Daily Archives: April 25, 2022

Artists concept of the Parker Solar Probe spacecraft approaching the Sun.

Is human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit a thing of the past? Will space tourism profit and expand in low-Earth orbit while the rough and tumble exploration of space beyond the Moon continue to be carried out via robotics?

These questions cut to the heart of The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are The Future of Exploration, a thought-provoking new book co-authored by astrophysicists Donald Goldsmith and Martin Rees.

Although such arguments arent necessarily new, the authors make some salient new points that bear repeating here.

- Human space travel remains dangerous.

High energy solar and galactic particles are rife throughout the solar system. Beyond Earths Van Allen radiation belts, astronauts are particularly vulnerable to radiation from such particles.

For each month in space, human bone density can lessen by as much in 1.5 percent in weight-bearing locations of the body such as the hips and knees. Astronauts spending six months en route to Mars, would receive at least 60 percent of the total radiation dose recommended for a full career, the authors note. The return trip home would push them over the limit, even without a sudden increase from solar storms or flares, they note.

- In contrast to human space exploration, non-human robotic explorers have safely and efficiently reached the outer edges of our solar system.

Since its creation in 1958, NASA has spent about 60 percent more on human exploration than on robotic investigation of the cosmos, the authors write. We should note that the human exploration of space has so far extended only to the Moon

The End of Astronauts

- Space-based telescopes need not be serviceable by humans.

Although the Hubble space telescope wouldnt have been operational without the ability to rescue it from what Goldsmith and Rees term an otherwise fatal manufacturing defect, they do note that the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which manages the Hubble has said that the total cost of the five astronaut repair missions would have paid for building and launching seven replacement telescopes.

Its hard to know whether this would be the case, given rising costs for instrumentation and space observatories in general. But the point is well taken. And perhaps thats one reason the Hubbles follow-on observatory, NASAs James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), was never designed to be serviced by human astronauts, at least.

From its current solar orbit some one million miles from Earth, the James Webb is currently out of reach of a crewed service mission. But thus far it has proven to be well on track for full science operations set to begin this summer.

- Artificial platforms for space colonies would hardly be Valhallas.

Artists often depict space colonies as exciting and attractive, resembling a holiday resort, or some other realization of our hopes for a near-perfect environment, Goldsmith and Rees write. But the authors note that this is likely not to resemble the reality of such space colonies constructed in interplanetary space. They note that there will be great difficulty and danger in maintaining such huge artificial structures in space, as well as the technical challenges involved in their construction.

- But space platforms would potentially allow billions of people to live in space.

As Goldsmith and Rees point out, in his 1997 book Mining the Sky, the cosmo-chemist John Lewis lamented that "as long as the human population remains as pitifully small as it is today, we shall be severely limited in what we can accomplish. Lewis stressed that human intelligence is the key to the future.... Having only one Einstein, one da Vinci, one Bill Gates is not enough.

The implication is that maximizing our human potential might require increasing the human population a hundred-fold. Space platforms would offer humans a sustainable way to increase our numbers and thereby roll the die so that geniuses would become more commonplace. Who knows if such a scheme would work? Instead, it would just be easier to reengineer our brains artificially to make such once in a lifetime geniuses more commonplace than we could ever imagine.

This whole argument is a bit tangential to the books focus of why robots should prevail in space, at least for the time being.

Goldsmith and Rees make a compelling case for robotics over astronauts at least in the short term. But let's hope that 100 years from now, time and technology will allow us to have both robust human interplanetary spaceflight and state of the art robotic space science and exploration.

In the short term, however, it probably does make good sense to emphasize solar system exploration via robotics as has been brilliantly done by the national space agencies over the last 65 years. It's truly amazing and how much has been accomplished with so few dollars.

In time, let's hope that there is a meeting that that that there is a merger of sorts between the kind of robotics that can complement our human aspirations to travel into interstellar space in ways that are incomprehensible at present.

Read more:

Leave Space Exploration To The Robots, Says New Book - Forbes

Elon Musks successful takeover bid for Twitter has raised concerns about his plans for the social media platform, because of his political views. Historically those views have teetered left and right, but tend to gravitate towards libertarian. His anti-union stance as CEO of electric vehicle maker Tesla has displeased liberals, even if they constitute his best automotive customers.

Objections to The Boring Company, his venture that proposes to build underground transportation networks beneath cities, fall not on ideological grounds but practical ones: some civil engineers just call it pie in the sky.

But there is one skyward thrust of Musks sci-tech empire that attracts almost universal praise the aerospace enterprise SpaceX. The Netflix documentary Return to Space, directed by Oscar winners Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi and Jimmy Chin, chronicles the companys development of a recyclable rocket and its collaboration with NASA to get this country back into human space exploration.

Space is his best look, Vasarhelyi says of Musk, tacitly acknowledging his controversial profile that includes expressing doubts about Covid vaccine mandates and hanging out with pal Joe Rogan, the podcaster who has admitted to past use of racist language. If we were doing just an Elon Musk documentary Im sure we would have spent a lot of time going into that. But it wasnt really about that.

The films primary focus is on the first crewed mission for SpaceX in 2020, which aimed to send NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to the International Space Station. NASA hadnt put any astronauts into space since the last Shuttle flight in 2011. Vasarhelyi and Chin secured remarkable access to document the process, including the crew preparing for the mission and then the blastoff of the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, which propelled the companys Crew Dragon space capsule into orbit. And to Musk himself as the launch neared and the rocket took off.

In Return to Space, Musk appears intimately engaged in the details of the SpaceX-NASA mission not surprising, given that he is not only the CEO of SpaceX, but also its chief engineer. He hovers in the background at times, in a black sports coat, or inserts himself occasionally to inquire about technical points or to receive updates on the weather forecast before launch. Theres a faint resemblance to Hugo Drax of Moonraker, if only because of the common space theme and both characters immense wealth.

Elon Musks Crash Course: New York Times Documentary Set At FX

There was reason for Musk to feel comfortable with the filmmakers.

We had friends in common with Elon. We had spent some time together with him [previously], Vasarhelyi notes. SpaceX [access] was a thing, but the real kind of achievement, in many ways, was that NASA access because theyre just so notoriously, I dont know, controlling They ended up making the kind of accommodations that they normally never make.

The directors were permitted to use footage that Behnken and Hurley shot themselves. And they spent considerable time with then-NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine.

I think we got lucky with Bridenstine because he was the first civilian administrator [of NASA], Vasarhelyi says. He let us shadow him. I think he understood the value of this type of storytelling.

The filmmakers sprinkle some wonderful human touches throughout, including Bridenstines fondness for a certain kind of caffeine-powered soda.

We could always curry favor with him by bringing him Mountain Dew, Vasarhelyi shares. Like, who knew?

Musk founded SpaceX in 2002. Many at the time scoffed at the idea of a commercial outfit manufacturing rockets for NASA use, including no less a figure than Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Critics may have felt they had correctly foreseen the folly of SpaceX when the companys early efforts to create the Falcon rocket ended in spectacular explosions. But that was part of the process.

SpaceX really came at it with this basically new school startup mentality where it was, Fail fast and fail early and learn from your failures, Chin explains. Its kind of fast and furious compared to how people traditionally approached work and development in space travel.

Musk and his aeronautical engineers came up with other innovations besides the rocket itself; they also developed an escape system allowing astronauts in their capsule to separate from the booster rocket, in case of catastrophe after liftoff.

The inherent risk of space flight unites Return to Space with the earlier work of Chin and Vasarhelyi. In The Rescue, they documented the perilous effort to save children trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand; the Academy Award-winning Free Solo tracked climber Alex Honnold as he attempted to ascend Yosemites El Capitan granite rock face without aid of ropes. The rescuers who saved the Thai kids soberly assessed whether their intended plans could work; Honnold choreographed every inch of his climb to lessen the chance of a fatal plunge.

Its a familiar space or terrain for us to examine the process of risk assessment and calculation and mitigation. The heart of any high stakes situation is there is the stakes of the mission, but theres also the stakes of life and death, Chin observes. You have to have a true passion and belief in what youre doing when youre in that situation where you are calculating life and death risks. And thats really interesting to us because thats a look into why people do what they do, and then it also looks at the process.

The mission with Behnken and Hurley came off without a hitch. Earlier this month, SpaceX again in collaboration with NASA launched a former NASA astronaut and three paying customers to the ISS.

The mission is the first to go to the space station on which all of the passengers are private citizens, and it is the first time that NASA has collaborated in arranging a space tourism visit, The New York Times reported on April 8. The flight marked a pivotal moment in efforts to spur space travel by commercial enterprises, NASA officials said.

(If Musk had one eye on the launch, the other was on Twitter. On April 4 it was revealed he had bought a 9 percent stake in the company. On April 9, a day after the latest SpaceX blastoff, he announced he would not seek a seat on Twitters board. Then on April 14 he offered $43 billion to buy Twitter; today a deal was announced that would see him acquire the company for $44 billion).

At one point in Return to Space, Musk sports a t-shirt emblazoned with the words, Occupy Mars. He has articulated an outsized vision not only for SpaceX but for the human race. That would include a return to Earths only natural satellite, most recently visited by Apollo astronauts in late 1972.

Its been now almost half a century since humans were last on the moon. Thats too long, we need to get back there and have a permanent base on the moon, Musk said last April. And then build a city on Mars to become a spacefaring civilization, a multi-planet species.

Vasarhelyi remarks, [Musk] truly believes in these ideas of consciousness, civilization and thinking about these questions.

But as for setting up house on the Red Planet, Vasarhelyi, for one, counts herself out.

I think life on Mars, the filmmaker says, sounds incredibly unpleasant.

See the original post here:

Elon Musk Likes Twitter, But Space Exploration Is His Real Love, As Seen In Netflix Doc Return To Space - Deadline

Speaking broadly, no one owns space. But when you start looking at the particulars, a more complex answer emerges. Major organizations and investors wouldnt be vying to get a piece of the space pie if there wasnt amazing money to be made. Besides the 130 official government agencies around the world that are dedicated to space, Space Techs 2021 report identified more than 10,000 private tech companies and 5,000 top investors in the space sector besides Elon Musks SpaceX, which tends to get the most of the attention.

Valued currently at $350 billion and projected to reach $1 trillion in value in less than two decades, the industry focused on space is about to explode. As a new frontier is about to be opened to unbridled exploration, will it be the Wild West all over again, but in space?

Much of what we accept as rules governing space was outlined by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967(Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies), afoundational agreement of international space law which was negotiated and drafted under the auspices of the United Nations. The treaty, which by now includes 111 countries as signatories, set out key principles of how Earths nations should think about the use of space. The treaty poetically designated space as the province of all mankind and declared that it must remain open to peaceful explorations and use by all equally.

The treaty also laid out rules about the Moon and other celestial bodies, declaring that they cannot be claimed by anyone sovereign nation. Notably, the treaty also stated that no nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction should ever be placed in space, although it left the door open for conventional weapons, as well as the establishment of military space forces.

One big drawback of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) is that it didnt precisely define what outer space was. After all, where does space begin? Is Jeff Bezos really an astronaut? As Dr. Jill Stuart, editor of the journal Space Policy, explained to the BBC, "There is no official definition of outer space. She proposed that the Karman Line is generally the standard of physical demarcation, starting at about 62 miles (100km) above the Earth. The imaginary line describes the boundary between our planets atmosphere and outer space. The atmosphere at that altitude would be too thin to support aeronautical flight. Reaching that height, aircraft would need a propulsion system that doesnt rely on the lift generated by Earths atmosphere to keep going further.

You have to fly above the Karman line to earn the astronauts wings. By that definition, Jeff Bezos would be considered an astronaut (going up 106km), while his fellow billionaire space racer Richard Branson would not (as he went up only 86km).

If no one really owns space, then how do we proceed with space mining? After all, according to NASA estimates,the value of asteroids that could potentially be exploited for resources is in the neighborhood of $700 quintillion that number is so large that if you divide it up by the number of people on Earth, each person would still get about $95 billion. And it's not just idle talk NASA has recently unveiled the spacecraft it is planning to launch in the summer of 2022 to investigate the asteroid Psyche 16, potentially laden with valuable heavy metals.

Space mining could be the key to replenishing the Earths supplies of important resources as we continue to deplete it of riches. Extraterrestrial mining is also crucial to our further expansion into space, as we need to find and utilize materials in space like metals and minerals so that we dont have to keep bringing them from Earth. Getting these in space would allow us to build the tools and machines in space, as well as create the fuels and other materials we need to keep propelling ourselves farther and farther into the universe.

But if SpaceX or Google capture an asteroid, do they get to keep the spoils?

In their paper If space is the province of mankind,' who owns its resources?, space law experts Senjuti Mallick and Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan explain that in 2015, the United States legalized space mining through the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act by essentially embracing the doctrine of finders, keepers, as the researchers describe it.

The Act states, in particular, that A US citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained. So, if you manage to catch one, the asteroid is all yours.

Interestingly, in 2017 the small nation of Luxembourg passed a similar legal framework and has since become one of the key players in space mining research along with the U.S. Under Luxembourgs laws, mining companies can plunder all they can. Whats more, Luxembourg doesnt make it a prerequisite for the companys stakeholders to be based in the country. Just having an office in Luxembourg is enough an arrangement that makes it possible for other countries like Japan, Portugal, and UAE to enter into mining agreements with the forward-thinking European country.

China, India, and Russia are also looking to outer space for resources. In 2021, China test-fired what was touted as themost powerful solid rocket motorwith the largest thrust in the world so far.The 500 tons of thrust generated is meant to power next-gen heavy-lift rockets, allowing China to be competitive in deep space exploration and space mining.

Russias participation in the international communitys space missions has been affected by its ongoing war in Ukraine, with the head of its space agency threatening to pull its support of the International Space Station, which may come about by 2024. Russias official standing on asteroid mining is that its not allowed by the Outer Space Treaty, which states that space should be free for "exploration and use by all States." Nonetheless, Russia has been making plans to build a lunar base to extract Helium, and as Mallick and Rajagopalan write in their report, numerous Russian private tech companies like Dauria Aerospace are involved in developing plans for drilling rigs, 3d-printer-equipped space stations, and water extraction stations on the moon.

Russias stance that space mining may violate the Outer Space Treaty highlights the fact that theres still disagreement on the laws governing this developing industry. More regulations and agreements may be necessary as the extraction of resources in space gathers steam. Alternatively, more serious conflict may follow.

Some, like Russia, view the space mining legislation by the U.S. and Luxembourg as essentially exploiting loopholes. The laws of both countries claim to allow ownership of the resources that have been taken out but not of the asteroid itself. According to Mallick and Rajagopalan, thats essentially saying that a private organization would have the right to claim extracted resources while no national entity would be taking over the whole space body. As such, the OST would not be violated. However, some argue this does not correspond to the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty, which would have included the appropriation of resources in the prohibition against anyone owning space.

Excerpt from:

Who owns space? Here's what laws govern space exploration - Interesting Engineering

Asmore countriesdeveloped their own space agencies, several international collaborative groups emerged. These include theUnited Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, theUnited Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,and theConsultative Committee for Space Data Systems.

In 1975, 10 European nations founded theEuropean Space Agency. In 1998, the U.S. and Russia joined efforts to build the International Space Station, which is now supported by 15 countries.

These multinational ventures were primarily focused on scientific collaboration and data exchange.

The European Space Agency, which now includes 22 nations, could be considered among the first space blocs. But a more pronounced shift toward this type of power structure can be seen also after the end of the Cold War. Countries that shared interests on the ground began coming together to pursue specific mission objectives in space, forming space blocs.

In the past five years, several new space blocs have emerged with various levels of space capabilities. These include the African Space Agency, with 55 member states; theLatin American and Caribbean Space Agency, with seven member states; and theArab Space Coordination Group, with 12 Middle Eastern member states.

These groups allow for nations to collaborate closely with others in their blocs, but the blocs also compete with one another. Two recent space blocsthe Artemis Accordsand theSino-Russian lunar agreementare an example of such competition.

TheArtemis Accords were launched in October 2020. They are led by the U.S. and currently include 18 country members. The groups goal is to return people to the Moon by 2025 and establish a governing framework for exploring and mining on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The mission aims to build a research station on the south pole of the Moon with a supporting lunar space station calledthe Gateway.

Similarly, in 2019, Russia and China agreed to collaborate on amission to send peopleto the south pole of the Moon by 2026. This joint Sino-Russian mission also aims to eventually build aMoon base, and place a space stationin lunar orbit.

That these blocs do not collaborate to accomplish similar missions on the Moon indicates that strategic interests and rivalries on the ground have been transposed to space.

Any nation can join the Artemis Accords. But Russia and Chinaalong with a number of their allies on Earthhave not done so because some perceive the accords as an effort to expand the U.S.-dominated international orderto outer space.

Similarly, Russia and China plan to open their future lunar research stationto all interested parties, but no Artemis country has expressed interest. The European Space Agency has evendiscontinued several joint projectsit had planned with Russia and is instead expanding its partnerships with the U.S. and Japan.

In addition to seeking power in space, countries are also using space blocs to strengthen their spheres of influence on the ground.

One example is theAsia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, which was formed in 2005. Led by China, itincludes Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, and Turkey.

While its broad goal is the development and launch of satellites, the organizationsmajor aim is to expand and normalize the use of the Chinese BeiDou navigation systemthe Chinese version of GPS. Countries that use the system could become dependent on China, as is the case of Iran.

There has been tremendousgrowth of commercial activities in spacein the past decade. As a result, some scholars see a future of space cooperation defined byshared commercial interests. In this scenario, commercial entities act as intermediaries between states, uniting them behind specific commercial projects in space.

However, commercial enterprises areunlikely to dictate future international cooperation in space. According to current international space law, any company that operates in space does soas an extension ofand under the jurisdiction ofits home nations government.

The dominance of states over companies in space affairs has been starkly exemplified through the Ukraine crisis. As a result of state-imposed sanctions, many commercial space companies havestopped collaboratingwith Russia.

Given the current legal framework, it seems most likely that statesnot commercial entitieswill continue to dictate the rules in space.

I believe that going forward, state formations, such as space blocs, will serve as the major means through which states further their national interests in space and on the ground. There are many benefits when nations come together and form space blocs. Space is hard, so pooling resources, manpower, and know-how makes sense. However, such a system also comes with inherent dangers.

History offers many examples showing that the more rigid alliances become,the more likely conflict is to ensue. The growing rigidity of two alliancesthe Triple Entente and the Triple Allianceat the end of the 19th century is often cited as the key triggerof World War I.

A major lesson therein, is that as long as existing space blocs remain flexible and open to all, cooperation will flourish and the world may yet avoid an open conflict in space. Maintaining the focus on scientific goals and exchanges between and within space blocswhile keeping political rivalries at baywill help to ensure the future of international cooperation in space.

Svetla Ben-Itzhak is an assistant professor of space and international relations at Air University.

This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.

Originally posted here:

How space exploration is tied to power struggles on Earth - Fast Company

LSI is pleased to present the short inspirational-educational film titled "Go Incredibly Fast".

We hope you enjoy the film, and if it leaves you inspired to learn more, engage! Enabling bold exploration of our outer solar system and the stars is an all-hands-on-deck challenge.

Godspeed! - The LSI Team

For the film's companion engineering note, see https://www.goincrediblyfast.com/

For more information on LSI, see https://www.limitlessspace.org/

Email Contact: [emailprotected]

About LSI

Limitless Space Institute is a non-profit organization whose mission is to inspire and educate the next generation to travel beyond our solar system and to research and develop enabling technologies. LSI advances the pursuit of relevant deep space exploration R&D through the following student-engaging programs:

LSI was founded by Dr. Kam Ghaffarian, previously founder of the award-winning contractor Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, and recognized by Ernst & Young as Entrepreneur of the Year. LSI's president is Brian "BK" Kelly, who served with NASA for 37 years, most recently as Director of Flight Operations, responsible for selecting astronauts and planning and implementing human spaceflight missions. Dr. Harold "Sonny" White leads LSI's Advanced R&D, bringing decades of research experience in the advanced power and propulsion domain, most recently serving as the NASA Johnson Space Center Engineering Directorate's Advanced Propulsion Theme Lead.

SOURCE Limitless Space Institute, Inc.

See the article here:

Limitless Space Institute announces release of the short film "Go Incredibly Fast" - PR Newswire

Whats it like to live in an era where private space travel is on the rise? One aspect of it involves getting familiar with a lot of new launch locations. There was once a time when Cape Canaveral was the prime location associated with sending people into space. Now, things are a bit more geographically dispersed consider Virgin Galactics facility in New Mexico, for example.

And thats not the only state looking to make its own impact on space exploration. A group called the Michigan Aerospace Manufacturers Association (or M.A.M.A.) is looking to do something similar in the Great Lakes State specifically, in close proximity to Lake Superior.

A new article by David Rompf at The New Yorker delves further into their plan, which would involve building out several space launch facilities around the state. Rompfs article also includes comments from some Michigan residents who are opposed to the plan some for reasons of noise, others due to concern over pollution in the lake.

As Rompf points out, this isnt the first attempt to try to get Michigan on the spaceflight map. A NASA effort in the early 1970s went awry and was canceled due to inclement weather, which prevented rockets from launching. Still, the organization behind the current plan hasnt lacked for ambition. Among the details revealed in the New Yorker piece: M.A.M.A. has been in touch with SpaceX.

Could the states Upper Peninsula be radically transformed with a new industry? Stranger things have happened especially when space travel is involved.

Thanks for reading InsideHook. Sign up for our daily newsletter and be in the know.

See more here:

Michigan Explores the Idea of Becoming a Spaceflight Destination - InsideHook

On 20 July 1969, 650 million people throughout the world watched with bated breath as Neil Armstrong successfully fulfilled President Kennedys vision. The United States achieved what had seemed impossible just a few decades before. We had sent a man to the moon.

On that historic day, the entire world came together to celebrate the enormous accomplishment as Armstrongs voice boomed from our television sets: Thats one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

In just eight short years the US, led by our extraordinary scientists, engineers and astronauts at Nasa, had opened up a new world for humanity. And while the entire world rejoiced, there was a special joy and pride in our country because this was an American project. It was our financing, our political will, our scientific ingenuity, our courage that had accomplished this milestone in human history. We had not only won the international space race, but more importantly, we had created unthinkable opportunities for all of humankind.

Fifty-three years later, as a result of a huge effort to privatize space exploration, I am concerned that Nasa has become little more than an ATM machine to fuel a space race not between the US and other countries, but between the two wealthiest men in America Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who are worth more than $450bn combined.

After many billions of dollars of taxpayer funding the American people are going to have to make a very fundamental decision. If we are going to send more human beings to the moon and eventually to Mars, who will control the enterprise and what will be the purpose of that exploration? Will the goal be to benefit the people of the United States and the entire world, or will it be a vast boondoggle to make billionaires even richer and open up outer space to corporate greed and exploitation?

At this moment, if you can believe it, Congress is considering legislation to provide a $10bn bailout to Jeff Bezoss Blue Origin space company for a contract to build a lunar lander. This legislation is taking place after Blue Origin lost a competitive bid to SpaceX, Musks company.

Bezos is worth some $180bn. In a given year, he has paid nothing in federal income taxes. He is the owner of Amazon, which, in a given year, has also paid nothing in federal income taxes after making billions in profits. Bezos has enough money to own a $500m mega-yacht, a $23m mansion in Washington DC, a $175m estate in Beverly Hills and a $78m, 14-acre estate in Maui.

At a time when over half of the people in this country live paycheck to paycheck, when more than 70 million are uninsured or underinsured and when some 600,000 Americans are homeless, should we really be providing a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout for Bezos to fuel his space hobby? I dont think so.

Lets be clear, however. This issue goes well beyond just one contract for Bezos to go to the moon.

The reality is that the space economy which today mostly consists of private companies utilizing Nasa facilities and technology essentially free of charge to launch satellites into orbit is already very profitable and has the potential to become exponentially more profitable in the future. Bank of America predicts that over the next eight years the space economy will triple in size to $1.4tn thats trillion with a t.

In 2018, private corporations made over $94bn in profits from goods or services that are used in space profits that could not have been achieved without generous subsidies and support from Nasa and the taxpayers of America. The satellite business is growing rapidly. SpaceX alone plans to launch tens of thousands of its Starlink telecommunications satellites over the next few years.

In addition to the launching of new satellites, corporations like SpaceX will be making substantial sums from the space tourism business. Recently, three extremely wealthy individuals paid $55m each in order to visit the International Space Station. The good news is that if you are a billionaire tired of vacationing in the Caribbean, there are some exciting travel opportunities for you. The bad news is that American taxpayers are subsidizing some of that trip.

And while it may seem like a bad science fiction movie today, decades from now the real money to be made will not come from satellites or space tourism but to those who discover how to mine lucrative minerals on asteroids.

In fact, both Goldman Sachs and the noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson have predicted that the worlds first trillionaire will be the person who figures out how to harness and exploit natural resources on asteroids.

Nasa has identified over 12,000 asteroids within 45m kilometers of Earth that contain iron ore, nickel, precious metals and other minerals. Just a single 3,000ft asteroid may contain platinum worth over $5tn. Another asteroids rare earth metals could be worth more than $20tn alone. According to the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Diamandis, There are twenty-trillion-dollar checks up there, waiting to be cashed!

The questions we must ask are: who will be cashing those checks? Who will, overall, be benefiting from space exploration? Will it be a handful of billionaires or will it be the people of our country and all of humanity?

As it stands now, as a result of the 2015 Space Act that passed the Senate with virtually no floor debate, private corporations are able to own all of the resources that they discover in space. In other words, the taxpayers of this country who made it possible for these private enterprises to go into space will get a 0% return on their investment.

The time is now to have a serious debate in Congress and throughout our country as to how to develop a rational space policy that does not simply socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. Whether it is expanding affordable high-speed internet and cellphone service in remote areas, tracking natural disasters and climate change, establishing colonies on the moon and Mars or mining asteroids, the scientific achievements we make should be shared by all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Space exploration is very exciting. Its potential to improve life here on planet Earth is limitless. But it also has the potential to make the richest people in the world incredibly richer and unimaginably more powerful. When we take that next giant leap into space let us do it to benefit all of humanity, not to turn a handful of billionaires into trillionaires.

Originally posted here:

Jeff Bezos is worth $160bn yet Congress might bail out his space company - The Guardian

Diplomats and representatives from foreign countries and international organizations watch videos on the Chang'e-5 lunar mission at the National Astronomical Observatories of China under the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, Jan 18, 2021. [Photo/Xinhua]

China's Space Day, which fell on Sunday, betokens numerous opportunities ahead for the world in the country's peaceful development of its burgeoning space programs.

Soon after three Chinese taikonauts, or astronauts, returned to Earth on April 16 after 183 days aboard the new Chinese space stationa new national record for durationauthorities announced a series of new launches ahead. These will include two more three-member teams being sent to the space station, which is scheduled for completion within the year and welcomes joint efforts with foreign scientists.

China's outreach to other parts of the world was partly exhibited by Wang Yaping, the first Chinese woman to perform a spacewalk. Her recent discussion with students in the United States livened up the goodwill of China to use its space programs for the public good of humanity.

Looking back at the period from November 2020 to November 2021, it can be seen that China really emerged as a serious space power worthy of the name. This was due to four major achievements over that yearlong period.

In quick succession, there were missions to the moon and Mars, the establishment of a key satellite telecommunications constellation, and the launch of a new space station. Any one of these achievements would be significant in its own right. Taken together over a mere 12-month period, they represent a momentous leap for human progress in space.

This breathtaking progress is continuing unabated as long-term plans bear fruit, others mature and still more emerge for the future. China is really living up to its dream "to explore the vast cosmos, develop the space industry and build China into a space power", in the words of President Xi Jinping.

The Chinese space program's ambition is as breathtaking as it is profound, and ably demonstrated by high-level technological achievement and capacity. This embodies a key national science and technology focus that has peaceful space exploration, utilization and development endeavors as a vital element of China's presence in space.

Yet some elements in the West like to interpret China's increasing capability and prominence in space as some kind of threat to the natural world order. Some people are promoting terms like the militarization of space and aggrandizing the idea of mankind's space-faring activities in confrontational terms like a new space race.

At one time, even the use of the Tiangong space station's robotic arm to maneuver a cargo vessel was couched in militaristic terms, implying its potential threat to other spacecraft. However, the two-time dangerous approach of SpaceX Starlink satellites to the Chinese space station in 2021 were largely ignored, while the deployment of Starlink satellite facilities for Ukraine to counter recent Russian attacks were hailed in the West.

For all of us, the big question remains valid: How do space programs promote peace and mutual endeavor for the benefit of all?

Of course, no one should want to see space militarizedbut this kind of talk and media projection about China is unhelpful to the peaceful cooperation and development of space.

Actions speak louder than words. China is turning expansion of its space program into opportunities for the world instead of any threat. With the support of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, China has made it clear, in an open-handed approach, that international cooperation is a cornerstone of its intent in space.

There are already nine initial science experiments from 17 countries selected to be undertaken on the Chinese space station when the science modules Wentian and Mengtian are launched this year. This is just the beginning. Astronauts from Germany and France have already trained with their Chinese colleagues, and it is only a matter of time before we see the first European working in Tiangong.

Moreover, China has been transparent in its space programs. The State Council Information Office of China published an important white paper in January, "China's Space Program: A 2021 Perspective", that lays out clearly China's plans, ambitions and vision for space.

No one should have any doubt about what is coming. China has delivered on its commitments.

Judgments should be based on verifiable evidence, actions and deliverables in terms of space programs of China and any others going forward. The white paper's statements that "China has always advocated the use of outer space for peaceful purposes" and "its space activities benefit humanity "can be put to the test.

The author is a professor on the science faculty at the University of Hong Kong and director of its Laboratory for Space Research.

View original post here:

Promoting the peaceful development of space will benefit all - China Daily