Playing PoSSUM: Citizen Scientists Chase Space Clouds with a Canadian Forces Jet and a NASA Balloon

          By Brian Orlotti

A private non-profit group recently concluded a high altitude research project in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and has another joint effort planned with the National Research Council (NRC) this fall. This work highlights the increasing role of private groups in supporting space focused scientific research in the face of decreasing government support.

The Summer 2018 edition of the Project PoSSUM News which provides a quarterly overview of PoSSUM activities. To download the complete eight page newsletter, please click on this link. Image c/o Project PoSSUM. 

From June 29th to July 1st 2018, two members of Project PoSSUM (polar suborbital science in the upper mesosphere), used a CT-155 ‘Hawk’ training aircraft of the RCAF’s 15 Wing at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan to study noctilucent clouds.

Noctilucent clouds are the highest clouds in Earth’s atmosphere, forming near an altitude of 83 km above the polar regions during summer. Noctilucent clouds are considered by scientists to be accurate indicators of man-made climate change as well as good analogs for low-density planetary atmospheres like Mars.

Project PoSSUM is a US based 501(c)(3) non-profit research and education group that conducts atmospheric and space technology research as well as various educational outreach programs. Project PoSSUM primarily operates out of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach FL.

The group practices ‘citizen science,’ scientific research conducted in whole or in part by amateur (i.e. non-professional) scientists. Groups like Project PoSSUM contrast with traditional space advocacy groups which enforce a rigid (yet unspoken) caste system relegating non-scientists to menial and subservient roles.

Operating out of Edmonton International Airport, three night flights were conducted along the 56th parallel at altitudes of up to 45,000 ft. The Project PoSSUM team took images of the clouds’ fine structures in the hope that these will reveal more about the highly complex patterns of turbulence and instability in Earth’s upper atmosphere.

PoSSUM members Capt. Theon ‘TK’ Te Koeti (pilot) and Dr. Jason Reimuller (mission specialist) prepare for a noctilucent cloud reserach sortie from Edmonton, AB in a Royal Canadian Air Force CT-155 ‘Hawk’ aircraft earlier this summer. Photo c/o Project PoSSUM.

This research builds upon work done by Project PoSSUM in July 2017 at High Level, Alberta, in which 17 PoSSUM members tested a NASA-funded camera system aboard a Mooney aircraft.

These cameras were the redeployed as part of NASA’s PMC PMC Turbo balloon mission. Launched from Kiruna, Sweden this past July, PMC Turbo is the first dedicated mission to explore the small-scale dynamics of  Earth’s mesosphere as well as the first balloon mission to employ a lidar.

PoSSUM eventually plans to use its instruments on reusable suborbital launch vehicles to build 3D models of the mesosphere at previously unattainable resolutions.

Continuing its Canadian collaborations, a team of PoSSUM scientist-astronaut candidates will, in cooperation with the NRC, test a prototype spacesuit in zero-G in Ottawa from October 15th-19th.

With government space programs’ continuing decline and Canada’s descent to the status of third-rate space power, groups like Project PoSSUM fill an important need. They can cover ‘gaps’ in manpower or skillsets and also serve as a workforce training ground for the blossoming private space industry.

Playing PoSSUM might be just what the doctor ordered.

Brian Orlotti.

  ______________________________________________________________

Brian Orlotti is a network operator at the Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network (ORION), a not-for-profit network service provider to the education and research sectors.

High School Engineering Contests as the REAL Future of Innovation

          By Chuck Black

Ryerson on Saturday. Photo c/o Heather Young.

There was a time, back in the 1980's, when the Canadarm was the pinnacle of robotics technology and innovation could be jump started by adding a few tens of millions of dollars to the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) budget.

Those days are long past.

Anyone looking at the future of innovation and robotics today needs to start with events like the 2016 Greater Toronto Central Regional First Robotics Contest, which was held at Ryerson University in Toronto from March 2nd to March 5th.

As outlined in the March 4th, 2016 Toronto Star article, "Students gather at Ryerson for robot wars," teams from more than 40 different high schools spent six weeks building and designing robots to compete in a series of medieval themed match-ups designed to test their creations' capabilities and have a little fun.

The event, organized by First Robotics Canada, a registered charity established in 2001 and incorporated in 2004, is intended to inspire Canadian high school and elementary school students to pursue further studies and careers in science, technology and engineering.

Sponsors for the event included the Argosy Foundation, Boeing, Bruce Power, Dow Chemicals Canada, Hatch Engineering, Magna International, NASA, the Power Workers Union, the Ontario Ministry of Education, Redpath, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Rockwell Automation, Scotiabank, Synnex Canada, Union Gas, Xerox, a half dozen Canadian universities and quite a few others.

The crowded pit area where 40 teams prepared their machines to run the obstacle course. As outlined in the event program, teams work together in groups of three to breach a series of defined fortifications and "fire boulders" through goal posts in order to obtain points which determine the final winner. Photo c/o Heather Young.

Individual teams also received sponsorships from a variety of organizations including GM Canada, Qualcomm, RBC Wealth Management, Union Gas and others, which makes sense given that individual teams generally need to raise 10's of thousands of dollars in order to successfully compete.

The sponsors are happy to contribute because it gives them first look at Canada's next generation of manufacturing and robotics innovators. As outlined in the August 18th, 2013 post, "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs in Space!" a substantial portion of our current engineering workforce is nearing retirement age, and will need to be replaced over the next few years.

The event isn't even all that unique. It was simply one of approximately 125 equivalent events organized by First Robotics (seven of which are expected to take place in Canada) for elementary and high school students interested in robotics.

Typical of the robots entered into the competition is this 114.5 pound machine built over a six week period by students at the Runnymede Robotics Club, which operates out of the Runnymede Collegiate Institute in Toronto, Ontario, and which is sponsored by Thales, local Optimist and Lions clubs and others. From left to right the video shows Runnymede students Brent Watling, Brennan Stanfield, Rishab Bhatt, mentor Kelly Wilson and driver Keiran Wilson helping their 1310 unit engage its "tower scaling mechanism." The mechanism utilizes a compact scissor lift for scaling hook deployment, along with a dual motor winching mechanism and passive rope cleat restraints in order to prevent the robot from falling back to Earth at the end of the demonstration. Video c/o Jana El Aridi. 

As outlined on the March 9th, 2014 First Robotics post, "2016 FIRST Robotics Scholarships for Ontario Universities!," there are also multiple universities and colleges in Ontario that offer scholarships to graduating students participating in the FIRST Robotics Competition.

The charity also has the support of the public sector. As outlined on their website, "in April 2010, the Province of Ontario announced that it would make a grant of $3Mln CDN to FIRST Robotics Canada over five years to offer its programs to school boards across Ontario. In 2011 the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario announced at grant of $1.5Mln CDN over three years."

Chuck Black.

So while it's nice to hope that the Federal government can solve all our problems, it's also worth noting that the next generation of Canadian entrepreneurs and engineers is in good hands, no matter what the mandarins in Ottawa might happen to decide over the next two weeks.
___________________________________________________________

Chuck Black is the editor of the Commercial Space blog.

Two Years and More of Ongoing Policy Reviews

As originally discussed in my June 29th, 2009 post "UK joins Canada and the US in "Not Knowing Quite What To Do" with their Space Program," it wasn't so long ago that the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and even the United Kingdom based British National Space Centre (BNSC) had each embarked on substantive policy reviews of space focused infrastructure.

British astronaut Timothy Peake.

Of the three, only the UK review (which led directly to the formation of the UK Space Agency, which superseded the BNSC on April 1st, 2010) seems to have been successful.

Although some (such as Marc Boucher at Spaceref.ca in his June 10th, 2011 article "Canadian Space Agency Moves Forward with Executing Next Space Plan") would argue that the recent infrastructure and title changes for senior management at the CSA (which are outlined in the annual CSA Reports on Plans and Priorities) are effectively beginning "the execution of the agency's next Long Term Space Plan" an updated long term space plan has simply not been publicly addressed, released or commented on since current CSA president Steve MacLean was appointed in 2008.

The announced Federal government policy (which should supersede any departmental initiative) is to roll issues potentially raised by a revised Canadian long term space plan into several upcoming aerospace and commercialization reviews expected to be undertaken over the next eighteen months as outlined in my May 30th, 2011 post titled "Political Reviews Moving to the Forefront."

Norm Augustine.

As for the US policy review, the Augustine Committee final report (known formally as the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee) was released on October 22nd, 2009 and generated quite a bit of controversy, which has still not subsided. The conclusion that the US space program was on an "unsustainable trajectory" although widely accepted, does not seem to have led to any substantive changes at NASA and simply highlights the current agency political focus on safety and maintaining existing, but mostly obsolete infrastructure, contractor relationships and jobs.

But the British, lacking an existing government infrastructure were left to focus on the private sector with policies designed to encourage economic growth, according to the UK Space Agency website.

They came up with some good stuff, which is even available for review and comment here and includes a draft strategy focused on:

1. Growth through new opportunities;
2. Growth from export;
3. Innovation supporting growth;
4. Science to enable growth;
5. Education for growth;
6. Growth through smarter government.

The UK Space agency is inviting public comments on this draft strategy before the consultation closes on 8 July 2011, when a final report will be issued.

Even subject as it is to last minute revisions, this focus has allowed the UK Space Agency to cultivate a unique series of "breakthrough" space technologies including the Skylon unmanned space plane, on-orbit manufacturing programs, micro-satellite design and manufacturing (through UK based companies ClydeSpace and  Surrey Satellite Technology, which bills itself as an independent British company within EADS Astrium NV) plus a series of international trade missions to promote UK space activities.

The success of the British approach is best typified by the May 25th, 2011 post on the UK Rocketeers blog under the title "Wow, What a Day" which comments on the seeming inability of NASA to cancel what was once known as the Constellation program.

According to the article, "we (the UK) should express our deepest sympathies, and hope and trust that sense comes to prevail in the US space establishment. It would be rude and inconsiderate to our American cousins, not to mention thoroughly unBritish, simply to point and laugh."

Let's hope that no one ends up pointing and laughing at the Canadian space establishment.

UK & US Governments Developing Space Plans

Meat Loaf (born Marvin Lee Aday) was one of the iconic singers of the 1970's with his first album "Bat Out Of Hell" containing some of the most memorable tunes of that era (although he has since fallen from favor among the dwindling record buying public). One of this biggest hits on the album was the song "Two out of Three Ain't Bad."



The lyrics refer to wanting and needing but not loving and suggests that "two out of three ain't bad."

The same could certainly be said for this follow-up to my previous post from June 26th, 2009 when I suggested "UK joins Canada and the US in "Not Knowing Quite What To Do" with their Space Program." The article, of course, was referring to the UK Space Innovation and Growth Team, commissioned to deliver an assessment on how the UK government could help maintain the British space focused commercial sector's competitiveness. At the time I stated:

The UK thus joins Canada (with a much delayed update to our Canadian space policy commissioned originally when Steve MacLean became head of the CSA in September 2008 but so far not released) and the United States (with the Augustine Committee presently meeting in Washington) as essentially not knowing what to do with their space program.

It's eight months along with the Augustine Final Report long released (and the 2011 NASA budget recently announced by the Obama administration) so the way forward for the US now seems clear (except perhaps for the inevitable political and economic casualties).

The British committee has also moved forward, if perhaps at a slower pace. They've recruited Richard Branson and his Virgin Galactic company as consultants, set up a website as SpaceIGS and begun to release at least portions of their final report. Of special interest is their executive summary which states:

The UK Government is already a significant investor in — and beneficiary of — Space, but it could obtain more value from its investment and at the same time use Space to deliver more services to its citizens. Space is a diverse sector resilient to fluctuations in economic growth; it has high growth potential, it produces advanced technology, has low carbon credentials and strong scientific foundations. The UK should, therefore, allocate a disproportionately higher share of industrial funding to capitalise on the opportunities for growth that Space offers.

However, the executive summary also issues this warning: 

We are at a crossroads in terms of the strategic direction for the UK. The UK’s share of the world Space market in 2007 was around 6%. This substantial figure is about twice the size of many other major UK industrial sectors, but less than that of our leading industries. However, if we take a positive decision to go for growth, we can raise the market share significantly. But, if we fail to step up our efforts there is a strong likelihood that the sector will slide back to around the 3% mark. This might prompt the departure of some of the large multi-nationals which have chosen to invest in the UK’s Space sector. It would certainly wipe out much of the UK’s past investment in intellectual capital with a consequent loss of our existing strengths.

The statement that a lack of government support could result in "the departure of some of the large multi-nationals" suggests interesting parallels to the aborted sale of portions of Canadian based Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) to American-owned Alliant Techsystems (ATK) in April 2008 which highlighted national security issues and economic infrastructure components the UK committee is obviously familiar with.

It's also interesting to note that both the US and the UK reports have focused on developing a "space industry" rather than a government operated, funded and traditionally styled "space program." As well, while these reports seem to have been both "wanted" and "needed" in their respective jurisdictions, there seems to be little love attached to them because of their focus on commercial space issues.

Whatever the parallels, these respective UK and US committees have acted and presented at least some indication of a way forward for space focused activities in their respective jurisdictions. Like the song says, two out of three "ain't bad."

Unless perhaps, you're a Canadian space focused company, scientist, engineer or advocate waiting patiently for CSA President Steve MacLean to release his report. Our space focused "way forward" still hasn't been released and isn't expected to be until later this year (at a date, still to be determined).

Canada could also use a way forward and while we might not see our space focused industry shrink like the UK document suggests is possible (and my current edition of "This Week in Space For Canada" indicates that the opposite could be happening) we should note that it's always a useful activity to plan ahead, whether you're managing a household budget, planning R&D expenditures or running a space agency.

Meat Loaf is expected to release a new album this year (his eleventh). Lets hope the CSA is as diligent with releasing their policy document.

Oh Du Lieber Augustine!

Leiber Augistin

According to legend (and this entry in Wikipedia), Lieber Augustin, referred to in the song "Oh du lieber Augustin" lived in Vienna during the Plague period of 1678-1679.

One evening, Lieber hoisted a few too many glasses of wine and decided to nap off his hangover in a pit next to the bodies of plague victims. Next morning he awoke (much to the shock of those who witnessed the event and assumed him dead) so the rumor spread that wine acted as a cure for the plague. 

How does this relate to the present day Norm Augustine, and his current position as chairman of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee? That's easy. Liber, was given a second chance at life and Norm Augustine has been given a second chance to chair an advisory committee on the future of the US space program.

It's interesting to see how the first Augustine report (written in 1990 and available online here) compares with the current report released earlier today. According to the article "NASA needs Direction? Call Norm Augustine!" from the Daily Planet website:

The 1990 panel worried about a “lack of a national consensus as to what should be the goals of the civil space program.” Still true.

They said “NASA is currently over committed in terms of program obligations relative to resources available.” It still is.

The 1990 report (also) lamented management inefficiencies at the space agency, a graying workforce, and the tendency “for projects to grow in scope, complexity, and cost.” Check, check, and check.

Of course the first Augustin ended up scaring people and driving them to drink (but only as an antidote to the plague, of course).

Only time will tell what the current Augustine ends up doing.

Ignoring Innovation While Waiting for Augustine

Michael Swartwout, an Assistant Professor of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering at Parks College, St. Louis University has written a fascinating article on "The promise of innovation from university space systems: are we meeting it" for the October 12th issue of online publication, The Space Review.

In the article, he states unequivocally that:

The first university-class spacecraft was launched in 1981; satellite number 119 was launched in September 2009. At present, an average of 12 university-class spacecraft are launched each year.

Just off the top of my head, those numbers seem to be more than the CSA (or even maybe NASA) has launched lately and the genesis of these prolific little spacecraft are traced back to one specific location:

Faculty and students in the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of Surrey developed the first two university-class spacecraft: UoSAT 1 (1981) and UoSAT 2 (1984). After those successes, they spun off a new company, Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL).

This new firm almost immediately became among the very first and most successful of a number of small satellite companies. After a long and varied independent history portions of the firm were sold to SpaceX in January 2005 and then a controlling interest was brought by EADS Astrium in April 2008. The company still functions today as a subsidiary of EADS Astrium and has recently opened a US office.

Swartwout believes that this specific small satellite company is a case study for future space focused ventures and even makes some observations on where the next breakout organizations will come from:

...we now speak of the “Surrey Model”, whereby a university (a) develops an in-house spacecraft capability, (b) advances to more-capable missions, and (c) spins off the program into a profit-making entity. This approach has been adopted by several other programs, including: the University of Toronto Space Flight Laboratory, the Satellite Technology Research Center in Korea, the Technical University of Berlin, and the King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. All are actively building highly capable space systems for national governments, and several have international customers.

The next Surrey Satellite might not even be a satellite company but could perhaps be involved in a number of other space focused areas. It might even be developing engines or components required for manned space flight

Essentially, space advocates have a variety of options available for moving forward in space exploration and don't need to wait by the side of the road for next weeks expected formal release of the Augustine Commissions full report on NASA human space flight (or for its hoped for Obama administration follow-on offering lots of money to maintain the existing NASA infrastructure and jobs).

It's good that we're not sitting by the side of the road under a tree waiting for someone else to solve our problems.

Just ask these people if you don't believe me.

Americans Engaged in Spirited Strategic Space Debate

New media stalwart "The Huffington Post," listed as the "Top Blog for Authority" by Technorati has joined the debate on the future of NASA with a series of articles focused on "Launching Commercial Space Flight" by X-Prize Foundation founder and newspace icon Peter Diamandis, which is a follow-on to previous articles by planetary science writer Jeff Goldstein on "Weighing in on the Blue-Ribbon Panel Exploring NASA's Strategic Options For Human Space Flight" and Seth Borenstein who believes that "Obama's space panel says moon return is a no go."

These article join other recent articles on the future of NASA published online by Discover Magazine ("The Future of NASA"), The Orlando Sentinel ("Future of NASA's manned space program comes before Congress") and quite a few others as they attempt to interpret the Augustine Committee Preliminary report.

For those interested doing the appropriate due diligence, the Augustine document is located here in PDF format.

Given that the Canadian Space Agency President Steve MacLean and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. have just signed an agreement on "Civil Space Cooperation" it might be worthwhile for Canadian's to do some research and get a sense of who we've decided to continue to cooperate with.

Ten years from now, we may have more money and greater options than they have.

Focused Today on the Boring Business of Making a Living

With all the interesting space focused stories coming out of NASA, the CSA and the private sector over the last little while (including the recent release of the Augustine Committee Summary Report with it's description of the US human spaceflight program as being on "an unsustainable trajectory," the Wednesday announcement of a signed agreement between NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and CSA President Steve Maclean providing for a framework for cooperative civil space activities which formalizes the exiting "ad-hoc" mechanisms between the organizations and Guy Laliberte's upcoming trip to the International Space Station) its useful to sit back and note that most of the people who are engaged in space focused activities are doing it, at least in part, to make a living.



This includes the Augustine Committee, the NASA administrator, the CSA president and most of the other people commented upon or noted in this blog. Of course these people probably like their jobs and perhaps perceive of their positions as being somewhat of a higher calling than most of the rest of the potential jobs available but they certainly still need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

With that in mind, here are a couple of recent reports illustrating the success that Canadian space focused firms have been having lately as they struggle to be fiscally responsible and provide a sustainable return on investment for their stakeholders:

• Canadian space subsystem manufacturer COM DEV just announced "Q3 Revenue Soars 19% to 61.5M. Profits up almost 1M" according to this Canadian Press article dated September 3rd.
• The space systems subsidiary of McDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) has had a run of good luck over the last 18 months since the Canadian government torpedoed a planned sale to Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK). Successes include recently announced contracts with Boeing to refurbish communications systems on the ISS, the Canadian government to design the successors to the Radarsat-2, and with  EADS Astrium for the Alphasat I-XL mission. According to this article in Satellite PR News, MDA has nearly doubled it's earnings over last years figures.
  
• Canadian satellite provider Telesat "reports $187 million profit in second quarter" according to an article published in Network World Industry Watch. This contrasts well when compared with last years $822 million loss during the same period.
  

These revenue increases seem to be a general trend across the industry and perhaps bode well for those of us who are merely looking to make a decent living, much like most of the people profiled in this blog.

NASA as the Next General Motors and What That Means for Canada

British born Canadian journalist Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, defines tipping points as "the levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable."

That's where we are today with space exploration, research and the development of commercial space activities. We're at their tipping point.

As an example, here are a couple of indications that NASA no longer has the right stuff and has instead become a lot like bankrupt automobile manufacturer General Motors.

• The Augustine Panel re-examining NASA's human spaceflight plans "has concluded that the agency's current Constellation Program to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 will not fit into the current presidential budget" according to this August 12th article in the Orlando Sentinel.
• In the same issue of the Sentinel, Associated Press Science writer Seth Borenstein writes that "NASA also lacks the money to keep track of asteroids" and references this recent report by the National Academy of Sciences.
• Arguments for providing NASA with new funds to maintain existing commitments also tend to focus on maintaining existing jobs. For example, here's a recent report from the Aerospace Career Development Counsel titled "Federal Space Policy Agenda" which focuses on Brevard County, Florida where NASA and NASA subcontractors are major employers according to this article in Florida Today. Unfortunately, with the space shuttle set for retirement in 2010 and the International Space Station nearing both completion and retirement (mostly because of a lack of funding), it seems a little unclear how anyone could reasonably expect to maintain existing jobs tied to projects that are winding down without serious restructuring and retraining (which also requires appropriate and ongoing funding).

• And finally, any effort to maintain existing NASA jobs ignores the fact that the workforce is aging so quickly that NASA has recently taken action to "rebalance" the age ratio by adapting a policy "that 50% of all new civil servant hires will be fresh-out (of university)" according to the article "Rebalancing NASA's Workforce" on the Open NASA website. NASA workforce demographics are discussed in more detail in the article "Shaping the NASA Workforce for 2020" on the same site but it seems unlikely the "fresh-out" hires will be able to perform the same role as their experienced, but soon to be retired mentors (although NASA could pay the new hires a lower wage).
  

So we're got an organization teetering on insolvency, with no money for new products and with an aging workforce. This could certainly describe both General Motors in 2007 and NASA today.

Of course, we all know what happened to General Motors.

But even if what happened to General Motors does not or cannot happen in the same way at NASA (if only because it's not a private corporation), the knowledge of the challenges facing the agency and the looming possibility of a similar type of catastrophe cannot help but hinder efforts to cooperate with the agency.

This is especially true at the Canadian Space Agency with its traditional close relationship (as outlined in NASA Tests Neptec Vision System on STS-128" from SpaceRef.ca)?

At the very least, it suggests yet another good reason why there will be no formal updated Canadian space policy document from CSA President Steve Maclean anytime soon. He knows the way the wind is blowing and is likely looking for a sense of what US space focused activities will move forward before deciding if Canada can continue along for the ride.

I bet he's also planning on maintaining the outsourcing of Canadian launches to non-US suppliers (a continuation of a pattern discussed in my June 19th post on "A Listing of Canadian Satellite Launches") plus planning for greater cooperation with other space organizations such as the ESA, the Russian Federal Space Agency and various private organizations presently developing launch capabilities. It's likely he's also expanding existing partnerships with these organizations in other areas as well.

So what else is on the other side of this tipping point?

Perhaps it's a movement towards smaller, more focused and less expensive missions using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies wrapped around aggressive, early prototyping and multiple testing opportunities to create ongoing, incremental improvements similar to those described by Grant Bonin (an employee at the UTIAS Space Flight Laboratory) in his article "Microspace and Human Spaceflight."

The article describes methodologies advocated by many others, including Dr. John McGowan who describes it on a recent episode of The Space Show a simple, old fashioned trial and error testing.

This is essentially what the Wright brothers did in order to build up to their first, historic controlled flight in 1903 and it's interesting to contrast it with the methodologies of their competitors, especially Samuel Langley who was funded by the US government.

What will happen to NASA?

That's easy to predict. NASA employees and their subcontractors will either develop new skills, associations and capabilities to survive or the organization will become irrelevant and either slowly die or be changed into something else useful but in a different (perhaps less inspiring) way.

As far back as the 1980's, the Toronto based SCTV comedy group was offering suggestions as to how existing NASA skills could be adapted for new activities as shown in the video below.



Let's hope they're wrong.

By the way, I'm still officially on vacation. I'll be back in September.

Even Werner von Braun was Wrong Once in a While

          by Chuck Black

It's been forty years since Apollo 11 landed on the Sea of Tranquility and it looks like we all sometimes get it wrong when it comes to predicting the future.

For example, here's Tom Lehrer, best known for the pithy, politically tinged and humorous songs he recorded in the 1950s and 60s, as he sings about one of the icons of our first great space age.

In only two and a half minutes, he manages to make fun of the space program and its military connections, nuclear Armageddon, America's sense of self-superiority, heroes in general, the Nazi's in particular and even bureaucrats. It's interesting to note how almost everything in the song is still relevant (and some of us rocket focused people might still want to consider learning "Chinese").

It is also a good reminder that those who led mankind to the Moon forty years ago were stubborn individualists and opportunists who embraced risk, endured setbacks, knew failure and were not universally loved or even terribly well respected in life but who continued forward anyway to accomplish unique and amazing things.

Here's a second example from the Atomic Rockets website (under the section devoted to space stations) to remind us that even the architects of our greatest accomplishments were not always totally correct about how things were going to turn out:

Oh, Werner von Braun had it all figured out.

In six issues of Collier's magazine he laid out a plan to send men to Luna and Mars. First you build a space ferry as a surface to orbit cargo transport (which was the great-grandfather of the Space Shuttle). Then you use it to make a space station.

And it was going to be a beauty of a space station, too. Three decks, 250 feet in diameter, and a crew of fifty. Makes the ISS look like a tin can. This outpost in space was where the Lunar expedition fleet would be constructed.

It would pay for itself as well. Meteorologists could plot the path of storms and predict the weather with unprecedented accuracy. Radio and TV signals could be transmitted all over the globe. Not to mention observing the military activities of hostile nations.

Why was this marvel never constructed? Because some clown invented the printed circuit.

Freed from the tyranny of fragile and short-lived vacuum tubes, technologists could make unmanned satellites for meteorologists, radio and TV signals, and watching hostile militaries. Such satellites could be assembled and launched at a fraction the cost of a manned station. They also did not require constant resupply missions to keep the crew alive. 

We're at the beginning of our second great space age and many are wondering what it will turn out to be like, who will end up as our next generation of heroes and what they'll be remembered for.

Here are a few ideas on areas to focus from Canadians and others participating in the 2006 IAC roundtable on Major Space Markets in the Next 20 years and the Corporate Approach for Success.

The panel, moderated by Virendra Jha (then VP Science, Technology and Programs for the Canadian Space Agency) also included Mag Iskander (then Executive VP and General Manager Space Missions for Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates) and quite a few other major figures in aerospace so it's amusing to note how the participants each act amazed at the things that have happened over the last twenty years, then marvel at how most of it was unexpected but then state unequivocally that the market has likely stabilized and will now remain essentially the same (with one or two predictable exceptions which are logical progressions of existing trends).

Of course, they haven't been entirely correct. 

The Augustine Committee, the British Space Innovation Growth Team and the MacLean team building our Canadian long term space plan might want to take note of this and then reflect on the earlier experiences of Werner von Braun.

UK joins Canada and the US in "Not Knowing Quite What To Do" with their Space Program

According to this article just posted on the BBC News website, "an expert panel has been asked to lay out the challenges and opportunities facing the British space industry."

The new group (called the Space Innovation Growth Team) has been commissioned to deliver its assessment of the situation within six months and make recommendations on how government can help maintain the sector's competitiveness. The UK space industry turns over £6bn annually and supports some 70,000 jobs.

Andy Green, CEO of Logica

The new panel will be chaired by Andy Green, the chief executive officer of Logica, a British based firm which provides IT support to other space focused organizations.

The panel mandate from the British government is to outline a 20-year strategy by "identifying the key industry trends and then listing the actions industry and government need to take if they want to fully exploit the coming changes" according to the article.

The UK thus joins Canada (with a much delayed update to our Canadian space policy commissioned originally when Steve MacLean became head of the CSA in September 2008 but so far not released) and the United States (with the Augustine Committee presently meeting in Washington) as essentially not knowing what to do with their space program.

Why am I so cynical about these commissions? That's easy.

I essentially don't believe that an institutional response to a problem (which is what I perceive of these commissions as being) is suitable in a situation where collaboration, innovation and action is required.

Let's be blunt about this; politicians and government institutions form commissions when they don't know what to do or don't really want to do anything but need to create a perception of activity.

They might even hope that someone in the newly formed commission will be bright enough to eventually write a proper report including at least one good idea which the public will either support or reject.

But if the report is never finished, then no harm is done because the government has at least done something by commissioning the original report.

If the report is ever completed, then the government gets to perform a second decisive action by either partially (or totally) accepting (or rejecting) the findings, an activity which can itself be stretched out into quite a large number of perceived and distinct decisions (which is really helpful for governments when they have trouble deciding things but need to convince the public otherwise).

By focusing on a specific report or commission, we loose sight of the fact that there are actual things that need to be done and lots of us with some idea of what those things are and how to go about doing them who are likely to continue doing these things, even without formal encouragement.

You know the type. They're the people who don't especially need to wait for a commission to "wrap up it's findings."

But for the rest of us (those who really, really want to help develop "policy") there are also current tools which give each of us the capability to be heard and immediately influence ongoing debate at the highest levels (and that's what the discussion of space policy should above all be encouraging).

So even if we'd prefer to have a committee to develop policy, there is no need to wait passively anymore for the final result. We can nudge them in the right direction and tell our governments what a space program should be doing whether it's exploration, education, R&D or industrial infrastructure development.

Governments might even eventually grow to appreciate our viewpoints, comments and self evident (or self absorbed) answers.

Clay Shirky, a writer on the social and economic effects of the internet offers below a couple of suggestions for moving forward and into a world where we can talk back to authority and not simply wait passively for commissions or governments to solve our problems.

No Space News Today in Canada but Much Quiet Contemplation

It's quiet today. Canadian astronaut Julie Payette is still on the ground at Cape Canaveral, Florida, while in Washington, DC. the Augustine Committee is also not yet quite airborne, as they meet and attempt to define the future of NASA (see the Space Politics blog for more details).

But in the southern sun of New Mexico, the Virgin Galactic White Knight 2 prepares to buzz the tower at Las Cruces International Airport and the real future of spaceflight is being born.

Meanwhile, back in Colorado, the Rockies Venture Club focuses on the profit potential for commercial space according to the local Rocky Radar, which bills itself as “Colorado’s Technology Record” and normally focuses on bio science and green technology.

And at Howard Bloom's Big Bang Tango, experts in flash animation build space focused advertising that might even appeal to us ordinary folks.

In fact, the reason why these activities seem to resonate so strongly relates to ongoing conversations I've been having with associates in the Canadian Space Commerce Association and the Canadian Space Society as to the appropriate activities for space advocacy organizations to engage in and the appropriate types of members to recruit for those activities.

In essence, many of us believe that space advocacy organizations should have the following:

1. Members who actually build something once in awhile. Perhaps that something doesn't need to be quite so complex as White Knight 2 but maybe it could be an instrument package or a micro-satellite buss or even a magnetic torque rod mechanism for attitude control just so long as it's something either used in space or by people who go into space or by people who put other peoples things into space.
   
2. Members who are knowledgeable regarding business fund raising; either venture capitalists like the Rocky Radar people, angel investors or perhaps just someone aware of the appropriate tax credits available from various government programs for research and development.
3. Members knowledgeable in advertising and marketing who are comfortable advocating in public forums like the Big Blue Tango people and aren't just going to continue to preach to the converted.
   

Not all of us subcribe to the above but a general consensus seems to be growing that space advocacy groups need to have more than just graduate students, fiction fanatics, dreamers and unemployed engineers looking to make connections for contract work as their core membership.

Not every member needs to know or do everything on this list but the overall membership should contain a couple who can fulfill each individual item as required. Only then can space focused advocacy organizations begin to appropriately fulfill their mandates and start serving a useful role for their members.

So maybe all this quiet in Canada is simply the calm before the storm and perhaps this time, the times really are a-changing…

A Listing of Canadian Satellite Launches

The United States and Canada partnered together on early Canadian space missions and part of what the US brought to the table was their launch capabilities.

This historic partnership, while probably the main thing that allowed Canada to become a major space player in the 1960’s has been strained by various events over the last fifteen years but still continues with Canada's astronauts launching on the space shuttle for missions to the International Space Station.

Here’s a partial list of Canadian government satellite launches (going back to the 1960’s) including some information on the launch provider and the rocket used.

The list doesn’t include Telesat launches (13 Anik satellites, the 3 Nimiq satellites, M-Sat 1 and maybe one or two others), the various COSPAS/ SARSAT satellites (Search and Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking) launched in partnership with the other signatories to the Cospas-Sarsat International Programme Agreement or the Can-X series from the University of Toronto, Institute of Aerospace Studies (UTIAS).

But the list does include the following:

1. Alouette 1 - NASA from the Pacific Missile Range, supported from Vandenberg AFB, using a Thor Agena rocket.
2. Alouette 2 - NASA from Vandenberg AFB, using a Thor Agena rocket.
3. ISIS-I - NASA from Vandenberg AFB, using a Delta rocket.
4. ISIS-II - NASA from the Western test range at Vandenberg AFB, using a Delta rocket.
5. Hermes – NASA from Cape Kennedy, using a Delta rocket.
6. RADARSAT-1 - Vandenberg AFB, using a Delta II rocket.
7. MOST - Plesetsk Cosmodrome, using a converted UR-100N Stiletto in northern Russia
8. SCISAT-1 - Pegasus rocket launched from a carrier aircraft from 40,000 ft (it may even have been an L-1011, formerly owned by Air Canada although the links don’t explicitly state so). The basic design was American however, built by Orbital Sciences Corporation with a wing designed by Burt Rutan (who later went on to build SpaceShip One and win the Ansari X-Prize).
9. RADARSAT-2 – Launched by Starsem from Kazakhstan's Baikonur Cosmodrome, using a Soyuz FG launch vehicle.

So while the partnership endures, a quick look at the above data seems to indicate that Canada is moving away from our traditional close reliance on the US space program (at least for our launch vehicles).

If we include the various Telesat satellites (with a wide range of US and other launchers being used) and the multiple UTIAS microsats (which use almost entirely non-US launchers) then we must conclude that Canadian satellite launches are not tightly tied to US organizations or corporations. The COSPAS/ SARSAT launches were a Canada US partnership with the participation of France and the old Soviet Union.

As for our manned space program, even the CSA is promoting a tourist being launched through the Russian Federal Space Agency so they do seem to be at least considering their options for moving forward when the shuttle is retired.

And this is as it certainly should be given that news sources like Space Politics are running articles on the Augustine Committee indicating that there is a sweeping reassessment of virtually all aspects of the US civilian space program presently underway.

Maybe the CSA (certainly aware of the policy debate down south) is hedging their bets and expanding their capabilities outside of the traditional NASA channels for both manned spaceflight and unmanned satellite launches.