SPACE

 

Dawn Of Self-Repairing Spacecraft: Perovskite’s Potential To Transform Orbital Infra – Analysis

 June 30, 2024

By Girish Linganna

Space is a tough place filled with strong radiation. Spacecraft and satellite manufacturers need to use materials that can overcome harsh conditions.

In a paper published in January 2024, Ahmad Kirmani from the Rochester Institute of Technology shared with astronomy.com that his team of materials researchers had found that a new semiconductor material, called ‘metal-halide perovskite’—a material discovered back in 1839 and commonly found in Earth’s crust—can actually repair itself after being damaged by radiation.

From the surface, Earth’s crust extends about 5-70 kilometres into the interiors. It covers the entire planet’s surface. The crust is rich in such minerals as silicon, aluminium and oxygen. Temperatures range from cool at the surface to about 500°C-1,000°C in the deepest parts.

Metal-halide perovskites are effective in absorbing sunlight and converting it into electricity. This makes them a promising option for solar panels in space, which could power satellites or future space habitats. Scientists produce perovskites as inks, which they then apply to glass or plastic surfaces. This process creates thin, film-like devices that are both lightweight and flexible.

Amazingly, these thin-film solar cells work just as well as regular silicon solar cells in lab tests, despite being nearly 100 times thinner than traditional ones. However, these thin films can break down when they come into contact with moisture or oxygen. Scientists and companies are now trying to solve these stability problems to make them suitable for use on Earth.

To see how they would perform in space, a technical team created a radiation test. Perovskite solar cells were exposed to both low- and high-energy protons and a unique property was discovered. The high-energy protons repaired the damage caused by the low-energy protons, enabling the device to recover and keep working. Traditional and conventional semiconductors used in space electronics do not have this self-healing ability.

The technical team was astonished by the discovery. How is it possible for a material that breaks down on exposure to moisture and oxygen not only withstand the powerful radiation of space, but also self-repair under conditions that typically damage conventional silicon semiconductors?

Resilient Perovskite Crystals

The team’s research highlights an interesting property of perovskites—their ability to withstand damage and defects. These crystals belong to a category of soft materials, allowing their atoms to shift into various vibrational states, which scientists refer to as ‘vibrational modes’.

Perovskite’s atoms are normally formed into a lattice structure. However, radiation can displace these atoms, causing damage to the material. The vibrations within the material might help realign the atoms, although the technical team is still uncertain about the exact mechanism behind this process.

Soft Materials for Use in Space

The research suggests that soft materials could be particularly useful in harsh environments, such as those found in space. Radiation is just one of the many challenges that materials face in space. Scientists are still unsure how perovskites will perform when subjected to vacuum conditions, extreme temperature changes and radiation—all at the same time. Temperature might influence the healing behaviour observed by researchers, but more studies are necessary to understand its exact role.

These findings indicate that soft materials could help scientists create technology that functions well in extreme conditions. Scientists now want to research what role vibrations play in enhancing the self-healing abilities of these materials.

The Future of Space Materials

Scientists believe that, in the next 10 years, the number of satellites launched into near-Earth orbit will grow rapidly. Additionally, such space agencies as NASA plan to set up bases on the Moon. Materials that can withstand extreme radiation and repair themselves would be a game-changer.

Researchers estimate that sending just a few pounds of perovskite materials into space could produce up to 10 million watts of power. Currently, it costs about $4,000 (INR 3.3 lakh) per kilogram to launch materials into space, so using efficient materials is crucial.

ScreenshotCrystals of perovskite on matrix. Photo Credit: Rob Lavinsky, iRocks.com, Wikipedia Commons

Girish Linganna is a Defence, Aerospace & Political Analyst based in Bengaluru. He is also Director of ADD Engineering Components, India, Pvt. Ltd, a subsidiary of ADD Engineering GmbH, Germany. You can reach him at: girishlinganna@gmail.com

Spectacular new "3D" Pillars of Creation merges Hubble and Webb views

Scott Sutherland

Meteorologist, Science Writer
Published on Jun. 28, 2024

"When we combine observations from NASA's space telescopes across different wavelengths of light, we broaden our understanding of the universe."

One of the most famous objects in space has been imaged by our most powerful telescopes, and now scientists have produced an amazing 3D visualization of The Pillars of Creation, revealing it in greater detail than ever before.

Roughly 7,000 light years away from Earth is an immense cloud of dust and gas known as the Eagle Nebula. At the heart of this cloud is one of the most well-imaged objects in space — The Pillars of Creation

.
The Eagle Nebula, a cluster of stars, dust and gas, located in the Serpens constellation. Standing out against the bright core of the nebula are the famous Pillars of Creation. (NASA/STSci)

First revealed to us nearly 30 years ago by the Hubble Space Telescope, our view of the Pillars of Creation has been updated again and again. First, Hubble returned to observe it nearly a decade ago, returning even higher resolution images of this star-forming region.

Then, in 2022, astronomers aimed the new James Webb Space Telescope at this same region of space.

A comparison of Hubble's visible light image (left) with Webb's infrared view (right) of the Pillars of Creation. (Hubble image: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA). Webb image: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI; Joseph DePasquale (STScI), Anton M. Koekemoer (STScI), Alyssa Pagan (STScI))

With Webb's more advanced cameras and deeper view into the infrared spectrum, it treated us to the best, and highest resolution view of the Pillars that we had ever seen.

Now, though, a team of scientists has combined the Hubble and Webb observations, producing a three-dimensional model of the Pillars of Creation.

Watch below: The Pillars of Creation and the Interplay of Stars and Dust



According to NASA, the narrated video above "combines a direct connection to the science and scientists of NASA's Astrophysics missions with attention to the needs of an audience of youth, families, and lifelong learners. It enables viewers to explore fundamental questions in science, experience how science is done, and discover the universe for themselves."

"Several stages of star formation are highlighted in the visualization. As viewers approach the central pillar, they see at its top an embedded, infant protostar glimmering bright red in infrared light," NASA explained. "Near the top of the left pillar is a diagonal jet of material ejected from a newborn star. Though the jet is evidence of star birth, viewers can't see the star itself. Finally, at the end of one of the left pillar's protruding 'fingers' is a blazing, brand-new star."

A mosaic of Hubble and Webb images of the Pillars of creation reveal the different formations in the gas clouds that are highlighted by each individual telescope — wispy gas streamers by Hubble and the stunning details of the pillars themselves by Webb. (Greg Bacon, Ralf Crawford, Joseph DePasquale, Leah Hustak, Christian Nieves, Joseph Olmsted, Alyssa Pagan, and Frank Summers (STScI), NASA's Universe of Learning)

"By flying past and amongst the pillars, viewers experience their three-dimensional structure and see how they look different in the Hubble visible-light view versus the Webb infrared-light view," Frank Summers of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) explained in a NASA press release. "The contrast helps them understand why we have more than one space telescope to observe different aspects of the same object."

"When we combine observations from NASA’s space telescopes across different wavelengths of light, we broaden our understanding of the universe," added Mark Clampin, the Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters. "The Pillars of Creation region continues to offer us new insights that hone our understanding of how stars form. Now, with this new visualization, everyone can experience this rich, captivating landscape in a new way."

Thumbnail image combines Hubble visible light images with Webb infrared data, resulting in a highly detailed view of the Pillars of Creation. Courtesy NASA and the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI)

INDEFINITE STAY

Starliner to remain on ISS for more thruster tests

Jeff FoustJune 28, 2024

Boeing's CST-100 Starliner approaches the ISS on the Crew Flight Test mission June 6. Credit: NASA TV

WASHINGTON — NASA and Boeing plan to keep the CST-100 Starliner spacecraft at the International Space Station well into July to conduct additional tests, while emphasizing its two-person crew is not “stranded” in space.

At a June 28 briefing, about the Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission, the first in 10 days, agency and company officials said they would not set a return date for Starliner, bringing back NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, until after completing additional tests to better understand thruster malfunctions and helium leaks the spacecraft has experienced.

“Butch and Suni are not stranded in space,” said Steve Stich, NASA commercial crew program manager. “Our plan is to continue to return them on Starliner and return them home at the right time. We have a little bit more work to do to get there for the final return.”

That additional work now includes thruster tests that NASA plans to perform at its White Sands Test Facility. Stich said NASA will take a reaction control system thruster like those on Starliner and put it through the same profile of burns used on Starliner during its approach to the ISS. The goal is to see if they can replicate the issues that caused the spacecraft to “de-select” those thrusters and perform inspections of them not possible while in orbit.

Those tests are scheduled to begin no earlier than July 2 and last a couple weeks, he said. “This will be the real opportunity to examine the thruster just like we had in space on the ground, with detailed inspections.”

Only after completing those tests and reviewing their results would NASA set a landing date for Starliner, which would push it out to no earlier than the latter half of July. That process will also include an agency-level review of the spacecraft to confirm that they have all the data they need to understand the cause of the problems and that the spacecraft is safe to return home.

While original plans called for Starliner to remain docked to the ISS for only eight days, officials said there was no rush to return home while they can still gather data, particularly from the service module section that is jettisoned and not recovered at the end of the mission. “We have the luxury of time,” said Ken Bowersox, NASA associate administrator for space operations.

“We understand these issues for a safe return,” Mark Nappi, Boeing vice president and commercial crew program manager, of the thruster and helium leak problems. “But we don’t understand these issues enough yet for us to fix them permanently.”

He said the results of the thruster tests on the ground could lead controllers to perform additional tests with Starliner’s thrusters while docked to the station, which is why the ground tests will be performed before Starliner returns, not after.

NASA has originally set a 45-day limit on the length of the CFT mission based on the batteries in the crew module. However, Stich said that can be extended because of the performance of the batteries so far in the mission, with no change in risk to the mission.

The extended duration of the mission, along with the problems with the thrusters and helium leaks, will pose challenges to certify the vehicle for crew rotation missions. NASA had hoped to have Starliner certified by November, in time for a February crew rotation mission called Starliner-1.

“We understand it’s going to take a little bit longer,” Stich said of certification. He said that NASA is working on preparations for both Starliner-1 and Crew-10, a Crew Dragon mission planned for launch in late summer of next year, in parallel, allowing NASA to push off a decision on whether to move up Crew-10 to February.

“We can take our time and get through the Crew Flight Test and have the vehicle return with Butch and Suni, and then we can make decisions afterwards,” he said. “We still have time.”

During the briefing, Nappi expressed frustration with what he considered negative media coverage of the CFT mission. “Being a representative of Boeing and a representative of the Starliner program, it’s pretty painful to read the things that are out there,” he said. “We’ve gotten a really good test flight that’s been accomplished so far and it’s being viewed rather negatively.”

However, many reporters on the call complained of a lack of updates about the mission as well as details about why the timeline for Starliner’s return kept being pushed back. “I think we probably need to be doing a little bit more frequent interaction with the media to keep you up to date,” Stich acknowledged.
Spacewalk updates

NASA also used the briefing, lasting a little more than an hour, to discuss both the scrubbed spacewalk at the station June 24 as well as the agency’s award of a contract to SpaceX June 26 for the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle (USDV).

The June 24 spacewalk was postponed when water leaked into the airlock after astronaut Tracy Dyson disconnected a suit umbilical just as the spacewalk was starting. Astronauts have not been able to recreate the leak, said Bill Spetch, operations integration manager for the ISS program at NASA, and the cause remains under study.

Emily Nelson, chief flight director, said leaks from fluid connectors are not uncommon, but they had not seen this specific leak before. “We just need to understand this particular one in more detail before we can get the crew lined up to try again.”

NASA had planned a spacewalk for July 2, but that has been pushed back to the end of July, Spetch said. That spacewalk will have a different set of tasks as the June 24 spacewalk, combining tasks for what had been projected to be a series of three spacewalks. That work will include relocating an antenna, doing preparatory work for future repairs of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, replace a rate gyro assembly and swab parts of the station’s exterior to study any microorganisms that may live there.

When NASA announced the selection of SpaceX as the developer of the USDV, neither the company nor the agency disclosed details about the design of the spacecraft, which will be used to perform the final maneuvers to deorbit the station at the end of its life.

“That’s based off of a Dragon heritage design,” said Spetch, with modifications to the trunk section. He did not go into details about the design and declined to discuss what set it apart from other proposals, noting that NASA had not yet issued a source selection statement for procurement.

Kremlin’s Nuclear Russian Roulette In Orbit Could Trigger NATO Clash

Kevin Holden Platt
Contributor
Writing at the intersection of space and defense, focus on SpaceX, Mars' 1st cosmopolis.

Jun 28, 2024


Visitors scan a model of the Soviet-era Tsar Bomb, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created. ... [+]AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

As Russia escalates its nuclear brinkmanship - with a top-secret drive to launch the first plutonium warhead into orbit and with simulated explosions of tactical bombs near Ukraine - it is edging closer to sparking a conflict with the 32-nation NATO alliance, say leading defense scholars in the U.S.

The White House has already called out Moscow’s clandestine mission to launch a spacecraft capped with a nuclear warhead, even as space defense experts across the U.S. war-game how to prevent this new space super-bomb from threatening American satellites, and how to respond if the weapon is ever ignited.

President Vladimir V. Putin has been scaling a pyramid of nuclear escalation, but it remains unclear whether this process will end with Russia’s explosion of a powerful warhead in low Earth orbit, says Spenser Warren, a scholar on Russia’s nuclear modernisation drive under Putin’s reign at the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

“Russian nuclear threats reached peaks at several points,” Warren told me in an interview, including its recent virtual detonations of tactical bombs on a mock Ukrainian battlefield, its suspension of the U.S.-Russian New START arms control treaty, and now its race to perfect an orbital bomb to shake up the heavens.

Hypothetically, the White House could opt to respond to Russia’s lofting a nuclear-tipped spacecraft by shooting it down with an anti-satellite missile as an act of self-defense, says Dr. Laura Grego, a preeminent expert on nuclear weapons, missile defense, and space security at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“One can use a conventionally armed interceptor of the type the U.S. and others have developed to destroy the nuclear weapon,” she told me.

But that mission would be extremely high risk, she warns.

“Russia could preemptively detonate the nuclear weapon if it saw the interceptor launch and suspected where it was headed,” she says.

As a co-drafter of the Outer Space Treaty, Russia is obligated never to send a nuclear bomb into orbit, she points out. “The best place to verify compliance with the obligation not to station nuclear weapons in space is before launch.”

“It’s very much harder once such a weapon is launched.”

But Russia has suspended nuclear inspections required under the New START Treaty, and is certain to balk at any U.S. or UN request to visit its nuclear weapons centers to find the orbit-bound bomb.

“There may be contextual clues about whether a satellite is actually carrying a nuclear weapon,” Dr. Grego says, “but I expect that there are pretty good techniques for disguising it as something else, at least for a while.”

Russian rockets take center stage in central Moscow. 

“Back when we had civil engagement with Russia, there was a general consensus not to put nuclear weapons in space,” says John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense who is now President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, one of the top defense think tanks in Washington DC.

But Russia might now be abandoning that space détente, he told me in an interview.

During a fascinating CSIS fireside chat that Dr. Hamre hosted, "The Nuclear Option: Deciphering Russia's New Space Threat,” he stated: “This is an implication there’s now a weapon in orbit or could be a weapon in orbit and that's a very profound thing. Nuclear weapons in space are really profoundly different from nuclear weapons here on planet Earth.”

"We're used to thinking about blast effects and there's the shock wave and all that sort of thing. All of that is the product of an Earthly environment,” he added.

In an interview right after that gathering, Dr. Hamre told me: “Much of the destructive quality of nuclear weapons on Earth comes from the heat (the detonation heating air molecules) and blast effects (the air compression that is pushed violently through the atmosphere). Some energy from the blast is consumed by impact on the ground, generating ejecta. You have none of that in space. So almost all the energy is dissipated as x-rays.”

“A nuclear detonation in space,” he says, “would reach out hundreds of miles.”

Even during the ultimate arms contest that marked Cold War I, when Moscow and Washington competed to test thermonuclear bombs that could set entire continents afire, the two sides agreed to a ban on celestial weapons to ensure their race to the Moon would remain peaceful.

Russia’s repudiation of the outer space pact by stationing its doomsday warheads in orbit would end that longstanding truce.

Now just a shadow of the one-time Soviet space superpower, Russia is operating “a structurally failing space program,” says James Clay Moltz, one of the top space defense scholars in the U.S. and a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

To mask Russia’s decline as a space power, “Putin seems to have decided that his only card is to threaten U.S. satellites and even the space environment itself,” Professor Moltz told me in an interview.

“But the use of a nuclear weapon in orbit would be an act of international terrorism,” he says.

“The electro-magnetic pulse and radiation would indiscriminately kill astronauts on the International Space Station and taikonauts on China’s Tiangong space station.”

The blast could destroy “thousands of satellites that provide information critical to the world economy and human safety on the ground, at sea, and in the air,” adds Professor Moltz, who has written a series of internationally acclaimed books on the expanding dangers of great power conflicts in space, including Crowded Orbits.

“Any country that carries out such an act,” he says, “would be become an instant international pariah.”

If Russia did explode a powerful nuclear warhead in the vicinity of the International Space Station, killing its American and European astronauts, and destroying a swath of U.S. satellites, this act of aggression could swiftly cascade into a superpower confrontation, says Professor Jack Beard, one of the world’s leading experts on the mosaic of UN treaties governing space defense and director of the Space, Cyber & National Security Law Program at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

Russian Soyuz rocket set to launch to the ISS.

Professor Beard, who recently published the globe’s first comprehensive “Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations,” says the blast would likely annihilate not only a ring of SpaceX satellites, but also American defense spacecraft circling the Earth along the same orbital plane.

If part of a three-pronged assault on the U.S. - including its astronauts, New Space allies, and military satellites - it would likely be recognised as an “armed attack” under the UN Charter that justifies the use of force in self-defense, Professor Beard told me.

Although this hypothetical warhead was not detonated on American territory, he says, the White House and Defense Department would be highly likely to treat it “as an armed attack against the United States itself.”

The president would likely quickly declare that the U.S. is reserving the right to respond with armed force.

And though the bombing was carried out beyond American borders, Professor Beard says, that does not necessarily preclude a strike against the territory of the responsible state.

Formerly a high-ranking counsel at the Pentagon, Professor Beard recounts that when Libyan state-sponsored terrorists were implicated in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque that killed three Americans back in 1986, President Ronald Reagan responded with a series of airstrikes across Libya.

In addition to the deaths of American astronauts in outer space, the destruction of the US military satellites could also likely justify the use of force in response, Professor Beard says.

If the U.S. did opt to use force in its self-defense, it could also seek to invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement, which provides for a collective defense following an attack on any single member of the alliance, he says.

The beginnings of the next world war, ignited in space, would be set in motion.

Check out my website.

Kevin Holden Platt
I cover world-leading breakthroughs in science and hyper-technology, with stories reported across three continents, published in National Geographic

Making Rocket Fuel Out of Lunar Regolith

An illustration of a Moon base that could be built using 3D printing and ISRU, In-Situ Resource Utilization. Credit: RegoLight, visualisation: Liquifer Systems Group, 2018

POSTED ONJUNE 28, 2024 BY MATT WILLIAMS

In the coming years, NASA and other space agencies plan to extend the reach of human exploration. This will include creating infrastructure on the Moon that will allow for crewed missions on a regular basis. This infrastructure will allow NASA and its international partners to make the next great leap by sending crewed missions to Mars (by 2039 at the earliest). Having missions operate this far from Earth for extended periods means that opportunities for resupply will be few and far between. As a result, crews will need to rely on In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), where local resources are leveraged to provide for basic needs.

In addition to air, water, and building materials, the ability to create propellant from local resources is essential. According to current mission architectures, this would consist of harvesting water ice in the polar regions and breaking it down to create liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2). However, according to a new study led by engineers from McGill University, rocket propellant could be fashioned from lunar regolith as well. Their findings could present new opportunities for future missions to the Moon, which would no longer be restricted to the polar regions.

The research team was led by Sebastian K. Hampl, a M.Sc. Candidate in Mechanical Engineering at McGill University and part of the Alternative Fuels Laboratory. He was joined by multiple colleagues from McGill’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, as well as researchers from the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso, the Research Institute of Advanced Materials in Seoul, and the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. Their paper, “Conceptual design of rocket engines using regolith-derived propellants,” recently appeared in Acta 

Bootprint in the lunar regolith left behind by the Apollo 11 crew. Credit: NASA

Producing propellant from lunar resources is one of several measures designed to reduce the cost of missions to deep space. Whereas resupply missions to the International Space Station (ISS) can be mounted within a few hours, sending one to the Moon would take about three days. Based on current launch costs, sending one to the Moon would cost over $35,000 per kg ($15,909 per lb). When you factor in the time it takes to make a one-way transit to Mars using current propulsion technology – 6 to 9 months – the importance of ISRU becomes all the more apparent.

The need to produce propellant in situ will also reduce the mass and payload requirements of ships. As the Rocket Equation establishes, rockets generate thrust by expelling some of their mass (i.e. propellant). The amount of propellant is directly related to the spacecraft’s full mass and payload, which makes propellant the single greatest source of spacecraft mass. Consider the Block 1 variant of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) – the rocket sent the uncrewed Artemis I spacecraft beyond the Moon and farther from Earth than any crew-capable vehicle in history.

While the SLS weighs 1,588 metric tons (3.5 million lbs) when unfueled (aka. dry mass), it weighs up to 2,603 metric tons (5.74 million lbs) fully-fueled. The Starship and Super Heavy, the most powerful launch system in the world, has a total dry mass of 285 metric tons (~630,000 lbs) but weighs a whopping 4,885 metric tons (10.77 million lbs) fully fueled. In short, propellant mass makes up 64% and 94% of these spacecraft launch masses, respectively. As Hampl explained to Universe Today via email:

“We need to produce resources locally as they take up a lot of space in terms of payload on the rocket. That limits the amount of resources we can carry to the lunar surface. Without refueling, the range of the missions is very limited as every drop of propellant needs to be budgeted and if something goes wrong that uses extra propellant, the astronauts might not be able to return back to Earth. The system we currently have could be compared to a car infrastructure where you could only fuel up in one place on the whole globe and any “exploration mission” you want to do would have to be planned meticulously and every mistake could leave you stranded.”

Exposed water ice (green or blue dots) in lunar polar regions and temperature. Credit: Shuai Li

The concept of ISRU is time-honored, though no attempts were made during the Apollo Era when astronauts last stood on the lunar surface. Currently, the main ISRU concept calls for harvested water ice from surface regolith and subjecting it to electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen. But as Hampl indicated, surface water is localized on the Moon, existing in Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs) around the poles. In the South Pole-Aitken Basin, craters like Shoemaker, Shackleton, and Faustini all act as “cold traps,” ensuring that water ice does not sublimate from exposure to the Sun.

Furthermore, extraction is a challenge, and hydrogen storage for longer periods of time is very problematic. This imposes many limits, which is why Hampl and his colleagues began investigating an alternative that NASA investigated back in the 80s (but never developed). As Hampl explained:


“We proposed to use lunar regolith to derive propellants that are ubiquitous. From regolith, you can extract metallic components (which will be the fuel) and oxygen (which will be used as the oxidizer). We also investigate how extracting sulfur (which is abundant enough, albeit, not as abundant as the metallic components) to expand our options for rocket engine configurations. As oxygen production from regolith is vital for sustaining the lunar habitat, the reduction technology to extract oxygen from the regolith is being developed. The metallic powder will be a byproduct of the process and we conveniently propose to use it as the rocket fuel.”

A benefit of this process is that it will rely on space mining technologies developed by startups hoping to take advantage of the commercialization of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Cis-Lunar space in the coming decades. The process is also “fuel lean,” which refers to having more oxidizer than fuel in a rocket engine. “In our case, a small amount of metallic powder and a large amount of oxygen,” said Hampl. “The ratio of oxidizer and fuel can be adjusted and greatly influences combustion parameters such as temperatures and performance.”

Artist’s concept of an Artemis astronaut deploying an instrument on the lunar surface. Credits: NASA

The advantages of their proposed system are numerous. For starters, it would allow future missions to produce propellant anywhere on the lunar surface with electricity. “The only things one would need, obviously, are the production facility and an electrolyte, which probably will have to be brought from Earth (but the quantities are manageable),” said Hampl. “There are reduction methods only requiring electricity but they are less efficient and do not seem to work as well (research ongoing). Additionally, the propellant is easier to store, more dense than hydrogen, and could be transported more easily.”

Moreover, engines that rely on metallic powder propellant are currently being developed, especially with ramjets and applications for air-breathing propulsion. The one trade-off is that the predicted performance of a rocket using this propellant is less than what a rocket relying on LH2/LOX can deliver. However, the “fuel lean” nature of their propellant results in much lower combustion temperatures, causing less material strain and reducing the cost of repair and refurbishment. In addition, the performance decrease compared to LH2/LOX at lower combustion temperatures is not as pronounced.

This proposed method could open new doors for ISRU on the Moon and greater flexibility when it comes to refueling missions. “Our work focused on the thermodynamic calculations and proposing ways how this could be implemented as well as making the case where the advantages of this technology lie,” said Hampl. “We hope that someone will pick up the idea and start developing and testing such an engine since we strongly believe that this would be a better concept than using hydrogen/oxygen and should get more attention.”

It is fitting that in their plans to return to the Moon (this time, to stay), space agencies like NASA are reexamining concepts that were proposed during the Apollo Era but never developed. These concepts, which include everything from metallic propellants, ISRU, closed-loop habitats, and nuclear propulsion, will also be vital in exploring Mars and beyond. They will also be vital in our efforts to extend humanity’s presence beyond Earth and the Earth-Moon system.

Further Reading: Acta Astronautica

Robert Reich: Debunking Myth #5: ‘The Market Doesn’t Play Favorites’ – OpEd

June 30, 2024 0 Comments

By Robert Reich


As I’ve emphasized in this debunk series, the “free market” is nothing but a set of rules, established and enforced by government.



The real question — hidden behind the supposedly neutral supply-and-demand curves of textbook economics — is whether the system is improving the lives of most people or is mainly making the rich even richer. Unfortunately, the answer has been the latter.

The market is playing favorites, because of all the money flowing into politics. And the favorites are the sources of the big money — large corporations and the wealthy.

I saw the stream of money into politics in the late 1970s turn into a rivulet by the 1980s and a vast river by the 1990s, then a floodplain by the 2000s, an ocean by the 2010s, and a tsunami by the 2020s.

Laws that limit campaign donations have been weakened or repealed by the Supreme Court, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to essentially bribe politicians.

On Wednesday, the court dealt its latest blow to federal anti-corruption law in Snyder v. United States, which held that “gratuities” — gifts and payments provided after a public official does what the briber wants — are not technically “bribes” and therefore not illegal. Bribes, said the court, in this bizarre 6-3 decision, are only issued before the desired official act. The court has thereby continued its ongoing effort to legalize official corruption, using the flimsiest logic to rob federal anti-corruption statutes of all meaning.

As bribes have rigged the game in favor of powerful corporations and the wealthy, I have seen the disillusionment of working Americans in the 1990s turn to frustration and rage — especially after the bailout of the biggest banks in the financial crisis of 2008.

Joe Biden has done a good job trying to reverse the rigging, but far more needs to be done. If Trump gets another term and is able to stack the Supreme Court with more corporate stooges, the court will allow big money to drown democracy.

A sampling of how the market has been altered because of big money in politics:

Trade agreements have encouraged corporations to outsource jobs abroad — protecting the firms’ intellectual property and financial assets but not the jobs and wages of the people who had worked for those firms.

Safety nets that emerged from the Depression decade of the 1930s have been shredded, along with the implicit social contract that if a corporation did well, its workers would too. Full-time workers who put in decades with a corporation have found themselves without a job overnight — with no severance pay, no help finding another job, and no health insurance.

Employment benefits have shriveled. The proportion of workers with any pension connected to their job has fallen from just over half in 1979 to under 35 percent.

Labor unions have shrunk. The unionized share of the American workforce dropped from 35 percent of all private-sector workers in the 1950s to just 6 percent today. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker earned $35 an hour in today’s dollars. Today, America’s largest employer is Walmart, and the typical entry-level Walmart worker earns about $9 an hour. The GM worker was not better educated or motivated than the Walmart worker.

The deregulation of finance has enabled corporate raiders — now dubbed “shareholder activists” and “private-equity managers” — to force CEOs to abandon all other stakeholders. It allowed high-paid bankers to pocket huge sums while exposing most Americans to extraordinary economic risks, culminating in the financial crisis of 2008 and the taxpayer-funded bailout of large Wall Street firms.

Taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals have been lowered, while taxes on estates have been almost eliminated. An increasing portion of government revenue now comes from Social Security taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and user fees (such as tolls), that fall heaviest on the bottom 80 percent. Tax loopholes have been created for the partners of hedge funds and private-equity funds, the oil and gas industry, pharmaceuticals, Wall Street, Big Agriculture, and Big Tech.

Intellectual property rights — patents, trademarks, and copyrights — have been enlarged and extended, thereby allowing pharmaceutical, high tech, biotechnology, and entertainment corporations to preserve their monopolies longer — which has meant higher prices for American consumers, including the highest pharmaceutical costs of any advanced nation.

Antitrust laws have been relaxed (until the Biden administration revived antitrust), resulting in large profits for firms like Monsanto, which sets the prices for most of the nation’s seed corn; for a handful of high-tech companies with market power over network portals and platforms (Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Google); cable companies with little or no broadband competition (Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon); and the largest Wall Street banks, among others. Two-thirds of all corporate sectors have become more concentrated since the 1990s, making corporations far more profitable than at any time since the 1920s. All this has also meant higher prices for consumers, fewer choices of employer for workers, and greater political power for the monopolistic corporations.

Bankruptcy laws have been loosened for large corporations, allowing them to rip up labor contracts, threaten closures unless they receive wage concessions, and leave workers and communities stranded. Notably, bankruptcy has not been extended to homeowners who owe more on their homes than the homes are worth, or to graduates overburdened with student debt.

Contract laws have been altered to require mandatory arbitration before private judges selected by big corporations.

Securities laws have been relaxed to allow insider trading of confidential information and permit corporations to manipulate stock prices through stock buybacks. CEOs have been allowed to use stock buybacks to boost share prices and cash in their stock options.

Public funds have been withdrawn from higher education, requiring students to take out massive college loans.

These and thousands of other policy decisions didn’t just happen. They were pushed by wealthy elites on Wall Street and corporate C-suite executives, who made mammoth donations to politicians on both sides of the aisle — mostly but not exclusively Republican — to ensure that their wishes would be honored. As these changes — and thousands like them — have gone into effect, wealth and power have further shifted upward.

As a result, bargaining power has shifted away from workers to large corporations and Wall Street. This has caused a giant but hidden upward distribution of income and wealth from the bottom 90 percent up to the top.

It’s been a vicious cycle. Each change in laws has ratcheted wealth and power upward, making it easier for the wealthy and powerful to gain further legal changes that ratchet even more wealth and power upward.

We must get big money out of politics

This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack


Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

 

The Multifaceted Responsibilities Of Major Powers In Maintaining Global Peace And Security – OpEd

 June 30, 2024

By Simon Hutagalung

The post-World War II era witnessed the emergence of a complex global order characterised by a strong emphasis on peace, security, sustained human development, and international cooperation. The United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom serve as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), holding considerable sway and bearing a distinctive obligation to uphold international peace and security. This essay aims to explore the multifaceted responsibilities entrusted to these major powers. Specifically, it examines their roles in diplomatic leadership, arms control, conflict resolution, support for international institutions, peacekeeping contributions, humanitarian aid, non-proliferation efforts, promotion of human rights and stability, economic and environmental protection, counter-terrorism, and transparency and trust-building.

Diplomatic leadership is a crucial responsibility for these five nations. Through active engagement in international diplomacy, they possess the capacity to utilize their influence to prevent conflicts and peacefully facilitate resolutions. The ability to mediate and negotiate settlements is particularly important in deescalating tensions before they escalate into full-scale conflicts. Notable examples include the United States’ involvement in the Camp David Accords and China’s recent mediation efforts in the Korean Peninsula. Without proactive diplomatic engagement, numerous conflicts could spiral out of control, leading to devastating consequences for global stability and security.

The threat posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction necessitates robust efforts in arms control and disarmament. Major powers must lead by example, adhering to and advocating for treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). An excellent example of bilateral efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and promote global security is the New START Treaty between the USA and Russia. By committing to arms control, these nations can mitigate the risks of catastrophic warfare and establish standards for other countries to follow. This, in turn, contributes to global disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives. The ability to mediate conflicts plays a crucial role in maintaining global peace. These nations often act as intermediaries, facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties. France’s involvement in the Normandy Format talks regarding the Ukraine crisis and the UK’s role in the Good Friday Agreement are notable instances of successful mediation. Effective conflict mediation not only resolves disputes immediately but also fosters long-term stability by addressing underlying issues and promoting reconciliation among conflicting parties.

The support of international institutions, such as the United Nations, is essential for establishing and maintaining a stable world order. The five countries with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) play a crucial role in reinforcing and upholding the mandates of these institutions. Their financial and political contributions are essential for the effective functioning of the United Nations and other international bodies. Without their support, these institutions would face significant challenges in securing necessary resources and maintaining legitimacy to effectively carry out their missions.

Peacekeeping missions play a vital role in ensuring peace in conflict-affected areas. The financial and logistical support that personnel from various nations provide to United Nations peacekeeping operations is essential. The growing participation of China in UN peacekeeping missions, as well as the longstanding commitment of the United Kingdom in Cyprus, are prime examples of their unwavering dedication to these endeavours. Through their involvement in peacekeeping, these countries contribute to the stabilization of regions, the protection of civilians, and the establishment of conditions that foster enduring peace.

Humanitarian aid is of utmost importance in promptly addressing the immediate needs of populations affected by conflicts and natural disasters. The response to humanitarian crises, such as the Syrian refugee crisis and the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, highlights the significance of swift and substantial support from nations. Through humanitarian aid, suffering is alleviated and goodwill is fostered, ultimately enhancing global stability and security.

Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a fundamental responsibility. Non-proliferation treaties and initiatives empower nations to work towards ensuring that these weapons do not fall into the wrong hands and spread to unstable regions. The efforts to secure nuclear materials, as exemplified by initiatives in the Nuclear Security Summits, demonstrate the dedication of these nations to fulfilling this responsibility. By prioritizing non-proliferation, these countries mitigate the risk of nuclear terrorism and other catastrophic threats. Promoting and protecting human rights worldwide is a crucial responsibility that all nations must fulfil. They should champion human rights and use their influence to pressure regimes that violate these rights. Additionally, they should support international mechanisms that monitor and enforce human rights standards. The promotion of human rights is essential in fostering equitable and peaceful societies where the rule of law prevails and individuals can live with dignity and freedom.

Global economic stability is crucial for promoting peace and security. The powers involved in this endeavour can minimize economic disparities, which often trigger conflicts, by encouraging economic cooperation and stability. Their participation in institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank plays a pivotal role in achieving this objective. Economic stability also lessens the probability of conflicts arising from resource competition and economic grievances, thus contributing to a more peaceful world order.

Furthermore, environmental degradation and climate change pose significant global security threats. Major powers have a crucial role to play in addressing these issues, especially about the scarcity of resources, which often contributes to conflict. Their involvement in international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, is indispensable for global efforts aimed at combating climate change. By tackling environmental challenges, these nations can assist in preventing conflicts driven by resource shortages and environmental disasters.

International collaborative initiatives to counter-terrorism are vital for global security. These nations play a central role in sharing intelligence, conducting joint military operations, and addressing the underlying causes of extremism. A prime example of such cooperation is the global coalition against ISIS. Effective counter-terrorism measures disrupt terrorist networks, prevent attacks, and combat the factors that drive individuals toward extremism.

Finally, transparency in military practices and efforts to build trust among nations is crucial in mitigating the risk of misunderstandings and inadvertent conflicts. Confidence-building measures and open lines of communication are necessary to foster a climate of trust and cooperation. By promoting this transparency, nations can help prevent conflicts and cultivate a more stable and predictable international environment.

In conclusion, the responsibilities of the United States, France, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom in maintaining international peace and security are profound and multifaceted. These nations play crucial roles as diplomatic leaders, advocates for arms control, mediators in conflicts, supporters of international institutions, peacekeepers, providers of humanitarian aid, promoters of non-proliferation and human rights, facilitators of economic stability, protectors of the environment, combatants against terrorism, and proponents of transparency. Their commitment to these responsibilities is indispensable for establishing a stable and peaceful global order, especially as the international landscape continues to evolve. The ongoing prosperity and security of the international community rely on the continued commitment of these nations.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

References

Diplomatic Leadership

• “The Role of Diplomacy in Conflict Resolution: Case Studies,” edited by John H. Simpson. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• “US Foreign Policy and Diplomacy: From the Cold War to the 21st Century,” by William B. Quandt. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Arms Control and Disarmament 

• “The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: Origins and Implementation, 1965–1970,” by Ronald E. Neumann. Stanford University Press, 1999.
• “New START: How the US-Russia Arms Race Ended,” by Michael Krepon and Joshua C. Hersh. Stimson Center, 2010.

Conflict Resolution 

• “Mediation and Conflict Resolution: Concepts, Contexts, and Processes,” by Jacob Bercovitch. Ashgate Publishing, 2007.
• “The Art of Mediation: Lessons from the Northern Ireland Peace Process,” by Richard N. Haass. Henry Holt and Company, 2014.

Support for International Institutions 

• “The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Order,” by Edward H. Buehrig. Praeger Publishers, 1986.
• “The United Nations Security Council and Its Presidency,” by Adam M. Roberts and Dominik Zaum. Routledge, 2011.

Peacekeeping Contributions 

• “United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Adapting to a Changing Global Order,” by Tom Keating. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
• “China’s Participation in United Nations Peacekeeping Missions,” by Yuezhi Zhao. Springer, 2015.

Humanitarian Aid 

• “Humanitarianism: A Dictionary of Critical Terms,” edited by Thomas G. Weiss and Iavor Radev. Kumarian Press, 2009.
• “The Politics of Humanitarian Aid,” by Fiona Terry. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Non-Proliferation Efforts 

• “The Nuclear Security Summit: A New Approach to Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,” by Peter Crail. Arms Control Association, 2010.
• “Securing the Bomb: Confronting the Risks of Nuclear Theft and Sabotage,” by Matthew Kroenig. Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

Promotion of Human Rights and Stability 

• “Human Rights and the World’s Religions,” edited by Christopher J. Hackett. University of California Press, 2010.
• “The Responsibility to Protect: The Promise of Stopping Mass Atrocities in Our Time,” by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Economic and Environmental Protection 

• “Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol: The Role of the United States,” by Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy. Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
• “The World Bank and the IMF: A Comparative Analysis,” by Ngaire Woods. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Counter-Terrorism 

• “Countering Terrorism: Strategies and Technologies,” edited by George J. Stein. MIT Press, 2007.
• “Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Threat,” by Gabriel Weimann. ABC-CLIO, 2011.

Transparency and Trust-Building 

• “Transparency and Openness in International Relations: Conceptual Frameworks and Methods,” edited by Hanspeter Kriesi and Daniel Bochsler. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
• “Building Trust in Government: The Role of Performance Information,” by Mark H. Moore. Russell Sage Foundation, 2014

Flags in front of United Nations building in New York City

are

Simon Hutagalung is a retired diplomat from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry and received his master's degree in political science and comparative politics from the City University of New York. The opinions expressed in his articles are his own.