Hubble’s relation is used to express the distance between an observer and the receding velocity. In a plot of the recession velocity and the distance from the observer, the fraction of the velocity and the distance, when expressed as a ratio, represents the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is expressed by H0, and can be used in the measurement of the expansion rate, size, as well as the age of the universe (Jackson 23).
Research and analysis in cosmology has showed that the universe experiences significant expansion, which is uniform and can be estimated by considering the relationship between ‘the recession velocity of a galaxy’ denoted by v, and the estimated distance between the observer and the galaxy, d. Based on the Hubble law, the recession velocity is a product of the Hubble constant and the estimated distance.
Hence; v= H0 d. Thus, the Hubble constant plays a significant role in astronomy. The focus of this paper is on establishing the accuracy of the value of the Hubble constant in relation to a review of a paper authored by Freedman et al., (2001), entitled “Final results from the Hubble space telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant”.
The estimation of the Hubble constant by astronomers has been a subject of concern among researchers for a long time. While it is easy to measure the redshift for a galaxy, measuring the distance required to estimate the Hubble constant is very hard. However, to estimate the Hubble constant accurately, astronomers should not make use of galaxies that are near the Milky Way because the presence of gravitational force affects their general expansion and would thus not give accurate and reliable findings (Kennicutt 1476).
In addition, galaxies that exist in a cluster or as a group are not advisable for inclusion since they have approximately the same distance. After the galaxy redshift and the distance have been identified, the slope in a graph of all the galaxies gives the Hubble relationship, with the Hubble Constant being depicted by the line of best fit in the Hubble relation.
According to Freedman et al. (47), there are several applications of Hubble constant in the day to day activities. For example, the age of the universe can be expressed by the inverse of the Hubble constant, H0-1, while the size of the observable universe can be expressed in terms of Robs = cto. However, such a relationship is only possible in a case where the universe’s total energy density is known. A square of the Hubble constant can be used to relate the geometry of the universe with its total energy density. Additionally, the Hubble constant can be used in defining the universe’s critical density, which can be expressed in the form of an equation, as showed below.
ᵖcrit = (3H2)/ (8πG)
Evidently, the Hubble constant finds a lot of use in many areas. Freedman et al. (47) noted that the constant could be used to determine numerous aspects of quasars and galaxies such as energy density, luminosity, and mass, among other physical properties. Freedman et al. (47) highlighted that ‘The building of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope (HST)’ was motivated by the need to accurately measure the value of the Hubble constant.
The Hubble Space Telescope commissioned several projects in the eighties, including the one targeting 10% accuracy in the Hubble constant. The primary aim of the Hubble Key Project was to accurately get the measurement of the Hubble constant in relation to methods that involved secondary distance, as well as the Cepheid calibration. Empirical research in the past has indicated that there are a lot of systematic errors involved in the measurement of distance, especially in the case of determining the distance between galaxies.
For this reason, the HST project employed several methods to diversify errors and avoid overreliance on one method. In addition, to avoid systematic errors, especially in the process of reducing the collected data, the study ensured analysis of each of the used galaxies by groups that were independent of one another, with each making use of software packages that were different. However, the results of the two independent groups were compared during the final data reduction phase to establish any errors. Such comparison was very necessary and essential in that it helped identify some simple errors in the data reduction process, and helped the entire team to offer a realistic estimation of the expected errors for the entire process.
Thus, the determination of the Hubble constant, as depicted by Freedman et al. (48), ought to take consideration of distances that are quite far to avoid the interference of motions from both large and small galaxies. For this reason, the extension of the distance scale past the Cepheids’ range, the Hubble Key project required the input of reliable methods and the incorporation of HST Cepheid distances for purposes of providing the right scale for the methods used.
In the case of this study, there was a need to make use of HST in the process of accurately determining the Hubble constant. The HST was necessary because HST provided the opportunity to offer images that were of high quality and essentially non-varying. In addition, the HST has a special capacity such that one can schedule it optimally to ensure that the Cepheid variables used in the study are discovered (Hynecek 39). As such, HST is suitable in such studies since one can make observations without relying on the weather, time of the day, or even the moon.
To accurately determine the distances involved in the HST project, absolute photometric calibration was necessary (Freedman et al. 48). However, the process of determining accurate Cepheid magnitude was one of the potential sources of uncertainty in the Hubble constant. This also has a significant effect on the zero-point calibration. Thus, to overcome such challenges, the Key Project adopted independent calibration. These ensured that there were no cases of errors in the calibration process and that the exact readings could be obtained effectively.
From the above analysis, it was evident that the Hubble constant is a very important element in the cosmology and astronomy fields. In spite of this, accurate measurement of the Hubble constant remains to be a challenge, especially when considering the difficulties involved in determining the recession velocity of a particular galaxy and the distance required to make an estimation of the Hubble constant (Nota 31). Nonetheless, the HST Key project was very successful in measuring the Hubble constant, which was only successful after the incorporation of numerous alternative methods. Based on the measurements and precautions taken in the Key Project, it can be considered that the measurement of the Hubble Constant was accurate.
Works Cited
Freedman, Wendy, Madore F. Barry, Gibson K. Brad, Ferrarese Laura, Kelson Daniel, Sakai Shoko, Mould R. Jeremy, Kennicutt C. Robert, Ford C. Holland, Graham A. John, Huchra P. John, Hughes G. Shaum, Illingworth D. Garth, Macri M. Lucas, and Stetson B. Peter. “Final results from the Hubble space telescope key project to measure the Hubble constant”. ApJ 553.1 (2001): 47-72. Print.
Hynecek, Jaroslav. “Is The Hubble Constant The Same Everywhere In The Universe?”. Applied Physics Research 7.3 (2015): 21-39. Print.
Jackson, Neal. “The Hubble Constant”. Living Reviews in Relativity 10 (2007): 2-23. Print.
Kennicutt, Robert. “Measuring The Hubble Constant With The Hubble Space Telescope”. The Astronomical Journal 110 (2005): 1476. Print.
Nota, Siriani. “Discovery of a Population of Pre-Main-Sequence Stars in NGC 346 From Deep Hubble Space Telescope ACS Images”. ApJ 640.1 (2006): 29-33. Print.
Unveiling the secrets of the unknown has ever been a basic instinct in human beings. Throughout the history of human civilizations, man has been eager to know the soil and the sky around which he lives in. all these eagerness resulted in great findings and finally man happens to live in an age of absolute wonders. Apart from this, knowledge about the earth and the space made profound changes in every-day human affairs.
No system is devoid of criticisms. The space missions undertaken by the United States of America had to face severe criticisms throughout the decades. Even in the midst of America’s enviable space achievements, a large number of people oppose the undertakings saying they would not satisfy the common man’s requirements.
They are worried over the billions of dollars spent for space activity. They add that it’s dangerous, expensive and uncertain. However, a deep probe into the concepts and objectives of space missions would reveal its multilayered opportunities. Such a study will underline the fact that any capital invested in space projects will no not be in vain.
Exploring the Unexplored
Since Alan Sheppard, the first American astronaut, an array of people has come forward to explore the outer regions of less familiarity. What’s there out in the space? This question has been the root cause behind all ventures.
The modern man, living in the advanced scientific world needs to resolve all enigmas concerning the Planet Earth and even beyond that. Mere hypotheses will not satisfy his analytical brain. All theories have to be supported by solid evidences. Only an objective study can stabilize the uncertain speculations.
Undeniably, space activities open a vast realm of knowledge. The present prosperity and dominance of America could not have been possible had the nation failed to design missions like these. “All of the discoveries we have made that directly benefit us on the ground are only a small part of the potential of human space flight.
The true benefits of our steps into space are probably little known as of yet. Who would have assumed, even 60 years ago, that there would be thousands of pieces of metal orbiting the earth reflecting radio waves for our communication purposes, or who then could have dreamed of the satellite pictures we take for granted now.
The technologies from our space travel that are most important to our survival and happiness we may not know until they hit us in the face years, or decades from now” (Nicholson, 2003). A number of superb discoveries that help people to lead an easy life made possible by space activities. By and large, all space missions are undertaken with great purposes.
To Sustain Domination
America has been a capitalistic and dominating country for the last few decades. However, one cannot be blind to the fact that the rigidity of the financial foundation the America is under suspicion. Even though, the country is on the move to recovery, it needs to prove it. Past glories are immaterial while considering the prominence of a country.
More than that America is not a country which rests upon the long-ago achievements. It is a country with much dynamicity and potentiality. In the recent years, it is a fashion among people to use the country’s name synonymous with scientific and technological advancements. “Space operations are emerging as the one of the distinctive attributes of the sole remaining superpower.
While a few other countries conduct military, civil or commercial space programs of some significance, no country can meaningfully contest American dominance of any of these sectors, and surely no other country could rival American dominance of the full spectrum of space operations…. The Russian space program is but a pale shadow of that of the Soviet Union, with annual flight rates having declined from 125 a each year in the late 1980s to no more than roughly two dozen annual launches recently” (Pike, 1998).
In the midst of the global financial crisis, America has to show to the world that it still is a leading power. For that, more explorations in different fields are necessary. The outer space is a significant and challenging realm to be studied. America is noted for its knowledge production. The nation pockets a huge amount by selling information unattainable to other countries. Space
To Monitor Energy Crisis
The rapid increase in the rate of population necessitates more electricity. In order to meet the power requirement of the existing generation, a great source of energy has to be discovered. The outer space can be a stock house of massive energy. Those sources of energy can be brought to the earth to produce energy in a large scale.
It is nothing but a kind of energy that makes the heavenly bodies move. More researching can open more sources of energy. But it is a proven fact that the energy in the sun is huge and immeasurable. The principles behind the production of energy in the sun can be studied deeply through space undertakings. “The solar energy that reaches the Earth is about 10,000 times total human energy production today and the energy available in near-Earth space is limitless.
Research is being done on many different ways of using solar power economically on Earth, and many of these will be successful. Terrestrial solar energy is going to become a colossal business. However, sunlight is diffuse and not available continuously at the Earth’s surface. So one additional possibility is to collect solar energy 24 hours per day in space, and transmit it as microwave beams to receivers on Earth” (A limitless source of energy, n. d.).
To Uncover the Secret of the Origin of Life
There have been many superstitious beliefs regarding the origin of life. Religious institutions and traditional institutions hold some out of date stands. It essentially hinders scientific thinking and material richness. A noted technological country like America needs to be scientific in each of its aspects. In order to derive objective formulation of speculative statements, a science-oriented thinking has to be brought in to everyone’s lives.
In addition to knowing how life originated in the universe, it is much needed to know how the universe was formed. If that secret is found out, it will lead to a ground-breaking change in the world of science. If more evidences can be traced, the scientist community can put forward measures to sustain its life.
Space Travel-The Final Frontier
An average man had not even dreamt of travelling through the skies until a few decades ago. The enchanting accounts in the science fiction stories become a reality with the development of technology in the present world. Basically, man is a pleasure loving creature. Sky is the limit for his aspirations and it crosses the horizons in a rapid pace.
Space tourism is the latest trend for the techno-centered people. “Space tourism is no longer just the outlandish vision of science fiction writers. While still only affordable to the very wealthy, space tourism offers a unique type of adventure that is sought after by a large percent of the traveling population. From the mind-boggling thrill of looking at Earth from space to the feeling of weightlessness, space trips offer the experience of a lifetime to well-funded travelers” (All about space program, n. d.).
Steps have been taken to set up the ever first hotel in the space to attract the people towards the concept. This new development aims at gathering money through space missions. For the American society, it can be a good source of monitory benefit.
A Way to Economic Well being
It has been a persistent criticism aimed at America’s Space programs that they eat up much of the people’s revenue. They hold the opinion that no money is gained out of such big-budget programs.
But the things have changed now. Apart from gathering money from space tourism, the government gets a huge amount by scientifically and technologically assisting other nations in various space missions. And also, the country sells some important spare parts to the needy to bag billions.
In order to make the missions less money eating, many innovative and effective technologies are developed in the nation. Reusable space shuttle is a classic example. A single device can be used for a number of times without any error. “We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy.
It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering” (Dubner, 2008).
The Space as an Alternative Home
The human civilization is under a great threat due to the increase in the rate of population. More people always mean more food. It results in the scarcity of natural resources. An uncontrolled use of non recyclable resources can create a severe condition and even wipe out the entire humanity without a trace of it.
The concept of setting up an alternative shelter in the space is a recent and brilliant idea. The first step is to find out an appropriate place in the space. Space history tells that the moon is an appropriate one if the present discoveries prove to be true.
The American aided Chandrayan I of India put forward that there is a trace of water content in the moon. If more inquisitions are made, the concept of setting up a home in the moon can be materialized. Sooner or later people should go away from the earth. Therefore it is better initiate exploring at this moment.
Satellites and Tele-Communication
The twentieth century witnessed an explosion in the field of tele-communication. Dozens of satellites are launched to make communication efficient. This is the field America can proceed to formulate notable findings. With the advent of each innovative mechanism, people wait for the new one.
Extended researches can lead to better findings in the field of communication. “Other space-based communications applications have appeared, the most prominent being the broadcast of signals, primarily television programming, directly to small antennas serving individual households. A similar emerging use is the broadcast of audio programming to small antennas in locations ranging from rural villages in the developing world to individual automobiles” (Satellite Telecommunications, n. d.).
Great Findings
All these years, space missions have served as a key to knowing something that the people have never heard before. People could understand more about the radiation zones. This new facts accelerated the functioning of tele-phone, cell phone and the internet. Transmission of artificial radiations became trouble-free.
The space missions made it easy to know the details about the earth’s magnetic field. All branches of science and all categories of people got benefited out this great finding. Astrobiology is an advanced branch of knowledge which brings together the aspects of astronomy, biology and geology. All these branches are highly developed through missions.
The universe is full of heavenly bodies. It is necessary for us to study the movements and features of them as some of them can hit the earth to make massive devastation. A space study can spot different comets and asteroids and trace their movement. With the aid of advanced space technology, even the direction of such heavenly bodies can be altered.
Even in forecasting the climate conditions, the space explorations put in a lot. As well, it makes tsunami and earthquake alert quick and accurate. In this sense, space technology is much needed to save the earth from external assaults.
Space Technology for a Better world
Since being a principal global power, America is in the position to monitor the space missions conducted in the vast expanse of the world. With such extension works, the country can promote international cooperation and mutual understanding.
In the present world order noted for its transparency, it is beneficial to have a tactical tie-up between countries in the field of space technologies. The concept of globalization connected the countries with a single network. For America, this can be of use to find a global market for space mission devices and other technologies.
However, the need for a good relationship between countries is essential. It is a good sign that, Russia, an important world power, came forward to have understanding with America. Today, instead of aggressive adjoin one another, Russia and America are alive together, planning the architecture of an all-embracing amplitude station. On June 29, 1995, the American amplitude shuttle Atlantis docked with the Russian amplitude base Mir.
This was the aboriginal abutting of Russian and American amplitude ability back 1975 (Krylov, 2008). In the recent years, a number of spatial missions are done by establishing a spatial cooperation between France and the United States, and all of them proved to be fruitful. In order to achieve spatial superiority, what a nation has to do is to promote collaborations among countries and start exploring the unknown to contribute to the betterment of the entire human race.
The Other Side of the Issue- It is Expensive, Dangerous and Uncertain
Every mechanism has two sides. One cannot deny the fact that space missions are much money eating. Each new project of spatial exploration creates a huge hole in the nation’s funds. There are a number of people who moan over the billions of dollars spent for space activity.
While vast majorities of the people are put under poverty line, it seems that technological orientation of America is too much. Every year, the World Health Organization reminds us that because of under nutrition, a lot of children are died before they reach adolescence. With the money put aside for technological advancements, the country can feed millions of poverty stricken mass. In this sense the nation can attain glory in the field of Human Welfare too.
Apart from financial matters, there are many other aspects that negate the idea of space activity. Foremost of all, it is a dangerous affair for a man of flesh and blood can do. Each and every undertaking involves numerous risk factors. In recent times, America has witnessed a few mission failures. The Columbia Space Shuttle disaster remains to be one of the black marks in the American Technological world. Above and beyond, space missions are uncertain. No one can predict the outcome of the mission.
Conclusion
Man’s interest on space explorations roughly begins with the findings of Thales and Pythagoras that the earth is round. Since then, the human race witnessed many outstanding discoveries. However, the vast outer space still remains to be unexplored.
The veteran scientific country like America can do a lot of things to uncover the hidden truths and thus provide the mankind with novel and factual account about the universe. Nothing is unachievable if tried hard. Space missions with a purpose can always be beneficial for the development of any nation. The journey must move on from the Moon to the Mars and even beyond.
Dubner, J. Stephen. (2008). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum.
Krylov, N. Alexei (2008).A study of the dynamics of contaminants in the own external atmosphere of orbital stations. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, Focus on Physics, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 77–83.
Nicholson, M. (2003). Space exploration necessary for progress.
Introduction-The Case for and History of Manned Flights
Manned flights to space promise several rewards for the space industry and for humanity in general. Some of these rewards relate to the flight itself while others address themselves to the improvement in space exploration capabilities when man is present. First, manned flights require simpler flight control techniques and equipment since a human operator checks and adjusts flight parameters. The need for advanced equipment required for unmanned flights characterized by many sensors, actuators, and diagnostic tools reduces.
The net effect is the reduction of vehicular costs since these controls form a substantial part of research and development costs of space vehicles. Secondly, the need for manned flights lies in the realization that technology, no matter how developed, never adequately substitutes human judgment. Space knowledge is still infantile to allow for a complete simulation of anticipated conditions informing the design of craft. Human presence reduces the mission risks associated with unpredictable situations and environments.
Thirdly, the presence of man either at the Moon or in Mars, a product of manned flight, will improve data collection and analysis capacity on site. While there have been great strides made in the exploration of space in the last half of the twentieth century, a great portion of the Moon and Mars remain unexplored. Armed with a space lab, an astronaut remains capable of performing many experiments and tests, and making many more observations than what a Lander can do, no matter how sophisticated.
The fourth reason necessitating manned flights to space is that development of requisite technologies will lead to innumerable spinoff advantages in various aspects of human life. Olla notes that space technology, “is used to provide services and fulfill the goals for people on earth” (413). Finally, man will not be satisfied to experience space behind the controls of sophisticated equipment millions of miles away. True scientific inquiry will drive man to seek to experience space through his senses.
The Apollo 11 landing on the surface of the Moon represents the highest point yet in the conquest of the cosmos by man. The Apollo project arose amid many circumstances that had a rare confluence at the time. This was the height of the cold war and Russia had beaten America to space via the Sputnik. This was the United States way of reclaiming its place as a pioneer in the space race.
President Kennedy’s administration was pivotal in providing the resources NASA needed to accomplish this goal. In scale, the project compares to the construction of the Panama Canal and the Manhattan Project. This was the first time that a space vehicle delivered a man to an extraterrestrial body and later safely returned him to earth. Through this project, the world saw for the first time pictures of the earth taken from a different vantage point.
The key lessons of the Apollo project are that it takes a multidisciplinary team to attain the heights of space. It requires a careful balance of politics, project management, and favorable public opinion to pull off such projects. The project gave way to the shuttle program.
The shuttles development came about as a means of encouraging reusability of space vehicles as opposed to the hitherto single use rockets. The shuttles are not entirely reusable. They have external thrusters that propel them into space and drop off while their engines take over for the rest of the flights.
The shuttle itself reenters the earth’s atmosphere and later lands on a conventional runway. While not entirely reusable, the shuttles have reduced the costs of spaceflight significantly since there is no need to construct new shuttles every time there is need to go to space. They represent the model that will be the basis for new space vehicles.
There have been two disasters involving shuttles. One of them, the Challenger, blew up during take-off because of a fault in its external thrusters. The other, Columbia, blew up as it was reentering the earth’s atmosphere. The lesson from these disasters is that space vehicle design is ongoing and will remain a risk for as long as space travel excites man.
For an industry literally reaching for the heavens, the technology is still nascent and requires a great deal of refinement. The future of space vehicles lay in reusability. The shuttle is half way there. When we develop technologies, where space vehicles will only require refueling without external thrusters, then the industry will be mature.
Current development of space vehicles mills around the use of single-stage-to-orbit vehicle, which unlike the shuttle has only one rocket engine. The design reduces the number of opportunities for mishaps and increases the number of reusable parts. Other concepts attracting the imagination of designers include the runway- to-space design, where a vehicle takes off, not from a custom-built platform, but from a runway.
This will reduce the takeoff-associated risks and the very high temperatures a conventional takeoff generates. The need for new vehicles is acute as the shuttle program winds down. The International Space Station requires a regular means of access to provide supplies and to transfer experiments.
The shuttle program provided this means. Some new vehicle must replace it. Its design will reflect the state of the art of space vehicle design. Conley warns that in the area of space technology design, new designs will not necessarily do away with old problems but will come with a new set of challenges.
Exploration and Colonization of Moon and Mars
The need to colonize the Moon is no different from the needs that drove humanity to colonize every known corner of the world. It has always been about discovering the unknown, finding new grounds for habitation, location of fresh resources to meet the rising needs, and conquest. When science expands, humanity improves for it.
It is not always without risk, but more often than not, science provides practical answers to humanity’s problems. Exploration and colonization of the Moon and Mars will stretch our imagination beyond the basic instinct to survive. In the process, new knowledge that will contribute solutions to our earthly problems will arise.
The earth is finite. There is a limit to how much it can do for us. Eventually, the century old practice of searching for new grounds will catch up with us and once more, we will need to find fresh ground to settle our burgeoning population. As unlikely as it seems now, the Moon and Mars are the next frontiers.
They are vast, uninhabited, and with some work, they might just be habitable. The human race has never been comfortable with just knowing where the boundaries are. It is time to look elsewhere, outward, since we have mapped every inch of planet.
The colonization of the Moon and Mars provides a unique opportunity to uncover new resources that hold solutions to earth’s problems. In those environments, the possibility of discovery of elements not native on earth that may provide us with energy, chemical formulae for medication, materials for construction and with herculean creativity maybe arable land.
Observing the environment there will provide us with a better understanding of our own planet. For instance, if through research on Mars, evidence of life, past or present surfaces, questions such as where did we come from and how can we ensure our survival will be easier to answer.
The final reason to colonize Mars and the Moon is to facilitate a systematic conquest of the universe. It has always been in the nature of man to explore and conquer new grounds. Angelo states, “Space technology also helps us respond to another very fundamental human need: the need to explore” (3).
These two grounds are within a bowshot from us. Conquering them will provide us with the opportunity to conquer the rest of the universe. Indeed, this will not be possible unless we are able to build and commission new vehicles, which will transport the Columbus’s of this day. There is something in the human spirit that will never be quiet until we answer conclusively the question of whether we are alone in this universe.
The Moon provides an interesting possibility for facilitating a manned mission to Mars based on the difference in the force of gravity between the earth and the Moon. The earth has approximately six times the gravitational force of the Moon. It takes almost the same amount of energy to get an object out of earth’s gravitational pull as it does to power it all the way to Mars.
Therefore, it means that a Mars destined lunar takeoff would use much less energy as compared to a direct Earth to Mars flight, which means that it will be possible to launch a larger mass from the Moon at one-sixth the energy requirements of doing the same from the earth.
In reality, because of the law of conservation of energy, the process will still consume the same amount of energy provided all materials are leaving earth for Mars. The opportunity lies in the option of delivering small portions of a larger space vehicle to the Moon for assembly, then taking off from the Moon towards Mars.
This will reduce the technical difficulties of a very huge take off required for a large Mars bound Vehicle directly from earth. This makes it possible to have larger vehicles necessary for a manned flight to travel to Mars.
Energy is the key ingredient that determines how far a craft could cruise from the earth. With successful manned flights to Mars, explorers can scour Mars for potential sources of energy. If found these can form an extraterrestrial power source to provide energy for further colonization of the planet and the larger cosmos.
As a planet, Mars must be teeming with diverse natural resources some of which may provide supplies for space exploration reducing the need for expensive earth takeoffs. After their location because of successful manned flights, there will be the need to construct light industries capable of processing raw materials to forms of useable supply materials such as energy sources. This will reduce the cost of take-off from earth because any craft will need just enough fuel to get to Mars, from where it refills for the return trip.
The colonization of space will remain illusory until man can set foot on Mars, as humankind’s first planetary extraterrestrial colony. Just as man has literally colonized every part of the earth, ranging from the sweltering Sahara to the sub zero Tundra, it will take man to figure out how best to colonize Mars for successful human habitation. While “robotic agents have explored the planets in the solar system” no equipment, no matter how advanced will do it for us (Harra and Mason 1).
The universe remains unexplored. Through the centuries, man peered into the distance through spyglasses and after spying the heavens for thousands of years, he set foot on the Moon. With the Moon conquered, Mars is the next frontier. The lure to find out what lies beyond the horizon is as old as life.
Indeed, Mars now lies just a little beyond humanity’s technological capability, but is essentially the next target for man’s conquest. Barlow reports that, “Mars has been a major spacecraft destination ever since the early days of space exploration” (5). Mars remains the stepping-stone to conquering the cosmos. A manned flight to Mars will bring this dream to reality.
Man in Space
Placing a man in deep space, away from the atmosphere of the earth presents an unnatural situation in every sense of the word. The minimum conditions for life remain necessary. If anyone will stay on the Moon and in space for extended periods under conditions of low gravity, certain health problems arise.
In particular, there is loss of muscle tissue and loss of bone material. There is also risk of development of psychological problems associated with long term isolation such as a trip to Mars would entail. The question of provision of adequate in-flight medical attention remains difficult to answer in extraterrestrial locations.
Secondly, the human body needs oxygen for metabolism. Man can barely survive for more than a few minutes under oxygen deprivation. The Moon and Mars do not have any oxygen, and as such, the earth is the source of the full supply for missions. This requires storage that will last for the entire duration of extraterrestrial missions or a reliable means to produce oxygen on site.
There has never been a need to produce enough oxygen to last the extended periods that a mission to Mars would entail. This means that a reliable means for producing oxygen is a prerequisite for a successful manned mission to Mars and for extended stay at the Moon.
Thirdly, Nutrition is a prerequisite to the survival of human life. The long-term effects of the exclusive use of preserved foods remain unascertained. There is a knowledge gap in the risk of contamination of food supply by extraterrestrial environments because the knowledge of these environments is only introductory. These basic needs outline the basic requirements for a successful manned mission to Mars. The space vehicle must address them, and after arrival on site, there must be a means to provide them.
There some essential desirable elements of a new space vehicle designed to support manned flights to Martian and lunar destinations. They include reusability, multi-docking capabilities, high-level diagnostics, and long-term life support with rescue support capabilities. The NASA space shuttles remain the undisputed symbol of reusability as a desirable element of new space vehicles. It is very expensive to construct space vehicles. If they have reuse capabilities, then the operational costs of space exploration falls significantly.
The element of multi-docking capabilities means that the vehicles should be suited for surface landing on earth, the Moon, and Mars. In addition, they should be able to dock onto space stations in between to allow for servicing of equipment, and personnel movement. This coupled with high-level diagnostics will mean prompt discovery of faults that may threaten the people inside. Finally, they require long-term life support capacity with rescue capabilities.
This feature will avail time for rescue operations on whatever surface the space vehicle is on, even if a craft must leave earth for Mars to rescue stranded astronauts. The safety of the astronauts is the life of interplanetary expeditions. If these four elements feature in future space vehicles, then there will be quick progress in discovery of new frontiers.
Space Project Management
Space exploration is a very expensive affair. The insertion of small unit of equipment into space costs billions of dollars, and requires very large multidisciplinary teams to pull off. Until recently, only governments have had the capacity to run such projects. Over the last decade, the private sector has shown a growing interest in the space industry. It is therefore an issue of interest to examine these two approaches to financing the space expedition.
State governments through agencies such as NASA and intergovernmental agencies such as ESA have the budgetary capacity to meet the cost of research and development, and indeed to successfully run space projects. The development of new space vehicles to enable interplanetary flights stands to benefit from this capacity.
However, governments have too many issues to deal with. Political will, which in turn depends on public support, determines which projects get off the ground and which ones do not. With the economic crunch of the closing years of the last decade, yet to wear off completely, large-scale projects such as space exploration suffer.
Public support for space exploration in the United States has remained high enough to influence political will. However, with growing voices of discontent over the state of the economy and with a much more rights oriented environment, space projects face criticism from many quarters.
They include animal rights activists who feel use of animals for space tests is inhumane, environmental groups that blame the space exploration industry for release of large quantities of greenhouse gases, and others that want to see a stop to all nuclear related experiments-a key to fueling space vehicles. These factors hinder public sector participation.
The private sector on the other hand has a freer hand at what it does. It has much less public scrutiny and has multiple options to deal with poor public perception. They are also devoid of the red tape that slows down government action. This provides the private sector with the ability to quickly develop and implement projects. The private sector therefore, if sufficiently capitalized can propel space exploration much faster than the public sector. Its entry into the space industry is an encouraging phenomenon.
The most serious challenge that the private sector has when it comes to space exploration is the complex business models required to return a profit. Some of the projects have a very long profit cycle requiring vast sums of capital. The risks are very high too. Some aspects of space exploration are almost non-profit.
This does not auger well with stakeholders. The tendency for the private sector will be to drift towards targeted participation in space exploration to avoid the low profit or very risky components. This will limit their capacity to take on whole projects, and if they do, they may compromise on some elements to ensure they have a good return. If those compromises are on safety issues, it will put the very lives of the astronauts in danger.
Additionally, there is the challenge of ownership. What will happen if a privately run exploration project to Mars is successful in discovering a substance of universal value? Determination of the ownership structures of the exploration, which traditionally belongs to the discoverer, will be complicated. Since no one really owns Mars or the Moon, laying stake on anything there can produce conflicts of international proportions.
Works Cited
Angelo, Joseph A. Space Technology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003.
Barlow, Nadine G. Mars: An Introduction into its Interior, Surface and Atmosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Conley, Peter. Space Vehicle Mechanisms: Elements of Successful Design. New York, NY: Wiley-IEEE, 1998.
Harra, L K and Keith O Mason. Space science. London: Imperial College Press, 2004.
Olla, Philip. Space Technology for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth. Livonia, MI: Springer, 2009.
Aerospace engineering is the field of engineering which is concerned with the production of spacecraft and aircraft; it involves using the discoveries of such fields as avionics, aerodynamics, materials science and engineering, and so on, due to the need for the spacecraft and aircraft to withstand exposure to various severe conditions such as those resulting from extreme changes in temperature and atmospheric pressure.
It should be stressed that aerospace engineering is also concerned with the production of artificial satellites. Artificial satellites play a critical role in today’s world; they are used for such purposes as research, observation, navigation, communication, weather forecasting, and so on. It is also noteworthy that nowadays, small satellites are often utilized for a wide array of purposes, due to their reduced cost and the relative ease of transporting them to the orbit in comparison to the large satellites.
One of the examples of small satellites is a CubeSat. A CubeSat is a small satellite made of one or several units sized 10x10x10 centimeters and weighing no more than 1.33 kilograms [1]. Their development began in 1999 when several professors from Stanford University and California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo decided to design and create small satellites that would allow universities to better engage in cosmic science and exploration [1].
CubeSats, therefore, were often used for educational purposes. For instance, 7 CubeSats made by university students were launched into the orbit on the European Space Agency’s Vega Maiden Flight in the year of 2012 [2]. Another example of a large educational project involving CubeSats is called “Fly Your Satellite!” (FYS) [2].Students participating in this project receive a unique chance to create and launch their own satellite.
FYS is an ongoing project which comprises four main stages: the creation of a satellite, it is testing (including tests that involve exposure of a CubeSat to vibration, vacuum, and the temperature characteristic of the altitude in which they will be orbiting the Earth), preparation for the process of launch, and the execution of the planned operations once the satellite has been transported to its intended destination on the Earth’s orbit [2].CubeSats, therefore, have been pivotal as satellites used for educational purposes.
However, while creating satellites, it is also of great importance to take into account the issues of risk assessment and risk management. This paper is mainly concerned with the problem of risk assessment. A general overview of risk assessment is provided, and its roles in space projects on the whole and small satellite projects, in particular, are discussed.
A General Overview of Risk Assessment and Its Importance for Any Project
Risk assessment is one of the most critical parts of project planning, management, and implementation. The notion “risk” can be understood as the amount of “variability in the outcome or result of a particular action” [3, p. 82]. Furthermore, the term “risk assessment” can be defined as “a process that commences with hazard identification and analysis, through which the probable severity of harm or damage is established, followed by an estimate of the probability of the incident or exposure occurring, and concluding with a statement of risk” [4, p. 2]. Finally, risk management is a process aimed at avoiding or preventing undesirable happenings such as technical failures [3, p. 82].
Risk assessment can be of paramount importance in a wide array of projects, especially the ones the implementation of which might be associated with dangers to the individuals who take part in that project, the people who are not involved in it, or the property that can become damaged as a result [5]. The procedures of risk assessment permit the identification of the sources of the potential harm, which are called hazards, for the evaluation of the possible losses resulting from such harm, and the chances of such losses.
The damage that will be caused if the adverse situation occurs is adjusted by the estimated chance that this situation takes place, and is weighed against the cost of implementing risk management procedures, which allows for making a decision about whether it is worth carrying out these procedures [4].
Popov et al. provide a short generalized plan of the process of risk estimation and hazard analysis as it appears in a variety of standards; this plan is comprised of the following elements [4, p. 5]:
Choosing a matrix for risk assessment;
Determining the parameters for carrying out the analysis;
Identifying the hazards related to the situation which is being analyzed;
Considering the failure modes;
Estimating how serious and how costly the outcomes will be if the adverse situation takes place;
Calculating the likelihood of this situation occurring;
Determining the initial risk related to the given situation;
Choosing a hazard avoidance procedure or plan, or the ways to eliminate, decrease, or control the hazard;
Estimating the involved residual risks;
Making a decision pertaining to the degree of acceptability of the given risk;
Documenting the obtained results;
Providing follow-up related to the measures which were implemented [4].
Taking these steps permits for effectively estimating the risks related to a particular project or situation, for deciding whether or not measures should be taken to address these risks, and, if the answer is positive, for choosing which measures exactly should be employed [4].
It should also be pointed out that the procedure of risk assessment is usually followed by measures aimed at managing the identified risks [5]. There are two main ways to manage the risks which were identified as important ones: to lower the likelihood of the occurrence of the adverse event during the project implementation or to reduce the possible adverse impact of that event on the project [4]. Depending on the severity of the possible adverse consequences of the risk, one or both these ways may be utilized in order to address the risk that has been identified for a project [6].
There exist a number of reasons which make the processes of risk assessment and risk management ones of crucial importance [6]. The most obvious of these reasons is that it helps to prevent large disasters from taking place during the project, possibly saving the lives of individuals who would have been affected, as well as the property which would have been damaged.
Next, it allows for preventing large expenses that might be needed in order to mitigate the adverse consequences of a disaster or other negative circumstances should they occur during the process of the project implementation; therefore, it permits for increasing the overall revenues of the project as well. It also considerably increases the chances of successfully finishing the project, therefore reducing the probability of failure, and provides those who implement it with a competitive advantage over their rivals. In addition, it may aid in discovering additional opportunities related to the project which would have gone unnoticed otherwise [5].
Finally, it enhances the feeling of accountability and responsibility and delivers considerable psychological benefits such as mental satisfaction and an increased feeling of safety, which also provide confidence and help all those who take part in the project to successfully complete it [6]. It should also be noted that without risk management, it is difficult for an organization to properly define its objectives for the future due to the fact that if these risks become a real situation, the company is likely to suffer a great setback and might not be able to recover [4].
Risk Assessment in Space Projects
Risk assessment is a necessary condition of any risk management procedures, and it is stressed that “effective risk management is critical to program and project success and affordability” [7, p. xv]. It is stated that there exist two main dimensions of risk related to space projects, namely, the probability of the undesired outcome, and the degree of its severity [3, p. 82]. It is also pointed out that the decisions pertaining to the risks involved in these projects are managerial decisions due to the fact that risk can only be accepted or not accepted (so that measures are taken to minimize or avoid it, or the project is adjusted/canceled).
However, to make such a decision, it is of utmost importance to gather as much information about risk as possible, so that the decision is well-informed and results in outcomes which are maximally appropriate [3].
A serious challenge related to the projects involving space missions is that these projects are associated with a considerable degree of risk due to the fact that satellites are, in most cases, few in numbers and high in cost, and there is practically no way to test them “in the field” prior to launching them to space; so, all the hypotheses about their functioning are first verified only when they are already in space, and at this point, there is almost no opportunity to implement changes in the software utilized by the satellite, and no chance at all to carry out any changes in the hardware or the technical parts of the apparatus [3].
In order to address this challenge, thorough scrutiny of possible risks related to each of these projects is strongly required at all the phases of mission designing, including the earliest ones [3]. Carrying out such scrutiny might permit for making an informed decision about the given project, whether this decision is an approval of a given project or its cancellation [3].
The techniques of risk assessment in space projects usually involve several main aspects: the identification of possible risks related to the given project, the assessment of the severity of the aftermath of the identified dangerous events, as well as the estimation of the probability of these events taking place [3].
Scholars speak of three main levels of severity of the event’s aftermath: high (if the adverse event would make it impossible to achieve the goals of the project in question), medium (if the hazardous event would significantly lower the observed level of achievement in comparison to the expected one, thus resulting in the need to spend considerable amounts of time (e.g., months) and finance in order to mitigate the situation and achieve the performance the commitment to which had been made), or low (if the event would impact the expected distribution of labor, cost, or other resources, would require several weeks to restore the situation to an acceptable state, and might need the project resources to be redeployed) [3, p. 83].
Similarly, the probability that the adverse event will take place can also be divided into three levels: high (the situation is highly likely to happen, and preventive measures are unavailable or cannot be properly utilized so as to avert the aftermath of the event), medium (the situation is rather probable to take place, and/or the existing preventive measures are not considered reliable enough so as to avert the negative effects of the event’s occurrence, so additional actions are needed), and low (the situation still can happen, but it is unlikely, and/or the existing controls are estimated as sufficient to appropriately prevent the event or its negative results from taking place) [3].
Based on assessments of the severity of the event’s adverse consequences and of the probability of the latter, a decision is made about the cancellation of the project, its modification, or alternative ways to deal with the risk [4].
It should also be emphasized that in accordance with the standards of NASA, risk analysis is an integral part of risk-informed decision making, and is carried out with taking into account such dimensions of a project as its safety, schedule, and its technical and financial aspects [7, p. 8]. Risk analysts discuss the risks involved in a given project, taking into account the objectives as set by various stakeholders of that project (including internal and external stakeholders) and comparing the given project to performance models as supplied by subject matter experts. The decision of risk analysts is taken into account in the process of deliberation carried out for the given project [7, p. 8].
Risk Assessment in Small Satellite Projects
When it comes to projects related to launching small satellites, risk assessment and management procedures play a critical role in increasing the chance of their success. This is due to the fact that satellites are highly sensitive pieces of technology that can easily be damaged, and once a satellite is in orbit, it is impossible to conduct any repairs, so in case of any emergency, the whole project might immediately become failed [8]. It is also important that the risks related to the transportation, assembly, etc. of satellites need to be assessed and addressed as well, for if the satellites are damaged during these processes, and the damage goes unnoticed, they might be launched and suffer from a failure shortly after that [8].
It is stated that the risks involved in satellite projects can typically be characterized as follows:
only a small number of risks exist;
there is a considerable technological diversity;
insured values vary greatly, and total losses are often a threat;
total losses may accumulate when a number of satellites are launched simultaneously;
there exists a risk of serial losses resulting from faults in a line of satellites [8].
It is also noteworthy, however, that because a variety of types of satellites are launched, the risks related to them often may be rather heterogeneous [8].
With regards to the projects using small satellites, it is emphasized that rather often, the procedures of risk analysis and management are not carried out; on the contrary, the plans of risk management are usually created and implemented for larger and more expensive satellites [9].
It is also stressed that to be created, the risk management plans in organizations involved in satellite projects in most cases require the work of several highly experienced members of risk management staff, as well as a considerable amount of time for carrying out the analysis [9]. When these facts are taken into consideration, it might be possible to state that a current problem related to the use of small satellites is the need for the creation of systems of risk analysis and management that would allow for cheaper and more effective risk assessment for projects involving these satellites.
While addressing the problem of the dearth of risk assessment and management procedures of small satellites, it is paramount to take into account several challenges that are often faced when launching such satellites. It is pointed out that while small satellites are usually cost-effective, there exist a number of specific problems that are related to their use [10].
For instance, the desire to make them cost-effective sometimes results in designs of satellites with low reliability; such satellites, however, are usually formation-controlled, and, therefore, the low reliability of every single satellite is compensated by the overall reliability of the whole system, which often uses the so-called “constellation design” [10, p. 43]; it is clear that in this case, the procedure of risk assessment is of crucial importance if a good decision related to the choice of design and the quality of a single satellite is to be made and a project is to be successful.
Another challenge is related to several types of satellites working at the altitude of 600-800 kilometers, namely, to the debris mitigation; this is due to the relatively high density of various objects that are considered debris at that altitude, as well as to the relatively long periods of time that satellites or their parts survive after the mission is finished; i.e., these satellites or parts do not naturally de-orbit during the currently recommended period of 25 years after their mission ends [10, p. 43].
This means that when creating new satellites that are to orbit at this altitude, it is of increasingly great importance to pay attention to the issue of prevention of collision of these satellites with the debris that is present there; the risks of collision need to be calculated carefully (which, clearly, requires a large number of calculations and very qualified personnel), therefore resulting in the need for highly professional risk assessment and management to decide e.g. whether on-board propulsion systems are needed so as to enable these satellites to conduct collision avoidance maneuvers [10].
It has already been noted that scholars speak of a lack of practices aimed at careful scrutiny of risks related to the small satellites [9]. This may be in part due to the fact that there exists a relatively small number of techniques and tools which could easily be utilized for the purpose of such scrutiny. It should be noted, for instance, that universities very often use rather simple techniques for assessing the risks involved in satellite projects; these include such methods as top risk list (identifying the greatest risks and addressing them), team review, intense guidance, etc. [11].
On the other hand, in projects created by aerospace corporations, as well as in projects run together by such companies and universities, several methods for risk assessment and management are usually used; however, it is emphasized that these methods often may be suboptimal [12].
In order to help solve this problem, several tools and methods have been offered. For instance, Gamble and Lightsey proposed an instrument which they labeled a CubeSat Decision Advisor; it employs certain elements of decision theory, multi-attribute utility theory, as well as utility elicitation techniques for the purpose of identifying the possible benefits of offered mitigation methods aimed at addressing the risk of a mission involving a small satellite [9]. It appears clear, however, that further development of methods and tools for efficacious risk assessment and management related to projects involving small satellites may be required if the risks involved in these projects are to be addressed at an optimal level.
Conclusion
On the whole, it should be stressed that risk assessment is a part of the process of risk management, which is of vital importance for most projects if these projects are to be affordable, successfully implemented, and if the possible high-risk hazards are to be neutralized, and profoundly adverse outcomes are to be averted. However, risk assessment requires professional, temporal, and other resources so as to be carried out at a high level. In small satellite projects, the procedures of risk assessment that often take place are suboptimal. In order to more efficaciously identify and address the hazards faced by these projects due to a variety of reasons, it is paramount to further develop the methods of risk assessment and management specifically designed for such projects.
H. Dezfuli et al. (2011). NASA risk management handbook. Web.
Munich Re. (n.d.). Risk assessment improves the entire project’s chance of success. Web.
K. B. Gamble and E. G. Lightsey, “Decision analysis tool for small satellite risk management,” J Spacecr Rockets, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 420-432. 2016.
R. Sandau. International Study on Cost-Effective Earth Observation Missions. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.
E. Deems, “Risk management of student-run small satellite programs,” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, MA, 2007.
S. Nag et al., “Cost and risk analysis of small satellite constellations for Earth observation,” IEEE Aerosp Conf Proc, pp. 1-16. 2014.
Ronal Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, was the speaker of the speech. That speech was given from the Oval Office at the White House. The President spoke at 5 p.m. on January 28, 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger broke after 73 seconds of the flight. The speech was given to address the American grief about the disaster that happened to the Space Shuttle Challenger and support the families and the nation. The position of the speaker (the US President) and the responsibility of the government to explore space even at the cost of human life made Reagan qualified to give this speech.
Delivery
In the speech, Reagan emphasized such words as “our,” “loss,” “mourn,” “Challenger,” and “today.” A slow rate of speaking was used to appreciate the level of grief but changed to medium speed when the goals of space programs were explained. Reagan spoke softly to demonstrate his understanding of the situation. A positive but mourning tone was applied because it was important to support and motivate the nation. The speaker properly used non-verbal gestures like constant eye contact with the viewer, correct facial expressions of sadness, and pauses.
Overall Impression
Reagan used logos to underline the importance of astronauts’ work in space exploration, ethos to show his presidential authority and the necessity to continue space journeys, and pathos to share his sadness about the accident. The logos’ example, “But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly,” explains the event’s clear reason (“Challenger Explosion and President Reagan’s Address to the Nation” 00:03:35-00:03:41). Pathos “we share this pain with all of the people of our country” shows the mourning appeal to the audience (“Challenger Explosion and President Reagan’s Address to the Nation” 00:03:11-00:03:14). Apart from the conditions under which it was delivered, Reagan’s speech was successful because of its emotional appeal and intention to support and motivate Americans for dedication and new achievements.
The term ‘spaceflight’ refers to the use of space technology to facilitate the flight of spacecraft into and through outer space. When spaceflight carries human passengers, generally non-technical individuasl related to space science, it is termed human spaceflight. “This distinguishes it from robotic space probes or remotely-controlled satellites” (Belfiore 86).
Human spaceflight is often called “manned spaceflight” although the usage of the term is disapproved by major space agencies. “Presently, NASA and ESA use the term “human spaceflight” to refer to their programs of launching humans into space. The only three countries to possess independent human spaceflight capability are the Soviet Union/Russia, United States and China” (Connors 183-212).
Privatization of Human Spaceflight
“On February 1st, 2010, US President Barack Obama proposed that NASA be exempted from the business of launching astronauts into space” (Lane 3-6). This proposal was based on the findings of the 2009 Augustine Commission, a group entrusted with the job of reviewing human spaceflight plans of the US (Lane 3-6).
The Commission studied the 9-year-old Constellation Program, the human spaceflight program within NASA and found it to be totally inadequate to render possible the realization of any goals of human space exploration. Consequently, the President proposed the termination of the Constellation Program thus paving the way for privatization of the human spaceflight (Harris 207-227).
Concept of Privatization of Human Spaceflight
Privatization, in this context, signifies a considerable departure from the way NASA has handled the programs of launching astronauts into space. It signifies the development of newer opportunities for increased involvement of private industries in human spaceflight (Solomon 88). “Moreover, it establishes the accountability of private industries for human spaceflight and enables future commercialization opportunities” (Lamb 211).
General Reaction to the Privatization of Human Spaceflight
The president’s vision of privatizing American space exploration has sparked off a serious controversy in the US space community. Many have raised concerns that this would put the United States on a slower track towards humans exploring the solar system (Bizony 114). According to many experts, the president’s plan fails to comply with the standards of sound space policy as it is based on ill-defined objectives and unsubstantiated assumptions (Zimmerman 1). For example, it has not been clearly explained where the space program’s shifted focus will lead the US and how is it going to affect its realization of pre-established goals in the field of space exploration (Eckberg 1129-1138).
To many, the fact that the administration is unable to explain the assumptions on the basis of which the proposed commercial crew delivery strategy is formulated appears even more disturbing. “Another major argument against privatization of human spaceflight is the lack of existing systems to provide commercial services” (Smith 543-559). Most of the critics, however, consider the looming US budget crisis as the major factor that has triggered the formation of Obama’s new space plan (Smith 543-559).
Summary
“The space program motivates us to reach the stars both in our dreams and reality. It is the driving force behind innovations and provider of creative solutions to technological challenges” (Lamb 286). It goes without saying that the privatization of human spaceflight can prove to be extremely beneficial to the Government. However, the gradual erosion of NASA skills and technology is a major threat to the process. Effective implementation of privatization can thus be achieved through the necessary merger of NASA skills and experience within the private company (Lamb 286).
Works Cited
Belfiore, Michael. Rocketeers: How a Visionary Band of Business Leaders, Engineers, and Pilots is Boldly Privatizing Space. NY: Harper Paperbacks, 2008.
Bizony, Piers. How to Build Your Own Spaceship: The Science of Personal Space Travel. Boston: Plume, 2009.
Connors, Mary M. Crew systems: Integrating human and technical subsystems for the exploration of space. Behavioral Science, 39.3, (2009): 183-212.
Eckberg, Dwain L. Human mechanisms in space. The Journal of Physiology, 588.7, (2010): 1129-1138.
Harris, Philip R. Behavioral science space contributions. Behavioral Science, 38.3, (2008): 207-227.
Lane, Helen W. Nutrition in Space: Evidence from the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Nutrition Reviews, 50.1, (2010): 3-6.
Smith, Denis. On a wing and a prayer? Exploring the human components of technological failure. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17.4, (2010): 543-559.
Solomon, Lewis D. The privatization of space exploration: business, technology, law and policy. NY: Transaction Publishers, 2008.
Zimmerman, Allen. “Changing Trajectory: French Firms Vaults Ahead in Civilian Rocket Market”. The Wall Street Journal (Dow Jones & Company, Inc.): A1. 2007.
Ever since the early 1960s when the first manned space mission was successfully accomplished, space exploration has become easier nowadays. Even though much has been achieved in space exploration since then, humans’ desire for further outer space experimentation has never ceased. Currently, a visit on Mars is the central focus of modern space exploration, and this would come after a couple of successful space explorations that would see man step on the moon a few decades ago. So far, several countries such as Russia, the US, and the European Union have successfully managed to send people to Mars (Burke, 2013).
Despite the scientific and technological achievements associated with space exploration, this experience has brought a lot of national pride and fame for the three nations. India is likely to be the next country to join in this glory, following the launch of their first spacecraft to Mars on November 13, 2013. Even though the success of this exploration will earn India a lot of fame, the mission can never be justified, considering the diverse issues surrounding the country’s population that should have come first.
Space exploration has become a key area of concern for modern scientists and this is evident from the many attempts being undertaken in the world today to explore every bit of the outer space. The history of space exploration dates backs over 70 years when several experimental rocket launches were conducted time after time by the Soviet Union (Siddiqi, 2003). This came as a result of man’s big desire to travel to space and get to explore the outer space environment. This riddle, however, appeared to get an answer when the Soviet Union successfully managed to send two satellites into space in 1957.
This achievement resulted into the space race and this would, in turn help to facilitate the revolution in space exploration. With the rampant advancement in modern technology, space exploration is becoming easier and safer nowadays. This explains the reason why it is possible for any country to assume that it can easily embark on outer space explorations. However, such space explorations are usually costly and are only fit for developed nations, but not for a country like India which is struggling to feed its population.
India is a country with a long history of poverty. According to recent reports, even though poverty levels in the country have significantly declined over the years, there are still hundreds of millions of Indians who are languishing in adept poverty today. These high levels of poverty have continued to impose an oppressive weight on the citizens, especially in the rural India where over 70 percent of the country’s poor live. India is said to have the highest concentration of poor people living below the poverty line in the world (Gupta, 2008). This however, has been a major barrier to economic opportunities in the country.
This clearly explains why India has lagged behind other Asian countries in matters involving economic development. Even though India has tried to apply some effective interventions that have helped to improve its ailing economy, there is still an opportunity for the country to reexamine its approach to deal with poverty. In this regard, I believe it would have made much sense if the $72 million allocated for the space program was used to improve the living standards of the Indians, rather than being used for a pride-seeking experiment that will never help the citizens in any way.
Apart from the issues of poverty and hunger in India where over 40 percent of children are said to be malnourished, the country is also associated with a failing infrastructure in almost all sectors. Some key buildings in major urban centres are dilapidated and most roads are in bad shape, thus making it difficulty for people to drive on them. It is also very clear that half of the country’s population lack toilets, among other significant facilities such as proper shelter and health care services.
Moreover, India is a place where people are used to ruining public property, especially when they are demonstrating. In fact, this has over the time contributed to poor management of solid waste and sewerage in most parts of the country. As a result of this, dirty places that are characterized by garbage on the roads and uncovered drains have become more common in most parts of India. As a matter of fact, one can never stop wondering how a country with so many basic needs can afford to undertake such a costly space program.
As Kingdon (2007) observes, recent demographic statistics have shown about 40 percent of the Indian population to be illiterate and unemployed. Obviously, high population growth rates such as the ones witnessed in India usually come with a lot of effects on people. For instance, there would be a high competition for available facilities and resources. In this regard, only a little percentage of the population is likely to have full access of the resources. This scenario can be used to explain the case of India where the number of learning facilities is far less than the level needed to adequately cater for the educational needs of every child in the country. Based on these observations, there is no doubt that there is need for more schools in India to ensure that more children can access education. In that case, the money intended for the Mars space program would have had a better use in such facilities that are likely to bring positive impacts on the country’s future economic development.
Based on the observations made on this paper, India’s space program cannot be anything else but a space race between the country and its rivals from Asia, particularly China. There can never be any doubt about this conclusion, considering the fact that India is focused on showcasing its technology more than it is concerned about the welfare of its population. It is unimaginable that the Indian government can even think of investing in a space program that would cost the taxpayers over $70m while the same taxpayers are suffering due to lack of common basic needs (Lele, 2013).
Even though the space mission can be a big milestone in India’s space exploration affairs, it could have waited until India reaches the status of a fully-developed economy like China, which is their main regional rival in such plans. In my opinion, I strongly believe that India would have achieved much national pride if it focused more on things that mattered for its citizens rather than going for costly programs such as the Mars mission that would only succeed in slowing down the country’s economic progress.
The Outer Space consists of empty regions of the universe outside the atmospheres of celestial bodies. The heavenly bodies are objects arising naturally, and they include planets such as Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, as well as the stars. In addition, other constituents of outer space are gases like hydrogen and helium. There are also electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, cosmic rays, and unidentified celestial bodies.
As the name implies, the outer space exists in a void area where there is no atmosphere of the Earth. Nevertheless, it still acts as an environment because it has particular characteristics that may affect a creature or matter that is placed within it. For example, there are radiations and objects passing through the outer space. As a result, any unprotected matter or creature will be destroyed by the radiation after a short while if it happens to be in outer space. The void characteristics of the area come from the fact that it is a vacuum. There may be trace amounts of gas and molecules; however, such existence of gas and particles does not have a significant influence on the overall character of the space.
Another major aspect of the outer space environment is its temperature. Given that there is no significant body mass existing in the environment, heat is quickly dissipated as it arrives from the sun. The different celestial bodies create obstacles to the sun rays that would hit different parts of the outer space. The temperature in the outer space is -454.8 degrees Fahrenheit (-270 degrees Celsius). The outer space is located approximately 62 miles from the sea level when the Earth is taken as the reference point. The temperature varies with the time of the earth day on the outer space area immediately around the Earth. The temperatures on the night side drop to almost negative one-hundred degrees Celsius when the Earth is blocking the sun rays. Temperatures can rise to millions of degrees Celsius in some parts of the outer space where there are hot gases between stars. When there are no celestial bodies in the outer space, the idea temperature remains as -270°C.
The main reason for the low temperature is that any gas existing in the environment has expanded and become too thin to hold any heat. Therefore, it cannot warm up anything. In a typical earth environment, gas molecules are always bumping into each other, and they cause heat when they collide. However, in the outer space, the collision is negligible as particles are widely spaced. It is only in the regions of the outer space near celestial bodies on other objects that the temperatures are higher. This happens because the gravitational pull of the objects causes gas to be denser and more capable of holding heat from the sun and the consistent internal collision of particles.
The celestial bodies in space pull the gas and the molecules with their gravitational pull on a constant basis, and they hold them within their atmospheres. This situation leaves the outer space with nothing. In fact, anything that remains in the outer space is so low in density that it can be considered as not existing in any way.
Sometimes a comparison of outer space and the environment within the Earth’s atmosphere is important as a way of understanding what constitutes outer space and its environment. There is the pressure of approximately 101 kPascals exerted on any object at the Earth’s sea level. The pressure comes from all sides. Therefore, any part of an object that is weak enough to succumb to this pressure will do so. For example, a weak plastic bottle that has no air in it will fold inwards as the atmospheric pressure of the Earth pushes the walls of the container inside, such that it collapses within itself. However, the same bottle in the outer space produces different results. An empty bottle will not burst or shrink when exposed to pressure in the outer space. It will retain its shape if it has a vacuum inside, and it is tightly closed.
The same is also true if the bottle is not a vacuum inside. However, when there is gas or liquid, the constituents will expand and may cause the bottle to expand too. The pressure of the liquid or gas inside the bottle will be higher than the zero pressure in the outer space environment. In the same way, a person in outer space without any protective clothing will experience a sudden rush of air and body fluids out of their body. The fluids and air will be from a high-pressure point towards the space around the person, which has zero pressure.
Bodies that have gravitational pull draw objects towards themselves as they move around the space. At the same time, objects existing in the space, which include meteoroids, sometimes collide and break into many pieces. In essence, the meteoroids are debris that falls from comets and asteroids that move across space in different directions. The debris passes the outer space in no particular direction, and every collision creates a diversion in the direction. Some of the debris in the outer space comes from the Earth and lies just next to the Earth’s atmosphere. It comes from previous space missions by astronauts on Earth. Most of the debris of the outer space will travel at thousands of kilometers per hour. As a result, debris can be very dangerous. If they are tiny, they can be able to penetrate human skin and thin covers, such as metal sheets. In fact, fragments are a primary cause of damage to satellites launched from the Earth and exist in the space around the Earth.
Regarding the above considerations, the outer space will behave much like a vacuum, but it is not completely a vacuum. The small bodies and big bodies also exert different gravitational pulls that cause micro gravities and different areas within the environment. Scientists will continue to discover additional characteristics of outer space due to the advancements in technology. For example, the persistent radiation that exists in the environment may influence the structure of the rubbles left by comets and asteroids in the space. Currently, all efforts that include sending missions and people to space to understand the space happen under a joint law that arose as part of the outer space treaty signed in 1967.
There is no knowledge of any other space missions by any civilization that may exist outside the Earth. Moreover, the current research is on the characteristics of the out space, with significant inquiries being made in its environment, capacity, age, as well as any parameter that is yet to be discovered.
In all the diversity of the modern world, it is difficult to find something more unknown and fascinating than outer space. The solar system has naturally evolved over billions of years, resulting in a remarkably harmonious and seamless space system. Indeed, with the development of technology, interplanetary research, ground samples, and object atmospheres had become available to humankind, but even though astronomical science had advanced enormously over the past century, people still knew little about other planets. Naturally, the study of celestial bodies has practical value: it is conducted to explain the evolution of both the individual solar system and the galaxy. The increased interest in research could be justified not only by the scientific value of discoveries but also by the real possibility for humanity to have a backup in case of human-made or natural disasters on Earth. Already in 2020, there were several initiatives focusing on the problem of colonization.
From this point of view, Venus, the second celestial body of the solar system, which has several advantages for overpopulation, may be of great interest for observation. In the first place, Venus is quite close to Earth. Second, the planet’s size and mass are not very different from what is characteristic of our planet. However, perhaps only the size and mass of the planet unite Earth with Venus — because of its proximity to the Sun, an astronomical object has a burned-out atmosphere, almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide. This fact predetermines the human interest in special preparation for colonization of Venus: to explore and settle the first people, and it is necessary to create conditions for astronauts’ comfortable lives. In order to solve these goals, already today, there are promising national and private projects, in which many funds are invested for industry development. In other words, under certain conditions, Venus can be a good option for theoretical study and colonization. This essay is aimed at discussing Venus from the point of view of the object for research and space missions.
About Venus
The brightest object in the sky, after the Sun and the Moon, is Venus. It is almost a twin planet to Earth, with similar size and gravitational characteristics. In particular, the planet has 95% of the Earth’s radius and 82% of its mass (Choi, 2020). At the same time, it must be recognized that Venus is very different from Earth in several other attributes such as chemical composition, temperature, and density. While the deep structure of our planet is being studied with the help of seismic wave fixers, Venus’ surface is extremely hot to have a functioning apparatus for analysis.
In general, Venus’s internal structure is similar to other planets of the Solar system: it consists of crust, mantle, and nucleus. The diameter of the nucleus, containing much iron and its compounds, exceeds 3800 kilometers. Similarly, the mantle’s solid structure has a thickness of about 2800 km, and the thickness of the crust is up to 20 km. It is surprising that for such core, the magnetic field of a planet is almost entirely absent (Beatty, 2017). Most likely, it is a result of the slow rotation of a celestial body around its axis. At the same time, in comparison with the Moon, Mars, or Mercury, on the surface of Venus, practically there are no craters formed by falling of small meteorites. Such an effect can be explained if to take into account the rather high density of Venus’s gas atmosphere: celestial bodies do not reach the planet’s surface, burning in layers of the atmosphere. Besides, the conducted researches allow us to assert that the surface of Venus is characterized by two parallel geological processes — tectonic deformations and volcanic activity (Ivanov & Head, 2018). Tectonic plates move along the molten mantle, which causes the formation of many volcanoes, mountains, and faults.
Venus had a chance of becoming a habitable planet. Mathewson (2016) estimates that the original Venus had a more favorable atmosphere and temperature than it does now. The modern chemistry of the layers of the atmosphere is almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide with sulfuric acid clouds. It is essential to understand that such gas structures prevent the free penetration of light rays, so the physical observation of Venus from Earth is very limited. On the other hand, being close to the Sun creates a unique situation on Venus — a thick atmosphere prevents gases from escaping outside, creating a severe greenhouse effect. Taking into account the historical geochemical evolution of the Earth, the study of Venus plays a decisive role. Thus, for the development of science and understanding of natural mechanisms of planetary formation, the study of Venus is significant because it will expand knowledge about the Earth’s past. Finally, as was the case with all space research, there was always hope for specialists to discover extraterrestrial life forms.
Mission to Study Venus
Contrary to all existing obstacles, modern technologies allow us to achieve outstanding results in the study of Venus. According to the list given by Williams (2020), since the beginning of space flights, more than 47 missions to study the second planet have been conducted. The accumulated empirical data were enough to develop a more optimal model for studying the planet’s surface. In particular, it is proposed to launch an uncrewed robotic vehicle from the Earth’s spaceport to collect and send data to the data processing center.
Figure 1. Duration of some missions to Venus
As shown in Figure 1, the flight from the Earth to Venus reaches 153 days on the average, that is why if the launch is calculated for January 2026, the spacecraft entering the atmosphere should be expected not earlier than summer 2026. It is assumed that the spacecraft will smoothly transmit video data to Earth as it enters thick layers. Given that the average minimum distance between the two objects is about 40,000,000 kilometers, at a radio signal speed of 300,000 kilometers per second, the video data will be transmitted after 2 minutes:
The device smoothly reduces speed so as not to reach a critical point in Venus’ hot atmosphere. On landing on the surface, it has a few hours before the hot climate destroys electronics: during this time, the machine collects as much data as possible to send it to the planet. Admittedly, this is a more advanced mission than the last Venus Express — the satellite was in near-planetary orbit and had been broadcasting radio signals for almost ten years. The current offer is unique in that it is planned to launch modules on the surface of Venus and keep them active for a long time.
Based on collected material space, engineers make a decision about designing and constructing mini space probes, monitoring atmospheric and temperature changes on Venus surface: for future missions on colonization, it is necessary to know about natural regularities of the planet. Such probes should be assembled from materials resistant to high temperatures and acid rain of Venus. Their departure can be scheduled for autumn 2026, so the arrival of a group of devices should be expected in early 2027.
Mission Specifications
The general technical scheme for the proposed apparatus includes electronics isolated in a container, connected to an incredibly powerful air conditioning system, and probably powered by a radioactive engine with plutonium as fuel. Such technologies are seen as a working model for the promising Russian project, Venera-D. It is an interplanetary descent probe, whose scientific tasks are complex research of the atmosphere and soil composition, search for volcanic activity and study of atmospheric dissipation under the influence of solar wind. Venera-D, weighing 12 tons, should consist of a launching vehicle, an orbital module, a landing station, and an atmospheric probe, and the possibility of including additional sub-satellites is being considered. The modules have an estimated active lifetime of several hours, but small satellites may remain operational for months or even years due to the absence of some electronic elements or chemical composition — that is to say silicon carbide. For the proposed mission, Venera-D could be an excellent solution for delivering materials to the planet’s surface. However, the module itself does not have enough functionality, so in order to expand its capabilities, it is advisable to consider adding different devices and tools aboard Venera-D.
The instrumental part of the modules should include functional units that will allow for precise exploration of the unique landscape systems of Venus. Above all, these are cameras that provide a clear color image of the areas being observed. They can be MASTCAM cameras modified with MAHLI lenses. In addition, crewless vehicles can be used to transport rocks across the planet’s surface to observe their movement over time. Temperature tests of the planet can be carried out using VISAGE or VICI models — for this purpose, it will be necessary to equip space probes with laser guns and particle analyzers (Esposito et al., 2017). It is fair to admit that these technologies have not yet been finalized and require improvement. Chemical soil analysis is performed on-site, so unmanned space probes must be equipped with spectroscopic functionality such as APXS. Thus, according to Limaye et al. (2018), observations should be made in the near-infrared zone (1.7-2.4 µm), but it should be borne in mind that due to the geothermal characteristics of the planet, surface materials emit background radiation, which prevents the recording of the pure spectrum of data.
The drone is launched by delivering the module using a launch vehicle to outer space. The engines of the detachable modules are then switched on and delivered to Venus. It should be noted that the engine used in the proposed spacecraft is no different from that used in space flight practice, which is chemical fuel. In order to reduce the consumption of consumable fuel on the planet’s surface, the probes and modules are proposed to be equipped with solar panels to generate electricity. However, the difficulty of sunlight penetrating Venus must be borne in mind, so each vehicle is additionally equipped with nuclear fuel such as Plutonium (Lakdawalla, 2018). This practice is quite common among Mars and Lunar rovers.
Mission Lengths
There is a retrospective approach to determining the optimal time for active drone operation. Past successful module landing missions on the surface of Venus include “Venera-3,14” and “Vega-1,2,” where the spacecraft spent on the planet did not exceed several hours. From this point of view, the proposed mechanism must be temperature-resistant enough to last longer. At the same time, expert engineers should achieve maximum operating time with minimum losses. It is assumed that the first flight machine will fail in a few weeks, after which new modules will be launched based on the collected data. Consequently, if the program launches in 2026, it is expected that by 2029 all necessary data will be received. If technical equipment allows, robots will continue to study Venus’ surface, while data centers will start to study the material. By 2031, the project could be completed with the publication of findings and results.
Costs
Earlier it was noted that the cost of the Venus research program is about 1 billion US dollars. It should be admitted that the program is partly identical to Venera-D, where the implementation cost is $800-1000 million (Levchenko, 2019). Certainly, this is quite large, especially compared to the cost of past missions. For illustration, according to Howell (n.d.), Venus Express was worth about $110 million. At the same time, NASA continues to develop its promising projects and organizes a space flight to Venus for less than $500 million (Brown, 2020). In this case, the question arises about the feasibility of such grandiose funding for the proposed project. The answer is that the program is long-term and has a period of implementation from 2026 to 2031. During these five years, it will be necessary to regularly monitor expensive machines, analyze the data collected, and pay salaries to employees. Finally, it is a reasonably promising project, so it must have an excellent investment to demonstrate the expected results.
However, it is appropriate to talk about reasonable reductions in mission costs if this is acceptable. For example, in six years, technological progress could develop to the point where, for example, rocket fuel would become cheaper. In fact, already today, some private companies claim that the cost of fuel for interplanetary flights does not exceed $1 million (Wall, 2019). However, it is worth considering the option that improving technology will require more investment so that the total amount may increase.
Conclusion
To sum up, it should be noted that the proposed program will be a decisive measure in the development of the planets of the Earth group. Venus is the fundamental object of the system, the study of which will make it possible to understand the mechanisms of planets formation, geochemical, and biological evolution. The mission to land unmanned modules on the surface of Venus to collect data on atmospheric and surface dynamics was discussed as part of the document. The data are sent to Centers, where they are analyzed and used for the following missions. In parallel, several machines with heat-resistant electronics are used to collect data from different areas of Venus. Ultimately, this approach will help to answer the question of whether the colonization of the planet is possible.
Esposito, L. W., Atkinson, D. H., & Baines, K. H. (Eds.) (2017). Proceedings of the European planetary science congress 2017. Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Limaye, S. S., Mogul, R., Smith, D. J., Ansari, A. H., Słowik, G. P., & Vaishampayan, P. (2018). Venus’ spectral signatures and the potential for life in the clouds. Astrobiology, 18(9), 1181-1198.
Mathewson, S. (2016). From hospitable to hellish: Venus may have supported life. Space.Com. Web.
Wall, M. (2019). SpaceX’s starship may fly for just $2 million per mission, Elon Musk says. Space.Com. Web.
Williams, D. R. (2020). Chronology of Venus exploration. NASA. Web.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency by the US government with the mandate to conduct aerospace and aeronautics research and run the civilian space program, the International Space Station (ISS). Specifically, NASA establishes risk management processes, goals, and policies for the ISS, which are then implemented in conjunction with other international partners including member nations of the European Space Agency (ESA), Russia, Japan, and Canada. ISS is a space environment and microgravity research laboratory with researchers conducting studies in different fields, such as astronomy, physics, and human biology, among other related areas. ISS is both a pragmatically and technically complex system, as it is designed to support different payloads and missions. Additionally, it is launched via numerous launch packages, which are assembled and operated from a space where the environment is harsh. Therefore, given the nature of its operations, ISS faces many risks that should be evaluated and mitigated. The primary purpose of risk management is to identify threats and risks in a certain program early enough to develop and implement preventive measures to reduce the probability of such risks occurring in the future. This paper discusses ISS’s risk profile, identifies enterprise risk management (ERM) systems in place, and analyzes its corporate governance and the impact of all stakeholders on the risk management process.
ISS’s Risk Profile
ISS is faced with various threats and risks, which could be classified into three major categories: i) those that could cause the destruction of the Station, ii) risks that could compromise the health of the crewmembers, and iii) threats that could lead to the premature abandonment of the ISS program.
ISS Destruction and Loss of Crew
One of the major risks to ISS is the possibility of micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) penetrating the Station’s critical hardware, such as the pressure wall. This occurrence would cause extensive damage to ISS and harm crewmembers. Additionally, the Station could inadvertently collide with visiting vehicles, other Station Remote Manipulator Systems (RMSs), or robotic arms leading to the loss of life among crewmembers and damage to the ISS (Smith, 2002). The Station is also prone to fire outbreaks, which could originate from different places in the work environment. Similarly, the threat of toxic spills within the Station is a major issue facing ISS. These hazards have a wide array of effects on crewmembers or the system itself, which could contribute significantly to the abandonment of the program. Another major concern is the possibility of catastrophic system failures due to various reasons, such as fire and other related hazards. However, the greatest threats associated with system failure entail critical software and hardware design flaws. The existence and safety of the ISS program rely heavily on the veracity of the hardware and software designs, and thus any compromise to these systems could lead to catastrophic incidents.
Crewmembers working in the ISS are also exposed to the risks posed by extravehicular activities. According to Holloway (2007), loss of life could be caused by “the inadvertent separation of a tethered crew member from the ISS, an MMOD strike to the EVA suit, exposure to contaminants deposited on the suit, or an EVA suit system failure” (p. 32). Additionally, ISS could be endangered by security compromise on the ground systems, specifically threats targeting computing networks and the information technology system in general. Finally, the ISS is exposed to the possibility of crewmembers or ground controllers sending errant critical commands, which could lead to the Station’s damage and loss of human life.
Premature Abandonment
The integrity of the ISS depends largely on the ability to maintain a pressurized cabin environment. However, loss of this pressure could occur due to leaks in different seals located in different parts of the cabin. The pressure shell could also be breached in cases of collision with other visiting vehicles or MMOD. Additionally, the Station is exposed to contamination due to uncontrolled “microbial growth in the water or air, a fire, or failures in the systems that control the levels of CO2 or the generation/delivery of O2 and nitrogen (N2), or the temperature and humidity inside the modules” (Holloway et al., 2007, p. 36). Moreover, major system failures leading to the loss of critical functions could cause the ISS program to be abandoned prematurely. All spare parts of the Station should be maintained in good condition to ensure the viability and continuity of the ISS program failure to which could lead to premature abandonment.
The inability to ensure the continuous availability of sufficient consumables is another threat facing the ISS. The critical consumables of the crewmembers to execute their functions as expected include oxygen, nitrogen, water, food, propellant, lithium hydroxide, and the proper management of waste, among other provisions. Therefore, the existence of gaps in logistics transportation and knowledge to keep the crew supplied sufficiently could lead to premature abandonment of the project (Holloway et al., 2007). Similarly, the lack of capacity to supply critical spare parts for the efficient running of the Station could contribute significantly to the decision to shut down the program. Additionally, loss of ground support due to various factors, such as terrorist activities, sabotage, or bad weather could lead to the abandonment of the program.
The Health of the Crewmembers
Human capital, through staffing, is an important aspect of the existence of the ISS. Therefore, any threat to the health and wellness of the crewmembers onboard ISS is a major risk to the program. Turner (2014) argues that crewmembers are exposed to microgravity, which contributes to observable physiological changes due to the low gravity in space. Additionally, crewmembers might be exposed to space radiation due to particulate matter suspended in the air, especially “solar particle radiation (protons and electrons) and galactic cosmic radiation (atomic nuclei)” (Holloway, 2007, p. 47). These micro-particles travel at high speed, almost that of light, and they can cause genetic tissue damage. Another major risk facing the ISS is the threat associated with the failure to maintain a safe spacecraft environment. The ISS should be maintained at controlled temperatures, a breathable atmosphere, and regulated atmospheric pressure. Therefore, any form of failure affecting these factors could potentially pose health risks to crewmembers.
Crew fatigue is also another important risk factor in the proper functioning of the ISS. Long-duration space flights are exhausting, both physically and emotionally (Gerstein et al., 2016). In the space, the normal human circadian patterns are disrupted, and crewmembers are expected to work under strict deadlines and timelines, leading to a lack of quality and enough sleep hence fatigue (Buguet, 2007; Kahn et al., 2014). Individuals working in this Station are also exposed to long isolation and confinement sessions, which ultimately affect their behavioral and psychological wellbeing. In the long-term, the health of crewmembers is exposed to various threats, which is a major risk to the existence of the ISS.
Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Systems at the ISS
The ISS uses continuous risk management (CRM) processes to identify, analyze, mitigate, and communicate risks. Specifically, the program uses the ISS Risk Data Application (IRMA), which is “an integrated database to manage risk data throughout all ISS managing organizations” (Perera, 2002, p. 341). This system seeks to detect, prevent, correct, and give directives concerning all possible risks that the program is exposed to, both in the short and long term. The IRDA is designed to achieve specific objectives. The first goal is to embed all risk management processes into the daily activities of the program to identify and mitigate potential risks and threats. Second, the system ensures that the responsibilities of risk management are relegated to the lowest levels of the organization to ensure that almost every individual is involved in risk identification and mitigation. Third, the system defines lead program-level risk-management activities that should be accomplished by the different Program Risk Management teams, such as Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) (Grant & Lutomski, 2011), analysis integration teams (AITs), and integrated product teams (IPTs). Finally, the system provides the requisite cost analysis for the risk management exercise and the available funding sources.
Therefore, the different organizational teams involved in risk management at ISS are required to use the IRDA to assess and manage risk in different ways. For instance, they are expected to identify and document risks routinely together with assessing the probability of occurrence and the consequence of such incidents using a standardized risk tool for scoring (Perera, 2002). These teams also develop risk-mitigation plans based on the identified threats and delegate responsibilities to every crew member. In other words, as Seastrom et al. (2004) observe, the IRMA ensures that the issue of risk management is integrated into the ISS’s functioning with every crew member taking responsibility for the same.
The IRMA has a number of tools that the involved parties use to incorporate risk information into the risk management infrastructure. Each identified risk is characterized, its severity or location in the matrix identified, and mitigation tasks noted before being entered into this database. Consequently, every risk can be tracked to gain an understanding of how it impacts the entire system. Additionally, the associated costs of such risks are determined using the IRMA. This database has tiered items based on the level of threat. For instance, low-level threats without concise definitions are labeled as “concerns” (Perera, 2002). Items with detailed definitions are classified as “watch items”, while high-level issues and threats are labeled as “risks”.
Using the IRMA, each ISS managing organization reviews its identified risks by assessing whether such threats are consistent with the available data and deciding whether to elevate a particular risk to the next level. At every level, the involved teams should generate the appropriate local mitigation measures and plans giving specific tasks that need to be undertaken to prevent the risk from happening or lessen the severity of the outcomes (Malone Jr. & Moses, 2004). After completing every mitigation task, the involved management teams at their respective levels record their information in the IRMA before re-scoring the risk based on the task’s results. Therefore, IRMA is updated constantly and continuously, which makes it easy for the top management to keep abreast of the current top risks and the available mitigation measures. All the different constituents of the IRMA are compliant with the available regulations for the safety of the ISS.
ISS’s Corporate Governance
The ISS is governed by the ISS Mission Management Team (IMMT), which is tasked with making all operational decisions and problem solving to support the Station’s needs. The IMMT holds several meetings every week to report real-time operational information, discuss any arising problems and find solutions, make decisions, and communicate to all other teams involved in the day-to-day running of the ISS (Perera, 2002). Other stakeholders involved in the ISS management include the Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) support, which mainly focuses on managing the program’s safety. S&MA manager reports directly to the ISS Manager after coordinating with all other NASA-wide S&MA organizations. The International Space Station Safety Review Panels review and approve reports on hazards and assess data packages needed for flight approval. The ISS also has a Program Risk Advisory Board (PRAB), headed by the ISS Program Manager, and it is involved in the overall risk management of the program.
The ISS program has crosscutting management teams, but they all work in collaboration to identify risks and provide mitigation guidelines to avoid the destruction of the Station, loss of crew members, or the premature abandonment of the program. In terms of managing risk, the PRAB is the top-level organ, and it has “representatives from each managing organization, prime contractors, other NASA centers, and international partners” (Perera, 2002, p. 342). PRAB uses the Risk Summary Card embedded into the IRMA to identify and score all risks. Additionally, decision trees in IRMA are used to structure decisions and come up with the best option based on the nature of risk present. Therefore, all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process of risk management at ISS, but standardized tools are used to determine the best course of action in different scenarios.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The ISS employs a valid risk management approach to ensure the safety of the program. The ERM system used is IRMA, and it provides an elaborate framework that allows the management to continually identify risks and act appropriately to mitigate critical threats to the program. The main risks facing the ISS include factors that could contribute to the destruction of the Station, loss of crewmembers, and premature abandonment of the program. The corporate structure of the program is made up of crosscutting management teams, but the PRAB is the overall body involved in the risk management of the ISS.
Nevertheless, despite the robustness and soundness of the ISS Program in terms of safety and crew health, some areas could be improved as given in the following recommendations.
MMODs are a major threat to the program, thus PRAB should prioritize options that decrease such risks.
NASA should ensure that the ISS program has sufficient staffing, especially managers with critical skills and experience.
The involved stakeholders, including Congress and NASA, should ensure that proper systems are in place to supply the Station with all needed spares for its long-term operations.
References
Buguet, A. (2007). Sleep under extreme environments: Effects of heat and cold exposure, altitude, hyperbaric pressure and microgravity in space. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 262(1-2), 145-152.
Gerstein, D. M., Kallimani, J. G., Mayer, L. A., Meshkat, L., Osburg, J., Davis, P. K., Cignarella, B., & Grammich, C. A. (2016). Developing a risk assessment methodology for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Rand Corporation.
Grant, W., & Lutomski, M. G. (2011). Applications of the International Space Station probabilistic risk assessment model. Web.
Holloway, T., Colladay, R., Jacobson, R. H., Marshal, J. C., Sieck, A. B., Voss, J., Coats, M., O’Connor, B., Roe, R., Scolese, C., Williams, R., & Gard, M. (2007). Final report of the international space station independent safety task force. Web.
Kahn, J. P., Liverman, C. T., & McCoy, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Health standards for long duration and exploration spaceflight: Ethics principles, responsibilities, and decision framework. National Academies Press.
Malone Jr. R. W., & Moses, K. (2004). Development of risk assessment matrix for NASA Engineering and Safety Center. Web.
Perera, J. S. (2002). Risk management for the international space station. Joint ESA-NASA Space-Flight Safety Conference, 486, 339 -344.
Seastrom, J., Peercy, R., Johnson, G., Sotnikov, B., & Brukhanov, N. (2004). Risk management in international manned space program operations. Acta Astronautica, 54(4), 273-279. Web.
Smith, C. A. (2002). Probabilistic risk assessment for the International Space Station. Joint ESA-NASA Space-Flight Safety Conference, 486, 319-324.