Lacuna in the updated planetary protection policy and international law.

The Planetary Protection Policy (PPP) has proclaimed the lofty ideal "All the planets, all the time." Originally formulated as Planetary Quarantine Requirements (PQR), the planetary protection policy imposed strict decontamination standards for spacecraft during the initial period of interplanetary exploration. The policy properly has been seen as a work in progress, continuously open to consideration of new data, and subject to periodic re-examination and question with a view toward improvement to better meet the goals of science. This process has led to several revisions of the PPP to improve, simplify and clarify the standards. In keeping with past practice, the policy was recently revised in light of new data and experience, and the current update is pending before the COSPAR Bureau and Council for review and approval. Specific changes to the PPP add Enceladus to the group of target bodies within the solar system subject to heightened protective measures, and modify the provisions regarding the establishment of special regions on Mars. These new updates mark another important development in the evolution of the PPP. The PQR and the PPP were based on the precept that outbound spacecraft to celestial bodies should not contaminate natural celestial environments with Earth organisms. Therefore, the policy generally requires that certain missions, particularly to target bodies that could harbor evidence of past or current alien life, take active measures to decontaminate the spacecraft. Nevertheless, recent and proposed missions demonstrate that significant gaps remain in the policy. Instead of enhancing decontamination the policy actually promotes purposely and intentionally enlarging the number of potentially contaminating Earth organisms carried by a spacecraft that could reach celestial bodies, including those bodies which are subject to active decontamination requirements. Thus, even with the new updates, the PPP may not be fully consistent with the international obligations of the Outer Space Treaty, and the continued existence of the entire PPP policy could be in jeopardy. This article discusses the flight characteristics of two specific missions, one launched and one in development, which are consistent with the PPP but nonetheless pose a substantial risk of biological contamination of celestial bodies. The manner in which the risks can be reduced is identified, and suggestions are made to close some of the gaps that remain in the PPP to comply with international law.

Can I take a space flight? Considerations for doctors.

Commercial investment is bringing space tourism closer to reality. Marlene Grenon and colleagues: outline what doctors will need to know.

Sub-orbital commercial human spaceflight and informed consent.

Commercial spaceflight is expected to rapidly develop in the near future. This will begin with sub-orbital missions and then progress to orbital flights. Technical informed consent of spaceflight participants is required by the commercial spaceflight operator for regulatory purposes. Additionally, though not required by regulation, the aerospace medicine professional involved in the medical screening of both spaceflight participants and crewmembers will be asked to assist operators in obtaining medical informed consent for liability purposes. The various federal and state regulations regarding informed consent for sub-orbital commercial spaceflight are evolving and are unfamiliar to most aerospace medical professionals and are reviewed and discussed.

Conversations with Rep. Ken Calvert. Interview by Frank Sietzen Jr.

NASA: Rep. Calvert, chair of the House aeronautics and space subcommittee of the Science Committee, answers questions related to priorities for space in the current congressional session: the Vision for Space Exploration, development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and other heavy-lift launch vehicles, entrepreneurial alliances in the space transportation industry, the U.S. aerospace industry, space tourism, entrepreneurs and NASA, U.S. aeronautics research, a service mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, and priority military space programs.^ieng

W.W.W. MOON? The why, what and when of a permanent manned lunar colony.

Several reasons for going back to the Moon are listed: scientific study of our natural satellite, Earth and in general the Solar System; exploitation of the resources of Outer Space; geopolitical considerations that made Apollo possible and are still valid in the long term; advancement of manned spaceflight, as robot-based exploration is time-wise inefficient and politically negligible. Technological, organisational and legal challenges are then outlined. After a discussion of human physiology, building materials and transportation of people and goods, an underground polar location is proposed as settlement site, either within kilometre-size lava tubes or man-made caves. An analysis of spaceflight history is conducted to determine a target date for returning to the Moon to stay. In the absence of political or commercial competition, experience indicates the last decades of the XXI century. To shorten this timescale, it is recommended to focus on accomplishing the task of establishing a reliable lunar travel and settlement system, rather than developing new technologies: simplifying the goals of each single step forward (as was the case of the Clementine mission) and concentrating on production-ready (or almost-ready) equipment (compare the ill-fated X-33 to the dependable Soyuz capsules).

Conversations with Patricia Grace Smith. Interview by Frank Sietzen Jr.

NASA: Ms. Smith, associate administrator for commercial space transportation within the Federal Aviation Administration, answers questions about regulations and licensing related to reusable launch vehicles, space passenger vehicles, and commercial space ventures.^ieng

Rethinking and regrouping.

NASA: This Washington Watch column briefly reviews spaceflight decisions to be made in Congress, improvements in air travel, and production of helicopters for the Marines which meet the new UH-1Y and AH-1Z standards.^ieng

The commercial development of space: is an international regulatory framework needed?

The commercial space sector to date has failed to develop comprehensive regulations--"rules of the road"--for its international activities. Within the next 5 years, conflicts with respect to international trade in satellite sales and launch services could emerge, highlighting the need for such a regulatory framework. If the commercial space sector is to continue to develop, it is important to begin discussions now, before these conflicts become significant, on the elements of an appropriate international regulatory framework. The existing framework for space activities was developed when government, not commercial, space activities were dominant, or was adapted from regulations in other sectors such as terrestrial telecommunications.

Lawmakers battle for reform on many fronts.

In Washington, much of the attention of the nation's leaders is focused on the economy, on next year's election, and on the war's aftermath in Iraq. Polls show that a restive nation wants more jobs and fewer casualties in the war on terror. In the world of aerospace, few topics seem to be headline-grabbers lately, but the lawmakers are always working on air and space issues--some of them very familiar to Americans. The U.S. program for manned spaceflight remains controversial and a firm date for a return to flight elusive. The little-known air war in Colombia is receiving more attention than many in Washington would like. And the Air Force plan to lease air-refueling tankers continues to draw flak from the Hill.