Chandler park's planetary walk honors astronomy buff

From AZCentral:  Chandler park's planetary walk honors astronomy buff

Visitors to Chandler's Veterans Oasis Park, 4050 E. Chandler Heights Road, can learn about the solar system thanks to a 2,500-foot solar-system walk around the park's lake.
Maybe taking that walk along the scale representation of the distance between the sun, planets and other objects in the solar system will inspire someone to look up into the night sky and study astronomy.
That's just what Howard Israel would have wanted.

The solar walk is dedicated to Israel, who died last Friday at 78 after a bout with lung cancer. The Ahwatukee resident and astronomy buff was vice president of the East Valley Astronomy Club and taught classes about the night sky at Chandler's Environmental Education Center. Madeline Israel, his wife of more than 55 years, said her husband was thrilled to have been able to attend the dedication ceremony of the solar walk on July 7.
"He made the dedication, and how many people witness their own memorials and even write them, for the most part?" Madeline Israel said. "He died as he lived, on his terms."
Israel was born in 1934 in Brooklyn, N.Y. He attended East New York Vocational High School and served in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1956.
The Israels have lived in Arizona since 1980 after a job transfer with General Semiconductor Industries. Israel retired in 1997, which allowed him time to pursue hobbies that included flying, sailing, photography, kite flying, fishing, music and astronomy.
"He tried just about everything a human could try," Israel's daughter, Sharyn Younger, said. "He jumped in with both feet and became a pseudo expert. He was a learner and a teacher."
Israel also taught about astronomy at the Arizona Science Center, Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff and on cruise ships. He was Phoenix section leader for the International Dark-Sky Association.
Israel was passionate about progressive issues and Democratic ideals and supported candidates and causes that he believed in. His son, Steve Israel, is a U.S. congressman representing the 2nd District of New York.
Israel is survived by his wife and daughter and by sons Steve and Richard Israel, and grandchildren Matthew Young, Carly Israel, Ryan Young, Elana Israel and Hannah Young.
Madeline Israel said her husband's passing was peaceful and occurred on an appropriate night for an astronomy buff.
"He died on the night of a blue moon," she said. "It's like he orchestrated it."

Howard Israel, 1934-2012

A memorial gathering for Howard Israel is from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Sept. 29 at the Chandler home of Craig and Sharyn Younger, 2101 E. Palm Beach Drive.
In lieu of flowers, the family asks that contributions be made to the Chandler Solar System Walk fund at www.chandlersolarsystemwalk.com. Donations by check should be made out to the East Valley Astronomy Club with a notation for Howard Israel Solar System Walk on the memo line. Donations can be mailed to Madeline Israel, 4747 E. Elliot Road, Suite 29515, Phoenix, AZ 85044.

Dawn spacecraft departs asteroid Vesta, next stop: Ceres

From The Examiner:  Dawn spacecraft departs asteroid Vesta, next stop: Ceres

With all of the news lately about the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, it might be easy to forget about the other missions currently going on all over the solar system. That includes the asteroid belt, where the Dawn spacecraft has been orbiting and studying the giant asteroid Vesta since July of last year, sending back incredible photos and information about this unique world.

But now, Dawn has departed from Vesta to continue its mission elsewhere; on September 4 it escaped Vesta's gravitational pull and is now headed for its next rendezvous - the dwarf planet Ceres. It is expected to arrive there in early 2015, the same year that the New Horizons spacecraft will finally reach Pluto.

As Robert Mase, Dawn project manager, states: "As we respectfully say goodbye to Vesta and reflect on the amazing discoveries over the past year, we eagerly look forward to the next phase of our adventure at Ceres, where even more exciting discoveries await."

Dawn's study of Vesta, which had never been seen up close before, has greatly increased scientists' knowledge of the largest asteroids and how they formed.

 

Guest Blog: How Satellites Work, by Philip J. Reed

How Satellites Work

--Philip J Reed on behalf of Exede, a satellite internet provider

While most people are aware of satellites, very few understand just how important they are to modern society. In addition, beyond a vague concept of some sort of spaceship, very few people actually understand what satellites are and how they work. Satellites are the most common form of spaceship, but they neither carry passengers nor travel far away into space. Satellites carry important communications or observational equipment, and they stay in an orbit around the Earth.

What Satellites Do

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 999 operational satellites are now in orbit around the Earth. However, estimates of the total number of satellites in orbit are closer to 3,000. Most of these satellites are owned by corporations, and they serve in establishing communications networks. Satellite communications cover nearly the entire planet, and some parts are covered by hundreds of networks.

Satellites are very versatile pieces of equipment, and they can support all of the different types of communications required in today’s world, including the following:

• Video and voice
• Cellular telephone and data
• Multimedia
• News and entertainment
• Broadband data
• Business transactions

Satellite Orbits

Satellites are little more than signal relays that are in space above the Earth. They receive and rebroadcast analog or digital signals at specified radio frequencies. Satellites are launched into space with rockets, and they carry navigational equipment that keeps them at the proper altitude, moving at the proper speed and in the proper direction. Satellites are programmed to orbit the Earth from one of three orbital positions:

• Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – This orbit is at an altitude of 300 to 1200 miles above the surface of the Earth. Satellites using this orbit must travel very fast to avoid being pulled in by Earth’s gravity.
• Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) – This orbit is at an altitude of 5,000 to 12,500 miles above the surface of the Earth. Satellites in this orbit follow an elliptical path, and they are primarily used with ground stations located near the poles.
• Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) – Most satellites used today are in geosynchronous orbit. The altitude of this orbit ranges from 22,223 to 22,282 miles above the surface of the Earth. Satellites in GEO travel at about 1.91 miles per second, which keeps them in the same position relative to the Earth as it rotates. The primary advantage of GEO is that satellite dishes and other ground antennas can be locked into a position to send and receive the strongest possible signals.

Onboard Satellite Systems

Digital and analog signals are sent to satellites from ground stations, and the signals are rebroadcast by satellites to other ground stations that may be located thousands of miles away from the origin station. The signals are processed on the satellite through electronic devices called transponders. Each satellite holds from 24 to 72 transponders, and each transponder can process 155 million bits of data per second. At this speed, even the most complex signals can be quickly relayed through satellites. In addition to the transponders, satellites are comprised of the following other systems:

• Solar energy collectors
• Propulsion and altitude control
• Fuel, batteries and power
• Signal amplifiers and filters

Transmitting and Receiving Signals

All satellites in GEO are assigned an orbital location, which is a reference to a satellite’s position in space relative to the longitude of the Earth. A satellite’s location affects the area on the surface of the Earth where signals can be sent to or received from the satellite. This area is known as the satellite's footprint.

When data is transmitted to and from satellites, it is done through C-band, Ku-band or Ka-band radio frequencies. The combination of the frequency, power level and geographic area of a signal is called a beam. Beams can be global, semi-global or targeted to a specific area.

Satellites use different beams and ground networks for different uses. For instance, TV networks use a simplex transmission system, which is a one-way transmission from a ground station to the satellite and from the satellite to several receiving stations. Other systems, such as star networks and mesh networks allow for two-way communications with multiple ground stations.

Neil Armstrong: Remembering a true American Hero

From YourWestUNews Houston:  Neil Armstrong: Remembering a true American Hero

In the passing of Neil Armstrong, America has lost not only a national hero, but a man of great character who served his country in more ways than one.
We all know the highlights: those first historic steps on the moon’s surface, those unforgettable words, the day that held not only the country but the world transfixed. But there was much more. Neil Armstrong was, at heart, a dedicated engineer – or, as he put it, “a white-sock, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer” – who preferred a private life to the public adoration so many would have reveled in. That was a key part of what made him a true American hero in the classic, and far too rare, sense: his bravery, his intellect, his talent, yes; but also his inability to seek adulation and his reluctance to accept celebrity. He didn’t rush to the spotlight or pound his chest. He always noted that his and his colleagues’ accomplishments were the result of hundreds of thousands of people over years and years. He was a man who loved what he did and was good at it; that was all the reward he needed.

Neil Armstrong served his country as a Navy fighter pilot in the Korean conflict, in the NASA space program and as a senior NASA official. Upon his retirement from NASA, he continued to give back, as a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Cincinnati. And in fighting to preserve America’s manned space-flight program, he did his country a tremendous service yet again.
I first met Neil after he, Apollo 13 Commander Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan – the Apollo 17 Commander and the last man on the Moon – wrote an open letter questioning the Obama Administration’s proposal to abandon the moon program. It was a rare breaking of the traditional silence on such matters and an even rarer step into the spotlight for Mr Armstrong. They were not alone in their concern – it was shared by experts and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
The initial Administration plan proposed cancelling the existing space exploration program and suspended plans to build a replacement for the space shuttle, placing immediate reliance on commercial capabilities, which were undeveloped and unproven. Neil Armstrong was particularly concerned about leaning too heavily on commercial crew vehicles, rightly believing that NASA should have ultimate ownership and stewardship of deep-space exploration.
The astronauts’ testimony at a subsequent Senate hearing helped inform the 2010 NASA Reauthorization Act, and their unyielding advocacy helped get the bi-partisan bill passed, saving the nation’s manned space exploration program.
They perfectly summarized why the program is both exceptional and necessary in their initial: “America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach.”
America’s space program continues to hold the world in thrall. Hundreds of millions of people have seen the amazing pictures beamed back by the Mars rover, knowing its continued exploration brings the next logical step in our space-flight program – a manned mission to Mars – that much closer. And that is thanks to Neil Armstrong in more ways than one.
Hutchison, a Republican, is the senior U.S. senator from Texas.

NASA Program Offers Connecticut Students The Chance At A Role In Space Exploration

From Hartford Courant:  NASA Program Offers Connecticut Students The Chance At A Role In Space Exploration

Even though the future of space travel is uncertain, Connecticut students can still help prepare themselves to work for NASA by receving training through the Space Grant Consortium Program.
NASA tries to encourage students to work in fields that agency needs by giving each state money to form a coalition of higher education schools to run and administer the Space Grant Consortium Program.
Students who apply for the program are placed in internships, given projects and attend trainings that are meant to prepare them to work in fields related to science, technology, math and others connected to NASA.
"It's a great gateway to see what NASA's doing," said Jenna Daly, a University of Hartford student and former program participant. "You get a feel of what NASA does other than space. You know, it's not all just about space."

Daly is now a paid intern at Pratt & Whitney and largely credits her receiving the position to the experience she gained from the space grant program.
Though NASA is not all about space, it is of course what it is known for. The agency recently launched a successful rover mission to Mars and has plans to send another to the planet in 2016. Still, the direction space travel is headed is unclear.
"NASA is encouraging, they're funding, commercial space travel," said Tom Filburn, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Hartford and the director of the NASA CT Space Grant Consortium.
"If you go back to airplane travel of the twenties and thirties, people were struggling to make money on this. It wasn't until there were commercial entities that they did," said Filburn.
Currently, private entities are trying to profit from low orbit trips, which are 100 to 250 miles above the Earth where the International Space Station is located.
NASA's main role and niche continues to be space exploration. How much human space travel will be involved in the coming years is still hazy though.
"President Obama has not defined a manned exploration mission," said Filburn. "It's very expensive to send people into space."
A decision on space travel has big implications for United Technologies Corp., a Connecticut company that produces parts for NASA spacecrafts and suits for its astronauts. When it comes specifically to human travel, UTC has been the prime supplier for NASA's manned systems.
"That manned piece, is something that Connecticut has a long history of working with NASA on," Filburn said.
Even with no human missions planned, plenty of opportunities are still available to work in NASA.
While Daly is keeping her career options open and does not know if she wants to work for NASA, she is pleased that she has the space grant on her resume and has learned skills that could be useful to NASA if the right opportunity comes up.
For more information on the CT Space Grant Consortium Program, visit: ctspacegrant.org.

Deep Impact: SpaceX has economic promise, environmental concerns

From Brownsville Herald:  Deep Impact: SpaceX has economic promise, environmental concerns

EDITOR’S NOTE: In this eight-day series beginning today and ending Sunday, Sept. 9, Valley Morning Star and The Brownsville Herald examine how a rocket launch site proposed by Space Explorations Technologies Corp. could carry Brownsville, Harlingen, South Padre Island and Cameron County as a whole, into a new frontier. Our focus is on the potential impact to the local economy, education and the environment.
For an area like Cameron County, supported by unique ecological assets yet historically plagued by economic and cultural obstacles, the possibility of space exploration as an industry poses a bittersweet dilemma: disrupt paradise, or feed the populace?
Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX — a Hawthorne, Calif.-based space transport company that earlier this year became the first commercial enterprise to complete a supply mission to the International Space Station — has announced its interest in building a rocket launch site on Boca Chica Beach. Remote yet not inaccessible, the beach is home to the piping plover, the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle and other unique fauna and flora that have drawn the attention of ecologists committed to maintenance and protection. This, for many, is paradise.
The isolated beach area has little commercial or residential development, but surrounding cities like South Padre Island, Brownsville and Harlingen all have taken a keen interest in every move SpaceX makes.
In the lower Cameron County area, 30 percent of families last year had an income below poverty level. If the company does build at Boca Chica, it would create hundreds of jobs with an annual salary of no less than $55,000. That is well above the county’s average household income of $15,000 to $24,999, according to five-year estimates from the Census Bureau. And those jobs, along with actual construction of the site and the proposed $80 million capital investment, would bring widespread spinoff prosperity for the county.
So, the dilemma now for many is how to reconcile the need for economic opportunity with the need to protect our natural resources. About the reconciled destination, there is no doubt. It is the journey that presents the challenges.
In an attempt to explore both the economic and environmental concerns spurred by such development, the staffs of The Brownsville Herald and the Valley Morning Star have undertaken a cooperative project to examine the benefits and drawbacks in many of the individual communities that could feel an impact from SpaceX development. What resulted is this series, “Frontiers,” an eight-day look at what could happen. In large part, there is much speculation, with both sides weighing in with what they want and need to happen.
Many questions remain unanswered, pending the federal government’s release of its Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS. Many of the participants in SpaceX negotiations, including SpaceX representatives and local negotiators and officials, are restricted from commenting publicly until the statement is released.
Maneuvering the rollout of such a critical project may require a precision similar to the scientific calculations the company uses to launch its rockets. The area is largely Hispanic and historically underserved, making any economic boost crucial. School of Business Dean Mark Kroll, of the University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College, cited a number of factors that could be significant for the area.
“I think it would also have a material impact upon the position of the community, vis-a-vis the rest of the country. It would give a cachet that it hasn’t had before,” he said. “Anytime you’re shooting rockets into outer space, that’s getting recognized. It’s just one of those things that’s hard to miss.”
Kroll said it is possible a launch site would mean an influx of new people moving to the area.
“We don’t have that many aerospace engineers running around Brownsville,” he said, noting that a concentration of well-paid residents would be an “economic multiplier.”
He likened SpaceX to a smaller version of the Keppel AmFELS shipyard, which counts Brownsville as one of its sites and is a business with significant impact here.
“There’s no question when they started opening casinos in Vegas it changed Vegas forever,” he said. “When Boeing first started building military aircraft in Washington state, that changed that area forever.”
What really remains to be seen, Kroll said, is the future of the commercial space business.
“I think we have to keep it in perspective,” he said. “This may or may not be a growth industry.”
Local officials are banking on the new industry raising the area’s profile internationally.
Currently, the largest industries here are educational services, health care and social assistance, followed by retail, then arts, entertainment and recreation, presumably heavily linked to South Padre Island.
SpaceX is watching, local officials say. The company already has met with Brownsville school district and university officials to connect with science, technology, engineering and math educators here.
The company’s CEO and chief designer is Elon Musk, the colorful entrepreneur who co-founded the Internet payment system called PayPal, created Tesla Motors (which builds electric cars) and Solar City (which builds solar panels), and who in 2002 made no secret of his intention to revolutionize space travel with his new company, Space Exploration Technologies. His ultimate goal: make life on other planets possible for humans.
“Our growing launch manifest has led us to look for additional sites,” Musk said last November in a statement announcing the location search. “We’re considering several states and territories. I envision this site functioning like a commercial Cape Canaveral.”
At this point, Brownsville is in competition with Florida and Puerto Rico for the new vertical launch area and control center. The site being considered here is near Boca Chica Beach, just a few miles from the major tourism hub of South Padre Island and a neighboring federal wildlife reserve.
Nearby is Boca Chica Village, a small residential neighborhood that acts as an example of the infrastructure the proposed launch site currently lacks. Residents have their water trucked in, and the access road is narrow. Many of the homes are seasonal, or completely shuttered. Some of the residents are thrilled about the prospect of watching a rocket launch from the backyard; others say, there goes the neighborhood.
SpaceX already has launch facilities at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as well as a rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.
This summer, NASA said it is not involved in SpaceX’s launch facility initiative and would not officially comment on the matter. However, a Houston-based spokesman from Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center explained there are several programs in which SpaceX is involved. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program allows for payments to SpaceX for the building of spacecraft, which is different from the contracts awarded to them for supply missions to the International Space Station.
And in August, SpaceX also was granted a $440 million contract from NASA under the Commercial Crew Development program to further develop its hardware. The end goal of the program is to create shuttles that would carry astronauts to and from the space station using U.S. companies, instead of hardware from foreign countries.
The COTS program, which began in 2006, allows NASA to invest financial and technical resources in the private sector to help develop space transportation. SpaceX and another company will be paid incrementally as they reach certain milestones.
In May, SpaceX became the first commercial company in history to send a spacecraft to the International Space Station. And with more than $3 billion of revenue set through 2017, Musk’s vision seems increasingly closer on the horizon. What remains to be seen is whether that horizon will be viewed by space tourists at Boca Chica Beach, or whether the panorama will remain the purview of the piping plover and its friends.

 

Australia: The future of space exploration

From The World Today:  The future of space exploration (A transcript)

ASHLEY HALL: The death last weekend of the first man to walk on the moon has re-ignited interest in the glory days of the American space program.

When Neil Armstrong took his "one small step" on the surface of the moon, an estimated 500 million people watched in awe on television.

The Apollo astronauts were treated like celebrities.

In the 43 years since, no space expedition has come close to generating that level of excitement.

And as NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Agency) grapples with continuing budget cuts, it seems likely no other mission will again.

To discuss what lies ahead in space exploration, I'm joined by Elliot Pulham, the chief executive of the Space Foundation. He joins us from Colorado

And in our Sydney studio, Jonathan Nally, the editor of the Australian space news website, spaceinfo.com.au

First though to Elliot Pulham, and let's start briefly with Neil Armstrong. He's been feted as a reluctant hero but more than anyone he typifies a glorious period of space exploration. Have those glory days gone forever?

ELLIOT PULHAM: We were certainly trying to do something that we had never done before and we had a very clear goal in mind and that goal was to get somebody on the moon and return them safely again, in a 10 year period of time, within the decade was what Kennedy said.

So that was quite a challenge and it was also a race, and if you'll recall there were all sorts of Cold War overtones in this and we were in a race with the Russians. And there was ideology at stake, there was bragging rights, national pride at stake. But really it was an exciting endeavour that really inspired a lot of people that wanted to get involved with this.

And it was a special point in time, I think not so different from the point in time that we're at today. I mean if you go back to the early 60s, everything wasn't all green grass and, you know, mother's home cooked gravy. Everything was not, you know, in an idyllic state. We had a war in Vietnam, we had unrest on campuses, we had racial issues that were coming to the forefront.

I mean it was a very stressful time, and yet there was this terrifically inspiring effort that gave people something positive to get behind. And so, you know, I think it was a special point in time, but I think it's not a unique point in time. I think that these moments come and will come again.

ASHLEY HALL: Jonathan Nally, the moon's been conquered, the space shuttles are now all in museums, are the best days of the American space program behind us?

JONATHAN NALLY: No, I'd say there's plenty more to do out there. We've only just reached a tiny way out into space. It's sad that no-one has been more than 850 kilometres from the earth, in what, 40 years or so. We're coming up to - December this year is the 40th anniversary of the last manned lunar landing.

To pick up a couple of the points that Elliot was talking about, I think that one of the big things that America had in the 1960s, though, was leadership. You had the Cold War and everything else, but if there had been a weak leader in power there then I don't think this would have happened at all. But Kennedy was an inspiring, charismatic, strong leader and people wanted to follow the goal that he set. And I just don't see that around at the moment.

And the problem we have now, of course, is that these - well the moon race in the 60s, at the height of the moon race, or the height of the spending on the moon race which was 1965, four years before the first moon landing, NASA's budget was about 4.5 per cent of the total American government budget. Today, and for probably the last 20 odd years now, it's 0.5 per cent.

So if you want to do big, grand things, it's just going to take you a lot longer to get them done with the meagre resources, compared to the Apollo days. But the problem that brings you is that that takes you over so many different political cycles, different governments, different financial cycles that, you know, I doubt that these sort of things can get done easily.

We saw the example of, back in 2004, when after the terrible Columbia accident, when the space shuttle was destroyed upon re-entry in 2003, the American government decided we need a new vision for space and we're going to go back to the moon and then we're going to go on to Mars. But that's all gone now.

ASHLEY HALL: I noticed during the landing of the Curiosity Rover on Mars, there was probably as much media attention given to the NASA rocket scientist Bobak Ferdowsi, the bloke with the star spangled mohawk hairdo, as there was for the Rover itself. Is it about personality?

ELLIOT PULHAM: When we went to the moon in that 10 year period, went from zero to landing on the moon, we had a very well articulated national plan, and you had a president in Lyndon Johnson who had been the vice-president of Kennedy and felt ownership of these programs, and so you had enough of a sustainment going for the program to get there.

Today, what we have seen since then, is that every president seems to want to put their own particular spin on the space program, and it makes it very difficult to sustain. And what we see is that every two to four years as an election cycle plays out, new people come into power and they have their own ideas.

And by one calculation, since the space shuttle began flying and NASA started looking for replacements, knowing that one day it would need a replacement, something on the order of $50-53 billion worth of effort has essentially been started, stopped and thrown away as we've gone through these successive changes in party leadership, successive changes in the Congress, the White House and so forth.

ASHLEY HALL: One of consequences of these budget cuts is that NASA is now working with a raft of private sector providers, like SpaceX for one, which has been testing rockets to be used to ferry passengers to the International Space Station. Jonathan Nally, it's cheaper to outsource parts of the program, but will NASA maintain control?

JONATHAN NALLY: Well, NASA wants to not necessarily maintain control of everything. What they want to have is a private enterprise system where private companies offer services, can provide the services that NASA wants. And, in fact, that's the way it's always been. NASA hasn't built its own spacecraft, the Saturn Five Rockets and the Apollo capsules, they were built by aerospace companies. So that's always the way it's been.

What NASA wants now for getting into low earth orbit to go up to the Space Station, is not only for companies to build the hardware but to operate the services as well. And I think that makes a great deal of sense and I and others have been arguing this for a very long time. Let someone else run the bus service, the ferry service up into space, and let NASA get on with what it does best and what it should be doing, which is exploring and pushing boundaries and innovating.

ASHLEY HALL: Well let's talk about that exploration facet. Elliot Pulham, what's the grand plan now, where are we headed now?

ELLIOT PULHAM: Well, that's rather the problem, is that we really don't have a grand plan. We have a program that's put together that's built around building capabilities, I guess is the kind way to put it. We want to have technical capabilities to launch a certain mass, to potentially go to this destination or that destination, but we really don't have an outlined disciplined plan that says step A, step B, destination one, destination two. We don't know where we're going and so we're pursuing a lot of different roads and it's not conducive to achievement.

The other thing about having that type of a mission plan is that any more, you know, we really don't do these things alone. I think that the degree to which the international space community relies on the US to have a direction and a program is not terribly well understood.

I was in Germany a few weeks ago and we were talking with their industry and visiting some of the terrific facilities that the Germans have. And, you know, there's a great frustration, which I think is very typical, which is that, you know, they have long accepted the fact that they would work in partnership with us and we would be in the lead, and now they're looking around going, well, where are you leading? And we can't answer that question. So we really need to put together, you know, a mission that makes sense.

And I think it's unfortunate that the Bush administration really did not get behind its own plan with the required resources and the required political support. And I think it's a danger that we're in now is because the, what is referred to as a vision for space exploration, was articulated by George Bush, everybody assumes it was wrong. Actually, the vision they articulated made a lot of sense. I don't know if that was by accident or how they came up with it, but it was a very good plan.

ASHLEY HALL: And how important is it to have people on these missions?

ELLIOT PULHAM: Well, I think it's very important for a couple of reasons. You know, one is for the reason that the ultimate explorer and the ultimate robot, the ultimate thinking machine is a human being. And, you know, when you get to places like the moon or Mars and are confronted with something that the machine is not designed to do, the human can improvise.

I think the other really important point is that it puts the rest of the world in the loop, it puts people in the loop. You know, if you can imagine back when Everest was first scaled by Sir Edmund Hillary, you know if had simply just sat on the ground and had a great bloody catapult and launched a robot to the top of Mount Everest, would anybody have cared? But it was because he, a human being, was there, we were all there.

And I think you see the same thing, you know, it's fantastic what the Rovers are doing and what the Rovers are capable of, and Curiosity is just the most marvellous machine ever. But just try and imagine what the world would have been like if that had of been a human being stepping foot on Mars.

ASHLEY HALL: Jonathan Nally, it's much safer to send robots.

JONATHAN NALLY: It is safer to send robots. And look, during the moon race of the 60s they sent robots to the moon first. They had a number of different spacecrafts - the orbiters and the surveyors which scouted out the territory first, which sort of makes sense. But, you know, we can't always take the safe option. You know, people need to take risks and that's the way we've always been.

And I'm always reminded of Kennedy's words in one of his famous speeches about going to the moon, where, roughly to sort of paraphrase what he said, we are doing this and facing the other challenges we need to, not because they're easy but because they are hard. You know, let's not always take the easy option, let's tackle the things that really test us and show us what we're really made of.

When we are challenged to do something that seems beyond our capabilities, but that fires us up and shows us that we really can do anything, whether it's out in space or here on earth.

ASHLEY HALL: Just before we wind up, Elliot Pulham, I'm interested in pursuing the questions around commercialisation of space and space itself. There's some talk that we might see mining on the moon in some stage in the not too distant future. Apparently there's quite a bit of Helium-3 there and quite a lot of water as well. Is that something that's in the near to medium term?

ELLIOT PULHAM: I think that as commercial capabilities become more available that they will enable business case that we can't imagine today. It's one of the benefits of having a company like SpaceX that can deliver a launch at a very low cost is, now it becomes something that not just the government can afford, it becomes something that a person with a good business case can look at and say, OK, I know how much that's going to cost me and I think this is what my return's going to be. And so therefore I can invest in this project.

I think the, you know, mining for Helium-3 on the moon is an interesting proposition. I think one of the more interesting propositions is mining asteroids. There are a couple of very large asteroids that are headed our way that have been studied extensively and are known to contain more platinum and other valuable precious metals than the entire estimated reserves of the earth. And so if you can imagine what platinum sells for and figure out how to mine that as the asteroid is coming by, there's an opportunity to create at tremendous amount of wealth there.

But I think, you know, another really important option is to understand energy and how we can do things differently in energy. Things like photovoltaic cells that generate electricity, you know, come from the space program. There is technology developing that'll allow us to efficiently harvest energy from the sun, from spacecraft in orbit or, potentially, from a very large installation on the moon.

If you're a utility company and you can deliver solar energy from the moon for half the cost and none of the environmental damage that the oil companies have, then you might be on to something.

ASHLEY HALL: Jonathan Nally, what's to stop a business funding its own mission to the moon or perhaps to Mars and claiming the place as its own? I imagine it'd be a great marketing opportunity, a big billboard for a certain chocolate bar maker?

JONATHAN NALLY: (Laughs) Yes, I suppose it would. Look there's nothing to stop them from going to these places at all. There are United Nations conventions, treaties that have been around for a very long time now, to which most countries have signed up that says, well actually it says no state is allowed to claim any of the bodies beyond earth. It doesn't specifically state, as I understand it, commercial enterprises, but I believe there's other things that also cover that.

Yes, it might happen, but, you know, I think as prices drop, as Elliot alluded to, as it becomes economic to get into space we will see things that we just can't imagine now. And that really is the driver.

Just quickly, when the Kangaroo Air Route opened up between Australia and London about 70 years ago, the cost of a return ticket there was the cost of buying a house. Today, the cost of a return ticket to London is one or two weeks' wages. And everyone flies now. So, as the cost comes down avenues will open up and people will start to exploit what's out there.

ASHLEYHALL: In our Sydney studio, the editor of the Australian space news website, Jonathan Nally; and Elliot Pulham, the chief executive of the Space Foundation joining us from Colorado.