Protecting Planet Earth from Military & Non-Military Space Threats

Igor Ashurbeyli, Founder in Chief of ROOM: The Space Journal & Chairman of Moscow based International Expert Society on Space Threat Defence, gave a keynote address on the protection of Earth from Military & Non-Military Space Threats.
He pointed out seven types of space related risks as:

  1. Sun storms and sun flares, known as coronal mass ejections.
  2. Changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere which result in the destruction of the protective shield that could deflect coronal mass ejections.
  3. Potentially dangerous asteroids and comets, which could impact Earth and lead to mass destruction of humanity.
  4. Man-made space debris.
  5. Climate change resulting from the effects of human technology, industrialisation and solar radiation on Earth’s atmosphere.
  6. Cosmic radiation – Earth is constantly affected not only by solar radiation but also by cosmic rays from novas, supernovas and pulsars. This also needs to be taken into consideration.
  7. Biological threats from inside meteors and other small bodies that reach the planet.

He noted that in order to create an effective method of protection from space-based threats, close international cooperation is essential. Any one sided action on behalf of one country, even the richest and most technologically advanced, can be faced with multiple legal, political and strategic barriers.

Ashurbeyli further noted that technology alone – despite all its real and promised benefits for humankind – means absolutely nothing without a higher goal and vision. Further progress in near-Earth space and global space exploration calls for the return of altruistic motives, and the return of inspiration and a sense of human community.

There’s need for an internationally acceptable control system with completely transparent intellectual property rights and open architecture. Funding and the right to use it must belong to all mankind – encompassing advanced nations and developing countries alike, with no restrictions or boundaries.

It will require a new approach to international politics which Ashurbeyli named ‘astropolitics’ – something which would need to encompass not just major aspects of international relationships but legal matters of a much more human scale.

Kindle release: ‘The Nagoya Protocol: Its impact on access & benefit sharing, patent applications and the utilisation of genetic resources’.

Following the success of the paperback edition of ‘The Nagoya Protocol: Its impact on access & benefit sharing, patent applications and the utilisation of genetic resources’, this concise work is now available in its Kindle edition.

 

Law Books for the LPC, 2016, and OSCE/QLTS

The Oxford University Press publishes the Legal Practice Course manuals, which provide a guide to the law, practice and procedure that are at the heart of the Legal Practice Course. Annually updated, the LPC manuals are written by expert teams of qualified lawyers and current tutors, for trainee solicitors on the LPC.

Business Law 2016-2017

Property Law 2016-2017

Civil Litigation 2016-2017

Criminal Litigation 2016-2017

Foundations for the LPC 2016-2017

Lawyers’ Skills 20th edition (Legal Practice Course Guide)

Space Exploration

Next Steps to Mars: Deep Space Habitats

Statement from Brian Babin, US Representative & Chairman of Committee on science, Space & Technology

The exploration of space, particularly human exploration of Mars, has intrigued generations around the world. Our sister planet holds many mysteries, and quite possibly, the keys to our past and our future. The profound goal of putting humans on Mars and perhaps establishing a settlement there, fuels our desire to push the boundaries of what is possible and to reach far beyond our own planet.

Space exploration is in our DNA. Americans of all ages watched on their black and white TVs as Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the Moon. Our collective interests have not waned since that time. However, we now watch in full color and high definition as we launch off our planet, land a rover on Mars, and see our astronauts on the International Space Station do an EVA to assemble an orbital space laboratory.

Enabled by the unwavering dedication and hard work of countless thousands who have contributed to the historical successes and immeasurable benefits spaceflight and exploration have brought humanity.

Last year’s cinematic blockbuster, The Martian, based on the book written by Andy Weir, one of our witnesses today, wrote about the challenges an astronaut faced in order to survive the hostile environment of Mars. This concept is directly related to the topic of our hearing – examining the challenges and discussing what it is going to take to turn this science fiction into reality…as we hope to do in the years ahead.

One of the foremost requirements for success in such a profound endeavor is the support of Congress…and undoubtedly, bipartisan, bicameral support is strongly behind this goal.

In fact, bipartisan support for our spaceflight and exploration programs is so strong, that the 2016 NASA Authorization Act passed the House by a unanimous voice vote. In this turbulent political climate, a vote like that is exceptional for any Agency. The House’s intent is clear and I strongly urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us by taking up and passing a NASA Authorization bill this year. Doing so, in this election year, is particularly important as it will provide NASA programs the stability needed through the uncertainty that results during the transition of Administrations.
One of the most critical capabilities needed to sustain humans for a journey to Mars is a habitat. Without a viable habitat to protect our astronauts from the inhospitable environment of space, we cannot achieve our goals for human deep space exploration.

Congress demonstrated its strong support of space exploration last year in passing the most significant update to commercial space law in decades and by appropriating robust and increased funding levels for NASA exploration programs.

In the 2016 appropriations, Congress directed NASA to invest no less than $55 million for the development of a “habitation augmentation module to maximize the potential of the SLS/Orion architecture in deep space” and to develop a prototype module no later than 2018.

Astronaut Scott Kelly’s nearly year-long mission aboard the International Space Station has provided substantial scientific data which we continue to assess, related to the physiological and psychological impacts humans face during long-duration space missions. However, much research still needs to be done to develop systems and operations to mitigate these impacts for sustaining crew health; for this reason, it is critical that the ISS be fully utilized through 2024.

We know what goal we want to achieve – putting humans on Mars. What continues to be unclear…is the detailed plan? How are we going to accomplish this bold and challenging goal? What are the requisite precursor missions, the technologies, sustaining systems, and habitation requirements and current capabilities?

While the ISS continues to provide us with a critical test-bed for technology development, we need to be careful not to use it as a “crutch” – a convenient low- Earth orbit safe haven, should it be needed during a deep space mission or flight test through 2024. What if we didn’t have this back-up capability, as was the case during the Apollo missions to the Moon. What’s our back-up plan…do we have one? Until the detailed plan is outlined, there are many “unknowns” but what we do know is that NASA WILL need habitation and there are many questions that surround this requirement.

How will NASA acquire habitation? How will development be funded? Will NASA develop the capability by contracting with a company on a cost-plus basis as it did for programs in past? Or will they seek to procure habitation as a service by leveraging previous development work? Will NASA use public-private partnerships? And if so, how will NASA divide the investment? How will it treat the intellectual property? And will the taxpayer get a deal on the price if it contributes to the development?
We have tremendous “lessons learned” related to systems development along with the pros and cons of various acquisition approaches. Regardless of the ultimate decision, the acquisition parameters and requirements must be clear before ANY action is taken…NASA simply doesn’t have the time or the budget to “experiment” on unproven acquisition models. It’s long past time to apply the “lessons learned” and make the decision based on what is the most assured and efficient way for NASA to acquire this capability.

Whatever NASA proposes, I sincerely hope it will be in the best interests of the taxpayer. It would be a shame if we repeat the mistakes of the past…government paying for the development of habitation capabilities, then turns around and pays again to procure the service from the same provider. NASA’s decisions on “make” or “buy” will be critical.

Is it possible that industry may be able to provide turn-key cost-effective services that are developed with minimal taxpayer support? Is there a market for low-Earth orbit habitats, sufficient to support a post-ISS paradigm, which can be leveraged for deep- space habit requirements?

We are an exceptional nation of “doers” and as we forge a path through the high- ground of space on our journey to Mars, I have strong faith in the ingenuity of American scientists, engineers and the entire industry to address the challenges posed by deep space exploration and to develop the spaceflight systems needed to reach our goals in a safe, sustainable and affordable way. I’m pleased to welcome our witnesses and I look forward to hearing their perspectives as to how NASA should consider acquiring habitation goods and services to meet future mission requirements.

Thank you all for participating. And Mr. Weir, I would like to personally thank you for your captivating work, The Martian…it has everybody talking about Mars…which I believe brings us one step closer to making science fiction, science fact.

Patent application number: 20160109707

No aficionado of patent drawings should miss out on ‘Combining At Least One Variable Focus Element With A Plurality Of Stacked Waveguides For Augmented Or Virtual Reality Displayto Magic Leap, Inc.

… he “sees” a robot statue (1110) standing upon the real-world platform (1120), and a cartoon-like avatar character (2) flying by which seems to be a personification of a bumble bee, even though these elements (2, 1110) do not exist in the real world.

20160109707_01a

Perhaps the ‘personification of a bumble bee’ is just a flight of the imagination.