do, even one most people have
never heard of. The one�on�one encounter makes a difference in
the hearts and minds of Earth' s armchair space travelers-whether
retired science teachers, hardworking bus drivers, thirteen�year�
uld kids, or ambiLiuus parenls.
Of course, people can and do get excited about robots. From
January 3 through January 5, 2004, the NASA website that
tracked the dOings of the Mars rovers sustained more than half a
billion hits-506, 621, 916 to be exact. That was a record for
NASA. surpassing the world' s web traffic in pornography over
the same three days.
The solution to the quandary seems obvious to me: send both
robots and people into space. Space exploration needn' t be an
either/or transaction, because there' s no avoiding the fact that
robots are better suited for certain tasks, and people for others.
One thing is certain: in the coming decades, the United States
will need to call upon multitudes of scientists and engineers from
scores of disciplines, and astronauts will need to be
extraordinarily well trained. The search for evidence of past life
on Mars, for instance, will require top-notch biologists. But what
does a biologist know about planetary terrains? Geologists and
geophysicists will have to go too. Chemists will be needed to
check out the atmosphere and test the soils. If life once thrived on
Mars, the remains might now be fossilized, and so perhaps we'll
need a few paleontologists to join the fray. People who know how
to drill through kilometers of soil and rock will also be must�
haves, because that' s where Martian water reserves might be
hiding.
Where will all those talented scientists and technologists come
from? Who's going to recruit them? Personally, when I give talks
to students old enough to decide what they want to be when they
grow up but young enough not to get derailed by raging
hormones, I need to offer them a tasty carrot to get them excited
enough to become scientists. That task is made easy if I can
introduce them to astronauts in search of the next generation to
share their grand vision of exploration and join them in space.
Without such inspiring forces behind me, I' m just that day's
entertainment. My reading of history and culture tells me that
people need their heroes.
Åwentieth-century America owed much of its security and
economic strength to its support for science and technology. Some
of the most revolutionary (and marketable) technology of past
decades has been spun off the research done under the banner of
US space exploration: kidney dialysis machines, implantable
pacemakers, LASIK surgery, global positioning satellites,
corrosion-resistant coatings for bridges and monuments (including
the Statue of Liberty) , hydroponic systems for growing plants,
collision-avoidance systems on aircraft, digital imaging, infrared
handheld cameras, cordless power tools, athletic shoes, scratch-
resistant sunglasses, virtual reality. And that list doesn't even
include Tang.
Although solutions to a problem are often the fruit of direct
investment in targeted research, the most revolutionary solutions
tend to emerge from cross-pollination with other disciplines.
Medical investigators might never have known of X-rays, since
they do not naturally occur in biological systems. It took a
physicist, Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen, to discover these light rays
that could probe the body' s interior with nary a cut from a
surgeon.
Here' s another example of cross-pollination. Soon after the
Hubble Space Telescope was launched in AQr¡l 1990, NASA
engineers realized that the telescope' s primary mirror-which
gathers and reflects the light from celestial objects into its cameras
and spectrographs-had been ground to an incorrect shape. In
other words, the two-billion-dollar telescope was producing fuzzy
images.
That was bad.
As if to make lemonade out of lemons, though, computer
algorithms came to the rescue. Investigators at the Space
Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, developed a
range of clever and innovative image-processing techniques to
compensate for some of Hubble' s shortcomings. Turns out,
maximizing the amount of information that could be extracted
from a blurry astronomical image is technically identical to
maximizing the amount of information that can be extracted from
a mammogram. Soon the new techniques came into common use
for detecting early signs of breast cancer.
Out that's only part of the story.
In 1997, for Hubble' s second servicing mission (the frst, in
1993, corrected the faulty optics), shuttle astronauts swapped in a
brand-new, high-resolution digital detector-designed to the
demanding specs of astrophysicists whose careers are based on
being able to see small, dim things in the cosmos. That technology
is now incorporated in a minimally invasive, low�cost system for
doing breast biopsies, the next stage after mammograms in the
early diagnosis of cancer.
So why not ask investigators to take direct aim at the challenge
of detecting breast cancer? Why should innovations in medicine
have to wait for a Hubble-size blunder in space? My answer may
not be politically correct, but it's the truth: when you organize
extraordinary missions, you attract people of extraordinary talent
who might not have been inspired by or attracted to the goal of
saving the world from cancer or hunger or pestilence.
Åoday, cross-pollination between science and society comes
about when you have ample funding for ambitious long-term
projects. America has profted immensely from a generation of
scientists and engineers who, instead of becoming lawyers or
investment bankers, responded to a challenging vision posed in
1961 by President John F. Kennedy. Proclaiming the intention to
land a man on the Moon, Kennedy welcomed the citizenry to aid
in the effort. That generation, and the one that followed, was the
same generation of technologists who invented the personal
computer. Bill Gates, cofounder of Microsoft, was thirteen years
old when the United States landed an astronaut on the Moon;
Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple Computer, was fourteen. The PC
did not arise from the mind of a banker or artist or professional
athlete. It was invented and developed by a technically trained
workforce, who had responded to the dream unfurled before them
and were thrilled to become scientists and engineers.
Yes, the world needs bankers and artists and even professional
athletes. They, among countless others, create the breadth of
society and culture. But if you want tomorrow to come-if you
want to spawn entire economic sectors that didn't exist yesterday
-those are not the people you turn to. It is technologists who
create that kind of future. And it is visionary steps into space that
create that kind of technologist. I look forward to the day when
the solar system becomes our collective backyard-explored not
only with robots, but with the mind, body, and soul of our species.
• • • CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
THINGS ARE LOOKING UP:
Ln September 8, 2004, the scientific payload from NASA's
Genesis mission crashed into the Utah desert at nearly two
hundred miles per hour after its parachutes failed to open. The
spacecraft had spent three years orbiting the Sun at a distance of
nearly a million miles from Earth, collecting some of the tiny
atomic nuclei that the Sun expels continuously into space, and
whose abundances encode the original composition of the material
from which the solar system formed 4.6 billion years ago. NASA
scientists have recovered some of the results from Genesis, and
thus avoided writing off their time and our $260 million as a total
loss.
But even if no usable data had returned, this single failure
merely emphasizes how well we are doing as we explore the
cosmos. NASA's two robotic geologists roving the surface of
Mars have both exceeded their scheduled lifetimes while returning
stunning images of the Martian surface-images that tell us Mars
once had running water and large lakes or seas. The Mars Global
Surveyor, likewise operating well beyond its planned lifetime,
continues to orbit the Red Planet and send us high-resolution
images of the Martian surface. And the European Space Agency's
Mars Express Orbiter has supplied evidence of methane in the
Martian atmosphere, which may be traceable to active
underground bacterial colonies. The Cassini spacecraft orbits
Saturn, and Cassini' s Huygens probe detached and then
descended through the smoggy atmosphere of Saturn' s largest
moon, Titan, landed on its surface, and confirmed the existence of
liquid lakes of methane. Titan itself may well prove to be a site for
life of a different kind. We also have MESSENGER, the frst
probe to orbit the Sun's innermost planet.
When we tum to the much vaster cosmos beyond our solar
system, we find a stunning array of spacecraf that orbit Earth
outside our interfering atmosphere. NASA's orbiting Chandra x­
ray Observatory detects X-rays from distant venues of cosmic
violence, such as the turbulent environs that surround hungry
black holes, while NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope maps
infrared light, a calling card of young stars and star-forming
regions. The European Space Agency' s Integral satellite studies
gamma rays, the highest-energy form of light, which arise from
exploding stars and other violent cosmic events; NASA's Swift
Gamma Ray Burst Explorer searches for the most distant gamma­
ray outbursts in the universe. Meanwhile, the Hubble Space
Telescope will continue to work until its larger successor, the
James Webb Space Telescope, reaches orbit, peering farther than
any previous telescope as it chronicles the formation of galaxies
and the large-scale structures they trace.
Enlightened by our surrogate eyes in this busy vacuum of
space, we should occasionally remind ourselves that Earth's
continents display no national boundaries. But above all else, our
smallness in the vastness of the universe should humble us alL
• • • CHAPTER NINETEEN
FOR THE LOVE OF HUBBLE:
Åhe Hubble Space Telescope, the most productive scientific
instrument of all time, had its ffth and final repair mission in the
spring of 2009. The space shuttle astronauts launched from
Kennedy Space Center in Florida, matched orbits with the
telescope, captured it, serviced it, upgraded it, and replaced its
broken parts-on the spot.
Roughly the size of a Greyhound bus, Hubble was launched
aboard the space shuttle Discovery in 1990 and has substantially
outlived its initial ten-year life expectancy. For students in high
school today, Hubble has been their primary conduit to the
cosmos. The final servicing mission extended Hubble' s life
several years. Among other things, it replaced burned-out circuit
boards in the Advanced Camera for Surveys. Thafs the
instrument responsible for Hubble' s most memorable images
since its installation in 2002.
Servicing Hubble requires exquisite dexterty. I recently had
the opportunity to visit NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in
Maryland. There I donned puffy, pressurized astronaut gloves,
wielded a space-age portable screwdriver, stuck my head in a
space helmet, and attempted to extract a faulty circuit board in a
mock-up of the failed camera, which was embedded within a full-
scale model of the Hubble. This was a darn near impossible feat.
And I wasn't weightless. I was not wearing the full-body
spacesuit. Nor were Earth and space driftng by.
Normally we think of astronauts as brave and noble. But in this
case, having the "right stuff" includes being a hardware surgeon.
Hubble is not alone up there. Dozens of space telescopes of
assorted sizes and shapes orbit Earth and the Moon. Each one
provides a view of the cosmos that is unobstructed, unblemished,
and undiminished by Earth's turbulent and murky atmosphere.
But most of these telescopes were launched with no means of
servicing them. Parts wear out. Gyroscopes fail. Coolant
evaporates. Batteries die. Hardware realities limit a telescope's
life expectancy.
All these telescopes advance science, but most perform their
duties without the public's awareness or adulation. They are
designed to detect bands of light invisible to the human eye, some
of which never penetrate Earth' s atmosphere. Entire classes of
objects and phenomena in the cosmos reveal themselves only
through one or more invisible cosmic windows. Black holes, for
example, were discovered by their X-ray calling card-radiation
generated by the surounding, SWirling gas just before it
descended into the abyss. Telescopes have also captured
microwave radiation-the primary physical evidence for the Big
Bang.
Hubble, on the other hand, is the first and only space telescope
to observe the universe using primarily visible light. Its stunningly
crisp, colorful, and detailed images of the cosmos make Hubble a
kind of supreme version of human eyes in space. Yet its appeal
derives from much more than a stream of pretty portraits. IIubble
came of age in the 1990s, during exponential growth of access to
the Internet. That' s when its digital images were first cast into the
public domain. As we all know, anything that's fun, free, and
forwardable spreads rapidly online. Soon Hubble images, one
more splendorous than the next, became screensavers and desktop
wallpaper for computers owned by people who would never
before have had the occasion to celebrate, however qUietly, our
place in the universe.
Indeed, Hubble brought the universe into our backyard. Or
rather, it expanded our backyard to enclose the universe itself,
accomplishing that with images so intellectually, visually, and
even spiritually fulfilling that most don't even need captions. No
matter what Hubble reveals-planets, dense star fields, colorful
interstellar nebulae, deadly black holes, graceful colliding
galaxies, the large-scale structure of the universe-each image
establishes your own private vista on the cosmos.
In the era of Hubble & space probes. dots of light on the night sky have become
worlds. Worlds have become our backyard
Ieb Z.Z¡¡ 6.56
[_
Hubble' s scientific legacy is unimpeachable. More research
papers have been published using its data than have ever been
published for any other scientific instrument in any discipline.
Among Hubble' s highlights is its settling of the decades-old
debate about the age of the universe. Previously, the data were so
bad that astrophysicists could not agree to within a factor of two.
Some thought ten billion years; others, twenty billion. Yes, it was
embarrassing. But Hubble enabled us to measure accurately how
the brightness varies in a particular type of distant star. That
information, when plugged into a simple formula, provides that
star's distance from Earth. And because the entire universe is
expanding at a known rate, we can then turn back the clock to
determine how long ago everything was in the same place. The
answer? The universe was born 13. 7 billion years ago.
Another result, long suspected to be true but confrmed by
Hubble, was the discovery that every large galaxy, such as our
own Milky Way, has a supermassive black hole at its center that
dines on stars, gas clouds, and other unsuspecting matter that
wanders too close. The centers of galaxies are so densely packed
with stars that atmospherically blurred Earth-based telescopes see
only a mottled cloud of light-the puddled image of hundreds or
thousands of stars. From space, Hubble' s sharp detectors allow us
to see each star individually and to track its motion around the
galactic center. Behold, these stars move much, much faster than
they have any right to. A small, unseen yet powerful source of
gravity must be tugging on them. Crank the equations, and we are
forced to conclude that a black hole lurks in their midst.
In 2004, a year after the Columbia tragedy, NASA announced
that Hubble would not receive its last selVicing mission.
Curiously, the loudest voices of dissent were from the general
public. Akin to a modern version of a torch-wielding mob, they
voiced their opposition in every medium available, from op-eds to
petitions. Ultimately, Congress listened and reversed the decision.
Democracy had a shining moment: Hubble would indeed be
serviced one last time.
Of course, nothing lasts forever-nothing except, perhaps, the
universe itself So Hubble eventually will die. But in the
meantime, the James Webb Space Telescope beckons, deSigned to
see deeper into the universe than Hubble ever could. When
launched, funding permitting, it will allow us to plumb the depths
of gas clouds in our own Milky Way galaxy in search of stellar
nurseries, as well as to probe the earliest epochs of the universe in
search of the formation of galaxies themselves.
NASA retired the aging space shuttle in 201 1 . Given sufcient
political will, this step should enable its aerospace engineers,
assembly lines, and funding streams to focus on a new suite of
launch vehicles deSigned to do what the shuttles can't: take us
beyond low Earth orbit, with Sights on farther frontiers.
• • • CHAPER TNT
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, APOLLO
I I´
Åhe National Air and Space Museum is unlike any other place on
this planet. If you're hosting visitors from another country and
they want to know what single museum best captures what it is to
be American, this is the museum you take them to, Here they can
see the 1903 Wright Flyer, the 1927 Spirit of St. Louis, the 1926
Goddard rocket, and the Apollo 1 1 command module-silent
beacons of exploration, of a few people willing to risk their lives
for the sake of discovery. Without those risk takers, society rarely
goes anywhere.
We celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the Moon landing, July
20, 1969. Forty: that's a big number. How many days was the Ark
at sea? Forty. (Also fort nights.) How many years did Moses
wander the desert? Forty.
The Apollo era stoked ambitions. Many of us are here because
of it. But the struggle is not over. Not everybody was part of that
vision. Not everbody was struck by it. And I blame us for that.
All space people feel it. You know and understand the majestic
jourey. Yet there are those who don't, who haven't even thought
about it. Two�thirds of the people alive today in the world were
bor after 1969. Two-thirds.
Do you remember Jay Leno doing his Jaywalking for NBC's
Tonight Show? He' d go out in the street and ask people a simple
question. Once he went up to a freshly minted college graduate
and asked, �How many moons does Earth have?" Here' s her
reply: "How do you expect me to remember that? I had astronomy
two semesters ago."
That scares me.
Åoday we have assembled many astronauts who were part of the
first wave of America's space explorers-heroes of a generation.
There are also heroes who never flew. And those who mattered to
us as a nation who are now gone. Walter Cronkite passed away
just this past Friday at the age of ninety-two. At first I was
saddened when I leared of his death. But when you're that old
and you die, it's not an occasion to be sad; it' s an occasion to
celebrate a life. Cronkite: the most trusted man in Amerca. We all
knew him as a supporter of space. He anchored the CBS Evening
News with intelligence, integrity, and compassion.
I remember when I was a kid and I first learned there was
someone by the name of Cronkite. Do you know anyone else
named Cronkite, other than Walter? I don't think so. So the name
was interesting to me. I knew enough about the periodic table that
it sounded like a new element. You know, we have aluminum,
nickel, silicon. There' s the fictional kryptonite. And then there's
cronkite.
One of my most indelible memories of Walter is from when I
was ten years old. At 7: 51 a.m. on December 21, 1968-exactly
the scheduled time-Apollo 8 lifted off from Kennedy Space
Center. It was the first mission ever to leave low Earth orbit, the
first time anyone ever had a destination other than Earth. In one
loop, Apollo 8 made a figure eight around Earth and the Moon,
and retured. When Walter Cronkite announced that the Apollo 8
command module had just left the gravitational pull of Earth, I
was taken aback. How could that be? They hadn' t reached the
Moon yet, and of course the Moon lies within Earth' s gravity.
Later I would learn, of course, that he was referring to a
Lagrangian point between Earth and the Moon-a point where the
forces of gravity balance. When you cross it, you fall toward the
Moon instead of back toward Earth. And so I learned a bit of
physics from Walter Cronkite. Godspeed to this voice of America,
who died on the fortieth anniversary of Apollo 1 1 . What a way to
go.
It' s been a busy week. We lose Walter Cronkite; we gain some
appointments. The United States Senate confirmed the new
NASA administrator and the new deputy NASA administrator,
Charles F. Bolden Jr. and Lori B. Garver. Lori Garver-her whole
life has been in space. She started working for John Glenn in
1983. She was executive director of the National Space Society
and president of Capital Space, LLC. I've known Lori Garver for
fifteen years; I've known Charlie Bolden for fifteen minutes. Just
met him in the green room. The man looks like he came from
central casting: four decades in public service, a combat pilot for
the Marines, fourteen years as a member of NASA's astronaut
corps. The confrmation hearings began like a love fest, with
senators from everywhere saying, "Charlie's the man."
As I'm sure you know, decisions at NASA don't happen in a
vacuum. I've participated in two commissions in the service of
NASA: the Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Industry (its fnal report, from 2002, was called
Anone, Aning, Anywhere, Anytime) and the President's
Commission on Implementation of United States Space
Exploration Policy (the final report. from 2004, was called A
Jourey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover: Moon, Mars and
Beyuld). We were trying to study what is, what isn't, what should
be, and what' s possible. As one of the commissioners, I remember
being bombarded by the public and by people from the aerospace
community. Everybody has an idea about what NASA should do.
Somebody's got a new design for a rocket, or a desired
destination, or a new propellant. Initially I felt as though people
were interfering with my getting our job done. But then I stepped
back and realized that if so many people want to tell NASA what
to do, it's a good sign, not a bad sign. There I was being annoyed,
when in fact I should have celebrated it as an expression of love
for the future of NASA.
The agency continues to solicit input from experts. A
committee headed by Norm Augustine has studied the future of
NASA's manned spaceflight program (the fnal report, from late
2009, is titled Seeking a Haman Spacefght Pm Worthy of a
Great Nation). You could go online to hsf.nasa.gov-"hsf" for
human spaceflight-and tell them what you think. How many
countries allow such a thing, much less suggest you might be able
to influence the direction an agency will take?
Ês some of you know, I' m an astrophysicist-less a space
person than a science person. I care about exploding stars, black
holes, and the fate of the Milky Way. And not all space missions
are about building a space station.
One of my favorite recent missions was when the space shuttle
Atlantis serviced the Hubble Space Telescope. In May 2009,
Atlantis's astronauts-I prefer to think of them as them
astrosurgeons-repaired and upgraded Hubble. They conducted
five spacewalks during their mission to extend the life of the
telescope at least five years, possibly ten-literally a new lease on
life. They successfully installed two new instruments, repaired
two others, replaced gyroscopes and batteries, added new thermal
insulation to protect the most celebrated telescope since the era of
Galileo. It was the crowning achievement of what can happen
when the manned space program is in synchrony with the robotic
program.
Shuttle Atlantis -final trip before retirement today. On board, a chunk
M Isaac Newton's apple tee. Cool
Na¸ ¡4. 2ûI0 Z:2ZAM
By the way, Hubble is beloved not only because it has taken
such great pictures, but because it's been around a long time. No
other space telescopes were designed to be serviced. You put
them up; the coolant runs out afer three years; the gyros go out
after five; they drop in the Pacifc after six. That's not enough
time for the public to warm up to these instruments, to learn what
they do and why.
Inspiration is manifested in many ways. Space itself is a catalyst.
It operates in our hearts and our souls and our minds and our
creativity. It's not just the target of a science experiment-space
is embedded in our culture. In 2004 NASA announced the
creation of a special honor, the Ambassador of Exploration award.
It's not given out every year, nor is it given out to just anyone.
The award is a small sample of the 842 pounds of rocks and soil
that have come from the Moon during America's six expeditions
there, and it is presented to honor the first generation of explorers
and to renew our commitment to expand that enterprise.
Tonight, we are honored to present the Ambassador of
Exploration award to the family of President John Fitzgerald
Kennedy. Certainly most of us remember President Kennedy's
speech to a special joint session of Congress in May 1961, in
which he declared the goal of putting an American on the Moon
within the decade. But perhaps not quite so many are familiar with
the �Moon speech" he gave the following year at the Rice
University stadium in Houston, Texas. Early in that speech, the
president mentioned that most of the total number of scientists
who had ever lived on Earth were currently alive. He then
presented the sweep of history in capsule form:
Condense, if you will. the nfy thousand years of man's recorded history In a time
span of but a half century. Stated in these ternts, we know very little about the
frst forty years, except at the end of them advanced man had leared to use the
skins of animals to cover Ihimself. Then about ten years ago, under this standard,
man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only nve years
ago man leaed to write and use a cart with wheels . . . . Te printing press came
this year. and then less than two months ago, during this whole nfy-year span of
human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power . . . . Last month
electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available.
Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power. and
now. if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have
literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
Repeatedly Kennedy spoke of the necessity of America's being
first, being the leader, doing what is hard rather than what is easy,
and he described, to an audience for whom going into space was
new and breathtaking, the multiple US space endeavors that were
already under way and the several US satellites that were already
orbiting. He didn't hesitate to announce how much money he
wanted for the space budget-
�fifty cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United
States. for we have given this program a high national priority"­
but then justified that generous funding by presenting a vivid
picture of the outcome he envisioned:
But if I were to say. my fellow citizens. that we shall send to the Moon. 240.000
miles away from the comrol station in Houston. a giant rocket more than three
hundred feet tall. the length of this football field. made of new metal alloys. some
of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several
times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision
better than the finest watch. carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion,
guidance, control. communications. food and survival. on m untried mi ssion. to
a unknown celestial body. and then retur it safely t Earth. re-entering the
atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that
of the temperature of the Sun . . . and do all this. and do it right. and do it first
before this decade is oUl-then we must be bold.
Who could remain uninspired by such words!
Íeil Armstrong, commander of Apollo 1 1 , was part of NASA
long before NASA formally existed. He was a naval aviator, the
youngest pilot in his squadron. He flew seventy-eight combat
missions during the Korean War. Neil Armstrong is someone with
firsthand experience of the Moon, someone who's had both a
bird's-eye view and a moonwalker's view of the Sea of
Tranquillity,
Some people seem to believe that we just strap the astronauts to
a rocket and fre them to the Moon. Fact is, a lot of image
reconnaissance goes into planning these journeys. For example, in
1966-67 five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft were sent to study the
Moon and photograph possible landing sites. The photograph of
what became Apollo 1 1 's landing site is now part of the Lunar
Orbiter Image Recovery Project at the NASA Ames Research
Center. Fast forward four decades, and the NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter, the LRO, returned its first images of the
Apollo 1 1 landing site, with the lunar module still sitting right
there, casting a long, distinctive shadow. LRO is the next step in
returing astronauts to the Moon-it' s a robotic scout that's
helping to find the best places to explore. Future images will be
even better. And by the way, those images are publicly available,
so you can show them to anyone who somehow continues to
believe we faked it all.
ÍASA operates on our hearts, on our minds, on the educational
pipeline-all for one-half of one cent on the tax dollar. It's
remarkable how many people think NASA's budget is bigger than
that. I want to start a movement where government agencies get
paid the budget people think they're getting, NASA's budget
would rise by a factor of at least ten.
costs Americans half a penny on a tax dollar. That fracton of a bill I snot
wide enough from the edge to reach the ink
)u!8,2ûII I ¡.05
__
That people think NASA's budget is huge is a measure of the
visibility of every NASA dollar that gets spent. An extraordinary
compliment that I wouldn't give up for anything, lest we stop
advancing in all the areas Americans have come to value in the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
For me, an interesting feature about NASA is its ten centers
scattered across the country. If you grow up near one of them, you
have either a relative or a friend who works for NASA. Working
for NASA is a point of pride in those communities, and that sense
of participation, of common journey, is something that makes this
agency an enterprise for the entire nation, not simply for the select
few.
Some engineers and administrators and other workers from the
Apollo era still work at NASA today-though likely not for much
longer. We are destined to lose them. Many, many people besides
the astronauts contributed in essential ways to the Apollo era.
Think of it as a pyramid. At the base are thousands of engineers
and scientists, laying the groundwork for the Moon voyages. As
you work your way up the pyramid, the astronauts are at the top­
the brave ones putting their lives at risk. But in doing so, they
place their trust in what the rest of that pyramid provides. And
what sustains the base of that pyramid, keeping it broad and
sturdy, is inspiration of the coming generation.
• • •
_@_[_____@__
-
@@_
HOW TO REACH THE SKY:
In daily life you rarely need to think about propulsion, at least the
kind that gets you off the ground and keeps you aloft. You can get
around just fine without booster rockets simply by walking,
running, rollerblading, taking a bus, or driving a car. All those
activities depend on fction between you (or your vehicle) and
Earth's surface.
When you walk or run, friction between your feet and the
ground enables you to push forward. When you drive, friction
between the rubber wheels and the pavement enables the car to
move forward. But try to run or drve on slick ice, where there' s
hardly any friction, and you'll slip and slide and generally
embarrass yourself as you go nowhere fast.
For motion that doesn't engage Earth' s surface, you'll need a
vehicle equipped with an engine stoked with massive quantities of
fuel. Within the atmosphere, you could use a propeller-driven
engine or a jet. both fed by fuel that burns the free supply of
oxygen provided by the air. But if you're hankering to cross the
airless vacuum of space, leave the props and jets at home and look
for a propulsion mechanism that requires no friction and no
chemical help from the air.
One way to get a vehicle to leave our planet is to point its nose
upward, aim its engine nozzles downward, and sWiftly sacrfice a
goodly amount of the vehicle's total mass. Release that mass in
one direction, and the vehicle recoils in the other. Therein lies the
soul of propulsion. The mass released by a spacecraft is hot, spent
fuel, which produces fery, high-pressure gusts of exhaust that
channel out the vehicle's hindquarters, enabling the spacecraft to
ascend.
Propulsion exploits Isaac Newton' s third law of motion, one of
the universal laws of physics: for every action, there is an equal
and opposite reaction. Hollywood, you may have noticed, rarely
obeys that law. In classic Westerns, the gunslinger stands fat�
footed, barely moving a muscle as he shoots his rifle. Meanwhile,
the ornery outlaw that he hits sails backward off his feet, landing
butt first in the feeding trough-clearly a mismatch between
action and reaction. Superman exhibits the opposite efect: he
doesn' t recoil even slightly as bullets bounce off his chest. Arold
Schwarzenegger's character the Terminator was truer to Newton
than most: every time a shotgun blast hit the cybernetiC menace,
he recoiled-a bit.
Spacecraft, however, can't pick and choose their action shots.
If they don't obey Newton's third law, they'll never get off the
ground.
1ealizable dreams of space exploration took of in the 1920s,
when the American physicist and inventor Robert H. Goddard got
a small liquid-fueled rocket engine off the ground for nearly three
seconds. The rocket rose to an altitude of forty feet and landed
180 feet from its launch site.
But Goddard was hardly alone in his quest. Several decades
earlier, around the turn of the twentieth century, a Russian
physicist named Konstantin Eduardovich TSiolkovsky, who
earned his living as a provincial high school teacher, had already
set forth some of the basic concepts of space travel and rocket
propulsion. TSiolkovsky conceived of, among other things,
multiple rocket stages that would drop away as the fuel in them
was used up, reducing the weight of the remaining load and thus
maximizing the capacity of the remaining fuel to accelerate the
craft. He also came up with the so-called rocket equation, which
tells you just how much fuel you'll need for your journey through
space.
Nearly half a century after TSiolkovky' s investigations came
the forerunner of modern spacecraft, Nazi Germany' s V-2 rocket.
The V-2 was conceived and designed for war, and was first used
in combat in 1944, principally to terrorize London. It was the frst
rocket to target cities that lay beyond its own horizon. Capable of
reaching a top speed of about 3,500 miles an hour, the V-2 could
go a few hundred miles before plummeting back to Earth's
surface in a deadly free fall from the edge of space.
To achieve a full orbit of Earth, however, a spacecraf must
travel five times faster than the V -2, a feat that, for a rocket of the
same mass as the V-2, requires no less than twenty-five times the
V-2's energy. And to escape from Earth orbit altogether and head
out toward the Moon, Mars, or beyond, the craft must reach
25,000 miles an hour. That' s what the Apollo missions did in the
1960s and 1970s to get to the Moon-a trip requiring at least
another factor of two in energy.
And that represents a phenomenal amount of fuel.
Because of TSiolkovsky' s unforgiving rocket equation, the
biggest problem facing any craft heading into space is the need to
boost �excess" mass in the form of fuel, most of which is the fuel
required to transport the fuel it will burn later in the journey. And
the spacecraft' s weight problems grow exponentially. The
multistage vehicle was invented to soften this problem. In such a
vehicle, a relatively small payload-such as the Apollo spacecraf,
an Explorer satellite, or the space shuttle-gets launched by huge,
powerful rockets that drop away sequentially or in sections when
their fuel supplies become exhausted. Why tow an empty fuel
tank when you can just dump it and possibly reuse it on another
fight?
Take the Saturn V, a three-stage rocket that launched the
Apollo astronauts toward the Moon. It could almost be described
as a giant fuel tank. The Satur V and its human cargo stood
thirty-six stories tall, yet the three astronauts returned to Earth in
an itty-bitty, one-story capsule. The first stage dropped away
about ten minutes after liftoff. once the vehicle had been boosted
off the ground and was moving at about 9,000 feet per second
(more than 6,000 miles per hour). Stage two dropped away about
ten minutes later, once the vehicle was moving at about 23,000
feet per second (almost 16,000 miles per hour). Stage three had a
more complicated life, performing several episodes of fuel
buring: the frst to accelerate the vehicle into Earth orbit, the next
to get it out of Earth orbit and head it toward the Moon, and a
couple more to slow it down so that it could pull into lunar orbit.
At each stage, the craft got progressively smaller and lighter,
which means that the remaining fuel could do more with less.
From 1981 to 201 1 , NASA used the space shuttle for missions
a few hundred miles above our planet: low Earth orbit. The shuttle
has three main parts: a stubby. airplane like "orbiter" that holds the
crew, the payload, and the three main engines; an immense
external fuel tank that holds more than half a million gallons of
self-combustible liqUid; and two "solid rocket boosters," whose
two million pounds of rubbery aluminum-based fuel generate 85
percent of the thrust needed to get the giant off the ground. On the
launchpad the shuttle weighs four and a half million pounds. Two
minutes after launch, the boosters have fnished their work and
drop away into the ocean, to be fished out of the water and reused.
Six minutes later, just before the shuttle reaches orbital speed, the
now-empty external tank drops off and diSintegrates as it reenters
Earth's atmosphere. By the time the shuttle reaches orbit. 90
percent of its launch mass has been lef behind.
shuttle tk in use until orbit -long afer atmospheric O2is available to
burn. So must carry its own O2
Na¸ ¡4.2ûI03:û3AM
Íow that you're launched. how about slowing down, landing
gently, and one day returning home? Fact is, in empty space,
slowing down takes as much fuel as speeding up.
Familiar. earthbound ways to slow down require friction. On a
bicycle. the rubber pincers on the hand brake squeeze the wheel
rm; on a car, the brake pads squeeze against the wheels' rotors,
slowing the rotation of the four rubber tires. In those cases,
stopping requires no fuel. To slow down and stop in space,
however. you must turn your rocket nozzles backward, so that
they point in the direction of motion, and ignite the fuel you've
dragged all that distance. Then you sit back and watch your speed
drop as your vehicle recoils in reverse.
To return to Earth after your cosmic excursion, rather than
using fuel to slow down, you could do what the space shuttle
does: glide back to Earth unpowered. and exploit the fact that our
planet has an atmosphere. a source of fction. Instead of using all
that fuel to slow down the craf before reentry. you could let the
atmosphere slow it down for you.
i Orbiter re-enters today. From 17.000mph to Omph i nan hour. Relies
on air resistance (aerobraklng) to slow down
Ma 9. Wll 8.30 AM
Will take 3/4 of a trip around Earth for atmosphere to drop Discovery out of the
sky R I;mr s;fplY;s H glirlPT;t KpnnPCly. FI
Ma9.Wll l0:54AM
Afer the Shuttle drops below sound speed (Mach 1) it'sjust a fat. stubby glider
coming in for a landing
Ma9. Wl l l l:51AM
Welcome home Di scovery. 39 mI ssIons. 365 days & 148.221,675 miles on the
odometer
Ma9. Wl l l t:59AM
One complication, though, is that the craft is traveling much
faster during its home stretch than it was during its launch. It's
dropping out of a seventeen-thousand-mile-an-hour orbit and
plunging toward Earth's surface, so heat and friction are much
bigger problems at the end of the journey than at the beginning.
One solution is to sheathe the leading surface of the craft in a heat
shield, which deals with the sWifty accumulating heat through
ablation or dissipation. In ablation, the preferred method for the
cone-shaped Apollo-era capsules, the heat gets carried away by
shock waves in the air and a continuously peeling supply of
vaporized material on the capsule's bottom. For the space shuttle
and its famous tiles, dissipation is the method of choice.
Unfortunately, as we all now know, heat shields are hardly
invulnerable. The seven astronauts of the Columbia space shuttle
were cremated in midair on the moring of February 1 , 2003, as
their orbiter tumbled out of control and broke apart during reentry.
They met their deaths because a chunk of foam insulation had
come loose from the shuttle' s huge fuel tank during the launch
and had pierced a hole in the leading shield that covered the left
wing. That hole exposed the orbiter' s aluminum dermis, causing it
to warp and melt in the rush of superheated air.
Íere' s a safer idea for the return trip: Why not put a flling
station in Earth orbit? When it's time for the shuttle to come
home, you attach a new set of tanks and fire them at full throttle,
backward. The shuttle slows to a crawl, drops into Earth's
atmosphere, and just fies home like an airplane. No friction. No
shock waves. No heat shields.
But how much fuel would that take? Exactly as much fuel as it
took to get the thing up there to begin with. And how might all
that fuel reach the orbiting filling station that could service the
shuttle' s needs? Presumably it would be launched there, atop
some other skyscraper-high rocket.
Think about it. If you wanted to drive from New York to
California and back again, and there were no gas stations along
the way, you'd have to tug a truck-size fuel tank. But then you'd
need an engine strong enough to pull a truck, so you'd need to buy
a much bigger engine. Then you'd need even more fuel to drive
the car. TSiolkovsky' s rocket equation eats your lunch every time.
In any case, slowing down or landing isn't only about returning
to Earth. It's also about exploration. Instead of just passing the
far-flung planets in feeting "fybys," a mode that characterzed an
entire generation of NASA space probes, the craft ought to spend
some time getting to know those distant worlds. But it takes extra
fuel to slow down and pull into orbit. Voyager 2, for instance­
launched in August 1977 -has spent its entire life coasting. After
gravity assists, first from Jupiter and then from Saturn (the gravity
assist is the poor man's propulsion mechanism) . Voyager Z flew
past Uranus in January 1986 and past Neptune in August 1989.
For a spacecraft to spend a dozen years reaching a planet and then
spend only a few hours there collecting data is like waiting two
days in line to see a rock concert that lasts six seconds. Flybys are
better than nothing, but they fall far short of what a scientist really
wants to do.
Ln Earth, a fll-up at the local gas station has become a prcey
activity. Plenty of smart scientists have spent plenty of years
inventing and developing alternative fuels that might one day see
Widespread use. And plenty of other smart scientists are doing the
same for propulSion.
The most common forms of fuel for spacecraft are chemical
substances: ethanol, hydrogen, oxygen, monomethyl hydrazine,
powdered aluminum. But unlike airplanes, which burn fuel by
drawing oxygen through their engines, spacecraft have no such
luxury; they must bring the whole chemical equation along with
them. So they carry not only the fuel but an oxidizer as well, kept
separate until valves bring them together. The ignited, high�
temperature mixture then creates high-pressure exhaust, all in the
service of Newton's third law of motion.
Bummer. Even ignoring the free "lift" a plane gets from air
rushing over its specially shaped wings, pound for pound any craft
whose agenda is to leave the atmosphere must carry a much
heavier fuel load than an airplane does. The V-2' s fuel was
ethanol and water; the Satur V' s fuel was kerosene for the frst
stage and liquid hydrogen for the second stage. Both rockets used
liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. The space shuttle's main engine,
which had to work above the atmosphere, used liquid hydrogen
and liquid oxygen.
Wouldn' t it be nice if the fuel itself carried more punch than it
does? If you weigh 150 pounds and you want to launch yourself
into space, you' ll need 150 pounds of thrust under your feet (or
spewed forth from a jet pack) just to weigh nothing. To actually
launch yourself, anything more than 150 pounds of thrust will do,
depending on your tolerance for acceleration. But wait. You'll
need even more thrust than that to account for the weight of the
unbured fuel you're carrying. Add more thrust than that, and
you'll accelerate skyward.
a fine Italian restaurant this evening. Served grappa at mears end. NASA
should study it wa replacement rocket fuel
Lec7, Z0¡û¡Z.Z7AM
The space mavens' perennial goal is to fnd a fuel source that
packs astronomical levels of energy into the smallest possible
volumes. Because chemical fuels use chemical energy, there's a
limit to how much thrust they can provide, and that limit comes
from the stored binding energies within molecules. Even given
those limitations, there are several innovative options. After a
vehicle rises ueyund EarLh's aLmusphere, prpulsiun need nuL
come from burning vast quantities of chemical fuel. In deep space,
the propellant can be small amounts of ionized xenon gas,
accelerated to enormous speeds within a new kind of engine. A
vehicle equipped with a reflective sail can be pushed along by the
gentle pressure of the Sun's rays, or even by a laser stationed on
Earth or on an orbiting platform. And within a decade or so, a
perfected, safe nuclear reactor will make nuclear propulsion
possible-the rocket designer's dream engine. The energy it
generates will be orders of magnitude more than chemical fuels
can produce,
While we're getting carried away with making the impossible
possible, what we really want is the antimatter rocket. Better yet,
we'd like to arrive at a new understanding of the universe, to
enable journeys that exploit wormhole shortcuts in the fabric of
space and time, When that happens, the sky will no longer be the
limit.
• • • CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
THE LAST DAYS OF THE SPACE
SHUTTLE
May 16, 2011: The Final Launch or Endeavour
8:29 am
If camera coverage enables, six cool things to look forjust &CConds before
ignition of the SolidRocketBoosters ..
8:30am
1) Orbiter's steering flaps jiggle back and forth -a final reminder that they can
angle the way they're supposed to
8:32 am
2) The Orbiter's 3 rocket nozzles gimbal to & fro - a fi nal reminder that they can
aim the way they're supposed to
8:33am
3) Sparks spray onto launch pad -they burn away any potentially flammable
hydrogen gathered there from the main engine
8:35am
4) Water Tower dumps a swimming-pool's worth onto the launch pad - H2O
absorbs sound vibrations, preventing damage to craft
8:37 am
5) "Main Engine Start" -Orbiter's 3 nozzles Ignite, take aim, and force shuttle to
tip forward, Bolts still hold her down
8:38am
0) ¨8 2 Lifofr SolidRocetBoostcrs igite, tipping Shuttle straight
upwards again, Bolts explode, Craft ascends
9:18am
In case you wondered: Space Shuttle Endeavour gets a British spelling because
it's named for Captain Cook's ship
June I, 2011: The Final Retur of Endeavour
1:20am
JlI�1 an FI: Tn lanrl, .�parp shlltTlp Emipavnnr mnsl lnS all lhp pnpr
g
nf mnlinn
that it gained during launch
1:30am
Shuttle now executing a "de-orbit burn" dropping its path low enough to meet
scads of motion-impeding air molecules
2:0am
A Endeavour dips into Earth's atmosphere, the surrounding air heats up,
whisking away the Shutte's energy of motion
Z:¡ûam
A Endeavour's speed slows, it drops lower in Earth's atmosphere, encountering
an ever-increasing densiy of air molecules
Z:2ûam
Protective Shuttle tiles reach thousands of degrees (Fl, persistently radiating heat
away, Shielding the astronauts within
Z:3ûam
For most of Endeavour's re-entry, it's a ballistic brick falling from the sky, Below
the speed of sound, it's aerodynamiC
Z:34am
Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle's landing strtp I 15,000 feel long, Long enough
for the brakeless Orbiter to coast to a stop
Z:35am
Welcome home Astronauts: 248 orbits, 6,510,221 miles, Well done Endeavour:
25 missions, 4671 orbits, 123,883,151 miles
9:¡ûam
Einstein's relativity shows that Endeavour astronauts moved 112000 sec into the
future during their stay in orbit
July 821, 2011: The Final Journey of Atlatis & the End of the Shuttle Era
)u¡89:o4am
Shuttle mission in the film ·Space Cowboys" was STS-200, With the launch of
Atlantis, the actual program reaches only STS-135
)u¡8Iû.25am
Space Arithmetic: Mercury ¬Gemini ¬ Apollo ¬ 10 years, Shuttle ¬ 30 years
)u¡ 8 I0.5Zam
Just an FI: Human access to space doesn'l end with the Shuttle era. only
AmerIcan access. China and RussIa still go there
)u¡ 8 II.24am
Apollo In 1969. Shuttle in 1981. Nothing in 2011. OUf space program would look
awesome 10 anyone living backwards thru time
)u¡ ZIo.4Zam
WorrIed about privatIzaton of access to Earh orbIt? Overdue by decades. NASA
needs 10 look beyond. where it belongs.
)u¡ ZIo.49am
Lament not the shuttle's end. but the absence of rockets 10 supplant it. Who shed
a tear when GemIni ended? Apollo awaited us
• • • CH^P¯LIlV ENTY-THREE
PROPULSION FOR DEEP SPACE:
Launching a spacecraft is now a routine feat of engineering.
Attach the fuel tanks and rocket boosters, ignite the chemical
fuels, and away it goes.
But today's spacecraft qUickly rns out of fuel. So, left to itself,
it cannot slow down, stop, speed up, or make serious changes in
direction. With its trajectory choreographed entirely by the gravity
fields of the Sun, the planets, and their moons, the craft can only
fly past its destination, like a fast-moving tour bus with no stops
on its itinerary-and the riders can only glance at the passing
scenery.
If a spacecraft can't slow down, it can't land anywhere without
crashing, which is not a common objective of aerospace
engineers. Lately, however, engineers have been getting clever
about fuel-deprived craft. In the case of the Mars rovers, their
stupendous speed toward the Red Planet was slowed by
aerobraking through the Martian atmosphere. That meant they
could land with the help of nothing more than heat shields,
parachutes, and airbags.
Today, the biggest challenge in aeronautics is to fnd a
lightweight and effcient means of propulsion, whose punch per
pound greatly exceeds that of conventional chemical fuels. With
that challenge met, a spacecraft could leave the launchpad with
fuel reserves onboard, and scientists could think more about
celestial objects as places to visit than as planetary peep shows.
Fortunately, human ingenuity doesn't often take no for an
answer. Legions of engineers are ready to propel us and our
robotic surrogates into deep space with a variety of innovative
engines. The most efcient among them would tap energy from a
nuclear reactor by bringing matter and antimatter into contact with
each other, thereby converting all their mass into propulsion
energy, just as Star Trek' s antimatter engines did. Some physicists
even dream of traveling faster than the speed of light by somehow
tunneling through warps in the fabric of space and time. ClJ1 11cK
didn't miss that one either: the warp drives on the starship USS
Enterprise were what enabled Captain Kirk and his crew to speed
across the galaxy during the TV commercials.
Êcceleration can be gradual and prolonged, or it can come from
a brief, spectacular blast. Only a major blast can propel a
spacecraft off the ground. You've got to have at least as many
pounds of thrust as the weight of the craf itself. Otherwise, the
thing will just sit there on the pad. Afer that, if you're not in a big
rush-and if you're sending cargo rather than crew to the distant
reaches of the solar system-there's no need for spectacular
acceleration.
In October 1998 an eight-foot-tall, half-ton spacecraft called
Deep Space 1 launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida. During its
three-year mission, Deep Space 1 tested a dozen innovative
lechnulugies, indmling a propulsiun syslem equipped wilh iun
thrusters-the kind of system that becomes useful at great
distances from the launchpad, where low but sustained
acceleration eventually yields very high speeds.
Ion-thruster engines do what conventional spacecraft engines
do: they accelerate propellant (in this case, a gas) to very high
speeds and channel it out a nozzle. In response, the engine, and
thus the rest of the spacecraft, recoils in the opposite direction.
You can do this science experiment yourself: While you're
standing on a skateboard, let loose a CO2 fire extinguisher
(purchased, of course, for this purpose). The gas will go one way;
you and the skateboard will go the other way.
But ion thrusters and ordinary rocket engines part ways in their
choice of propellant and their source of the energy that accelerates
it. Deep Space 1 used electrically charged (ionized) xenon gas as
its propellant, rather than the liquid hydrogen-oxygen combo
bured in the space shuttle' s main engine. Ionized gas is easier to
manage than explosively fammable chemicals. Plus, xenon
happens to be a noble gas, which means it won't corrode or
otherwise interact chemically with anything. For sixteen thousand
hours, using less than four ounces of propellant a day, Deep Space
1 ' s foot-wide, drum-shaped engine accelerated xenon ions across
an electric field to speeds of twenty-five miles per second and
spewed them from its nozzle. As anticipated, the recoil per pound
of fuel was ten times greater than that of conventional rocket
engines.
In space as on Earth, however, there is no such thing as a free
lunch-not to mention a free launch. Something had to power
those ion thrusters on Deep Space 1 . Some investment of energy
had to frst ionize the xenon atoms and then accelerate them. That
energy came from electricity, courtesy of the Sun.
For tourng the inner solar system, where light from the Sun is
strong, the spacecraf of tomorow can use solar panels-not for
the propulsion itself, but for the electric power needed to drive the
equipment that manages the propulsion. Deep Space 1 , for
instance, had folding solar �wings" that, when fully extended,
spanned almost forty feet-about five times the height of the
spacecraft itself. The arrays on them were a combination of 3,600
solar cells and more than seven hundred cylindrical lenses that
focused sunlight on the cells. At peak power, their collective
output was more than two thousand watts, enough to operate only
a hair dryer or two on Earth but plenty for powering the
spacecraft' s ion thrusters.
Other, more familiar spacecraft-such as the deorbited and
disintegrated Soviet space station Mir and the sprawling
Interational Space Station (ISS)-have also depended on the Sun
for the power to operate their electronics. Orbiting about 250
miles above Earth, the ISS carries more than an acre's worth of
solar panels. For about a third of every ninety-minute orbit, as
Earth eclipses the Sun, the station orbits in darkness. So by day,
some of the collected solar energy gets channeled into storage
batteries for later use during dark hours.
Although neither Deep Space 1 nor the ISS has used the Sun's
rays to propel itself, direct solar propulsion is far from impossible.
Consider the sohtr s:il. : goss:mer, somewh:t kitelikP form of
space propulsion that, once aloft, will accelerate because of the
collective thrust of the Sun's photons, or particles of light,
continually refecting off the sail's shiny surfaces. As they
bounce, the photons induce the craft to recoil. No fuel. No fuel
tanks. No exhaust. No mess. You can't get greener than that.
Having envisioned the geosynchronous satellite, Sir Arthur C.
Clarke went on to envision the solar sail. For his 1964 story �The
Wind from the Sun," he created a character who described how it
would work:
Ho!d ¡our hands ouIIoIhesun. Whal do¡ou !eeI? HeaI, o!coutse. ÐuIIhete's
gtessure as we!IIhough ¡ou`Ve neVetnoI¡ced ¡l, because ¡I`ssoL´n¡. OVetIhe
atea of¡our hands, ¡Ion!¡comesIoabouIam¡!I¡onIh of an ounce. ÐuIoul ¡n
sgace, eVeh aptessure as sma!! asIhal can be¡mgotIahI!or ¡I's acI¡nga!! Ihe
L´me,houta!Ier hout, da¡a!Ier da¡. Uh!¡kerockeI!ueI, ¡l's!reeandun!¡m¡Ied. If
wewanI lo, we can use ¡I, we can bu¡!dsa¡!sIocalchIhetad`ml¡onb!ow¡ng!tom
Ihe sun.
In the 1990s, a group of US and Russian rocket scientists who
preferred to collaborate rather than contribute to mutual assured
destruction (aptly known as MAD) began working on solar sails
through a privately funded collaboration led by the Planetary
SOCiety. The fruit of their labor, Cosmos 1 , was an engineless,
220-pound spacecraft shaped like a supersize daisy. This celestial
sailboat folded inside an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile
left over from the Soviet Union' s Cold War arsenal and was
launched from a Russian submarine. Cosmos 1 had a computer at
its center and eight refective, triangular sail blades made of
0.0002-inch-thick Mylar-much thinner than a cheap trash bag­
and reinforced with aluminum. When unfurled in space, each
blade would extend ffty feet and could be individually angled to
steer and sail the craft. Alas, the rocket engine failed little more
than a minute after launch, and the furled sail itself, apparently
still attached to the rocket, fell into the Barents Sea.
But engineers don't stop working just because their early
efforts fail. Today not only the Planetary Society but also NASA,
the US Air Force, the European Space Agency, universities,
corporations, and start-ups are enthusiastically investigating
designs and uses of solar sails. Philanthropists have come forth
with million-dollar donations. International conferences on solar
sailing now take place. And in 2010, space sailors celebrated their
community's first true success: a 650-square-foot, 0.0003-inch­
thick sail named IKAROS (Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated
by Radiation Of the Sun), designed and operated by the japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency, jAA. The sail entered solar
orbit on May 21 , fnished unfurling itself on june 1 1 , and passed
Venus on December 8. Meanwhile, the Planetary Society
anticipates a launch of its LightSail- l , and NASA is working on a
miniature demonstration craft named Nano-Sail-D, which may
point the way toward using solar sails as parachutes to tow
defunct satellites out of orbit and out of harm' s way.
So let's look on the sunny side. Having entered space, a
lightweight solar sail could, after a couple of years, accelerate to a
hundred thousand miles an hour. That' s the remarkable effect of a
low but steady acceleration. Such a craft could escape from Earth
orbit (where it was lofted by conventional rockets) not by aiming
for a destination but by cleverly angling its blades, as does a sailor
on a ship, so that it ascends to ever larger orbits around Earth.
Eventually its orbit could become the same as that of the Moon, or
Mars, or something beyond.
ObViously a solar sail would not be the transportation of choice
for anybody in a hurry to receive supplies, but it would certainly
be fuel efficient. If you wanted to use it as, say, a low-cost food­
delivery van, you could load it up with dried fruit, ready-to-eat
breakfast cereals, Twinkies, Cool Whip, and other edible items of
extremely high shelf life. And as the craft sailed into sectors
where the Sun's light is feeble, you could help it along with a
laser, beamed from Earth, or with a network of lasers stationed
across the solar system.
Speaking of regions where the Sun is dim, suppose you wanted
to park a space station in the outer solar system-at Jupiter, for
instance, where sunlight is only 1127 as intense as it is here on
Earth. If your Jovian space station required the same amount of
solar power as the completed Interational Space Station, your
panels would have to cover twenty-seven acres. So you would
now be laying solar arays over an area bigger than twenty
football fields. I think not. To do complex science in deep space,
to enable explorers (or settlers) to spend time there, to operate
equipment on the surfaces of distant planets, you must draw
energy from sources other than the Sun.
Cince the early 1960s, space vehicles have commonly relied on
the heat from radioactive plutonium as an electrical power supply.
Several of the Apollo missions to the Moon, as well as Pioneer 10
and 11 (now about ten billion miles from Earth and destined for
interstellar space), Viking 1 and 2 (to Mars) , Voyager 1 and 2
(also destined for interstellar space and, in the case of Voyager 1 ,
farther along than the Pioneers) , Ulysses (to the Sun), Cassini (to
Saturn) , and New Horizons (to Pluto and the KUiper Belt), among
others, have all used plutonium for their radioisotope
thermoelectric generators, or RTGs. An RTG is a long-lasting
source of nuclear power. Much more efcient, and much more
energetic, would be a nuclear reactor that could supply both
power and propulsion.
Nuclear power in any form, of course, is anathema to some
people. Good reasons for this view are not hard to find.
Inadequately shielded plutonium and other radioactive elements
pose great danger; uncontrolled nuclear chain reactions pose even
greater danger. And it's easy to draw up a list of proven and
potential disasters: the radioactive debris spread across northern
Canada in 1978 by the crash of the nuclear-powered Soviet
satellite Cosmos 954; the partial meltdown in 1979 at the Three
Mile Island nuclear power plant on the Susquehanna River near
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; the explosion at the Cherobyl nuclear
power plant in 1986 in what is now Ukraine; the plutonium in old
RTGs currently lying in (and occasionally stolen from) remote,
decrepit lighthouses in northwestern Russia. The failure of the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on japan's northeast
coast, struck by a 9.0 earthquake and then inundated by a horrific
tsunami in March 201 1 , renewed every fear. Citizens'
organizations such as the Global Network Against Weapons and
Nuclear Power in Space remember these and other similar events.
But so do the scientists and engineers who worked on NASA's
Project Prometheus.
Rather than deny the risks of nuclear devices, NASA turned its
attention to maximizing safeguards. In 2003 the agency charged
Project Prometheus with developing a small nuclear reactor that
could be safely launched and could power long and ambitious
missions to the outer solar system. Such a reactor was to provide
onboard power and could drive an electric engine with ion
thrusters-the same kind of propulsion tested in Deep Space 1.
To appreciate the advance of technology, consider the power
output of the RTGs that drove the experiments on the Vikings and
Voyagers. They supplied less than a hundred watts, about what
your desk lamp uses. The RTGs on Cassini do a bit better, nearly
three hundred watts: about the power required by a small kitchen
appliance. The nuclear reactor that should have emerged from
Prometheus was slated to yield ten thousand watts of usable
power for its scientific instruments, enough to drive a rock
concert.
To exploit the Promethean advance, an ambitious scientific
mission was proposed: the jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, or JIMO. Its
destinations were Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa-three of the
four moons of jupiter discovered by Galileo in 1610. (The fourth,
1O, is studded with volcanoes and is flaming hot.) The lure of the
three frigid Galilean moons was that beneath their thick crust of
ice might lie vast reservoirs of liquid water that harbor, or once
harbored, life.
Endowed with ample onboard propulsion, JIMO would do a
�flyto," rather than a flyby, of jupiter eight years after launch. It
would pull into orbit and systematically visit one moon at a time,
perhaps even deploying landers. Powered by ample onboard
electricity, suites of scientific instruments would study the moons
and send data back to Earth via high-speed broadband channels.
Besides efciency, a big attraction would be safety, both
structural and operational. The spacecraft would be launched with
ordinary rockets, and its nuclear reactor would be launched
�cold" -not until lIMO had reached escape velocity and was well
out of Earth orbit would the reactor be turned on.
Sounded good. But Prometheus/lIMO died after barely having
lived, becoming what a committee constituted by the National
Research Council's Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and
Space Engineering Board termed, in a 2008 report titled
Launching Science, a "cautionary tale. " Formally started in March
2003 as a science program, it was transferred within the year to
NASA's newly established Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate, Less than a year and a half later, in the summer of
2005, after spending nearly $464 million (plus tens of millions of
dollars simply to fund the preparation of the contractors' bids),
NASA canceled the program. Over the succeeding months, $90
million of its $1 00 million budget went for closeout costs on the
canceled contracts. All that money, and yet no spacecraft and no
scientific findings. Prometheus/lIMO thus stands, write the
authors of Launching Science, as "an example of the risks
associated with pursuing ambitious, expensive space science
missions. "
1isks, cancellations, and failures are just part of the game,
Engineers expect them, agencies resist them, accountants juggle
them. Cosmos 1 may have dropped into the sea, and
Prometheus/lIMO may have died in the cradle, but they yielded
valuable technical lessons. So, hopeful cosmic travelers have no
reason to stop trying or planning or dreaming about how to
navigate in deep space, Today's term of art is "in-space
propulsion," and plenty of people are still aVidly pursuing its
possibilities, including NASA. More efficient rockets are one
approach, and so NASA is developing advanced high-temperature
rockets. Better thrusters are another approach, and so NASA now
has the NEXT (NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster) Ion
Propulsion System, a few steps up from the system on Deep Space
1 . Then there are the aforementioned solar sails. The goals of all
of these technologies, individually and/or in combination, are to
cut down the travel time to distant celestial bodies, increase the
potential range and weight of the scientific payload, and reduce
the costs.
Someday there might be wackier ways to explore within and
beyond our solar system. The folks at NASA's now�defunct
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, for instance, were
dreaming of how to couple gravity and electromagnetism, or tap
the zero�point energ states of the quantum vacuum, or harness
superluminal quantum phenomena. Their inspiration came from
such tales as From the Earth to the Moon, by Jules Verne, and the
adventures of Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and Star Trk It's
okay to think about this sort of thing from time to time. But, in my
opinion, though it's possible not to have read enough science
fiction in one' s lifetime, it's also possible to have read too much
of it.
My favorite science�fiction engine is the antimatter drive. It's
100 percent efficient: put a pound of antimatter together with a
pound of matter, and they turn into a puff of pure energy, with no
by�products. Antimatter is real. Credit the twentieth�century
British physicist Paul A. M. Dirac for conceiving of it in 1928,
and the American physicist Carl D. Anderson for discovering it
five years later.
The science part of antimatter is fine. It's the science�fiction
part that presents a small problem. How do you store the stuff?
Behind whose spaceship cabin or under whose bunk bed would
the canister of antimatter be kept? And out of what substance
would the canister be made? Antimatter and matter annihilate
each other on contact, so keeping antimatter around requires
portable matterless containers, such as magnetiC fields shaped into
magnetic bottles. Unlike the fringe propulsion ideas, where
engineering chases the bleeding edge of physics, the antimatter
problem is ordinary physics chasing the bleeding edge of
engineering.
So the quest continues. Meanwhile, next time you're watching
a movie in which a captured spy is being questioned, think about
this: The questioners hardly ever ask about agricultural secrets or
troop movements. With an eye to the future, they ask about the
secret rocket formula, the transportation ticket to the final frontier.
•• • CH^V£RJ£N¡OLR
BALANCING ACTS:
Åhe first manned spacecraft ever to leave Earth orbit was Apollo
8. This achievement remains one of the most unappreciated firsts
of the twentieth century. When that moment arived, the
astronauts fred the third and final stage of their mighty Saturn V
rocket, and the spacecraft and its three occupants rapidly reached
a speed of nearly seven miles per second. As the laws of physics
show, just by reaching Earth orbit the astronauts had already
acquired half the energy needed to reach the Moon.
After Apollo 8' s third stage fired, engines were no longer
necessary except to tune the midcourse trajectory so that the
astronauts did not miss the Moon entirely. For most of its nearly
quarter-million-mile journey from Earth to the Moon, the
spacecraft gradually slowed as Earth' s gravity continued to out­
tug the Moon's gravity. Meanwhile, as the astronauts neared the
Moon, its force of gravit grew stronger and stronger. Obviously
there had to be a spot en route where the Moon's and Earth's
opposing forces of gravity balanced precisely. And when the
command module drifted across that point in space, its speed
increased once again, and it accelerated toward the Moon.
If gravity were the only force to be reckoned with, then that spot
would be the only place in the Earth-Moon system where the
opposing forces cancel. But Earth and the Moon revolve around a
common center of gravity, which lives about a thousand miles
beneath Earth' s surface along the length of an imaginary line
connecting the center of Earth to the center of the Moon.
When objects move in circles of any size and at any speed, they
create a new force that pushes outward, away from the center of
rotation. Your body feels this "centrifugal" force when you make
a sharp turn in your car or when you survive amusement-park
attractions that turn in circles. In a classic example of these
nausea-inducing rides, you stand along the edge of a large circular
platter, with your back against a perimeter wall. As the ride spins,
rotating faster and faster, you feel a stronger and stronger force
pinning you against the wall. It's the sturdy wall that prevents you
from being flung through the air. Soon you can't move. That's
when they drop the foor from below your feet and turn the thing
sideways and upside down. When I rode one of these as a kid, the
force was so great that I could barely move my fingers: they stuck
to the wall along with the rest of me. (If you actually got sick on
such a ride and you turned your head sideways, the vomit would
fly off at a tangent. Or it might get stuck to the wall. Worse yet, if
you didn't turn your head, it might not make it out of your mouth,
owing to the extreme centrifugal forces acting in the opposite
direction. Come to think of it, I haven' t seen this particular ride
anywhere lately.)
Centrifugal forces arise as the simple consequence of an
object's tendency to travel in a straight line after being set in
motion, and so are not true forces at all. But you can use them in
calculations as though they were, as did the brilliant eighteenth�
century French mathematician Joseph-Louis Lagrange, who
discovered spots in the rotating Earth-Moon system where the
gravity of Earth, the gravity of the Moon, and the centrifugal
forces of the rotating system all balance. These special locations
are known as the pOints of Lagrange, and there are five of them.
The first point of Lagrange (sensibly called L l) falls slightly
closer to Earth than the point of pure gravitational balance. Any
object placed at Ll can orbit the Earth-Moon center of gravity
with the same monthly period as the Moon's orbit and will appear
to be locked in place along the Earth-Moon line, Although all
forces cancel there, Ll is a point of precarious equilibrium. If the
object drifts away frm the Earth-Moon line in any direction, the
combined effect of the three forces will return it to its former
position. But if the object drifts along the Earth-Moon line ever
so slightly, it will ireversibly fall toward either Earth or the
Moon. It's like a cart atop a mountain, barely balanced, a hair's
width away from rolling down one side or the other.
The second and third Lagrangian points (L2 and L3) also lie on
the Earth-Moon line, but ÏZ lies far beyond the Moon, while L3
lies far beyond Earth in the opposite direction. Once again, the
three forces-Earth's gravity, the Moon's gravity, and the
centrifugal force of the rotating system-cancel in concert. And
once again, an object placed in either spot can orbit the Earth­
Moon center of gravity in a lunar month. The gravitational
balance points at L2 and L3 are quite broad. So if you fnd
yourself drifting down to Earth or the Moon, a tiny investment in
fuel will bring you right back to where you were.
Although Ll , LZ, and L3 are respectable space places, the
award for best Lagrangian pOints must go to L4 and L5. One of
them lives far off to one side of the Earth-Moon centerline, while
the other lives far off to the opposite side, and each of them
represents one vertex of an equilateral triangle, with Earth and the
Moon serving as the other two vertices. At L4 and L5, as with
their frst three siblings, forces are in equilibrium. But unlike the
first three Lagrangian pOints, which enjoy only unstable
equilibrium, the equilibria at L4 and Ïõ are stable. No matter
which direction you lean, no matter which direction you drif, the
forces prevent you from leaning farther, as though you were at the
bottom of a bowl-shaped crater surrounded by a high, sloped rim.
So, for both L4 and LS, if an object is not located exactly where
all forces cancel, then its position will oscillate around the point of
balance, in paths called librations. (Not to be confused with the
particular spots on Earth's surface where one's mind oscillates
from ingested libations.) These librations are equivalent to the
back-and-forth path a ball takes when it rolls down one hill yet
doesn' t pick up enough speed to climb the next.
More than just orbital curiosities, L4 and L5 represent special
areas where one might decide to establish space colonies. All you
need do is ship some raw construction materials to the area
(having mined them not only from Earth but perhaps from the
Moon or an asteroid) ; leave them in place, since there's no risk of
their drifting away; and return later with more supplies. Once
you've collected all your materials in this zero-G environment,
you could build an enormous space station-tens of miles across
-with very little stress on the materials themselves. By rotating
the station, you would induce centrifugal forces that simulate
Earth gravity for its hundreds (or thousands) of residents and their
farm animals.
In 1975, Keith and Carolyn Henson founded the L5 Society to
carry out exactly those plans, although the society is best
remembered for its informal association with Princeton physics
professor Gerard K. O' Neill, who promoted space habitation
through such visionary writings as his 1976 book The High
Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. The group had a single goal:
�to disband the Society in a mass meeting at L5." Presumably this
would be done inside the completed space habitat. during the
party celebrating their mission accomplished. In 1987 the L5
Society merged with the National Space Institute to become the
National Space Society, which continues today.
Åhe idea of locating a large structure at libration pOints appeared
as early as the early 1940s, in a series of sci-fi short stories by
George O. Smith collected under the title Venus Equilateral. In
them the author imagines a relay station at the L4 point of the
Venus-Sun system. In 1961 Arthur C, Clarke would reference
Lagrangian points in his novel A Fall of Moondust. Clarke, of
course, was no stranger to special orbits. In 1945 he became the
first to calculate, in a four-page memorandum, the altitude above
Earth's surface at which a satellite' s orbital period would exactly
match the twenty�four-hour rotation period of Earth. Because a
satellite with that orbit "hovers" over Earth' s surface, it can serve
as an ideal relay station for radio communications from one part
of Earth to another. Today, hundreds of communication satellites
do just that, at about 22,000 miles above Earth's surface.
As George O. Smith knew, there is nothing unique about the
balance pOints in the rotating Earth-Moon system. Another set of
five Lagrangian pOints exists for the rotating Sun-Earth system, as
well as for any pair of orbiting bodies anywhere in the universe.
For objects in low orbits, such as the Hubble, Earth continuously
blocks a signifcant chunk of its night-sky view. However, a
million miles from Earth, in the direction opposite that of the Sun,
a telescope at the Sun-Earth L2 will have a twenty-four-hour view
of the night sky, because it would see Earth at about the size we
see the Moon in Earth' s sky.
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP for
short), which was launched in 2001, reached the Sun-Earth L2 in
a couple of months and is still librating there, having busily taken
data on the cosmic microwave background-the omnipresent
signature of the Big Bang. And having set aside a mere 10 percent
of its total fuel, the WMAP satellite nevertheless has enough fuel
to hang around this point of unstable equilibrium for nearly a
century, long beyond its useful life as a data-taking space probe.
NASA's next-generation space telescope, the James Webb Space
Telescope (successor to the Hubble), is also being designed for
the Sun-Earth L2 point. And there' s plenty of room for yet more
satellites to come and librate, since the real estate of the Sun­
Earth L2 occupies quadrillions of cubic miles.
Another Lagrangian-loving NASA satellite, known as Genesis,
librated around the Sun-Earth Ll point. This L l lies a million
miles out between Earth and the Sun. For two and a half years,
Genesis faced the Sun and collected pristine solar matter,
including atomic and molecular particles from the solar wind­
revealing something of the contents of the original solar nebula
from which the Sun and planets formed.
Given that L4 and LS are stable pOints of equilibrium, one
might suppose that space junk would accumulate near them,
making it quite hazardous to conduct business there. Lagrange, in
fact, had predicted that space debris would be found at L4 and LS
for the gravitationally powerful Sun-Jupiter system. A century
later, in 1905, the frst members of the Trojan family of asteroids
were discovered. We now know that gathered at the L4 and L5
pOints of the Sun-Jupiter system are thousands of asteroids that
follow and lead Jupiter around the Sun, with periods that equal
one Jovian year. As though gripped by tractor beams, these
asteroids are forever held in place by the gravitational and
centrifugal forces of the Sun-Jupiter system. (These asteroids,
being stuck in the outer solar system and out of harm' s way, pose
no risk to life on Earth or to themselves.) Of course, we would
expect space junk to accumulate at L4 and L5 of the Sun-Earth
and Earth-Moon systems too. And it does.
Ês an important side benefit, interplanetary trajectories that
begin at Lagrangian points require very little fuel to reach other
Lagrangian pOints or even other planets. Unlike a launch from a
planet' s surface, where most of your fuel goes to lift you off the
ground, a Lagrangian launch would be a low-energy affair and
would resemble a ship leaving dry dock, cast into the sea with a
minimal investment of fuel. Today, instead of thinking about
establishing self-sustaining Lagrangian colonies of people and
cows, we can think of Lagrangian pOints as gateways to the rest of
the solar system. From the Sun-Earth Lagrangian points, you are
halfway to Mars-not in distance or in time but in the all �
important category of fuel consumption.
In one version of our spacefaring future, imagine flling
stations at every Lagrangian point in the solar system, where
travelers refll their rocket gas tanks en route to visit friends and
relatives living on other planets or moons. This mode of travel,
however futuristic it sounds, is not without precedent. Were it not
for the gas stations scattered liberally across the United States,
your automobile would require a colossal tank to drive coast to
coast: most of the vehicle' s size and mass would be fuel, guzzled
primarily to transport the yet-to-be-consumed fuel for your cross­
country trip. We don't travel that way on Earth. Perhaps the time
will come when we no longer travel that way through space.
• • • CH^PJLRJWN¯Y!IVL
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, D1¬1
11ÍT
In 201 1 Star Trek turned forty-five. Meanwhile, the television
signals from all its broadcast episodes continue to penetrate our
Milky Way galaxy at the speed of light. By now the first episode
of the first season, which aired for the first time on September 8,
1966, has reached forty-five light-years from Earth, having swept
past more than six hundred star systems, including Alpha
Centauri, Sirius, Vega, and an ever-growing number of lesser�
known stars around which we have confirmed the existence of
planets.
It must have been a long wait for eavesdropping aliens. Their
first encounter with Earth culture included the earliest episodes of
the Howdy loody Show and Jackie Gleason's Honeyooners.
With the arrival of Star Trek some ffteen years later, we fnally
offered extraterrestrial anthropologists something in our TV
waves that our species could be proud of.
In its many incarnations for television, film, and books, Star
Trk became the most popular science-fiction series ever. Yet if
you watch some of the original episodes, it's not hard to see how
the show got canceled after three seasons. In any case, were it not
for a million-plus letters written to NBC. the show would have
been canceled after two. The Star Trek seasons happened to
coincide with the most triumphant years (1966-69) of the space
program as well as Amerca's bloodiest years of the Vietnam War
and the most turbulent years of the civil rghts movement. Apollo
spacecraft were headed for the Moon, and the show went off the
air the same year we first stepped foot there. By the mid- 1970s,
after the final Apollo mission, America was no longer heading
back to the Moon, and the public needed to keep the dream, any
dream, alive. With a rapidly growing baseline of support, Star
Trk became more successful as reruns durng the 1970s than it
had been as a first-run show during the 1960s.
No doubt other reasons also contributed to its success. Perhaps
it was the social chemistry of the international, racially integrated
crew, which supplied television' s first interracial kiss; or the
crew' s keen sense of interstellar morality when exploring alien
cultures and civilizations; or the show's glimpse into our
technologized spacefaring future; or the indelible split infinitive in
�to boldly go where no man has gone before," spoken over the
opening credits. Or maybe it was the portrayal of risk on alien
planets, as the landing parties would persistently lose a crew
member to unforeseen dangers.
I cannot speak for all Trekkers. Especially since I do not count
myself among them, never having memorized the floor plans of
the original starship Enterprise, nor donned a Klingon mask
durng Halloween. But as someone who, then and now, maintains
a professional interest in cosmic discovery and the future
technologies that will facilitate it, I offer a few reflections on the
original show.
I am embarrassed to admit (don't tell anybody) that when I frst
saw the interor doors on the Enterprse slide open automatically
as crew members walk up to them, I was certain that such a
mechanism would not be invented durng my years on Earth. Star
Trk was taking place hundreds of years hence, and I was
observing future technology. Same goes for those incredible
pocket-size data disks they insert into talking computers. And
those palm-size devices they use to talk to one another. And that
square cavity in the wall that dispenses heated food in seconds.
Not in my century, I thought. Not in my lifetime.
Today, obviously, we have all those technologies, and we
didn't have to wait till the twenty-third century to get them. But I
take pleasure in noting that our twenty-first-century
communication and data-storage devices are smaller than those on
Star Trek. And unlike their sliding doors, which make primitive
whooshing sounds every time they move, our automatic doors are
silent.
The most gripping episodes of the original series are those in
which the solutions to challenges require a blend of logical and
emotional behavior, mixed with a bit of wit and a dash of politics.
These shows sample the entire range of human behavior. A
persistent message to the viewer is that there's more to life than
logical thinking. Even though we're watching the future, when
there are no countries, no religions, and no shortages of resources,
life remains complex: people (and aliens) still love and hate one
another, and the thirst for power and dominance remains fully
expressed across the galaxy.
Captain Kirk knows this sociopolitical landscape well, enabling
him to consistently outthink, outwit, and outmaneuver the alien
bad guys. Kirk' s interstellar savvy also enables his legendary
promiscuity with extraterrestrial women. Shapely aliens ofen ask
Kirk, in broken English, �What is kiss?" His reply is a version of
�It's an ancient human practice in which two people express how
much emotion they feel for each other." And it always requires a
demonstration.
Star Trek is not without its occasional gaffe. In one episode, the
crew must locate a stowaway bad guy. To this end, Captain Kirk
produces a clever wand that greatly enhances the sound of
people' s heartbeats onboard, no matter where they are hiding.
While demonstrating its function to his crew, Kirk confidently
declares the acoustic magnification of the device to be �one to the
eleventh power." If you do the math, you get: 1 x 1 x 1 7 1 7 1 7
1 x 1 x 1 7 1 7 1 x l , which of course equals 1. I was prepared to
blame William Shatner for fubbing his line, which should have
been �ten to the eleventh power," except that in another episode I
heard Spock make the same error, at which point I blamed the
writers.
Most people, including the producers, never realized that when
the starship Enterprise travels �slowly," with stars gently drifting
by. its speed must still be greater than one light-year per second­
or more than thirty million times the actual speed of light. If
Scotty. the chief engineer. is aware of this, surely he should be
declaring. "Captain, the engines can't take it."
To travel great distances qUickly requires the warp drives.
These are a brilliant sci-fi invention that is sufciently based on
physics to be plausible, even if technologically unforeseeable. As
when you fold a sheet of paper, the warp drives bend the space
between you and your destination, leaving you much closer than
before. Tear a hole in the fabric of space, and you can now take a
shortcut without technically exceeding the speed of light. This
trick is what allowed Captain Kirk and his Enterprise to cross the
galay briskly-a journey that would have otherwise taken a long
and boring hundred thousand years.
I have learned three of life's lessons from this series: (1) in the
end. you will be judged on the integrity of your mission. whether
or not your mission was successful; (2) you can always outsmart a
computer; and (3) never be the frst person to investigate a
glowing blob of plasma on an alien planet.
Happy anniversary, Star Trk. Live long and prosper.
•• • CH^PJ£RJW£NJY5IX
HOW TO PROVE YOU'VE BEEN
ABDUCTED BY ALIENS:
Ìo 1 believe in UFOs or extraterrestrial visitors? Where shall Ì
begin?
There' s a fascinating frailty of the human mind that
psychologists know all about, called "argument from ignorance."
This is how it goes. Remember what the "U" stands for in
"UFO"? You see lights flashing in the sky. You've never seen
anything like this before and don't understand what it is. You say,
"It's a UFO! " The "U" stands for "unidentified. "
But then you say, "I don't know what it is; it must be aliens
from outer space, visiting from another planet." The issue here is
that if you don't know what something is, your interpretation of it
should stop immediately. You don't then say it must be X or Y or
Z. That' s argument from ignorance. It's common. I' m not blaming
anybody; it may relate to our burning need to manufacture
answers because we feel uncomfortable about being steeped in
ignorance.
But you can't be a scientist if you're uncomfortable with
ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is
known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from
the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, "Scientists
now have to go back to the drawing board." It's as though we're
sitting in our ofces, feet up on our desks-masters of the
universe-and suddenly say, "Oops, somebody discovered
something! " No. We're always at the drawing board. If you're not
at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're not a
scientist; you're something else. The public, on the other hand,
seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without
hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of
absolute certainty.
Here' s something else to consider. We know-not only from
research experiments in psychology but also from the history of
science-that the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness
testimony. Which is scary, because in a court of law it's
considered one of the highest forms of evidence.
Have you all played telephone? Everybody lines up; one person
starts with a story and tells it to you; you hear it and then repeat it
to the next person; the next person then passes it along. What
happens by the time you get to the last person, who now retells the
story to everybody who' s heard it already? It's completely
different, right? That's because the conveyance of information has
relied on eyewitness testimony-or, in this case, earwitness
testimony.
So it wouldn't matter if you saw a fying saucer. In science­
even with something less controversial than alien visitors, and
even if you're one of my fellow scientists-when you come into
my lab and say, "You've got to believe me, I saw it," I'll say. "Go
home. Come back when you have some kind of evidence other
than your testimony."
Human perception is rife with ways of getting things wrong.
We don't like to admit it, because we have a high opinion of our
biology, but it's true. Here's an example: We've all seen drawings
that create optical illusions. They're lots of fun, but they should
actually be called "brain failures." That's what' s happening-a
failure of human perception. Show us a few clever drawings, and
our brains can' t figure out what' s going on. We're poor data�
taking devices. That' s why we have science; that's why we have
machines. Machines don't care what side of the bed they woke up
on in the morning; they don't care what they said to their spouses
that day; they don't care whether they had their morning caffeine.
They're emotion-free data-takers. That' s what they do.
Paybe you did see visitors from another part of the galaxy. I
need more than your eyewitness testimony, though. And in
modern times, I need more than a photograph. Today Photoshop
software probably has a UFO button. I' m not saying we haven' t
been visited; I' m saying the evidence brought forth thus far does
not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientist would
require for any other claim.
So here' s what I recommend for the next time you're abducted
into a flying saucer. You're there on the slab, where of course the
aliens do their sex experiments on you, and they're poking you
with their instruments. Here' s what you do. Yell out to the alien
who's probing you, �Hey! Look over there! " And when the alien
looks over there, you qUickly snatch something off his shelf-an
ashtray, anything-put it in your pocket. and lie back down. Then
when your encounter is over and done with, you come to my lab
and say, "Look what I stole from the flying saucer!" Once you
bring the gizmo to the lab, the issue is no longer about eyewitness
testimony, because you'll have an object of alien manufacture­
and anything you pull off a fying saucer that crossed the galaxy is
bound to be interesting.
Even objects produced by our own culture are interesting-like
my iPhone. Not long ago, the people in power might have
resurrected the witch-burning laws had I pulled this thing out. So
if we could get hold of some piece of technology that had crossed
the galaxy, then we could have a conversation about UFOs and
extraterrestrials. Go ahead, keep trying to fnd them; I won't stop
you. But get ready for the night you'll be abducted, because when
it happens, I'll want your evidence.
Pany people, including all the amateur astronomers in the
world, spend a lot of time looking up. We walk out of a building,
we look up. Doesn' t matter what' s happening, we're looking up.
Yet UFO sightings are not higher among amateur astronomers
than they are among the general public. In fact, they're lower.
Why is that so? Because we know sky phenomena. It's what we
study.
One UFO sighting in Ohio was reported by a police officer.
Some people think that if you're a sheriff or a pilot or a member
of the military, your testimony is somehow better than that of the
average person. But everyone's testimony is bad, because we're
all human. This particular police ofcer was tracking a light that
was darting back and forth in the sky. He was chasing it in his
squad car. Later it tured out that the cop was chasing the planet
Venus, and that he was drving on a curved road. He was so
distracted by Venus that he wasn' t even conscious of turning his
steerng wheel back and forth.
It's yet another reminder of how feeble our sensory organs are
-especially when we're confronted with unfamiliar phenomena,
let alone when we're trying to describe them.
• • • CH^P¯LI¯ LNJY5LVLN
THE FUTURE OF US SPACE
TRAVEL:
ÏHIB1VÍBW W11H bIB§HBH L01DBII, 1necoIoettRe¸ott
Stephen Colbert: This turns out to be the seventh time my next guest
has been on the show. One more, and he gets a free foot-long
sandwich. Please welcome Neil deGrasse Tyson. First of all, do
you have your frequent guest card?
Neil deGrase Tyon: Yes, I do.
se: Let's talk turkey here, Neil. Barack Obama intends to cancel
the Constellation program that would get us to the Moon by 2020.
In his inaugural speech, he said he was going to return science to
its rightful place. Does that tur out to be the dustbin of history?
What' s going on here, my friend?
NDT: NASA is still doing good things. That is still happening.
se: Not with men in suits, in space.
NDT: Men in space in suits is a whole other kind of enterprise.
se: That is science. That's what I was told when I was six.
NDT: That is also science. But here' s what will be missing without
the manned program. When you're a kid in school, who are your
heroes?
sc. Not Iranian space turtles, no. Neil Armstrong! Astronauts are
the supermodels of science.
NDT Yes, they are. An astronaut is the only celebrity for whom
people will line up to get their autograph without necessarily even
knowing their name in advance.
sc. We're going to lose that. We're going to lose that as
Americans.
NDT There' s some technology development in Obama's plan, and
that' s all good.
sc. Technology development: you mean robots.
NDT Yes. I don't have a problem with that.
sc. No one wants to grow up and hear a robot land and say, "This
is one small step for bleep blurt."
NDT That's right. That would be a disappointment. However, you
always want to invest in robots. The problem is, you don't want to
do that to the exclusion of the rest of the manned program. I' m
telling you, the manned program is what excites kids to want to
become scientists in the first place.
sc. OK. Now, Obama tried to put a Band-Aid on this thing, and
say, Oh, we'll still have men going to space, but we're all going to
hitch a ride with the Russkies or the Europeans. If we land on
Mars, how are we going to know if USA is number one if an
American astronaut is standing next to a French guy? Are we
going to say, "Go Earth! "? No, we're going to say, "Go USA!"
Right?
NDT I don't have a problem with hitching rides into low Earth
orbit, a couple hundred miles up.
sc. That's nothing. It's child' s play. I do that with a kite. That guy
in the lawn chair with the balloons did that.
NDT It's like New York to Boston. If Earth were a schoolroom
globe, it would be less than half an inch above the surface.
sc. If you had this view of the Earth [turns to back wall, showing a
gigantic blowup of The Blue Marble, a photograph of Earth as
seen by the Apollo 17 astronauts on their way to the Moon in
December 1972]. how far away are you?
NDT Next time you might want to display Earth with the North
Pole up.
sc: We're on the side of the Moon! There' s no up in space.
NDT That's true. He's right!
sc: There's no up in space. Check and mate; I accept your
apology. So, how far away are we here in the photograph?
NDT Almost thirty thousand miles from Earth.
sc: If you can get the rocket-and the right men [points to self­
where would you send the rocket next, my friend?
NDT I view all of space as the frontier.
sc: I view all of space as ours. But go ahead.
NDT I' d like to get close and comfortable with the next asteroid
that might hit us. One of them buzz-cut us just a couple of hours
ago.
sc: Tonight? An asteroid took a swipe at us?
NDT An asteroid the size of a house dipped between us and the
Moon's orbit. Right about there [gesturing at the photograph].
Today!
sc: So this is war. Are we in a space war, Neil?
NDT Kind of. But I also I want to go to Mars; a whole lot of folks
want to go to Mars. There's also the Moon. You get there in three
days. The next time we leave low Earth orbit, I don't want it to be
a three-year journey, with people not remembering how to do it.
Not since 1972 have we been more than a couple hundred miles
off Earth' s surface, so I want to rediscover what that's like.
sc: Neil, I share your passion for America being number one.
• • • CH^P1LRJWLNJYLICHJ
SPACE TRAVEL TROUBLES:
Listening to space enthusiasts talk about space travel or watching
blockbuster science-fiction movies might make you think that
sending people to the stars is inevitable and will happen soon.
Reality check: it's not and it won't-the fantasy far outstrips the
facts.
A line of reasoning within the ranks of the wishful might be:
�We invented flight when most people thought it was impossible.
A mere sixty-five years later, we went to the Moon. It's high time
we journeyed among the stars. People who say it isn't possible are
ignoring history. "
My rebuttal is borrowed from a legal disclaimer of the
investment industry: �Past performance is not an indicator of
future returns." When it comes to extracting really big money
from an electorate, pure science-in this case, exploration for its
own sake-doesn't rate. Yet during the 1960s, a prevailing
rationale for space travel was that space was the next frontier, that
we were going to the Moon because humans are innate explorers.
In President Kennedy' s address to a joint session of Congress on
May 25, 1961, he waxed eloquent on the need for Americans to
reach the next frontier. The speech included these oft-quoted
lines:
Ibe!¡eVe lhaI Ih¡s naI¡oh shouId comm¡l ¡lse!!lo ach¡eV¡ng lhegoa, be!ote Ihe
decade¡souI,o!!and¡ngamanohlhemoohandreIurn¡ngh¡msa!e!¡IolheeatIh
No s¡ngIe sgace gro¸ecI¡n Ih¡s get¡od v¡!! be mote ¡mptess¡Ve Io mank¡nd, ot
mote ¡mgotIanI !or Ihe !ongtange expIoraI¡on of sgace, and none v¡!I be so
d¡!!¡cu!Iorexgehs¡Vet accomg!¡sh
These words inspired the explorer in all of us and reverberated
throughout the decade. Meanwhile, nearly every astronaut was
being drawn from the military-a fact that seemed hard to
reconcile with the soaring rhetoric.
A mere month before Kennedy's speech, the Soviet cosmonaut
Yuri Gagarin had become the frst human to be launched into
Earth orbit. The Cold War was under way. the space race was on,
and the Soviet Union had not yet been bested. And in fact,
Kennedy did adopt a military posture in his speech to Congress,
just a few paragraphs before the one quoted above. But that
passage hardly ever gets cited:
If ve ate lo v¡h Ihe baIl!e IhaI I s nov go¡ng on atound Ihe vot!d beIveen
!teedom and I¡rann¡, Ihe dtamaI¡c ach¡eVemenIs ¡n sgace vh¡ch occurted ¡n
tecenIvee!sshou!dhaVemadec!earloM a!I, Ü d¡d5guln¡k¡n 1957, Ihe¡mgacI
oflh¡sadVenIure ohIhe m¡ndsofmeheVet¡vhetevho ateaIIemgl¡ngIo ma!e a
deIetm¡naI¡ohofvh¡chroadIhe¡shou!dIa!e.
Had the political landscape been different, Americans-and
Congress in particular-would have been loath to part with the 4
percent of the country's budget that accomplished the task.
Ê trip to the Moon through the vacuum of space had been in
sight, even if technologically distant. ever since 1926, when
Robert Goddard perfected liqUid-fuel rockets. This advance in
rocketry made flight pOSSible without the lift proVided by air
moving over a wing. Goddard himself realized that a trip to the
Moon was finally possible but that it might be prohibitively
expensive. "It might cost a million dollars." he once mused.
Calculations that were possible the day after Isaac Newton
wrote down his universal law of gravitation show that an efcient
trip to the Moon-in a craft escaping Earth's atmosphere at a
speed of seven miles per second, and coasting the rest of the way
-takes about three days. Such a trip has been taken only nine
times-all of them between 1968 and 1972. Other than those nine
trips, when NASA sends astronauts into "space" it launches a
crew into orbit a few hundred miles above our eight-thousand�
mile-diameter planet. Space travel this isn't.
What if you had told John Glenn, following his historic three
orbits and successful splashdown in 1962, that thirty-seven years
later NASA would send him into space again? You can bet he
would never have imagined that the best we could do would be to
send him back into low Earth orbit.
¡!we!ostthemoon?^sIto!o!kwouIdbethr¡!!ed. RomanI¡cmoon!¡In¡Ies
wreakhaVocondeegsk¡obserV¡ng
NoV I4,ZÛ¡û¡:Zolm
WhaI¡!we!ost themoon?Wewou!dneedIo!¡ndsomeIh¡nge!seuponwh¡cht
bIame!unat¡cbehaV¡or
NoV I4.ZÛ¡û¡:34lm
WhaI¡!we!ost themoon?NoecI¡pses. Nomoondances. Nowetewo!Ves.^nd
P¡1k¡!o¡d'saIbum. "Jhe Oark5¡de"
NoV I4,ZÛ¡û ¡:oI lm
WhaI¡!we!ostthemoon?J¡deswou!dbeweak!tom 5unon!¡.^ndN^5^
m¡ghIhaVe!andedhumahsonmarsb¡now
NoV I4, ZÛ¡û¡:4Zlm
Yhy all the space travel troubles?
Let's start with money. If we can send somebody to Mars for
less than $100 billion, then I say let's go for it. But I've made a
friendly bet with Louis Friedman, former executive director of the
Planetary Society (a membership-funded organization co-founded
by Carl Sagan to promote the peaceful exploration of space), that
we're not going to Mars anytime soon. More specifically, in 1996
I bet him that there would be no funded plan by any government
to send a manned mission to Mars during the following ten years.
I had hoped to lose the bet. But the only way I could have lost was
if the cost of modern missions had been brought down
considerably-by a factor of ten or more-compared with those
of the past.
I' m reminded of the legendary portait of NASA's spending
habits that has been making its way around the Web for a decade
or so. Though some details turn out to be false, the spirit is true.�
The following version was forwarded to me in the late 1990s by a
Russian colleague. Oleg Gnedin:
1£^5JRON^L¯¡£N
Our¡ngIheheatofIhespace race ¡hIhe 1 960, Ihe L5 Na ` uoha!^etohaut¡csahd
5gace ^dm`m¡suaL´oh dec¡ded ¡I heeded a ba!!go¡nI pen lo wr¡Ie ¡n Ihe zero
gtaV¡I¸ con!¡nes o! ¡Is sgace capsu!es. ^¬et cons¡derab!e teseatch ahd
deVeIogmenI Ihe ^slronauI Pen was deVe!oged aI a cosI o! aggrox¡maleI¸ $ ¡
m¡!!¡oh L5.Jhegehvotkedand a!soeh¸o¸edsomemodesIsuccessasanoVe!t¸
¡Iembackhete ohea¡Ih. ¯he 5oV¡eI Uh¡oh, facedw¡IhIhesame gtob!em, used a
genc¡!.
Unless we have a reprise of the geopolitical circumstances that
dislodged $200 billion for space travel from taxpayers' wallets in
the 1960s, I will remain unconvinced that we will ever send Homo
S'piens anywhere beyond low Earth orbit, I quote a Princeton
University colleague, ]. Richard Gott. who spoke on a panel a few
years ago at a Hayden Planetarium symposium that touched upon
the health of the manned space program: �In 1969. Wernher von
Braun had a plan to send astronauts to Mars by 1982, It didn't
happen. In 1989, President George [H. W.] Bush promised that we
would send astronauts to Mars by the year 2019. This is not a
good sign. It looks like Mars is getting farther away! "
To this I add that the most prescient prediction from the 1968
sci-fi classic 2001: A Space Odyssey is that things can go wrong.
Cpace is vast and empty beyond all earthly measure. When
Hollywood movies show a starship cruising through the galaxy,
they typically show points of light-stars-drifing past like
firefies. But the distances between stars in a galaxy are so great
that for these spaceships to move as indicated would require that
they travel at speeds half a billion times faster than the speed of
light.
The Moon is far away compared with where you might go in a
jet airplane, but it sits at the tip of our noses compared with
anything else in the universe. If Earth were the size of a
basketball, the Moon would be the size of a softball some ten
paces away-the farthest we have ever sent people into space. On
this scale, Mars at its closest is a mile away. Pluto orbits a
hundred miles away. And Proxima Centauri, the star nearest to the
Sun, is half a million miles away.
Let's assume money is no object. In this pretend future, our
noble quest to discover new places and uncover scientific truths
has become as effective as war at drumming up funds. Traveling
at sufcient speed to escape not only Earth but the entire solar
system-twenty�five miles per second will do-a trip to the
nearest star would last a long and boring thirty thousand years. A
tad too long, you say? Energy increases as the square of your
speed, so if you want to double your speed you must invest four
times as much energy. A tripling of your speed would require nine
times as much energy. No problem. Let's just assemble some
clever engineers who will build us a spaceship that can summon
as much energy as we want.
How about a spaceship that travels as fast as Helios-B, the US­
German solar probe that was the fastest-ever unmanned space
probe? Launched in 1976, it was clocked at forty-two miles per
second (more than 150,000 miles per hour) as it accelerated
toward the Sun. (Note that this is only one-fiftieth of one percent
of the speed of light.) Such a craf would cut the travel time to the
nearest star down to a mere nineteen thousand years-nearly four
times the length of recorded human history.
What we really want is a spaceship that can travel near the
speed of light. How about 99 percent of light speed? All you
would need is 700 million times the energy that thrust the Apollo
astronauts on their way to the Moon. Actually. that' s what you
would need if the universe were not described by Einstein's
special theory of relativity. But as Einstein correctly predicted,
while your speed increases, so too does your mass, forcing you to
spend even more energy to accelerate your spaceship to nearly the
speed of light. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that you
would need at least ten billion times the energy used for our Moon
voyages.
No problem. Our engineers are the best. But now we learn that
the closest star known to have planets is not Proxima Centauri but
one that is about ten light-years away. Einstein's theory of special
relativity shows that while traveling at 99 percent of the speed of
light. you will age at only 14 percent the pace of everybody back
on Earth, and so the round trip for you will last not twenty years
but about three. On Earth, however, twenty years actually do pass
by. and when you retur, everyone has forgotten about you.
The Moon's distance from Earth is ten million times greater
than the distance fown by the original Wright Flyer at Kitty
Hawk, North Carolina. That aeroplane was deSigned and built by
two brothers who ran a bicycle repair shop. Sixty-six years later,
two Apollo 1 1 astronauts became the frst moonwalkers. In their
shop. unlike the Wright brothers' , you'd find thousands of
scientists and engineers building a several-hundred-million-dollar
spacecraft. These are not comparable achievements. The cost and
effort of space travel derive not only from the vast distances to be
traveled, but also from space' s supreme hostility to life.
Pany will declare that early terrestrial explorers also had it bad.
Consider Gonzalo Pizarro' s 1540 expedition from Quito across
Peru in search of the fabled land of oriental spices. Oppressive
terrain and hostile natives ultimately led to the death of half of
Pizarro' s expedition party of more than four thousand. In his mid­
nineteenth-century account of this ill-fated adventure. Histor of
the Conquest of Peru, William H. Prescott describes the state of
the expedition party a year into the journey:
^IeVet¡ sIep o!Ihe¡r wa¡, Ihe¡were obI¡ged t hew open a passage w¡Ih Ihe¡t
axes, wh¡!e Ihe¡r gannenIs, totL`ng !rom Ihe eHecIs o! Ihe dtench¡ng ta¡ns lo
wh¡chlhe¡hadbeen exgosed, caughI¡neVet¡bushand bramb!e, andhung abouI
Ihem ¡n shreds ¯he¡r ptoV`u¡ons sgo¡Ied b¡ IheweaIher, had Iong s¡nce !aüed,
andlhe !¡Ve slock wh¡chIhe¡hadIaken w¡lh Ihemhad e¡lher been consumed ot
made lhe¡r escage ¡n Ihe woods and mounla¡n gasses. Je¡ had seI oul w¡lh
neatI¡ a Ihousand dogs, man¡ o! lhem o! Ihe !etoc¡ous bteed used ¡n hunI¡ng
downlhe un!otIunaIe naI¡Ves Jhese lhe¡now gIadI¡ k¡!!ed, buI lhe¡tm¡setab!e
carcassesfum¡sheda!eanbanqueI!orIhe!am¡shedIraVe!ers.
On the brink of abandoning all hope, Pizarro and his men built
from scratch a boat large enough to take half the remaining men
along the Napo River in search of food and supplies:
JheforesIsfurn¡shedh¡mw¡Ihl¡mber, Iheshoeso!Ihehotseswh¡chhadd¡edon
Iheroadothad beens!aughleted!orfood,weteconVetIed¡nIona¡!s, gumd¡sL¡!ed
!tom IheIrees took Ihe p!ace ofg¡Ich and IheIauered garmenIs o!Iheso!d¡ers
suggI¡ed asubsI¡IuIe !oroakum. . . ^I Ihe end o!Iwo monIhs, abt¡ganI¡newas
comg!eIed, rude!¡ puI logeIhet, bul sIrong and o!su!!¡c¡ent burden Io catr¡ha!f
Ihecompan¡.
Pizarro transferred command of the makeshif boat to Francisco
de Orellana, a cavalier from Trujillo, and stayed behind to wait.
After many weeks, Pizarro gave up on Orellana and returned to
the town of Quito, taking yet another year to get there, Later
Pizarro learned that Orellana had successfully navigated his boat
down the Napo River to the Amazon and, with no intention of
returing, had continued along the Amazon until he emerged in
the Atlantic. Orellana and his men then sailed to Cuba, where they
subsequently found safe transport back to Spain.
Does this story have any lessons for would-be star travelers?
Suppose one of our spacecraf with a shipload of astronauts crash�
lands on a distant, hostile planet. The astronauts survive, but the
spacecraft is either totaled or broken. Problem is, hostile planets
tend to be conSiderably more dangerous than hostile natives. The
planet might not have air. And what air it does have may be toxic.
If the air is not toxic, the atmospheric pressure may be a hundred
times higher than on Earth. If the atmospheric pressure is
tolerable, the air temperature may be 2000 below zero-or 2000
above zero. None of these possibilities bodes well for our
astronaut explorers.
But perhaps they could survive for a while on their reserve life­
support system. Meanwhile, all they would need to do is mine the
planet for raw materials; build another spacecraft from scratch or
repair the existing damage, which might mean having to rewire
the controlling computers (using whatever spare parts can be
mustered from the crash site) ; build a rocket-fuel factory; launch
themselves into space; and then fly back home.
Delightfully delusional.
Îerhaps what we should do is genetically engineer new forms of
intelligent life that can survive the stress of space yet still conduct
scientific experiments. Actually, such creatures have already been
made in the lab. They're called robots. You don't have to feed
them, they don't need life support, and they won't get upset if you
don't bring them back to Earth. People, on the other hand,
generally want to breathe, eat, and eventually come home.
It's probably true that no city has ever held a parade for a robot.
But it's probably also true that no city has ever held a parade for
an astronaut who wasn' t the frst (or last) to do something or go
somewhere. Can you name the two Apollo 12 or Apollo 16
astronauts who walked on the Moon? Probably not. Apollo 12
was the second lunar mission. Apollo 16 was the second-to-last.
But I'll bet you have a favorite picture of the cosmos taken by the
orbiting robot known as the Hubble Space Telescope. I'll bet you
can recall images from the rovers that have six-wheeled their way
across the rocky Martian landscape. I'll further bet that you've
seen some jaw-dropping images of the Jovian planets-the gas
giants of the outer solar system-and their zoo of moons, images
taken over the decades by the Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini space
probes.
In the absence of a few hundred billion dollars in travel money,
and in the presence of hostile cosmic conditions, what we need is
not wishful thinking and sci-fi rhetoric inspired by a cursory
reading of the history of exploration. What we need-but must
wait for, and indeed may never have-is a breakthrough in our
scientific understanding of the structure of the universe, so that we
might exploit shortcuts through the space-time continuum,
perhaps through wormholes that connect one part of the cosmos to
another. Then, once again, reality will become stranger than
fiction.
•• • CH^PLRJ£N1NIN£
REACHING FOR THE STARS:
In the months that followed space shuttle Columbia's fatal
reentry through Earth's atmosphere in February 2003, everybody
became a NASA critic. After the initial shock and mourning, no
end of journalists, politicians, scientists, engineers, policy
analysts, and ordinary taxpayers began to debate the past, present,
and future of America's presence in space.
Although I have always been interested in this subject, my tour
of duty with a presidential commission on the US aerospace
industry has further sharpened my senses and sensitivities. Amid
the occasional new arguments on the op-ed pages and TV talk
shows, the same questions roll out with every new woe in the
space program: Why send people instead of robots into space?
Why spend money in space when we need it here on Earth? How
can we get people excited about the space program again?
Yes, excitement levels are low. But lack of enthusiasm is not
apathy. In this case, the business-as-usual attitude shows that
space exploration has passed seamlessly into everyday culture, so
most Americans no longer even notice it. We pay attention only
when something goes wrong.
In the 1960s, by contrast, space was an exotic frontier­
traversed by the few, the brave, and the lucky. Every gesture
NASA made toward the heavens caused a splash in the media­
the surest evidence that space was still unfamiliar territory.
For many, particularly for NASA aficionados and everybody
employed by the aerospace industry, the 1960s were the golden
era of Amercan space exploration. A series of space missions,
each more ambitious than the one before, led to six lunar landings.
We walked on the Moon, just as we said we would. Surely Mars
was next. Those adventures sparked an unprecedented level of
public interest in science and engineering, and inspired students at
every level. What followed was a domestic boom in technology
that would shape our lives for the rest of the century.
Ê beautiful story. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we
went to the Moon because we're pioneers or explorers or selfless
discovers. We went to the Moon because Cold War politics made
it the militarily expedient thing to do.
What about discovery for its own sake? Are the scientific
returs on a manned mission to Mars inherently important enough
to justify its costs? After all, any foreseeable mission to Mars will
be long and immensely expensive. But the United States is a
wealthy nation. It has the money. And the technology is
imaginable. Those aren't the issues.
Expensive projects are vulnerable because they take a long
time and must be sustained across changeovers in political
leadership as well as through downturns in the economy.
Photographs of homeless children and unemployed factory
workers juxtaposed with images of astronauts frolicking on Mars
make a powerful case against the continued funding of space
missions.
A review of history' s most ambitious projects demonstrates
that only defense, the lure of economic return, and the praise of
power can garner large fractions of a nation's gross domestic
product. In colloqUial terms, that might read: You don't want to
die. You don't want to die poor. And if you're smart, you'll honor
those who wield authority over you. For expensive projects that
fulfll more than one of these functions, money flows like beer
from a freshly tapped keg. The 44,000 miles of US interstate
highways offer a crsp example. Inspired by Germany's
autobahns, these roads were conceived in the Eisenhower era to
move materiel and personnel for the defense of the nation. The
network is also heavily used by commercial vehicles, which is
why there' s always money for roads.
During the shuttle program the empirical rsk of death was
high. With two lost shuttles out of 135 launches, an astronaut's
chances of not coming home were 1. 5 percent. If your chances of
death were 1 . 5 percent every time you visited the Piggly Wiggly,
you would never drive your car. To the Columbia crew, however,
the return was worth that risk.
I' m proud to be part of a species whose members occasionally
and willingly put their lives at rsk to extend the boundaries of our
collective existence. Such people were the frst to see what was on
the other side of the cliff face. They were the frst to climb the
mountain. They were the first to sail the ocean. They were the first
to touch the sky. And they will be the first to land on Mars.
Åhere may be a way to keep going places, but it involves a slight
shift in what the government usually calls national defense. If
science and technology can win wars, as the history of military
conflict suggests, then instead of counting our smart bombs,
perhaps we should be counting our smart scientists and engineers.
And there is no shortage of seductive projects for them to work
on:
• We should search Mars for fossils and find out why liquid water
no longer runs on its surface.
• We should visit an asteroid or two, and learn how to deflect
them. If one is discovered headed our way, how embarassing it
would be for us big-brained. opposable-thumbed humans to
meet the same fate as 1 rx
• We should drill through the kilometers of ice on Jupiter's moon
Europa and explore the liquid ocean below for living organisms.
• We should explore Pluto and its family of icy bodies in the outer
solar system, because they hold clues to our planetary origins .
• We should probe Venus' s thick atmosphere to understand why
its greenhouse effect has gone awry. giving rise to a surface
temperature of 9000 Fahrenheit.
No part of the solar system should be beyond our reach. We
should deploy both robots and people to get there, because,
among other reasons, robots make poor field geologists. And no
part of the universe should hide from our telescopes. We should
launch them into orbit and give them the grandest vistas for
looking back at Earth and at the rest of the solar system.
With missions and projects such as those, the United States can
guarantee itself an academic pipeline bursting with the best and
the brightest astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, engineers,
geologists, and physicists. These people will collectively form a
new kind of missile silo, flled with intellectual capital. They will
be ready to come forward whenever they are called, just as the
nation' s best and brightest have always come forward in times of
need.
For the US space program to die along with the crew of the
space shuttle Columbia-because nobody is willing to write the
check to keep it gOing-would be to move backward just by
standing still.
•• • CH^P¯£R¯HIR1
AMERICA AND THE EMERGENT
SPACE POWERS-
I was born the same week NASA was founded. A few other
people were born that same year: Madonna (the second one, not
the first), Michael Jackson, the artist formerly known as Prince,
Michelle Pfeiffer, Sharon Stone. That was the year the Barbie doll
was patented and the movie The Blob appeared. And it was the
first year the Goddard Memorial Dinner was held: 1958.
I study the universe. It's the second oldest profession. People
have been looking up for a long time. But as an academic, it puts
me a little bit outside the �club." Yes, I've spent quality time in
the aerospace community, with my service on two presidential
commissions, but at heart I' m an academic. Being an academic
means I don't wield power over person, place, or thing. I don't
command armies; I don't lead labor unions. All I have is the
power of thought.
As I look around at our troubled world, I worry. Not enough
people are putting thought into what they do, Allow me to provide
a few examples.
One day I was reading the newspaper-a dangerous thing to
do, always-and I saw a headline complaining, "HALF OF
SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT SCORED BELOW AVERAGE." Well, that' s kind
of what an average is! You get about half below and half above.
Here' s another one. "EIGHTY PERCENT OF AIRPLANE CRSH
SURVIVORS LOCATED EXIT DOORS BEFORE TAKE-OFF." You might
be thinking, Okay, that's a good piece of information; from now
on, I' m going to notice where the exit doors are. But here' s the
problem with that datum: suppose 100 percent of the dead people
noticed where the exit doors were. You would never know,
because they're dead. This is the kind of fuzzy thinking that goes
on in the world today.
I've got another example. It's often said that the state lottery is
a tax on the poor, because people with low incomes spend a
disproportionate amount of their money on lottery tickets. It is not
a tax on the poor. It's a tax on the people who never studied
mathematics.
In 2002, haVing spent more than three years in one residence
for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on
time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says
to me, "I see you're an astrophysicist. What' s that?" I answer,
"Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe-the
Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing." Then he asks, "What do
you teach at Princeton?" and I say, "I teach a class on the
evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness
testimony." Five minutes later, I' m on the street.
A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the
defendant is charged with possession of 1 ,700 milligrams of
cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now
on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us
whether there are any questions we'd like to ask the court, and I
say, "Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of
1 ,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1 . 7 grams. The
'thousand' cancels with the 'milli-' and you get 1. 7 grams, which
is less than the weight of a dime." Again I' m out on the street.
Do we say, ''I'll see you in a billion nanoseconds"? Do we say,
"I live just 63,360 inches up the road"? No, we don't talk that
way. That' s mathematically fuzzy thinking. In this case, it might
even have been intentionally fuzzied.
Another area of fuzzy thinking out there is the movement
called Intelligent Design. It asserts that some things are too
marvelous or too intricate to explain. The contention is that these
things def common scientific accounts for cause and effect, and
so they're ascribed to an intelligent, purposeful designer. It's a
slippery slope.
So let's start a movement called Stupid Design, and we'll see
where that takes us. For example, what' s going on with your
appendix? It's much better at killing you than it is at anything
else. That's defnitely a stupid design. What about your pinky
toenail? You can barely put nail polish on it; there' s no real estate
there. How about bad breath, or the fact that you breathe and drink
through the same hole in your body, causing some fraction of us
to choke to death every year? And here' s my last one. Ready?
Down there between our legs, it's like an entertainment complex
in the middle of a sewage system. Who deSigned that?
Some people want to put warning stickers on biology
textbooks, saying that the theory of evolution is just one of many
theories, take it or leave it. Now, religion long predates science;
it'll be here forever. That' s not the issue. The problem comes
when religion enters the science classroom. There' s no tradition of
scientists knocking down the Sunday school door, telling
preachers what to teach. Scientists don't picket churches. By and
large-though it may not look this way today-science and
religion have achieved peaceful coexistence for quite some time.
In fact, the greatest conflicts in the world are not between religion
and science; they're between religion and religion.
This is not simply an academic point. Let's go back a
millennium. Between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1200 the intellectual center
of the Western world was Baghdad. Why? lts leaders were open
to whoever wanted to think stuff up: Jews, Christians, Muslims,
doubters. Everybody was granted a seat at the debating table,
maximizing the exchange of ideas. Meanwhile, the written
wisdom of the world was being acquired by the libraries of
Baghdad and translated into Arabic. As a result, the Arabs made
advances in farming, commerce, engineering, medicine,
mathematics, astronomy, navigation. Do you realize that two­
thirds of all the named stars in the night sky have Arabic names?
If you do something first and best, you get naming rights. The
Arabs got naming rights to the stars twelve hundred years ago
because they charted them better than anybody had done before.
They pioneered the fledgling system of Hindu numerals in the
new field of algebra, itself an Arabic word-which is how the
numerals came to be called "Arabic numerals. " "Algorithm,"
another familiar word, derives from the name of the Baghdad�
based mathematician who also gave us the basics of algebra.
So what happened? Historians will say that with the sack of
Baghdad by Mongols in the thirteenth century, the entire
nonsectarian intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed,
along with the libraries that supported it. But if you also track the
cultural and religious forces at play, you fnd that the infuential
writings of the eleventh�century Muslim scholar and theologian
AI�Ghazali shaped how Islam viewed the natural world. By
declaring the manipulation of numbers to be the work of the devil,
and by promoting the concept of Allah' s will as the cause of all
natural phenomena, Ghazali unwittingly quenched scientific
endeavor in the Muslim world. And it has never recovered, even
to this day. From 1901 to 2010, of the 543 Nobel Prize winners in
the sciences, two were Muslims. Yet Muslims comprise nearly
one�fourth of the world's population.
Today among fundamentalist Christians as well as Hassidic
Jews, there is a comparable absence. When societies and cultures
are permeated by nonsecular philosophies, science and technology
and medicine stagnate. Putting waring stickers on biology books
is bad practice. But if that's how the game is to be played, why
not demand warning stickers on the Bible: "SOME OF THESE
S
TORIES MAY
N
OT
B
E
T
RUE.
"
Cpring 2001, there I was, minding my own business amid the
manicured lawns of the Princeton University campus-and the
phone rang. It was the White House, telling me they wanted me to
join a commission to study the health of the aerospace industry.
Me? I don't know how to fy an airplane. At first I was
indifferent. Then I read up on the aerospace industry and realized
that it had lost half a million jobs in the previous fourteen years.
Something bad was going on there.
The commission's first meeting was to be at the end of
September. And then came 9/1 1 .
I live-then and now-four blocks from Ground Zero. My
front windows are right there. I was supposed to go to Prnceton
that morning, but I had some overdue wrting to finish, so I stayed
home. One plane goes in; another plane goes in. At that point,
how indifferent could I be? I had just lost my backyard to two
airplanes. Duty called. I was a changed person: not only had the
nation been attacked, so had my backyard.
I distinctly remember walking into the first meeting. There
were eleven other commissioners, in a room flled with
testosterone. Everybody occupied space. There was General this,
and Secretary of the Navy that, and Member of Congress this. It's
not as though I have no testosterone, but it's Bronx testosterone.
It's the kind where, if you get into a fight on the street, you kick
the guy's butt. This I-build-missile-systems testosterone is a
whole other kind. Even the women on the commission had it. One
had a Southern accent perfectly tuned to say, "Kiss my ass."
Another one was chief aerospace analyst for Morgan Stanley;
having spent her life as a Navy brat, she had the industry by the
gonads.
On that commission, we went around the world to see what was
influencing the situation here in Amerca. We visited China before
they put a man in space. I had in my head the stereotype of
everybody riding bicycles, but everybody was driving Audis and
Mercedes Benzes and Volkswagens. Then I went home and
looked at the labels on all my stuff; half of it was already being
made in China. Lots of our money is going there.
On our tour we visited the Great Wall, a military project. I
looked far and wide but saw no evidence of technology, just the
bricks that made the wal1. But I pulled out my cell phone anyway
and called my mother in New York. "Oh, Neil, you're home so
soon! " It was the best connection I've ever had calling her from
my cell phone. Nobody in China is going, "Can you hear me now?
Can you hear me now?" But it's happening throughout the
Northeast Corridor. Every time you get on Amtrak, the signal
goes in and out every time you pass a tree.
So when China announced, "We're going to put somebody in
orbit," sure enough, I knew it was going to happen. We all knew.
China says, "We want to put somebody on the Moon," I've got no
doubts. When they say they want to put somebody on Mars, I' m
certain of it. The thing about Mars is, it' s already red, so that
could work well for Chinese marketing and public relations.
After China we visited Star City in Russia, outside Moscow.
Star City is the center of the Russian space program. We all
crammed into the ofce of the head of the center, and halfway
through the morning he said, "Time for vodka." The glass was so
tiny that not all of my fingers fit on it, and so my pinky stuck out.
I don't think you drink vodka in Russia with your pinky sticking
out. Another faux pas: I was just tasting it, not SWilling it, because
I' m accustomed to sipping wine. So once again, I was in the
vicinity of a higher stratum of testosterone.
But the visit that really made the hair rise on the back of my
neck was to Brussels, where we met with European aerospace
planners and executives. They had just put out their twenty�year
aeronautics vision document, plus they were working on Galileo,
a satellite navigation system that competes directly with our CPS.
So we were kind of woried: what happens if they fnish Galileo,
equip European planes with it, and announce that we have to have
it to fly into European airspace? We already had an ailing industry
here, and retrofitting all our airplanes just to fly there would be an
unwelcome financial burden. As things stood, the Europeans
could use our system for free.
So, while we were trying to understand the situation, the
Europeans were sitting there looking fairly smug, especially one
particular guy. I' m pretty sure our chairs were a little lower than
theirs, because I remember looking up at them. Considering my
torso length, I should not have been looking up. And something
gelled in my head. As I said, all I have is the power of thought.
And I got livid.
Why was I livid? Because we were sitting around a table
talking about aerospace product as though it were soybeans­
what are the trade regulations, the tariffs, the restrictions; if you
do this, then we'll do that. And I' m thinking, There' s something
wrong here. Aerospace is a frontier of our technological prowess.
If you're truly on the frontier, you don't sit at a table negotiating
usage rights. You're so far ahead of everybody, you're not even
worred about what they want. You just give it to them. That' s the
posture Americans had for most of the twentieth century. In the
fifties, sixties, seventies, part of the eighties, every plane that
landed in your city was made in America. From Aerolineas
Argentinas to Zambian Airways, everybody flew Boeings. So I
got angry-not at the guy sitting across from me, but at us. I got
angry with America, because advancing is not just something you
do incrementally. You need innovation as well, so that you can
achieve revolutionary, not merely evolutionary, advances.
One day I want to take a day trip to Tokyo. That would be a
forty�five-minute ride if we go suborbital. How come we're not
doing that now? If we were, I wouldn' t have been at that table
with the smug guy talking about the Galileo positioning system.
We would already have had a pulsar navigation system, and we
just wouldn' t have cared about theirs. We would have been too far
ahead.
Co, I' m angry that aerospace has become a bargaining
commodity. Also, because I' m partly an educator, when I stand in
front of eighth-graders I don't want to have to say to them,
�Become an aerospace engineer so that you can build an airplane
that' s 20 percent more fuel efcient than the ones your parents
flew on." That won't get them excited. What I need to say is,
�BecuIIle an aerospace engineer su thaL yuu can design the airfuil
that will be the first piloted craft in the rarefed atmosphere of
Mars. " �Become a biologist because we need people to look for
life, not only on Mars but on Europa and elsewhere in the galaxy."
�Become a chemist because we want to understand more about
the elements on the Moon and the molecules in space." You put
that vision out there, and my job becomes easy, because I just
have to point them to it and the ambition rises up within them.
The flame gets lit, and they're gUided on the path.
The Bush administration's vision statement has been laid
down: the Moon, Mars, and beyond. There's been some
controversy at the edges, but it's fundamentally a sound vision.
Not enough of the public knows or understands that. But if I were
the pope of Congress, I would deliver an edict to double NASA's
budget. That would take it to around $40 billion. Well, somebody
else in town has a $30 billion budget: the National Institutes of
Health. That' s fine. They ought to have a big budget, because
health matters. But most high-tech medical equipment and
procedures-MRls, PET scans, ultrasound, X-rays-work on
principles discovered by physicists and are based on designs
developed by engineers. So you can't just fund medicine; you
have to fund the rest of what' s going on. Cross-pollination is
fundamental to the enterprise.
enI¡teha!!cenIut¡budgeIo!
@___
equa!sthecuttenIIwo¡eatbudgeto!Ihe
__
m¡I¡tat¡
)u!8,2ûIl I ¡.I6
__
What happens when you double NASA's budget? The vision
becomes big; it becomes real. You attract an entire generation,
and generations to follow, into science and engineering. You
know and I know that all emergent markets in the twenty-frst
century are going to be driven by science and technology. The
foundations of every future economy will require it. And what
happens when you stop innovating? Everyone else catches up,
your jobs go overseas, and then you C foul: Ooohh, they're
paying them less over there, and the playing field is not level.
Well, stop whining and start innovating.
Let's talk about true innovation. People often ask, If you like
spin-off products, why not just invest in those technologies
straightaway, instead of waiting for them to happen as spin-offs?
The answer: it just doesn't work that way. Let ' s say you're a
thermodynamicist, the world's expert on heat, and I ask you to
build me a better oven. You might invent a convection oven, or an
oven that' s more insulated or that permits easier access to its
contents. But no matter how much money I give you, you will not
invent a microwave oven. Because that came from another place.
It came from investments in communications, in radar. The
microwave oven is traceable to the war effort, not to a
thermodynamicist.
That's the kind of cross-pollination that goes on all the time.
And that' s why futurists always get it wrong-because they take
the current situation and just extrapolate. They don't see surprises.
So they get the picture right for about five years into the future,
and they're hopeless afer ten.
I claim that space is part of our culture. You've heard complaints
that nobody knows the names of the astronauts, that nobody gets
excited about launches, that nobody cares anymore except people
in the industry. I don't believe that for a minute. When fixing the
Hubble telescope was in doubt, the loudest protests came from the
public. When the space shuttle Columbia broke up on reentry, the
nation stopped and mourned. We may not notice something is
there. but we sure as hell notice when it's not there. That' s the
defnition of culture.
This goes deep. Last year on July 1 , the Cassini spacecraft
pulled into orbit around Saturn. There was nothing scientific about
it, just pulling into orbit. Yet the Today Show fgured that was
news enough to put the story in their first hour-not in the second
hour, along with the recipes, but in the frst twenty minutes. So
they called me in. When I get there. everybody says,
�CullgraLulaliuns! WhaL dues Lhis mean? I Lell Lhem iL' s greaL,
that we're going to study Saturn and its moons. Matt Lauer wants
to be hard-hitting, though, so he says. "But Dr. Tyson. this is a
$3.3 billion mission. Given all the problems we have in the world
today, how can you justify that expenditure?" So I say, �First of
all, it's $3.3 billion divided by twelve. It's a twelve-year mission.
Now we have the real number: less than $300 million per year.
Hmmm. $300 million. Americans spend more than that per year
on lip balm."
At that moment, the camera shook. You could hear the stage
and lighting people giggle. Matt had no rebuttal; he just stuttered
and said, �Over to you, Katie." When I exited the building, up
came a round of applause from a group of bystanders who'd been
watching the show. And they all held up their ChapSticks, saying,
�We want to go to Satur! "
The penetration is deep, and it's not just among engineers.
When you take a taxi ride in New York, you're in the back seat,
and there' s a barrier there between you and the front seat, so any
conversation between you and the driver has to pass through the
glass. On one of my recent rides the driver, a talkative guy who
couldn't have been more than twenty-three, said to me, "Wait a
minute, I think I recognize your voice. Are you an expert on the
galaxy?" So I said, "Yeah, I suppose. " And he said, "Wow, I saw
you on a program. It was the best. "
He wasn' t interested in me because of celebrity. That's a
different kind of encounter; that's people asking you where you
live and what' s your favorite color. But no. He starts asking
questions: Tell me more about black holes. Tell me more about
the galaxy. Tell me more about the search for life. We get to the
destination, I'm ready to hand him the money, and he says, �No,
keep it." This guy's twenty-three years old, with a wife and a kid
at home, and he's driving a taxi. I'm trying to pay him for the
ride, and he declines it. That's how excited he is that he could
learn about the universe.
Here' s another one. I'm walking my daughter to school, and
I'm ready to cross the street with her. A garbage truck stops right
in the crosswalk. Garbage trucks don't stop in crosswalks. This
one stops. And I'm thinking, There was a movie where a garbage
truck drove past a guy, and he wasn' t there after it passed. So this
worries me a little. Then the driver opens the door-never seen
this man in my life-and he calls out, �Dr. Tyson, how are the
planets today?" Ïwanted to go and kiss him.
Here' s my best story of all. It happened at the Rose Center for
Earth and Space, where I work. There' s a janitor there who I've
never seen haVing a conversation with anyone for the three years
he's been working there. You never know who's who at these
entry-level positions: maybe he's mute, maybe he's a little slow. I
just don't know. And then one day. out of the blue, he stops
sweeping when he catches sight of me; he stands there holding
onto his broom proudly, with posture; and he says, �Dr. Tyson, I
have a question. Do you have a minute?" I assume he's going to
ask about the employment situation, and I say, "Yeah, sure, go
ahead." Then he says, Tve been thinking. I see all these pictures
from the Hubble telescope, and I see all of these gas clouds. And I
learned that stars are made of gas. So could it be true that the stars
were made inside those gas clouds?" This is the janitor who didn't
say a word for three years, and his first sentence to me is about the
astrophysics of the interstellar medium. I ran up to my ofice,
grabbed all seven of my books, handed them to him. and said,
�Here, commune with the cosmos. You need more of this."
Py final quote of the day says it all: �There are lots of things I
have to do to become an astronaut. But frst I have to go to
kindergarten." -Cyrus Corey, age four.
If you double NASA's budget. whole legions of students will
fill the pipeline. Even if they don't become aerospace engineers,
we will have scientifically literate people coming up through the
ranks-people who might invent stuff and create the foundations
of tomorrow's economy. But that's not all. Suppose the next
terrorist attack is biological warfare? Who are we going to call?
We want the best biologists in the world. If there' s chemical
warfare. we want the best chemists. And we would have them,
because they' d be working on problems relating to Mars,
problems relating to Europa. We would have attracted those
people because the vision was in place. We wouldn' t have lost
them to other professions. They wouldn' t have become lawers or
investment bankers, which is what happened in the 1980s and
1990s.
So this $40 billion starts looking pretty cheap. It becomes not
only an investment in tomorrow' s economy but an investment in
our securty. Ou most precious asset is our enthusiasm for what
we do as a nation. Marshal it. Chersh it.
•• • CHAPJ£RJHIR¯Y ON£
DELUSIONS OF SPACE
ENTHUSIASTS:
Íuman ingenuity seldom fails to improve on the fruits of human
invention. Whatever may have dazzled everyone on its debut is
almost guaranteed to be superseded and, someday, to look quaint.
In 2000 B.C. a pair of ice skates made of polished animal bone
and leather thongs was a transportation breakthrough. In 1610
Galileo' s eight�power telescope was an astonishing tool of
detection, capable of giving the senators of Venice the power to
identify hostile ships before they could enter the lagoon. In 1887
the one�horsepower Benz Patent Motorwagen was the frst
commercially produced car powered by an internal combustion
engine. In 1946 the thirty�ton, showroom�size ENIAC, with its
eighteen thousand vacuum tubes and six thousand manual
switches, pioneered electronic computing.
Today you can glide across roadways on in�line skates, gaze at
images of faraway galaxies brought to you by spacebome
telescopes, cruise the autobahn at 170 miles an hour in a six�
hundred�horsepower roadster, and carry your three�pound,
wirelessly networked laptop to an outdoor cafe.
Of course, such advances don't just fall from the sky. Clever
people think them up. Problem is, to turn a clever idea into reality,
somebody has to write the check. And when market forces shift,
those somebodies may lose interest and the checks may stop
coming. If computer companies had stopped innovating in 1978,
your desk might still sport a hundred-pound IBM 51 1 O. If
communications companies had stopped innovating in 1973, you
might still be schlepping a two-pound, nine-inch-Iong cell phone.
And if in 1968 the US space industry had stopped developing
bigger and better rockets to launch humans beyond the Moon,
we'd never have surpassed the Saturn V rocket.
Oops!
Sorry about that. We haven't surpassed the Saturn V, the
largest, most powerful rocket flown by anybody, ever. The thirty­
six-story-tall Saturn V was the first and only rocket to launch
people from Earth to someplace else in the universe; it enabled
every Apollo mission to the Moon from 1969 through 1972, as
well as the 1973 launch of Sky lab 1 , the first US space station.
Inspired in part by the successes of the Saturn V and the
momentum of the Apollo program, visionaries of the day foretold
a future that never came to be: space habitats, Moon bases, and
Mars colonies up and running by the 1990s. But funding for the
Saturn V evaporated as the Moon missions wound down.
Additional production runs were canceled, the manufacturers'
specialized machine tools were destroyed, and skilled personnel
had to find work on other projects. Today US engineers can't even
build a Saturn V clone.
What cultural forces froze the Saturn V rocket in time and
space? What misconceptions led to the gap between expectation
and reality?
Soothsaying tends to come in two favors: doubt and delirium.
It was doubt that led skeptics to declare that the atom would never
be split, the sound barrier would never be broken, and people
would never want or need computers in their homes. But in the
case of the Saturn V rocket, it was delirium that misled futurists
into assuming the Saturn V was an auspicious beginning-never
considering that it could, instead, be an end.
��� & 158
t eend [o!| out30¡eat5gace 5huIt!egrogram BUI ¡sIhetean¡
Iechno!o_aI a!!!tom1981 IhaI¡ousI¡!! use?
)u! ZI,ZÛI¡ 5.43
__
NoUh!¡keIheSgace5huII!e,Ihe^!tog¡ck¡ousnBuse!rom 1976 doeshoI
counIÜ decadeso!dtechno!o_
)u¡¸Z5,Z0¡I4:58
¿_
Ln December 30, 1900, for its last Sunday paper of the year, the
Bro Daily Eagle published a sixteen-page supplement
headlined "THINGS WILL BE SO DIFFERENT A HUNDRED
YEARS HENCE." The contributors-business leaders, military
men, pastors, politicians, and experts of every persuasion­
imagined what housework, poverty, religion, sanitation, and war
would be like in the year 2000. They enthused about the potential
of electricity and the automobile. There was even a map of the
world-to-be, showing an Amercan Federation comprsing most of
the Wester Hemisphere from the lands above the Arctic Circle
down to the archipelago of Tierra del Fuego-plus sub-Saharan
Africa, the southern half of Australia, and all of New Zealand.
Most of the writers portrayed an expansive future. George H.
Daniels, however, a man of authority at the New York Central and
Hudson River Railroad, peered into his crystal ball and
boneheadedly predicted:
II¡s scarce!¡ goss¡b!e IhaI lheIwenI¡eIh cenIut¡ wI!! w¡Iness ¡mgtoVemenIs ¡n
ItahsgotIaI¡ohlhalw¡I!beasgreaIÜwerelhoseofIhen¡neIeenIhcenlut¡.
Elsewhere in his article, Daniels envisioned affordable global
toursm and the diffusion of white bread to China and Japan. Yet
he simply couldn't imagine what might replace steam as the
power source for ground transportation, let alone a vehicle
moving through the air. Even though he stood on the doorstep of
the twentieth century. this manager of the world' s biggest railroad
system could not see beyond the automobile. the locomotive, and
the steamship.
Three years later, almost to the day, Wilbur and Orville Wright
made the first-ever series of powered. controlled. heavier-than-air
fights. In 1957 the USSR launched the first satellite into Earth
orbit. And in 1969 two Americans became the frst human beings
to walk on the Moon.
Daniels is hardly the only person to have misread the
technological future. Even experts who aren't totally deluded can
have tunnel vision. On page 13 of the Eagle' s Sunday supplement,
the principal examiner at the US Patent Offie. W. W. Townsend,
wrote. �The automobile may be the vehicle of the decade. but the
air ship is the conveyance of the century." Sounds visionary. until
you read further. What he was talking about were blimps and
zeppelins. Both Daniels and Townsend. otherwise well-informed
citizens of a changing world, were clueless about what
tomorrow' s technology would bring.
Íven the Wright brothers were guilty of doubt about the future of
aviation. In 1901, discouraged by a summer's worth of
unsuccessful tests with a glider, Wilbur told Orville it would take
another fifty years for someone to fly. Nope: the birth of aviation
was just two years away. On the windy. chilly moring of
December 17, 1903, starting from a North Carolina sand dune
called Kill Devil Hill, Orville was the first to fy the brothers' six­
hundred-pound plane through the air. His epochal jourey lasted
twelve seconds and covered 120 feet-about the distance a child
can throw a ball.
Judging by what the mathematician. astronomer, and Royal
Society gold medalist Simon Newcomb had published just two
months earlier, the fight from Kill Devil Hill should never have
taken place when it did:
Qu¡Ie¡¡ke¡¡IheIWenl¡eIh cenIur¡¡sdesu´nedloseeIhenaIuraI IorcesWh¡chW¡¡I
enabIeusIo!¡¡Iromconl¡nenIIoco¡1unenIW¡IhasgeedIarexceed¡ngIhaIofIhe
b¡rd.
BUI wheh we ¡ngu¡re whelher aer¡a! H¡ghl ` u goss¡bIe ¡n Ihe gresenI sIale of
our khow!edge, wheIher, w¡lh such maIet¡a!s as we gossess, a comb¡naI¡on of
sIee!, c!olh ad w¡re cahbemade wh¡ch, moved b¡Ihe gover oIeIecIr¡c¡I¡ ot
sIeam, sha!! Iorm a successIu! !!¡¡ng mach¡ne, Ihe oul!ook ma¡ be a!IogeIhet
d¡IIetenI.
Some representatives of informed public opinion went even
further. The New York Times was steeped in doubt just one week
before the Wright brothers went aloft in the original Wright Flyer.
Writing on December 10, 1903-not about the Wrights but about
their illustrious and publicly funded competitor, Samuel P.
Langley, an astronomer, physicist, and chief administrator of the
Smithsonian Institution-the Times declared:
Ve hoge lhal PtoIessot Iang!e¡ w¡II noI gul h¡s subslanI¡aI greaIhess as a
sc¡enI¡sI¡nIutIher pet¡!b¡conI¡nu¡nglowasIeh¡sI¡me,ahdIhemone¡¡nVo!Ved,
¡n Iurlher a¡rsh¡p exget¡menls. I¡Ie ¡s shorI, and he ¡s cagabIe oIserv`ces lo
human¡¡¡hcomgatab!¡greaIetIhancanbe expecledIoresu!IItomu¸¡ngIo!¡
You might think attitudes would have changed as soon as
people from several countries had made their first fights. But no.
Wilbur Wright wrote in 1909 that no fying machine would ever
make the jourey from New York to Paris. Richard Burdon
Haldane, the British secretary of war, told Parliament in 1909 that
even though the airplane might one day be capable of great things,
�from the war point of view, it is not so at present. " Ferdinand
Foch, a highly regarded French military strategist and the supreme
commander of the Allied forces near the end of World War I,
opined in 1 91 1 that airplanes were interesting toys but had no
military value. Late that same year, near Tripoli, an Italian plane
became the frst to drop a bomb.
Íarly attitudes about fight beyond Earth' s atmosphere followed
a similar trajectory, True, plenty of philosophers, scientists, and
sci-fi writers had thought long and hard about outer space. The
Sixteenth-century philosopher-friar Giordano Bruno proposed that
intelligent beings inhabited an infinitude of worlds. The
seventeenth-century soldier-writer Savinien de Cyrano de
Bergerac portrayed the Moon as a world with forests, violets, and
people.
But those writings were fantasies, not blueprints for action. By
the early twentieth century, electricity, telephones, automobiles,
radios, airplanes, and countless other engineering marvels were all
becoming basic features of modern life. So couldn't earthlings
build machines capable of space travel? Many people who should
have known better said it couldn't be done, even after the
successful 1942 test launch of the world' s frst long-range ballistic
missile, the deadly V -2 rocket. Capable of punching through
Earth's atmosphere, it was a crucial step toward reaching the
Moon.
Richard van der Riet Woolley, the eleventh British Astronomer
Royal, is the source of a particularly woolly remark. When he
landed in London after a thirty-six-hour fight from Australia,
some reporters asked him about space travel. �It's utter bilge," he
answered. That was in early 1956. In early 1957 Lee De Forest, a
prolific American inventor who helped birth the age of
electronics, declared, �Man will never reach the moon, regardless
of all future scientific advances." Remember what happened in
late 1957? Not just one but two Soviet Sputniks entered Earth
orbit. The space race had begun.
Whenever someone says an idea is "bilge" (British for
"baloney"), you must first ask whether it violates any well-tested
laws of physics. If so, the idea is likely to be bilge. If not, the only
challenge is to find a clever engineer-and, of course, a
committed source of funding.
Åhe day the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, a chapter of
science fiction became science fact, and the future became the
present. All of a sudden, futurists went overboard with their
enthusiasm. The delusion that technology would advance at
lightning speed replaced the delusion that it would barely advance
at all. Experts went from having much too little confidence in the
pace of technological change to having much too much. And the
guiltiest people of all were the space enthusiasts.
Commentators became fond of twenty-year intervals, within
which some previously inconceivable goal would supposedly be
accomplished. On January 6, 1967, in a front-page story, the Wall
Street joaral announced: �The most ambitious US space
endeavor in the years ahead will be the campaign to land men on
neighboring Mars. Most experts estimate the task can be
accomplished by 1985. " The very next month, in its debut issue,
The Fatarist magazine announced that according to long-range
forecasts by the RAND Corporation, a pioneer think-tank, there
was a 60 percent probability that a manned lunar base would exist
by 1986. In The Book of Predictions, published in 1980, the rocket
pioneer Robert L. Truax forecast that fft thousand people would
be living and working in space by the year 2000. When that
benchmark year arrived, people were indeed living and working in
space. But the tally was not ffy thousand. It was three: the frst
crew of the International Space Station.
All those visionaries (and countless others) never really
grasped the forces that drive technological progress. In Wilbur
and Orville' s day, you could tinker your way into major
engineering advances. Their first airplane did not require a grant
from the National Science Foundation: they funded it through
their bicycle business. The brothers constructed the wings and
fuselage themselves, with tools they already owned, and got their
resourceful bicycle mechanic, Charles E. Taylor, to design and
hand-build the engine. The operation was basically two guys and
a garage.
Space exploration unfolds on an entirely different scale. The
first moonwalkers were two guys, too-Neil Armstrong and Buzz
Aldrin-but behind them loomed the force of a mandate from
President Kennedy, ten thousand engineers, $1 00 billion for the
Apollo program, and a Saturn V rocket.
Notwithstanding the sanitized memories so many of us have of
the Apollo era, Americans were not first on the Moon because
we're explorers by nature or because our country is committed to
the pursuit of knowledge. We got to the Moon first because the
United States was out to beat the Soviet Union, to win the Cold
War any way we could. Kennedy made that clear when he
complained to top NASA officials in November 1962:
I` mnolIhaI¡nIeresIed¡nsgace. Ilh¡nk¡I'sgood, IIh¡hkweoughIIoknowabouI
¡I, we`re read¡t spend reasonab!e amounIs ofmohe¡ Ðul we`re Ia!k¡hgabouI
IheseIanIasI¡cexgend¡Iuteswh¡chwreckourbudgeIahda!¡IheseoIhetdomesl¡c
gtogtams ahd Ihe on!¡¸usI¡!caI¡oh Ior ¡I ¡n m¡og¡n¡on Io do ¡I ¡n Ih¡s l¡me ot
Iash¡oh ¡s because we hoge lo beaI jIhe 5oV¡eI Un¡oh| and demonsIraIe IhaI
sIaru´ngbeh¡nd, aswed¡db¡acoug!e of¡eats,b¡ Cod, we passedIhem.
Like it or not, war (cold or hot) is the most powerful funding
driver in the public arsenal. Lofty goals such as curiosity,
discovery, exploration, and science can get you money for
modest-size projects, provided they resonate with the political and
cultural views of the moment. But big, expensive activities are
inherently long term, and require sustained investment that must
survive economic fluctuations and changes in the political winds.
In all eras, across time and culture, only war, greed, and the
celebration of royal or religious power have fulflled that funding
requirement. Today, the power of kings is supplanted by elected
governments, and the power of religion is often expressed in
nonarchitectural undertakings, leaving war and greed to run the
show, Sometimes those two drivers work hand in hand, as in the
art of profiteering from the art of war. But war itself remains the
ultimate and most compelling rationale.
I was eleven years old during the voyage of Apollo 1 1 and had
already identified the universe as my life' s passion. Unlike so
many other people who watched Neil Armstrong' s frst steps on
the Moon, I wasn't jubilant. I was simply relieved that someone
was fnally exploring another world. To me, Apollo 1 1 was
clearly the beginning of an era.
But I, too, was delirious. The lunar landings continued for three
and a half years. Then they stopped. The Apollo program became
the end of an era, not the beginning. And as the Moon voyages
receded in time and memory, they seemed ever more unreal in the
history of human projects.
Unlike the first ice skates or the frst airplane or the frst
desktop computer-artifacts that make us all chuckle when we see
them today-the first rocket to the Moon, the Saturn V, elicits
awe, even reverence. Saturn V relics lie in state at the Johnson
Space Center in Texas, the Kennedy Space Center in Florda, and
the US Space and Rocket Center in Alabama. Streams of
worshippers walk the rocket' s length. They touch the mighty
nozzles at the base and wonder how something so large could ever
have bested Earth's gravity. To transform their awe into chuckles,
our country will have to resume the effort to "boldly go where no
man has gone before." Only then will the Saturn V look as quaint
as every other invention that human ingenuity has paid the
compliment of improving upon.
• • • CH^¡1£RJHIR1J O
PERCHANCE TO DREAM:
Yhen I was asked to give the keynote address at this year's
Space Technology Hall of Fame dinner, I thought it was a bit odd
because I serve on the board of the Space Foundation, which is
the sponsor not only of this dinner but of this entire symposium,
and board members are not typically asked to give keynote
addresses. But this past Tuesday, when I was asked to speak, I
was assured it wasn't because someone else had canceled. So I
agreed, and then looked at the list of past speakers for this event:
Colonel Brewster Shaw, decorated astronaut; Colonel Fred
Gregory, decorated astronaut; James Albaugh, CEO, Boeing
Integrated Defense Systems; Ron Sugar, CEO, Northrop
Grumman; David Thompson, CEO, Spectrum Astra; Norm
Augustine, CEO of Lockheed Martin, chair of the AdViSOry
Committee on the Future of the US Space Program, chair of half a
dozen other associations and academies. Having looked at the list,
I realized I would be the lowest-ranking person ever to give this
keynote.
True, I've never been in the military. I' m not a general or a
colonel. I'm not anything. Maybe I'm a cadet. Generals have the
stars and the bars. But have you noticed my vest? I've got stars-
and suns and moons and planets. That would make me a space
cadet.
As long as I've been on the Space Foundation board, I've tried
to ft in. But it's hard, because my expertise is in astrophysics, and
so I hang out with academic folk. We've got our own conferences.
So every year that I come to the National Space Symposium and
tour the exhibit hall, I feel like an anthropologist researching a
trbe. I make observations that would be obvious to
anthropologists but may pass unnoticed by most of you.
For example, the generals are taller than the colonels, on
average. The colonels are taller than the majors, on average. If
you think about it. it should be the opposite-because if you're
tall, you're a bigger target on the feld. Logically, then, the higher
your rank, the smaller you would be. The generals would be really
little people. But that's not the case.
]usIaFYI: Withi n tWominute oI!!¡ghI,the5hutt!e`sa¡tspeedexceedsIhaIoIa
bu!!eIf¡redIromahMJ6assau!tr¡He
May ¡6. 20I¡s:2>AM
Also, the people who staff the booths are better looking than
the rest of us. I don't have a problem with that; I' m just making
the observation. I know there' s a sales dimension to it. But then,
what' s with the candy bowl? �Hey, there' s a missile system I
might buy-sure, give me three of those-oh, you've got bite-size
Snickers! Double my order. " How does that work? Do the sweets
bring you more sales? Somebody should check for that. Do you
get more for the M&Ms than for the Snickers? Then I thought,
Well, I could be influenced by candy, because three of the booths
actually had Milky Way candy bars. Now you're in my territory:
the galaxy.
Here' s some more anthropology: men design rockets. Even
stuff that isn't rockets is designed to look like rockets. Phalluses,
all of them. And I' m told that when you're testing rockets and
they fail on the launchpad, euphemisms like "It was an
experiment high in learning opportunities" are deployed in your
press conferences. But really it's just rockets suffering from
projectile dysfunction. That' s what it should be called: projectile
dysfunction.
So I asked myself, Would rockets look this way if women
designed them? It'sjust a question. I don't know. But I bet I know
what you're thinking. You're thinking, They have to be designed
this way because phalluses are aerodynamic. Now, rockets in the
vacuum of space don't have to be aerodynamic at all, because
there's no air. So for that phase of any rocket' s jourey, it does
not need to look like a rocket. We're together on that point.
But how about when the rocket traverses the atmosphere? I
wondered whether you could have a flying object that's
aerodynamic yet does not derve from a phallic fixation. After
exploring the problem a little further, I found a design by Philip
W. Swift that he entered in a Scientifc American paper airplane
contest in the 1960s-and here it is. Nothing phallic about it. You
could even say it has an opposite design. Now watch it fly!
Yell, there' s ten minutes of your life you'll never get back.
So let's talk politics. I' m an academic; I lord over nothing on
the landscape of people, place, or thing. But we academics, we
scientists, like to argue, because that's how the fresh ideas
surface. We hash things out, fnd a way to do the experiment
better, see what works, what doesn' t. So scientists are good at
looking at different points of view-which, to some people,
makes us look like hypocrites. We can take one point of view one
day, and another point of view the next day. But what we do is,
we take the Hypocritic Oath. We take our multiple points of view,
but-and this is something scientists all know as we argue-in the
end there's not more than one truth. So, in fact, the conversation
converges. Something you don't often get in politics.
Let me give you some examples. I was born and raised in New
York City. Politically, I' m left of liberal. That makes me really
rare at this moment in the state of Colorado, perhaps as rare as a
conservative Republican in New York City. In a crowd this large
In New York, you' d say, "See that fellow In the bow tie over In
the corner? That' s the Republican in the room."
Have you noticed how the talk shows invite one liberal and one
conservative, and they always just fght? I don't remember ever
seeing a talk show where both sides declared at the end, �Hey,
we're in full agreement, " and walked out hand in hand. It never
happens. So it makes me wonder about the utility of those
confrontations, which forces me to look in the middle. I've been
looking in the middle ever since I began serving on presidential
commissions. Those commissions are bipartisan. You have to
solve problems, even though there' s hot air over here and hot air
over there, Put those together, and it's a combustible mixture. So
you make them combust, let the effuent gases dissipate, and look
at what remains in the middle. What remains in the middle­
that' s America.
Recently I visited Disney World in Florida with my family, and
we went to see the full-size, animatronic presidents of the United
States. My kids, then ages ten and six, went in with me and we
relearned the names of every president, from George W, right on
up to George W. They're all there, While I was watching the
puppets move and speak onstage, I thought to myself, These
aren't Republicans or Democrats; these are presidents of the
United States. While every one of them was in office, something
interesting happened in America. And afer they were out of
ofce, in nearly every case, something important and lasting
remained.
When you look at all the accusations people make nowadays­
like, �Oh, you're just a peace-loving, liberal, antiwar
Democrat" -you start to wonder what it means to put all those
words together in the same phrase. We fought all of World War II
under a Democratic president, and a Democratic president
dropped the atom bombs. Being a liberal Democrat is not
synonymous with being antiwar. Circumstances change over time.
Decisions have to be made independent of your political party,
decisions that afect the health and wealth of the nation. The polls
tell us that George W. Bush has not historically been popular with
the black community. Yet who's to say that, fifty or a hundred
years from now, he won't be remembered for having appointed
American blacks to the highest ranks of the cabinet? No previous
president placed a black person into the ascension sequence for
the presidency; it was a Republican president who did it. Then
there's the perennial accusation that Republicans are anti­
environment. But when was the Environmental Protection Agency
started? Under President Nixon, a Republican.
So I see intersections across time. I see interplay. People are
qUick to criticize, and there are many reasons to do so-I
understand that-but in the end, there at Disney World are all the
presidents standing onstage, collectively defining our country.
I've got one more intersection for you-and this one isn't about
presidents. In my professional community of astrophysicists,
about 90 percent of us, plus or minus, are liberal, antiwar
Democrats. Yet practically all of our detection hardware fows out
of historical relationships with military hardware. And that
connection goes back centuries. In the early 1600s Galileo heard
about the invention of the telescope in the Netherlands-which
they used for looking in people' s windows-and he built one
himself. Almost no one had thought to look up with the telescope,
but Galileo did, and there he found the rings of Saturn, the phases
of Venus, sunspots. Then he realized, Hey, this would be good for
our defense system. So he demonstrated his instrument to the
doges of Venice, and they ordered a supply of telescopes right
then and there. Of course, they probably doubled their order when
Galileo brought out the Snickers.
By the way, when I talk about looking in the middle, I don't
mean compromising principles. I'm talking about fnding
principles that are fundamental to the identity of the nation and
then rallying around them. Our presence in space embodies one of
those principles.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again: Regardless of what
the situation occasionally looks like, space is not fundamentally
partisan. It is not even bipartisan. It is nonpartisan. Kennedy said,
�Let's go to the Moon," but Nixon's signature is on the plaques
our astronauts left there. The urge to explore space (or not) is
historically decoupled from whether you are liberal or
conservative, Democrat or Republican, lef-Wing or right-wing.
And that' s a good thing. It's a sign of what' s left over in the
middle after all the hot air cools down.
Ês Americans, we've taken certain things for granted. You don't
notice this until you go somewhere else. We're always dreaming.
Sometimes that' s bad, because we dream unrealizable things. But
most of the time it's been good. It has allowed us to think about
tomorrow. Entire generations of Americans have thought about
living a different future-a modern future-as no culture had
done before. Computers were invented in America. Skyscrapers
were born in America. It was America that not only envisioned
but also invented the new and modern Tomorrow, driven by
deSigns and innovations in science and technology.
A poor nation can't be expected to dream, because it doesn't
have the resources to enable the realization of dreams. For the
poor, dreaming just becomes an exercise in frustration, an
unaffordable luxury. But many wealthy nations don't spend
enough time looking at tomorrow either-and America needs to
guard against becoming one of those. Although we still want to
think about the future, we are in danger of becoming ill-eqUipped
to make it happen.
In 2007 I gave a talk at UNESCO's Paris headquarters, at the
celebration of Sputnik' s fiftieth anniversary. There were four
keynote speakers: one from Russia, one from India, one from the
European Union, and me, from America. Naturally the Russian
spoke frst, because Sputnik went up first. What he talked about
was what Sputnik had meant to the country-the prde, the
privilege, the excitement. He talked about how that achievement
infused what it was to be Russian.
Then came the representatives of India and the European
Union, which don't have the historcal space legacy that Russia
and America do. Today, however, they're getting into space big
time. What did their spokespeople talk about? Earth monitoring.
India wants to learn more about the monsoons, which is
completely understandable. But not once did either speaker
discuss anything beyond Earth, and I thought to myself, Okay, we
all love Earth. we all care about Earth. But do you want to do that
to the exclusion of the rest of the universe?
Space rw'�t'"
If £armwetes¡zeoIaschoo!roomgIobe, ouraImosgherewou!dn'Ibemuch
Ih¡ckerthan thecoaIoI!acgueroh¡Issur!ce
Aþr ¡9, ZûI0 6:¡3AM
The problem is, here you are looking at Earth-here' s a cloud,
there's a storm front-and meanwhile, there' s an asteroid on the
way. So you think Earth is safe until somebody else, somebody
who had the foresight to look up, tells you that the asteroid's
ready to take out your country, at which point you'll never have to
worry again about whether a storm front is coming through.
And it's not just that asteroid we should be thinking about. We
are flanked by planets that are experiments gone bad. To our left
is the planet Venus, named for the goddess of love and beauty
because it's so beautiful in the evening sky, the brightest thing up
there. (By the way, Venus is likely to appear right after sunset,
before the stars. So, just between you and me, if your wishes have
not been coming true, it's because you've been wishing on a
planet rather than a staLl Now, Venus is certainly beautiful in the
evening sky, but it's fallen victim to a runaway greenhouse efect.
It is 9000 Fahrenheit on the surface of Venus, which is sometimes
called our sister planet because it is about the same size and mass
as Earth and has about the same surface gravity. Nine hundred
degrees Fahrenheit. Uyou took a sixteen-inch pepperoni pizza and
put it on your Venusian windowsill, it would cook in nine
seconds. That's how hot it is now on Venus-a greenhouse
experiment gone bad.
To our right is Mars, at one time drenched with running water.
We know this because it has dry riverbeds, dry river deltas, dry
meandering floodplains, dry lakebeds. Today the surface water is
gone. We think it may have seeped down into permafrost, but in
any case it's gone. So something bad happened on Mars, too.
And so you can't only monitor Earth to understand Earth. You
can't claim to understand a sample of one. That is not science. In
science, you need other things to compare with your sample;
otherwise, you end up paying attention to the wrong parameters
because you think they're relevant when they may actually not be.
I'm not saying you shouldn' t study Earth. I'm saying that if you
study Earth believing it's some isolated island in the middle of the
cosmos, you are wrong. Possibly dead wrong. Fact is, we already
know of an asteroid headed our way.
`ou know all the people out there who ask why we're spending
so much money on NASA? Every time I personally hear someone
say that, I ask them, �How much do you think NASA's getting?
What fraction of your tax dollar do you think goes to NASA?"
�Oh," they say, �ten cents, twenty cents." Sometimes they even
say thirty or forty cents. And when I tell them it's not even a
dime, not even a nickel, not even a penny, they say, �I didn't
know that. I guess that' s okay." When I tell them their half penny
funded the beautiful images from the Hubble Space Telescope, the
space shuttles, the International Space Station, all the scientific
data from the inner and outer solar system and the research on the
asteroid headed our way, they change their tune. But ignorance
works its way up to people who perhaps should know better.
A principal task of Congress is to levy and spend our money.
Occasionally, people muse that some or all of NASA's budget
should go to heal the sick, feed the homeless, train the teachers, or
engage whatever social programs beckon. Of course, we already
spend money on all these things, and on countless other needs. It's
this entire portfolio of spending that defines a nation' s identity. I,
for one, want to live in a nation that values dreaming as a
dimension of that spending. Most, if not all, of those dreams
spring from the premise that our discoveries will transform how
we live.
1ecently I had a depressing revelation. It was about firsts. The
first cell phone looked like a large brick. You see it and you think,
Did people actually hold this up to their ear? Remember the 1987
movie Wal Street, with Gordon Gekko, the rich guy, at his beach
house in the Hamptons, talking on one of those phones? I
remember thinking, Wow, that' s cool! He can walk on the beach
and speak to somebody on a portable phone! But now when I look
back, all I can think is, How could anybody have ever used such a
thing?
This is the evidence that we've moved on: you look at the frst
thing-the brick-size cell phone, the car with the little crank, the
airplane that looks like a cloth-wrapped insect-and you say, �Put
it in a museum. Keep that frst internal-combustion-engine car
behind a rope, and let me drive my Maserati down the freeway. "
You look at what came frst, you comment on how cute and
quaint it is, and you move on. That' s how we should be reacting
to everything that happened frst. That' s the guarantee and the
knowledge that we have moved past it.
So why is it that every time I go to the Kennedy Space Center
and walk up to the Saturn V rocket, I am still impressed by it? I
luuk al iL and luuch iL the way lhe apes Luuched lhe IIlunuliLh in
2001. And I' m not alone there, looking apelike as I stand there
gawking. It's as though we're all thinking, How was this possible?
How did we manage to go to the Moon? Now, if you haven't been
near a Saturn V rocket lately, go check it out. It is awesome. But
why am I looking at something from the 1960s and saying it's
awesome? I want to be able to glance at the Saturn V rocket and
say, �Isn't that quaint? Look what they did back in the 1960s. But
now we've got something better. "
Yes, we're now working on that problem. It's a little late,
though. It should have happened back in the 1970s. But we all
know it stopped; I don't have to retell that story. So if you want
evidence that we're not innovating, it's when you start looking at
the past, at the firsts, and start wishing we could be that good
again. The day you find yourself saying, "Gosh, how did they do
that?" the race is over. If we don't move things forward, the rest
of the world will, leaving us to run after them, playing catch-up.
Íy the way, who moves things forward? The engineers, the
scientists, the geeks. The people who, for most of the twentieth
century, all the cool people mocked. But times have changed.
Now the patron saint of geeks is the rchest person in the world:
Bill Gates. Do you know how rich Bill Gates is? I don't think you
know, so I'm going to tell you.
I happen to have enough money so that if there' s a dime lying
on the sidewalk and I' m in a hurry, I won't bend down to pick it
up. But if I see a quarter, I stop and get it. You can do laundry
with quarters, you can put them in parking meters, plus they're
big. So, even given my net worth, I' m still picking up quarters­
but not dimes. So let's do a ratio of my net worth and what I don't
pick up to Bill Gates' s net worth and what he won't pick up. How
little would have to be lying in the street for Bill Gates to feel it
wasn' t worth bothering to pick up? Forty-five thousand dollars.
You know that passage in the Bible that says, � And the meek
shall inherit the Earth"? Always wondered if that was
mistranslated. Perhaps it actually says, "And the geek shall inherit
the Earth."
I want to get back to what it means to dream, to have a vision. To
study space, you have to ask certain questions that require new
kinds of cross-pollination among multiple fields. Right now I' m
looking for life on Mars. I need a biologist to help me. If there's
some kind of odd life on the surface, I might step on it, so bring in
the biologist. If the life exists below the soils, brng in the
geologist. If there' s an issue with the pH of the soil. bring in the
chemist. If I want to build a structure in orbit. I need to bring in
the mechanical and aerospace engineers.
Today we're all under the same tent, and we're all speaking to
one another. Today we realize that space is not simply an
emotional frontier; it is the frontier of all the sciences. So when I
stand in front of a middle-school class, I have to be able to say,
�Become an aerospace engineer because we're doing amazing
science out here on the frontier. "
You already know this. I' m preaching to the choir here. That's
why I'm proud to be part of this Space Technology Hall of Fame
family. If you're going to attract the next generation, you need
and want to be working on something big, something worth
dreaming about. because it's what defnes who we are.
If IheurIvIn_ Ch¡Ienm¡n n hetoes (raIhetthahV¡ct¡ms} IhehWhaIdo¡ou
& Ch¡IeanengneersWhosaVedIhem?
Oct ¡7, z¡07.47 AM
Maybe you're woried about scientific literacy. China has more
sCientifically literate people than America has college graduates.
What can be done about that? How do you attract people? I don't
know a bigger force of attraction than the universe magnet. I don't
twist newscasters' arms or tell them, "Do thus-and-such story on
the universe tonight." I sit in my office, minding my own
business, and the phone rings-because the universe flinched the
day before, and they want a sound bite on it. I' m responding to an
appetite that' s already there. So the issue is, do we have the drive
and the will to feed that appetite?
Wherever I travel. if strangers recognize me in the street, seven
in ten of them are working-class. I think of them as blue-collar
intellectuals. These are the people who, owing to whatever
circumstance or turn of luck, could not or did not go to college.
Yet they have stayed intellectually curious their entire lives. So
they watch the Discovery Channel; they watch National
Geographic, they watch NOVA; they want to know the answers.
And we need to harness their desire for answers so that it helps
transform the nation.
The legacy being built by the Space Technology Hall of Fame
is just the beginning. I also want us to take what I call the cosmic
perspective. It's the perspective that we can dream beyond
ourselves, beyond Earth, that we can imagine a tomorrow that's
different from today. We may not realize how rare and how
privileged it is to have thoughts of tomorrow, and so Ijust want to
ensure-through the kinds of inventions you have created,
through the proper funding of programs well into the future-that
we bequeath to our next generation the rght and the privilege to
dream. Because without that, what are we? I look at the last
several decades, at how they dreamed back then and how we
surfed along afterward, and I think: No. We're too powerful;
we're too smart; we have too many ambitious people to deny our
next generation the privilege of inventing tomorrow. And so, may
none of us ever take the power of the dream for granted.
• • • CHAI£RJHIIJYJHI££
BY THE NUMBERS:
Ye've got challenges ahead of us. They're bigger than you
might think. They're more severe than you might think. Recently I
was invited to serve on a committee for ABC' s Good Moring
Aerca. Our task was to pick a new set of the seven wonders of
the world, Why not? It's the twenty-first century; let's do it. The
resulting program would reveal one wonder of the world per day
-kind of like a striptease lasting seven days.
The original seven wonders of the world were manmade things,
but for our exercise, natural objects were allowed on the list. The
eight others on the selection committee had traveled the world,
and out came a familiar list of nature' s suspects, including the
Great Barier Reef in Australia and the Amazon River basin, My
suggestion was the Saturn V rocket. Hello! The Saturn V, frst
rocket ever to escape Earth,
When I mentioned this, they all turned and looked at me like I
had three heads. I had to be polite, because we were being filmed,
and so I gave my most impassioned plea: Saturn V was the first
rocket to leave low Earth orbit at escape velocity-25,OOO miles
an hour, seven miles a second. No other spaceship had ever taken
humans to that speed, The crowning achievement of human
engineering and ingenuity, And once again, they all looked at me,
1 was not connecting. I was not communicating. But the
conversation sparkled when canyons, waterfalls, and ice caps
were being discussed.
Then I thought, Well, let me try another plan, and 1 mentioned
the Three Gorges Dam in China, the largest engineering project in
the world, six times larger than the Hoover Dam. That category,
by the way, is no stranger to China; they've had the largest
engineering project in the world before. The Great Wall of China
was just such a plan. So they know about big projects. The other
people on the committee again tured and looked at me like I had
three heads, and said, "Don't you know the dam is devastating to
the environment?" 1 replied, "It wasn' t a prerequisite that no
humans would be harmed in the making of these seven wonders.
And in any case, that doesn' t make the largest damn dam in the
world any less of an engineering marvel."
1got outvoted on that one too.
Several months later 1 was invited back for another round: to
help pick the seven wonders of the United States of Amerca. If I
couldn't get the Saturn V listed as one of our own seven wonders,
1 told myself, 1would just pack up and move to another country­
or another planet. And yes, after some arm twisting, aggressive
posturing, and strategic horse-trading, 1 succeeded.
But this tells us that the population is simply not plugged into
what we-the space enthusiasts, the space technologists, the space
visionaries-are doing. Most of what we take for granted-what
we know to be the value of this enterprise to the security, the
financial health, and the dreams of the nation-goes unnoticed by
the public that derves daily benefits from the enterprise.
Not only that, some of them even celebrate their science
illiteracy. They're not even embarrassed by it. You've been to
cocktail parties where the humanities types are standing in a
comer chatting about Shakespeare or Salman Rushdie or the latest
Man Booker Prze winner. But if a science geek joins them and
happens to mention a qUick mental calculation, the most common
response is, "I was never good at math," followed by a collective
chuckle. Now suppose you're one of those humanities types, and
you visit the geek corner and mention some aspect of grammar.
Do you think the geeks will say, "Oh, 1 was never good at nouns
and verbs"? Of course not. Whether or not they liked their English
classes, they would never chuckle about being bad at the
language. So I see a profound inequality in what is and isn't
accepted in our collective ignorance.
I' m concerned about this kind of illiteracy. First of all, as you
know, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who
divide everyone into two kinds of people and those who don't.
But actually, there are three kinds of people in the world: those
who are good at math and those who aren' t.
Our nation is turning into an idiocracy. For example, many
people don't seem to grasp what an average is: half below and
half above. Not all children can be above average. And why is it
that three-quarters of all high-rise buildings-I've studied this­
go directly from a twelfth to a fourteenth foor? Check out their
elevators. Here we are in twenty-first-century America, and
people who walk among us fear the number thirteen. What kind of
country are we turning into? What's next-people calculating
averages for things that don't average? In a statement that's
arithmetically accurate yet biologically meaningless, the Irish
mathematician and satirist Des MacHale noted that the average
person walks around with one breast and one testicle.
The problem isn't just math. You know there' s something
wrong out there when you read the label on a bottle of Formula
409 Cleaner and it says, "Do NOJ !5£ ON CON!ACJ I£N5£5.
º
That
warning can be there only because someone tried it. As the
comedian Sarge notes in his act, Formula 409 gets scuff marks off
linoleum. If you use it to clean your contact lenses, you're too
dumb to feel it burning.
Recently I gave a talk in Saint Petersburg, r:lorida. The last
question of the night-I don't know if this person was particularly
worried about the upcoming election-was, "What would you do
if, a year from now, all the money for science and engineering
research was cut to zero, yet Congress allowed you to pick one
project you could do? What would that project beT I promptly
replied, "I would take that money, build a ship, and sail to some
other country that values investment in science. And in my
rearview mirror would be all of America moving back into the
caves, because that's what happens when you don't invest in
science and engineering. "
Åhere was a day when Americans would construct the tallest
buildings, the longest suspension bridges, the longest tunnels, the
biggest dams. You might say, "Well, those are just bragging
rights." Yes, they were bragging rights. But more important, they
embodied a mission statement about working on the frontier-the
technological frontier, the engineering frontier, the intellectual
frontier-about going places that had not been visited the day
before. When that stops, your infrastructure crumbles.
There' s a lot of talk about China these days. So lel's talk more
about it. We keep hearing about ancient Chinese remedies and
ancient Chinese inventions. But when do you hear about modern
Chinese inventions? Here are some of the things that the Chinese
achieved between the late sixth and late fifteenth centuries ^O.
They discovered the solar wind and magnetic declination. They
invented matches, chess, and playing cards. They figured out that
you can diagnose diabetes by analyzing urine. They invented the
first mechanical clock, movable type, paper money, and the
segmented-arch bridge. They basically invented the compass and
showed that magnetic north is not the same as geographic north­
a good thing to know when you're trying to navigate. They
invented phosphorescent paint, gunpowder, flares, and fireworks.
They even invented grenades. They were hugely active in
international trade over that period, discovering new lands and
new peoples.
And then, in the late 1400s, China tured insular. It stopped
looking beyond its shores. It stopped exploring beyond its then�
current state of knowledge. And the entire enterprise of creativity
stopped. That's why you don't hear people saying, "Here' s a
modern Chinese answer to that problem. " Instead they're talking
about ancient Chinese remedies. There' s a cost when you stop
innovating and stop investing and stop exploring. That cost is
severe. And it worries me deeply, because if you don't explore,
you recede into irrelevance as other nations figure out the value of
exploration.
What else do we know about China? It has nearly 1. 5 billion
people-one-fifth of the world' s population. Do you know how
big a billion is? In China it means that if you're one in a million,
there are 1 ,500 other people just like you.
Not only that, the upper quartile of China-the smartest 25
percent-outnumbers the entire population of the United States.
Lose sleep over that one. You've seen the numbers: China
graduates about half a million scientists and engineers a year; we
graduate about seventy thousand-much less than the ratio of our
populations would indicate. A talk-show host in Salt Lake City
recently asked me about those numbers, and I said, �Well, we
graduate half a million of something a year: lawers." So the guy
asked me what that says about America, and 1 said, �It tells me we
are going into the future fully prepared to litigate over the
crumbling of our infrastructure. " That's what the future of
America will be.
Êm I making this up about the infrastructure crumbling? No. In
July 2007 a steam pipe blew up in Manhattan; people were
injured; people died. The following month an eight-lane bridge
over the Mississippi River, on 1-35, collapsed in Minneapolis. In
2005 levees in New Orleans broke. What is going on? This is
what happens when you move from being a technological leader
in the world to becoming an idiocracy. Your infrastructure begins
to crumble, and you just run behind the problems, trying to fix
them after the damage occurs.
I don't want to build shelters to house people when a levee
breaks; leL' s buihl levees lhal dun'l break in Lhe fiTl place. I dun'l
want to escape from a torado; let's fgure out a way to stop the
tornado. I don't want to run away from an incoming asteroid; let's
figure out how to deflect it. These are two different mentalities.
One of them cowers in the presence of a problem; the other solves
the problem before it wreaks havoc. And the people who solve
infrastructure problems are the scientists and the engineers. I' m
tired of building shelters from things we could have prevented
from happening.
We're listening to each other, but is anybody else listening? I
don't know,
How many space people are there anyway? How many
employees does Boeing have? 150,000 worldwide. Lockheed
Martin: 125,000. Northrop Grumman: 120,000. General
Dynamics: 90,000. NASA: 18,000. Not all of the people at those
big companies are involved in space, of course, plus there are
other companies with many fewer employees. How about
membership organizations? The Planetary Society, the National
Space Society, and the Mars Society combined: maybe 100,000
people. If you add them all up-I did this exercise-there are no
more than half a million engaged in this industry in the United
States. Half a million. That' s one-sixth of one percent of the
nation' s population.
Now, here's the problem. We get viewed as though we're some
kind of speCial interest group, so let's compare ourselves with
other special interest groups. How about the NRA? More than
four million members. Who' s got a million members, twice as
many as all the Americans who work in the aerospace industry?
The Hannah Montana Fan Club. The Benevolent & Protective
Order of Elks of the USA. The Arbor Day Foundation. A million
children are home-schooled in America. A million people belong
to gangs in America. As far as speCial interests go, we're way
down on the list of groups to pay attention to-unless we can get
the message out that what we do is fundamental to the identity of
America.
Let' s talk budgets for a minute. I like talking about budgets.
NASA's budget, depending on which year you're talking about. is
about half a penny on the tax dollar.
USbankba¡!ouIexceededtheha!fcentu¡!¡Iet¡mebudgeIoINA5A
}el8,20¡¡ ¡ l.IuAM
Many people try to justify NASA by its spin-offs-although I
think we've fnally let go of the Tang reference, Of course we've
got spin-offs, as every year's inductees to the Space Technology
Hall of Fame testify. NASA also exerts direct and indirect
economic impact in every community where it does business. Its
presence has fostered educated communities. Meanwhile, salaries
get paid. Goods and services get purchased. Sum up the economic
impact, and NASA is net positive. Yet none of this fully captures
the soul of NASA's mission.
Something else captures it, though, something that's rarely
talked about: the sheer joy of exploration and discovery. Not all
countries ofer their citizens this possibility. People living in poor
countries are reduced to the three biological imperatives: the
search for food, shelter, and sex. Ignore those basic requirements,
and you'll go extinct. But in wealthy nations, we can go beyond
the basics. We have time to refect on our place in the cosmos. We
might think of this as a luxury, but it's not. The way I see it,
exploration and discovery fully express the biological imperative
of our brain. To deny these yearnings is a travesty of nature.
Space knowledge is one of the fruits of using our brain. So are
numbers. I like numbers, especially big numbers. I don't think
most people have a feeling for how big the big numbers are. What
do we call things that are big? We call them astronomical:
astronomical debt, astronomical salaries. The universe deals in big
numbers, and I want to share some of them with you.
Let' s start out small, just to get warmed up. How about the
number " 1 "? We understand the number " 1 . " Go up by a power of
a thousand, and we get to 1,000. That's another number we
understand. Go up by another power of a thousand, and we get to
1 ,000,000. A million. Now we're getting to the populations of
large cities. Eight of those live in New York City. Eight million
people. Go up by another power of a thousand, and you get to
1 ,000,000,000. A billion. You know how big a billion is? I' m
going to tell you.
��� �� !¡vem?J¡meVarherCab!e. CJVCabIe¸NYC. 750 chanhe!s.
..... o: . . Iahgges. NoheoIIhemNA5AJV
McDonald's has sold a lot of hamburgers, so many that they've
lost count. Just between friends, let's call it 100,000,000,000-a
hundred billion. Do you know how many hamburgers that is? If
you start in Colorado Springs and lay them end to end going due
west, you'll get to Los Angeles, float across the Pacific, get to
Japan, go across Asia and Europe and the Atlantic Ocean, come
back to Washington, DC, and keep going. You'll get right back to
Colorado Springs on your 100,000,000,000 hamburgers-ffty­
two times over, in fact. By the way, I did this calculation based on
the bun. It's a bun calculation: fifty�two times around the planet.
By itself, the patty won't stretch as far. Then if you want to stack
the lefover burgers, you can make a stack high enough to reach
the Moon and back. That' s a hundred billion for you.
Back to a billion. Anybody out there who's thirty-one years
old? In this year of your life, you'll live your billionth second. It's
the second that follows 259 days, one hour, forty-six minutes, and
forty seconds (minus, of course, all the leap days and leap seconds
of your life.) Most people celebrate their birthday. I celebrated my
birth second-my billionth second-with a bottle of champagne.
I' d be happy to recommend some champagne for the occasion.
But you'll have to drnk it real quick, because you've got only one
second to celebrate.
Let's go up by another power of a thousand, to a trllion:
1 ,000,000,000,000. A ´ I with twelve zeroes. You cannot count
to a trillion. If you counted one number per second, as I just
mentioned, it would take you thirty-one years to count to a billion.
How long would it take you to count to a trillion? A thousand
times longer-thirty-one thousand years. So don't even try it.
Thirty-one thousand years ago, cave dwellers were making rock
art in Australia and carving small, thick-thighed female figurines
in Central Europe.
Now go up another power of a thousand, to the � 1 " with ffteen
zeroes. Now we're at quadrillion. The estimated number of
sounds and words ever uttered by all humans who have ever lived
is a hundred quadrillion. That includes Congressional flibusters.
They're part of the tally,
Up another power of a thousand: � 1 " with eighteen zeroes.
That' s quintillion, the average number of grains of sand on a
beach-even the sand that comes home with you in your bathing
suit. I counted that too.
Up yet another factor of a thousand: � 1 " with twenty-one
zeroes. That is the number of stars in the observable universe.
Sextillion stars. If you came in here with a big ego, it won't play
well with that number. Consider our neighbor, the Andromeda
galaxy, which is kind of like a twin of ours; within its fuzzy cloud
system is the puddled light of hundreds of billions of stars. When
you look farther, courtesy of the Hubble Space Telescope, you see
nothing but these systems, every Single one of them appearing as a
smudge. Every smudge is a full red-blooded galaxy, kin to
Andromeda, containing its own hundreds of billions of stars.
Getting a taste of cosmic scale makes you feel small only if your
ego is unjustifiably large to begin with.
In all of these galaxies, there are stars of a particular kind that
manufacture heavy elements in their core and then explode,
spreading their enriched contents across the galaxy-carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and on down the periodic table of
elements. These elements enrich the gas clouds that birth the next
generation of stars and their associated planets, and on those
planets are the ingredients of life Itself, which match, one for one,
the ingredients of the universe.
The number-one element in the universe is hydrogen; so, too, it
is number one in the human body. Among other places, you fnd it
in the water molecule, H20. Next most common in the universe is
helium: chemically inert, and thus not useful to the human body.
Inhaling it makes a good party trick, but it's not chemically useful
to life. Next on the cosmic list is oxygen; next in the human body
and all life on Earth is oxygen. Carbon comes next in the
universe; carbon comes next in life. It's a hugely fertile element.
We ourselves are carbon-based life. Next in the universe?
Nitrogen. Next in life on Earth? Nitrogen. It all matches one for
one. If we were made of an isotope of bismuth, you'd have an
argument that we're something unique in the cosmos, because that
would be a really rare thing to be made of. But we're not. We're
made of the commonest ingredients. And that gives me a sense of
belonging to the universe, a sense of participation.
Tw�'. #;' & 165
.MoteIhan90%oIaIoms¡nIheun¡verseareH¡dtogen¯wmas¡ng!egroIoh
¡n¡Isnuc!eus
)u¡ Z,2ûI09:û7AN
J remember 5c¡I¡sIor¡.A!¡ensctossedCa!ax¡tosuckHfrom£atIh'sH2O
suggI¡.AuIhotbadI¡neededAsIto¡0¡
)u¡Z,2ûI0 9:¡3AN
You could also ask who's in charge. Lots of people think, well,
we're humans; we're the most intelligent and accomplished
species; we're in charge. Bacteria may have a different outlook:
more bacteria live and work in one linear centimeter of your lower
colon than all the humans who have ever lived. That's what's
going on in your digestive tract right now. Are we in charge, or
are we simply hosts for bacteria? It all depends on your outlook.
I think about human intelligence a lot, because I' m worried
about this idiocracy problem. But look at our DNA. It's Ud+
percent identical to that of a chimpanzee, and only slightly less
similar to that of other mammals. We consider ourselves smart:
we compose poetry, we write music, we solve equations, we build
airplanes. That' s what smart creatures do. Fine. I don't have a
problem with that self-serving definition. I think we can agree that
no matter how hard you try, you will never teach trigonometry to
a chimpanzee. The chimp probably couldn't even learn the times
table. Meanwhile, humans have sent spaceships to the Moon.
In other words, what we celebrate as our intelligence derives
from a less than 2 percent difference in DNA. So here's a night
thought to disturb your slumber. Since a genetic difference of 2
percent is so small, maybe the actual difference in intelligence is
also small, and we're just ego-servingly telling ourselves it's
large. Imagine a creature-another life-form on Earth, an alien,
whatever-whose DNA is 2 percent beyond ours on the
intelligence scale, as ours is beyond the chimp's. In that creature' s
presence, we would be blithering idiots.
I worry that some problems in the universe might be just too
hard for the human brain. Maybe we're simply too stupid.
Come people are upset by this. Don't be. There's another way to
look at it. It's not as though we're down here on Earth and the rest
of the universe is out there. To begin with, we' re genetically
connected to each other and to all other life-forms on Earth. We're
mutual participants in the biosphere. We're also chemically
connected to all the other life-forms we have yet to discover.
They, too, would use the same elements we find in our periodic
table. They do not and cannot have some other periodic table. So
we're genetically connected to each other; we're molecularly
connected to other objects in the universe; and we're atomically
connected to all matter in the cosmos.
For me, that is a profound thought. It is even spiritual. Science,
enabled by engineering, empowered by NASA, tells us not only
that we are in the universe but that the universe is in us. And for
me, that sense of belonging elevates, not denigrates, the ego.
This is an epic journey my colleagues and I have been on-in
my case since I was nine years old. The rest of the world needs to
understand this journey. It's fundamental to our lives, to our
security, to our self-image, and to our capacity to dream.
• • • CHAVJ£IJHIRJYIO!R
ODE TO CHALLENGER, ÍÜöb´
Eager and ready you stood
In stately pre-launch repose.
At �Main engine start 3-2-1,"
From a mighty cloud you rose.
Your rockets thrust you skyward
But on "Throttle up" they failed.
A fireball consumed you,
Wayward boosters left their trail.
The Atlantic was below
Where Columbus first set sail.
An enterprisingjoumey,
Where the brave alone prevailed.
Your astronauts showed courage.
With you they fell to sea.
There was pilot Michael Smith
And commander Dick Scobee.
The engineers Greg Jarvis
And Judith Resnik were there;
Ellison Onizuka
And physicist Ron McNair.
Who could forget the teacher,
Christa McAuliffe? She gives
Children dreams and parents hope.
In life she died, but now lives.
Our urge to explore remains
Deep within us, 'til last breath.
Out therein lies the challenge:
To discover, we risk death.
The nation stopped; the world mourned.
To space you did not climb.
Lost to NASA forever,
Hallowed forever in time.
• • • CHAP!£RJHIR!YIIV£
SPACECRAFT BEHAVING
BADLY'
Åhere' s no sweeping it under the rug. NASA's twin Pioneer 10
and Pioneer 11 space probes, launched in the early 1970s and
headed for stars in the depths of our galaxy, are both experiencing
a mysterious force that has altered their expected trajectories.
They're as much as a quarter-million miles closer to the Sun than
they were expected to be.
That mismatch, known as the Pioneer anomaly, first became
evident in the early 1980s, by which time the spacecraft were so
far from the Sun that the slight outward pressure of sunlight no
longer exerted Significant infuence over their velocity. Scientists
expected that Newtonian gravity alone would thenceforth account
for the pace of the Pioneers' jourey. But things seemingly
haven' t tured out that way. The extra little push from solar
radiation had been masking an anomaly. Once the Pioneers
reached the point where the sunlight' s influence was less than the
anomaly's, both spacecraft began to register an unexplained,
persistent change in velocity-a sunward force, a drag-operating
at the rate of a couple hundred-millionths of an inch per second
for every second of time the twins have been traveling. That may
not sound like much, but it eventually claimed thousands of miles
of lost ground for every year out on the road.
Contrary to stereotype, research scientists don't sit around their
ofces smugly celebrating their mastery of cosmic truths. Nor are
scientific discoveries normally heralded by people in lab coats
proclaiming, �Eureka! " Instead, researchers say things like,
�Hmm, that' s odd." From such humble beginnings come mostly
dead ends and frustration, but also an occasional new inSight into
the laws of the universe.
And so, once the Pioneer anomaly revealed itself, scientists
(predictably) said, "Hmm, that' s odd," They kept looking, and the
oddness didn't go away. Serous investigation began in 1994, the
first research paper about it appeared in 1998, and since then all
sorts of explanations have been proffered to account for the
anomaly. Contenders that have now been ruled out include
software bugs, leaky valves in the mid course-correction rockets,
the solar wind interacting with the probes' radio signals, the
probes' magnetic fields interacting with the Sun's magnetic field,
the graVity exerted by newly discovered KUiper Belt objects, the
deformability of space and time, and the accelerating expansion of
the universe. The remaining explanations range from the everyday
to the exotic. Among them is the suspicion that in the outer solar
system, Newtonian graVity begins to fail.
Åhe very frst spacecraft in the Pioneer program-Pioneer 0
(that' s right, "zero")-was launched, unsuccessfully, in the
summer of 1958. Fourteen more were launched over the next two
decades. Pioneers 3 and 4 studied the Moon; 5 through 9
monitored the Sun; 10 few by Jupiter; 1 1 flew by Jupiter and
Saturn; 12 and 1 3 visited Venus.
Pioneer 10 left Cape Canaveral on the evening of March 2,
1972-nine months before the Apollo program' s final Moon
landing-and crossed the Moon's orbit the very next moring. In
July 1972 it became the first human-made object to traverse the
asteroid belt, the band of rocky rubble that separates the inner
solar system from the giant outer planets. In December 1973 it
became the first to get a "gravity assist" from massive Jupiter,
which helped kick it out of the solar system for good. Although
NASA planned for Pioneer 10 to keep signaling Earth for a mere
twenty-one months, the craft' s power sources kept going and
gOing-enabling the fellow to call home for thirty years, until
january 22, 2003. Its twin, Pioneer 1 1 , had a shorter signaling life,
with its fnal transmission arriving on September 30, 1995.
At the heart of Pioneers 10 and 1 1 is a toolbox-size equipment
compartment, from which booms holding instruments and a
miniature power plant project at varous angles. More instruments
and several antennas are clamped to the compartment itself. Heat­
responsive louvers keep the onboard electronics at ideal operating
temperatures, and there are three pairs of rocket thrusters, packed
with reliable propellant, designed to provide midcourse
corrections en route to jupiter.
Power for the twins and their fifteen scientific instruments
comes from radioactive chunks of plutonium-238, which drive
four radioisotope thermoelectric generators. The heat from the
slowly decaying plutonium, with its half-life of eighty-eight years,
yielded enough electricity to run the spacecraf, photograph
jupiter and its satellites in multiple wavelengths, record sundry
cosmic phenomena, and conduct experiments more or less
continuously for upward of a decade. But by April 2001 the Signal
from Pioneer 10 had dwindled to a barely detectable billionth of a
trllionth of a watt.
The probes' main agent of communication is a nine-foot-wide,
dish-shaped antenna pOinted toward Earth. To preserve the
antenna' s alignment, each spacecraft has star and Sun sensors that
keep it spinning along the antenna' s central axis in much the way
that a quarterback spins a football around its long axis to stabilize
the ball' s trajectory. For the duration of the dish antenna's
prolonged life, it sent and received radio signals via the Deep
Space Network, an ensemble of sensitive antennas that span the
globe, making it possible for engineers to monitor the spacecraft
without a moment's interruption.
The famous finishing touch on Pioneers 10 and 1 1 is a gold­
plated plaque afxed to the side of the craft. The plaque includes
an engraved illustration of a naked adult male and female; a
sketch of the spacecraft itself, shown in correct proportion to the
humans; and a diagram of the Sun's position in the Milky Way,
announcing the spacecraft' s provenance to any intelligent aliens
who might stumble across one of the twins. I've always had my
doubts about this cosmic calling card. Most people wouldn' t give
their home address to a stranger in the street, even when the
stranger is one of our own species. Why. then. give our home
address to aliens from another planet?
Cpace travel involves a lot of coasting. Typically, a spacecraft
relies on rockets to get itself off the ground and on its way. Other,
smaller engines may fire en route to refine the craft' s trajectory or
pull the craft into orbit around a target object. In between, it
simply coasts. For engineers to calculate a craft' s Newtonian
trajectory between any two pOints in the solar system, they must
account for every single source of gravity along the way,
including comets, asteroids, moons, and planets. As an added
challenge, they must aim for where the target should be when the
spacecraft is due to arrive. not for the target's current location.
Calculations completed, off went Pioneers 10 and l I on their
multibillion-mile journeys through interplanetary space-boldly
going where no hardware had gone before. and opening new
vistas on the planets of our solar system. Little did anyone foresee
that in their twilight years the twins would also become unwitting
probes of the fundamental laws of gravitational physics.
Astrophysicists do not normally discover new laws of nature.
We cannot manipulate the objects of our scrutiny. Our telescopes
are passive probes that cannot tell the cosmos what to do. Yet they
can tell us when something isn't following orders. Take the planet
Uranus, whose discovery is credited to the English astronomer
William Herschel and dated to 1781 (others had already noted its
presence in the sky but misidentified it as a star) . As observational
data about its orbit accumulated over the following decades,
people began to notice that Uranus deviated slightly from the
dictates of Newton's laws of gravity. which by then had withstood
a century' s worth of testing on the other planets and their moons.
Some prominent astronomers suggested that perhaps Newton's
laws begin to break down at such great distances from the Sun.
IsaacNevon SmarIestever.I¡scovered!aWsoImot¡ongtaV¡¡& ogI¡cs.
InVenIedca!cu!usmsgaret¡me. Jhehturhed26
Na¸ ¡4.2ûI0 3:¡8AM
What to do? Abandon or modify Newton' s laws and dream up
new rules of graVity? Or postulate a yet-to-be-discovered planet in
the outer solar system, whose graVity was absent from the
calculations for Uranus' s orbit? The answer came in 1846, when
astronomers discovered the planet Neptune just where a planet
had to be for its gravity to perturb Uranus in just the ways
measured. Newton' s laws were safe . . . for the time being.
Then there' s Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun. Its orbit,
too, habitually disobeyed Newton' s laws of gravity. Having
predicted Neptune' s position on the sky within one degree, the
French astronomer Urbain-jean-joseph Le Verrier now postulated
two possible causes for Mercury' s deviant behavior. Either it was
another new planet (call it Vulcan) orbiting so close to the Sun
that it would be well-nigh impossible to discover in the solar
glare, or it was an entire, uncatalogued belt of asteroids orbiting
between Mercury and the Sun.
Turs out Le Verrier was wrong on both counts. This time he
really did need a new understanding of gravity. Within the limits
of precision that our measuring tools impose, Newton's laws
behave well in the outer solar system. However, they break down
in the inner solar system, where they are superseded by Einstein's
general relativity. The closer you are to the Sun, the less you can
ignore the exotic effects of its powerful gravitational field.
Two planets. Two similar-looking anomalies. Two completely
different explanations.
Îioneer 10 had been coasting through space for less than a
decade and was around 15 AU from the Sun when john D.
Anderson, a speCialist in celestial mechanics and radio-wave
physics at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory OPL), frst noticed
that the data were drifting away from the predictions made by
JPL's computer model. (One AU, or astronomical unit, represents
the average distance between Earth and the Sun; it's a �yardstick"
for measuring distances within the solar system.) By the time
Pioneer 10 reached 20 AU, a distance at which pressure from the
Sun's rays no longer mattered much to the trajectory of the
spacecraft. the drift was unmistakable. Initially Anderson didn't
fuss over the discrepancy, thinking the problem could probably be
blamed on either the software or the spacecraf itself. But he soon
determined that only if he added to the equations an invented
force-a constant change in velocity (an acceleration) back
toward the Sun for every second of the trip-would the location
predicted for Pioneer l O' s signal match the location of its actual
signal.
Had Pioneer 10 encountered something unusual along its path?
If so, that could explain everything. Nope. Pioneer 1 1 was
heading out of the solar system in a whole other direction, yet it,
too, required an adjustment to its predicted location. In fact,
Pioneer 1 1 ' s anomaly was somewhat larger than Pioneer lO' s.
Faced with either revising the tenets of conventional physics or
seeking ordinary explanations for the anomaly, Anderson and his
JPL collaborator Slava Turyshev chose the latter. A wise frst
step. You don't want to invent a new law of physics to explain a
mere hardware malfunction.
Because the flow of heat energy in various directions can have
unexpected effects, one of the things Anderson and Turyshev
looked at was the spacecraft' s material self-specifically the way
heat would be absorbed, conducted, and radiated from one surface
to another. Their inquiry managed to account for about a tenth of
the anomaly. But neither investigator is a thermal engineer. A
wise second step: find one. So in early 2006 Turyshev sought out
Gary Kinsella, a JPL colleague who until that moment had never
met either him or a Pioneer face to face, and Turyshev convinced
Kinsella to take the thermal issues to the next level. In the spring
of 2007, all three men came to the Hayden Planetarium in New
York City to tell a sellout crowd about their still-unfinished
travails. Meanwhile, other researchers worldwide were taking up
the challenge.
Lonsider what it's like to be a spacecraft living and working
hundreds of millions of miles from the Sun. First of all, your
sunny side warms up while the unheated hardware on your shady
side can plunge to -4550 Fahrenheit, the background temperature
of outer space. Next, you're constructed of many different kinds
of materials and have multiple appendages, all of which have
different thermal properties and thus absorb, conduct, emit, and
scatter heat diferently, both within your various cavities and
outside to space. In addition, your parts like to operate at very
different temperatures: your cryogenic science instruments do fne
in the frigidity of outer space, but your cameras favor room
temperature, and your rocket thrusters, when fired, register 2,0000
F. Not only that, every piece of your hardware sits within ten feet
of all your other pieces of hardware.
The task facing Kinsella and his team of engineers was to
assess and quantify the directional thermal infuence of every
feature aboard Pioneer 10. To do that, they created a computer
model representing the spacecraft surrounded by a spherical
envelope. Then they subdivided that surface into 2,600 zones,
enabling them to track the flow of heat from every spot in the
spacecraft to and through every spot in the surrounding sphere. To
strengthen their case, they also hunted through all available
project documents and data files, many of which hail from the
days when computers relied on punch cards for data entry and
stored data on nine-track tape. (ithout emergency funds from
the Planetaty Society, by the way, those irreplaceable archives
would shortly have ended up in a Dumpster.)
For the simulated world of the team' s computer model, the
spacecraft was placed at a test distance from the Sun (25 AU) and
at a specific angle to the Sun, and all the parts were presumed to
be working as they were supposed to. Kinsella and his crew
determined that, indeed, the uneven thermal emission from the
spacecraft' s exterior surfaces does create an anomaly-and that it
is indeed a continuous, sunward change in velocity.
But how much of the Pioneer anomaly can be blamed on this
effect? Certainly some. Perhaps most. Possibly all
Co what about any remaining unexplained portion of the
anomaly? Do we sweep it under the cosmic rug in hopes that
additional Kinsellan analysis will eventually resolve the entire
anomaly? Or do we carefully reconsider the accuracy and
inclusiveness of Newton's laws of gravity, as a few zealous
physicists have been doing for a couple of decades?
Pre-Pioneers, Newtonian gravity had never been measured­
and was therefore never confrmed-with great precision over
great distances. In fact. Slava Turyshev, an expert in Einstein's
general relativity, regards the Pioneers as (unintentionally) the
largest-ever gravitational experiment to confirm whether
Newtonian gravity is fully valid in the outer solar system. That
experiment, he contends, shows it might not be. In addition, as
any physicist can demonstrate, beyond 15 AU the effects of
Einsteinian gravity are negligible.
In early 2009, for the benefit of visitors to the Planetary
Society's website, Turyshev and his colleague Viktor Toth
eloquently explained why they've kept plugging away at the
Pioneer anomaly. Their explanation, titled "Finding a needle in
the haystack or proving that there may be none," is worth quoting
at length:
InIheshorlrun, knoW¡ng lhegrav¡laI¡ona! conslanlIo ohemotedec¡maId¡g¡Iof
gtec`u¡on ot g!ac¡ng even I¡ghIet I¡m¡Is on ah¡ dev¡aI¡oh Itom £¡nsle¡n's
gtav¡IaI¡oha!Iheoryma¡seemI¡kepa¡hIu!!¡n¡Ig¡ck´ng deIa¡I.YeIonemuslnoI
lose sight of the "big picture." When researchers were measuring the properties oI
eIecIt¡c¡¡W¡lhevetmore te!¡ned ¡nsuumenIsoverIWo hundred¡earsago,Ihe¡
d¡dnoIenv¡s¡o¡conI¡nehIspanh¡ngpoWergr¡ds,an ¡nfonnaI¡oh econom¡,orI¡h¡
eIecIt¡ca! s¡gna!s teach¡ng us Itom Ihe unIaIhomab!e degIhs oI Ihe ouIet so!at
s¡sIem, senI b¡ mahmade mach¡hes Jhe¡ ¸usI getformed meI¡cuIous
exget¡mehIs !ay¡ng doWn lhe !aWs conhecl¡ng e!ecIr¡c¡I¡ Io magneI¡sm ot Ihe
eIecItomouve Iotce Io chem¡ca! reacI¡ohs. YeI Ihe¡t Wotk gaved Ihe Wa¡Io out
moderhsoc¡eI¡.
5¡m¡!atI¡, We cannoIenv¡s¡ohIoda¡WhaIreseatch ¡nlo grav¡IaI¡ona! sc¡ence
W¡!! bt¡ngIomotroW. Perhags one da¡humank¡ndW¡I! harness gtav¡¡. Perhaps
one da¡ a It¡p across Ihe so!ar s¡slem us¡ng a¡eIIobedev¡sedgrav¡I¡ ehg¡he
ma¡hoI seem a b¡ggetdea! lhah ctoss¡ng an ocean ¡na¸eII¡netIoda¡ Perhaps
oneda¡ human be¡ngsW¡!!ltaVeI IoIhesIats ¡n spacecra!I IhaIno!onget need
tockeIs. Vho knoWs? ÐuI one Ih¡hgWe knoWIotsure none ofIhaIW¡!Ihaggen
un!essWedoameI¡cu!ous¸ob Ioda¡ Out Wotk, WheIhet¡Igroveslheex¡sIenceof
gtaV¡I¡ be¡ond £¡hsIe¡n or¸usl ¡mgtoVes Ihe naV¡gaLon oIsgacecra¬ ¡h deeg
sgaceb¡accounl¡ngIotasma!!Iherma!reco¡!IorceW¡lhgrec`u¡on,Ia¡sdoWnIhe
IoundaI¡ohsIhaIma¡,oneda¡, !eadlosuchdreams.
For the time being, though, two forces seem to be at play in
deep space: Newton's laws of gravity and the mysterious Pioneer
anomaly. Until the anomaly is thoroughly accounted for by
misbehaving hardware, and can therefore be eliminated from
consideration, Newton' s laws will remain unconfred. And there
just might be a rug somewhere in the cosmos with a new law of
physics under it, waiting to be uncovered.
• • • CHAI£R1IRJ5IX
WHAT NASA MEANS TO
AMERICA'S FUTURE-
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said, �Why are we
spending money up there when we have problems down here?"
The frst and simplest answer to that concern is that one day
there'll be a killer asteroid headed straight for us, which means
not all your problems are Earth-based. At some point, you've also
got to look up.
Under President Barack Obama's space plan, NASA will be
promoting commercial access to low Earth orbit. The National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 makes NASA responsible for
advancing the space frontier. And since low Earth orbit is no
longer a space frontier, NASA must move to the next step. The
current plan says we' re not going to the Moon anymore and
recommends we go to Mars one day-I don't know when.
I' m worried by this scenario. Without an actual plan to go
somewhere beyond low Earth orbit, we've got nothing to shape
the career dreams of young America. As best as I can judge,
NASA is like a force of nature unto itself, capable of stimulating
the formation of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and
technologists-the STEM research fields. You nurture these
people for the sake of society, and they become the ones who
make tomorrow happen.
The strength of economies in the twenty-first century will
derive from the investments made in science and technology. This
is something we've witnessed since the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution: the nations that have embraced those investments are
the nations that have led the world.
America is fading right now. Nobody' s dreaming about
tomorrow anymore. NASA knows how to dream about tomorow
-if the funding can accommodate it, if the funding can empower
it, if the funding em emlhh� it.
_
IIIP, _OII need good teHr.hers. Rut
the teachers come and go, because kids go on to the next grade
and then the grade after that. Teachers can help light a fame, but
we need something to keep the flame fanned. And that' s the effect
of NASA on who and what we are as a nation, what we have been
as a nation, and perhaps for a while took for granted as a nation.
Today the most powerful particle accelerator in the world is
hundreds of feet underground at the border between France and
Switzerland. The world's fastest train is made by Germans and is
running in China. Meanwhile, here in America I see our
infrastructure collapsing and no one dreaming about tomorrow,
Everybody thinks they can put a Band-Aid on this or that
problem, Meanwhile, the agency with the most power to shape the
dreams of a nation is curently underfunded to do what it must be
dOing-which is to make those dreams come true, And doing it
for half a penny on a dollar,
How much would ¸OuQ8jfor the universe?
!5 m¡I¡tar¡spendsÜ much¡n23 da¡s asNA5Asgehdsi na¡ear and
Ihat'sWhenWe`renotI¡ght¡ngaWar
}el8,20II I l.I8AM
EPILOGUE
ÅHB L05Æ1C 5BCI1�
OIa!!lhesc¡encescuII¡valedb¡mank´nd,AsIronom¡¡sacknoWIedgedt be,ahd
undoubIed!¡ ¡s. Ihe mosl sub!¡me, Ihe mosI ¡nIeresl¡ng, ahd Ihe mosl useIuI. Ior,
b¡ khoW!edge der¡Ved Irom Ih´ u sc¡ence, nol on!¡ lhe buIk oI Ihe £arIh ¡s
d`ucoVered . . . ,bulourVer¡IacuII¡esareeh!argedW¡IhIhegrahdeuroIIhe¡deas
¡Icohve¡s,ourm¡ndsexa!Iedabove[Ihe¡r] !oWconlracIedpre¸ud¡ces.
~;+mss1sücuso^Astronomy Eplained UponS Isaac Newln's Principles. And
Made E To Those Who Have Not Studied Malhemalics U7SJ
Long before anyone knew that the universe had a beginning,
before we knew that the nearest large galaxy lies more than two
million light-years from Earth, before we knew how stars work or
whether atoms exist, James Ferguson' s enthusiastic introduction
to his favorite science rang true. Yet his words, apart from their
eighteenth-century flourish, could have been written yesterday.
But who gets to think that way? Who gets to celebrate this
cosmic view of life? Not the migrant farmworker. Not the
sweatshop worker. Certainly not the homeless person rummaging
through the trash for food. You need the luxury of time not spent
on mere survival. You need to live in a nation whose government
values the search to understand humanity's place in the universe.
You need a SOCiety in which intellectual pursuit can take you to
the frontiers of discovery, and in which news of your discoveries
can be routinely disseminated. By those measures, most citizens
of industrialized nations do quite well.
Yet the cosmic view comes with a hidden cost. When I travel
thousands of miles to spend a few moments in the fast-moving
shadow of the Moon during a total solar eclipse, sometimes I lose
sight of Earth.
When I pause and reflect on our expanding universe, with its
galaxies hurtling away from one another, embedded within the
ever-stretching, four-dimensional fabric of space and time,
sometimes I forget that uncounted people walk this Earth without
food or shelter, and that children are disproportionately
represented among them.
When I pore over the data that establish the mysterous
presence of dark matter and dark energy throughout the universe,
sometimes I forget that every day-every twenty-four-hour
rotation of Earth-people kill and get killed in the name of
someone else's conception of God, and that some people who do
not kill in the name of God kill in the name of their nation's needs
or wants.
When I track the orbits of asteroids, comets, and planets, each
one a pirouetting dancer in a cosmic ballet choreographed by the
forces of gravity, sometimes I forget that too many people act in
wanton disregard for the delicate interplay of Earth' s atmosphere,
oceans, and land, with consequences that our children and our
children's children will witness and pay for with their health and
well-being.
And sometimes I forget that powerful people rarely do all they
can to help those who cannot help themselves.
I occasionally forget those things because, however big the
world is-in our hearts, our minds, and our outsize atlases-the
universe is even bigger. A depressing thought to some, but a
liberating thought to me.
Consider an adult who tends to the traumas of a child: a broken
toy, a scraped knee, a schoolyard bully. Adults know that kids
have no clue what constitutes a genuine problem, because
inexperience greatly limits their childhood perspective.
As grown-ups, dare we admit to ourselves that we, too, have a
collective immaturity of view? Dare we admit that our thoughts
and behaviors spring from a belief that the world revolves around
us? Apparently not. Yet the evidence abounds. Part the curtains of
society' s racial, ethnic, religious, national, and cultural conficts,
and you find the human ego turning the knobs and pulling the
levers.
Now imagine a world in which everyone, but especially people
with power and infuence, holds an expanded view of our place in
the cosmos. With that perspective, our problems would shrink-or
never arse at all-and we could celebrate our earthly differences
while shunning the behavior of our predecessors who slaughtered
each other because of them.
Íack in February 2000, the newly rebuilt Hayden Planetarium
featured a space show called �Passport to the Universe," written
by Ann Druyan and Steven Soter (collaborators with Carl Sagan
on the original Cosmos TV series) . The show took visitors on a
virtual zoom from New York City to the deepest regions of space.
En route the audience saw Earth, then the solar system, then the
Milky Way galaxy's hundreds of billions of stars shrink to barely
visible dots on the planetarium's dome.
Within a month of opening day, I received a letter from an Ivy
League professor of psychology whose expertise was things that
make people feel insignificant. I never knew one could specialize
in such a field. He wanted to administer a before-and-after
questionnaire to visitors, assessing the depth of their depression
after viewing "Passport to the Universe." The show, he wrote,
elicited the most dramatic feelings of smallness he had ever
experienced.
How could that be? Every time I see the space show (and
others we've produced), I feel alive and spirited and connected. I
also feel large, knowing that the gOings-on within the three-pound
human brain are what enabled us to fgure out our place.
Allow me to suggest that it's the professor, not I, who has
misread nature. His ego was too big to begin with, infated by
delusions of significance and fed by cultural assumptions that
human beings are more important than everything else.
In all fairness to the fellow, powerful forces in society leave
most of us susceptible. As was I . . . until the day I learned in
biology class that more bacteria live and work in one centimeter
of my colon than the number of people who have ever existed in
the world. That kind of information makes you think twice about
who-or what-is actually in charge.
From that day on, I began to think of people not as the masters
of space and time but as participants in a great cosmic chain of
being, with a direct genetic link across species both living and
extinct, extending back nearly four billion years to the earliest
single-celled organisms on Earth.
I know what you're thinking: we're smarter than bacteria.
No doubt about it, we're smarter than every other living
creature that ever walked, crawled, or slithered on Earth. But how
smart is that? We cook our food. We compose poetry and music.
We do art and science. We're good at math. Even if you're bad at
math, you're probably much better at it than the smartest
chimpanzee, whose genetic identity varies in only trifing ways
from ours. Try as they might, primatologists will never get a
chimpanzee to learn the multiplication table or do long division.
If small genetic differences between us and our fellow apes
account for our vast difference in intelligence, maybe that
difference in intelligence is not so vast after all.
Imagine a life-form whose brainpower is to ours as ours is to a
chimpanzee' s. To such a species, our highest mental achievements
would be trivial. Their toddlers, instead of learning their ABCs on
Sesame Street, would learn multi variable calculus on Boolean
Boulevard Our most complex theorems, our deepest philosophies,
the cherished works of our most creative artists, would be projects
their schoolkids bring home for Mom and Dad to display on the
refrigerator door. These creatures would study Stephen Hawking
(who occupies the same endowed professorship once held by
Newton at the University of Cambridge) because he's slightly
more clever than other humans, owing to his ability to do
theoretical astrophysics and other rudimentary calculations in his
head.
If a huge genetic gap separated us from our closest relative in
the animal kingdom, we could justifiably celebrate our brilliance.
We might be entitled to walk around thinking we' re distant and
distinct from our fellow creatures. But no such gap exists. Instead,
we are one with the rest of nature, fitting neither above nor below,
but within.
Íeed more ego softeners? Simple comparisons of quantity, size,
and scale do the job well.
Take water. It's simple, common, and vital. There are more
molecules of water in an eight-ounce cup of the stuff than there
are cups of water in all the world's oceans. Every cup that passes
through a single person and eventually rejoins the world's water
supply holds enough molecules to mix fifteen hundred of them
into every other cup of water in the world. No way around it:
some of the water you just drank passed through the kidneys of
Socrates, Genghis Khan, and Joan of Arc.
How about air? Also vital. A single breathful draws in more air
molecules than there are breathfuls of air in Earth' s entire
atmosphere. That means some of the air you just breathed passed
through the lungs of Napoleon, Beethoven, Lincoln, and Billy the
Kid.
Time to get cosmic. There are more stars in the universe than
grains of sand on any beach, more stars than seconds have passed
since Earth formed, more stars than words and sounds ever uttered
by all the humans who ever lived.
Want a sweeping view of the past? Our unfolding cosmic
perspective takes you there. Light takes time to reach Earth's
observatories from the depths of space, and so you see objects and
phenomena not as they are but as they once were. That means the
universe acts like a giant time machine: the farther away you look,
the further back in time you see-back almost to the beginning of
time itself. Within that horzon of reckoning, cosmic evolution
unfolds continuously, in full view.
Want to know what we' re made of? Again, the cosmic
perspective offers a bigger answer than you might expect. The
chemical elements of the universe are forged in the fires of high�
mass stars that end their lives in stupendous explosions, enriching
their host galaxies with the chemical arsenal of life as we know it.
The result? The four most common chemically active elements in
the universe-hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen-are the
four most common elements of life on Earth. We are not simply in
the universe. The universe is in us.
`es, we are stardust. But we may not be of this Earth. Several
separate lines of research, when considered together, have forced
investigators to reassess who we think we are and where we think
we came from.
First, computer simulations show that when a large asteroid
strikes a planet, the surrounding areas can recoil from the impact
energy, catapulting rocks into space. From there, they can travel
to-and land on-other planetary surfaces. Second,
microorganisms can be hardy. Some survive the extremes of
temperature, pressure, and radiation inherent in space travel. If the
rocky flotsam from an impact hails from a planet with life,
microscopic fauna could have stowed away in the rocks' nooks
and crannies. Third, recent evidence suggests that shortly after the
formation of our solar system, Mars was wet, and perhaps fertile,
even before Earth was.
Those findings mean it's conceivable that life began on Mars
and later seeded life on Earth, a process known as panspermia. So
all earthlings might-just might-be descendants of Martians.
Again and again across the centuries, cosmic discoveries have
demoted our self-image. Earth was once assumed to be
astronomically unique, until astronomers learned that Earth is just
another planet orbiting the Sun. Then we presumed the Sun was
unique, until we leared that the countless stars of the night sky
are suns themselves. Then we presumed our galaxy, the Milky
Way, was the entire known universe, until we established that the
countless fuzzy things in the sky are other galaxies, dotting the
landscape of our known universe.
Today, how easy it is to presume that one universe is all there
is. Yet emerging theories of moder cosmology, as well as the
continually reaffrmed improbability that anything is unique,
require that we remain open to the latest assault on our plea for
distinctiveness: multiple universes, otherwise known as the
multi verse, in which ours is just one of countless bubbles bursting
forth from the fabric of the cosmos.
Åhe cosmic perspective flows from fundamental knowledge. But
it's more than just what you know. It's also about having the
wisdom and insight to apply that knowledge to assessing our place
in the universe. And its attributes are clear:
The cosmic perspective comes from the frontiers of science, yet
it is not solely the provenance of the scientist. It belongs to
everyone.
The cosmic perspective is humble.
The cosmic perspective is spiritual-even redemptive-but not
religious.
The cosmic perspective enables us to grasp, in the same
thought, the large and the small.
The cosmic perspective opens our minds to extraordinary ideas
but does not leave them so open that our brains spill out, making
us susceptible to believing anything we're told.
The cosmic perspective opens our eyes to the universe, not as a
benevolent cradle designed to nurture life but as a cold, lonely,
hazardous place.
The cosmic perspective shows Earth to be a mote, but a
precious mote and, for the moment, the only home we have.
The cosmic perspective finds beauty in the images of planets,
moons, stars, and nebulae but also celebrates the laws of physics
that shape them.
The cosmic perspective enables us to see beyond our
circumstances, allowing us to transcend the primal search for
food, shelter, and sex.
The cosmic perspective reminds us that in space, where there is
no air, a fag will not wave-an indication that perhaps flag
waving and space exploration do not mix.
The cosmic perspective not only embraces our genetic kinship
with all life on Earth but also values our chemical kinship with
any yet-to-be discovered life in the universe, as well as our atomic
kinship with the universe itself.
Êt least once a week, if not once a day, we might each ponder
what cosmic truths lie undiscovered before us, perhaps awaiting
the arrival of a clever thinker, an ingenious experiment, or an
innovative space mission to reveal them. We might further ponder
how those discoveries may one day transform life on Earth.
Absent such curiosity, we are no different from the provincial
farmer who expresses no need to venture beyond the county line,
because his forty acres meet all his needs. Yet if all our
predecessors had felt that way, the farmer would instead be a cave
dweller, chasing down his dinner with a stick and a rock.
During our brief stay on planet Earth, we owe ourselves and
our descendants the opportunity to explore-in part because it's
fun to do. But there's a far nobler reason. The day our knowledge
of the cosmos ceases to expand, we risk regressing to the childish
view that the universe fguratively and literally revolves around
us. In that bleak world, arms-bearing, resource-hungry people and
nations would be prone to act on their � low contracted
prejudices." And that would be the last gasp of human
enlightenment-until the rse of a visionary new culture that could
once again embrace the cosmic perspective.
APPENDIX A*
National Aeronautis and Space Act of 1958, As Amended
1¡I!eI5ho¡I!¡IIe.IecIaraI¡onoIPo!¡c_. andIeI¡n`I¡ons
5ecl¡oh 101. 5horlJ¡I!e
5ecl¡oh 102. Iec!aral¡onoIPo!¡c_ ahdIu_se
5ecu`oh 103. Ief¡h¡I¡ons
J¡I!e II Coord¡nal¡ohofAerohaul¡ca!and 5@¸ce Acl¡v¡l¡es
5ecl¡oh 201. NaI¡ona!AeronauI¡csand5_ace Couhc¡I_abol¡shed_
5ecl¡oh202. NaI¡ona!AeronauI¡csand 5_aceAdm¡h¡slraI¡on
5ecl¡oh203. Iuncl¡ohsofIheAdm¡h¡sIraI¡on
5ecl¡oh204. C¡v¡!¡an M¡!¡Ia_ I¡a¡sonComm¡IIee_abo!¡shedj
5ecl¡oh205. InIerhaI¡ona!Coo_raI¡on
5ecl¡oh 206. Re_rIs Io Coh@ess
5ecl¡oh207. I¡s@sa!oI£xcess Iand
5ecl¡oh208. IonaI¡ohsIor5_ace 5huII!eOrb¡Ier_aulhor¡@ e;g¿red_
J¡I!eIIIM¡sceIlaneous
5ecl¡oh301. NaI¡ona!Adv¡so_ Comm¡IIeeIor AeronauI¡cs
5ecl¡oh302. !ransIer oIRe!aIed IuncI¡ons
5ecl¡oh303. AccessIo IhIormal¡on
5ecl¡oh304. 5ecur¡I _ R_u¡remehIs
5ecl¡oh 305. Iro@¸ rI _ R¡@hls¡hIhvehI¡ons
5ecI¡oh306. ConIr¡bul¡ohsAWards
5ecI¡oh 307. IefehseoICerla¡nla! _racI¡ceandNe@!¡@ence5u¡ls
5ecl¡oh308. InsuranceandIndemn¡HcaI¡on
5ecl¡oh309. £x_r¡menlaIAeros_aceVch¡c!e
5ecl¡oh310. ¿ ¡aI¡ons
5ecl¡oh311. M¡suse ofA_ehc_ NameandIn¡I¡aIs
5ecl¡oh312. ConIraclsIe_ard¡n_ £x_endab!eIaunchVeh¡cIes
5ecl¡oh 313. IuIICosI_ ¡aI¡onsAccouhl5IrucIure
5ecl¡oh314. Ir¡zeAuIhor¡_
5ecl¡oh315. IeaseofNon£xcessIro@¸ rI _
5ecl¡oh316. ReIrocess¡ohof _ur¡sd¡cI¡on
5ecl¡oh 317. Recove_andI` u@s¡u`ohAulhor¡g
1¡I!eIV L@çrAlmos_her¡cResearch
5ecl¡oh401. Iu_seahdIo!¡c_
5ecl¡oh402. IeHh¡I¡ons
5ecu`oh403. Irqg¡amAuIhor¡zed
5ecI¡oh404. InIerhaI¡ona¡Coo__raI¡on
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
Pub. L. No. 85·568
72 Stat. 426·438 Qui. 29, 1958)
As Amended
AN ACT
Jogrov¡deforreseatch¡nIoptob!emsoI!!¡ghIW¡Ih¡nahdouIs¡deIheeatIh's
aImosghete, andIotolhergutgoses.
B it enacled bythe Senale and House of Representatives of t
Uniled Slates of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I-SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the �National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958"
DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
5ec. 102. (a} JheCongtessheteb¡dec!atesIhaI¡l ¡slhe po!¡c¡ oIIhe !n¡Ied 5IaIes
Ihal acI¡v¡I¡es ¡n space shou!d be devoIed lo geaceIuI gutgoses Iot Ihe bene!I oI a!I
mahk¡hd.
(b) JheCongtessdec!atesIhaIIhe gehera!We!fateahdsecut¡¡ ofIhe!n¡led 5IaIes
tequ¡re IhaI adequale gtov¡s¡on be made Iot aetohaul¡ca! ahd sgace acI¡v¡I¡es. !he
Cohgress furmet dec!ates lhaI such acl¡v¡l¡es shaI! beIhe respons¡b¡!¡¡ oI, and sha!! be
d¡recIed b¡, ac¡v¡I¡anagenc¡exetc¡s¡ngconIroI over aetohaul¡ca! ahd sgace acI¡v¡I¡es
sgonsotedb¡Ihe!h¡Ied 5laIes, exceglIhaIacI¡v¡I¡es gecu!¡ar lo otgr¡mat¡!¡assoc¡aIed
W¡lh Ihe deveIopmenI ofWeagohs s¡slems, m¡!¡Iar¡ ogeraI¡ons, ot lhe deIense oIIhe
!n¡Ied 5IaIes (¡ncIud¡ng lhe reseatch ahd deve!ogmenI hecessat¡ Io make efIecI¡ve
gtov¡s¡onIotIhedefenseoIlhe !n¡Ied 5laIes} sha!IbeIhetesgohsíb¡!¡I¡of, andsha!! be
d¡recIedb¡,IheDeparlmenIoIIeIense, andIhaldeIenn¡nal¡ohas IoWh¡chsuchagenc¡
h resgons¡b¡!¡I¡Iotand d¡tecI¡onoIah¡such acl¡v¡t¡ sha!Ibemadeb¡Ihe Ptes¡denI ¡n
conIorm¡t¡W¡lhsecI¡oh2471 (e) .
(c) JheCongtess decIaresIhaIlhegeneta!We!!te ofIhe Uh¡Ied 5laIes tequ¡res IhaI
IheNaI¡ona!AeronauI¡csand5gaceAdm¡n¡sItal¡on (aseslab!¡shedb¡I¡IIe II oIlh¡sAcI)
seek and encoutage, t Ihe max¡mum exIehI goss¡bIe, Ihe Iu!IesI commerc¡a! use of
sgace.
(d) !heaetohaul¡ca!andsgaceacI¡v¡I¡esofIhe!n¡Ied5Ialessha!!beconducIed soas
IoconIr¡bulemalet¡aII¡looneotmoteoIIheIo!!oW¡ngob¸ecI¡ves:
(1) !he exgahs¡on oI human knoW!edge oI Ihe £atIh and oI ghehomena ¡n Ihe
aImosphereandsgace.
(2) Jhe¡mgrovemehIoIlheuseIu!ness, getfonnance, sgeed, saIeI¡, and eñc¡enc¡
ofaeronauI¡ca!ahdsgaceveh¡cIes,
(3} Jhe deve!ogmehI and ogetal¡oh oIveh¡cIes cagabIe oI catt¡¡ng ¡nsItumehIs,
egu¡gmenl,sugg!¡es, and!¡v¡ngotgah¡smsIhroughsgace,
(4) Jhe eslab!¡shmehI oI!ongtahgesIud¡es oIIhe poIenI¡aI bene!Is Io bega¡ned
Itom,Ihe OggotIun¡I¡esIot,ahdlhegtobIems¡nvoIved¡nIhe uI¡!¡zaI¡onofaeronauI¡caI
andsgace acl¡v¡l¡esIotgeaceIuIandsc¡enI¡!!cgutgoses,
(5} !hegtesetvaL`onoIIheto!eoIIhe!n¡Ied5IaIesÜ a!eader¡naetonauI¡ca!ahd
sgacesc¡ehce and Iechno!og¡ and ¡nIhe agg!¡caI¡oh IheteoIIo Ihe conducIoIgeaceIuI
acI¡v´I¡esW¡m¡hand ouIs¡de IheaImosghete.
(6} The making available to agencies directly concered with national defense of
di scoveries that have military value or signifcance, and the furnishing by such agencies,
to the clvlilan agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and
space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance t that
agency:
(7} Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in
work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof:
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the
United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States
in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of efort. facilities, and equipment: and
(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and
space through research and technolog development related to associated manufacturing
processes,
(e) The Congress declares that the general welfre of the United States requires that
the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research
and development Such development shall be conducted so as t contribute to the
objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems,
and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems,
(H The Congress declares that the general welfre of the United States requires that
the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science
and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research,
development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the
effects of di sability,
(gl The Congress declares that the general welfare and securiy of the United States
require that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration be directed to detecting. tracking, cataloguing. and characterizing near­
Earth asteroids and comet in order t provide waring and mitigation of the potential
hazard of such near-Earth objects to the Earth,
(h) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate the policies declared in
subsections (a) , (b) , (c), (d). (e) ,
|¹·
and
(
,
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 103, As used in this Act-
(1) the term "aeronautical and space activities" means (A) research into, and the
solution of, problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere. (Ð} the
development, construction, testing, and operation for research purposes of aeronautical
and space vehicles, (C) the operation of a space transportation system including the
Space Shuttle, upper stages, space platforms. and related eqUipment. and (D) such other
activities as may be nquired for the exploration of space: and
(2} the term "aeronautical and space vehicles" means aircraft, missiles, satellites,
and other space vehicles, manned and unmanned, together with related eqUipment,
devices, components, and parts,
TITLE II-COORDIATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND
SPACE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE COUNCIL
Sec. 201. (a) [There is hereby established the National Aeronautics and Space
CounciL , ..] aboli shed,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 202. (a) There is hereby established the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (hereinafter called the · Administration"). The Administration shall be
headed by an Administrator, who shall be appointed from civllian life by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the supervision and direction of
the President. the Administrator shall be responsible for the exercise of all powers and
the discharge of all duties of the Administration. and shall have authority and control
over all personnel and activities thereof.
(b) There shall be in the Administration a Deputy Administrator. who shall be
appointed from civilian life by the President by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate and shall perfonn such duties and exercise such powers as the Administrator may
prescribe. The Deputy Administrator shall act for. and exercise the powers of, the
Administrator during his absence or disability.
(c) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator shall not engage in any other
business. vocation. or employment while serving as such.
FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 203. (a) The Administration. in order to carry out the purpose of this Act. shall­
(1) plan. direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2} arrange for participation by the scientifc communiy in planning scientific
measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space
vehicles. and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such. measurements and
observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of infonnation
concerning its activities and the results thereof;
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use
of space; and
(5} encourage and provide for Federal Goverment use of commercially provided
space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal
Government.
(b) (1) The Administration sh.l1. to the extent of appropriated funds, initiate, support,
and carry out such research, development, demonstration, and other related activities in
ground propulsion technologies as are provided for in sections 4 through 10 of the
Electric and Hybrid Veh.icle Research. Development. and Demonstration Act of 1976.
(2} The Administration shall initiate, support. and carry out such research,
development, demonstrations, and other related activiies in solar h.eating and cooling
technologies (to th.e extent that funds are appropriated therefor) Õ are provided for in
sections 5,6. and 9 of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974.
(c) Inthe performance of its functions the Administration is authorized
(1) to make, promulgate, i ssue, rescind. and amend rules and regulatons governing
the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law;
(2} to appoint and fix the compensation of such oficers and employees as may be
necessary to carry out such functions. Such officers and employees shall be appointed in
accordance with. th.e civil-service laws and their compensation fixed in accordance with
the Classification Act of 1949. except that (A) to th.e extent the Administrator deems
such action necessary to the discharge of his responsibilities, he may appoint not more
than four h.undred and twenty-fve of the scientifc, engineering. and administrative
personnel of the Administration without regard to such laws. and may fx the
compensation of such personnel not in excess of the rate of basic pay payable for level
IIIof the Executive Schedule, and (Ð) to the extent the Administrator deems such action
necessary to recruit specially qualified scientific and engineering talent, h.e may
establish th.e entrance grade for scientific and engineering personnel without previous
service in the Federal Goverment at a level up to two grades higher than the grade
provided for such personnel under the General Schedule established by the
Classlfication Act of 1949. and fix their compensation accordingly:
(3) to acquire (by purchase. lease. condemnation. or oherwise), construct, improve,
repair, operate, and maintain laboratories. research and testing sites and facilities,
aeronautical and space vehicles. quarters and related accommodations for employees
and dependents of employees of the Administration. and such other real and personal
property (including patents). or any interest therein. as the Administration deems
necessary within and outside the continental United States: to acquire by lease or
otherwise, through the Administrator of General Services. buildings or parts of buildings
in the District of Columbia for the use of the Administration for a period not to exceed
ten years without regard to the Act of March 3, 1877 (40 USc. 34): to lease to others
such real and personal property: to sell and otherwise dispose of real and personal
property (Including patents and rights thereunder) in accordance with the provisions of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C.
471 et seq.) : and to provide by contract or otherwise for cafeterias and other necessary
facilities for the welfare of employees of the Administration at its installations and
purchase and maintain equipment therefor;
(4) to accept unconditional gifts or donations of services. money. or property, real,
personal. or mixed. tangible or intangible;
(5) without regard to section 3648 of the Revised Statutes. as amended (31 U.S.c.
529). to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements. or other
transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may
deem appropriate. with any agency or instrumentality of the United States. or with any
State, Territory. or possession, or with any political sulivlsion thereof. or with any
person. firm. association. corporation. or educational institution. To the maximum extent
practicable and consistent with the accomplishment of the purposes of this Act. such
contracts. leases. agreements, and other transactions shall be allocated by the
Administrator in a manner which will enable small-business concers to participate
equitably and proportionately in the conduct of the work of the Administration;
(6) to use, with their consent, the services, eqUipment, personnel. and facilities of
Federal and other agenCies wih or without reimbursement, and on a similar basis to
cooperate with other public and private agenCies and instrumentalities in the use of
services. eqUipment. and facilities. Each department and agency of the Federal
Government shall cooperate fully with the Administration in making its services,
eqUipment, personnel. and facilities available to the Administration. and any such
department or agency is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law. to
transfer to or to receive from the Administration, without reimbursement, aeronautical
and space vehicles. and supplies and eqUipment other than administrative supplies or
eqUipment;
() to appoint such advisory committees as may be appropriate for purposes of
consultation and advice to the Administation in the performance of its functions;
(8) to establish within the Administration such offices and procedures as may be
appropriate to provide for the greatest possible coordination of its activities under this
Act with related sclentlfic and oher activities being carried on by other public and
private agenCies and organizations;
(9) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
but at rates for individuals nor to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for
GS-18;
(10) when determined by the Administrator to be necessary, and subject to such
security investigations as he may detennine to be appropriate, to employ aliens without
regard to statutory provisions prohibiting payment of compensation to aliens:
(II) to provide by concession, without regard to section 321 of the Act of June 30,
1932 (47 Stat. 412; 40 U.S.C. 303b) , on such terms as the Administrator may deem to be
appropriate and to be necessary to protect the concessloner against loss of his investment
in property (but not anticipated profts) resulting from the Administration·s discretionary
acts and decisions. for the construction. maintenance. and operation of all manner of
facilities and equipment for visitors to the several installations of the Administration
and. in connection therewith. to provide services incident to the dissemination of
infonnation concerning its activities to such visitors. without charge or with a reasonable
charge therefor (with this authority being in addition to any other authority which the
Administration may have to provide facilities. equipment. and services for visitors to its
installations). A concession agreement under this paragraph may be negotiated with any
qualified proposer following due consideration of all proposals received after reasonable
public notice of the intention to contract. The concessloner shall be afforded a
reasonable opportuniy to make a profit commensurate with the capital invested and the
obligations assumed. and the consideration paid by him for the concession shall be
based on the probable value of such opportunity and not on maximizing revenue to the
United States. Each concession agreement shall specif the manner in which the
concessloner"s records are to be maintained. and shall provide for access to any such
records by the Administration and the Comptroller General of the United States for a
period of five years after the close of the business year to which such records relate. A
concessioner may be accorded a possessory interest. consisting of all incidents of
ownership except legal title (which shall vest in the United States), in any structure[.]
fxture, or improvement he constructs or locates upon land owned by the United States:
and. with the approval of the Admini stration, such possessory interest may be assigned,
transferred. encumbered, or relinquished by him. and. unless otherwise provided by
contract. shall not be extinguished by the expiration or other termination of the
concession and may not be taken for public use without just compensation;
(12) with the approval of the President, to enter into cooperative agreements under
which members of the Army. Nav. Ai r Force. and Marine Corps may be detailed by the
appropriate Secretary for services in the performance of functions under this Act to the
same extent as that t which they might be lawfully assigned in the Deparment of
Defense:
(13) (A
l
to consider. ascertain, adjust. determine, settle, and pay, on behalf of the
United States. in full satisfaction thereof. any claim for S25,OOO or less against the
United States for bodily injury. death. or damage to or loss of real or personal property
resulting from the conduct of the Administration's functions as specified in subsection
(a) of this section. where such claim is presented to the Administraton in writing within
two years after the accident or incident out of which the claim arises: and
(Ð} if the Administration considers that a claim in excess of S25,OOO is
meritorious and would otherwise be covered by this paragraph. to report the facts and
circumstances thereof to the Congress for its consideration. and
(14) Repealed.
CIVILIAN-MILITARY LIAISON COMITTEE
Sec. 204. [Civilian-Military Liaison Committee) abolished.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sec. 205. The Administration. under the foreign policy gUidance of the President, may
engage in a program of Intertional cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, and
in the peaceful application of the results thereof. pursuant to agreements made by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
REPORTS TO CONGRESS
5ec. 206. (a) ¯he ¡res¡denl sha!! ltansm¡I t Ihe Congress ¡n ma¸ o! each¸eat a
tegotI,wh¡chsha!!¡nc!ude (1) acomgrehens¡Vedescr¡gI¡ono!lhegrogrammedacI¡V¡I¡es
andIhe accomp!` uhmenIs o!a!! agenc¡es o!lhe Ln¡Ied 5IaIes¡nlhef¡e!dofaeronauIIcs
and sgace acI¡V¡I¡es dut¡ng Ihe pteced¡ng !´ ucaI ¸eat, and (2) an eVa!ual¡on o!such
acI¡v´I¡esandaccomg!¡shmenls¡nIermsofIheaIIa¡nmenIof, orIhefa¡!ureIoaIIa¡n,Ihe
ob¸ecI¡Vesdesct¡bed¡nsecI¡on !02(c}ofIh¡s ^cl.
(b) ^n¸ teporl made under lh¡s secI¡on sha!! conIa¡n such tecommendal¡ons !ot
add¡I¡ona! !eg¡s!aI¡on as Ihe^dm¡n` ultaIot ot Ihe Ptes¡denI ma¸ cons¡der necessar¸ ot
des¡tab!efotlheatL¡nmenIo!Iheob¸ect¡Vesdesct¡bed¡nsecl¡on I02(c) o!Ih¡s^cI.
(c) No¡n!onnaI¡onwh¡chhas been c!ass¡Led!otreasonso!naI¡ona!secur¡I¸sha!Ibe
¡nc!uded ¡n an¸ regorI made undet lh`u secI¡on, unIess such ¡nformaI¡on has been
dec!ass¡f¡edb¸,orgursuanIloaulhor¡zal¡ong¡Venb¸,IhePtes¡denI.
DISPOSAL OF EXCESS LAND
5ec.20? NoIw¡IhsIand¡ngIhe groV¡s¡ons o!Ih¡sotanyolher !aw, lhe^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on
ma¸ nol regorI t ad¡sgosa!agenc¸ as excess Io Ihe needs o!Ihe ^dm¡n`ultaI¡on an¸
!and haV¡ng an esl¡maIed VaIue ¡n excess of $50,000 wh¡ch ` v owned b¸ lhe Un¡Ied
5IaIesand under Ihe¸ur¡sd¡cI¡onandco¡1uo!o!lhe ^dm¡n¡sItal¡on, un!ess (^) aget¡od
ofIh¡rt¸da¸shaspassedafIetIhetece¡pIb¸Ihe 5peakerandlheComm¡IIeeon5c¡ence
and^sIronauI¡cs ofIhe Houseo!RegresenIaI¡VesandIhePtes¡denIandIheComm¡IIee
on^etona·:uca!and5gace5c¡enceso!lhe5enaleofateporlb¸Ihe^dm¡n¡sIraIoroth`v
des¡gneeconIa¡n¡nga!u!!andcompIelesIalemenlo!lheacI¡ongtogosedIo beIakenand
Ihe !acIs and c¡rcumsIances te!¡ed ugon ¡n suggotI o! such act¡on, or Æ) each such
comm¡IIee be!ote lhe exg¡raI¡on o! such ger¡od has ltansm¡IIed t I|¡e ^dm¡n`ultaIot
wr¡IIen noI¡ceIoIhee¡!ecIIhaIsuchcomm¡Ileehas noob¸ecI¡onloIheptoposedact¡on.
DONATIONS FOR SPACE SHUITLE ORBITER
5ec. 208. [OonaI¡ons!ot 5gace5hutIIeOtb¡let|auI|¡ot¡t¸exp¡ted.
TITLE II-MISCELLANEOUS
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITIEE FOR AERONAUTICS
5ec. 30I.(a) JheNal¡onaI^dV¡sor¸Comm¡IIee!ot ^etonaul¡cs, onlhee!!ecl¡VedaIe
of lh`u secI¡on, sha!! cease Io ex¡sI. On such daIe a!! !uncI¡ons powets, duI¡es, and
ob!¡gal¡ons, and a!! tea! and gersona! ptopert¸, gersonne! ¦oIher lhan membets ofIhe
Comm¡IIee), !unds, and recotds o! IhaI organ¡zaI¡on, sha!! be ltansferted Io Ihe
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on.
(b) 5ecI¡on 2302 o!I¡IIe I0 o!I|¡e Ln¡led 5IaIes Code ` uamendedb¸ slt¡k¡ng oul "ot
Ihe LxecuI¡Ve 5ecteIat¸ o!I|¡e NaI¡ona! ^dV¡sot¸ Comm¡IIee !or ^etonaul¡cs" and
¡nsetI¡ng ¡n !¡eu Iheteo! ¨or Ihe ^dm¡n¡sIraIot o!lhe NaI¡ona! ^etonauI¡cs and 5gace
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on.¨, and secl¡on 2303 o!such I¡t!e I0 ` u amended b¸ sIt¡k¡ng ouI "¯he
Nal¡onaI ^dV¡sot¸ Comm¡IIee !ot ^eronauI¡cs." and ¡nsetI¡ng ¡n !¡eu Ihereof "¯he
Nal¡onaI^etonaul¡csand5pace^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on."
(c) Jhe !¡tsI secI¡on ofIhe ^cI of^ugusI 26, 1950 (5 L.5.C. 22I}, ¡samended b¸
sIr¡k´ng ouI "lheO¡recIot, NaI¡ona! ^dV¡sot¸Comm¡IIee!ot^etonauI¡cs" and ¡nsetI¡ng
¡n !¡eu Ihereo! "Ihe ^dm¡n¡sIraIor o! Ihe Nal¡onaI ^eronauI¡cs and 5gace
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on",andb¸slr¡k¡ngouI "or NaI¡ona!^dV`uot¸ Comm¡llee!ot^eronauI¡cs"
and¡nsetL´ng¡nI¡euIheteo!"orNaI¡ona!^eronauI¡csand5gace^dm¡n`ultalot"
(d) ¯heUn¡Iat¸W¡ndJunne! P!an ^cI o!1949 (50L.S.C.511-515) ¡samended (1)
b¸slt¡k¡ngouI¨JelaI¡ona!^dV¡sot¸Comm¡tIee!ot^etonauI¡cs (here¡nafIette!etred
IoasIhe 'Comm¡Ilee`)"and ¡nserl¡ng¡n!¡eulhereo!"Jhe ^dm¡n`ultaIoto!Ihe Nal¡onaI
Aeronautics and Space Administration (hereinafter referred to as the 'Administrator')":
(2) by striking out ·Committee" or ·Committee's" wherever they appear and inserting in
lieu thereof " Administrator" and " Administrator's", respectively; and (3) by striking out
"Its" wherever I appears and inserting in lieu thereof ·his".
(e) This section shall take efect ninety days after the date of the enactment of this
Act. or on any earlier date on which the Administrator shall determine, and announce by
proclamation published in the Federal Register. that the Administration has been
organized and i s prepared to discharge the duties and exerclse the powers conferred
upon it by thi s Act.
TRANSFER OF RELATED FUNCTIONS
Sec. 302. (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, the President, for a period of
four years after the date of enactment of this Act, may transfer to the Administration any
functions (including powers. duties, activities. facilities, and parts of functions) of any
other department or agency of the United States or of any officer or organizational entity
thereof, which relate primarily to the functions. powers, and duties of the Administration
as prescribed by section 203 of this Act. In connection with any such transfer. the
President may, under this section or other applicable authority. provide for appropriate
transfers of records, property. civilian personnel, and funds.
(b) Whenever any such transfer is made before January I, 1959. the President shall
transmit to the Speaker of the House of Represematives and the President pro tempore
of the Senate a full and complete report concering the nature and efect of such
transfer.
(c) After December 31. 1958. no transfer shall be made under this section until (1) a
full and complete report concerning the nature and effect of such proposed transfer has
been transmitted by the President to the Congress, and (2) the frst period of sixty
calendar days of regular session of the Congress following the date of receipt of such
report by the Congress h expired without the adoption by the Congress of a concurrent
resolution stating that the Congress does not favor such transfer.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Sec. 303. (a) Infonnation obtained or developed by the Administrator in the
performance of his functions under this Act shall be made available for public
inspection: except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be
withheld. Æ) infonnaton c1assifed to protect the national security: and (C) infonnation
described in subsection (b): Prvided. That nothing in this Act shall authorize the
withholding of information by the Administrator from the duly authorized committees of
the Congress.
(b) The Administrator. for a period up to 5 years after the development of information
that results from activities conducted under an aRreement entered into under section 203
(c) (5) and (6) of thi s Act, and that would be a trade secret or commercial or flnancial
infonnation that is privileged or confldential under the meaning of section 552(b) (4) of
title 5. United States Code, if the Information had been obtained from a non-Federal
party participating in such an agreement. may provide appropriate protections against
the dissemination of such information, including exemption from subchapter II of
chapter 5 of ttle 5. United States Code.
SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 304. (A) The Administrator shall establish such security requirements,
restrictions. and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of the national security.
The Administrator may arrange with the Director of the Ofice of Personnel
Management for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigations of the
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on`s oH¡cers, emg!o¡ees, and consuIIanIs, and ¡Is conIracIots and
subcoruacIors and lhe¡r o!!¡cets and emp!o¡ees, acIua! ot gtospecI¡Ve, as he deems
aggtogt¡ale, and ¡! an¡ such ¡nVesI¡gaI¡on deVeIops an¡ daIa re!ecI¡ng lhal Ihe
¡nd¡V¡dua! vho ¡s Ihe sub¸ecI Ihereof ` u o! quesI¡onabIe !o¡a!I¡ Ihe matIer sha!! be
te!etted Io Ihe ¡ederaI £uteau o! InVesI¡gaI¡on for lhe conducl o! a fu!! Le!d
¡nVesI¡gaI¡on,Iheresu!Iso!vh¡chshaI!be!un¡shedIoIhe^dm¡n¡sltaIot.
(b) Jhe ^lom¡c £net_ Comm¡ss¡on ma¡ aulhor¡ze an¡ o! ¡ls emg!o¡ees, ot
empIo¡eesofan¡contracIot,gtosgecI¡VeconIracIot,!¡censee, otgrosgecI¡Ve!¡censeeof
Ihe ^lom¡c £nerg¡ Comm` us¡on or an¡ omer getson auIhot¡zed Io haVe access lo
IesIt¡cIed IaIa b¡ lhe ^Iom¡c £nerg¡ Comm¡ss¡on undet subsecl¡on !45b o! Ihe
^Iom¡c £net_ ^cI c! J954 (42 U.S.C. 2J65(b) , Io germ¡I an¡ membet, oñcet, ot
empIo¡eeo!Ihe Counc¡!, otIhe ^dm¡n¡sIraIor, otan¡o!!¡cet, emg!o¡ee, membetofan
adV¡sor¡comm¡tIee, conltaclor, subconltaclor, oroñcetor emg!o¡ee o!aconltaclotot
subcoì:uacIor of Ihe ^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on, Io haVe access Io Reslt¡cled IaIa reIal¡ng lo
aeronauI¡caI andsgaceacI¡v´I¡esvh¡ch ¡s requ¡ted ¡n lheger!ormance o!h¡sdul¡esand
socerL´!¡edbj Ihe Counc¡IorIhe ^dm¡n¡sIraIor, asIhe case maj be, buIon!y¡f (]) Ihe
Counc¡! or ^dm¡n`ultaIot ot des¡gneeIheteo!has deIerm¡ned, ¡n accordance v¡lh Ihe
esIab!¡shed getsonne! secur¡I¡ gtocedutes and sIandards of Ihe Counc¡! ot
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on, IhaIperm¡Il¡ngsuch ¡nd¡V¡dua! Io haVe access Io such Reslt¡cled Oala
v¡!! noI endanger Ihe common defense and secur¡I¡, and (2} Ihe Counc¡! ot
^dm¡n¡sIraIototdes¡gneelhereo!!¡ndsIhaIIheesIab!¡shedgersonne!andoIhetsecut¡t¡
gtocedutes and sIandards of lhe Counc¡I ot ^dm¡n¡suaI¡on are adequale and ¡n
teasonab!e conform¡I¸Io Ihe sIandatds esIab!¡shed b¡Ihe ^Iom¡c £nerg¡ Comm¡ss¡on
undetsecI¡on J45 o!Ihe^Iom¡c£nerg¡^cIof I954 ¦42 L.S.C. 2I65}.^n¡¡nd¡V¡duaI
gtanIed access Io sucL Iesu¡cIed IaIa gursuanI lo lh` u subsecI¡on ma¡ exchange such
Oala v¡lh an¡ ¡nd¡V¡dua! vho (^} ¡s an oñcet or emg!o¡ee of Ihe IegatImenI of
Oe!ense, otan¡degarmenI oragenc¡lhereo!, or amembet o!Ihe anned !orces, ot a
co¡1uacIor ot subconIracIot o!an¡ such degatImenl, agenc¡, or armed force, or an
of!¡cerotempIo¡eeo!an¡suchconltaclotorsubconltaclor,and (|) hasbeena·:mot¡zed
Io haVe access Io ResIt¡cIed IaIa under Ihe groV¡s¡ons of secl¡on !43 of lhe ^lom¡c
£net_^cIo!I954 ¦42L.5.C.2!63)
(c) Chaglet 3J of I¡I!e I8 o! Ihe Ln¡led 5laIes Code (ent¡I!ed £sg¡onage and
Censorsh¡g) ` uamended b¡
(I} add¡ngaIIhe endIheteofIhe!oI!ov¡ngnevsecLon.
"§J99. V¡oIal¡cn o! tegu!aI¡ons o! NaI¡ona! ^etonauI¡cs and 5gace
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on.¨
"WhoeVet v¡!!fu!!¡ sha!I V¡o!aIe, allemgI Io V¡oIale, or consg¡re lo V¡o!aIe an¡
teguIal¡on or order gtomu!galed b¡ Ihe ^dm¡n` ultaIot o!Ihe NaI¡ona! ^etonauI¡cs and
5gace ^dm¡n¡sItal¡on !ot Ihe ptolecl¡on ot secur¡I¡ ofan¡ !abotalor¡, slaI¡on, base ot
oIhet !ac¡!¡J, otpatI Iheteo!, oran¡a¡tcra!I, m¡ss¡!e, spacecra!I, or s¡m¡!atVeh¡cIe, ot
garllhereo!.oromerptopert¡otequ¡gmenI¡nIhecusIod¡,o!Ihe^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on, otan¡
tea! ot gersonaI groperI¡ or equ¡gmenI ¡n lhe cusIod¡ o! an¡ ¢onIracIot under an¡
co¡1uacI v¡Ih Ihe ^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on ot an¡ subconIracIot o!an¡ such co¡1uacIor, sha!! be
LnednoImoreIhan $5000,ot¡mgr¡sonednoImoteIhanone¡eat, otboIh."
(2} add¡ngaIIhe endo!IhesecLona!ana!¡s¡slhereo!Ihe!o!!ov¡ngnev¡lem.
"§J99. V¡oIal¡cn o! tegu!aI¡ons o! NaI¡ona! ^etonauI¡cs and 5gace
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on.¨
(d) 5ecl¡on I!I4 o!I¡de I8 o!Ihe Ln¡Ied 5IaIes Code ¡s amended b¡ ¡nsetI¡ng
¡mmed¡aIe!¡, be!ote "vh¡!e engaged ¡n Ihe per!ormance of h¡s oñc¡aI dul¡es" Ihe
!o!!ov¡ng. "or an¡ oñcet or emg!o¡ee o! Ihe NaI¡ona! ^eronauI¡cs and 5gace
^dm¡n¡sIraI¡on d¡recIed lo guard and groIecI gtogetI¡ o!Ihe Ln¡Ied 5laIes under Ihe
adm¡n¡sIraI¡onandconlto!o!lheNaI¡ona!^eronauI¡csand5gaceAdm¡n`ultaI¡on,"
(e) The Administrator may direct such of the ofcers and employees of the
Administration as he deems necessary in the public interest to carry firearms while in
the conduct of their official dutes. The Administrator may also authorize such of those
employees of the contractors and subcontractors of the Admini stration engaged in the
protection of property owned by the United States and located at facilities owned by or
contracted to the United States as he deems necessary in the public interest. to carry
frearms while in the conduct of their oficial duties.
(H Under regulations to be prescribed by the Administrator and approved by the
Attorey General of the United States. those employees of the Administration and of its
contractors and subcontractors authorized to carry fireanns under subsection (el may
arrest without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their
presence. or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have
reasonable grounds t believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing such felony. Persons granted authority to make arrests by this subsection
may exercise that authority only while guarding and protecting property owned or leased
by, or under the control of. the United States under the administration and control of the
Administration or one of its contractors or subcontractors, at facilities owned by or
contracted to the Administration.
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INENTIONS
Sec. 305. (al Whenever any invention is made in the perfonnance of any work under
any contract of the Administration. and the Administrator detennines that
(1) the person who made the invention was employed or assigned to perform
research. development, or exploration work and the invention is related to the work he
was employed or assigned to perform, or that it was within the scope of his employment
duties, whether or not it was made during working hours. or with a contribution by the
Government of the use of Goverment facilities. equipment, materials. allocated funds,
infonnation proprietary to the Government. or services of Goverment employees
during working hours: or
(2} the person who made the invention was not employed or assigned to perform
research. development. or exploration work. but the invention is nevertheless related to
the contract. or to the work or duties he was employed or assigned to perfonn, and was
made during working hours, or with a contribution from the Government of the sort
referred to in clause (I). such invention shall be the exclusive property of the United
States, and if such invention is patentable a patent therefor shall be issued to the United
States upon application made by the Administrator. unless the Administrator waives all
or any part of the rights of the United States to such invention in confonnity with the
provisions of subsection (Jof thi s section.
(b) Each contract entered into by the Administrator with any party for the
performance of any work shall contain efective provisions under which such party shall
furnish promptly to the Administrator a written report containing full and complete
technical infonnation concerning any invention. discovery, improvement. or innovation
which may be made in the performance of any such work.
(c) No patent may be issued to any applicant other than the Admini strator for any
invention which appears to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Ofce (hereafter in this section
referred to as the "Director") to have significant utility in the conduct of aeronautical
and space activities unless the applicant f1ies with the Director, with the application or
within thirty days after request therefor by the Director, a written statement executed
under oath setting forth the full facts concering the circumstances under which such
invention was made and stating the relationship (if any) of such invention to the
performance of any work under any contract of the Administration. Copies of each such
sIalemenI andIheagpI¡caI¡on Io Wh¡ch ¡IreIales sha!! beuansm¡IIed fotIhW¡Ih b¡Ihe
D¡recIotIoIheAdm¡n¡sIraIot.
(d) !pon ah¡ agp!¡caI¡on asIo Wh¡ch an¡suchslaIemenI hasbeenIransm¡IledIoIhe
Adm¡h¡sIraIot, lhe I¡tecIor ma¡, II lhe ¡hverLon ¡s gaIeì:Lb!e, ¡ssue a gaIehI Io Ihe
agg!¡canIun!essIheAdm¡n¡sItalor, W¡Ih¡nn¡net¡da¡sa!Ier tece¡pl oIsuch agpI¡caI¡on
andsIaIemenl, regueslsIhaIsuchpaIenIbe ¡ssuedIoh¡m oh beha!IoIlhe!n¡Ied5IaIes
If, W¡Ih¡n such I¡me, lhe Adm¡h¡sIraIot I¡!es such a reguesI W¡lh lhe D¡reclot, Ihe
D¡recIotsha!!Iransm¡InoI¡ce lhereoIIoIheapg!¡cahI, ahdsha!!¡ssuesuchgaIenIIoIhe
Adm¡h¡sIraIotun!essIheagp!¡canIW¡Ih¡nIh¡rI¡da¡sa!Ierrece¡pIoIsuchnoI¡ceteguesIs
ahear¡hgbeIotelheÐoatdofPaIehIAggea!sand InIerIetencesoh Ihe guesl¡on WheIhet
Ihe Adm¡h` ultaIot Is ehLI!ed under Ih¡s secI¡on lo rece¡ve such paIenI. Jhe Ðoatd ma¡
heatanddeIerm¡ne, ¡n accordanceW¡Ihtu!esahdgrocedureseslab¡¡shedfor ¡nIerIerence
cases, lheguesI¡onso ptesenIed, and ¡ls deIenn¡nal¡on sha!! be sub¸eclIoaggeaI b¡ Ihe
agg!¡canIor b¡IheAdm¡h¡sIraIotlo lheUh¡Ied 5IalesCoutIoIApgeaIsfotlheIederaI
C¡rcu¡l ¡naccordanceW¡mgroceduresgovem¡hgaggea!sfromdec¡s¡ons oIIheÐoatdof
PalenIAggea!sandInIerIetences¡noIhergroceed¡nys.
(e) Vhenever an¡ gaIehI has been ¡ssued Io an¡ apg!¡canI ¡h conIonn¡¡ W¡lh
subsecI¡oh (d}, ahd lheAdm¡h¡sIraIotIhereafIethasteasohIobe!¡eve lhalIheslaIemehI
LIed b¡Iheapg!¡canI ¡h conhect¡on IheteW¡lh conla´nedan¡!Iseregreseì:LI¡onoIah¡
malet¡aI IacI, Ihe Adn¡n¡sItalor W¡Ih¡n Lve ¡eats afIet Ihe daIe of Issuance oI such
gaIenIma¡I¡!eW¡lhIhe I¡recIotategueslIotIheltahsfetloIheAdm¡n¡sIraIoroII¡I!elo
such paIenI on Ihe records of Ihe I¡teclor. Nol¡ce oI an¡ such teguesI sha!! be
Itahsm¡IIedb¡IheD¡reclotIoIhe oWner oItecotd oIsuch paIenI, and l¡I!e lo suchgalenI
sha!! besoltansferted loIheAdm¡n¡suaIor uhIess W¡lh¡n Ih¡rt¡da¡safIettece¡gloIsuch
nol¡cesuchoWnetoIrecotdreguesIsahear¡hgbeIore lheÐoard oIPaIenIApgeaIsahd
InIetfetences on Ihe quesI¡on WheIhet ah¡ such fa!se tegresenIaL`oh Was conla´ned ¡n
suchsIaIemenI. 5uchguesl¡onsha!Ibeheatdanddeletm¡ned, and deletm¡naI¡onIheteof
sha!! be sub¸ecI Io tev¡eW, ¡h Ihe manner ptesct¡bed b¡ subsecI¡on (d) Ior guesI¡ohs
at¡s¡ng lhereunder. No reguesl made b¡Ihe Adm¡h¡sIraIotundetIh¡s subsecI¡oh Ior Ihe
Itahsfet oI l¡IIe Io an¡ gaIenI, and no gtosec·:uoh Iot lhe v¡oIal¡on oI ah¡ ct¡m¡naI
sIaluIe, shaI! be barted b¡ an¡ Ia¡!ure of Ihe Adm¡n¡sIraIor Io make a reguesl undet
subsecI¡oh (d} IotIhe ` usuahceoIsuchgalenIIo h¡m, orb¡ah¡nol¡cegrev¡ous!¡g¡ven
b¡ lhe Adm¡h¡sIraIot slaI¡ng IhaI he had no ob¸ecI¡on lo lhe ¡ssuance oIsuch paIenI lo
Iheapg!¡cahIIhereIot.
(H !ndersuchregu!al¡ons ¡h conIotm¡¡W¡IhIh¡ssubsecI¡onasIheAdm¡n`ultaIotlo
sha!!grescr¡be,hema¡Wa¡veaI!otan¡garIofIhet¡ghIsofIheUn¡Ied5IaIesundetIh¡s
secl¡ohW¡Ih tespeclloan¡¡nvenl¡onotc!ass oI¡nvenI¡ons madeorWh¡chma¡bemade
b¡ an¡ person ot c!ass of getsons ¡n Ihe gerIormahce of ah¡ Work tegu¡red b¡ ah¡
co¡1uacI oIIhe Adm¡n¡sIraI¡on ¡IIhe Adm¡n¡sIraIor deIerm¡hes IhaIIhe ¡nIeresls oIIhe
!n¡Ied 5laIesW¡!I be servedIheteb¡. Ah¡ such Wa¡vetma¡be made upon such letms
and undet such cohd¡t¡ons asIhe Adm¡n¡sIraIor sha!! deIerm¡he Io be regu¡ted Ior Ihe
gtoIecl¡onofIhe ¡nIetesIsoIlhe !n¡led 5IaIes. £achsuchWa¡vet madeW¡Ih respecl lo
an¡¡nve¡1uohshaI!besub¸eclIoIheteservaI¡onb¡IheAdm¡h` ultaIotoIah¡rrevocabIe,
nohexc!us¡ve, nonltansIerab!e, ro¡aII¡free I¡cense Iot Ihe gracI¡ce oI such ¡hvehI¡on
IhroughouI lhe Wot!d b¡ or oh behaIfoIIhe !n¡Ied 5Iales or ah¡Iore¡gh govenmehI
gursuanIIoah¡IreaI¡ otagreemenlW¡IhlheUh¡Ied 5IaIes £achgrogosa!Iotan¡Wa¡ver
undet lh¡s subsecI¡on sha!! beteIerred lo an InvenI¡ons and Conlr¡buI¡oh Ðoard Wh¡ch
sha!! be eslab!¡shed b¸ Ihe Adm¡n¡sItalor W¡Ih¡h Ihe Adm¡h¡sIraI¡on. 5uch Ðoard sha!I
accotd lo each ¡hIeresIed gatI¡ an opgorIuh¡¡ Ior hear¡ng. ahd shaI! lransm¡I Io Ihe
Adm¡h¡sIraIot¡Isf¡hd¡hgsoIIacIW¡IhresgecIIosuchptoposa!and¡IstecommehdaI¡ohs
IoracI¡onIobelakenW¡lhtespecllhereIo
(g) [RegeaIed|
(h) The Administrator is authorized to take all suitable and necessary steps to protect
any invention or discovery to which he has title, and to require that contractors or
persons who retain title to inventions or discoveries under this section protect the
inventions or discoveries to which the Administration has or may acquire a license of
M�.
(i) The Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for
the purpose of chapter 17 of title 35 of the United States Code.
W As used in this section
(I) the tenn "person" means any individual. partnership. corporation. association,
institution. or other entity:
(2) the tenn ·contract" means any actual or proposed contract. agreement,
understanding. or other arrangement, and includes any assignment. substitution of
parties, or subcontract executed or entered into thereunder: and
(3) the tenn "made". when used in relaton to any invention. means the conception
or first actual reduction to practice of such invention.
(k) Any object intended for launch. launched. or assembled in outer space shall be
considered a vehicle for the purpose of secton 272 of title 35, United States Code.
(I) The use or manufacture of any patented invention incorporated in a space vehicle
launched by the United States Government for a person other than the United States
shall not be considered to be a M or manufacture by or for the United States within the
meaning of section 1498(a) of title 28, United States Code unless the Administration
gives an express authorization or consent for such use or manufacture.
CONTRIBUTIONS AWARS
Sec. 306. (a) Subject to the provisions of this secton. the Administrator I sauthorized,
upon his own initiative or upon application of any person. to make a monetary award. in
such amount and upon such tenns as he shall determine to be warranted. to any person
(as defned by section 305) for any sclentif1c or technical contribution to the
Administration which is detennined by the Administrator to have signifcant value in the
conduct of aeronautical and space activities. Each application made for any such award
shall be referred to the Inventions and Contributions Board established under section
305 of thi s Act. Such Board shall accord to each such applicant an opportunity for
hearing upon such application. and shall transmit to the Administrator its
recommendation as to the terms of the award. If any, to be made to such applicant for
such contribution. In determining the tenns and conditions of any award the
Administrator shall take into account-
(I) the value of the contribution to the United States:
(2) the aggregate amount of any sums which have been expended by the applicant
for the development of such contribution;
(3) the amount of any compensation (other than salary received for services
rendered as an ofcer or employee of the Government) previously received by the
applicant for or on account of the use of such contribution by the United States; and
(4) such other factors as the Administrator shall detennlne to be material.
(b) If more than one applicant under subsection (a) claims all interest in the same
contribution. the Administator shall ascertain and determine the respective interests of
such applicants. and shall apportion any award to be made with respect to such
contribution among such applicants in such proportions as he shall detennine to be
equitable. No award may be made under subsecton (a) with respect to any contribution-
(I) unless the applicant surrenders, by such means as the Administator shall
determine to be effective, all claims which such applicant may have to receive any
compensation (other than the award made under this section) for the use of such
contribution or any element thereof at any time by or on behalf of the United States, or
by or on behalf of any foreign goverment pursuant to any teaty or agreement with the
United States. within the United States or at any oher place:
(2) in any amount exceeding $100,000, unless the Administrator has transmitted to
the appropriate committees of the Congress a full and complete report concerning the
amount and terms of. and the basi s for. such proposed award. and thirty calendar days of
regular session of the Congress have expired after receipt of such report by such
committees.
DEFENSE OF CERTAIN MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE SUITS
Sec. 307. (a) The remedy against the United States provided by sections 1346(b) and
2672 of title 28, United States Code. for damages for personal injury. including death,
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omi ssion of any physician, dentist. nurse,
phannaclsl. or paramedical or other supporting personnel (Including medical and dental
technicians. nursing assistants. and therapists) of the Administration in the performance
of medical, dental. or related health care functions (including clinical studies and
investigations) while acting within the scope of his duties or employment therein or
therefor shall hereafter be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of
the same subject matter against such physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or
paramedical or other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person) whose act or
omission gave rise to such acton or proceeding.
(b) The Attorney General shall defend any civil action or proceeding brought in any
court against any person referred to in subsection (a) of thi s section (or the estate of such
person) for any such injury. Any such person against whom such civil action or
proceeding is brought shall deliver within such tme after date of service or knowledge
of service as detennined by the Attorney General. all process served upon such person
or an attested true copy thereof to such person's immediate superior or to whomever was
designated by the Administrator to receive such papers and such person shall promptly
furnish copies of the pleading and process therein to the United States Attorey for the
district embracing the place wherein the proceeding is brought to the Attorey General
and to the Administator.
(c) Upon a certification by the Attorney General that any person described in
subsection (a) was acting in the scope of such person's duties or employment at the time
of the incident out of which the suit arose. any such civil action or proceeding
commenced in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by
the Attorey General to the district court of the United States of the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending and the proceeding deemed a tort action
brought against the United States under the provisions of title 28, United States Code,
and all references thereto. Should a United States district court determine on a hearing
on a motion to remand held before a trial on the merits that the case so removed is one in
which a remedy by suit within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section is not
available against the United States. the case shall be remanded to the State court.
(d) The Attorney General may compromise or settle any claim asserted in such civil
action or proceeding in the manner provided in section 2677 of title 28. United States
Code. and with the same effect.
(e) For purposes of this section. the provisions of section 2680(h) of ttle 28, United
States Code, shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful
act of omission in the performance of medical. dental. or related health care functions
(including clinical studies and investigations).
(H The Administrator or his designee may, to the extent that the Administrator or his
designee deem appropriate. hold harmless or provide li ability insurance for any person
described in subsection (a) for damages for personal injury. including death, caused by
such person's negligent or wrongful act or omission In the perfonnance of medical,
dental, or related health care functions (including clinical studies and investigations)
while acting within the scope of such person's duties if such person is assigned to a
foreign country or detailed for service with other than a Federal department. agency, or
instrumentality or if the circumstances are such as are likely to preclude the remedies of
third persons against the United States described in section 2679(b) of title 28. United
States Code, for such damage or injury.
ISURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
Sec. 308. (a) The Administration is authorized on such terms and t the extent it may
deem appropriate to provide liability insurance for any user of a space vehicle to
compensate all or a portion of claims by third paries for death, bodily injury, or loss of
or damage to property resulting from activities carried on in connection with the launch,
operations or recovery of the space vehicle. Appropriations available to the
Administration may be used to acquire such insurance. but such appropriations shall be
reimbursed to the maximum extent practicable by the users under reimbursement
policles established pursuant to section 203(c) of this Act.
(b) Under such regulations in conformiy with this section as the Administrator shall
prescribe taking into account the availabiliy, cost and tenus of liability insurance, any
agreement between the Administration and a user of a space vehicle may provide that
the United States will indemnify the user against claims (including reasonable expenses
of litigation or settlement) by third parties for death. bodily injury, or loss of or damage
t property resultng from activities carried on in connection with the launch, operations
or recovery of the space vehicle. but only t the extent that such claims are not
compensated by li ability insurance of the user: Provided. That such indemniflcation may
be limited to claims resulting from other than the actual negligence or willful
misconduct of the user.
(c) An agreement made under subsection (b) that provides indemniflcation must also
provide for-
(I) notice to the United States of any claim or suit against the user for the death,
bodily injury. or loss of or damage to the property: and
(d) No payment may be made under subsection (b) unless the Administrator or his
designee certifies that the amount is just and reasonable.
(e) Upon the approval by the Administrator. payments under subsection (b) may be
made. at the Adminlstrator·s election. either from funds available for research and
development not otherwi se obligated or from funds appropriated for such payments.
(H A used in this section
(I) the tenu "space vehicle" means an object intended for launch. launched or
assembled in outer space. including the Space Shuttle and other components of a space
transportation system, together wih related eqUipment. devices, components and parts:
(2) the term 'user" includes anyone who enters into an agreement with the
Administration for use of all or a portion of a space vehicle. who owns or provides
property to be fiown on a space vehicle. or who employs a person to be fown on a space
vehicle: and
(3) the term "third party" means any person who may institute a claim against a
user for death. bodily injury or loss of or damage to property.
EXPERIMENTAL AEROSPACE VEHICLE
Sec. 309. (a) Te Administrator may provide liabiliy insurance for, or
indemnification to, the developer of an experimental aerospace vehicle developed or
used in execution of an agreement between the Administration and the developer.
(b) Tenus and Conditions.
(I) Except as other ... lse provided in this section, the insurance and indemnification
provided by the Administration under subsection (a) to a developer shall be provided on
the same terms and conditions Ü insurance and indemnification is provided by the
Administration under section 308 of this Act t the user of a space vehicle.
(2) Insurance.
(A) A developer shall obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financlal
responSibility in amounts to compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims
by-
(I) a third pany for death, bodlly injury, or property damage, or loss resulting
from an actviy carried out in connection with the development or use of an
experimental aerospace vehicle: and
(ll) the United States Goverment for damage or loss t Goverment property
resulting from such an activity.
(Ð} The Admini strator shall determine the amount of insurance reqUired, but,
except as provided in subparagraph (Ç,that amount shall not be greater than the amount
required under section 70112(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, for a launch. The
Administrator shall publi sh notice of the Administrator·s determination and the
applicable amount or amounts in the Federal Register within 10 days after making the
determination.
(Ç The Admini strator may increase the dollar amounts set forth in section
70112(a) (3)(A) of title 49. United States Code, for the purpose of applying that section
under this section to a developer afer consulation with the Comptroller General and
such experts and consultants Ü may be appropriate, and afer publishing notice of the
increase in the Federal Register not less than 180 days before the increase goes into
effect. The Administrator shall make avallable for public inspection. not later than the
date of publication of such notice. a complete record of any correspondence received by
the Administration. and a transcript of any meetings In which the Administration
participated. regarding the proposed increase.
(D) The Administrator may not provide liability insurance or indemnification
under subsection (a) unless the developer establishes to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that appropriate safety procedures and practices are being followed in the
development of the experimental aerospace vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (a) , the Administrator may not indemnify a
developer of an experimental aerospace vehicle under this section unless there is an
agreement between the Administration and the developer described in subsection (c).
(4) If the Administrator requests additional appropriations to make payments under
this section, like the payments that may be made under section 308(b) of this Act, then
the request for those appropriations shall be made in accordance with the procedures
established by subsections (d) and (e) of section 70113 of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Cross-Waivers.
(I) The Administrator. on behalf of the United States. and its departments,
agenCies. and instrumentalites. may reciprocally waive claims with a developer or
cooperating party and with the related entities of that developer or cooperating party
under which each party to the waiver agrees t be responsible, and agrees to ensure that
it own related entities are responsible, for damage or loss to its property for which it is
responsible, or for losses. resulting from any injury or death sustained by its own
employees or agents. Ü a result of activities connected t the agreement or use of the
experimental aerospace vehicle.
(2) limitations.
(A) A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (I) may not preclude a claim by any
natural person (Including, but not limited to, a natural person who Is an employee of the
United States. the developer. the cooperating party, or their respective subcontractors) or
that natural person's estate, survivors, or subrogees for injury or death, except with
respect to a subrogee that i sa party to the waiver or has otherwise agreed to be bound by
the tenns of the waiver.
(Ð} A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may not absolve any party of
li ability to any natural person (including, but not limited to, a natural person who is an
employee of the United States, the developer, the cooperating party. or their respective
subcontractors) or such a natural person's estate, survivors, or subrogees for negligence,
except with respect to a subrogee that is a party to the waiver or has otherwise agreed to
be bound by the terms of the waiver.
(Ç A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (1) may not be used as the basis of a
claim by the Administration, or the developer or cooperating party, for indemnifcation
against the other for damages paid to a natural person, or that natural person's estate,
survivors, or subrogees, for injury or death sustained by that natural person as a result of
activities connected to the agreement or use of the experimental aerospace vehicle,
(D) A reciprocal waiver under paragraph (I) may not relieve the United States,
the developer, the cooperating µæq, or the related entities of the develoµer or
cooperating party, of Uabllity for damage or loss resulting from willful misconduct.
(3) Subsection (c) applies to any waiver of claims entered into by the
Administration without regard to whether it was entered into before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Defnitions, In this section:
(I) Cooperating Party,-The term "cooperating party" means any person who enters
into an agreement with the Administration for the performance of cooperatve scientifc,
aeronautical. or space activities to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Developer-The term "developer" means a United States person (other than a
natural person) who-
(A) Is a party, to an agreement with the Administration for the purpose of
developing new technology for an experimental aerospace vehicle:
(Ð}owns or provides propery to be flown or situated on that vehicle; or
(Ç employs a natural person to be flown on that vehicle,
(3) Experimental Aerospace Vehicle,-The term "experimental aerospace vehicle"
means an object intended to be flown in, or launched into, orbital or suborbital flight for
the purpose of demonstrating technologies necessary for a reusable launch vehicle,
developed under an agreement between the Administration and a developer.
(4) Related Entity.-The term "related entity" includes a contractor or subcontractor
at any tier, a supplier, a grantee, and an investigator or detailee,
(e) Relationship to Other Laws,
(I) Section 308,-This section does not apply to any object, transaction, or operation
to which section 308 of thi s Act applies,
(z) Chapter 70J of Title 49, United States Code,-The AdminIstrator may not
provide indemnification to a developer under this section for launches subject to license
under section 70117((1) of title 49, United States Code,
(HTermination
(I) In General. The provisions of this section shall terminate on December 31,
2010. except that the Admini strator may extend the termination date to a date not later
than September 30, 2005, if the Administrator detennines that such extension I s in the
interests of the United States,
(2) Effect of Termination on Agreement, The termination of this section shall not
terminate or otherwise affect any cross-waiver agreement, insurance agreement,
indemnification agreement. or other agreement entered into under this section, except as
may be provided in that agreement.
APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 310. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry oUi this Act, except that nothing in this Act shall authorize the
appropriation of any amount for (I) the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property. or (2) any other item of a capital nature (such as plant or facility acquisition,
construction. or expansion) which exceeds $250.000. Sums appropriated pursuant to this
subsection for the construction of facilities. or for research and development activities,
shall remain available until expended.
(b) Any funds appropriated for the construction of facilities may be used for
emergency repairs of existing facilities when such existing facilities are made
inoperatve by major breakdown, accident, or other circumstances and such repairs are
deemed by the Administrator to be of greater urgency than the construction of new
facilities.
(c) Notwihstanding any oher provision of law, the authorization of any appropriation
to the Administration shall expire (unless an earlier expiration i sspecifically provided)
at the close of the third flscal year following the flscal year in which the authorization
was enacted. to the extent that such appropriation has not theretofore actually been
made.
MISUSE OF AGENCY NAME AND INITIALS
Sec. 311. (a) No person (as deflned by section 305) may (]) knowingly use the words
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration" or the letters "NASA", or any
combination, variation, or colorable imitation of those words or letters either alone or in
combination with oher words or letters. as a flnn or business name in a manner
reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such flnn or business has some
connection with, endorsement of. or authorization from. the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration which does not, in fact, exist; or (2) knowingly use those words or
letters or any combination. variation, or colorable imiation thereof either alone or in
combination with other words or letters in connection with any product or service being
offered or made available to the public in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the
impression that such product or service has the authorization, support. sponsorship, or
endorsement of. or the development, use. or manufacture by or on behalf of the Natonal
Aeronautics and Space Administration which does not. in fact, exist.
(b) Whenever i appears to the Attorney General that any person is engaged in an act
or practice which constitutes or will constitute conduct prohibited by subsection (a) , the
Attorey General may initiate a civil proceeding in a district court of the United States
to enjoin such act or practice.
CONTRACTS REGARDING EXENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES
Sec. 312. (a) The Administrator may enter into contracts for expendable launch
vehicle services that are for periods in excess of the period for which funds are
other.ise available for obligation. provide for the payment for contingent liability which
may accrue in excess of available appropriations in the event the Government for its
convenience terminates such contracts, and provide for advance payments reasonably
related to launch vehicle and related equipment. fabrication, and acqui sition costs. if any
such contract limits the amount of the payment that the Federal Government is allowed
to make under such contract to amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts. Such
contracts may be limited to sources within the United States when the Administrator
determines that such limitation i sin the public interest.
(b) If funds are not available to continue any such contract. the contract shall be
terminated for the convenience of the Government, and the costs of such contract shall
be paid from appropriations originally available for performance of the contract, from
other. unobligated appropriations currently available for the procurement of launch
services. or from fnds appropriated for such payments.
FULL COST APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNT STRUCTURE
Sec. 313. (a) (I) Appropriations for the Administration for fiscal year 2007 and
thereafter shall be made in three accounts. "Science, Aeronautics. and Education",
"Exploration Systems and Space Operations", and an account for amounts appropriated
for the necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector Genera1.
(2) Wihin the Exploration Systems and Space Operations account. no more than 10
percent of the funds for a fi scal year for Exploration Systems may be reprogrammed for
Space Operatons. and no more than 10 percent of the funds for a fi scal year for Space
Operations may be reprogrammed for Exploration Systems. Thi s paragraph shall not
apply to reprogramming for the purposes described in subsection (b) (2).
(3) Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal years. unless otherwise
specified in law. Each account shall include the planned full costs of Administration
activities.
(b) (I) To ensure the safe. timely. and successful accompli shment of Administration
missions. the Administration may transfer amounts for Federal salaries and benefits:
training. travel and awards; facility and related costs; information technology services:
publishing services; science. engineering, fabricating and testing services; and other
administrative services among accounts. as necessary.
(c ) The unexpired balances of prior appropriations t the Administration for activities
authorized under this Act may be transferred to the new account established for such
activity in subsection (a). Balances so transferred may be merged wih funds in the
newly established account and thereafter may be accounted for as one fund under the
same terms and conditions.
PRIZE AUTHORITY
Sec. 314. (a) In Genera1.-The Administration may carry out a program to
competiively award cash prizes to stimulate innovaton in basic and applied research,
technology development. and prototype demonstraton that have the potential for
application to the perfonnance of the space and aeronautical activities of the
Administration. The Administration may carry out a program t award prizes only in
conformity with this section.
(b) Topics.-In selecting topics for prize competitions. the Administrator shall consult
widely both within and outside the Federal Government, and may empanel advisory
committees.
(c) Advertising.-The Administrator shall widely advertise prize competitions to
encourage participation.
(d) Requirements and Rejistration.-For each prize competition. the Administrator
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the subject of the competition,
the rules for being eligible to participate in the competition. the amount of the prize, and
the basis on which a winner will be selected.
(e) Eligibiliy.-To be eligible to win a prize under this section. an individual or
entity-
(I) shall have registered to participate in the competition pursuant to any rules
promulgated by the Administrator under subsection (d);
(2) shall have complied with all the requirements under thi s section;
(3) in the case of a private entity. shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary
place of business in the United States. and in the case of an individual, whether
participating singly or in a group. shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United
States; and
(4) shall not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of
their employment.
tÜ
Liabitity.-(I) Registered participants must agree to assume any and all risks and
waive claims against the Federal Goverment and its related entities, except in the case
of willful misconduct, for any injury. death. damage. or loss of property, revenue, or
profts, whether direct. indirect. or consequential. arising from their participation in a
competiion. whether such injury, death. damage. or loss arises through negligence or
other.ise. For the purposes of this paragraph. the term 'related entty' means a
contractor or subcontactor at any tier, and a supplier, user. customer. cooperating pany,
grantee, investigator, or detailee.
(2) Participants must obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial
responsibility, in amounts detennined by the Administrator. for claims by-
(A) a third party for death. bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting
from an activity carried out in connection with participation in a competiion. with the
Federal Goverment named as an additional insured under the registered participant"s
insurance policy and registered paricipants agreeing to indemnify the Federal
Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to
competiion activities: and
(Ð} the Federal Goverment for damage or loss to Government property
resulting from such an activity.
(gl Judges.-For each competition. the Administration. either directly or through an
agreement under subsection (h). shall assemble a panel of qualifed judges to select the
winner or winners of the prize competition on the basi s described pursuant to subsection
(d) . Judges for each competition shall include individuals from outside the
Administration. including from the private sector. A judge may not-
(1) have personal or financial interests in. or be an employee. officer, director, or
agent of any entity that is a registered participant in a competition: or
(2) have a familial or financial relationship with an individual who is a regi stered
participant.
(h) Administering the Competition.-The Administrator may enter into an agreement
with a private, nonprofit entity to administer the prize competition, subject to the
provisions of this section.
(i) Funding.-(I) Prizes under this section may consist of Federal appropriated funds
and funds provided by the private sector for such cash prizes. Te Administrator may
accept funds from other Federal agencies for such cash prizes. The Administrator may
not give any special consideration to any private sector entty in return for a donation.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law. funds appropriated for prize
awards under this section shall remain available until expended. and may be transferred,
reprogrammed. or expended for other purposes only after the expiration of 10 fiscal
years after the fiscal year for which the funds were originally appropriated. No provision
in this section permits obligation or payment of funds in violation of the Ant-DefiCiency
Act (31 U.s.C. 1341).
(3) No prize may be announced under subsection (d) until aU the funds needed to
pay out the announced amount of the prize have been appropriated or committed in
writing by a private source. The Admini strator may increase the amount of a prize after
an initial announcement is made under subsection (d) if-
(A) notice of the increase i provided in the same manner as the initial notice of
the prize: and
(Ð} the funds needed to payout the announced amount of the increase have been
appropriated or committed in writing by a private source.
(4) No prize competition under this section may offer a prize in an amount greater
than S 10,000,000 unless 30 days have elapsed after written notice has been transmitted
IoIhe Comm¡tIee on 5c¡ence oIlheHouse oIRegresehIal¡ves andIhe Comm¡Ilee on
Commetce, 5c¡ehce,andJransporlaI¡onoIIhe5ehaIe.
(5) Nogt¡zecomgeI¡l¡onunderlh¡ssecI¡onma¡tesuII¡nIheaWard oImote Ihan
$1,000.000 ¡ncashgr¡zesW¡Ihoullheapgrova!oIIheAdm¡n¡sItaIcr
g) !seoINA5A Name ahd Ihs¡gn¡a.Areg¡sIeredpa1¡c¡ganl¡nacomgeI¡I¡onundet
Ih¡s secl¡oh ma¡ use Ihe Adm¡n¡sIraI¡on`s hame, ¡n¡l¡a!s, ot ¡ns¡gh¡a ohI¡ a!Ier gt¡ot
teV¡eWandWt¡¤enaggtova!b¡IheAdm¡n¡sItaI¡oh.
(k) Comp!¡ahceV¡Ih £x¡sI¡ng IaW.!he IederaI CovernmenI sha!! noI, b¡v¡tIue of
ofIet¡ng or grov¡d¡ng a pt¡ze uhdet Ih¡s secI¡on, be resgons¡bIe Ior comg!¡ance b¡
teg¡sIeted gatI¡c¡ganIs ¡h a pt¡ze comgeI¡I¡on W¡m IederaI !aW, ¡hc!ud¡ng !¡cens¡ng.
exgotIconIro!,andhongroI¡Ietal¡on!aWs,andte!aIedregu!aI¡ons.
LEASE OF NON·EXCESS PROPERTY
5ec. 315, (a) In geneta!. JheAdm¡n¡sItalotma¡ehIer¡hIoa!ease underIh¡ssecI¡on
W¡lh an¡ gersoh or ehI¡I¡ (¡ncud¡ng anoIhet degatImenl or agenc¡ of lhe IederaI
CoVerhmenIoran ehI¡t¸oIa5Ialeot!oca! goVenmehI) W¡IhtegatdIoah¸nohexcess
tea!ptopert¡andreIaledgetsona!gtogetI¡undetIhe¸ur¡sd¡cI¡ohofIheAdm¡n¡sIraIor.
(b) Cons¡deraI¡on.
(1) Agetson or enI¡I¡ ehIer¡ng ¡nIo a !ease under lh`u secl¡on sha!! gtov`de cash
cons¡detal¡onIotIhe!easeaIfa¡tmarkelVaIueasdeIerm¡nedb¡lheAdm¡n¡sItalot.
(2)
(A) Jhe Adm¡n¡sIraIor ma¡ ul¡I` ue amounls ofcash cohs¡detaI¡oh rece¡ved undet
Ih¡ssubsecl¡onIota!easeenIered¡nlounderIh¡ssecI¡onIo coverIhefu!!cosIsIo NA5A
¡nconnecI¡onW¡IhIhe!ease.JheseIuhdssha!!rema¡naVa¡!ab!eunI¡!exgended.
(B) An¡ amounls ofcashcohs¡detal¡oh rece¡ved undetIh¡ssubsecI¡onIhaIate noI
uI¡!¡zed ¡h accordahce W¡m subgaragragh (A} sha!! be degos¡Ied ¡n a cag¡laI asseI
accouhI Io be esIab!¡shed b¡ Ihe Adm¡n`ultaIot, sha! be ava¡!ab!e Iot cag¡laI
teV¡Ia!¡zal¡on and consltucl¡oh gro¸ecIs and ¡mptoVemenls oIteaI ptopetI¡ asseIs ahd
te!aIed getsona! grogetI¡ under Ihe¸ut¡sd¡cl¡oh oIIhe Adm¡n¡sIraIor, and sha!! tema¡n
ava¡Iab!euhI¡!exgehded.
(C) AmounIs ul¡I` ued uhder subgatagtaph (B) ma¡ hoI be uu´I¡zed Iot da¡!¡
ogetaI¡ngcosIs.
(c) Add¡I¡ona!Ierms and cond¡I¡ohs. !he Adm¡n¡sIraIor ma¡regu¡te such Ienus ahd
cond¡I¡ons ¡n connecI¡on W¡Ih a!ease uhdet Ih¡s secI¡oh as lhe Adm¡n¡sItalor cons¡ders
aggtogt¡aleIogroIecIIhe¡hIeresIsofIhe!n¡led5laIes.
(d) Re!aI¡onsh¡p lo oIhet Iease auIhot¡I¡. Jhe a·:mot¡I¡ under Ih¡s secl¡on lo !ease
gtogert¡oINA5A ` u ¡h add¡I¡onIoah¡oIherauIhot¡I¡lo IeasegrogetI¡oINA5A undet
!aW.
(e) IeaseReslt¡cl¡ons.
(I) NA5A ` u hoI auIhot¡zed lo !ease back grogetI¸ undetIh¡s secI¡on dut¡hgIhe
IermofIheoul!easeorenIer¡nIoometco¡1uacIsW¡IhIhe!esseetesgecLngIhegtogetI¡.
(2) NA5A ` unoI auIhor¡zedIo enIer ¡hIoan ouI!ease undet lh¡s secI¡onun!essIhe
Adm¡h¡sIraIot ceru´I¡es IhaI such oulIeaseW¡!! hoI haVe anegaI¡ve ¡mpacl onNA5A's
m¡ss¡on.
(H 5unseI!heauIhot¡t¡Io ehIer ¡nlo !eases undet lh`u secI¡onsha!! exg¡re oh Ihe
daIeIhaI¡slen¡eatsa¬etIhedaIeoIIhe ehaclmenIoflheCommerce,]usI¡ce, 5c¡ehce,
and Ie!aIedAgehc¡esApgrogr¡aI¡onsAcloI2008. Jheexg¡raI¡oh uhderIh¡ssubsecI¡on
ofauIhot¡t¡IoenIer¡nIoIeasesunderIh¡ssecI¡onsha!!nolaIIecltheva!¡d¡t¡orIermof
!eases or NA5A's tetenI¡on of ptoceeds Itom !eases enIeted ¡nlo undet lh¡s secI¡on
beIoteIhedaleoIIheexg¡tal¡onoIsuchaulhor¡I¡
RETROCESSION OF JURISDICTION
Sec. 316. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator may
relinquish to a State all or part of the legislative jurisdiction of the United States over
lands or interests under the control of the Administrator in that State.
(b) For purposes of thi s section. the term 'State' means any of the several States. the
District of Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa. the Norther Mariana Islands, and any other
commonwealh. territory, or possession of the United States.
RECOVERY AND DISPOSITION AUTHORITY
Sec. 317.(a) In General.-
(I) Control of remains.-Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), when there Is an accident
or mishap resultng in the death of a crewmember of a NASA human space flight
vehicle, the Administrator may take control over the remains of the crewmember and
order autopsies and other scientfic or medical tests.
(2) Treatment.-Each crewmember shall provide the Administrator wih his or her
preferences regarding the teatment accorded t his or her remains and the Admini strator
shall. to the extent possible. respect those stated preferences.
(3) Construction.-This section shall not be construed to permit the Administrator t
interfere with any Federal investigation of a mishap or accident.
(b) Defnitions.-In this section:
(I) Crewmember.-The term 'crewmember" means an astronaut or oher person
assigned to a NASA human space flight vehicle.
(2) NASA human space flight vehicle.-The term 'NASA human space flight
vehicle' means a space vehicle, as defined in section 308(0 (I). that
(A) is intended to transport I or more persons;
(Ð}is designed to operate in outer space; and
(Ç is either owned by NASA, or owned by a NASA contractor or cooperating
party and operated Ü part of a NASA mission or a joint mission with NASA.
TITLE IV-UPPER ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
PURPOSE AND POLICY
Sec. 401. (a) The purpose of this title i st authorize and direct the Administration to
develop and carry out a comprehensive program of research, technolog. and monitoring
of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere so as to provide for an understanding of and
to maintain the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's upper atmosphere.
(b) The Congress declares that is the policy of the United States to undertake an
immediate and appropriate research. technology. and monitoring program that will
provide for understanding the physics and chemistry of the Earth's upper atmosphere.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 402. For the purpose of this title the tenn "upper atmosphere" means that portion
of the Earth's sensible atmosphere above the troposphere.
PROGRAM AUTHORIZED
Sec. 403. (a) In order t carry out the purposes of this title the Administration in
cooperation with other Federal agencies. shall initiate and cany out a program of
research. technology, monitoring, and other appropriate activities directed to understand
the physics and chemisty of the upper atmosphere.
(b) In carrying out the provisions of this title the Admini stration shall-
(I) arrange for participation by the scientinc and engineering communiy, of both
the Nation's industria. organizations and instiutions of higher education. in planning
and carryIng out appropriate research. in developing necessar technology and in
making necessary observations and measurements:
(2) provide, by way of grant. contract, scholarships or other arrangements, to the
maximum extent practicable and consistent with other laws. for the wIdest practicable
and appropriate partIcipation of the scientinc and engineering community in the
program authorized by this title: and
(3) make all results of the program authorI zed by thIs title available to the
appropriate regulatory agencies and provIde for the widest practicable dissemination of
such results,
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sec. 404, In carrying out the provIsions of thi s title, the Administration. subject t the
direction of the President and after consultation with the Secretary of State, shall make
every efort to enlist the support and cooperation of approprIate scientsts and engineers
of other countries and international organIzations,
APPENDIXB*
Selected Statutory Provisions Applicable to NA5A
Nal¡onaI 5_aceCrahICo!!e_e andIe!!oWsh¡ _ AcI
!I¡!¡zaI¡ohoIIedera!!echho!q¸Coo_raI¡veResearchahdIeveIo_menI[¡eeme¡:L
_CIIAs_
AnchorIenan@andIerm¡naI¡oh I¡ab¡!¡I_
!seofCovemmenIIac¡!¡I¡es
5@c¡a!man`I¡meandIerr¡Ior¡a! _ur¡sd¡cI¡on oIIhe!n¡Ied 5laIes deI¡hed
I¡scIosureofcohf¡denI¡a!¡nIormal¡on_eneraI! _
InvenI¡ons¡nouIers_ace
Proh`b¡Lonof @I orconIracI _ro`d¡n uaranIeedcusIomerbaseIorneWcommerc`m!
s_acehardWareorservIces
Iecove_ oIIa¡rva!ueoI _!ac¡n_ Ie_arImenloIIeIense_Joads¡hOrb¡lW¡Ih 5_ace
5huIl!e
5_ace 5huIl!euse@!¡c_
Ie!¡n¡I¡ons
OIheracI¡v¡I¡esoINal¡ohaIAerohauI¡csahd5_aceAdm¡n¡sIraI¡on
5huII!e _r¡c¡n_ @I¡c_ Con_ress¡oha!f¡hd¡h_s ahddecIaraI¡onoI_ur@se
Ac_u¡s¡I¡on oIs_ace sc¡encedaIa
5ourcesofearIhsc¡ehcedala
Comm¡ss¡onohIheIuIureoIIhe!n¡Ied5IalesAeros@¸ce IndusI_
InIemal¡oha!5_ace5IaI¡ohCom¡n_enc_I!an
Aero5@¸ ceJrans@rIaI¡onJechho!q¸ Ime@raI¡on
Innoval¡veJechno!o@¡esIorHuman5_aceI!¡@hI
I¡Ie¡nIhe!n¡verse
CarbohC_c!eRemoIe 5ens¡n_ ¿ caI¡onsResearch
¡00IhAhn¡versa_ oII!¡ _hI£ducaI¡ona!In¡I¡aI¡ve
NaI¡onaIAerohaul¡cs ahd5_aceAdm¡n¡sIrau`oh AuIhor¡zaI¡ohActoI2000
Vork¡h_ Ca_¡laIIund
J@p¡hImenloIComm¡ss¡onedOI!¡cerÜIe_ul_AdmIh` ulraIor
NoI¡ceoIIe_ro@ramm¡n@ orReor@an¡zaI¡on
Purchase oIAmer¡canMade_u¡_mehIandProducIs
£nhancemenIoI5c¡enceandMaIhemaI¡csIrqg¡ams
NA5AI!ex¡b¡!¡I _ AcIoI2004
National Space Grant College and Fellowship Act
Title II, Pub. L. No. 100·147
101 Stat. 860, 869-875 (Oct. 30, 1987)
Codified at 42 U.S.C.§§ 2486-24861
SEC. 2486. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
The Congress fnds that-
(I) the viality of the Nation and the quality of life of the citizens of the Nation
depend increasingly on the understanding. assessment. development. and utilization of
space resources:
(2) research and development of space science. space technolog. and space
commercialization will contribute to the quality of life. national security. and the
enhancement of commerce:
(3) the understanding and development of the space frontiers require a broad
commitment and an intense involvement on the part of the Federal Goverment in
partnership with State and local goverments. private industy. universities.
organizations. and individuals concerned with the exploration and utilization of space:
(4) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. through the national space
grant college and fellowship program. offers the most suitable means for such
commitment and involvement through the promotion of activities that will result in
greater understanding, assessment. development. and utilization: and
(5) Federal support of the establishment. development. and operation of programs and
projects by space grant colleges. space grant regional consortia. institutions of higher
education. institutes. laboratories. and other appropriate public and private entities is the
most cost-effective way to promote such activities.
SEC. 2486A. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The purposes of this title are to-
(I) increase the understanding. assessment. development. and utilization of space
resources by promoting a strong educational base. responsive research and training
activities. and broad and prompt dissemination of knowledge and techniques:
(2) utilize the abilities and talents of the universities of the Nation to support and
contribute to the exploration and development of the resources and opportunities
afforded by the space environment:
(3) encourage and support the existence of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary
programs of space research wihin the universiy community of the Nation. to engage in
integrated activities of training. research and public service. t have cooperative
programs with industy. and to be coordinated with the overall program of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration:
(4) encoura�e and support the existence of consortia. made up of universiy and
industry members. to advance the exploration and development of space resources in
cases In which national objectives can be better fulnlled than through the programs of
single universities:
(5) encourage and support Federal funding for graduate fellowships in flelds related to
space; and
(6) support activities in colleges and universities generally for the purpose of creating
and operating a network of institutional programs that will enhance achievements
resulting from efforts under this ttle.
SEC. 2486B. DEFINITIONS
As used in this title, the tenn-
(I) • Administation" means the Natonal Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(2) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
(3) "aeronautical and space activities" h the meaning given to such term in section
103(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 [42 Us C ´2452(1)1;
(4) "field related to space" means any academic discipline or field of study (Including
the physical, natural, and biological sciences, and engineering, space technology,
education, economics, sociolog, communications, planning, law, international affairs,
and public administration) which is concered with or likely to improve the
understanding, assessment, development, and utilization of space:
(5) "panel" means the space grant review panel established pursuant to section 210 of
this title (42 Us C § 2486h) ;
(6) "Person" means any individuaL any public or private corporation, partership. or
other association or entity (including any space grant college, space grant regional
consorium, instituton of higher education. institute, or laboratory) , or any State,
political sulivlsion of a State, or agency or oficer of a State or political sulivlsion of
a State;
(7) "space environment" means the environment beyond the sensible atmosphere of
the Earth:
(8) "space grant college" means any public or private institution of higher education
which is deSignated as such by the Administrator pursuant to section 208 of this title (42
Us C § 24861;
(9) "space grant program" means any program which-
(A) i s administered by any space grant college, space grant regional consortium,
institution of higher education. insttute, laboratory, or State or local agency: and
(B) includes two or more project involving education and one or more of the
following activities in the fields related to space­
(I) research,
(II) training, or
(Iii) advisory services:
(10) "space grant regional consortium" means any association or other alliance which
is designated Üsuch by the Administrator pursuant to section 208 of this title (42 US,C,
§ 24860;
(11) "space resource" means any tangible or intangible benefit. which can only be
realized from-
(A) aeronautical and space activities: or
(B) advancements in any feld related to space; and
(12) ·State" means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealh of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands. Guam. American Samoa, the
Commonwealh of the Norhern Mariana Islands. or any other territory or possession of
the United States,
SEC, 2486C. NATIONAL SPACE GRANT COLLEGE AND
FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
(a) Establishment; long. range guidelines ad priorities; progam evaluation
The Administrator shall establi sh and maintain, wihin the Administration. a program to
be known as the national space grant college and fellowship program, The national
space grant college and fellowship program shall consist of the fnancial assistance and
other activities provided for in thi s title, The Admini strator shall establish long-range
planning gUidelines and priorities. and adequately evaluate the program,
() Functions
Within the Admini stration, the program shall-
(I) apply the long-range planning gUidelines and the priorities established by the
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section;
(2) advise the Administrator with respect to the expertise and capabllities which are
available through the national space grant college and fellowship program, and make
such expertise available to the Administration as directed by the Administrator;
(3) evaluate activities conducted under grants and contracts awarded pursuant to
sections 206 and 207 of this title (42 U S C §§ 2486d and 2486e) to assure that the
purposes set forth in secton 203 (42 Us C § 2486a) of this title are implemented:
(4) encourage other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities to use and
take advantage of the expertise and capabllities which are avallable through the national
space grant college and fellowship program. on a cooperative or other basis;
(5) encourage cooperation and coordination with other Federal programs concemed
with the development of space resources and felds related to space:
(6) advise the Administrator on the designation of recipients supported by the national
space grant college and fellowship program and, in appropriate cases. on the termination
or suspension of any such designation; and
(7) encourage the formation and growh of space grant and fellowship programs,
(c) Acceptance of gifs and donations; funds from other Federal agencies; issuance
of rules and regulations
To carry out the provisions of this title, the Administrator may
(I) accept conditional or unconditional gifts or donations of services, money, or
property. real, personal or mixed, tangible or Intangible;
(2) accept and use funds from other Federal deparments, agencies, and
instrumentalities to pay for fellowships, grants, contracts, and other transactions; and
(3) i ssue such rules and regulations as may be necessary and appropriate,
SEC, 2486D. GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
(a) Authority of Administator; amount
The Admini strator may make grants and enter into contracts or other transactions under
this subsection to assist any space grant and fellowship program or project if the
Administrator finds that such program or project will carry out the purposes set forh in
section 203 of this title (42 Us C § 2486a) , The total amount paid pursuant to any such
grant or contract may equal 66 percent, or any lesser percent, of the total cost of the
space grant and fellowship program or project involved, except that thi s limitation shall
not apply in the case of grants or contracts paid for with funds accepted by the
Administrator pursuant to section 205(c)(2) of this title [42 Us C § 2486c(c)(2)),
() Special grants; amount; prerequisites
The Admini strator may make special grants under this subsection to carry out the
purposes set forh in section 203 of thIs title (42 U,S,C, § 2486a), The amount of any
such grant may equal 100 percent. or any lesser percent, of the total cost of the project
involved, No grant may be made under this subsection. unless the Administrator fnds
that
(I) no reasonable means I s available through which the applicant can meet the
matching reqUirement for a grant under subsection (a) of this section;
(2) the probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in such matching
requirement; and
(3) the same or eqUivalent benefit cannot be obtained through the award of a contract
or grant under subsection (a) of this section or section 207 of this title (42 U.s,C, §
2486e) ,
(c) Application
Any person may appLy to the Administrator for a grant or contract under this section.
Application shall be made in such form and manner, and with such content and other
submissions. as the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe.
(d) Terms and conditions; limitations; leasing-, record-keeping-. audits
(I) Any grant made, or contract entered into. under this section shall be subject to the
limiations and provi sions set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection and to
such oher tenus, conditions and requirements as the Administrator considers necessary
or appropriate.
(2) No payment under any grant or contract under this section may be applied to­
(A) the purchase of any land;
(B)the purchase, construction. preservation. or repair of any building: or
(C) the purchase or construction of any launch facility or launch vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of thi s subsection, the items in subparagraphs (A) ,
Æ), and (C) of such paragraph may be leased upon written approval of the
Administrator.
(\) Any person who receives or utilizes any proceeds of any grant or contract under
this section shall keep such records as the Admini strator shall by regulation prescribe as
being necessary and appropriate to facilitate effective audit and evaluation, including
records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of such
proceeds. the total cost of the program or project in connection with which such
proceeds were used, and the amount, if any. of such cost which was provided through
other sources. Such records shall be maintained for three years after the compLetion of
such a program or project. The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United
States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access, for the purpose
of audit and evaluation, to any books. documents. papers and records of receipts which,
in the opinion of the Administrator or the Comptroller General. may be related or
pertinent to such grants and contracts.
SEC. 2486E. IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC NATIONAL NEEDS AND
PROBLEMS RELATING TO SPACE; GRANTS OR CONTRACTS WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH NEEDS OR PROBLEMS, AMOUNT. APPLICATION,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(a) The Administrator shall identif specific national needs and problems relating to
space. The Administrator may make grants or enter into contracts under this section with
respect to such needs or problems. The amount of any such grant or contract may equal
100 percent, or any lesser percent, of the total cost of the project invoLved.
(b) Any person may apply to the Administrator for a grant or contract under this
section. In addition. the Administrator may invite applications with respect to speclflc
national needs or problems identlfled under subsection (a) of this section. Application
shall be made in such form and manner. and wih such content and other submissions, as
the Administrator shall by regulation prescribe. Any grant made, or contract entered
into, under this section shall be subject to the limitations and provisions set forth in
section 206(d) (2) and (4) of this title (42 U.S. C § 2486d(d) (2) and (4») and to such
other terms, conditions. and reqUirements as the Administrator considers necessary or
appropriate.
SEC. 2486F. SPACE GRANT COLLEGE AND SPACE GRANT
REGIONAL CONSORTIUM
(a) Designation qualifications
(I) The Administrator may destgnate-
(A) any institution of higher education as a space grant college: and
(B)any association or other alliance of two or more persons. other than individuals.
as a space grant regional consorium.
(2) No institution of higher education may be designated as a space grant college,
unless the Admini strator fnds that such instiution
(A) I s maintaining a balanced program of research, education. training, and
advisory services in fields related to space;
(B) will act in accordance with such gUidelines as are prescribed under subsection
(b) (2) of thi s section; and
(C) meets such other qualifications as the Administrator considers necessary or
appropriate.
(3) No association or other alliance of two or more persons may be designated as a
space grant regional consortium, unless the Administrator finds that such association or
alliance-
(A) is established for the purpose of sharing expertise, research. educational
facilities or training facilities, and other capabilities in order to facilitate research,
education, training, and advisory services. in any field related to space;
(B) will encourage and follow a regional approach to solving problems or meeting
needs relating to space. in cooperation with appropriate space grant colleges. space grant
programs, and other persons in the region;
(C) will act in accordance with such gUidelines as are prescribed under subsection
(b) (2) of thi s section; and
(D) meets such oher qualifications as the Administrator considers necessary or
appropriate.
() Other necessary qualifications and guidelines on activities and responsibilities:
regulations
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe-
(I) the qualifications required to be met under subsection (a) (2) (C) and (3) (D) of this
section: and
(2) gUidelines relating to the activities and responsibilites of space grant colleges and
space grant regional consortia.
(c) Suspension or tennination of desigation: hearing
The Administrator may. for cause and after an opportunity for hearing, suspend or
terminate any designation under subsection (a) of this section.
SEC. 2486G. SPACE GRANT FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
(a) Award of fellowships: guidelines: wide geographic and i nstitutional diversity
The Administrator shall support a space grant fellowship program to provide educational
and training assistance to qualified individuals at the graduate level of education in
felds related to space. Such fellowships shall be awarded pursuant to gUidelines
established by the Administrator. Space grant fellowships shall be awarded to
individuals at space grant colleges. space grant regional consortia. other colleges and
institutions of higher education. professional associations. and institutes in such a
manner as to assure wide geographic and insttutional diversiy in the pursuit of research
under the fellowship program.
() Limitation on amount to provide grants
The total amount which may be provided for grants under the space grant fellowship
program during any fscal year shall not exceed an amount equal to 50 percent of the
total funds appropriated for such year pursuant to this title.
(c) Authority to sponsor other research fellowship programs unaffected
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Administator from sponsoring
any research fellowship program. including any special emphasis program. which is
established under an authority other than this title.
SEC. 2486H. SPACE GRANT REVIEW PANEL
(a) Establishment
The Administrator shall establish an independent committee known as the space grant
review panel. which shall not be subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S. C App. I et seq.; Pblc Lw 92-463).
(b) Duties
The panel shall take such steps as may be necessary to review. and shall advise the
Administrator with respect to-
(I) applications or proposals for. and performance under, grants and contracts
awarded pursuant to sections 206 and 207 of this title (42 U.S. C §§ 2486d and 2486e):
(2) the space grant fellowship program;
(3) the designation and operation of space grant colleges and space grant regional
consoria, and the operation of space grant and fellowship programs:
(4) the formulation and application of the planning gUidelines and priorities pursuant
to secton 205(a) and (b) (1) of this tile [42 US. C § 2486c(a} and (b)O)}: and
(5) such other matters as the Admini strator refers to the panel tor review and advice.
(c) Personnel and administrative services
The Administrator shall make available to the panel any information, personnel and
administrative services and assistance which is reasonable to carry out the dUlies of the
panel.
(d) Appointment of voting members; Chainnan and Vice Chairman;
reimbursement of non-Federal employee members; meetings; powers
(I) The Administrator shall appoint the voting members of the panel. A majority of
the voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience. or
training. are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields related to
space. The other voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge,
experience or training, are especially qualified in, or representative of, education,
extension services. State goverment, industry. economics, planning, or any other
activity related to eforts to enhance the understanding, assessment, development. or
utilization of space resources. The Administrator shall consider the potential contlict of
interest of any individual in making appointments to the panel.
(2) The Administrator shall select one voting member to serve as the Chairman and
anoher voting member to serve as the Vice Chainnan. The Vice Chainnan shall act as
Chairman in the absence or incapaciy of the Chairman.
(3) Voting members of the panel who are not Federal employees shall be reimbursed
for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of such duties.
(4) The panel shall meet on a biannual basi s and. at any other time, at the call of the
Chairman or upon the request of a majority of the voting members or of the
AlbJJiJJtlII<llur.
(5) The panel may exercise such powers as are reasonably necessary in order to carry
out the dUlies enumerated in subsection (b) of this section.
SEC. 24861. AVAILABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL PERSONNEL AND DATA;
COOPERATION WITH ADMINISTRATION
Each department, agency or other instrumentality of the Federal Government which is
engaged in or concerned with, or which h authority over, matters relating to space
(I) may, upon a written request from the Administrator, make available, on a
reimbursable basis or otherwise, any personnel (with their consent and without prejudice
to their position and rating, service, or facility which the Admini strator considers
necessary to carry out any provision of this title:
(2) may, upon a written request from the Administrator, furnish any avallable data or
other infonnation which the Administrator considers necessary to carry out any
provision of this title; and
(3) may cooperate with the Administration.
SEC. 2486J. REPORTS TO CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT;
COMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IRepealed by Pub. L. No. 105-362. Title XL § 1101 (a) , 112 Stat. 3280. 3292 (Nov. 10,
1998).1
SEC. 2486K. DESIGNATION OR AWARD TO BE ON
COMPETITIVE BASIS
The Administrator shall not under this title designate any space grant college or space
grant regional consortium or award any fellowship. grant, or contract unless such
designation or award is made in accordance with the competitive, merit-based review
procps pmploypr hy thl Arlminismllion nn thp r;tp nf pn;ctmlnt of this Act.
SEC. 2486L. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of carrying out the
provisions of this title sums not to exceed-
(1) $10,000,000 for each of nscal years 1988 ad 1989: and
(2) $15,000,000 for each of nscal years 1990 ad 1991.
(b) Such sums as may be appropriated under this section shall remain available until
expended.
15 U.S.C. § 3710
Utilization of Federal Tethnolog-Cooperative Research ad Development
Agreements (CRDAs)
(a) Policy
(I) It is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Goverment to ensure the full use
of the results of the Nation's Federal investment in research and development. To this
end the Federal Government shall strive where appropriate to transfer federally owned
or originated technology to State and local governments and to the private sector.
(2) Technology transfer, consistent with mission responsibilities. is a responsibility of
each laboratory science and engineering professional.
(3) Each laboratory director shall ensure that eforts to transfer technology are
considered positively in laboratory Job descriptions, employee promotion poliCies. and
evaluation of the job performance of scientists and engineers in the laboratory.
(b) Establishment of Research and Technolog Applications Offices
Each Federal laboratory shall establish an Office of Research and Technolog
Applications. Laboratories having existing organizational structures which perform the
functions of this section may elect to combine the Ofice of Research and Technolog
Applications within the existing organization. The staffing and funding levels for these
offices shall be determined between each Federal laboratory ad the Federal agency
operating or directing the laboratory, except that (1) each laboratory having 200 or more
full-time eqUivalent scientiflc, engineering, and related technical positions shall provide
one or more full-time equivalent positions Ü staff for its Office of Research and
Technolog Applications. and (2) each Federal agency which operates or directs one or
more Federal laboratories shall make available sufcient funding, either as a separate
line item or from the agency's research and development budget, to support the
technology transfer function at the agency and at its laboratories. including support of
the Ofices of Research and Technolog Applications.
Furthermore. individuals filling positions in an Office of Research and Technolog
Applications shall be included in the overall laborator/agency management
development program so as to ensure that highly competent technical managers are full
participants in the technology transfer process.
The agency head shall submit to Congress at the time the President submits the
budget to Congress an explanation of the agency's technology transfer program for the
preceding year and the agency's plans for conductng its technology transfer function for
the upcoming year. including plans for securing intellectual property rights in laboratory
innovations with commercial promise and plans for managing such innovations so as to
benefit the competitiveness of United States industry.
(c) Functions of Research and Technolog Applications Ofces
It shall be the function of each Office of Research and Technology Applications
(I)to prepare application assessments for selected research and development projects
in whih tht laboratory is engaged and which in the opinion of the laboratory may have
potential commercial applications:
(2) to provide and disseminate information on federally owned or originated products,
processes, and services having potential application to State and local governments and
to private industry;
(3) to cooperate with and assist the National Technical Information Service, the
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. and oher organizations which
link the research and development resources of that laboratory and the Federal
Government as a whole to potential users in State and local goverment and private
industry;
(4) to provide technical assistance to State and local goverment oficials: and (5) to
participate, where feasible, in regional. State, and local programs designed to facilitate
or stimulate the transfer of technolog for the benefit of the region. State, or local
jurisdiction in which the Federal laboratory is located. AgenCies which have established
organizational structures outside their Federal laboratories, which have as their principal
purpose the transfer of federally owned or originated technolog to State and local
goverment and to the private sector may elect to perfonn the functions of this
subsection in such organizational structures. No Ofice of Research and Technolog
Applications or other organizational structures performing the functions of this
subsection shall substantially compete with similar services available in the private
sector.
(d) Dissemination of technical information
The National Technical Infonnation Service shall
(I) serve as a central clearinghouse for the collection. dissemination and transfer of
Infonnatlon on federally owned or ortglnated technologies having potentlai application
to State and local governments and to private industy:
(2) utilize the expertise and services of the National Science Foundation and the
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technolog Transfer. particularly in dealing with
State and local governments:
(3) receive request for technical assistance from State and local goverments,
respond to such requests with published information available to the Service, and refer
such requests to the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer to the
extent that such requests require a response involving more than the published
infonnation available to the Service;
(4) provide funding. at the discretion of the Secretary. for Federal laboratories to
provide the assistance speclfed in subsection (c) (3) of this section:
(5) use appropriate technology transfer mechanisms such as personnel exchanges and
computer-based systems; and
(6) maintain a permanent archival repository and clearinghouse for the collection and
dissemination of nonclassified scientific, technicaL and engineering infonnatlon.
(e) Establishment of Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technolog Transfer
(I) There is hereby established the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technolog
Transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "Consortium') which. in cooperation with
Federal laboratories and the private sector, shall
(A) develop and (with the consent of the Federal laboratory concered) administer
techniques, training courses, and materials conceming technology transfer to increase
the awareness of Federal laboratory employees regarding the commercial potential of
laboratory technolog and innovations;
(B) furnish advice and assi stance requested by Federal agencies and laboratories for
use in their technolog transfer programs (including the planning of seminars for small
business and other industry) ;
(C) provide U clearinghouse for requests, received at the lUborUtory level. for
technical assi stance from States and units of local goverments, businesses, industrial
development organizations. not-for-proflt organizations including universities, Federal
agenCies and laboratories, and other persons, and (i) to the extent that such requests can
be responded to with published infonnation available to the National Technical
Information Service, refer such requests to that Service, and (iI) otherwise refer these
requests to the appropriate Federal laboratories and agencies;
(D) facilitate communicaton and coordination between Offces of Research and
Technolog Applications of Federal laboratories;
(E) utilize (with the consent of the agency involved) the expertise and services of
the National Science Foundation, the Deparment of Commerce, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other Federal agencies, as necessary:
(F) wih the consent of any Federal laboratory, facilitate the use by such laboratory
of appropriate technolog transfer mechani sms such as personnel exchanges and
computer-based systems;
(G) with the consent of any Federal laboratory, assist such laboratory to establish
programs using technical volunteers to provide technical assi stance to communities
related to such laboratory;
(H) facilitate communication and cooperaton between Offices of Research and
Technolog Applications of Federal laboratories and regional, State, and local
technology transfer organizations;
(I) when requested, assist colleges or universities. businesses, nonprofit
organizations, State or local goverments, or regional organizations to establish
programs to stimulate research and to encourage technology transfer in such areas as
technology program development, CUrriculum design, long-term research planning,
personnel needs projections, and productivity assessments:
Q seek advice in each Federal laboratory consortium region from representatives
of State and local governments, large and small business, universities, and other
appropriate persons on the effectiveness of the program (and any such advice shall be
provided at no expense to the Government) ; and
(K) work with the Director of the National Insttute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research to compile a compendium of current and projected Federal
Laboratory technologies and projects that have or will have an intended or recognized
impact on the available range of assistve technology for individuals with disabilities (as
defined in section 3002 of Title 29), including technologies and projects that incorporate
the principles of universal design (as defined in section 3002 of Title 29), as appropriate.
(2) The membership of the Consortium shall consist of the Federal laboratories
described in clause (1) of subsection (b) of this section and such other laboratories as
may choose to join the Consortium. The representatives to the Consortium shall include
a senior staff member of each Federal laboratory which i sa member of the Consortium
and a senior representative appointed from each Federal agency with one or more
member laboratories.
(3) The representatives to the Consortium shall elect a Chainnan of the Consortium.
(4) The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall provide
the Consortium, on a reimbursable basis, with admini strative services. such as ofice
space. personnel. and support services of the Institute, as requested by the Consortium
and approved by such Director.
(5) Each Federal laboratory or agency shall transfer technology directly to users or
representatives of users. and shall not transfer technology directly to the Consortium.
Each Federal laboratory shall conduct and transfer technology only in accordance with
the practlces and policies of the Federal agency which owns, leases. or otherwi se uses
such Federal laboratory.
(6) Not later than one year afer October 20, 1986, and every year thereafter, the
Chairman of the Consortium shall submit a report to the President, to the appropriate
authorization and appropriaton committees of both Houses of the Congress, and to each
agency with respect to which a transfer of funding is made (for the fiscal year or years
involved) under paragraph (7), concerning the activities of the Consortium and the
expenditures made by it under this subsection during the year for which the report is
made. Such report shall include an annual independent audit of the financi al statements
of the Consortium, conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
(7) (A) Subject to subparagraph (Ð},an amoum equal to 0.008 percent of the budget of
each Federal agency from any Federal source, including related overhead, that is to be
utilized by or on behalf of the laboratories of such agency for a fiscal year referred to in
subparagraph (B) (11) shall be transferred by such agency to the National Institute of
Standards and Technolog at the beginning of the fiscal year involved. Amounts so
transferred shall be provided by the Institute to the Consortium for the purpose of
carrying out activities of the Consortium under thi s subsection.
(Ð) A transfer shall be made by any Federal agency under subparagraph (A). for
any fiscal year. only if the amount so transferred by that agency (as determined under
such subparagraph) would exceed $10.000.
(C) The heads of Federal agencies and their designees. and the directors of Federal
laboratories. may provide such additional support for operations of the Consorium as
they deem appropriate.
(f) Repealed. Pub. L. 104-66, Title III. §3OOI(f) , Dec. 21. 1995. 109 Stat. 734.
( Functions of Secretary
(I) The Secretary, through the Under Secretary. and in consultation with other Federal
agencies. may
(A) make available to interested agencies the expertise of the Department of
Commerce regarding the commercial potential of inventons and methods and options
for commercialization which are available to the Federal laboratories. including research
and development limited partnerships;
(Ð) develop and disseminate to appropriate agency and laboratory personnel model
provisions for use on a voluntary basi s in cooperative research and development
arrangements; and
(C) furnish advice and assistance, upon request. to Federal agencies concerning
their cooperative research and development programs and projects.
(2) Two years after October 20, 1986 and every two years thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit a summary report to the President and the Congress on the use by the
agencies and the Secretary of the authorities speclfed in thi s chapter. Other Federal
agencies shall cooperate in the report's preparation.
(3) Not later than one year after October 20. 1986, the Secretary shall submit to the
President and the Congress a report regarding-
(A) any copyright provisions or oher types of barriers which tend to restrict or
limit the transfer of federally funded computer software to the private sector and to State
and local goverments, and agencies of such State and local goverments: and
(Ð) the feasibility and cost of compiling and maintaining a current and comprehensive
inventory of all federally funded training software.
(h) Repealed. Pub. L. 100-519. Title II. § 212(a)(4) . Oct. 24. 1988. 102 Star. 2595.
(]) Research equipment
The Director of a laboratory, or the head of any Federal agency or department, may
loan. lease, or give research equipment that is excess to the needs of the laboratory,
agency, or department to an educational institution or nonprofit organization for the
conduct of technical and scientific education and research actvites. Title of ownership
shall transfer with a gift under the section.
15 U.S.C. § 5806
Anchor tenancy and termi nation liability
(a) Anchor tenancy contracts
Subject to appropriations. the Admini strator or the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may enter into multiyear anchor tenancy
contracts for the purchase of a good or service if the appropriate Admini strator
determines that-
(I) the good or service meets the mission requirements of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. as
appropriate:
(2) the commercially procured good or service i scost effective;
(3) the good or service is procured through a competitive process;
(4) existing or potential customers for the good or service other than the United States
Government have been specifcally identied;
(5) the long-tenn viability of the venture is not dependent upon a continued
Government market or other nonreimbursable Goverment support; and
(6) private capital is at risk in the venture.
(b) Termination liabiliy
(I) Contracts entered into under subsecton (a) of this section may provide for the
payment of termination liabiliy in the event that the Goverment terminates such
contracts for its convenience.
(2) Contracts that provide for the payment of tennination liability, as described in
paragraph (I), shall include a fixed schedule of such termination liability payments.
Liability under such contacts shall not exceed the total payments which the
Government would have made after the date of termination to purchase the good or
service if the contract were not terminated.
(3) Subject to appropriations. funds available for such tennination liability payments
may be used for purchase of the good or service upon successful delivery of the good or
service pursuant to the contract. In such case. sufcient funds shall remain available to
cover any remaining termination liability.
(c) Limiations
(I) Contracts entered into under this section shall not exceed 10 years in duration.
(2) Such contracts shall provide for delivery of the good or service on a finn, fixed
price basis,
(3) To the extent practicable, reasonable performance specifications shall be used to
define technical reqUirements in such contracts,
(4) In any such contract. the appropriate Administrator shall reserve the right to
completely or partiaUy terminate the contract without payment of such termination
li ability because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to perform its
contractual obligations,
15 U.S,C. § 5807
Use of Goverment facilities
(a) Authority Federal agencies, induding the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Department of Defense, may allow non-Federal entities to use
their space-related facilities on a reimbursable basis if the Admini strator, the Secretary
of Defense, or the appropriate agency head detennines that
(1) the facilities will be used to support commercial space activities;
(2) such use can be supported by existing or planned Federal resources:
(3) such use is compatble wih Federal activities;
(4) equivalent commercial services are not available on reasonable terms; and
(5) such use is consistent with public safety, national security, and interational treaty
obligations, In carrying out paragraph (5) , each agency head shall consult with
appropriate Federal officials,
(b) Reimbursement payment
(1) The reimbursement referred to in subsection (a) of this section may be an amount
equal to the direct costs (induding salaries of United States civilian and contractor
personnel) incurred by the United States as a result of the use of such facilities by the
private sector. For the purposes of this paragraph. the term "direct costs" means the
actual costs that can be unambiguously associated with such use. and would not be
borne by the United States Goverment in the absence of such use,
(2) The amount of any payment received by the United States for use of facilities
under this subsection shall be credited to the appropriation from which the cost of
providing such facilities was paid,
18 U.S,c' § 7
Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction ofthe United States defned
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" , as used in
this title, includes;
(1) The high seas. any other waters within the admiraly and maritime jurisdiction of
the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel
belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any
corporation created by or under the laws of the United States. or of any State, Territory,
District. or possession thereof, when such vessel i s wihin the admiraly and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States and out of the juri sdiction of any particular State,
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States,
and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes. or any of the waters
connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the
InteratIonal Boundary Line,
(3) Any lands reserved or acqUired for the use of the United States, and under the
exciusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof. or any place purchased or otherwise
acqUired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the
same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal. dockyard, or other needful
building.
(4) Any i sland. rock. or key containing deposits of guano. which may, at the
di scretion of the President. be considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States. or any citizen
thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any
State. Territory. district. or possession thereof. while such aircraft is in flight over the
high seas. or over any oher waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the
United States and out of the juri sdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry
of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other
Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer
Space, while that vehicle is in flight. which is from the moment when all external doors
are closed on Earh following embarkation until the moment when one such door is
opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing. untl the
competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and
property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or
against a national of the United States.
(8) To the extent permitted by interational law, any foreign vessel during a voyage
having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an
offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1905
Di§closure of confidential information generally
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any deparment or
agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Ofce of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight, or agent of the Department of Justce as defned in the Antitrust Civil Process
Act (15 U.s.C. 1311-1314), publishes. divulges, discloses. or makes known in any
manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming t him in the
course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or
investigation made by. or return. report or record made to or fled with. such department
or agency or ofcer or employee thereof. which infonnation concers or relates to the
trade secrets. processes, operations, style of work. or apparatus. or to the identity,
confdential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profts, losses, or
expenditures of any person. firm. partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any
income retur or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof
t be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined under
this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from
office or employment.
35 U.S.C. § 105
Inventions in outer space
(a) Any invention made. used or sold in outer space on a space object or component
thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States shall be considered to be
made, used or sold within the United States for the purposes of this title. except with
respect to any space object or component thereof that is specifically identified and
otherwise provided for by an interatonal agreement t which the United States is a
party. or wih respect to any space object or component thereof that is carried on the
registy of a foreign state in accordance with the Convention on Registration of Objects
Launched into Outer Space.
(b) Any invention made, used or sold in outer space on a space object or component
thereof that is carried on the registy of a foreign state in accordance with the
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. shall be considered
to be made, used or sold within the United States for the purposes of this tile if
specifically so agreed in an international agreement between the United States and the
state of registry.
42 U.S.C. § 2459d
Prohibition of grant or contract providing guaranteed customer base for new
commercial space hardware or services
No amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administation in this or
any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to fund grants, contracts or
other agreements with an expected duration of more than one year. when a primary
effect of the grant, contract, or agreement i sto provide a guaranteed customer base for
or establish an anchor tenancy in new commercial space hardware or services unless an
appropriations Act specifies the new commercial space hardware or services to be
developed or used, or the grant, contract. or agreement I s otherwi se identied in such
Act.
42 U.S.C. § 2464
Recovery of fair value of placing Department of Defense payloads
in orbit with Space Shuttle
Notwithstanding any oher provision of law, or any interagency agreement, the
Administrator of the National Aeronautcs and Space Administation shall charge such
prices as necessary to recover the fair value of placing Department of Defense payloads
into orbit by means of the Space Shuttle.
(a) Use policy
42 U.S.C. § 2465a
Space Shuttle use policy
(1) It shall be the policy of the United States to use the Space Shuttle for purposes that
()) reqUire the presence of man. (Ii) reqUire the unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle
or (Iii) when other compelling circumstances exi st.
(2) The term 'compelling circumstances" includes. but i s not limited Í, occasions
when the Administrator determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State, that imporant national security or foreign policy interests would
be served by a Shuttle launch.
(3) The policy stated in subsection (a) (1) of this section shall not preclude the use of
available cargo space, on a Space Shuttle mission otherwise consistent with the policy
described under subsection (a) (1) of this section, for the purpose of carrying secondary
payloads (as defined by the Administrator) that do not reqUire the presence of man if
such payloads are consistent with the reqUirements of research. development,
demonstration. scientific, commercial. and educational programs authorized by the
Administrator.
(b) Implementation plan
The Admini strator shall, within six months after November 16, 1990, submit a report to
the Congress setting forth a platt for the implementation of the policy described in
subsection (a) (1) of this secton. Such plan shall include
(1) detalls of the implementation plan;
(2) a list of purposes that meet such policy;
(3) a proposed schedule for the implementation of such policy;
(4) an estimate of the costs to the United States of implementing such policy: and
(5) a process for infonning the Congress in a timely and regular manner of how the
plan is being implemented.
(c) Annual report
At least annually. the Administrator shall submit to the Congress a report certifying that
the payloads scheduled to be launched on the space shuttle for the next four years are
consistent with the policy set forth in subsection (a) (1) of this section. For each payload
scheduled to be launched from the space shuttle which do not require the presence of
man. the Administrator shall. in the certified report to Congress. state the specific
circumstances which Justified the use of the space shuttle. If, during the period between
scheduled reports to the Congress, any additions are made to the list of certified
payloads intended to be launched from the Shuttle, the Administrator shall inform the
Congress of the additions and the reasons therefor within 45 days of the change.
(d) NASA payloads
The report described in subsection (c) of this section shall also include those National
Aeronautics and Space Administration payloads designed solely to fly on the space
shuttle which have begun the phase C/O of its development cycle.
For the purposes of this tit1e-
42 U.S.C. § 2465c
Definitions
(1) the tenn "launch vehicle" means any vehicle constructed for the purpose of
operating in, or placing a payload in. outer space; and
(2) the tenn "payload" means an object which a person undertakes to place in outer
space by means of a launch vehicle, and includes sub-components of the launch vehicle
specifically designed or adapted for that object.
42 U.S.C. § 2465f
Other activities of National Aeronautic and Space Administration
Commercial payloads may not be accepted for launch as primary payloads on the space
shuttle unless the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
determtnes that-
(1) the payload requires the unique capabilities of the space shuttle; or
(2) launching of the payload on the space shuttle i s important for either national
security or foreign policy purposes.
42 U.S.C. § 2466
Shuttle pricing policy; Congessional findi ngs and declaration of purpose
The Congress finds and declares that-
(1) the Space Transportation System is a vital element of the United States space
program. contributing to the United States leadership in space research, technology, and
development:
(2) the Space Transportaton System I s the primary space launch system for both
United States national security and civil government missions:
(3) the Space Transportation System contributes t the expansion of United States
private sector investment and involvement in space and therefore should serve
commercial users:
(4) the availability of the Space Transportation System to foreign users for peaceful
purposes I s an imporant means of promoting intertional cooperative activities in the
national interest and in maintaining access to space for activities which enhance the
security and welfre of mankind;
(5) the United States i s committed to maintaining world leadership in space
transportation:
(6) making the Space Transportation System fully operational and cost effective in
providing routine access to space will maximize the national economic benefits of the
system: and
(7) national goals and the objectives for the Space Transportation System can be
furthered by a stable and fair pricing policy for the Space Transportation System.
42 U.S.C. § 14713
Acquisition of space science data
(a) Acquisition from commercial providers
The Administrator shall. t the extent possible and while satisfying the scientific or
educational requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. and
where appropri ate. of other Federal agenCies and scientfic researchers. acquire. where
cost effective. space science data from a commercial provider.
(b) Treatment of space science data as commercial item under acquisition laws
Acquisitions of space science data by the Administrator shall be carried out in
accordance with applicable acquisition laws and regulations (including chapters 137 and
140 of title 10. United States Code) . For purposes of such law and regulations. space
science data shall be considered to be a commercial item. Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to preclude the United States from acquiring, through contracts with
commercial providers. sufficient rights in data t meet the needs of the scientific and
educational community or the needs of oher government activities.
(c) Definition
For purposes of this section. the tenn ·space science data" includes scientific data
concerning-
(1) the elemental and mineralogical resources of the moon, asteroids, planets and their
moons, and comets:
(2) microgravity acceleration: and
(3) solar storm monitoring.
(d) Safety standards
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Federal Government from
requiring compliance with applicable safety standards.
(e) Limitation
This section does not authorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to
provide financial assistance for the development of commercial systems for the
collection of space science data.
(a) Acquisition
42 U.S.C. § 14715
Sources of earth science data
The Administrator shall. t the extent possible and while satisfying the scientinc or
educational requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. and
where appropri ate. of other Federal agencies and scientfic researchers, acquire, where
cost-effective, space-based and airbore Earth remote sensing data. services,
di stribution. and applications from a commercial provider.
(b) Treatment Ü commercial item under acquisition laws
Acquisitions by the Admini strator of the data, services. distribution. and applications
referred to in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with applicable
acquisition laws and regulations (including chapters 137 and 140 of tide 10, United
States Code). For purposes of such law and regulations, such data. services. distribution.
and applications shall be considered to be a commercial item. Nohing in this subsection
shall be construed to preclude the United States from acquiring, through contracts with
commercial providers, sufficient rights in data t meet the needs of the scientiflc and
educational community or the needs of other government activities.
(c) Study
(I) The Administrator shall conduct a study to determine the extent to which the
baseline scientiflc requirements of Earth Science can be met by commercial providers,
and how the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will meet such
requirements which cannot be met by commercial providers.
(2) The study conducted under this subsection shall-
(A) make recommendations to promote the availability of information from the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to commerci al providers to enable
commercial providers to better meet the baseline scientific requirements of Earth
Science:
(B) make recommendations to promote the dissemination to commercial providers
of inforJtion on advanced technolog research and development perfonned by or for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(C) identify policy. regulatory, and legislative barriers to the implementation of the
recommendations made under thi s subsection.
(3) The results of the study conducted under this subsection shall be transmitted to the
Congress within 6 months afer the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Safety standards
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Federal Government from
requiring compliance with applicable safety standards.
(e) Administration and executon
This section shall be carried out as part of the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at
the Stenni s Space Center.
(J [Omitted) (ub. L. 105-303, Title I § 107, Oct. 28. 1998. 112 Stat. 2853.)
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry
Pub. L. 106-398, § I [[div. A], title X, § 1092], Oct. 30, 2000, U4 Stat. 1654, 16S4A-
300, as amended by Pub. L. 107-107, div. A, title X, § 1062,
Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1232
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2451 note
SEC. 2451
(a) Establi shment.-There is established a commission t be known as the 'Commission
on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industy' (in this section referred t as the
'Commi ssion').
(b) Membership.-
(1) The Commission shall be composed of 12 members appointed, not later than
March I, 200 I, Üfollows;
(A) Up to six members shall be appointed by the President.
(B) Two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(C) Two members shall be appointed by the ntajority leader of the Senate.
(D) One member shall be appointed by the minoriy leader of the Senate.
(E) One member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of
Representatives.
(2) The members of the Commission shall be appointed from among persons with
extensive experience and national reputations in aerospace manufacturing. economics,
fnance, national security, international trade. or foreign policy and persons who are
representative of labor organizations associated with the aerospace industry.
(3) Members shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers. but shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
(4) The President shall designate one member of the Commission to serve as the
chairman of the Commission.
(5) The Commission shall meet at the call of the chairman. A majority of the
members shall constitute a quorum. but a lesser number may hold hearings.
(c) Duties.-
(I) The Commission shall-
(A) study the issues associated with the future of the United States aerospace
industry in the global economy. particularly in relationship t United States national
security: and
(B) assess the future importance of the domestic aerospace industry for the
economic and national security of the United States.
(2) In order to fulfill its responsibilities. the Commission shall study the following:
(A) The budget process of the United States Goverment. particularly with a view
t assessing the adequacy of projected budgets of the Federal departments and agencies
for aerospace research and development and procurement.
(B) The acquisition process of the Goverment, particularly with a view to
assessing-
(I) the adequacy of the current acquisition process of Federal departments and
agencies; and
(Il) the procedures for developing and felding aerospace systems incorporating
new technologies in a timely fashion.
(C) The policies. procedures. and methods for the fnancing and payment of
Government contracts.
(D) Statutes and regulations governing interational trade and the export of
technology, particularly with a view t assessing-
(;) the extent Î which the current system for controlling the export of aerospace
goods, services. and technologies reflect an adequate balance between the need to
protect national security and the need to ensure unhindered access to the global
marketplace; and
(Ii) the adequacy of United States and multilateral trade laws and poliCies for
maintaining the interational competitiveness of the United States aerospace industry.
(E) Policies governing taxation, particularly with a view to assessing the impact of
current t laws and practices on the interational competitiveness of the aerospace
industry.
(F) Programs for the maintenance of the national space launch infrastructure,
particularly with a view to assessing the adequacy of current and projected programs for
maintaining the national space launch infastructure.
(G) Programs for the support of science and engineering education, including
current programs for supporting aerospace science and engineering efforts at institutions
of higher learning. with a view to determining the adequacy of those programs.
(d) Report.-
(I) Not later than one year afer the date of the frst oficial meeting of the
Commission, the Commission shall submit a report on its activities to the President and
Congress.
(2) The report shall include the following:
(A) The Commission's fndings and conclusions.
(B) The Commission's recommendations for actions by Federal departments and
agencies to support the maintenance of a robust aerospace industry in the United States
in the 21st century and any recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes to
support the implementation of the Commission's fndings.
(C) A discussion of the appropriate means for implementing the Commission's
recommendations.
(e) Administrative Requirements and Authorities.-
(I) The Director of the Ofice of Management and Budget shall ensure that the
Commission is provided such admini strative services. facilities, staff. and other support
services Ümay be necessary. Any expenses of the Commi ssion shall be paid from funds
available to the Director.
(2) Te Commission may hold hearings. sit and act at tmes and places. take
testimony, and receive evidence that the Commission considers advisable to carry out
the purposes of this section.
(3) Te Commi ssion may request directly from any department or agency of the
United States any information that the Commi ssion considers necessary t carry out the
provisions of this section. To the extent consistent with applicable requirements of law
and regulations. the head of such deparment or agency shall furish such information to
the Commission.
(4) The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under
the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the United States.
(J Commi ssion Personnel Matters.-
(I) Members of the Commission shall serve without additional compensaton for their
service on the Commission. except that members appointed from among private citizens
may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsi stence. as authorized
by law for persons serving intermittently in Goverment service under subchapter I of
chapter 57 of title 5. United States Code. while away from their homes and places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(2) Te chairman of the Commission may appoint staff of the Commission. request
the detail of Federal employees, and accept temporary and intennitlent services in
accordance with section 3161 of title �. United States Code (as added by section 1101 of
this Act) .
( Tennination.-The Commission shall terminate 60 days afer the date of the
submission of its report under subsection (d)."
International Space Station Contingency Pla
P.L. 106·391 Title II, 114 Stat. 1586 (Oct. 30, 2000)
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2451 note
SEC. 245 I. International Space Station Contingency Plan.
(a) Bimonthly Reporting on Russian Status.-Not later than the frst day of the f1rst
month beginning more than 60 days afer the date of the enactment of this Act 10ct. 30,
2000], and not later than the f1rst day of every second month thereafer until October 1,
2006. the Administrator (of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration] shall
report to Congress whether or not the Russians have performed work expected of them
and necessary to complete the International Space Station. Each such report shall also
include a statement of the Administrator"s Judgment concerning Russia·s ablliy to
perform work anticipated and required to complete the International Space Station
before the next report under this subsection.
(b) Decision on Russian Critical Path Items.-The President shall notify Congress
within 90 days afer the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 30, 2000( of the decision
on whether or not to proceed with pennanent replacement of any Russian elements in
the critical path (as defined in secton 3 of Pub. L. 106-391. 42 U.s.C. 2452 note] of the
Interational Space Station or any Russian launch services. Such notification shall
include the reasons and justifications for the decision and the costs associated with the
decision. Such decision shall include a judgment of when all elements identified in
Revision E assembly sequence as of June 1999 will be in orbit and operationa1. If the
President decides to proceed with a permanent replacement for any Russian element in
the critical path or any Russian launch services. the President shall notify Congress of
the reasons and the justification for the decision to proceed with the pennanent
replacement and the costs associated with the decision.
(c) Assurances.-The United States shall seek assurances from the Russian Government
that it places a higher priority on fulnIling its commitments to the International Space
Station than it places on extending the life of the Mi r Space Station. including
assurances that Russia will not utilize assets allocated by Russia to the International
Space Station for other purposes, including extending the life of Mlr.
(d) Equitable Utillzation.-In the event that any International Parner in the International
Space Station Program willfully violates any of Its commitments or agreements for the
provision of agreed upon Space Station-related hardware or related goods or services,
the Administrator should. in a manner consistent with relevant intertional agreements,
seek a commensurate reduction in the utilization rights of that Partner until such time as
the violated commitments or agreements have been fulnIled.
(e) Operation Costs.-The Administrator shall. in a manner consistent with relevant
interational agreements. seek to reduce the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration·s share of Interational Space Station cammon operating costs, based
upon any additional capabilities provided to the Interational Space Station through the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration·s Russian Program Assurance activities.
COST LIMITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
(a) Limitation of Costs.-
(1) In genera1.-Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) , the total amount
obligated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration far-
(A) costs of the Interational Space Staton may not exceed $25.000.000,000: and
(B) space shuttle launch costs in connection with the assembly of the International
Space Station may not exceed $17,700.000.000.
(2) Calculation of launch cas!S.-For purposes of paragraph ())(B)÷
(A) not more than $380,000.000 in costs for any single space shuttle launch shall
be taken into account: and
(B) if the space shuttle launch costs taken into account for any single space shuttle
launch are less than $380,000,000. then the Administrator (of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration) shall arrange for a verification, by the General Accounting
Office, of the accounting used to determine those costs and shall submit that verification
to the Congress within 60 days afer the date on which the next budget request is
transmitted to the Congress.
(b) Costs to Which Limitation Applies.-
(I) Developmem costs.-The limiation imposed by subsection (a) (I)(A) does not
apply to funding for operations, research. or crew retur activities subsequent to
substantial completion of the Intertional Space Station.
(2) Launch cost.-The limiation imposed by subsection (a) (l) (Ð) does not apply­
(A) to space shuttle launch costs in connection with operations. research. or crew
retur activities subsequent to substantial completon of the Interational Space Station:
(B) to space shuttle launch costs in connection with a launch for a mission on
which at least 75 percent of the shuttle payload by mass i sdevoted to research: nor
(C) to any additional costs incurred in ensuring or enhancing the safety and
reliabiliy of the space shuttle.
(3) Substantial completion.-For purposes of thi s subsection. the International Space
Station i s considered to be substantially completed when the development costs
comprise 5 percent or less of the total International Space Station costs for the fiscal
year.
(c) Notice of Changes to Space Station Costs.-The Admini strator shall provide with
each annual budget request a written notice and analysis of any changes under
subsection (d) to the amounts set forh in subsection (a) to the Senate Committees on
Appropriations and on Commerce. Science. and Transportation and to the House of
Representatives Committees on Appropriations and on Science. In addition. such notice
may be provided at other times. as deemed necessary by the Administrator. The written
notice shall inciude-
(I) an explanation of the basis for the change, inciuding the costs associated with the
change and the expected benefit to the program to be derived from the change;
(2) an analysi s of the impact on the assembly schedule and annual funding estimates
of not receiving the requested increases: and
(3) an explanation of the reasons that such a change was not anticipated in previous
program budgets.
(d) Funding for Contingencies.-
(I) Notice required.-If funding in excess of the limiation provided for In subsection
(a) i s required to address the contingencies described in paragraph (2). then the
Administrator shall provide the written notice required by subsection (c). In the case of
funding described in paragraph (3)(A) , such notice shall be required prior to obligating
any of the funding. In the case of funding described in paragraph (3) (Ð) , such notice
shall be required within 15 days after making a decision to implement a change that
increases the space shuttle launch costs in connection with the assembly of the
Interational Space Station.
(2) Contingencies.-The contingencies referred to in paragraph (I) are the following:
(A) The lack of performance or the termination of participation of any of the
Interational countries party to the Intergovernmental Agreement.
(B) The loss or failure of a United States-provided element during launch or on­
orbit.
(C) On-orbit assembly problems.
(D) New technologies or training to improve safety on the International Space
Station.
(E) The need to launch a space shuttle to ensure the safety of the crew or to
maintain the integrity of the station.
(3) Amounts.-The total amount obligated by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to address the contingencies described in paragraph (2) is limited to-
(A) $5,000,000.000 for the Interational Space Station: and
(B) $3,540.000.000 for the space shuttle launch costs in connection with the
assembly of the International Space Station.
(e) Reporting and Review.-
())Identification of costs.-
(A) Space shuttle.-As part of the overall space shuttle program budget request for
each fscal year. the AdminIstrator shall identif separately-
(I) the amounts of the requested funding that are to be used for completion of the
assembly of the International Space Statlon; and
(ll) any shuttle research mission described in subsection (b) (2).
(B)Interational space staton.-As part of the overall International Space Statlon
budget request for each fscal year. the Administrator shall identf the amount to be
used for development of the Interational Space Station.
(2) Accounting for cost limitations.-As part of the annual budget request to the
Congress. the Administrator shall account for the cost limiations imposed by subsectlon
(a) .
(3) Verification of accounting.-The AdminIstrator shall arrange for a verification. by
the General Accounting Ofice. of the accounting submitted to the Congress within 60
days afer the date on which the budget request is transmitted to the Congress.
(4) Inspector general.-Wlthin 60 days afer the Administrator provIdes a notice and
analysis to the Congress under subsection (c). the Inspector General of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administratlon shall review the notice and analysis and report
the result of the review to the committees to which the notice and analysis were
provided.
RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
(a) Study.-The Administrator [of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration]
shall enter into a contact wih the National Research Council and the National Academy
of Public Admini stration to jOintly conduct a study of the status of life and microgravlty
research as it relates to the Interational Space Station. The study shall include-
(I) an assessment of the United States scientinc communiy·s readiness to use the
Interational Space Station for life and mlcrogravlty research;
(2) an assessment of the current and projected factors limiting the United States
scIentific communlty·s ability to maximI ze the research potentlal of the International
Space Statlon. including. but not limited to. the past and present availability of resources
in the life and mlcrogravity research accounts wIthin the Office of Human SpacefHght
and the Ofce of LIfe and Micrograviy Sciences and Applications and the past. present.
and projected access to space of the sclentinc community: and
(3) recommendations for improving the United States sclentinc communiy·s ability
to maximIze the research potential of the Interational Space Station. including an
assessment of the relative costs and benefits of-
(A) dedicating an annual mIssion of the Space Shuttle to life and microgravlty
research during assembly of the Interational Space Station: and
(B) maintainin� the schedule for assembly in place at the time of the enactment
[Oct. 30. 2000].
(b) Report.-Not later than 1 year afer the date of the enactment of thIs Act [Oct. 30.
2000]. the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce. Science. and Transporation of the
Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under this section.
SPACE STATION RESEARCH UTILIZATION AND
COMMERCIALIZATION MANAGEMENT
(a) Research Utilizatlon and Commercialization Management Activities.-The
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administratlon shall enter into an
agreement with a non-goverment organization to conduct research utlization and
commerclallzatlon management activities of the Interational Space Station subsequent
to substantial completion as defned in section 202 (b)(3). The agreement may not take
effect less than 120 days after the implementaton plan for the agreement is submitted to
the Congress under subsection (b) .
(b) Implementation Plan.-Not later than September 30. 2001. the Administrator shall
submit to the CommiUee on Commerce. Science. and Transportation of the Senate and
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives an implementation plan to
incorporate the use of a non-goverment organization for the International Space
Station. The implementation plan shall include-
(1) a description of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Administration and
the non-government organization;
(2) a proposed structure for the non-goverment organization;
(3) a statement of the resources required;
(4) a schedule for the transition of responsibilities; and
(5) a statement of the duration of the agreement.
SEC. 2451
Aero-Space Transportation Technolog Integration
Pub. L. 106-391. title Ill, § 308, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1592
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
(a) Integration Plan.-The Administrator [of the Nationai Aeronautics and Space
Administration] shall develop a pian for the integration of research. development. and
experimental demonstration activities in the aeronautics transportation technology and
space transportation technolog areas where appropriate. The plan shall ensure that
integration I accomplished without losing unique capabilities which support the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's defned missions. The plan shall also
include appropriate strategies for using aeronautics centers in integration efforts.
(b) Reports to Congress.-Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act (Ocl. 30. 2000]. the Admini strator shall transmit to the Congress a report containing
the plan developed under subsection (a) . The Admini strator shall transmit to the
Congress annually thereafter for 5 years a report on progress in achieving such plan, to
be transmitted with the annual budget requesl.
SEC. 2451;
Innovative Technologies for Human Space Flight
Pub. L. 106-391. title Ill, § 313, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1594
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
(a) Establishment of Program.-In order to promote a 'faster, cheaper. better' approach
to the human exploration and development of space, the Administator (of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration] shall establish a Human Space Flight Innovative
Technologies program of groundbased and space-based research and development in
innovative technologies. The program shall be part of the Technolog and
Commercialization program.
(b) Awards.-At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for Technolog and
Commercialization under section 101 ( [114 Stal. 1581] for any f1scal year shall be
awarded through broadly distributed announcement of opportunity that solicit proposals
from educational instiutions. industry, nonproft institutions. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Centers, the Jel Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies,
and other interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among any combination
of those entites. with evaluation. prioritization, and recommendations made by exteral
peer review panels.
(c) Plan.-The Administrator shall provide t the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate, not later than December 1. 2000. a plan to implement the program established
under subsection (al .
SEC. 2451
Life in the Universe
Pub. L. 106-391. title III, § 314, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1595
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
(a) Revlew.-The Admini strator (of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration] shaH enter into appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of
Sciences for the conduct ofa review of-
(1) interational eforts to determine the extent of life in the universe; and
(2) enhancements that can be made to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration·s efoi1S to determine the extent of life in the universe.
(b) Elements.-The review required by subsection (a) shall include
(1) an assessment of the direction of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration·s astrobiolog initiatives within the Origins program;
(2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives carried OUi by entities oher than
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to detennine the extent of life in the
universe, including other Federal agencies, foreign space agencies. and private groups
such Üthe Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute;
(3) recommendations about scientinc and technological enhancements that could be
made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration·s astrobiology initiatives to
effectively utlize the initiatives of the scientinc and technical communities; and
(4) recommendatons for possible coordination or integration of National Aeronautics
and Space Administration initiatives with initiatives of other entities described in
paragraph (2).
(c) Report to Congress.-Not later than 20 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act (Oct. 3D, 2000) . the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report on the
results of the review carried out under this section.
SEC. 2451
Carbon Cycle Remote Sensing ApplicatiollS Research
Pub. L. 106-391. title III, § 315, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1595
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
(a) Carbon Cycle Remote Sensing Applications Research Program
(1) In genera1.-The Administrator (of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration] shaH develop a carbon cycle remote sensing applications research
program-
(A) to provide a comprehensive view of vegetation conditions;
(B) t assess and model agricultural carbon sequestration; and
(C) t encourage the development of commercial products. as appropriate.
(2) Use of centers.-The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall use regional earth science application centers to conduct
applications research under this section.
(3) Researched areas.-The areas that shall be the subjects of research conducted
under this section include-
(A) the mapping of carbon-sequestering land use and land cover;
(B)the monitoring of changes in land cover and management:
(C) new approaches for the remote sensing of soH carbon: and
(D) region-scale carbon sequestation estimation.
(b) Authorization of Approprlations.-There Is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $5,000,000 of funds authorized by section 102 (114 Stat. 15811 for fiscal
years 2001 through 2002.
SEC. 2451
looth Anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative
Pub. L. 106-391. title III, § 317, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1596
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
(a) Educational Initiative.-In recognition of the lOOth anniversar of the first powered
fight. the Administrator (of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) . in
coordination with the Secretary of Education, shall develop and provide for the
di stribution. for use in the 2001-2002 academic year and thereafter, of age-appropriate
educational materlal., for use at the kindergarten. elementar, and secondar levels. on
the history of flight. the contribution of flight to global development in the 20th century,
the practical benefits of aeronautic; and space flight to society. the scientifc and
mathematical principles used in flight. and any other related topiCS the Admini strator
considers appropriate. The Administrator shall integrate into the educational materials
plans for the development and flight of the Mars plane.
(b) Report to Congress.-Not later than December ). 2000, the Administrator shall
transmit a report to the Congress on activities undertaken pursuant to this section.
National Aeronautics and Space Administation Authorization Act of 2000
Pub. L. 106-391. § 3, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1579
Codifed at 42 U.S.C. § 2451 note
SEC. 2451. For purposes of this Act-
())the term 'Admini strator· means the Administrator of the National Aeronautic; and
Space Administration:
(2) the term 'commercial provider" means any person providing space transportation
services or other space-related activities, the primary control of which Is held by persons
other than a Federal. State, local, or foreign goverment:
(3) the term 'critical path· means the sequence of events of a schedule of events under
which a delay in any event causes a delay in the overall schedule:
(4) the term 'grant agreement" has the meaning given that term in section 6302 _ of
title 31. United States Code;
(5) the term 'Institution of higher education· has the meaning given such tenn in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 QU.S.c. 1001):
(6) the term 'State· means each of the several States of the United States. the District
of Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. the Virgin Islands. Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Norther Mariana Islands. and any other
commonwealh. territory, or possession of the United States: and
(7) the term 'United States commercial provider" means a commercial provider,
organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is-
(A) more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals: or
(B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Commerce finds that­
(I) such subsidiary has In the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the
United States market through-
û) investments in the United States in tong-term research, development. and
manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies):
,nd
ûJsignificant contributions to employment in the United States: and
(II) the country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or
organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords
reciprocal treatment to companies described in subparagraph (A) comparable to that
afforded to such foreign company's subsidiary in the United States. as evidenced by-
û) providing comparable opportunities for companies described in
subparagraph (A) to participate in Goverment sponsored research and development
similar to that authorized under this Act;
ûJ providing no barriers to companies described in subparagraph (A) with
respect to local investment opportunities that are not provided to foreign companies in
the United States; and
û] ) providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property
rights of companies described in subparagraph (A) ,
Working Capital Fund
Pub. L No. 108-7, Div K, Title II , 117 Stat, 520, on Feb, 20, 2003
Uncodifed
There is hereby established in the United States Treasury a National Aeronautics and
Space Administration working capial fund, Amounts in the fund are available for
fnancing activities, services, equipment. infonnation, and facilities as authorized by law
to be provided within the Administration: to other agenCies or instrumentalities of the
United States; to any State, Territory, or possession or political subdivision thereof; to
other public or private agencies; or to any person, firm, association, corporation, or
educational instiution on a reimbursable basis, The fund shall also be available for the
purpose of funding capital repairs. renovations. rehabilitation, sustainment, demolition,
or replacement of NASA real property, on a reimbursable basis within the
Administration, Amounts in the fund are available without regard to fiscal year
limiation, The capital of the fund consists of amounts appropriated to the fund; the
reasonable value of stocks of supplies. equipment, and other assets and inventories on
order that the Administrator transfers to the fund, less the related liabilities and unpaid
obligations: amounts received from the sale of exchange of property; and payments
received for loss or damage to property of the fund, The fund shall be reimbursed. in
advance, for supplies and services at rates that will approximate the expenses of
operation, such as the accrual of annual leave, depreciation of plant, property and
equipment, and overhead,
Appointment of Commisioned Ofcer as Deputy Administrator
Pub. L 107-117, div. B, § 307, jan, 10. 2002, 115 Stat. 2301
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2472 note
SEC, 2472
During fscal year 2002 the President. acting by and with the consent of the Senate, is
authorized to appoint a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces, in active status, to
the Office of Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration notwithstanding section 202(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space
Act of 1958 (42 U's,c, 2472 (b» , If so appointed, the provisions of section 403 (c) (3) ,
(4) , and (5) of title 50, United States Code, shall be applicable while the commissioned
officer serves as Deputy Administrator in the same manner and extent as if the ofcer
was serving in a position speclned in section 403 (c) of title 50. United States Code,
except that the oficer's military pay and allowances shall be reimbursed from funds
available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
SEC. 2473
Notice of Reprogrammi ng or Reorganization
Pub. L. 106-391, title III, § 311, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1594
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2473 note
(a) Notice of Reprogramming.-If any funds authorized by thi s Act (see Tables for
classification( are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate,
notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportaton of the Senate
(b) Notice of Reorganization.-The Admini strator (of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration] shall provide notice to the Committees on Science and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Comminees on Commerce,
Science. and Transporation and Appropriations of the Senate. not later than 30 days
before any major reorganization of any program. project, or activity of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
SEC. 2473
Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products
Pub. L. 106-391, title III, § 319, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1597
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2473 note
(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.-In the case of any
equipment or products that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance
provided under this Act (see Tables for classiflcation] , it is the sense of the Congress
that entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only
American-made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.-In providing fnancial assistance under this Act.
the Administrator (of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration] shall provide
to each recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in subsection
(a) by the Congress.
SEC. 2473
Enhancement of Scence and Mathematic Programs
Pub. L. 106-391, title III, § 321, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1597
Codifed at 42 U,S.C. § 2473 note
(a) Deflnitions.-In this section:
()) Educationally useful federal equipment.-The term 'educationally useful Federal
equipment' means computers and related peripheral tools and research equipment that i s
appropriate for use in schools.
(2) Schoo1.-The term 'school' means a public or private educational institution that
serves any of the grades of kindergarten through grade 12.
(b) Sense of the Congress
()) In genera1.-It is the sense of the Congress that the Administrator (of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) should. to the greatest extent practicable and in a
manner consistent with applicable Federal law (including Executive Order No. 12999
[40 U.s.C. 549 note]). donate educatlonally useful Federal equipment to schools in order
t enhance the science and mathematlcs programs of those schools.
(2) Reports.-Not later than )year after the date of the enactent of this Act [Oct.
30. 2000[. and annually thereafter. the Administrator shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report describing any donations of educationally useful Federal equipment to
schools made during the period covered by the report.
NASA Flexibility Act of 2004
Pub. L. 108-201. § 2 (b). 118 Stat. 461, Feb. 24. 2004
Codifed at 5 U.S.C. § 101 note. amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2473
This Act [adding Chapter 98 of Title 5 and amending 42 U.s.C. § 2473 and the part
analysis preceding 5 U.s.C. § 2101) may be cited as the 'NASA Flexibility Act of
2004· .
Effective date. The amendment made by thi s section shall take effect on the first day of
the first pay period beginning on or after the date of enactment of this of this [sic! Act.
APPENDIX C*
A Half Century of NASA Spendi ng 1959-2010:
NASA Outlays in Relation to Total US Federal Government Outlays
and to GDP
Total US
Federal
y Outlays in
ear
Current
Dollars
(mimcns5
1959 92.098
1960 92.191
1961 97.723
1962 106.821
1963 11 1.316
J064 J J8,5z8
1965 118.228
1966 134.532
1967 157.464
1968 178.134
1969 183.640
1970 195.649
1971 210.172
1972 230.681
1973 245.707
1974 269.359
1975 332.332
1976 371.792
1977 409.218
1978 458.746
1979 504.028
NASA
Outlays in
Current
Dollars
(mi#icns5
146
401
744
1257
2552
4171
5092
5933
5425
4722
4251
3752
3382
3423
3312
3255
3269
3671
4002
4164
4380
NASA
NASA
US GDP
Outlays as
Outlays in
I
Share of
Constant
Current
Total US
2010 Dollars
Dollars
Feder
(mi#icns5
{bi#icns
Outlays (½
M
0.16 871 506.6
0.43 2370 526.4
0.76 4340 544.8
1. 18 7240 585.7
2.29 14,500 617.8
3.5z z3,4uu ô03.0
4.31 28,100 719.1
4.41 31,800 787.7
3.45 28,200 832.4
2.65 23,500 909.8
2.31 20.200 984.4
1.92 16,900 1.038.3
1.61 14,500 1.126.8
1.48 14,100 1.237.9
1.35 12,900 1.382.3
1.21 1 1,700 1.499.5
0.98 10,700 1.637.7
0.99 1 1,400 1.824.6
0.98 11,600 2.030.1
0.91 1 1,300 2.293.8
0.87 11,000 2.562.2
NASA
Outlays
Ü Share
of US
GDP (½
0.03
0.08
0.14
0.21
0.41
0.63
0.71
0.75
0.65
0.52
0.43
0.36
0.30
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.17
1980 590.941 4959 0.84 11.400 2.788.1 0.18
1981 678.241 5537 0.82 11.600 3.126.8 0.18
1982 745.743 6155 0.83 12.200 3.253.2 0.19
1983 808.364 6853 0.85 13.100 3.534.6 0.19
1984 851.805 7055 0.83 13.000 3.930.9 0.18
1985 946.344 7251 0.77 12,900 4.217.5 0.17
1986 990.382 7403 0.75 12,900 4.460.1 0.17
1987 1.004.017 7591 0.76 12,900 4.736.4 0.16
1988 1.064.416 9092 0.85 14.900 5.100.4 0.18
1989 1.143.744 11.036 0.96 17.400 5.482.1 0.20
1990 1.252.994 12.429 0.99 19.000 5.800.5 0.21
1991 1.324.226 13.878 1.05 20.500 5.992.1 0.23
1992 1.381.529 13.961 1.01 20.200 6.342.3 0.22
1993 1.409.386 14.305 1.01 20.200 6.667.4 0.21
1994 1.461.753 13.694 0.94 19.000 7.085.2 0.19
1995 1.515.742 13,378 0.88 18.200 7.414.7 0.18
1996 1.560.484 13,881 0.89 18.500 7.838.5 0.18
1997 1.601.116 14,360 0.90 18.800 8.332.4 0.17
1998 1.652.458 14,194 0.86 18.400 8.793.5 0.16
1999 1.701.842 13,636 0.80 17.400 9.353.5 0.15
2000 1.788.950 13.428 0.75 16.800 9.951.5 0.13
2001 1.862.846 14.092 0.76 17.200 10.286.2 0.14
2002 2.010.894 14,405 0.72 17.300 10.642.3 0.14
2003 2.159.899 14,610 0.68 17,200 11.142.1 0.13
2004 2.292.841 15,152 0.66 17,300 11.867.8 0.13
2005 2.471.957 15,602 0.63 17,300 12.638.4 0.12
2006 2.655.050 15,125 0.57 16,200 13,398.9 0.11
2007 2.728.686 15,861 0.58 16,500 14,061.8 0.11
2008 2.982.544 17,833 0.60 18,200 14,369.1 0.12
2009 3.517.677 19.168 0.54 19,400 14,119.0 0.14
2010 3.456.213 18.906 0.55 18,900 14,660.4 0.13
APPENDIXD
ÑÅÃÅ 8peae|agI959-2010(mì!namy
Rna
Fnal Gnini ma. n ('II
Mæ8q
¶@
Þ
n
m
Í'M
. NNÍ lM
Fæ
AgfÞ
mkn
[THT)
Calenger
d_
IJW
_
,�
�¸
,,
5I6m
4t9Þ
4¤Þ , ..
.~

".æ¯
* ¯" f Ý ¡
Ì Î Î �
W
D n
.-·- ¬
ðo.Of«�1t ld:�HWT 1.1 Imm g lu) I 4.1
(f NA cu 19lJO). uoAl21 l; WHI2kÇÇ:ll I N
_("NA""W>�·1#11·
APPENDIXE
NASA Spendini &ð ð Percenlp II US Federal GDvernment Spendini and Df
US BOP 1959-210
'.0
4.6
4.0
. 0
'.0
...
'.0
1.6
1.0
ίº
oUUH
0.Ð ·"¯....
� ¯¯¯¯¯¯" .... ... .*°¯*
0.0
=
� ª � � l l � l � ! �
& wo�t æB 1 . 1. 1 (, WS''o) m 4.1
(hNAow T�1MæoA 2011; AH¿mMJpIW ´ WíN
Rm( NA ol9$9�19Gl)i DI a& A (r�GD d).
APPENDIXF*
Space Budgets: US Government Agencies 2010
Agency
Department of Defense (DoD)
National Reconnaissance Ofce (RO)
Budget
$26.66
billion
$15.00
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGAl $2.00
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA)
$18.72
National Oceanic and
Administration (NOAA)
Atmospheric
$1.40
Department of Energy (OE)
Federal Aviation Administration (AA)
National Science Foundation (SF
Federal Communications Commi ssion (FCC)
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Total
$0.04
$0.02
$0.64
$0.01
$0.15
$64.63
bilion
Source
Fulron estimate
GlobalSecurity.org
estimate
GlobalSecurity.org
estimate
NASA
NOAA
DOE
FAA
NSF
Fulron estimate
DOI
APPENDIX G�
Space Budget: Global 2010
M0-UÜ
ouvatamæt
µace0ugm
[æ×obillan]
US GOOmer
Space Bug'
($1.6 billio)
23½
Crlal Ì%Æ
and Supor ÌD0•
($8.0 blll.n]
ö¼
Commerial Spce
ç
T
7
¶m%QCHO Ü8OC8B
_ ($0.01 billion)
Cmm.rl
Spoe ÍR
an SericB
¯¯7 ($10.0 bllion]
ÜZ¼
¯O¦$62 billion
APPENDIX H*
Space Budgets: US and Non-US Governments 2010
Budget
Country/Agency
(US $)
United States
$64.63
billion
European Space $4.60
Agency billion
$1.63
European Union
billion
Brazil
Canada*
China
Fra[{e�
Germany·
India
Israel
Italy*
Japan
Russia
South Korea
Spain>
$0.18
billion
$0.29
billion
$2.24
billion
$0.92
billion
$0.64
billion
Sl.2S
billion
$0.01
billion
$0.44
billion
$3.83
billion
$3.04
billion
$0.21
billion
$0.05
billion
Source
Isee Append /
European Space Agency
European Commission
Government of Brazil
Government of Canada
Futron estimate
Government of Germany
Government of India
Fulron estimate
Government of Ialy
Society of Japanese
Aerospace Companies
GlobaJSecurity.org estimate
Government of South Korea
Government of Spain
Description
Fi scal Year 2010
Request! Authorization
Calendar Year 2010
Appropriation
Calendar Year
Appropriation
Calendar Year
Authorization
2010
2011
Fi scal Year 2010/2011
Appropriation
Calendar Year
Estimated Spending
Calendar Year
Appropriation
Calendar Year
Appropriation
2010
2010
2010
Fi scal Year 2010/2011
Allocation
Calendar Year 2010
Estimated Spending
Calendar Year 2010
Planned Spending
Fi scal Year 2010/2011
Appropriation
Calendar Year 2010
Planned Spending
Calendar Year 2010
Planned Spending
Calendar Year
Appropriation
2010
United $0.10 United Kingdom Space Fi scal Year 2009/2010
Kingdom* billion Agency Appropriation
Emerging $0.74
Imultple]
Countries billion
Non-US Military $2.30
Futron estimate Estimated Spending
Space billion
Total $87.12 billion
¯Ecudes ESAspending
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ann Rae Jonas transcribed most of the speeches contained herein,
performing this task with a strong sense of not only what I said
but. more important, what I meant. John M. Logsdon, a historian
of space exploration without equal, provided valued information
and insights. Richard W. Bulliet of Columbia University edited
my very first essay on space exploration, �Paths to Discovery,"
which launched a subcareer of space commentary that continues
to this day. Along the way, I've enjoyed conversations on our
past, present, and future in space with astronauts Neil Armstrong,
Buzz Aldrin, Tom Jones, Eileen Collins, and Kathy Sullivan;
Congressman Rohert Walker; author Andy Chaikin; scientists
Steven Weinberg and Rohert Lupton; and engineer Lou Friedman.
I've further enjoyed conversations on national security with US
Air Force generals Lester Lyles and John Douglass, US Navy
commander Sue Hegg, and aerospace analyst Heidi Wood; and on
NASA with space enthusiasts Lori Garver, Stephanie Schierholz,
Elaine Walker, Elliott Pulham, and Bill Nye the Science Guy. I
further recognize computer scientist Steve Napear for insightful
conversations about the era of the great oceanic explorers and its
correspondence with the era of space exploration. Lastly, Space
Chrnicles would not exist without the support and enthusiasm
for my work expressed by Avis Lang, longtime editor of my
essays for Natur} HistOY magazine and editor of this volume.­
NDT
Íesides wanting to thank Neil Tyson for providing so many
unexpected encounters with the cosmos, I am grateful for the
literary and culinary assistance of Elliot Pod will; the graph­
making skills of economist Anwar Shaikh; the perspective of
Canadian space maven Surendra Parashar; the scrutiny of Norton
Lang, Nivedita Majumdar, Fran Nesi, Julia Scully, and Eleanor
Wachtel; and the troubleshooting of Elizabeth Stachow.-AL
INDEX
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations.
ABC, 232
Advanced Camera for Surveys. 140
Advisory Committee on the Future of the US Space Program. 221
aerobraklng. 163
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. 169
aerospace industy. 73, 199-200, 206. 208-9, 237
technology integration and, 323-24
see also Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry
Age of Exploration, 85
Airbus, 73
Air Force, US, 166
Albaugh. James, 221
Aldrin, Buz, 14-15, 66, 86, 219
algebra, 205
ALH-84001 (meteorite). 48
A/mages{ (Ptolemy). 65
Alpha Centauri, 178
American Museum of Natural History, xiii
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 11-12
Ames Research Center, 149-50
ammonia, 30, 92
anchor tenancy contracts. 308-9
Anderson, Carl D .. 171
Anderson, John D . . 248-49
Andromeda galaxy, 57. 239
Mllky Way galaxy and. 118-19
Nebula in. 100
Antarctica, 76
Anti-Denclency Act, 288
antimatter, 164. 170-71
Antitrust Civil Process Act. 311
Anyone, Anything, Anyher, Anytime, 146
Apollo program. 6, 8, 11, 15, 25, 109. 111, 133. 151, 154. 162, 168. 179, 195. 214, 219.
245
Apollo ), 17. 66.96
Apollo 8, 69-70. 145, 172
Apollo 11. 4-5, 7, 14, 21, 23, 69. 86. 88. 102, 112. 127, 144-45. 149-50. 196,
220
Apollo 12. 5. 198
Apollo 13. 112
Apollo 14. 3
Apollo 16. 198
Apollo 17. 17. 69, 132, 187, 188
Apophls (asteroid) , 53
Apple Computer. 136
Areclbo Observatory, 28, 41
"argument from ignorance: 182-83
Aristarchus. 34. 97
Aristotle. 34
Armstrong. Nell, 5. 14,66, 69,86-87. 111-12, 149. 187, 219-20
asteroid belt, 245
asteroids. 45-54, 103. 188, 201. 227, 228. 252, 255. 259
collision rates of. 49-50. 50
composition of. 46
cratering record of 47-48
detecting and diverting, 52-54. 236
ecosystems and impact of, 51-52
impact records of. 45-46
impact risk of. 46-47. 49-51. S0
keyhole altitude range of, 53
near-Earth. 46-47
planet fonnallon and. 45-46
predicting. 54
shock waves of. 47
Trojan. 117. 176
se also comets
Astronaut Pen, 194
astronauts. 141. 145
Astronomy Eplaine (Ferguson), 254
Atlantis space shuttle. 147, 162
atomic bomb. 50. 87. 97, 224
Atomic Energ Act of 1954. 274-75
Atomic Energ Commission. 274
Augustine, Norm. 146. 221
Australia, 239
aviaton. se night
bacteria. 246-47
ballistics. se orbits
Bean. Alan. 5
Belgium. 7
Bell. Jocelyn, 29
Bell Telephone Laboratories. 92
Bell X)(rocket plane). 109
Benz Patent Motof\agen. 213
Berlin Wall. 80
Big Bang theory, 92, 95, 129. 141, 176
biomarkers. 30
black holes, 71, 94. 139. 141, 142
BI�riot. Louis. 110
Blob, The (0n),35. 203
Blue Marble, The. 187-88
Boeing, 236
Bolden. Chrles F . . }r .. 146
Book of Predictions, The |max),218
Brazil, xiv, 7, 23, 73
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, 170
Brooklyn DailyEagle, 215
Bruno, Giordano, 217
Bush. George H. W., 7-8. 194
Bush. George W., 13-14. 15. 130, 224-25
administration of. 59, 209
calculus. 115, 247
Callisto (moon). 169
Cambridge. Universit of. 29. 257
Canada. xiv. 7. 168
Capital Space LLC, 146
carbon. 35-36. 101, 239. 240, 258
carbon cycle research. 325-26
carbon dioxide, 30, 40
carbon monoxide. 92
Cassini spacecraft, 82, 168-69. 198, 210
Huygens probe of. 138-39
Catholic Church. 34. 86
CBS Evening News, 145
centrifugal force. 173, 175
CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research). 80
Cernan. Eugene, 14
Chafee. Roger B .. 66
Challenger space shuttle. 12. 96
adeto. 242-43
Chandra X-ray Observatory. 139
Cheney. Dick. 13
Chemobyl disaster, 168
Chicxulub crater. 50. 52
China, ancient. 235
China, People's Republic of. 127, 162. 207, 215. 233
Great Wall of. 87. 207, 233
population of. 235
scientific literacy in, 230-31. 235-36
space program of. xiv. 7. 12-13. 22-23, 59-60, 79-80
Three Gorges Dam of. 22. 233
chlorofluorocarbons. 30
civil right movement. 66-67, 69, 178-79
Clarke, Arthur c.. 166, 175
Classification Act of 1949. 268-69
Clinton. Bill, 6
Close Encounlers of/he Third Kind (flm). 37
Colbert. Stephen. 186-88
Cold War. 5-6, 59, 80, 87. I l l, 192. 200, 219
Collier '5. I I I
Columbia space shuttle. 12. 15. 60. 96. 130. 142. 156. 199-201. 210
Columbus. Christopher. 8. 87
Comet Halley. 88
Comet Hyakutake. 47
Comet Ikeya-Sekl. 88
comets. 103. 116. 255
eccentric orbits of. 115
ecosystems and impact of. 51-52
impact rate of. xi
long-period. 46-47
risk of impact by. 46-47
short-period. 46
water and. 48
Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. 52. 88. 102
Commerce. Justice. Science. and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. 289
Commerce. Department of. US. 305
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. 5
Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. 13
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. 146. 316-19
appointments to. 316-17
establishment of. 316
personnel matters and. 318-19
termination of. 319
Communist Pany. Soviet. 121
Congress. US. xlv. 4. 5. 6. 9. 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 73. 79. 81. 82. 143. 191. 192. 228. 314
see also House of Representatives. US; Senate. US
Constellation program. 186
Contact (nIm). 28
Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. 310-11
Cook. James. 160
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRDAs). 303-8
Copernican principle. 34. 36
Copernicus. Nicolaus, 34. 97. 115. 118
Corey. Cyrus. 212
cosmic microwave background. 92. 94-95. 176
cosmic perspective. 258. 259-61
cosmochemistry. 30
Cosmos cV show) . 256
Cosmos 1 spacecraft. 166. 170
Cosmos 954 satellite. 168
Cronkite. Walter. 145-46
culture. 72-74. 147-48. 210-11
Curie. Marie. 96
Curtis. Heber D +. 98-101
Cyrano de Bergerac. Savinien de. 217
Daniels. George H +. 215-16
dark energ. 255
dark matter. 255
Darwin. Charles. 98
Deep Space 1 spacecraft, 164-65. 169-70
Deep Space Network. 246
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 125
Defense. Department of, US, 271. 274. 309. 312
De Forest. Lee, 218
Democrats. 4-5, 13, 224
Denmark, 7
De Revolulionibus (Copernicus). 115
Descent orM (Darwin), 98
dinosaurs, 49, 103
Dirac, Paul A. M .. 170-71
Discourse Concering a New World& Another Planet, A (ilkins). 21
di scovery, 84-103
funding for, 87-88
future and. 101-3
human ego and. 97-101
human senses and. 89-95
incentives for. 86-87
rewards of. 88-89
scientiflc, 98
society and, 95-97
space exploration and. 103
urge for, 84-86
Discovery Channel. 42. 231
Discovery space shuttle, 140
Disney World, 224-25
DNA. 240-41
Drake, Frank, 40
Drake equation. 40-41
Druyan. Ann, 256
Dubai, 5
Dulles, John Foster. 124
Earth. xiv, 26-32. 85-86. 97, 103, 259
asteroid collision rate of, 49-50
life on. 33-35. 47-48
orbit of, 115
risk of impacts t, 49-51, S0
studyof, 227-28
viewed hom space, 26-28
Earthrise, 69-70
Eddingtn. Arthur. 107
Education. Departent of. US. 326
Einstein. Albert, 94, 97, 101. 161, 195. 248, 251
Ei senhower. Dwight D., 4, 11, 123-25. 200
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research. Development. and Demonstration Act of 1976.
268
electromagnetic spectrum. 90
Embraer. 73
Endeavour space shuttle. 160-61
Energ, Department of. US. 12
ENIAC, 213
Environmental Protection Agency, 225
ethanol, 158
ethyl alcohol, 92
Europa, 40, 129, 169, 201, 209, 212
European Space Agency, 7, 138-39. 166
European Union, xiv, 127, 226
evolution, 40, 205
religion and, 205
Evolutionary Xenon Thruster, 170
exobiology, 36
exoplanets, 32
biomarkers on, 30-31
search for. 28-30
expenditures, see budgets: NASA, budget of
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, 169
Explorer I satellite, 126
extraterrestrial life, 33-41, 325
chemical composition of, 35-36
Copernican principle and, 34. 36
Drake equation and, 40-41
in Gupta-author interview, 42-44
Hawking's view of, 42-43
Hollyood porrayals of, 35-38
human self-perception and, 41
intelligence of, 36-39
liquid water and, 39-40
probability of, 33-34
search for. 41. 325
stable orbits and, 40
television signals and, 178
water and, 39-40
eyewitness testimony, 183-84. 204
FalarMoondust, A (Clarke), 175
Faubus, Orval, 124
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. 304-5
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 269
Ferguson, James, 254
"Isher Pen Company, 194n
fight. 107-11, 216
ballistic missiles and, 110-11
early atttudes toward. 216-17
frsts in, 110, 216-17
sound barrier and, 109
V-2 rocketand. I1O-11
Wright brothers and, 109-10. 216-17
flybys, 157
Foch. Ferdinand, 217
formaldehyde, 92
fossil fuels, 30
France, xiv. 7
Freedom 7 spacecraft. 114
free fl, 119
friction. 152. 155
Friedman, Louis, 193
Frmthe Earth to {he Moon (Verne) , 170
Fukushima Daiichi di saster, 168
Futurist, The, 218
Gagarin. Yurl, 73. 79. 113-14. 122. 192
galaxies. 32. 91. 98
black holes in. 142
elements in, 239-40
expansion of universe and. 98. 100-101
orbits of stars of. 115
Calef. Julia. 75 88
Galileo Galilei, 85-86, 97. 147, 169. 213, 225
Galileo navigation system, 208
Galileo space probe, 198
gamma rays. 71. 90. 94. 129, 139
Ganymede. 169
Garbedian. H. Gordon. 110
Garver, Lori B . . 146
Gates. Bill. 136
wealth of. 229-30
Gemini program. 7. 162
General Accounting Ofce, 320
General Dynamics. 236
Genesis mission. 138, 176
Germany, xiv, 7, 200
Ghazali. AI- (theologian) , 206
Glenn, John. 5. 10.66. 146, 193
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 168
global warming. 58
Gnedin. Oleg. 194
Goddard. Robert H., 95, 153. 192
Goddard Memorial Dinner, 203-4
Goddard Space Flight Center. 140
GoMoring America (Tshow). 232
(;ott. J. Richard, 83, 194
gravitation. universal law of. 65. 192
gravitational waves. 94
gravity:
and discovery of Uranus, 247-48
Lagrangian points and. 172-74
Pioneer Anomaly and. 245, 248-51
Great Barrier Reef. 231
Great Britain. 110
Great Wall of China. 87. 207, 233
greenhouse effect, 39-40, 201. 227
Gregory. Fre(. 221
Grissom. Gus, 66
Gulf War ot1991, 27
Gupta, Sa!ay, 42-44
Haldane. Richard Burdon, 217
Hawking, Stephen. 42-43, 83, 257
Hayden Planetarium. xiii, 67, 75, 111, 134, 194, 249, 256
Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids, 51
Hearst Castle, 87-88
heat shield, 156
Helios-B (solar probe), 195
helium, 31, 36, 101, 240
Henson, Carolyn, 175
Henson, Keith, 175
HerscheL William. 247
Hertz. Heinrich. 90
Hewlsh, Anthony, 29
Higher Education Act of 1965, 327
HighFronlier, The: Human Colonies in Spce (O'Neill, 175
History o{the Conquest of P (Prescott), 196-97
Hornet, USS, 5
House of Representatives. US, 4-5
and appointments to Commission on Future of Aerospace Industry, 316-17
Appropriations Committee of, 321, 329
Committee on Science and Astronautics of, 272, 288, 321, 323, 324,329
Hubble, Edwin. 101
Hubble Space Telescope, 5, 68, 72, 73-74. 82, 135, 139, 175, 198,210, 212, 228, 239
age of universe and, 142
cost of, 80
images retured by, 141-42
repair missions to, 23, 135-36, 142-43. 147
scientific legacy of, 142
humans, 30, 49. 103
DNA of, 240-41
intelligence of. 240-41
universe within, 241
Human Space Flight Innovative Technologies program, 324
Huygens probe, 138-39
hydrogen, 31, 35-36, 91, 158, 240, 258
In Sun, JuJ
hydrogen cyanide, 92
IKAROS (Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated by Radiation Of the Sun) , 167
Independence Day(flm). 38. 43
India. xiv, 22, 23, 49, 127,226
Industrial Revolution, 95, 253
infared light, 90. 92-93, 129
in-space propulsion, 170
Integral satellite, 139
intelligence. 36-39, 257
Intelligent Design movement, 204-5
Interational Federation of Aeronautcs. 23
Interational Space Station (ISS). xiII, 6-7. 10. 13. 15. 25-26, 72, 76, 116. 119, 161.
167. 218, 228
commerclallzatlon management of. 323
contingency funding of. 321-22
contingency plan for, 319-23
launch costs of. 320-21
operational costs of. 320
research on, 322-23
Interet. 141
Inthe Shadow orthe Moon (film) , 5
10. 169
ion-thruster engines. 164
Iran. xiv, 23
Islam. 206
"Island universes: 98-100
Israel. 23
Ialy. xiv. 7. 72
Jackson. Michael. 203
James Webb Space Telescope. 139, 143. 176
Jansky, Karl, 90-91
Japan. xiv, 7, 22, 168. 215
atomic bombing of 50, 95-96
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency UAXA) , 167
Jarvis, Greg, 243
Jet Propulsion Laboratory UPL) , 13. 130, 131. 248-49, 324
Jobs. Steve. 136
John F. Kennedy, USS. 5
Johnson. Lyndon 8., 66-67. 124
Johnson Space Center. 8. 220
jourey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, A: Moon. Mars and Beyond, 146
Jupiter, 32. 33. 37. 40. 46. 52, 85, 88, 102. 112, 115. 117, 128. 157, 201. 245, 246
slingshot effect and, 119-20
Jupiter-C rocket. 126
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter UIMO) , 169-70
Kazakhstan. 121, 123
Kelvin. Lord, 108
Kennedy. John F .. 4, 8, II, 12, 13, 17. 79. 136, 219. 225
"Moon" speech of. 13. 79. 148-49. 191-92
Kennedy Space Center, 14-15, 16, 140. 145, 161. 220, 229
Kepler, Johannes. 115
Kinsella. Gary. 249-50
Korea, Republic of (South Korea). xiv
Korean War, 149
Korolev. Sergei, 123-24. 126
Kubrick. Stanley, 128-29
Kuiper Belt. 168.245
Kuwait, 27
Lagrange, Joseph-Louis, 173. 176
Lagrangian points, 72, 145. 173-76
gravity and, 172-74
launches from, 177
libration paths and. 174
NASA satellites ad, 176
Laika (dog, 122
Langley, Samuel
p
" 216-17
Laplace, Pierre-Simon de, 117-18
Large Hadron Collider, 80, 82
lasers. 167
Lauer, Matt. 210-11
Launching Science, 169-70
Leno. Jay, 144-45
Le Verrier. Urbain-Jean-Joseph, 248
L5 Society, 175
life:
chemical component of, 35-36
diversity of, 34-35
extnction episodes of. 49
extraterrestriaL se extraterrestrial life
on Mars, 48, 259
search for, 41. 325
light, 30. 90. 93, 258
speed of, 109. 164, 195
LightSail-1, 167
Lindbergh, Charles, 110
Lindsay, John, 67
Lockheed Martin. 236
Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, 23
long-period comets, 46-47
Lovell, Jim, 112
low Earth orbit (LEO) , 113
Luna 9 rover, 70
Luna 13 rover, 70
Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project. 149-50
Lunar Orbiter spacecraft, 149
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) , 150
MacHale, Des, 234
Madonna, 203
Magellan, Ferdinand, 95, 96
Major Mysteries of SLience (Garbedian) , 110
Manhattan Project, 80
many-body problem. 117-18
Mars. 7, 8, 14, 40, 46, 55. 77. 115, 129. 168, 188. 195, 200. 209
cratering on, 52
Earth viewed from. 27
life on, 48. 259
methane on, 31, 78, 138
proposed mission to, 78-79, 81-83
rocks ejected from. 48-49
rovers on, 130-33, 134, 138, 163, 198
Soviet achievements and. 122
water on. 48, 134. 138, 201. 227
Mars Express Orbiter. 138
Mars Global Surveyor. 138
Marshall Space Flight Center. 67
Mars Society. 236
mass extinction. 51
McAuliffe, Christa. 243
McDonald's, 238
McNair. Ron, 234
Mocanique Cfiesle (Laplace), 117
Mercury (od) . 108
Mercury (planet). 52. 115, 118
orbit of, 248
Mercury program, 7. 114
MESSENGER probe, 139
meteorites. 48
Tunguska River impact of. 50
see also asteroids
methane, 30
on Mars, 31, 78. 138
on Tian. 138-39
Mexico. 50
microscope. 85-86
Microsoft, 136
microwaves. 41, 90, 91-92. 129. 141
microwave telescope, 91-92
Milky Way galaxy. 34, 41, 93, 97-101. 143, 147. 259
Andromeda galaxy and, 118-19
orbit of stars in. 118
radio emissions from center of. 90
Shapley-Curtis debate on. 98-101
Mir space station. 6, 165. 319
Mitchell. Edgar. 3
Mongols. 205-6
Moon, xiii-xiv. 4. 5, 6, 8. 11. 12, 13, 14. 21, 46. 47. 66. 69. 70, 71, 72, 86, 89. 97. 111-
12, 119. 132, 149. 186, 195. 196, 200. 220, 245
cratering on. 50, 57
Earth viewed from. 27
40th anniversary of landing on. 144
proposed return mission to. 55-56, 76-77, 83
rocks ejected from. 48
Soviet achievements and. 122
see also Apollo program, Apollo 11
moion. third law of. 153. 158
multiverse, 259
NanoSail-D. 167
NASA Flexibiliy Act of 2004. 330
National Academy of Public Administrations. 322
National Academy of Sciences, II, 98, 325
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. xv. 4. 58. 66. 125, 252. 265-91, 328
access to infonnaton in. 273-74
aerospace vehIcle in. 282-84
amended text of, 265-91
approprIations in. 284-85. 286
awards in. 278-79
civlllan-military liaison in, 271
congressional reporting in, 271
excess land in. 272
insurance in. 281-84
interational cooperation in. 271, 291
inventions in. 276-78
jurisdiction in. 290
launch vehicle contracts in. 285-86
lawsuits in, 279-80
mIsuse of name in. 285
National AdvIsory Committee in. 272-73
prIze authority in. 286
property leases in. 289
property rights in. 276-77
purpose and objectives of. 265-67
recovery authority in. 290
securIty in. 274-75
transfer of functions in. 273
upper atmosphere research in. 290-91
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2000. 326-27
National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA). 59-60. 89. 114. 162. 166-68. 192,
199-200, 203. 219, 305. 306,309
acquisition of space science data and. 314-15
additIonal activities of. 313-14
aero-space transportation technolog integration plan of. 323-24
anchor tenancy contracts and. 308-9
Astronaut Pen of. 194
budget of. xiv, 10, 12, 15, 56, 75. 150, 169-70. 209-10, 212. 228, 237
carbon cycle research program of, 325-26
civli right movement and. 66-67
creaton of. 5-6, 66-67. 125, 267
decision making at. 146
deputy administrator of. 328
divisIons of. 9
Earh science data sources and. 315-16
economic impact of, 237
expert input and, 146-47
Exploration Award of. 146-47
functions of. 265-72
future and. 252-53
Human Space Flight Innovative Technology program of, 324
interational politics and. 5-7
Mars rovers and, 130-34
new Mars mission and. 77-78
new Moon missIon and. 56. 77-78
number of employees of, 236
Obama on role of, 11-12
Obama's vlsionof. 11-17
100th anniversary of flight initiative and, 326
payloads of, 313-14
political partisanship and, 4-5, 13-14
reorganization of. 329
scientific value of, 9-11
spending by, xv, 7-9, 25, 193-94, 331-32, 333-35
statutory provisions applicable to, 293-94
use of goverment facilities and, 309
vision statement of 68
working capital fund of. 328
see also specifc remers, programs, and vehicles
National Air and Space Museum, 7-8, 23, 144
National Commi ssion on Excellence in Education, 58
National Defense Educaton Act of 1 ass, 125
National Defense Scholarships, 125
National Geographic channel, 231
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 12, 306-7
National Institute on Di sabili¡and Rehabilitation Research, 306
National Institutes of Health, 209
National Museum of Natural HistLry, 98
National Research Council, 169, 322
National Science Foundation, 11-12, 23, 125, 219, 305
National Security Council, 124
National Space Grant College and Fellowship Act of 1987, 295-303
administrative services, 30 I
appropriations, 303
competiive awards, 303
contracts, 298-99
fellowship program in, 300-301
functions of, 297-98
grants in, 298-99
identity of needs in, 299
personnel services in, 301
purpose of. 295-96
regional consortium in, 300
reports to Congress in, 302-3
review panel in, 301
National Space Institute, 175
National Space SOCiety, 146, 175, 236
National Space SympoSium, 222
National Technical Infonnation Service, 304
"Nation at Risk, A: 58
Natural History, xiii
NBC, 144, 178
Neptune, 27, 36, 46, 115, 119, 157
discovery of, 248
Netherlands, 7
neutrinos, 94
Newcomb, Simon, 216
New Horizons spacecraft. 168
New Scienist 123
Newton, Isaac, 65, 113-17, 119. 153, 158. 192, 247. 257
New York. N,Y" 96. 124, 224, 238
New York Times, 55, 96, 110. 124, 216-17
NEXT ion propulsion system, 170
Nigeria, 23
nitrogen. 101, 239. 240, 258
Nixon, Richard M .. 4-5, 225
Nobel, Alfred Bernhard. 88
Nobel Prlze, 88-89, 94, 206
Norh Atlantic Drift current, 93
Norh Carolina, 109. 216
Norhrop Grumman, 236
Norway, 7
NOVA ( series), 231
novae, 100
NRA. 236
nuclear power, 159, 168-69
numbers:
Arabic, 205
increasing powers of, 237-38
Obama, Barack. II, 14-16, 76, 186-87,252
space policy and, 77
Obama administation, 75
Office of Federal Housing Enterpri se Oversight, 311
Office of Human Spaceflight, 323-24
Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, 323
Office of Management and Budget, 318
Office of Research and Technology Applications, 303-4, 305
Ohio. 4-5, 184-85
O'Nelll, Gerard K .. 8, 175
Onizuka. Etlison, 243
Opportunity (Mars exploration rover) . 130-32, 138
orbits, 113-20
of Earth, 115
elongated, 115-16
free fland. 119
many-body problem and, 11"{-IK
of Mercury, 248
of Pluto, 115
sling-shot efect and, 119-20
of stars. 118
suborbital trajectorles and, 114
three-body problem and, 116-17
of Venus, 115
Orellana. Francisco de, 197
organic chemistry, 36, 48
Originof Species (Darwin). 98
oxygen, 31. 35-36. 101, 158. 239, 240. 258
ozone, 51, 93
Pakistan. 49
Panama Canal, 87
panspennia. 48-49. 259
Parliament. British. 217
"Passport to the Universe" (ruyan and Soter) , 256
Pegasus. 108
Penzias. Amo, 92
perturbation theory. 1 18
Peru. 196-97
Pfeiffer. Michelle. 203
photosynthesis. 31
Pigliuccl. Massimo, 75-83
Pioneer anomaly. 244-45, 248-51
Pioneer program:
Pioneer O. 245
Pioneer 3. 245
Pioneer 4. 245
Pioneer 5. 245
Pioneer 9. 245
Pioneer 10, 118. 244-45, 247. 248-50
Pioneer II, 168. 244-45, 247. 249
Pioneer 12, 245
Pioneer 13, 245
Pizarro, Gonzalo, 196-97
planetary motion. frst law of. 115
Planetary Society, 166-67. 193,236.250
Pluto. 82, 112. 118, 128. 168, 195. 201
orbit of, 115
Pravda, 121
Prescott. William H., 196
Presidential Commission on Implememation of United States Space Exploration Policy,
59-50, 146
President's Commission on Higher Education, 125
Prince (singer) , 203
Principia (Newton). 113
Project Prometheus. 169-70
propulsion:
alterte fuels for. 157-59
antimatter drive and. 170-71
chemical fuel for, 163
electriciy and, 165
in-space, 170
ion-thruster engine and, 164-65. 170
nuclear power and. 159, 168-69
rocket equation and, 153-54. 157
and slowing down. 155-56
solar sails and. 159, 165-67. 170
third law of motion and. 153. 158
xenon gas and. 164-65
Proxima Centauri, 195-96
Ptolemy. Claudius. 34. 65
pulsars, 29
Qatar. 5
quasars, 91
R-7 rocket. 126
racism, 66-67
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (TGs), 168-69
radio telescopes, 91
radio waves, 28-29, 30, 31. 39. 90-91
radium, 96
RND Corporation, 218
Ranger 7 spacecra, 70
Reagan, Ronald, 5. 6
relativity. general theory of, 94-95, 10 1, 248, 250
relativity. special theory of, 195-96
Republicans. 4-5, 15, 17, 224-25
Resnik, Judith, 243
robots, 129, 134
in space exploration, 57, 89-90, 128, 130-32. 187, 198. 199, 202
rocket equation, 153-54, 157
rockets:
fybys and. 157
liquid-fueled, 192
phallic design of, 222-23
propulsion of, se propulsion
Rodriguez, Alex, 114
Rontgen. Wllhelm. 94. 96, 135
Royal Society, 216
Russia, xiv, 6, 22, 162, 168
ISS and, 319
Star City training center of, 73, 74, 207
Sagan, Carl. 27. 28, 43, 193, 256
Salyut space module, 6
Sarge (comedian) , 234
satellites. xlii, xiv, 60. 71. 94
communication. 129
frst US, 124-25
Satur, 31, 82, 112. 115, 119. 138, 157. 168, 210. 225, 245
radio emissions from, 90-91
Satur V rocket, 15, 127, 154, 158, 172,214, 219, 220, 229
Üa wonder of the modern world, 232-33
Schmitt, Harrison, 69, 132
Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 153
science, 206. 226
Arabs and. 205-6
discovery and. 98
emerging markets and. 209-10
literacy In. 57-59, 230-31, 235-36
multiple disciplines and, 209-10
Siemifc American, 223
scientiflc method. 86
Scobee, Dick, 242
Seking a Human Spacelight Program Wonhy of a Great Nation, 146
Senate, US, S, 146.328
Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee of. 272
and appointments to Commission on Future of Aerospace Industry, 316
Appropriations Committee of. 321, 329
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee of. 288, 321, 323, 324, 329
sense of wonder, 64-65
September 11. 2001. terrorist attacks, 206
Sesame Street cV show) , 257
SETI (search for extraterrestri al intelligence), 41. 325
Shapley, Harlow, 98-101
Shamer, Wllliam, 180
Shaw. Brewster, 221
Shepard, Alan 8., 114
short-period comets, 46
Siberia, 50
Sims. Calvin, 55-62
Sirius, 178
Skylab 1 (space staton). 214
slingshot effect, 119-20
Smith, George 0" 175
Smith, MichaeL 242
Smithsonian Institution. 216
solar sails. 159, 165-67. 170
solar system, 34, 259
many-body problem and, 117-18
perturbation theory and, 118
solar wind. 176, 235. 245
solid rocket boosters, 155
Soter, Steven, 256
sound, speed of, 108-9
sound barrier, 109
South Africa, xiv
South Pole, 76
Soviet Union. xiii, 8. 94, 133, 194,215, 218
US rivalry with. 5-6, 59, 79, 87. 121-27, 133. 192, 219
see also Sputnik
space. space exploration:
colonization of, 57, 60, 102-3
cosmic microwave background in. 92, 94-95
cross-discipline endeavor in, 24-25. 230
culture and, 72-74, 147-48. 210-11
early atttudes toward. 217-18
economic motivation for, 200-201
factions against, 8-10
in GaleflPigllucci interview of author, 75-83
inventions statute and. 311
justification for funding of. 78-81
miliarization of, 60
numbers employed in. 236-37
politics and, 3-5
proposed programs and mi ssions for, 201-2
robots and. 57, 89-90,128, 130-32, 187. 198, 199. 202
significance of, 102
Soviet achievements in, 122-26
special interests and, 5, 236-37
stellar nurseries in. 93
technological innovation and. 12
US-Soviet rivalry and. 5-6, 59, 79, 87, 121-27, 133. 192, 219
war as driver of, 219-20
Space Cowboys (fm). 162
Space Exploration Initiative, 8
Space Foundation, 221-22
Spaceuard Survey, The: Repon oflhe NASA Interational Near-Eanh Object
Dtetion Workshop, 50
space Junk. 176
space shutlle, 7, 12, 25, 109, 160-62. 165, 201. 202, 228. 281
contingency funding for, 321-22
fuel of 158
launch costs of 320-22
main parts of, 154-55
pricing policy for, 314
retirement of, 14-16. 143, 214
speed of, 222
use policy for, 312-13
weight of, 155
see also specifc vehicles
Space Station Freedom, 6. 8
Space Studies Board, 169
Space Technolog Hall of Fame. 221, 230-31, 237
Space Telescope Science Institute, 10, 23, 135-36
Space Transportation System, 314
space travel, 191-98
coasting in, 247
in Colbert-author interview, 186-88
danger of, 198
fnancing of, 193-94
in Hollywood movies. 194-95
Moon missions and, 192-93
robots and. 198
special relativity and, 195-96
Space Travel Symposium. 111
Spain, 7. 87
spectroscopy, 30
Spirit (Mars explorÕtion rover) , 130-33, 138
Spitzer Space Telescope, 139
Sputnik, xiii, 5. 59. 79, 113-14, 133, 192, 218
50th anniversary of, 226
US response to. 122-24
Star City (training center) , 73, 74, 207
Stars & Atoms (ddington). 107
Star Trek (series) , 3. 164, 170
45th anniversary of. 178-81
human behavior ad, 180
technology of. 179
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (flm). 37-38
Star Wars (film series), 131
State Deparment. US, 312
Stewart, Jon. 4
Stone, Sharon, 203
subatomic particles, 94
Sugar, Ron, 221
Sun, 27, 28, 29. 33. 46, 58, 72, 97, 112. 117, 118. 138, 195. 245
Copernican principle and. 34
energ emitted by, 93
fwlon In, 101
neutrinos emitted by, 94
planets' orbits and. 115
Superconducting Super Collider. 6-7, 80-81
Sweden, 7
SWift Philip W" 223
Swift Gamma Ray Burst Explorer, 139
Switzerland. 7
Sykes, Wanda, 17
Systems o{the World The (ewton) , 113
Taj MahaL 88
Tamayo-Mendez, Arldo, 122
TASS, 123
Taylor, Charles E,. 219
technology, 89, 200, 226
aero-space integration plan for. 323-24
in alien observation of Earth. 29-32
CRDAs policy on transfer of. 304-6
energ conservation and, 96
engineering. 95
Industrial Revolution and. 95
infonnation. 95
leadership and, 23
multiple disciplines and, 135-37
nonsectarian philosophies and, 206
predicting future of. 215-16
progress in, 218-19
space exploration and. 135
of Slar Trek, 179
US lag in, 21-22
telescopes, 71, 82, 85-86. 94. 141, 225
microwave, 91-92
radio. 91
ultraviolet, 93
Tereshkova. Valentina, 122
Texas, 6
Thompson. David. 221
three-body problem. 116-17
Three Gorges Dam, 22, 233
Three Mile Island meltdown. 168
Titan. 31
Huygens probe to. 138-39
methane on. 138-39
TodayShow (Tshow). 210-11
Tonight Show crV snow) , 144-45
Toth. Viktor, 250
Townsend. W. W., 215-16
transportation. 95
Treasury Deparment, US, 328
Treaty on Principles Govering the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer SpaLe. 3J0
Trojan asteroids. 117, 176
Truax, Robert C., 218
Tslolkovsky, Konstantin Eduardovicn, 153-54. 157
Tunguska River. 50
Turyshev, Slava, 250
201: A Space Osey (nlm) , 35, 128-29. 194. 229
Tannosaurus r, 51. 201
UFOs, 182-85
Ukraine. xiv, 168
ultravloletlignt. 71. 90. 93
ultraviolet telescope. 93
Ulysses spacecraft. 168
UNESCO, 226
Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949, 272
United Kingdom. xlv, 7
United Nations. 86-87
United States. xlii, 202
bald eagle symbol of, 107-8
crumbling infrastructure of. 236-37. 253
educational system of. 58
frst satellite of. 124-25
foreign students in. 21-22
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of. 309-10
reacton t Sputnik in. 122-24
scientific literacy in, 57-59
Soviet rivalry with. 5-6, 59. 79. 87. 121-27, 133. 192. 219
space budgets of. 30-9
space policy of. 60-61
transportation in. 95-96
universe. cosmic perspective and, 258-61
Uranus. 119. 157
discovery of. 247-48
US Space and Rocket Center. 220
V-2 rocket. 110-11. 114, 126. 153-54, 158. 217
van Leeuwenhoek, Antoni. 85. 92
Vega. 178
Venus (goddess). 227
Venus (planet) . 115. 122, 167. 184, 225. 245
cratering on. 52
greenhouse phenomenon of. 39-40. 201, 227
orbit of. 115
Venus Equilalera1 (Smith) , 175
Verne, jules. 170
Versailles Palace. 88
Vietnam War. 178-79
Viking program. 169
Viking 1, 168
Viking 2. 168
Vision for Space Exploraton. 13-14. 16. 25, 59-60
von Braun. Wemher. 67, 95, 114. 126-27, 194
Voyager program, 27, 43, 168. 169, 198
Voyager 2. 112. 168
Voyager 6. 38
Wall Slreel (fllm). 228
Wall Slreel Joural, 218
Waro{the Worlds (fllm). 42
water. 28, 30, 49, 78, 92. 129
comets and, 48
extraterrestrial life and, 39-40
on Mars, 48, 134. 138, 201. 227
molecules of. 258
Webb, james, 67
see also James Webb Space Telescope
weightlessness. 119
Weinberg, Steven. 10. 81
"What Are We Waiting ForT (Collier's) , 111
White, Edward B .. 66
Wnkins. john. 21
Wnkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP), 176
Wnson. Robert. 92
"Wind from the Sun. The" (Clarke). 166
Wise. Donald U., 10-11
Woods, Tiger, 114
Woolley. Richard van der Riel. 217-18
World War I, 217
World War II. 125. 224
Wright. Orville, 23, 97, 109-12. 215-16, 218-19
Wright. Wnbur. 23, 97, 109-10. 112, 215-19
Wright Flyer. 110, 196. 218-19
xenon gas. 159, 164-65
X-rays. 71, 90. 93-94. 96. 135, 139.
141
Yang Liwei. 7
Yeager. Charles E. ·Chuck. " 109. 112
Yeah. ] Sid It (Sykes). 17
"Zone of Avoidance." 100
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
About the Author
WB1Í UBLIa55B Â50H, an astrophysicist, was born and raised in
New York City. where he was educated in the public schools clear
through to his graduation from the Bronx High School of Science.
He earned his BA in physics from Harvard and his PhD in
astrophysics from Columbia. Tyson has served on two
presidential commissions-one in 2001 on the future of the US
aerospace industry, and a second in 2004 on the future of NASA
-and on NASA' s Advisory Council. Among his nine previous
books are his memoir, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventares of an
Urban Astrophysicist. the playful and informative Death by Black
Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries, which was a New York
Times best seller; and The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of
America 's Favorite Planet. Tyson is the recipient of fourteen
honorar doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service
Medal, the highest award given by the agency to a nongovernment
civilian. His contributions to the public appreciation of the cosmos
have been recognized by the International Astronomical Union in
their oficial naming of asteroid 13123 Tyson. On the lighter side,
he was voted �Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive" by People magazine
in 2000. Tyson is the first occupant of the Hayden Planetarium's
Frederck P. Rose directorship. He lives in New York City with
his wife and two children.
About the Editor
PVÍ5 ÏaH@ is a writer, a freelance editor, and a lecturer in English
at the City University of New York. She also collaborates with
Neil deGrasse Tyson. From 2002 through 2007, as a senior editor
at NatJraJ HistOY magazine, she oversaw Tyson's monthly
column, "Universe. " Originally trained as an art historian, Lang
has written many essays on art and curated several large group
exhibitions. Before moving to New York from Vancouver in
1983, she lectured for fifeen years at universities and art colleges
across Canada.
Copyright I 2012 by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Editor's Note © copyright 2012 by Avis Lang
All rights reserved
First Edition
For information about pennlsslon to reproduce selections from this book.
write to Permissions. W. W. Norton & Company. Inc.,
500 Fifth Avenue. New York. NY 10110
For information about special discounts for bulk purchases. please contact
W. W. Norton Special Sales at [email protected] 8oo-233-4830
Bo k design byJudilh Stagitto Abbate Ilwabbaledesign.com
Production manager: Devon Zahn
Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data
Tyson. Nell deGrasse.
Space chronicles : facing the ultimate frontier I Neil deGrasse Tyson : edited by Avis
Lang. -1 st ed.
p. em.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-393-08210-4 (hardcover)
I . Astronautics and state-United States. 2. United States. National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. 3. Manned space flight-Forecasting. 4. Outer space­
Exploration. I. Lang. Avis. II. Title.
TL789.8.U5T972012
629.40973-dc23
2011032481
W. W. Norton & Company. Inc.
500 Fifth Avenue. New York. N.Y. 10110
ww.wwnorlon.com
W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.
Castle House, 75176 Wels Street. London WIT 3QT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
_Lettet !rom Ðona¡d V!se. ch!et sc¡enust and dep d!rectot. Ap¡¡o Lunat LxQlorauon Ctt!ce. ^ASA, !o
Home NeWell, aste amtn¡stratot. NASA, Au_ust Z4, I969. Reþr¡nted !n )o!n N. !o_don et a¡.. es .,
Exploringthe Unknown: SelectedDumntsIn theHtoryof the US. Cil Space Prram, Vo¡. 5: Exploring
UCnO^ASAS1-2û0¡-4407 (VasnIn_ton,ÐC. Co\:etnment1t¡ntln_Ctt¡ce.ZU0¡),I85÷86.
_AdaþtedtH:£oEarth." Nau"1HIO. Fe Z0.
_Adapted !mm "VhyAmrlcaNeedstoLxþ¡oteSpace.¨ Par. Au_us!o.?7.
_Adapted !rom "!sAnybodj (!.üe \s) CutT"",r Natral !1sto¡, Seþlebe¡ ¡s,andtrom¯¯heSeatchtor
L!!e !n Ù\n!Ve .An C\erteWo!the Sc!entHc and Cu¡tu¡al¡mþ¡¡cauo ot ¡1nd!n_LIte tn theCosm,"
cn_ !ona¡ !eUmony p~sened be!ore Ù House Comm!llæ on Sc!ence, Suocomm¡ttee on Sþace and
Aeronaut¡cs.}u¡¸IZ,Zû0I,WasnIn_ton,ÐC.
_Adapted !mm !nterV!eWv¡ÙSan_�yCupta. Andrn CorC´,CNN. A¿·mZ6,Z0I0.
_Adapted !rom "Com!n_AUmlons,¨ /ow.o¡!1æ:], Septembet ¡ss¯.
_Adapted !rom "¯ConVersal¡o¡¡:NellT¸son." 10NewYork TmesVldeo,conducted}uneZ3. ?006,b¸Calv¡n
S!ms. þroduced bj Natt \ . psted on¡!ne }u¡¸ Zû, 2ûû6, at
ntt _:ììw .n_ m.comre¡mu¡l¡medla'conVetlon.ntml.
_Adapte trom ¯Wh¸ Ixglore? !n !nnle}one Schote¡ (Wlth a!oreWotd by ÐuzzA¡dr!n). Kids 1 Sp: A
SpTraver! Guid(BurLngn,Ontar¡o. Co¡¡ector´sGu!de1ub¡lsnln_,Zûû6).
_Adapted !mm "Wonde,"potedatabc.com.October3û,Zûû6.
_¡!rtpub¡lsnedIn NAS5hMagazn: ÓU YearofEpioralonan Dsovr. Z08.
_Adaþte !rom co¡n_ Ke¸note g h at "50 Yero! !ne Spaæ A_e, a celebuon sgonsored b¸ the
¡i¡ænauonlAsuouucal FedeLon, \"LSCC H}. 1at¡,NatcnZ¡.2û07.
_Adapted !rom "Næ\deGtasseT¡¬onand!neNæd!oraSþace1to_t¬m."InterveWWlthNassImo1¡_¡uccland
)u¡aGa¡e!otNeWYorkC1j Skeþucs.tot"Pauo¡x¡¡¸SþeaKIn_. IxglotIn_lheBotd e r ¡andbetWeenPeason m
Nonsense¨.re¡easedNarcn28.Z0Iû.alhll. lW\¬»tauonaKIslor
. Adapted !rom "1aÙ to OIsVe¸,¨ c¡:aþter 19 InP¡cm W.BullIet, ed ., The Columbia H/lorof lbe Zh
Centu:¸(Nev`otK.ColumbIaLnIVerst¸¡æ55, 19.
_Adapted !mm "¯o1y,¨Wotura!1:], AptIl ¡s+8.
. Adapted!mm "Coln_Ða¡¡¡tlc." NalIralHllor November 2002.
_Adapted !mm "¡e¡¡oW¯t¬eler.¨ 1DR1D1!1sto:]. CctoberZ007.
. Adapted from -WO!. for ReaL- Op-E. the NewYork Tme. Januar I. 2001.
. Adapted frm "!aunch!n_URl_ntStuU. NalIJralHl5tAJlI2004.
. Adapted fromunpublished op-ed by Nell deCr""", Tyson and DolIld Goldsmith. September Zû04.
. Adapted from -For theLov of Hubble, Parade. June ?Z.2û08.
. Adapted from Master ofCeremonl" rl'l arki, fortieth �nntversary celebralton of the Apollo II Moon bootn_¿
Smtthsonlan Naltonal Air andSpac Musum. Wash¡n_ton.DC. July 2û,Zû09.
. Adapted frm "!uelIn_Lp,"^oturo!!1st0. }uwZ0ûo.
. Adapted frm -Heading Oul." Nalmi Hlstory. luly-August ?005.
. Adapted from -Te FIve Points of Lu_ran_e, "TGU|!O1HIstory. April Z00Z.
. Adapte frm "The Science otTæ, In Steplien Reddlcllfe, e., TV Gul<l:r Trek 35th Annlvefll)
Tribute: A TimelesGuidIO the Trek Univere. Z00Z.
_Adapt-·d !romQ&Ase_menlo!¯Cosm!cQuandat1es, wlh Ðr. NelldeCtasseT¸son. St. ¡etersbut_Co¡le_e
andNÍÌ, St. ¡etetsbut_, ¡¡ot!da. Mah Z6,Z0û8.
_ Adaþte trom an !ntet!eW W!th Stegen Colbett. 1 ClbTe¡o¡1. Comed¸ Central, Agt!¡ 8, Z0¡û,
tt v»W
.
@¡ tIon.co@¸ he-colrt--!des'0û38!a¸ ¡¡-08-ne-.
_Adapted !rom "Syce:You Can´tCetJìere!romHere.^oturo!11sto:¸. Seþtember ¡998.
_Ðe!ore 1968both \SandSo·!easuonautsteltedonpenc¡¡s. lt¼ð the lvhet 1en Coþn¸,notNASA. that
!dent¡Le the H tot a "sþace pen. !n grt because ot the zero-C enVIronment but also bcause o! the
!ammab¡¡¡t¸ o!the þencI¡s Wood and ¡ead In the þute ox¸_en atmosphete ot the cpsule. ¡!sher d!d not b¡l¡
NASA torthe deVeloþment C5. ^eVetìhele. asthettuth-seeKln_ Webs!te Snog.com oþ!nes !n ¯¹ Vr¡æ
Stf: thelessono!Ùutale ¡Va¡¡d,eVen thou_h theexamþleIs!abHcaæ.
_Adapted !rom "Ra!n_!ot theSar." Natral11st0. Aþr!¡Z003.
_Adapted !mm !heKe¸notesþeechtorÙ48ÙAnnua¡Ðt.lOÌ. CoddardNemctIa¡Ð!nner.Na¡¡onalSpace
C¡ub, Vash¡n_ton. OC.AþrIl ¡.Z0o.
_Adapted !rom "ÐeIuIonso!Space Inthula. TG|H1G1HlslOr. NoebZûû6.
_ Adaþte !^m Ù Ke¸note sge ch !ot Ù Spaæ Techno¡o_¸ ¡a¡¡ ot ¡ame d1nner, Z3rd Nattonal Sþace
S¸mþos!um. Aþrt¡ ¡Z.2ûû7. Co¡oradoSþr!n_s.Colorado.
_ Adaþte !mm the Ke¸note spntothe Syce ¯echno¡o_ Hall o! ¡ame dnne. 24th Nadonal Sþce
S¸þos!um.Aþrt¡ !û.2ûû8, Co¡oradoSþr!ng.Colorado.
_Adapted !romanungub¡¡shedOv!lUen!nI986.EDITOR'S NOTE: ¯he ode InVokesWorelatedæÙ
nameo!a¡lHVesþacesnuUlesthate×\ted!nI986-Atlan!¡s,Chal¡en_et.ColumbIa. O\oVet¸.InteHse.
_Adapted !mm "Syc ûÐehaV!n_Ðadl¸,¨ 1DR1D1!1st0, Apü2û08.
_Adapted !romQ&A.LnIveR¸o!Ðu!t�¡o ¡Ist!n_u!shSþekerSerIes,N�ch 3I.Z0Iû.
_Adapted !mm "¯Com!c ¡etspecuve," ^ott·r1Jto¡¸, Aþr!¡Z007.
_Sourc.e:NatIonalAetonautI<sandSpaæAdm!n!stration.
_Sourc.e:NatIonalAetonautI<sandSpaæAdm!n!stration.
_Sources.Ofc otNana_ementand Ðud_etH\torlcal ¯ables I.1 (tottedet¬¡ _ovetnmenoutla¸s) and 4.I (tor
NASA out¡ays ¡96Z÷Z0¡û). ð o! Ap1l 2û11: NASA Hlslrlca/ n,ta Bo /95-196· Volume 1. NAS
1£(torNASAout¡a¿sI9o9÷I96I),ButeauotIconomIcAna¡¸s!s (tot LÍÌ data).
_Srce: TeSpaeRepor211. "TheSp¡oundatIon,uwth y¡mIs¡on.
_Srce: TeSpaeRepor211. "TheSp¡oundatIon,uwth y¡mIs¡on.
_Srce: TeSpaeRepor211. "TheSp¡oundatIon,uwth y¡mIs¡on.