Â鶹´«Ã½

‘Hello and welcome to the final of the Space Rugby World Cup, broadcast
to you live from Japan’s Olympus Sports Complex, orbiting hundreds of kilometres
above the Earth.’ A vision of the future for space? Perhaps. As the world
marks the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, it may seem mundane
to suggest that space will be used for activities such as sport. But some
space analysts would go further. They say the era of noble feats of exploration
is over. The main reason for going into space in future will be the pursuit
of cash, and a new generation of astro-entrepreneurs could make their
fortunes trading materials manufactured only in space, taking tourists into
orbit or even selling sponsorship of space sports.

Why the change? In the past, civilian space programmes have acted as
showcases for state-of-the-art technology and engineering in the propaganda
battle between East and West during the Cold War. Before the collapse of
the Soviet Union, NASA and the Russian Space Agency had the clearly defined
task of beating each other. No longer. ‘The Cold War is over and with it
many of the reasons for justifying a civil space programme,’ says Peggy
Finarelli, who helps plan future projects at NASA. Now governments refuse
to spend the large quantities of taxpayers’ money needed to support the
massive programmes of the past, she says.

JOB WANTED

So space agencies have been casting around for another raison d’etre.
Dan Goldin, the head of NASA, says the space agency needs a simple goal
that will be easy to understand and will generate public support. One possibility,
he says, could be to put a major effort behind the search for a habitable
planet orbiting a nearby star. He believes such a goal, and the possibility
of finding extraterrestrial life, would grab the public’s imagination and
give people a reason to support the programme.

Others think the Earth should be the focus of attention, with satellites
used mainly to monitor the Earth’s changing environment to bring about a
better understanding of its climate. The Russian space agency says it is
concentrating on environmental space missions. The European Space Agency
is developing a new generation of weather satellites known as Metop which
will be launched at the end of the decade. And NASA has ambitious plans
to launch 17 satellites between 1998 and 2012, at a total cost of $8 billion,
to monitor the environment. Goldin says that such research could form part
of his programme by helping space scientists understand how to examine environments
on other planets.

The Japanese have not been involved in this show of strength in space.
Instead, they are being more pragmatic. Earlier this year, the National
Space Development Agency launched its own H-2 rocket designed and built
by Japanese industry and widely regarded as the world’s most advanced expendable
rocket. Looking to the future, Japan is hoping to make money in space by
manufacturing materials in the near weightless conditions, mining raw materials
from the surface of the Moon and pampering rich tourists in orbiting hotels.

Just as the hunger for gold and raw materials drove the exploration
of the New World 500 years ago, the commercial promise of space could entice
entrepreneurs to take on ventures that NASA would never envision. ‘The commercial
potential of space is ultimately the reason why we will go back in large
numbers,’ says Lori Garver, executive director of the National Space Society,
a group of space enthusiasts based in Washington DC. William Braselton,
a vice-president of Harris Government Aerospace Systems, a NASA and Pentagon
contractor based in Melbourne, Florida, calls space business ‘the world’s
largest industry of the early 21st century’.

Virtually all that business will be generated indirectly on Earth. Constellations
of telecommunications satellites could provide instant links between any
two points on the globe with portable phones, making businesses in far-flung
corners of the world easier to run. The Teledesic Corporation based in
Kirkland, Washington, for example, has a plan to place 840 satellite in
orbits 700 kilometres above the surface by 2001.

One system is in place – the Global Positioning System, a network of
24 military navigational satellites which can pinpoint the position of a
hand-held receiver on Earth to within 100 metres. The GPS has created a
new business in the manufacture of receivers and is already being used by
fishermen to navigate more easily at sea and by surveyors to make maps more
quickly. In future, the GPS could be used for other terrestrial applications
such as relaying the position of driverless cars to the computer which controls
them. Such a system would allow closely packed queues of traffic to travel
safely at speed.

Another idea is to use satellites to transmit power from one part of
the globe to another. Electricity generated at one spot would be converted
into microwaves and beamed towards an orbiting microwave mirror which would
reflect it to a receiving station. The idea was recently embraced by a committee
at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) based in
New York. The same panel suggested dumping nuclear waste in orbit around
Earth, an idea also being toyed with by Russian scientists.

The waste would be launched from isolated areas such as Antarctica or
Greenland to reduce the risk to humans should a rocket explode and release
its payload into the atmosphere. In theory, the waste would stay in orbit
until it ceased to be radioactive. The committee decided that the basic
difficulty was not technological but the public apprehension regarding all
things nuclear.

Of course, such a proposal is hugely controversial. Steve Aftergood
of the Federation of American Scientists, a pressure group based in Washington
DC, believes it will never happen because of the cost and the public outcry.
In 1989, anti-nuclear activists, worried about the possibility of an accident,
took legal action against NASA to block the launch of the nuclear-powered
space probe Galileo. The action failed but NASA has not proposed any further
missions involving nuclear power.

In any case, disposing of waste in this way would be very expensive,
says Aftergood. To minimise the risk of nuclear contamination in the event
of an accident, the waste would have to be packed in strong protective containers
that add weight to the payload and push up the cost of each launch. The
National Academy of Sciences, an advisory group to the US government, says
that the containers required for 50 tonnes of plutonium would weigh more
than 1000 tonnes and cost more than $10 billion to put in orbit. What is
more, adds Aftergood, space is becoming crowded: ‘Earth orbit – even a very
high orbit – is valuable real estate.’ He says that better use could be
found for such orbits than for the waste disposal industry.

MOON BUGGY

One of the most lucrative space industries could be entertainment. Luna
Corp, an entertainment company based in Virginia, plans to build a robotic
rover and land it on the Moon by 1997 at a cost of between $90 and $120
million. The vehicle would be controlled remotely from Earth using a virtual
reality system. Luna Corp hopes to sell opportunities to take the machine’s
controls and hopes to organise a worldwide competition to find the first
driver.

But the real impact of space industry will be in new businesses away
from the Earth’s surface requiring workers with the skills to build space
stations, orbiting hotels and sports centres while working in weightless
conditions. Patrick Collins, an economist at Imperial College in London
and at the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science in Tokyo, says that
building and launching such a stadium in space might cost $800 million
and a hotel as little as $250 million. In contrast, the international space
station Alpha will cost the US alone $17.8 billion over the next eight
years.

Collins says his complex will be cheap to build because it will be a
simple modular structure requiring little new technology; in fact, most
of the technology needed is no more advanced than that used for the Skylab
orbiting research station launched in the 1970s. He also expects the advent
of reusable rockets to reduce the cost of launching materials from current
levels of up to $40 000 per kilogram to around $200. And money could be
recouped by selling the rights to televise such events and by charging fans
as much as $2000 a week to stay.

In fact, space tourism has already begun. In 1990, the Tokyo Broadcasting
Service paid the Russians $12 million to send a journalist to the orbiting
space station Mir. Surveys in America and Britain show that up to 45 per
cent of adults would like to travel in space. The IEEE estimates such a
figure translates into 250 million adults worldwide.

Garver believes that space tourism will be a viable proposition within
25 years. The key, she says, is finding a cheaper way to launch passengers
into orbit. The next generation of rockets that will do the trick are already
being developed. Last year, the aerospace company McDonnell Douglas, demonstrated
an experimental reusable rocket called the Delta Clipper. By the end of
the decade, a full-sized version could be taking passengers into space at
a cost of only $500 per kilogram.

Others have more ambitious visions of business in space. Harrison Schmitt,
a geologist who walked on the Moon in 1972 as a member of the Apollo 17
mission, points out that the isotope helium-3, which does not exist in
large quantities on Earth, is found in large quantities on the Moon. Helium-3
can be used in fusion processes to generate large amounts of energy more
efficiently than the current favourite, tritium-deuterium fusion. One tonne
of helium-3 could provide enough energy to supply electricity to a city
of 10 million people for a year. Twenty-five tonnes – an amount the space
shuttle could carry – could power the whole of the US for a year. Schmitt
argues that helium-3 could also be used to power rockets launched from the
Moon to explore the Solar System and, eventually, nearby stars.

But crewed visits to other planets in our Solar System are a long way
in the future. ‘I don’t think a crewed mission to Mars will be possible
within the next decade,’ says Goldin. He believes such a mission would not
receive political backing unless a spacecraft could be designed and launched
within ten years and cost only tens of billions of dollars – current estimates
suggest the programme would take decades to complete and cost hundreds of
billions of dollars. And scientists would have to find ways to help astronauts
prevent the muscle and bone loss that prolonged weightlessness can cause
and also ways of protecting them against cosmic radiation. Goldin says that
if we send humans to Mars and back we must ensure we can do it safely.

FLIGHT INTO DANGER

Not everyone agrees, however. Noel Hinners, a space scientist at the
aerospace company Martin Marietta, suggests that some scientists would leap
at the chance to go to Mars, even if there were no way of bringing them
back to Earth. He says there is an inconsistency in our attitudes towards
scientists and safety, citing the unsung deaths of 55 scientists since 1946
while working on Antarctic projects funded by the American government. But
the death of even one astronaut can bring the entire US space programme
to a standstill, as happened in the wake of the Challenger space shuttle
disaster in 1986. ‘We go to incredible lengths to protect life at all costs,’
says Hinners, but those costs make exploration too expensive. He says we
have to be more realistic about the risks of exploring space.

And of all the forecasts about space exploration, the easiest to make
is that astronauts will die, joining the ten Americans and four Soviets
who have died carrying out their duties. Recent budget cuts are fuelling
worries that NASA may no longer be able to fly the space shuttle safely.
Since the Challenger disaster the ageing shuttles have flown 38 times.
‘Sooner or later, one of those things is going to blow up again,’ says John
Pike, a space policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists. Such
an event would ground the shuttle fleet and might even lead to the cancellation
of the shuttle programme, says Pike. But Goldin insists that NASA will spend
whatever it takes to prevent another disaster: ‘We will have the shuttle
flying safely or we will ground it.’

Flying the shuttle is crucial for the construction of the space station
Alpha, which will be the focus of international space efforts over the
next thirty years. ‘It may not be the world’s most perfect vehicle. But
it is the only machine capable of putting 40 tonnes into orbit and bringing
40 tonnes back,’ says Goldin. Grounding the fleet would seriously hamper
construction.

By the end of the decade, Goldin says NASA will decide whether to replace
the shuttle altogether. The most likely candidates for the next generation
of rockets are reusable models that can reach orbit with a single stage,
unlike the shuttle which throws its huge external fuel tank every time it
flies. The Delta Clipper is an example of these so-called single stage to
orbit rockets. They will be easily serviced, have short turnaround times
and could make space travel as routine as commercial flight is today. And
because they fly more than once, the cost of building the craft can be recouped
over many flights.

Launch costs have also hampered scientists’ efforts to send probes
into space. The main reason for this is that probes are now so big and complex
that they are too expensive to build and launch. Future craft will be simpler,
smaller and cheaper.

Early satellites were small because early rockets couldn’t lift much
into space. Sputnik 1, the first satellite, launched in 1959, weighed 86
kilograms while the first US satellite, Explorer 1, weighed only 4.8 kg.
Since then satellites have grown bigger and heavier. For example, the Cassini
space probe due to be launched in 1997 to study Saturn and its moons will
weigh a whopping 5634 kg.

The great expense of modern spacecraft means fewer missions eat up all
available funds. And with fewer missions there is greater pressure to ensure
success. This forces scientists to build in backup systems and to test
the device extensively before launch, driving up costs still further. The
result has been a vicious circle of fewer spacecraft that cost more and
take longer to build. The Cassini mission is expected to cost $3.7 billion.
In 1958, Explorer 1 cost $5.9 million.

But now NASA is trying to break this cycle with a spacecraft built under
a programme known as Discovery. These spacecraft will be simple and built
with lightweight components. They will be cheap and there will be plenty
of them – if one fails it will not be such a big blow to the entire space
effort. The first mission, which will visit a near-Earth asteroid, will
be launched in 1998 at a cost of only $150 million. Future missions could
be designed to collect sample materials from throughout the Solar System
and bring them back to Earth. The advantage is that such a spacecraft will
be light and simple because it will not need to carry any analytical equipment.
Also, the spacecraft’s scientific bounty can be examined by scientists from
many disciplines under ideal laboratory conditions.

Costs are the key issue. The cheaper it is to get into space, the easier
it will be for businessmen and scientists to operate there. As the space
industry matures it will require more launch pads more companies dedicated
to building satellites, as well as better rockets. In future, historians
may say that the development of such a space infrastructure had the same
boost on the world’s economy in the early 21st century as did the construction
of major road networks this century and the building of rail networks in
the last. Watching you, watching me, watching you

* * *

Watching you, watching me, watching you

One business that will boom as space becomes more accessible is the
spying industry. As satellites become more affordable, more nations are
likely to begin using them to watch other countries.

The CIA sees the writing on the wall. In an attempt to control the market
for spy satellites, it has agreed to allow American companies to sell high-resolution
spy satellites to other nations.

Fred Brown, vice-president of the aerospace company TRW, which manufactures
spy satellites, says that spying has a stabilising effect on international
relations. Nations are less tempted to get up to no good if they know they
are being watched, or so the theory goes.

William Studeman, deputy director of the CIA, warns that the new age
of space reconnaissance will make it difficult to mask large military manoeuvres,
such as the huge build-up of allied forces that preceded the war to expel
Iraq from Kuwait. Studeman says the news media might even routinely broadcast
satellite pictures of massing troops, making it virtually impossible to
maintain any element of surprise in warfare. ‘Knowledge warfare is the
future,’ says James Beale, director of intelligence for the Pentagon’s Space
Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command. He says spacecraft
will be an important way of collating knowledge.

To the military mind, it is simple to stop an enemy watching you: find
a way to gouge out his eyes. During the Cold War, the Pentagon sought to
develop missiles and lasers that could destroy or cripple Soviet satellites.
Despite the political thaw, Steve Aftergood at the Federation of American
Scientists, a pressure group based in Washington DC, says there is a small
contingent within the Pentagon who continue to favour the development
of anti-satellite weapons as more nations are able to buy or make cheap
reconnaissance satellites which can be used for spying.

Charles Horner, commander-in-chief of US Space Command, the organisation
that controls all US military space programmes, likens the issue to being
able to guarantee control of the high seas during wartime. He believes that
we must come to grips with the concept of control in space.