Future of Unmanned Space Exploration

Paper ID:

552

Last updated: 15/11/2010 10:11:44

Criteria:

Impact:

Likelihood:

Controversy:

Where: Regional

When: 11-20yrs

How Fast: Years

0 people thought this paper expanded their thinking bullet

Keywords:

Space science & Astronomy - space, exploration, origins, extraterrestrial life

Summary

Robotic exploration of the solar system is likely to steadily progress for decades to come, producing new technologies and discoveries. Although robotic exploration has been dominated in past years by well-established space programs, new countries are also starting their own robotic exploration efforts, expanding their domestic space industries and making important contributions to science.

Discussion

Future scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs made by robotic space exploration missions may be entirely unexpected. Robotic space exploration has contributed to the scientific understanding of the universe, the ability to continue exploring outer space, as well as the quality of life on Earth. As well, robotic space exploration missions advance our understanding of how the solar system formed (e.g. Dawn [1]), examine the potential for life on other planets (e.g. Beagle 2 [2]), and raise questions about the nature of the universe (e.g. the Pioneer Anomaly [3]). They have also helped to test technologies and obtain information necessary for future human missions, from discovering the challenges of landing on an asteroid (Hayabusa [4]) to mapping potential resources for a lunar base (e.g. Chandrayaan-1 [5]). Finally, spinoffs have contributed to solutions on Earth such as diagnosing tuberculosis. [6]

In addition to achieving scientific breakthroughs, robotic space exploration missions also tend to push the state-of-the art in space technologies. Past missions have provided improvements that range from the incremental – advances in radiation-hardened electronics on the Cassini-Huygens mission [7] – to the innovative – Mars Pathfinder’s air-bag landing system. [8] Current planned missions include the first solar sail (JAXA, IKAROS [9]), which uses solar wind instead of on-board fuel to propel a spacecraft. More advanced technologies can enable larger missions to destinations farther from Earth. These enabling future technologies include in-space fission-reactors, [10] aerocapture, [11] increased autonomy, [12] and in-situ sample gathering, handling, and analysis. [12]

Space exploration is driven by civilian, commercial and military agendas; though the actual distribution of funding and support between these different purposes is not necessarily transparent or easily measured. [13] Driven by a combination of scientific, technical, and political objectives, preliminary planning by the major space faring blocs (the United States, the European Space Agency (ESA), Japan, Russia, China, and India) is already underway for unmanned exploration missions in the 2021 to 2030 timeframe. In the US, the Space Studies Board (SSB), part of the National Academies, advises space policy makers on space science objectives and missions. The SSB is currently working on four decadal surveys: Solar and Space Physics; Biological and Physical Sciences in Space; Planetary Science; and Astronomy and Astrophysics. [14] Work on these reports is expected to provide a framework that can guide American robotic exploration into the early 2020s. Similarly, in 2005, the ESA released a study covering its space science plans entitled Cosmic Vision: Space Science for Europe 2015-2025; [15] this suggests several areas of scientific interest and mission proposals that are now under examination.

Other programs have scheduled missions through the 2010s, but the lack of similar scientific roadmaps makes it more difficult to speculate about the specific direction of those programs between 2020 and 2030. Japan, [16] [17] China, [18] and India [19] [20] are likely to continue to target the Moon, Mars and near-Earth Asteroids in the informal, but continuing, Asian Space Race. [21] [22] Followers of the Russian space program report that the Russian space industry was directed in 2005 to develop new long-range plans (through 2040) and is currently working under a Federal Space Program that specifies missions through 2020. [23] Brazil has also entered into the commercial space arena, with a space programme involving building rockets, satellites and a launch site and could become a more active player in exploration in the future. [24]
The extent to which these plans will be realized will depend on national space exploration budgets over the next 10-20 years. Amidst changing national plans and financial crises, the funding climate for American and European space exploration in the near-tem remains uncertain. It remains unclear whether the American Congress will support the new Presidential direction for space exploration announced in April 2010. [25] [26] Approving the new budget plan would slightly increase NASA’s funding for robotic exploration as well as change the focus of American human exploration activities. [27] [28] The ESA, noting the increasingly constrained budgets of its member countries, has frozen its budget for 2010 and 2011 at €3.7 billion, although some individual countries have indicated their intention to increase their national space budgets [29] and no programs have been cancelled at this time. [29]

However, there is some evidence that funding for space exploration will rise in other countries over the next decade. Driven by increased energy revenues, Russia’s space program has seen its budget double between 2000 and 2009. [23] Furthermore, space exploration budgets of Japan, China and India are expected to expand under pressure from their human exploration ambitions [30] [31] and interest in improving their native space industries. [32]

Independent of the near-term budgetary environment, three factors in particular can potentially increase the scale and scope of robotic exploration programs pursued throughout the world: (1) international cooperation or competition; (2) synergies with human exploration; and (3) significant scientific discoveries. In all funding environments, international cooperation has the potential to increase program stability and enable more ambitious missions at a lower cost than each partner could bear acting on their own. [33] However, incentives for cooperation are counterbalanced by incentives for competition, including developing indigenous capabilities and pursuing rivalries for national prestige; both of these incentives can potentially motivate increases in national budgets. The extent to which cooperation or competition will define the coming decades of space exploration remains to be seen. While many nations have successfully cooperated in the past on robotic exploration - for example the Cassini-Huygens mission between ESA and the US, BepiColombo between ESA and JAXA, and the inclusion of an ESA sensor on the Indian Chandrayaan-1 – recent changes in the American space program may set back recent cooperative agreements, such as the Global Exploration Strategy. [34] Meanwhile, the ongoing Asian Space Race provides a potential framework for competition.

Another trend that may increase the number of robotic exploration missions is human space exploration. NASA’s former Vision for Space Exploration originally included as many as 21 lunar and Martian robotic test-bed missions supporting eventual human landings on both bodies. [35] Current Chinese, Japanese and Indian lunar probes are thought to be in aid of eventual human lunar missions post-2020. [22]

Significant or unexpected scientific discoveries could also spark interest in more frequent or more ambitious robotic space exploration. While the discovery of microscopic organic matter on Mars could be viewed as simply the culmination of increasingly sophisticated robotic missions, it could also inspire more searches for life elsewhere in the solar system. In contrast, the Galileo probe’s suggested findings of liquid water oceans on Europa has led to strong interest from the international astrobiology community in a mission to land on Europa and drill through the icy crust – a desire which has not yet been fulfilled. [36]

Implications

One possible future could be for the United Kingdom to increase its involvement in unmanned space exploration. Recent consolidation of the UK’s space efforts under the UK space agency (UKSA) could provide an opportunity for the UK to revisit its long-term plans for a national space program, including the possibility of increasing participation in unmanned space exploration (e.g. [37] and [38]). The UK already participates in a wide array of unmanned space exploration missions through its membership with ESA as well as through the direct participation of domestic universities and scientists in various robotic exploration missions. Expanding its space programme could provide opportunities for the UK to continue developing its domestic space industry as well as maintain scientific, industrial, and technical ties with nations around the world.

If the UK were to expand its space efforts, opportunities could emerge for the UK to lead small-scale independent missions and to collaborate on larger, international missions. While the UK-led Beagle 2 failed to land on Mars, [39] the experience gained by UK researchers and project managers could be leveraged in future UK-led robotic exploration missions. Similar skills could also used and developed when UK companies and universities take a major role in collaborative projects such as the NASA-ESA ExoMars programme. [40] In addition, leveraging unique capabilities of UK companies could lead to deeper partnerships with other space programs. Canada’s experience with the “Canadarm” is one such example. The success of the first “Canadarm”, built for the American Space Shuttle in the early 1980s, directly contributed to close ties between the American and Canadian astronaut corps, Canada’s early partnership in the International Space Station (ISS), and a contract to develop upgraded manipulator arms on the ISS. [41]

Governments pursue robotic space exploration for a variety of reasons ranging from the cultural value of exploration to the desire to support domestic space industries (for one discussion of the proposed benefits of exploration see[42] While robotic space exploration could improve space technologies, spinoffs that impact the quality of life on Earth have been documented as well. [43] [44]. A number of nations will likely continue to pursue robotic space exploration through the next two decades. Participating in this pursuit could be one means for the UK to develop the technological infrastructure that could be necessary for ensuring that the UK has the technical capacity to take advantage of the scientific and technological breakthroughs that emerge from this field.

However, also, in expanding its space exploration programmes, the UK would have to consider the cost implications of such efforts. Alternative solutions could be to build stronger links with countries that have their own space programmes, or to focus on directing further support towards the ESA projects. In expanding its space exploration programmes, the UK would have to consider how best to direct its efforts, engage with other countries in order to maximise effectiveness and efficiency, and work with different policy and scientific actors.

Early indicators

Formal funding of large, international flagship missions, such as Mars sample return missions, or exploration of the gas giant moons.
Establishment of new international frameworks for cooperation.
Strong budgetary commitments by existing space powers to expand human space exploration efforts to Mars, the Moon, or Near-Earth Asteroids.

Institutions and Organizations:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, USA
Roskosmos, Russia
European Space Agency, Europe
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Japan
Indian Space Research Organization, India
UK Space Agency, UK
The National Academies, USA
The Planetary Society, USA
European Astrobiology Network Association, Europe
International Astronautical Federation

Drivers & Inhibitors

Drivers:
Capabilities of domestic high-technology industries and science and technology universities.
Increased competition among leading space faring nations in the field of robotic exploration.
Perception that robotic exploration is more “cost effective” than human exploration.

Inhibitors:
Costly mission failures.
Competition with other budgetary priorities, particularly in times of economic downturn.

Parallels & Precedents

Development of communications and EO spacecraft.
Aerospace propulsion industry, first mover advantage.
Historical voyages of exploration.

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Date/Time

User

People who viewed this paper also viewed

Headline

Sources

Ref.	Publisher	Date	Title	Category
1	NASA	2010	NASA (2010). Dawn Mission - Homepage. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. [online]	Tech
2	NASA	2010	NASA (2010). Beagle 2: Life on Mars. [online]	Tech
3	Physical Review Letters	1998	Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., Liu, A. S., Nieto, M. M. & Turyshev, S. G. (1998) "Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, Long-Range Acceleration." Physical Review Letters; 81:2858-2861.	Tech
4	JAXA	2010	Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (2010). Hayabusa - The Final Approach. [online]	Tech
5	Other	2010	Indian Space Research Organisation (2010). Chandrayaan-1 (Homepage). [online]	Tech
6	The Daily Telegraph	24/11/2009	Alexander, H. (2009) "Professor Colin Pillinger: Beagle 2 probe could be used to diagnose TB." The Daily Telegraph, November 24.	Tech
7	NASA	1995	NASA (1995) Cassini's Earthly Benefits. May.	Tech
8	John Hopkins University Press		McCurdy, H. (2001) Faster, better, cheaper: low-cost innovation in the U.S. space program, JHU Press.	Tech
9	JAXA	2008	Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (2008) Ikaros Project (Homepage). [online]	Tech
10	NASA	2005	NASA (2005). Prometheus Project: Final Report. 982-R120461	Tech
11	NASA	2006	NASA (2006) "For Fuel Conservation in Space, NASA Engineers Prescribe Aerocapture." [online]	Tech
12	ESA	2010	ESA (2010) The ESA-NASA ExoMars Programme Rover, 2018. [online]	Tech
13	US Library of Congress	13/06/2006	Moloney Figliola P, Behrens C and Morgan D (2006). U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial, CRS Issue Brief for Congress. Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service, 13 June.	Tech
14	Other	2010	National Academies (2010) Space Studies Board Decadal Surveys [online]	Tech
15	ESA	2005	European Space Agency (2005). Cosmic Vision: Space Science for Europe 2015-2025. Noorwijk. the Netherlands: ESA Publications Division	Tech
16	Other	2010	Dillow, C. (2010) Japan Plans a Moon Base by 2020, Built by Robots for Robots. Popular Science, May 27.	Tech
17	JAXA	2008	Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (2008). Lunar Exploration Program. [online]	Tech
18	Other	2010	Chinese Lunar Exploration Program (2010). Homepage [online]	Tech
19	Other	2009	Goswami, J. N. & Murty, S. V. S. (2009) Planetary sciences and exploration: An Indian perspective. Current Trends in Science, Platinum Jubilee Special.	Tech
20	Other	2010	ISRO (2010) Space Vision India 2025. [online]	Tech
21	Time	2005	Frederick, J. (2005) Asia's Space Race. Time, October 10.	Tech
22	Time	2008	Singh, M. (2008) India Gains on China in Asia's Space Race. Time, October 21.	Tech
23	Other	2008	Russian space program in the first decade of the 21st century (2008). Website.	Tech
24	Massachusetts South America Office	06/2007	Massechusetts Office of International Trade & Investment, 2007, 'Brazil Aerospace Industry', Market Brief: Brazil Aerospace Industry.	Tech
25	Other	2010	Morring, F. (2010) NASA Plan Falls Flat in Congress. Aviation Week, February 26	Tech
26	US Senate	2010	The Future of U.S. Human Space Flight. (2010) U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, 111th Congress. May 12.	Tech
27	NASA	2010	NASA (2010) Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates.	Tech
28	John F. Kennedy Space Center	2010	Obama, B. (2010) Remarks by the President on Space Exploration in the 21st Century. John F. Kennedy Space Center.	Tech
29	BBC	2010	Amos, J. (2010) German space escapes budget cuts. BBC News, June 9	Tech
30	New York Times	2003	Kahn, J. (2003) Reaching for Moon, China Works to Put Astronauts in Orbit. New York Times, March 14.	Tech
31	Time	2009	Page, J. (2009) India approves £1.7bn plan to launch astronatus as Asian space race hots up. The Times, February 24	Tech
32	Other	2010	Unknown author (2010). Space industry funding to double in next 10 years. The Daily Yomiuri, May 27.	Tech
33	Other	2007	Broniatowski, D. A., Faith, G. R. & Sabathier, V. G. (2007) The Case for Managed International Cooperation in Space Exploration.	Tech
34	Other	2007	The Global Exploration Strategy (2007) The Framework for Coordination.	Tech
35	NASA	2004	NASA (2004)The Vision for Space Exploration. [online	Tech
36	Other	2006	David, L. (2006) Europa Mission: Lost in NASA Budget. Space.com [online]	Tech
37	Other	2010	Space IGS (2010) A UK Space Innovation and Growth Strategy 2010 to 2030.	Tech
38	British National Space Centre	2009	British National Space Centre (2009) Space Exploration Review. December	Tech
39	BBC	2004	Amos, J. (2004) Beagle team probes its own loss. BBC News, August 24.	Tech
40	UK Space Agency	2010	UK Space Agency (2010) It's go Mars - UK Space Agency funds international Mars Rover (press release) [online]	Tech
41	Other	2002	Dotto, L. (2002) Canada and The European Space Agency Three Decades of Cooperation. HSR-25. May.	Tech
42	Other	2004	Aeronatuics and Space Engineering Board (2004) Stepping-Stones to the Future of Space Exploraiton: A Workshop Report.	Tech
43	NASA	2010	Wilson, J. R. (2010) Space Program Benefits: NASA's Positive Impact on Society. NASA. [online]	Tech
44	UK Space Agency	2009	UK Space Agency (2009) Everyday benefits of space. [online]	Tech

Other Sources

Link	User
British Interplanetary Society	MI
China National Space Administration	StephanieDiepeveen
ESA	MI
Kingston University, Astronautics and Space Research Group	MI
Leicester University Space Centre	MI
Mullard Space Science Centre, University College London	MI
Open University (UK) planetary and space science research institute	MI
Surrey Space Centre	MI

The contents of this paper were supplied by the Institute for the Future, and have been reviewed by the Outsights-Ipsos MORI Partnership. Any views expressed are independent of government and do not constitute government policy.