There are a number of several reasons why we need space programs. The most important one is to monitor climate change and take care of our health properly. In short, we need space program to maintain ourselves and survive on the Earth. It has been noted that space program get us aware of the ozone depletion, deforestation effect among other environmental dangers. We also need the space program to always make us aware of the possible cosmic collusion like the one that did happen to the planet Jupiter a few years ago; it could have happened to our Earth, and it could have been reduced to nothing like it.
What are its goals?
The scientific missions are to carry out the orbital remote sensing of Saturns atmosphere, level of ice, nitrogen concentration to the surface. Furthermore, the space craft is supposed to conduct science surface measurements once it lands safely. It is supposed to conduct analysis of thermal structure and composition of the atmosphere in comparison to the earlier space-craft findings.
In summary, space program is essential for our survival, for the sake of our progressive evolution as a species and for our general health care, reassurance and expediency. The goal of space program is to have a successful exploration in a set period of time under a subjected budget for better analysis.
At what level should it be funded?
Space exploration is one of the most expensive ventures in the entire world. Funding is generally given on the basis of expected exceptional capabilities of the spacecraft, wide coverage of altitude with a light weight survey, favorable mission cost. In some cases, funding is also affected by political atmosphere. The political atmosphere needs to be the right one and the right priorities set well. Due to high costs, there is need for careful analysis and exchange of diplomatic notes in a government-to-government agreement procedure.
How should priorities be set?
The priorities are set in accordance to the mission concept, expected success of the execution of the exploration, the general technologies required, and the cost of the various orbiter spacecraft and the survey designs in general. The priorities are also set by the mission statement of the exploration.
Who should carry out the space program?
The spacecraft program can not be carried out by just anybody. There are several consideration and assessment to be done before the mission is executed. The most trust body for space exploration is said to be NASA and ESA. The endorsement of who should carry out the space program, however, all lies on the ability to create perfect spacecraft that will not violate any rules lay down. Any country or persons who would want to explore the space must adhere to all the requirements needed by space program laws.
Is human spaceflight a necessary component?
Human spaceflight is a very crucial and a very powerful component of national security. Furthermore, it improves prestige and national pride in general. China is noted to have acknowledged how important human spaceflight is from a paper called a white paper describing Chinas progress since 2006 and I quote the first paragraph,
Outer space is the common wealth of mankind. Exploration, development and utilization of outer space are an unremitting pursuit of mankind. Space activities around the world have been flourishing. Leading space-faring countries have formulated or modified their development strategies, plans and goals in this sphere. The position and role of space activities are becoming increasingly salient for each active countrys overall development strategy, and their influence on human civilization and social progress is increasing.
Inclusion, human spaceflight is essential and it is a very necessary component. Our survival, comfort as we live on the Earth, and our health care can only be ensured by effective successful space exploration.
Just like any other industry or field, space travel and exploration has overtime undergone a revolution with major names making the revolution history of this particular history. Such names like Boeing 707, the Bell X-1 and the NASA Mercury capsule remain in history as the triggers of the revolution and as a result, these innovations are of great importance in the study of the Aviation history.
As regarding these names, it is conventional knowledge in the history of aviation that these names are in the heart of the historical transformation of the industry. This paper focuses on these historical names with the view of identifying and explaining the role played by each of these players in the revolution and development of the aircrafts present today.
Boeing 707
This was an innovation by Boeing between 1958 and 1979. The major characteristic feature that identifies this innovation was a narrow size, and its swept-wing design.
The capacity of this plane ranged from 120 to 140 people and could cruise range of between 3,680 and 3,735 nautical miles (Bradley 36). Though it was not the first of its kind, this jet obtained its fame from the fact that it was the first one to achieve commercial success.
In the development of the Boeing 707, the design of the wing was a major concern. This pushed for the study of the wing design of preceding models including the B-47 and C-97. One thing that the designers agreed is that no matter the outcome, the result of the designed must serve both military and civil purposes (Bradley 46).
This realization finally realized the adoption of the 367-80, commonly referred to as “dash 80”. This was powered by turbojet engine, more precisely the Pratt & Whitney JT3C a civilian version of the J57 (Winchester 18). By august 1955, the prototype was ready for test pilot, which Tex Johnston did.
Two years later, the first version of the 707 was ready for flight and in September 1958, the jet received its FAA certification (Winchester 28). In the subsequent years, various orders of the jet placed various request for modifications thus resulting to a series of the crafts under this innovation.
The Bell X-1
Unlike the 707, whose development was with a multipurpose mentality, the Bell X-1 was purely a war machine. This is outright from the outside of the craft.
Its original shape was that of a machine gun bullet, and so, the developer referred to as the “bullet with wings” (Winchester 56). The development of this plane was a joint project by the U.S. Army Air Forces (Flight Test Division) and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) conceived in 1944 and rolled out in 1945.
With reference to the purpose of its creation, it is obvious that some aspects of the plane are important. One of such aspects is its speed. The plane could travel at a speed higher than that of sound thus achieving a controlled, level flight speed of above 1600m/hr (Winchester 58). For the plane to achieve this speed, the developers contracted Reaction Motors Inc, a company that developed the planes liquid-propellant rocket engines. In addition to speed, this planes’ design enables it to cruise at an altitude of 27km.
The NASA Mercury Capsule
The last of the legendary names in the in the aviation history, as in this paper is the NASA Mercury capsule. The Mercury projects’ aim was to ensure that the America was the first to put a human round the orbit of the earth before the Soviet Union. Again just like the Bell X-1, the focus of this project was speed.
This is evident by the name choice, which represents the roman goddess of speed (Walter 78). From the purpose of the spacecraft, it is clear that the other idea behind the initiative was to create a capability to fly in high altitudes in the craft, again, an enhancement of the idea of the Bell X-1.
The design of this craft was that of a single crewmember due to its small size. Another important feature of its design is that it had a reliable launch escape system, unlike the Bell X-1 and therefore, in case of a faulty launch, it was able to separate the astronaut from the launch vehicle (Walter 81). The last thing in its design that is important is the ability to safely land in water.
Keith Glennan, the administrator of the NASA, approved the project on October 1958 and made a public announcement in December the same year (Walter 76). Towards the end of December the same year, North American Aviation won a contract to design and build launch vehicle while McDonnell Aircraft Corporation won the contract as the prime contractor in the following year January.
Conclusions
From the above discussion, it is clear that each of these innovations played an important role in the history of aviation. The 707 introduced the idea of the body design common after it for both passenger and commercial flights. The Bell X-1 influenced the view of speed and altitude while the Mercury project in it time ushered the world into space explorations.
Works Cited
Bradley, Catherine. Boeing 707 Super Profile. UK, Yeovil: Haynes Publishing, 1983. Print.
Winchester, Jim. Boeing 707. UK, Shrewsbury: Airlife, 2002. Print.
Winchester, Jim. “Bell X-1.” Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft (The Aviation Factfile). UK, Kent: Grange Books, 2005. Print.
Walter, McDougall. “Shooting the Moon,” American Heritage, 2010. Print.
It should be noted that NASA is an independent government agency and part of the United States federal government, which functions as an operator in civilian space programs as well as research related to space. It was established in 1958, which emerged from its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics or NACA (Bizony et al., 2019). The main difference was rooted in the fact that NASA was oriented as a civilian agency with a pure interest in sciences related to space with military functional elements.
Discussion on the Cybersecurity Policies of NASA
It is important to note that “much of the United States’ critical infrastructure relies on space systems” (Falco, 2018, p. 1). In other words, practically all critical infrastructure elements are dependent on the space assets, making space systems the most important critical infrastructure of all. The examples include “agribusiness’ reliance on weather and climate satellites, the U.S. military’s reliance on intelligence satellites, and various transportation industries’ reliance on global positioning system (GPS) satellites” (Falco, 2018, p. 1). Therefore, it is important to note that NASA’s essentiality among all critical infrastructures makes the agency a prime and ultimate target for cyber attacks. Thesis: Although NASA’s cybersecurity measures are effective for the most part in areas such as decentralized cybersecurity, data inaccessibility, and access restriction, it fails in regards to assessment of its cyber defenses resulting in non-adherence to national security standards and carrying significant risk to the latter.
It is stated that “the Agency’s vast online presence of approximately 3,000 websites and more than 42,000 publicly accessible datasets also makes it highly vulnerable to intrusions” (Office of Inspector General, 2021, p. 3). In accordance with the global trend of cyber threat increases across all private and public spaces, NASA is also becoming a major target for hackers (Johnson, 2015). Given NASA’s importance and interconnectedness to other critical infrastructure elements, a plausible scenario that major breaches could tax society significantly (Guiora, 2017). Thus, NASA’s cybersecurity readiness and preparedness, as well as resilience, are of paramount importance.
One should be aware that NASA invests heavily in its cyber security programs and systems. These operations are primarily managed by NASA OCIO Cybersecurity & Privacy Division (CSPD), which provides cost-effective services in cyber security, decreases the number of barriers to improve cross-agency collaboration, and removes identified vulnerabilities (Bizony et al., 2019). NASA has a set of strict regulatory policies in regard to cybersecurity and privacy of sensitive information used, accepted, and disclosed by the agency.
All personnel working at NASA must comply with the NASA Cybersecurity and Privacy Rules of Behavior or NASA ROB, where “unauthorized or improper use of NASA IT may result in the suspension or revocation of access to NASA IT, and disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2021, p. 2). The examples include a “mobile phone, tablet, computer, Internet of Things (IoT) device, or wearable technology that does not have a valid Authority To Operate (ATO) from a NASA Authorizing Official (AO), regardless of who provided or owns the device” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2021, p. 2). Thus, NASA takes matters of cybersecurity and privacy seriously where all potential aspects of the operations are controlled and strictly regulated.
How the Policy Hardens Networks
NASA has implemented a number of measures to ensure that its cybersecurity is strong and resilient. The agency made the access control policies significantly stricter for all its providers and engineers, which were partly described in the previous sections, such as NASA ROB. Therefore, “this will help guard against some of the phishing attacks used against NASA employees in the past that steal credentials and access valuable intellectual property” (Falco, 2018, p. 16). In the past, the Office of the Chief Information Officer or OCIO was responsible for agency-wide cybersecurity measures, but it recognized that it is incapable of ensuring proper cybersecurity for both mission systems as well as NASA’s labs. Thus, “NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) created the Cyber Defense Engineering and Research Group (CDER). CDER’s goal is specifically to address mission systems” (Falco, 2018, p. 16). In other words, the current NASA cybersecurity system is decentralized.
Pros of the Policies
Moreover, NASA is implementing a wide range of effective encryption programs to encrypt its data. For example, “at the end of 2016, AT&T encrypted NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN), which is the foundation of communication infrastructure for technology such as the Mars Rover” (Falco, 2018, p. 16). In other words, the agency is making its data highly inaccessible to external threats even if all other systems are breached. It is a plausible and effective strategy to ensure that NASA’s data is only usable by the agency itself.
Cons of the Policies
Although NASA plays a critical role in ensuring national security as an agency playing a central role in the functionality of all other critical infrastructure elements, the practical assessments of NASA’s cybersecurity measures show the inherent weaknesses of the systems utilized in the organization. The first and major issue is the fact that “NASA conducts its assessment and authorization (A&A) of IT systems inconsistently and ineffectively, with the quality and cost of the assessments varying widely across the Agency” (Office of Inspector General, 2021, p. 15). These assessments are mandatory to ensure that the utilized systems are meeting the standard requirements and adhering to national security mandates.
Despite the recent efforts to ensure better cybersecurity at the agency, it is important to emphasize that cyber attackers are becoming “more aggressive, organized, and sophisticated, managing and mitigating cybersecurity risk is critical to protecting NASA’s vast network of information technology systems from malicious attacks or breaches that can seriously inhibit the Agency’s ability to carry out its mission” (Office of Inspector General, 2021, p. 20). Therefore, it is of paramount importance to constantly track and monitor the effectiveness of the currently implemented systems in order to ensure that NASA is willing to the given arms race, which can only be done by regular and efficient assessment procedures.
Therefore, the lack of consistent and effective assessment and authorization programs at NASA hinders national security on a massive scale due to the core importance and interconnectedness of NASA’s operations and its influence on all other critical infrastructure elements. Despite the effective measures undertaken by the agency, NASA cannot be secure and resilient enough due to its highly paramount role in the overall national security of the United States. Full and reliable cybersecurity can only be ensured if an integrated and systematic approach is applied. The cybersecurity system must be built taking into account all current threats and vulnerabilities, also taking into account those threats that may arise in the future. Therefore, it is important to provide support for continuous monitoring, which must operate on a daily basis around the clock.
Preventing Exploitation of Vulnerabilities
A prerequisite is to ensure control at each stage of the life cycle of information, from the moment of its arrival and ending with the loss of its relevance or destruction of data. The use of a multi-level integrated information protection system is definitely more effective than the use of individual cybersecurity methods. At the same time, cybersecurity is only one of the areas that need to be addressed. Given the ever-increasing computerization of all spheres of business and the increase in the number of electronic transactions, these threats are also rapidly developing. In search of ways to obtain classified information and harm organizations, cybercriminals are actively using modern technologies and software solutions. Their actions can cause significant damage, including in the form of direct financial losses or loss of intellectual property.
Biblical Foundations
In the case of biblical implications, the Bible supports self-reflection and self-assessments. It is stated: “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test” (Holy Bible, King James Bible, 1769/2017, Corinthians 13:5). In other words, the presence of inconsistent and ineffective assessment and authorization programs as NASA illustrates that the agency does not adhere to key biblical practices monitoring and tracking progress in the face of evil, which includes cyber threats and cyber-attacks.
The Bible states: “two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?” (Holy Bible, King James Bible, 1769/2017, Ecclesiastes 4:9-11). In other words, the verses support the decentralized cybersecurity at NASA, where the Office of the Chief Information Officer handles NASA’s labs and Cyber Defense Engineering and Research Group protects mission systems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NASA is a highly important agency in the critical infrastructure network because all other elements rely on the space assets’ functionality and security. NASA utilizes a decentralized approach towards cybersecurity, encrypts its data, and restricts the accessibility of its data to providers and engineers. However, it fails to conduct consistent and effective assessment and authorization procedures, which carries a serious national security risk. Although the Bible supports NASA’s best practices, it condemns the lack of self-analysis.
References
Bizony, P., Chalkin, A., & Launius, R. (2019). The NASA archives. 60 years in space. TASCHEN.
NASA initiated a program in 1993 that was referred as Mars Surveyor program with an objective of conducting on-going missions to explore Mars. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) was assigned the role for leading the program. The MCO was launched in 11, 1998. It was supposed to reach Mars in December 1999 as the first interplanetary weather satellite that could provide communication relay for the MPL.
The MCO vanished once it entered into Mars occultation at some point in the Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) maneuver. However, the spacecraft’s carrier signal was later seen on September 23, 1999. Use of wrong metrics while coding was the cause of MCO failure to reach its destination. Thus, the failure of system engineers to use the correct coding metrics was the root cause of the MCO problem. System engineers used wrong metrics while coding which caused the whole problem.
The format adopted was in contrast to the data that was contained in the Angular Momentum Desaturation (AMD) file in existing software interface which represents the standards requirements that were to be followed in the coding process. As a result of the aforementioned mistakes during the coding process, the MCO was not able to reach on Mars as expected because of the delays it experience in its trajectory.
The spacecraft received over 10-14 times than anticipated propulsion maneuvers that help to remove angular momentum build up in the spacecraft. The spacecraft lost its trajectory as a result of use of wrong metrics while coding as well as increased angular Desaturation events. Therefore, after 9 months which was the anticipated time for MCO arrival to Mars, it was noted that the spacecraft trajectory was about 170 kilometers than planned. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that MCO re-entered heliocentric space or was damaged.
Cost Analysis
Costs associated with failed systems are usually very high because of the high costs of system development (Aaker 77; Johnson par.6).The cost of launching a satellite to Mars is very high. For example, the cost of building an entire spacecraft can range to several 10 thousand dollars. In addition, the cost of paying salaries of engaged personnel is also very high. It is estimated that a complete satellite mission can costs approximately 1 billion dollars.
The cost of the mission of sending MCO to Mars did not run as per its initial budget. The project was estimated to take 9 months. However, after 9 months, MCO was 170 kilometers below its expected trajectory. Therefore, the project ended up costing more than it was planned. The reason that caused the project to cost more than planned was the mistakes that occurred during the coding process. There was a mistake in the coding process that resulted to the MCO experiencing delays in its trajectory that reduced its speed.
This resulted to a reduction in its orbit period to 2 -14 hours. This mistakes resulted to more money being used in to pay the team assigned the task of identifying the errors and re-coding the system. In order for the project to run within its budget, the designing team should have verified the coding metrics in order to be in a position to accurately determine the position of MCO for appropriate management of angular momentum.
Schedule
The project did not go as scheduled. The journey of MCO from the Earth to Mars was planned to take only 9 months, but after 9 months MCO was approximated to be 170 kilometers away from earth. The reason why the project did not go as scheduled was because of the problem in the coding of MCO that made it very difficult for angular moment management. This resulted to the reduction of the orbit period to approximately 2-14 hours.
Technical Performance
The MSP 98 Development Project employed a prime contractor vehicle to assist in the project implementation. Lockheed Martin Astronautics (LMA) of Denver Colorado was appointed as the prime contractor. LMA was assigned the duty of designing and developing spacecraft, lead flight system integration as well as testing and supporting launch operations. On the other hand, JPL remained with the responsibilities for overall management of the project.
Mars Surveyor Operation Project (MSOP) was assigned the responsibility for managing flight operations for MPL, MGS and MCO. Despite, the great delegation of responsibilities to enhance performance, the project failed to satisfy its technical performance requirement. The software engineers failed to follow the design specifications while coding the ground software file.
The factor that contributed to this problem is the failure of the designing team to verify the metrics required for coding from the requirement documentation file that was available for the designers to confirm design specifications.
Risks
The system engineers failed to ensure that correct metrics were followed when coding the ground software file that resulted to the overall failure of the project. The MCO lost its trajectory that made it impossible to reach its intended destination as planned (Hernandez 12).
System Engineering
System engineers are required to make sure that there is teaming, effective coordination and communication in designing. They are responsible for designing, integration as well as to ensure systems operate as expected through formal testing. It is also their duty to ensure that there is transition in the production process. Moreover it is their duty to ensure that they create, maintain as well as document all requirements to enable efficient planning and execution (Laverty par.2; Petit par. 8).
System engineers in this project efficiently created as well as maintained programmatic and technical documentation as required. However, they failed to manage system configuration that resulted to the use of wrong metrics while coding. In order to avoid such a mistake, the system engineers could have ensured that they oversee all transitions during the development of the system.
Lesson Learned
This case study offered a very important learning opportunity for system engineers in identifying how mistakes happen in systems development as well as the grave consequences of such mistakes. Therefore, this case study was very informative to system engineers in cautioning them that system engineers should ensure that they follow specified guidelines to make sure that all procedures are followed to the letter.
By observing specified guidelines, they will ensure that specification during system development are met which will help in ensuring that systems are developed successfully and within reasonable time frame, to reduce expenses associated with delays or faulty systems. As learned from this case study, the project was not able to run as per its schedule. In addition, the project expenses exceeded its budget allocation because of the failure of system engineers to follow required specifications while coding.
Works Cited
Aaker, David. Cost for Failed systems. New York: Prentice Hall. 1998, print.
Hernandez, Pedro. Risks and Mitigation in Software Development. New York: Prentice Hall, 2001, print.
Unlike the previous exploration missions on the moon like the Ranger missions, Surveyor missions were planned in such a way that spacecraft would make soft lunar landings. The program was over-ambitious at first. The initial plan was that NASA would launch a Lander and an orbiter, and that it would perform several scientific experiments.
However, NASA and other stakeholders were forced to scale the scope of the program down because of a number of considerations. These include the fact that the initial plan was too costly, and the fact that the plan required sophisticated spacecraft. The main reason however, was the Apollo program.
Kennedy approved a lunar mission involving manned spacecraft, and thus Surveyor was changed from a probe to a data-collection mission that would enable human lunar landings.
The people who would operate the spacecraft in the next mission would therefore perform Science functions once they landed on the moon (Day, 2007). This paper is an in-depth analysis of NASA’s Lunar Surveyor Program that preceded the Apollo program.
Research question
The main aim of NASA’s Surveyor Program, which consisted of seven spacecraft designed for soft landing (NASA Science, 2013), was to prepare for manned lunar landings, specifically the famous crewed Apollo landings (Barton, 2010). NASA would therefore use the Surveyors to determine if the lunar surface could support the landing and re-launch of a manned spacecraft.
The Surveyor missions were famous for successfully testing soft landings on the moon, and collecting data that was used by NASA to analyze the lunar surface. These preparations were invaluable during the manned Apollo missions.
Mission requirements
Timeframe
The Surveyor program was implemented between the years 1966 and 1968, during which five NASA spacecraft successfully soft-landed on the moon. Surveyor 1, the first spacecraft in the program touched down on the lunar surface in the month of June 1966, the second was unsuccessful. It crashed in the month of October 1966 into the moon.
Surveyor 3, the third mission touched down in the month of April 1967 while the fourth mission failed in the same year. Surveyor 5, the third last touched down in the month of September 1967 while the sixth touched down in the month of November the same year. The last one touched down in January the following year (Day, 2007).
Data requirements
In order to prepare for the Apollo program adequately, it was important for the Surveyor missions to collect data, which would give information for making the Apollo missions safe and successful. Firstly, it was important to study the lunar terrain and soil composition in order to determine whether the design of the Apollo equipment was compatible with the lunar surface.
Additionally, it was vital to collect data about the length of time that spacecraft could communicate while on trajectory and after landing on the moon. NASA also needed to determine the reliability of the launcher to “inject the Surveyor spacecraft on a lunar intercept trajectory” (NASA Science, 2013, p. 1).
It was also important to collect many images and data of the surface of the moon, which would be used to, among other things, determine if the bearing strength of the moon’s surface could support manned spacecraft. This would be helpful because analysis of these images would enable NASA identify the safest lunar location for landing the Apollo missions (NASA Science, 2013).
Mission summary
Individual mission descriptions
Surveyor 1
Surveyor 1 marked the beginning of soft lunar landing of spacecraft by the U.S. It was the first of the seven spacecraft launched in the Surveyor program. NASA launched Surveyor 1 on the 30th day of May 1966 at around 14:41 UT “on an Atlas/Centaur from Complex 36-A of the Eastern Test Range directly into a lunar impact trajectory” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1).
NASA performed a midcourse correction of the spacecraft at around 06:45 UT the following day and the spacecraft entered the lunar atmosphere approximately 63 hours after it was launched.
“At an altitude of 75.3 km and a velocity of 2612 m/s the main retrorocket, signaled by the altitude marking radar, ignited for a 40 second burn and was jettisoned at an altitude of roughly 11 km having slowed the spacecraft to 110 m/s” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1). The spacecraft continued to descend with its vernier engines controlled by the Doppler and the altimeter radars.
At an approximate distance of 3.4 m from the surface of the moon, the engines of the spacecraft were turned off and it freely fell to the lunar surface. This landing occurred at about 3m/s on the second day of June 1966, at around 6:17 UT.
“The landing site was at 2.474 S, 43.339 W on a flat area inside a 100 km crater north of Flamsteed Crater in southwest Oceanus Procellarum” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1).
After touching down on the lunar surface, Surveyor 1 performed engineering tests during the first hour. It then spent the rest of the lunar day initiating photography sessions. About 10,338 images were captured by the television system and relayed before the end of the lunar day of 14th June.
Surveyor 1 also collected data on the degree with which the surface of the moon could reflect radar signals, and analyzed the surface temperatures of the moon.
The spacecraft withstood its first night on the moon and returned images on July 7. Its mission was ended on the13th day of July 1966, after it had transmitted 11,240 images, due to battery voltage drop (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Figure 1: Surveyor 1 on the lunar surface
(Stooke, 2008, p. 1)
Surveyor 2
Surveyor 2 was launched after Surveyor 1, becoming the second soft-landing lunar exploration spacecraft launched by NASA in the Surveyor mission. It was also intended to prepare for the Apollo program, which would launch manned spacecraft. Like Surveyor 1, Surveyor 2 was intended to collect data on the degree with which the surface of the moon could reflect radar signals, and analyze the surface temperatures of the moon.
The spacecraft was planned to land in the lunar Sinus Medii area. However, one engine could not ignite mid-course making the spacecraft operate with an unbalanced thrust, which resulted in its tumbling. NASA attempted to rescue the mission but they failed and the spacecraft fell on the moon 5.5 N and 12 W, at around 03:18 UT on the 23rd day of September 1966 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Surveyor 3
Surveyor 3 succeeded in making a soft landing on the moon and became the second spacecraft after Surveyor 1 to achieve this feat. Some changes were made in Surveyor 1 and Surveyor 2 spacecraft when making Surveyor 3. The latter had an extended TV-camera glare hood, a pantograph arm containing a scoop, and auxiliary mirrors giving the spacecraft an underground view.
NASA launched Surveyor 3 on the 17th day of April 1967 at around 07:05 UT “on an Atlas/Centaur from Complex 36-B of the Eastern Test Range at Kennedy’s Space Center” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1). Despite a problem with vernier engines, the mission was successful.
The spacecraft was able to send its first photos less than one hour after it landed on the moon, and it was able to use its surface sampler after a period of two days. During the lunar day up until the 3rd day of May 1967, the Surveyor was in operation. NASA was able to operate the Surveyor’s sampler for a period totaling eighteen hours and twenty-two minutes.
During this time, the television camera was able to capture and return 6,326 pictures, and trenches of a depth of up to eighteen centimeters were dug. The spacecraft transmitted new lunar data on the structure and the strength of materials, and even recorded a solar eclipse of the moon by the earth. Thermal measurements related to the solar eclipse were also recorded.
The spacecraft transmitted the last data at around 00:04 UT on the 4th day of May 1967, and its services were closed down due to a lunar night lasting two weeks (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013)..
Surveyor 4
Surveyor 4 was the fourth soft landing lunar spacecraft that was design to capture and transmit lunar photography back to the earth for determining the terrain of the surface of the moon in preparation for the Apollo manned spacecraft. The spacecraft had with it equipment like soil surface sampler, auxiliary mirrors, and television camera, a number of engineering sensors and landing legs equipped with strain gauges.
The spacecraft had successful initial phases but it malfunctioned during the terminal-descent phase. It was unable to transmit radio signals during this phase about 2.5 minutes before its landing on the 17th day of July 1967. The mission was therefore declared unsuccessful because NASA was unable to establish contact with the spacecraft, which was planned to touch down 0.4 N, 1.33 W.
The site where the spacecraft fell on the moon was never established and thus NASA scientists suspected that the spacecraft possibly exploded before it crashed on the moon (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Surveyor 5
This spacecraft was the third successful mission Surveyor series to achieve a soft landing on the moon. It was also the first in the Surveyor series to collect data in-situ. Its instrumentation was more or less like that of its predecessors with minor additions like a magnetic testing functionality (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Launched at around 07:57 UT on the 8th day of September 1967 “from Eastern Test range launch complex 36B at Cape Kennedy on an Atlas-Centaur rocket” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1), Surveyor 5 was injected in a trajectory for lunar transfer.
On the 9th day of September, at around 01:45 UT, 14.29 seconds of vernier-engine firing corrected the trajectory of the spacecraft midcourse. The spacecraft however started experiencing helium-pressure problems and emergency landing protocols were initiated (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
The emergency landing procedure was flawless and thus the spacecraft landed 1.461 N, 23.195 E on the moon’s surface at around 00:46 UT on the 11th day of September 1967. The landing position was approximately 29 km away from the planned touchdown position. After touching down, the spacecraft captured 18,006 pictures during the first lunar day and transmitted them to NASA.
In-situ soil analysis was also performed during the same lunar day producing data running for 83 hours. It is important to note that the in-situ analysis was the first to be performed on an extra-terrestrial body. Surveyor 5 shut down during lunar night and resumed its operations the following lunar day transmitting alpha-scattering data running for twenty-two hours and 1048 pictures.
A total solar eclipse occurred on the 18th day of October 1967, and the spacecraft acquired lunar thermal data during that time. The spacecraft continued the cycle of night shutdown and day operations until its final transmission, which occurred on the 17th day of December 1967 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Surveyor 6
This was the fourth mission to achieve a soft lunar landing successfully. The spacecraft was almost similar to its predecessor, Surveyor 5. One of the main distinguishing features between this spacecraft and its predecessor were that it was composed of three auxiliary mirrors unlike the two in Surveyor 5.
Additionally, its glare hood was completely different from that of Surveyor 5 and its TV camera had polarizing filters (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
The spacecraft was launched at around 07:39 UT on the 7th day of November 1967. It landed 0.49 N, 358.60 E on the surface of the moon at around 01:01 UT on the 10th day of November 1967 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
NASA fired the spacecraft’s vernier engines for a period of about 2.5 seconds at 10:32 UT on the 17th day of November, making the spacecraft to move at least 3 meters vertically and 2.4 meters horizontally.
This spacecraft hop “represented the first powered takeoff from the lunar surface and furnished new information on the effects of firing rocket engines on the Moon, allowed viewing of the original landing site, and provided a baseline for stereoscopic viewing and photogrammetric mapping of the surrounding terrain” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1).
The spacecraft was able to record and send 30 hours of data and 29,952 photographs. The aforementioned data indicated that the surface of the moon had a bearing strength that could adequately withstand human lunar landings (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Surveyor 7
The last spacecraft in the Surveyor program was Surveyor 7, which became the fifth to soft-land on the surface of the moon successfully. It was designed in the same way as its predecessor, Survivor 6, although it had the most extensive payload among all the spacecraft in the program.
“It carried a television camera with polarizing filters, an alpha-scattering instrument, a surface sampler similar to that flown on Surveyor 3, bar magnets on two footpads, two horseshoe magnets on the surface scoop, and auxiliary mirrors” (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1). Three of the auxiliary mirrors were specifically for observing underneath the spacecraft.
One of the mirrors was specifically for the surface sampler providing stereoscopic views to the same. An additional seven mirrors were designated for capturing images of lunar materials that the spacecraft collected on its surface. The engineering items of the spacecraft were also enhanced (Krebs, 2013).
The launch of the seventh spacecraft in the Surveyor program occurred on the 7th day of January 1968 at around 06:30 UT. The spacecraft landed on the moon in the lunar highlands on the 10th day of January 1968 at around 01:05 UT. After touchdown, the spacecraft immediately initiated science operations. Before the end of the first day on the moon, the spacecraft had returned 20,993 images.
Problems with alpha scattering were rectified using the surface sampler and by the end of the first day on the moon, the spacecraft had transmitted 66 hours of data. After sunset, Surveyor 7 was able to take images of the solar corona, the earth, and the stars.
During the second day on the moon, 34 hours of data obtained through alpha scattering was sent as well as 45 pictures. Surveyor 7 operations ended at around 12:24 UT on the 21st day of February, terminating the operations of the Surveyor program.
Key information provided by Surveyor Missions
Surface composition
Results from Alpha-scattering showed that lunar soil composition was similar to that of the Earth’s basaltic salt. More specifically, the soil composed of “53% to 63% oxygen, 15.5% to 21.5% silicon, 10% to 16% sulphur, iron, cobalt, and nickel; 4.5% to 8.5% aluminum, and small quantities of magnesium, carbon, and sodium” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013, p. 1).
The magnetism of the soil showed that the soil had up to 1% metallic iron (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Surrounding terrain
The terrain surrounding the landing sites of spacecraft was found to be largely similar to that of Earth’s basaltic salt. This was specifically tested by an erosion experiment that was carried out by Surveyor 5 using its vernier engines (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
The surveyor missions reported that there was erosion on the moon, albeit minor. Contrary to information provided by earlier spacecraft models, the Surveyor program showed that the surface of the moon was rocky, hard, and less dusty.
Earlier spacecraft models had made scientists worry that the lunar surface would be having thick dust layers, which would interfere with landing by obscuring visibility. The Surveyor program therefore gave reliable data with regard to the moon’s terrain (Day, 2007).
Bearing strength
Surveyor 6 collected 30 hours of data and 29,952 photographs, whose analysis indicated that the surface of the moon had a bearing strength that could adequately withstand human lunar landings (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
The aforementioned fact that the lunar surface underwent minor erosion was also a factor contributing to the conclusion that the bearing strength of the moon’s surface was high enough to withstand manned spacecraft landing.
Surveyor spacecraft description
Propulsion system
The Surveyor spacecraft controlled propulsion and altitude using different systems for its different phases. During the cruise phases, altitude control jets that used cold gas (nitrogen) controlled propulsion and altitude. During powered phases, vernier rocket engines that were throttlable controlled propulsion. During the final phase, terminal descent, the spacecraft used a retrorocket engine.
As the spacecraft was about to land, a radar keeping track of altitude initiated braking within the main retrorocket by firing it. Completion of firing led to jettisoning of the radar and retrorocket and activation of altimeter and Doppler radars.
The overall effect was that the autopilot took control of the vernier propulsion system making it to touch down (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Scientific instrumentation
The Surveyor’s main instrument was its camera that could elevate over and pan around the spacecraft. The first spacecraft was built with more than one thousand engineering sensors that included accelerometers, voltage sensors, thermometers, strain gages, and other devices. From its design, it is clear that the Surveyor did not have so many scientific functions.
Its sensors were not scientific, but engineering in nature. This affirmed the primary objective of the spacecraft, which was to establish if soft lunar landing was possible. Due to the limited scientific capability of the Surveyor spacecraft, some members within the scientific community suggested that later missions would integrate functionalities that are more scientific.
It is however important to note that only “a surface scoop that could dig a trench and expose underlying soil to the camera, and an alpha scattering experiment used to examine the composition of the soil” (Day, 2007, p. 1) were added.
Additional engineering functionalities that were part of the Surveyor spacecraft include descent guidance and control system that used a closed loop, the use of radar in determining the Lander’s velocity and altitude, and engines that could be throttled. NASA tested these systems for the first time in the challenging radiation and thermal lunar environment during the Surveyor missions.
Development history
Builder
As the construction of spacecraft in the Surveyor series was about to start, NASA was presented with four proposals for the Surveyor concept. All the proposals had their strong and weak points but NASA chose the design by Hughes Aircraft Company because it seemed to consider most technical aspects of the spacecraft (Oran, 1985).
Manufacture
Manufacture site
Different contractors manufactured various parts of the Surveyor spacecraft. For instance, Space Technology Laboratories manufactured vernier engines, Thiokol Chemical Corporation manufactured the propellant retro-rocket, and Ryan Aeronautical Company developed the Doppler radars. The final assembly was done at Hughes Aircraft Company (Oran, 1985).
Period of manufacture
It took an approximate five years from the time the Surveyor project was initiated to the time when the first Surveyor launched successfully (Oran, 1985). This was largely due to management and technical problems that were encountered as various components of the spacecraft were being manufactured.
The manufacture of vernier engines had to be transferred from Thiokol’s Reaction Motors Division to Space Technology Laboratories after it emerged that the former lacked specialized hardware (Oran, 1985).
Testing
Testing of the Surveyor spacecraft was accomplished using Earth surface simulations. Obviously, the earth’s surface is quite different from that of the moon, particularly in terms of gravity. However, such tests were vital in detecting problems that could prove costly if they were detected after the start of the program. At first, every landing component of the spacecraft was tested.
Then spacecraft controls above the earth’s surface were tested using balloons and large cranes. 1,500-foot drops were performed at White Sands, New Mexico towards the end of the testing allowing the spacecraft to control its descent as it would do on when landing on the lunar surface (Oran, 1985).
Launch vehicle
Requirements
The Surveyor program was planned such that all the spacecraft in the series would be launched on an Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle. The requirements for the program were that the launch vehicle was supposed to have the “capability of injecting 2,500 pounds into a trans-lunar trajectory from Cape Canaveral” (Fisher, 2012, p. 1).
The launch vehicle was also supposed to ensure lunar touchdown after approximately 66hours via the Goldstone tracking station (Fisher, 2012).
Description
All the spacecraft in the Surveyor program were injected into the lunar trajectories by a launch vehicle referred to as the Atlas Centaur. This launch vehicle had a payload of about 3,700 lb, a diameter of 10 ft, a gross mass of 300,000 lb and a height of about 108 ft (Kyle, 2005).
It therefore was capable of meeting the Surveyor program requirement of a launch vehicle that could launch 2,500 lb. The first time that the launch vehicle was used in a successful launch was in the 11th day of August 1965, while undergoing tests with Surveyor SD2 before the Surveyor program officially began in the year 1966.
Figure 2: Surveyor 1 being launched using the Atlas Centaur
(Kyle, 2005, p. 1)
Cost
Original bid
The contract for the Surveyor mission was given in the year 1961 to Hughes Aircraft Co. The initial contract sum was $300 million per mission totaling $2.1 billion for the seven missions (Lindroos, 1997).
Cost increases
During program implementation, additional costs were incurred. The program (comprising of seven missions) incurred additional costs amounting to USD 700 million (Lindroos, 1997).
Overall program costs
As mentioned above, the Surveyor program involved the design of up to seven lunar soft landing spacecraft that were meant to collect lunar data in preparation for the manned Apollo spacecraft program that was already approved by the U.S. President before the launch of Surveyor 1. The Surveyor program cost totaled USD 2.8 billion (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2013).
Summary
The success of the Surveyor program is largely attributable to the fact that NASA chose a reliable and simple architecture for the mission, which employed an incremental and pragmatic approach in solving the engineering challenges that NASA encountered during that time. NASA launched seven missions in the Surveyor program. Out of the seven, five succeeded and two failed.
Surveyor 2 experienced mechanical problems due to a fault in its engine and consequently crashed into the moon. Surveyor 4 was unable to transmit radio signals shortly before it landed and therefore the site where it crashed on the moon was never established. The other missions succeeded and collected informative data that proved invaluable during the Apollo program. The program was therefore a great success.
Conclusion
The Surveyor program consisted of seven spacecraft that were sent to the moon to act as pathfinders for the manned Apollo program. NASA contracted the Hughes Aircraft Company to make the spacecraft, which were to be launched on a launch vehicle referred to as Atlas Centaur.
Hughes Aircraft Co. in turn subcontracted other companies, including Space Technology Laboratories manufactured, Thiokol Chemical Corporation and Ryan Aeronautical Company, to manufacture various components of the spacecraft. By the time the first spacecraft was ready for launch, five years had passed amid technical and management problems.
Surveyor 1 was launched in the year 1966 while the last spacecraft was launched in 1968. Out of the seven spacecraft, two were unsuccessful and four were successful. Surveyor 2 crashed on the moon’s surface after engine fault while Surveyor 4 crashed because of a failed communication system.
Despite these two failures, the other spacecraft collected loads of data in terms of images and recordings that helped in planning for the Apollo program. The Apollo program’s success was therefore, arguably, attributable to the success of the Surveyor program. The program’s total cost was $ 2.8 billion.
Reference List
Barton, A. (2010). NASA Surveyor Programme – 1966-1968 – Laying the Foundations for Apollo. Web.
What was NASA’s motivation to introduce the FBC Initiative?
NASA was motivated to introduce the FBC (faster, better, cheaper) initiative because of the pressure from the White House and the massive cost of maintaining human exploration to Mars. NASA administrator, Dan Goldin, had just assumed the office with a clear directive from the White House that the Mars exploration had to continue. However, the proposals that were presented to Dan Goldin would cost this organization hundreds of billions of dollars. NASA did not have such kind of resources, but President George Bush wanted the results. It is out of this pressure that NASA developed the faster, better, cheaper philosophy following a research by Dr. Charles Elachi. This philosophy was meant to make the exploration cheaper and faster using the modern technologies.
What are the major features of the FBC Initiative?
As defined by the National Space Council in 1990, FBC initiative had three major features. The first feature was that it involved using the emerging technologies to facilitate faster exploration of the Mars. Using smaller spacecrafts, it would be easy to make a quick landing to the Mars. The philosophy also wanted to make the whole experience of exploring the Mars better than it had been before. This would mean reduced incidents and accidents, better exploration techniques, and more accurate instruments. The third feature of this philosophy was that it would be cheap.
What contributed to the success of the FBC Initiative in the early stage?
The main factor that contributed to the success of FBC initiative in its early stage was the strict guidelines set in the Discovery Program. First, the concept was developed out of a fair bidding program bringing together the universities, NASA research teams, private labs, and other industry players. The timeline for this mission was set at 36 months, development cost not exceeding $ 150 million, operation cost not exceeding $ 35 million and the launch vehicle not costing more than $ 55 million. With these clear set guidelines, the stakeholders knew their boundaries. The expectations were very clear, and what the scientists had to do was to find a way of meeting them, leading to the success that was witnessed.
What contributed to the failure of the FBC Initiative in the later stage?
Cutting of the NASA budget affected its ambitious FBC plans, leading to its failure in the late stage. The reduced budget meant limited research which inhibited the rate of new discoveries.
What is the most important success criterion for a typical NASA project?
The most important success criterion for a typical NASA project would be successful development of a concept that would make regular space exploration simpler, faster, cheaper, and more successful. All the recent researches of NASA have been based on this criterion. FBC philosophy developed by Dr. Charles Elachi was the first step in this new strategy of NASA. Since then, all the NASA projects have been revolving around this new concept.
What might have been done to make the FBC initiative a feasible project for NASA?
A number of steps may need to be taken to make FBC initiative a feasible project for NASA. The first step will be to expand the budget for NASA in order to facilitate extensive research on how this project can be put into practice. One of the main reasons for the failure of the project, as stated in the case study, was the limited financial resources. Increasing the budget will solve this problem. The second step will be to involve universities, private labs, and other industry players alongside NASA research teams into these programs. This was one of the main reasons why FBC initiative was successful at its initial stages.
Our class notes (pg 10. 5) taught me a lot about comets. I wanted to find out more about their study and particularly about the Deep Impact mission. Moreover, I noticed a news article saying that a new comet outburst has been captured. It made me extremely interested in the subject, and I decided to expand my knowledge even further.
Search Log
My research started by examining the largest digital library in the world – Google Books. I used the “Deep Impact Mission” search term and obtained 97,300 results. I decided to choose the book “Comets And Their Origin: The Tools To Decipher A Comet” written by Uwe Meierhenrich. He is a Professor at the University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France, and has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. My further research revealed that the scientist has helped to lay the groundwork for the Rosetta-Mission. Moreover, Dr. Uwe Meierhenrich has a diploma in Analytical Chemistry. He is also an author of more than two dozen publications in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, the information provided in the book was reliable.
I needed an additional source, so I typed “Comets” into the search engine “Google.” It provided me with more than ten million results. I opted for the most credible source on the issue—the Nasa website. The “About Us” section of the site stated that it was managed by the Solar System Science Communication Team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Therefore, I concluded that all information provided there came from a strictly regulated governmental organization and was highly reliable.
Conclusion
The information discussed in the class provided me with a basic understanding of comets. However, the exploration of the Nasa website made me discover that there is a great number of short-period comets orbiting the sun near Pluto. They could be pulled by gravity into the planet’s orbit by less than two hundred years. It makes it very easy to calculate the time of their appearance. The arrival of the long-period comets, on the other hand, is less predictable. They can orbit the Sun for 30 million years.
Every comet has a frozen part containing ice and particles of dust inside of it. When a comet gets closer to the Sun, its heat starts melting its nucleus and creates an atmosphere around that is called a coma. Space missions such as Stardust and Deep Impact allowed scientists to better explore the structure of comets.
The Deep Impact mission allowed obtaining detailed information on Comet 9P/Tempel. It was conducted in July 2005 and resulted in the analysis of the interior composition of the comet’s nucleus. The data was collected with the help of the impactor and flyby spacecraft. The impactor made a planned collision with the nucleus of 9P/Tempel that led to the release of significant amounts of comet material. It was concentrated beneath its surface. The flyby spacecraft was able to gather information with a spectrometer and two cameras. The excavation of the comet’s material expanded the existing understanding of the cometary structure.
According to the NASA site, the Deep Impact spacecraft was functional after its initial mission and was used for other flybys. Therefore, in November 2010, it was retargeted for the Deep Impact Extended Investigation (DIXI). The mission explored comet Hartley 2. It was also a part of the search for Earth-size planets in the vicinity of stars close to it.
Resources
CNRS. Prof. Dr. Uwe J. Meierhenrich. 2016. Web.
Meierhenrich, Uwe. Comets and Their Origin. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014. Print.
Because I have always been interested in learning about planets in the Solar System, I decided to expand my knowledge to other objects that can be found in space. Asteroids were described in our class notes (page 10.4); however, I wanted to learn more about their nature, discovery, and other characteristics.
Search Log
I typed “Asteroids” into the search engine “Google.”
The first link was to the Asteroids Online Game, although the second link was to the Wikipedia article, which provided a lot of information on the topic. The article included information about the discovery of asteroids, their formation, and distribution in the Solar System, as well as major characteristics and classifications. Although the article was useful, I wanted to search for more authoritative websites on the topic.
One of the links in the search was the link to NASA’s website that provided a list of fast facts about Asteroids. The article on NASA’s website was smaller compared to Wikipedia; however, it gave enough information about the difference between asteroids, comets, meteors, and meteorites. I wanted to have more information at my disposal, so I typed “Asteroids NASA” into the search engine. I found NASA’s Frequently Asked Questions sheet about the Near Earth Object Program that explored asteroids. The fact sheet included the definition of asteroids, explained why NASA is studying them, and provided a list of spacecrafts sent to explore asteroids and comets. I could trust NASA’s website because it was created by a governmental agency, so I decided to limit the search to the already found articles about asteroids.
Results
I found that an asteroid is a relatively small in size object, inactive in its nature, and with a rocky surface. The Fast Facts article by NASA mentioned that every year the atmosphere of the Earth is attacked by automobile-sized asteroids, which create a large fireball that burns out before reaching the planet’s surface (par. 7). Furthermore, approximately every two thousand years, an asteroid may hit the surface of the Earth and cause significant damage. One of the most disturbing facts about asteroids is that an asteroid that is larger than two kilometers wide can potentially impact the entire planet Earth. Additionally, the asteroid that poses the potential threat to our planet (the asteroid called Toutatis) is 5.4 kilometers in diameter (NASA par. 10).
After examining the fact sheet provided by NASA, I found that spacecrafts were regularly sent on missions to explore asteroids. Also, the same spacecrafts were sent to study many asteroids. For example, the Near spacecraft (launched in 1996) was sent to explore the Asteroid Mathilde Flyby (1997), Asteroids Eros Flyby (1998), and Asteroid Eros Rendevous (2000) (Chodas 1). Asteroids are parts left from the formation of many planets, including the planet Earth. NASA states that it is important to study asteroids because some of them can potentially cause harm to other planets as well as our planet. Additionally, asteroids are sources of raw materials, which are very expensive. For instance, the cost of the minerals found on asteroids orbiting Mars and Jupiter was estimated to approximately a hundred billion dollars for every person living on the planet Earth (Chodas 1). One of the fun facts about asteroids is that some of them can also have “personal” moons that orbit them, similar how the Moon orbits the Earth.
There are a number of several reasons why we need space programs. The most important one is to monitor climate change and take care of our health properly. In short, we need space program to maintain ourselves and survive on the Earth. It has been noted that space program get us aware of the ozone depletion, deforestation effect among other environmental dangers. We also need the space program to always make us aware of the possible cosmic collusion like the one that did happen to the planet Jupiter a few years ago; it could have happened to our Earth, and it could have been reduced to nothing like it.
What are its goals?
The scientific missions are to carry out the orbital remote sensing of Saturn’s atmosphere, level of ice, nitrogen concentration to the surface. Furthermore, the space craft is supposed to conduct science surface measurements once it lands safely. It is supposed to conduct analysis of thermal structure and composition of the atmosphere in comparison to the earlier space-craft findings.
In summary, space program is essential for our survival, for the sake of our progressive evolution as a species and for our general health care, reassurance and expediency. The goal of space program is to have a successful exploration in a set period of time under a subjected budget for better analysis.
At what level should it be funded?
Space exploration is one of the most expensive ventures in the entire world. Funding is generally given on the basis of expected exceptional capabilities of the spacecraft, wide coverage of altitude with a light weight survey, favorable mission cost. In some cases, funding is also affected by political atmosphere. The political atmosphere needs to be the right one and the right priorities set well. Due to high costs, there is need for careful analysis and exchange of diplomatic notes in a government-to-government agreement procedure.
How should priorities be set?
The priorities are set in accordance to the mission concept, expected success of the execution of the exploration, the general technologies required, and the cost of the various orbiter spacecraft and the survey designs in general. The priorities are also set by the mission statement of the exploration.
Who should carry out the space program?
The spacecraft program can not be carried out by just anybody. There are several consideration and assessment to be done before the mission is executed. The most trust body for space exploration is said to be NASA and ESA. The endorsement of who should carry out the space program, however, all lies on the ability to create perfect spacecraft that will not violate any rules lay down. Any country or persons who would want to explore the space must adhere to all the requirements needed by space program laws.
Is human spaceflight a necessary component?
Human spaceflight is a very crucial and a very powerful component of national security. Furthermore, it improves prestige and national pride in general. China is noted to have acknowledged how important human spaceflight is from a paper called a white paper describing China’s progress since 2006 and I quote the first paragraph,
“Outer space is the common wealth of mankind. Exploration, development and utilization of outer space are an unremitting pursuit of mankind. Space activities around the world have been flourishing. Leading space-faring countries have formulated or modified their development strategies, plans and goals in this sphere. The position and role of space activities are becoming increasingly salient for each active country’s overall development strategy, and their influence on human civilization and social progress is increasing.”
Inclusion, human spaceflight is essential and it is a very necessary component. Our survival, comfort as we live on the Earth, and our health care can only be ensured by effective successful space exploration.
The natural environment in which NASA operates can be described as neutral in terms of its impact on the company’s operations. While it does not contribute to the company’s success, there are no factors that threaten its well-being.
Macro-environment
On the external level, NASA has a plethora of advantages, the lack of competitors being the key one. Furthermore, the opportunities for collaboration with other firms, which NASA can explore, allow improving the quality of the product significantly.
Technological Environment
With impressive financial assets and the recent technological breakthrough, NASA can deploy the latest devices to improve its services and products. Thus, the chances of building premises for an increase in customer loyalty are high for NASA (Labbe et al., 2015).
Therefore, in the context of the global market, NASA has a range of strengths that can be used to build an even greater competitive advantage than the current one. As a result, NASA may become one of the most powerful companies in the global market. Furthermore, the firm will promote technological progress and, possibly, even provide more chances for space tourism and non-commercial, exploratory projects. Consequently, the foundation for a rapid growth can be built successfully.
Internal Environment
Resources
The project can be credited for a rather efficient and sustainable use of the available resources. The time management used by the organizations to market the final product to the end customer should be listed among the most successful allocation of resources by NASA and Greenleaf (Terjesen, 2014).
Capabilities
Both organizations have utilized their capabilities to the fullest. NASA has designed the unique approach toward leveraging innovative technologies. Greenleaf, in its turn, has come up with a unique formula that is bound to reinvent the industry as people know it.
Competencies
The companies’ competencies have been used successfully to develop, design, and promote the product.
Activities
The marketing activities used by the companies to attract attention to their product have also been quite impressive. However, a more active use of social networks might be a good idea.
VRIO
Value. The value of the product offered by NASA can be deemed as rather high since it allows reducing negative effects that people experience in space.
Rarity. The rarity of the beverage is also very high since Greenleaf is the only organization that has designed the product in collaboration with NASA.
Imitability. Since the formula is kept in secret, and that Greenleaf has been cooperating with NASA to produce it, the imitability levels are very low.
Organization. The production process has also been organized in a rather elaborate manner (Terjesen, 2014).
Based on the assessment made above, it can be assumed that NASA and Greenleaf are likely to have developed a long-term competitive advantage that will allow them to remain at the helm of the industry for quite a while. It could be argued, though, that the introduction of the identified product to the target market will result in a rather long commercialization process. Seeing that the number of operations in space is rather scarce at present, the demand for the beverage is not going to be very high. However, with the future expansion planned by NASA, an increase in the product popularity can be expected. Despite having an outstanding competitive status at present, NASA may gain even more influence once it breaks new grounds in space exploration.
Reference List
Labbe, I., Oesch, P. A., Illingworth, G. D., Dokkum, P. G. V., Bouwens, R. G., Franx, M., … Stefanon, M. (2015). Ultradeep IRAC imaging over the HUDF and goods-south: Survey design and imaging data release. Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 221(2), 1-13.
Terjesen, S. (2014). The right stuff: A NASA technology-based new venture and the search for markets on Earth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 713-726.
