Search This Blog

Friday, September 17, 2021

Private spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private spaceflight is spaceflight or the development of spaceflight technology that is conducted and paid for by an entity other than a government agency.

In the early decades of the Space Age, the government space agencies of the Soviet Union and United States pioneered space technology in collaboration with affiliated design bureaus in the USSR and private companies in the US, entirely funding both the development of new spaceflight technologies and the operational costs of spaceflight. The European Space Agency was formed in 1975, largely following the same model of space technology development. However, Arianespace became the world's first commercial launch service provider in the early 1980s.

Later on, large defense contractors began to develop and operate space launch systems, derived from government rockets. Private spaceflight in Earth orbit includes communications satellites, satellite television, satellite radio, astronaut transport and sub-orbital and orbital space tourism. In the United States, the FAA has created a new certification called Commercial Astronaut, a new occupation.

In the 2000s, entrepreneurs began designing—and by the 2010s, deploying—space systems competitive to the governmental systems of the early decades of the space age. These new offerings have brought about significant market competition in space launch services after 2010 that had not been present previously, principally through the reduction of the cost of space launch and the availability of more space launch capacity.

Private spaceflight accomplishments to date include flying suborbital spaceplanes (SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo), launching orbital rockets, flying two orbital expandable test modules (Genesis I and II), and launching astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

Planned private spaceflights beyond Earth orbit include personal spaceflights around the Moon. Two private orbital habitat prototypes are already in Earth orbit, with larger versions to follow. Planned private spaceflights beyond Earth orbit include solar sailing prototypes (LightSail-3).

History of commercial space transportation

Opel RAK.1 - World's first public manned flight of a rocket plane on September 30, 1929.

During the principal period of spaceflight in the mid-twentieth century, only nation states developed and flew spacecraft above the Kármán line, the nominal boundary of space. Private entities and corporations primarily served as contractors to government organizations. Nevertheless in pioneering times, rocket technology and space flight started as a private venture in the 1920s. The world's first large-scale experimental rocket program was Opel RAK under the leadership of Fritz von Opel and Max Valier during the late 1920s leading to the first manned rocket cars and rocket planes, which paved the way for the Nazi era V2 program and US and Soviet activities from 1950 onwards. In 1928, Fritz von Opel drove a rocket car Opel-RAK.1 on the Opel raceway in Rüsselsheim, Germany, and later with the dedicated RAK2 rocket car at the AVUS speedway he reached a top speed of 238 km/h, watched by several thousands of spectators in Berlin. In 1928, Opel, Valier and Sander equipped the Lippisch Ente glider, which Opel had purchased, with rocket power and launched the manned glider. The "Ente" was destroyed on its second flight. Eventually glider pioneer Julius Hatry was tasked by Fritz von Opel to construct a dedicated glider, again called Opel RAK.1, for his rocket program. On September 30, 1929 von Opel started at the Frankfurt-Rebstock airport with the Opel-Sander RAK 1-airplane with himself as pilot the world's first public manned rocket-powered flight. The Opel RAK program and the spectacular public demonstrations of ground and air vehicles drew large crowds, as well as caused global public excitement as so-called "Rocket Rumble" and had a large long-lasting impact on later spaceflight pioneers like e.g. Wernher von Braun. The Great Depression caused the end of the Opel-RAK program and von Opel emigrated to the US in 1930, eventually to France and Switzerland. Max Valier died after the breakup of the Opel-RAK program while testing liquid-fuel rockets and is generally considered to be the first fatality of the dawning space age. But soon later, with common rationales for exploring earth orbit and space include national prestige, developing military and strategic advantages against other countries, and advancing science and applied technology, nation states took over the helm in advancing space and rocket technology, in particular in Germany with the military V2 program headed by Wernher von Braun.


Both the U.S. civilian space program and Soviet space program were operated using mainly military pilots as astronauts. During this period, no commercial space launches were available to private operators, and no private organization was able to offer space launches. Eventually, private organizations were able to both offer and purchase space launches, thus beginning the period of private spaceflight.

The first phase of private space operation was the launch of the first commercial communications satellites. The U.S. Communications Satellite Act of 1962 allowed commercial consortia owning and operating their own satellites, although these were still deployed on state-owned launch vehicles.

In 1980, the European Space Agency created Arianespace, a company to be operated commercially after initial hardware and launch facilities were developed with government funding. Arianespace has since launched numerous satellites as a commercial entity.

The history of full private space transportation includes early efforts by German company OTRAG in the 20th century. Founded in 1975 as the first private company to attempt to launch a private spacecraft, testing of its OTRAG rocket began in 1977. The history also covers numerous modern orbital and suborbital launch systems in the 21st century. More recent commercial spaceflight projects include the suborbital flights of Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, the orbital flights of SpaceX and other COTS participants.

Development of alternatives to government-provided space launch services began in earnest in the 2000s. Private interests began funding limited development programs, but the US government later sponsored a series of programs to incentivize and encourage private companies to begin offering both cargo, and later, crew space transportation services.

Lower prices for launch services after 2010, and published prices for standard launch services, have brought about significant space launch market competition that had not been present previously. By 2012, a private company had begun transporting cargo to and from the International Space Station, while a second private company was scheduled to begin making deliveries in 2013, ushering in a time of regular private space cargo delivery to and return from the government-owned space facility in low-Earth orbit (LEO). In this new paradigm for LEO cargo transport, the government contracts for and pays for cargo services on substantially privately developed space vehicles rather than the government operating each of the cargo vehicles and cargo delivery systems. As of 2013, there is a mix of private and government resupply vehicles being used for the ISS, as the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles, and the European Space Agency (ESA) ATV (through 2014) and the Japanese Kounotori (through 2021) remain in operation after the 2011 retirement of the US Space Shuttle.

In June 2013, British newspaper The Independent claimed that "the space race is flaring back into life, and it's not massive institutions such as NASA that are in the running. The old view that human space flight is so complex, difficult and expensive that only huge government agencies could hope to accomplish it is being disproved by a new breed of flamboyant space privateers, who are planning to send humans out beyond the Earth's orbit for the first time since 1972," particularly noting projects underway by Mars One, Inspiration Mars Foundation, Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX.

American deregulation

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 required encouragement of commercial space ventures, adding a new clause to NASA's mission statement:

(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

Yet one of NASA's early actions was to effectively prevent private space flight through a large amount of regulation. From the beginning, though, this met significant opposition not only by the private sector, but in Congress. In 1962, Congress passed its first law pushing back the prohibition on private involvement in space, the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. While largely focusing on the satellites of its namesake, this was described by both the law's opponents and advocates of private space, as the first step on the road to privatisation.

While launch vehicles were originally bought from private contractors, from the beginning of the Shuttle program until the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986, NASA attempted to position its shuttle as the sole legal space launch option. But with the mid-launch explosion/loss of Challenger came the suspension of the government-operated shuttle flights, allowing the formation of a commercial launch industry.

On 4 July 1982, the Reagan administration released National Security Decision Directive Number 42 which officially set its goal to expand United States private-sector investment and involvement in civil space and space-related activities.

On 16 May 1983, the Reagan administration issued National Security Decision Directive Number 94 encouraging the commercialization of ELV’s, which directed that, "The U.S. Government will license, supervise, and/or regulate U.S. commercial ELV operations only to the extent required to meet its national and international obligations and to ensure public safety."

On 30 October 1984, US President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Commercial Space Launch Act.[29] This enabled an American industry of private operators of expendable launch systems. Prior to the signing of this law, all commercial satellite launches in the United States were restricted by Federal regulation to NASA's Space Shuttle.

On 11 February 1988, the Presidential Directive declared that the government should purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and shall not conduct activities with potential commercial applications that preclude or deter Commercial Sector space activities except for national security or public safety reasons. 

On 5 November 1990, United States President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Launch Services Purchase Act. The Act, in a complete reversal of the earlier Space Shuttle monopoly, ordered NASA to purchase launch services for its primary payloads from commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities.

In 1996, the United States government selected Lockheed Martin and Boeing to each develop Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) to compete for launch contracts and provide assured access to space. The government's acquisition strategy relied on the strong commercial viability of both vehicles to lower unit costs. This anticipated market demand did not materialise, but both the Delta IV and Atlas V EELVs remain in active service.

Commercial launches outnumbered government launches at the Eastern Range in 1997.

The Commercial Space Act was passed in 1998 and implements many of the provisions of the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990.

Nonetheless, until 2004 NASA kept private space flight effectively illegal. But that year, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 required that NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration legalise private space flight. The 2004 Act also specified a "learning period" which restricted the ability of the FAA to enact regulations regarding the safety of people who might actually fly on commercial spacecraft through 2012, ostensibly because spaceflight participants would share the risk of flight through informed consent procedures of human spaceflight risks, while requiring the launch provider to be legally liable for potential losses to uninvolved persons and structures.

To the end of 2014, commercial passenger flights in space has remained effectively illegal, as the FAA has refused to give a commercial operator's license to any private space company.

The United States updated US commercial space legislation with the passage of the SPACE Act of 2015 in November 2015. The full name of the act is Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015

The update US law explicitly allows "US citizens to engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of 'space resources' [including... water and minerals]". The right does not extend to biological life, so anything that is alive may not be exploited commercially. The Act further asserts that "the United States does not [(by this Act)] assert sovereignty, or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body". 

The SPACE Act includes the extension of indemnification of US launch providers for extraordinary catastrophic third-party losses of a failed launch through 2025, while the previous indemnification law was scheduled to expire in 2016. The Act also extends, through 2025, the "learning period" restrictions which limit the ability of the FAA to enact regulations regarding the safety of spaceflight participants.

Indemnification for extraordinary third-party losses has, as of 2015, been a component of US space law for over 25 years, and during this time, "has never been invoked in any commercial launch mishap".

Russian privatization

In 1992, a Resurs-500 capsule containing gifts was launched from Plesetsk Cosmodrome in a private spaceflight called Europe-America 500. The flight was conceived by the Russian Foundation for Social Inventions and TsSKB-Progress, a Russian rocket-building company, to increase trade between Russia and USA, and to promote the use of technology once reserved only for military forces. Money for the launch was raised from a collection of Russian companies. The capsule parachuted into the Pacific Ocean and was brought to Seattle by a Russian missile-tracking ship.

The Russian government sold part of its stake in RSC Energia to private investors in 1994. Energia, together with Khrunichev, constituted most of the Russian crewed space program.

Launch alliances

Launch of a Proton rocket

Since 1995 Khrunichev's Proton rocket has been marketed through International Launch Services, while the Soyuz rocket is marketed via Starsem. The Sea Launch project flies the Ukrainian Zenit rocket.

In 2003, Arianespace joined with Boeing Launch Services and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to create the Launch Services Alliance. In 2005, continued weak commercial demand for EELV launches drove Lockheed Martin and Boeing to propose a joint venture called the United Launch Alliance to service the United States government launch market.

Spaceflight privatization

Since the 1980s, various private initiatives have started up to pursue the private use of space. Traditional costs to launch anything to space have been high—on the order of tens of thousands of US dollars per kilogram—but by 2020, costs on the order of a few thousand dollars per kilogram are being seen from one private launch provider that was an early 2000s startup, with the cost projected to fall to less than a few hundred dollars per kilogram as the technology of a second private spaceflight startup of ~2000 comes into service.

The first privately funded rocket to reach the boundary of space, the Kármán line, (although not orbit) was Conestoga I, which was launched by Space Services Inc. on a suborbital flight to 309 kilometres (192 mi) altitude on 9 September 1982. In October 1995, their first (and only) attempt at an orbital launch, Conestoga 1620, failed to achieve orbit due to a guidance system failure.

First launch of the Pegasus rocket, from a NASA-owned B-52.

On April 5, 1990, Orbital Sciences Corporation's Pegasus, an air launched rocket, was the first launch vehicle fully developed by a private company to reach orbit.

In the early 2000s, several public-private corporate partnerships were established in the United States to privately develop spaceflight technology. Several purely private initiatives have shown interest in private endeavors to the inner solar system.

In 2006, NASA initiated a program to purchase commercial space transport to carry cargo to the International Space Station, while funding a portion of the development of new technology in a public-private partnership.

In May 2015, the Japanese legislature considered legislation to allow private company spaceflight initiatives in Japan.

In 2016, the United States granted its first clearance for a private flight to the moon, from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Companies

Today many commercial space transportation companies offer launch services to satellite companies and government space organizations around the world. In 2005, there were 18 total commercial launches and 37 non-commercial launches. Russia flew 44% of commercial orbital launches, while Europe had 28% and the United States had 6%. China's first private launch, a suborbital flight by OneSpace, took place in May 2018.

Funding

In recent years, the funding to support private spaceflight has begun to be raised from a larger pool of sources than the comparatively limited pool of the 1990s. For example, as of June 2013 and in the United States alone, ten billionaires had made "serious investments in private spaceflight activities" at six companies, including Stratolaunch Systems, Planetary Resources, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and Bigelow Aerospace. The ten investors were Paul Allen, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Ram Shriram, Charles Simonyi, Ross Perot Jr., Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Robert Bigelow.

It is not yet clear to what extent these entrepreneurs see "legitimate business opportunity, [for example], space tourism and other commercial activities in space, or [are] wealthy men seeking the exclusivity that space offers innovators and investors." There has been speculation as to whether these investments are a "gamble", and whether they will prove lucrative.

Venture capital investment

Some investors see the traditional spaceflight industry as ripe for disruption, with "a 100-fold improvement [relatively straightforward and] a thousand-fold improvement [possible]". Between 2005 and 2015, there was US$10 billion of private capital invested in the space sector, most of it in the United States. This liberalized private space sector investments beginning in the 1980s, with additional legislative reforms in the 1990s–2000s. From 2000 through the end of 2015, a total of US$13.3 billion of investment finance was invested in the space sector, with US$2.9 billion of that being venture capital. In 2015, venture capital firms invested US$1.8 billion in private spaceflight companies, more than they had in the previous 15 years combined. As of October 2015, the largest and most active investors in space were Lux Capital, Bessemer Venture Partners, Khosla Ventures, Founders Fund, RRE Ventures and Draper Fisher Jurvetson.

Increasing interest by investors in economically driven spaceflight had begun to appear by 2016, and some space ventures had to turn away investor funding. CBInsights in August 2016 published that funding to space startups was "in a slump", although the number of space investment deals per quarter had gone from 2 or 3 in 2012 to 14 by 2015. In 2017, CB Insights ranked the most active space tech investors, ranked from highest to lowest, were Space Angels Networks, Founders Fund, RRE Ventures, Data Collective, Bessemer, Lux Capital, Alphabet, Tencent Holdings, and Rothenberg Ventures. In June 2019, Miriam Kramer of Axios wrote that private spaceflight companies and investors were poised to capitalize on NASA's plan to open up the International Space Station to commercial space ventures.

Commercial launchers

The space transport business has, historically, had its primary customers in national governments and large commercial segments. Launches of government payloads, including military, civilian and scientific satellites, was the largest market segment in 2007 at nearly $100 billion a year. This segment is dominated by domestic favorites such as the United Launch Alliance for U.S. government payloads and Arianespace for European satellites. The commercial payload segment, valued at under $3 billion a year, was dominated by Arianespace in 2007, with over 50% of the market segment, followed by Russian launchers. See a complete list of launch systems.

US government commercial cargo services

The SpaceX Dragon berthing with the ISS during its final demonstration mission, on 25 May 2012.
 

The US government determined to begin a process to purchase orbital launch services for cargo deliveries to the International Space Station (ISS) beginning in the mid-2000s, rather than operate the launch and delivery services as they had with the Space Shuttle, which was to retire in less than half a decade, and ultimately did retire in 2011. On 18 January 2006, NASA announced an opportunity for US commercial providers to demonstrate orbital transportation services. As of 2008, NASA planned to spend $500 million through 2010 to finance development of private sector capability to transport payloads to the International Space Station (ISS). This was considered more challenging than then-available commercial space transportation because it would require precision orbit insertion, rendezvous and possibly docking with another spacecraft. The commercial vendors competed in specific service areas.

In August 2006, NASA announced that two relatively young aerospace companies, SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler, had been awarded $278 million and $207 million, respectively, under the COTS program. In 2008, NASA anticipated that commercial cargo delivery services to and return services from the ISS would be necessary through at least 2015. The NASA Administrator suggested that space transportation services procurement may be expanded to orbital fuel depots and lunar surface deliveries should the first phase of COTS prove successful.

After it transpired that Rocketplane Kistler was failing to meet its contractual deadlines, NASA terminated its contract with the company in August 2008, after only $32 million had been spent. Several months later, in December 2008, NASA awarded the remaining $170 million in that contract to Orbital Sciences Corporation to develop resupply services to the ISS.

Emerging personal spaceflight

Before 2004, the year it was legalized in the US, no privately operated crewed spaceflight had ever occurred. The only private individuals to journey to space went as space tourists in the Space Shuttle or on Russian Soyuz flights to Mir or the International Space Station.

All private individuals who flew to space before Dennis Tito's self-financed International Space Station visit in 2001 had been sponsored by their home governments or by private corporations. Those trips include US Congressman Bill Nelson's January 1986 flight on the Space Shuttle Columbia and Japanese television reporter Toyohiro Akiyama's 1990 flight to the Mir Space Station.

The Ansari X PRIZE was intended to stimulate private investment in the development of spaceflight technologies. 21 June 2004, test flight of SpaceShipOne, a contender for the X PRIZE, was the first human spaceflight in a privately developed and operated vehicle.

On 27 September 2004, following the success of SpaceShipOne, Richard Branson, owner of Virgin and Burt Rutan, SpaceShipOne's designer, announced that Virgin Galactic had licensed the craft's technology, and were planning commercial space flights in 2.5 to 3 years. A fleet of five craft (SpaceShipTwo, launched from the WhiteKnightTwo carrier airplane) were to be constructed, and flights would be offered at around $200,000 each, although Branson said he planned to use this money to make flights more affordable in the long term. A test flight of SpaceShipTwo in October 2014 resulted in a crash during one of the two pilots died.

In December 2004, United States President George W. Bush signed into law the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act. The Act resolved the regulatory ambiguity surrounding private spaceflights and is designed to promote the development of the emerging U.S. commercial human space flight industry.

On 12 July 2006, Bigelow Aerospace launched the Genesis I, a subscale pathfinder of an orbital space station module. Genesis II was launched on 28 June 2007, and there are plans for additional prototypes to be launched in preparation for the production model BA 330 spacecraft.

Zero2infinity, a Spanish aerospace company, is developing a high-altitude balloon-based launch vehicle termed a bloostar to launch small satellites to orbit for customers, as well as platform for near-space tourism. Similar projects of stratospheric balloon tourism are being developed by multiple other companies around the world (Zephalto, Space Perspective, ...), though none has yet made a high altitude crewed flight (as of Feb. 2021).

On 11, July 2021 Richard Branson flew to a height of 50 miles onboard SpaceShipTwo. His company Virgin Galactic provided the spaceflight for 4 passengers and 2 pilots over New Mexico.

Private foundations

The B612 Foundation was designing and building an asteroid-finding space telescope named Sentinel. It would have launched in 2016.

The Planetary Society, a nonprofit space research and advocacy organization, has sponsored a series of small satellites to test the feasibility of solar sailing. Their first such project, Cosmos 1, was launched in 2005 but failed to reach space, and was succeeded by the Lightsail series, the first of which launched on 20 May 2015. A second spacecraft is expected to launch in 2016 on a more complex mission.

Copenhagen Suborbitals is a crowd funded amateur crewed space programme. As of 2016 it has flown four home-built rockets and two mock-up space capsules.

Plans

Many have speculated on where private spaceflight may go in the near future. Numerous projects of orbital and suborbital launch systems for satellites and crewed flights exist. Some orbital crewed missions would be state-sponsored like most COTS participants. (that develop their own launch systems). Another possibility is for paid suborbital tourism on craft like those from Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures, XCOR Aerospace, RocketShip Tours, ARCASPACE, PlanetSpace-Canadian Arrow, British Starchaser Industries or non-commercial like Copenhagen Suborbitals. Additionally, suborbital spacecraft have applications for faster intercontinental package delivery and passenger flight.

Private orbital spaceflight, space stations

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, first launched in 2010 with no passengers, was designed to be subsequently human-rated. The Atlas V launch vehicle is also a contender for human-rating.

Plans and a full-scale prototype for the SpaceX Dragon, a capsule capable of carrying up to seven passengers, were announced in March 2006, and Dragon version 2 flight hardware was unveiled in May 2014. As of September 2014, both SpaceX and Boeing have received contracts from NASA to complete building, testing, and flying up to six flights of human-rated space capsules to the International Space Station beginning in 2017.

In December 2010, SpaceX launched the second Falcon 9 and the first operational Dragon spacecraft. The mission was deemed fully successful, marking the first launch to space, atmospheric reentry and recovery of a capsule by a private company. Subsequent COTS missions included increasingly complex orbital tasks, culminating in Dragon first docking to the ISS in 2012.

Bigelow Aerospace develops BA 330 module (based on the former NASA TransHab design) intended to be used for activities like microgravity research, space manufacturing, and space tourism with modules serving as orbital "hotels". To promote private crewed launch efforts, Bigelow offered the US$50 million America's Space Prize for the first US-based privately funded team to launch a crewed reusable spacecraft to orbit on or before 10 January 2010; such feat is yet to be achieved as of December 2018.

The British Government partnered in 2015 with the ESA to promote a possibly commercial single-stage to orbit spaceplane concept called Skylon. This design was pioneered by the privately held Reaction Engines Limited, a company founded by Alan Bond after HOTOL was canceled.

As of 2012, private company NanoRacks provides commercial access to the US National Laboratory space on the International Space Station (ISS). Science experiments can be conducted on a variety of standard rack-sized experimental platforms, with standard interfaces for power and data acquisition.

SpaceX announced that Japanese entrepreneur Yusaku Maezawa will launch with the dearMoon crew in 2023 to become to first civilian on a lunar Starship mission.

On-orbit propellant depots

In a presentation given 15 November 2005 to the 52nd Annual Conference of the American Astronautical Society, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin suggested that establishing an on-orbit propellant depot is, "Exactly the type of enterprise which should be left to industry and to the marketplace." At the Space Technology and Applications International Forum in 2007, Dallas Bienhoff of Boeing made a presentation detailing the benefits of propellant depots. Shackleton Energy Company has established operational plans, an extensive teaming and industrial consortium for developing LEO Propellant Depots supplied by Lunar polar sourced water ice.

Asteroid mining

Asteroid mining spacecraft
 

Some have speculated on the profitability of mining metal from asteroids. According to some estimates, a one kilometer-diameter asteroid would contain 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum; the platinum alone would have a value of more than $150 billion at 2008 terrestrial prices.

Space elevators

A space elevator system is a possible launch system, currently under investigation by at least one private venture. There are concerns over cost, general feasibility and some political issues. On the plus side the potential to scale the system to accommodate traffic would (in theory) be greater than some other alternatives. Some factions contend that a space elevator — if successful — would not supplant existing launch solutions but complement them.

Non-launched efforts

Failed spaceflight ventures

After earlier first effort of OTRAG, in the 1990s the projection of a significant demand for communications satellite launches attracted the development of a number of commercial space launch providers. The launch demand largely vanished when some of the largest satellite constellations, such as 288 satellite Teledesic network, were never built.

In 1996, NASA selected Lockheed Martin Skunk Works to build the X-33 VentureStar prototype for a single stage to orbit (SSTO) reusable launch vehicle. In 1999, the subscale X-33 prototype's composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing. At project termination on 31 March 2001, NASA had funded US$912 million of this wedge shaped spacecraft while Lockheed Martin financed US$357 million of it. The VentureStar was to have been a full-scale commercial space transport operated by Lockheed Martin.

In 1997, Beal Aerospace proposed the BA-2, a low-cost heavy-lift commercial launch vehicle. On 4 March 2000, the BA-2 project tested the largest liquid rocket engine built since the Saturn V. In October 2000, Beal Aerospace ceased operations citing a decision by NASA and the Department of Defense to commit themselves to the development of the competing government-financed EELV program.

In 1998, Rotary Rocket proposed the Roton, a Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) piloted Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) space transport. A full scale Roton Atmospheric Test Vehicle flew three times in 1999. After spending tens of millions of dollars in development the Roton failed to secure launch contracts and Rotary Rocket ceased operations in 2001.

On 28 September 2006, Jim Benson, SpaceDev founder, announced he was founding Benson Space Company with the intention of being first to market with the safest and lowest cost suborbital personal spaceflight launches, using the vertical takeoff and horizontal landing Dream Chaser vehicle based on the NASA HL-20 Personnel Launch System vehicle.

Excalibur Almaz had plans in 2007 to launch a modernized TKS Spacecraft (for Almaz space station), for tourism and other uses. It was to feature the largest window ever on a spacecraft. Their equipment was never launched, and their hangar facility closed in 2016. It is to be converted into an educational exhibit.

Escape Dynamics operated from 2010 to 2015, with the goal of making single-stage to orbit spaceplanes.

In December 2012, the Golden Spike Company announced plans to privately transport space exploration participants to the surface of the Moon and return, beginning as early as 2020, for US$750 million per passenger.

XCOR Aerospace planned to initiate a suborbital commercial spaceflight service with the Lynx rocketplane in 2016 or 2017 at $95,000. First test flights to be conducted by 23 pilots from the Axe Apollo Space Academy, one of which is a Filipino named Chino Roque, were planned for 2015.

Private space stations

By 2010, Bigelow Aerospace was developing the Next-Generation Commercial Space Station, a private orbital space complex. The space station was to have been constructed of both Sundancer and B330 expandable modules as well as a central docking node, propulsion, solar arrays, and attached crew capsules. Initial launch of space station components was planned for 2014, with portions of the station projected to be available for leased use as early as 2015. As of 2018, no launches have taken place.

Lunar private ventures

Robotic Lunar-surface missions

The following companies and organizations had made initial funded launch commitments for Google Lunar X Prize-related Lunar launches in 2016:

Private Lunar-surface crewed expeditions

  • Shackleton Energy Company intends to undertake human tended lunar prospecting for water ice. If significant reserves of ice are located, they plan to establish a network of "refueling service stations" in low Earth orbit and on the Moon to process and provide fuel and consumables for commercial and government customers. If the prospecting is successful—ice deposits are located, the appropriate legal regime is in place to support commercial development, and the ice can be extracted — Shackleton proposes to establish a fuel-processing operation on the lunar surface and in propellant depots in Low Earth Orbit. Equipment would melt the ice and purify the water, "electrolyze the water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen, and then condense the gases into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen and also process them into hydrogen peroxide, all of which could be used as rocket fuels."

Mars exploration

In June 2012, private Dutch non-profit, Mars One, announced a private one-way (no return) human mission to Mars with the aim to establish a permanent human colony on Mars. The plan was to send a communication satellite and pathfinder lander to the planet by 2016 and, after several stages, land four humans on the Martian surface for permanent settlement in 2023. A new set of four astronauts would then arrive every two years.

Mars One has received a variety of criticism, mostly relating to medical, technical and financial feasibility. There are also unverified claims that Mars One is a scam designed to take as much money as possible from donors, including reality show contestants. Many have criticized the project's US$6 billion budget as being too low to successfully transport humans to Mars, to the point of being delusional. A similar project study by NASA estimated the cost of such a feat at US$100 billion, although that included transporting the astronauts back to Earth. Objections have also been raised regarding the reality TV project associated with the expedition. Given the transient nature of most reality TV ventures, many believe that as viewership declines, funding could significantly decrease, thereby harming the entire expedition. Further, contestants have reported that they were ranked based on their donations and funds raised.

In February 2013, the US nonprofit Inspiration Mars Foundation announced a plan to send a married couple on a 2018 mission to travel to Mars and back to Earth on a 501-day round trip, with no landing planned on Mars. The mission would have taken advantage of an infrequently occurring free return trajectory—a unique orbit opportunity which occurs only once every fifteen years—and will allow the space capsule to use the smallest possible amount of fuel to get it to Mars and back to Earth. The two-person American crew – a man and a woman – will orbit around Mars at a distance of 100 miles (160 km) of the surface. "If anything goes wrong, the spacecraft should make its own way back to Earth — but with no possibility of any shortcuts home."

On September 27, 2016, at the 67th annual meeting of the International Astronautical Congress, Elon Musk unveiled substantial details of the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS) design for the transport vehicles—including size, construction material, number and type of engines, thrust, cargo and passenger payload capabilities, on-orbit propellant-tanker refills, representative transit times, etc.—as well as a few details of portions of the Mars-side and Earth-side infrastructure that SpaceX intends to build to support the flight vehicles. In addition, Musk championed a larger systemic vision, a vision for a bottom-up emergent order of other interested parties—whether companies, individuals, or governments—to utilize the new and radically lower-cost transport infrastructure to build up a sustainable human civilization on Mars, potentially, on numerous other locations around the Solar System, by innovating and meeting the demand that such a growing venture would occasion.

In July 2017, SpaceX made public plans for ITS based on a smaller launch vehicle and spacecraft. The new system architecture has "evolved quite a bit" since the November 2016 articulation of the very large "Interplanetary Transport System". A key driver of the new architecture is to make the new system useful for substantial Earth-orbit and cislunar launches so that the new system might pay for itself, in part, through economic spaceflight activities in the near-Earth space zone. The Super Heavy is designed to fulfill the Mars transportation goals while also launching satellites, servicing the ISS, flying humans and cargo to the Moon, and enabling ballistic transport of passengers on Earth as a substitute to long-haul airline flights.

Since March 2020, SpaceX conducted several test flights of their Starship spacecraft. The Starship is a fully reusable two-stage vehicle designed to take passengers and cargo to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. SpaceX had initially planned to have an orbital-flight in 2021. On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, the twelfth Starship prototype (SN15) made a 10 km suborbital flight and achieved soft landing. SpaceX is currently in the process of improving and understanding the Starship spacecraft.

NewSpace terminology

The term "NewSpace" emphasizes the relative modernity of private spaceflight efforts, encompassing international and multinational efforts to privatize spaceflight as a commercial industry. Such corporations fall under the governance of international treaties and national governments.

See also

Space habitat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Interior view of an O'Neill cylinder, showing alternating land and window stripes

A space habitat (also called a space colony, space settlement, orbital habitat, orbital settlement or orbital colony) is a more advanced form of living quarters than a space station or habitation module, in that it is intended as a permanent settlement or green habitat rather than as a simple way-station or other specialized facility. No space habitat has been constructed yet, but many design concepts, with varying degrees of realism, have come both from engineers and from science-fiction authors.

The term space habitat sometimes includes more broadly habitats built on or in a body other than Earth—such as the Moon, Mars or an asteroid. This article concentrates on self-contained structures envisaged for micro-g environments.

History

The idea of space habitats either in fact or fiction goes back to the second half of the 19th century. "The Brick Moon", a fictional story written in 1869 by Edward Everett Hale, is perhaps the first treatment of this idea in writing. In 1903, space pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky speculated about rotating cylindrical space habitats, with plants fed by the sun, in Beyond Planet Earth. In the 1920s John Desmond Bernal and others speculated about giant space habitats. Dandridge M. Cole in the late 1950s and 1960s speculated about hollowing out asteroids and then rotating them to use as settlements in various magazine articles and books, notably Islands In Space: The Challenge Of The Planetoids.

Motivation

A Stanford torus interior
 
Stanford torus exterior

There are a range of reasons for space habitats. Beside human spaceflight supported space exploration, space colonies is an often mentioned particular reason, which can in it be based on reasons like:

Advantages

A number of arguments are made for space habitats having a number of advantages:

Access to solar energy

Space has an abundance of light produced from the Sun. In Earth orbit, this amounts to 1400 watts of power per square meter. This energy can be used to produce electricity from solar cells or heat engine based power stations, process ores, provide light for plants to grow and to warm space habitats.

Outside gravity well

Earth-to-space habitat trade would be easier than Earth-to-planetary habitat trade, as habitats orbiting Earth will not have a gravity well to overcome to export to Earth, and a smaller gravity well to overcome to import from Earth.

In-situ resource utilization

Space habitats may be supplied with resources from extraterrestrial places like Mars, asteroids, or the Moon (in-situ resource utilization [ISRU]. One could produce breathing oxygen, drinking water, and rocket fuel with the help of ISRU. It may become possible to manufacture solar panels from lunar materials.

Asteroids and other small bodies

Most asteroids have a mixture of materials, that could be mined, and because these bodies do not have substantial gravity wells, it would require low delta-V to draw materials from them and haul them to a construction site.

There is estimated to be enough material in the main asteroid belt alone to build enough space habitats to equal the habitable surface area of 3,000 Earths.

Population

A 1974 estimate assumed that collection of all the material in the main asteroid belt would allow habitats to be constructed to give an immense total population capacity. Using the free-floating resources of the Solar System, this estimate extended into the trillions.

Zero g recreation

If a large area at the rotation axis is enclosed, various zero-g sports are possible, including swimming, hang gliding and the use of human-powered aircraft.

Passenger compartment

A space habitat can be the passenger compartment of a large spacecraft for colonizing asteroids, moons, and planets. It can also function as one for a generation ship for travel to other planets or distant stars (L. R. Shepherd described a generation starship in 1952 comparing it to a small planet with many people living in it.)

Requirements

The airglow above the horizon, captured from the ISS

The requirements for a space habitat are many. They would have to provide all the material needs for hundreds or thousands of humans, in an environment out in space that is very hostile to human life.

Atmosphere

Air pressure, with normal partial pressures of oxygen (21%), carbon dioxide and nitrogen (78%), is a basic requirement of any space habitat. Basically, most space habitat designs concepts envision large, thin-walled pressure vessels. The required oxygen could be obtained from lunar rock. Nitrogen is most easily available from the Earth, but is also recycled nearly perfectly. Also, nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH
3
) may be obtainable from comets and the moons of outer planets. Nitrogen may also be available in unknown quantities on certain other bodies in the outer solar system. The air of a habitat could be recycled in a number of ways. One concept is to use photosynthetic gardens, possibly via hydroponics, or forest gardening. However, these do not remove certain industrial pollutants, such as volatile oils, and excess simple molecular gases. The standard method used on nuclear submarines, a similar form of closed environment, is to use a catalytic burner, which effectively decomposes most organics. Further protection might be provided by a small cryogenic distillation system which would gradually remove impurities such as mercury vapor, and noble gases that cannot be catalytically burned.

Food production

Organic materials for food production would also need to be provided. At first, most of these would have to be imported from Earth. After that, feces recycling should reduce the need for imports. One proposed recycling method would start by burning the cryogenic distillate, plants, garbage and sewage with air in an electric arc, and distilling the result. The resulting carbon dioxide and water would be immediately usable in agriculture. The nitrates and salts in the ash could be dissolved in water and separated into pure minerals. Most of the nitrates, potassium and sodium salts would recycle as fertilizers. Other minerals containing iron, nickel, and silicon could be chemically purified in batches and reused industrially. The small fraction of remaining materials, well below 0.01% by weight, could be processed into pure elements with zero-gravity mass spectrometry, and added in appropriate amounts to the fertilizers and industrial stocks. It is likely that methods would be greatly refined as people began to actually live in space habitats.

Artificial gravity

Long-term on-orbit studies have proven that zero gravity weakens bones and muscles, and upsets calcium metabolism and immune systems. Most people have a continual stuffy nose or sinus problems, and a few people have dramatic, incurable motion sickness. Most habitat designs would rotate in order to use inertial forces to simulate gravity. NASA studies with chickens and plants have proven that this is an effective physiological substitute for gravity. Turning one's head rapidly in such an environment causes a "tilt" to be sensed as one's inner ears move at different rotational rates. Centrifuge studies show that people get motion-sick in habitats with a rotational radius of less than 100 metres, or with a rotation rate above 3 rotations per minute. However, the same studies and statistical inference indicate that almost all people should be able to live comfortably in habitats with a rotational radius larger than 500 meters and below 1 RPM. Experienced persons were not merely more resistant to motion sickness, but could also use the effect to determine "spinward" and "antispinward" directions in the centrifuges.

Protection from radiation

Langley's Mars Ice Dome design from 2016 for a Mars base uses frozen water to enhance protection.

Some very large space habitat designs could be effectively shielded from cosmic rays by their structure and air. Smaller habitats could be shielded by stationary (nonrotating) bags of rock. Sunlight could be admitted indirectly via mirrors in radiation-proof louvres, which would function in the same manner as a periscope.

For instance, 4 metric tons per square meter of surface area could reduce radiation dosage to several mSv or less annually, below the rate of some populated high natural background areas on Earth. Alternative concepts based on active shielding are untested yet and more complex than such passive mass shielding, but usage of magnetic and/or electric fields to deflect particles could potentially greatly reduce mass requirements.
If a space habitat is located at L4 or L5, then its orbit will take it outside of the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere for approximately two-thirds of the time (as happens with the Moon), putting residents at risk of proton exposure from the solar wind. See Health threat from cosmic rays

Heat rejection

The habitat is in a vacuum, and therefore resembles a giant thermos bottle. Habitats also need a radiator to eliminate heat from absorbed sunlight. Very small habitats might have a central vane that rotates with the habitat. In this design, convection would raise hot air "up" (toward the center), and cool air would fall down into the outer habitat. Some other designs would distribute coolants, such as chilled water from a central radiator.

Meteoroids and dust

The habitat would need to withstand potential impacts from space debris, meteoroids, dust, etc. Most meteoroids that strike the earth vaporize in the atmosphere. Without a thick protective atmosphere meteoroid strikes would pose a much greater risk to a space habitat. Radar will sweep the space around each habitat mapping the trajectory of debris and other man-made objects and allowing corrective actions to be taken to protect the habitat.

In some designs (O'Neill/NASA Ames "Stanford Torus" and "Crystal palace in a Hatbox" habitat designs have a non-rotating cosmic ray shield of packed sand (~1.9 m thick) or even artificial aggregate rock (1.7 m ersatz concrete). Other proposals use the rock as structure and integral shielding (O'Neill, "the High Frontier". Sheppard, "Concrete Space Colonies"; Spaceflight, journal of the B.I.S.) In any of these cases, strong meteoroid protection is implied by the external radiation shell ~4.5 tonnes of rock material, per square meter.

Note that Solar Power Satellites are proposed in the multi-GW ranges, and such energies and technologies would allow constant radar mapping of nearby 3D space out-to arbitrarily far away, limited only by effort expended to do so.

Proposals are available to move even kilometer-sized NEOs to high Earth orbits, and reaction engines for such purposes would move a space habitat and any arbitrarily large shield, but not in any timely or rapid manner, the thrust being very low compared to the huge mass.

Attitude control

Most mirror geometries require something on the habitat to be aimed at the sun and so attitude control is necessary. The original O'Neill design used the two cylinders as momentum wheels to roll the colony, and pushed the sunward pivots together or apart to use precession to change their angle.

Considerations

Initial capital outlay

Even the smallest of the habitat designs mentioned below are more massive than the total mass of all items that humans have ever launched into Earth orbit combined. Prerequisites to building habitats are either cheaper launch costs or a mining and manufacturing base on the Moon or other body having low delta-v from the desired habitat location.

Location

The optimal habitat orbits are still debated, and so orbital stationkeeping is probably a commercial issue. The lunar L4 and L5 orbits are now thought to be too far away from the moon and Earth. A more modern proposal is to use a two-to-one resonance orbit that alternately has a close, low-energy (cheap) approach to the Moon, and then to the Earth. This provides quick, inexpensive access to both raw materials and the major market. Most habitat designs plan to use electromagnetic tether propulsion, or mass drivers used instead of rocket motors. The advantage of these is that they either use no reaction mass at all, or use cheap reaction mass.

Conceptual studies

Description of a rotating wheel space station in Hermann Noordung's The Problem of Space Travel (1929)

O'Neill - The High Frontier

Around 1970, near the end of Project Apollo (1961–1972), Gerard K. O'Neill, an experimental physicist at Princeton University, was looking for a topic to tempt his physics students, most of them freshmen in engineering. He hit upon the idea of assigning them feasibility calculations for large space-habitats. To his surprise, the habitats seemed feasible even in very large sizes: cylinders 8 km (5 mi) in diameter and 32 km (20 mi) long, even if made from ordinary materials such as steel and glass. Also, the students solved problems such as radiation protection from cosmic rays (almost free in the larger sizes), getting naturalistic Sun angles, provision of power, realistic pest-free farming and orbital attitude control without reaction motors. O'Neill published an article about these colony concepts in Physics Today in 1974. He expanded the article in his 1976 book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.

NASA Ames/Stanford 1975 Summer Study

The result motivated NASA to sponsor a couple of summer workshops led by O'Neill. Several concepts were studied, with sizes ranging from 1,000 to 10,000,000 people, including versions of the Stanford torus. Three concepts were presented to NASA: the Bernal Sphere, the Toroidal Colony and the Cylindrical Colony.

O'Neill's concepts had an example of a payback scheme: construction of solar power satellites from lunar materials. O'Neill did not emphasize the building of solar power satellites as such, but rather offered proof that orbital manufacturing from lunar materials could generate profits. He and other participants presumed that once such manufacturing facilities had started production, many profitable uses for them would be found, and the colony would become self-supporting and begin to build other colonies as well.

The concept studies generated a notable groundswell of public interest. One effect of this expansion was the founding of the L5 Society in the U.S., a group of enthusiasts that desired to build and live in such colonies. The group was named after the space-colony orbit which was then believed to be the most profitable, a kidney-shaped orbit around either of Earth's lunar Lagrange points 5 or 4.

Space Studies Institute

In 1977 O'Neill founded the Space Studies Institute, which initially funded and constructed some prototypes of the new hardware needed for a space colonization effort, as well as producing a number of feasibility studies. One of the early projects, for instance, involved a series of functional prototypes of a mass driver, the essential technology for moving ores efficiently from the Moon to space colony orbits.

NASA concepts

Some NASA concept studies included:

  • Island One, a Bernal sphere habitat for about 10,000–20,000 people.
  • Stanford torus: an alternative to Island One.
  • O'Neill cylinder: "Island Three", an even larger design (3.2 km radius and 32 km long).
  • Lewis One: A cylinder of radius 250 m with a non rotating radiation shielding. The shielding protects the micro-gravity industrial space, too. The rotating part is 450m long and has several inner cylinders. Some of them are used for agriculture.
  • Kalpana One, revised: A short cylinder with 250 m radius and 325 m length. The radiation shielding is 10 t/m2 and rotates. It has several inner cylinders for agriculture and recreation. It is sized for 3,000 residents.
  • A bola: a spacecraft or habitat connected by a cable to a counterweight or other habitat. This design has been proposed as a Mars ship, initial construction shack for a space habitat, and orbital hotel. It has a comfortably long and slow rotational radius for a relatively small station mass. Also, if some of the equipment can form the counter-weight, the equipment dedicated to artificial gravity is just a cable, and thus has a much smaller mass-fraction than in other concepts. For a long-term habitation, however, radiation shielding must rotate with the habitat, and is extremely heavy, thus requiring a much stronger and heavier cable.
  • Beaded habitats: This speculative design was also considered by the NASA studies. Small habitats would be mass-produced to standards that allow the habitats to interconnect. A single habitat can operate alone as a bola. However, further habitats can be attached, to grow into a "dumbbell" then a "bow-tie", then a ring, then a cylinder of "beads", and finally a framed array of cylinders. Each stage of growth shares more radiation shielding and capital equipment, increasing redundancy and safety while reducing the cost per person. This concept was originally proposed by a professional architect because it can grow much like Earth-bound cities, with incremental individual investments, unlike those that require large start-up investments. The main disadvantage is that the smaller versions use a large structure to support the radiation shielding, which rotates with them. In large sizes, the shielding becomes economical, because it grows roughly as the square of the colony radius. The number of people, their habitats, and the radiators to cool them grow roughly as the cube of the colony radius.

Other concepts

  • Bubbleworld: The Bubbleworld or Inside/Outside concept was originated by Dandridge M. Cole in 1964. The concept calls for drilling a tunnel through the longest axis of a large asteroid of iron or nickel-iron composition and filling it with a volatile substance, possibly water. A very large solar reflector would be constructed nearby, focusing solar heat onto the asteroid, first to weld and seal the tunnel ends, then more diffusely to slowly heat the entire outer surface. As the metal softens, the water inside expands and inflates the mass, while rotational forces help shape it into a cylindrical form. Once expanded and allowed to cool, it can be spun to produce artificial gravity by centrifugation, and the interior filled with soil, air and water. By creating a slight bulge in the middle of the cylinder, a ring-shaped lake can be made to form. Reflectors would allow sunlight to enter and to be directed where needed. This method would require a significant human and industrial presence in space to be at all feasible. The concept was popularized by science fiction author Larry Niven in his Known Space stories, describing such worlds as the primary habitats of the Belters, a civilization who had colonized the asteroid belt.
  • Asteroid terrarium: a similar idea to the bubble world, the asteroid terrarium, appears in the novel 2312, authored by hard science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson.
  • Bishop Ring: a speculative design using carbon nanotubes, a Bishop Ring is a torus 1000 km in radius, 500 km in width, and with atmosphere retention walls 200 km in height. The habitat would be large enough that it could be "roofless", open to outer space on the inner rim.
  • McKendree cylinder: another concept that would use carbon nanotubes, a McKendree cylinder is paired cylinders in the same vein as the Island Three concept, but each 460 km in radius and 4600 km long (versus 3.2 km radius and 32 km long in the Island Three).

Gallery

Current projects

The following projects and proposals, while not truly space habitats, incorporate aspects of what they would have and may represent stepping stones towards eventually building of space habitats.

The Nautilus-X Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV): this 2011 NASA proposal for a long-duration crewed space transport vehicle included an artificial gravity compartment intended to promote crew-health for a crew of up to six persons on missions of up to two years duration. The partial-g torus-ring centrifuge would utilize both standard metal-frame and inflatable spacecraft structures and would provide 0.11 to 0.69g if built with the 40 feet (12 m) diameter option.

The ISS Centrifuge Demo, also proposed in 2011 as a demonstration project preparatory to the final design of the larger torus centrifuge space habitat for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle. The structure would have an outside diameter of 30 feet (9.1 m) with a 30 inches (760 mm) ring interior cross-section diameter and would provide 0.08 to 0.51g partial gravity. This test and evaluation centrifuge would have the capability to become a Sleep Module for ISS crew.

The Bigelow Commercial Space Station was announced in mid-2010. The initial build-out of the station is expected in 2014/2015. Bigelow has publicly shown space station design configurations with up to nine modules containing 100,000 cu ft (2,800 m3) of habitable space. Bigelow began to publicly refer to the initial configuration as "Space Complex Alpha" in October 2010.

See also

 

Nirvana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Translations of
Nirvana
Englishlit. "blown out"; extinction of the three fires that cause rebirth
Sanskritनिर्वाण
(IAST: nirvāṇa)
Palinibbāna
Burmeseနိဗ္ဗာန်
(MLCTS: neɪʔbàɰ̃)
Chinese涅槃
(Pinyin: nièpán)
Indonesiannirwana
Japanese涅槃
(Rōmaji: nehan)
Khmerនិព្វាន
(UNGEGN: nĭppéan)
Korean열반
(RR: yeolban)
Monနဳဗာန်
([nìppàn])
MongolianНирваан дүр
(nirvaan dür)
Shanၼိၵ်ႈပၢၼ်ႇ
([nik3paan2])
Sinhalaනිර්වාණ
(nivana)
Tibetanམྱ་ངན་ལས་འདས་པ།
(mya ngan las 'das pa)
Thaiนิพพาน
(RTGS: nipphan)
Vietnameseniết bàn
Glossary of Buddhism
Translations of
Nirvana
Englishfreedom, liberation
Sanskritनिर्वाण
(IAST: nirvāṇa)
Bengaliনির্বাণ
(nirbanô)
Gujaratiનિર્વાણ
(nirvāṇa)
Hindiनिर्वाण
(nirvāṇa)
Javaneseꦤꦶꦂꦮꦤ
(nirwana)
Kannadaನಿರ್ವಾಣ
(nirvāṇa)
Malayalamനിർവാണം
(nirvanam)
Nepaliनिर्वाण
(nirvāṇa)
Odiaନିର୍ବାଣ
(nirbaana)
Punjabiਨਿਰਬਾਣ
(nirbāṇa)
Tamilவீடுபேறு
(Veeduperu)
Teluguనిర్వాణం
(nirvaanam)
Glossary of Hinduism terms

Nirvāṇa (/nɪərˈvɑːnə/ neer-VAH-nə, /-ˈvænə/ -⁠VAN-ə, /nɜːr-/ nur-; Sanskrit: निर्वाण nirvāṇa [nɪɽʋaːɳɐ]; Pali: nibbāna; Prakrit: ṇivvāṇa; literally, "blown out", as in an oil lamp) is a concept in Indian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism) that represents the ultimate state of soteriological release, the liberation from dukkha and saṃsāra.

In Indian religions, nirvana is synonymous with moksha and mukti. All Indian religions assert it to be a state of perfect quietude, freedom, highest happiness as well as the liberation from attachment and worldy suffering and the ending of samsara, the round of existence. However, non-Buddhist and Buddhist traditions describe these terms for liberation differently. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union of or the realization of the identity of Atman with Brahman, depending on the Hindu tradition. In Jainism, nirvana is also the soteriological goal, representing the release of a soul from karmic bondage and samsara. In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going. To achieve this status, one has to get rid of three psychological evils - Raga (greed, desire) Dwesha (anger) and Moha (delusion).

Etymology

The ideas of spiritual liberation, with the concept of soul and Brahman, appears in Vedic texts and Upanishads, such as in verse 4.4.6 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

The term nirvana in the soteriological sense of "blown out, extinguished" state of liberation does not appear in the Vedas nor in the Upanishads; according to Collins, "the Buddhists seem to have been the first to call it nirvana." This may have been deliberate use of words in early Buddhism, suggests Collins, since Atman and Brahman were described in Vedic texts and Upanishads with the imagery of fire, as something good, desirable and liberating. Collins says the word nirvāṇa is from the verbal root "blow" in the form of past participle vāna "blown", prefixed with the preverb nis meaning "out". Hence the original meaning of the word is "blown out, extinguished". (Sandhi changes the sounds: the v of vāna causes nis to become nir, and then the r of nir causes retroflexion of the following n: nis+vāna > nirvāṇa). However the Buddhist meaning of nirvana also has other interpretations.

L. S. Cousins said that in popular usage nirvana was "the goal of Buddhist discipline,... the final removal of the disturbing mental elements which obstruct a peaceful and clear state of mind, together with a state of awakening from the mental sleep which they induce."

Overview

Nirvāṇa is a term found in the texts of all major Indian religionsHinduism, Jainism Buddhism, and Sikhism. It refers to the profound peace of mind that is acquired with moksha, liberation from samsara, or release from a state of suffering, after respective spiritual practice or sādhanā.

The liberation from Saṃsāra developed as an ultimate goal and soteriological value in the Indian culture, and called by different terms such as nirvana, moksha, mukti and kaivalya. This basic scheme underlies Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, where "the ultimate aim is the timeless state of moksa, or, as the Buddhists first seem to have called it, nirvana." Although the term occurs in the literatures of a number of ancient Indian traditions, the concept is most commonly associated with Buddhism. Some writers believe the concept was adopted by other Indian religions after it became established in Buddhism, but with different meanings and description, for instance the use of (Moksha) in the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata.

The idea of moksha is connected to the Vedic culture, where it conveyed a notion of amrtam, "immortality", and also a notion of a timeless, "unborn", or "the still point of the turning world of time". It was also its timeless structure, the whole underlying "the spokes of the invariable but incessant wheel of time". The hope for life after death started with notions of going to the worlds of the Fathers or Ancestors and/or the world of the Gods or Heaven.

The earliest Vedic texts incorporate the concept of life, followed by an afterlife in heaven and hell based on cumulative virtues (merit) or vices (demerit). However, the ancient Vedic Rishis challenged this idea of afterlife as simplistic, because people do not live an equally moral or immoral life. Between generally virtuous lives, some are more virtuous; while evil too has degrees, and either permanent heaven or permanent hell is disproportionate. The Vedic thinkers introduced the idea of an afterlife in heaven or hell in proportion to one's merit, and when this runs out, one returns and is reborn. The idea of rebirth following "running out of merit" appears in Buddhist texts as well. This idea appears in many ancient and medieval texts, as Saṃsāra, or the endless cycle of life, death, rebirth and redeath, such as section 6:31 of the Mahabharata and verse 9.21 of the Bhagavad Gita. The Saṃsara, the life after death, and what impacts rebirth came to be seen as dependent on karma.

Buddhism

Khmer traditional mural painting depicts Gautama Buddha entering nirvana, Dharma assembly pavilion, Wat Botum Wattey Reacheveraram, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Nirvana (nibbana) literally means "blowing out" or "quenching". It is the most used as well as the earliest term to describe the soteriological goal in Buddhism: release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra). Nirvana is part of the Third Truth on "cessation of dukkha" in the Four Noble Truths doctrine of Buddhism. It is the goal of the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Buddha is believed in the Buddhist scholastic tradition to have realized two types of nirvana, one at enlightenment, and another at his death. The first is called sopadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana with a remainder), the second parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder, or final nirvana).

In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana is described as the extinguishing of the fires that cause rebirths and associated suffering. The Buddhist texts identify these three "three fires" or "three poisons" as raga (greed, sensuality), dvesha (aversion, hate) and avidyā or moha (ignorance, delusion).

The state of nirvana is also described in Buddhism as cessation of all afflictions, cessation of all actions, cessation of rebirths and suffering that are a consequence of afflictions and actions. Liberation is described as identical to anatta (anatman, non-self, lack of any self). In Buddhism, liberation is achieved when all things and beings are understood to be with no Self. Nirvana is also described as identical to achieving sunyata (emptiness), where there is no essence or fundamental nature in anything, and everything is empty.

In time, with the development of Buddhist doctrine, other interpretations were given, such as being an unconditioned state, a fire going out for lack of fuel, abandoning weaving (vana) together of life after life, and the elimination of desire. However, Buddhist texts have asserted since ancient times that nirvana is more than "destruction of desire", it is "the object of the knowledge" of the Buddhist path.

Hinduism

The most ancient texts of Hinduism such as the Vedas and early Upanishads don't mention the soteriological term Nirvana. This term is found in texts such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Nirvana Upanishad, likely composed in the post-Buddha era. The concept of Nirvana is described differently in Buddhist and Hindu literature. Hinduism has the concept of Atman – the soul, self – asserted to exist in every living being, while Buddhism asserts through its anatman doctrine that there is no Atman in any being. Nirvana in Buddhism is "stilling mind, cessation of desires, and action" unto emptiness, states Jeaneane Fowler, while nirvana in post-Buddhist Hindu texts is also "stilling mind but not inaction" and "not emptiness", rather it is the knowledge of true Self (Atman) and the acceptance of its universality and unity with Brahman.

Moksha

The ancient soteriological concept in Hinduism is moksha, described as the liberation from the cycle of birth and death through self-knowledge and the eternal connection of Atman (soul, self) and metaphysical Brahman. Moksha is derived from the root muc* (Sanskrit: मुच्) which means free, let go, release, liberate; Moksha means "liberation, freedom, emancipation of the soul". In the Vedas and early Upanishads, the word mucyate (Sanskrit: मुच्यते) appears, which means to be set free or release - such as of a horse from its harness.

The traditions within Hinduism state that there are multiple paths (Sanskrit: marga) to moksha: jnana-marga, the path of knowledge; bhakti-marga, the path of devotion; and karma-marga, the path of action.

Brahma-nirvana in the Bhagavad Gita

The term Brahma-nirvana appears in verses 2.72 and 5.24-26 of the Bhagavad Gita. It is the state of release or liberation; the union with the Brahman. According to Easwaran, it is an experience of blissful egolessness.

According to Zaehner, Johnson and other scholars, nirvana in the Gita is a Buddhist term adopted by the Hindus. Zaehner states it was used in Hindu texts for the first time in the Bhagavad Gita, and that the idea therein in verse 2.71-72 to "suppress one's desires and ego" is also Buddhist. According to Johnson the term nirvana is borrowed from the Buddhists to confuse the Buddhists, by linking the Buddhist nirvana state to the pre-Buddhist Vedic tradition of metaphysical absolute called Brahman.

According to Mahatma Gandhi, the Hindu and Buddhist understanding of nirvana are different because the nirvana of the Buddhists is shunyata, emptiness, but the nirvana of the Gita means peace and that is why it is described as brahma-nirvana (oneness with Brahman).

http://www.iop.or.jp/Documents/0414/anand.pdf. However, <In 1926, Gandhiji delivered a series of discourses on the Gita in the Sabarmati ashram in which he explained that there was no difference between the nirvana mentioned by Lord Buddha and the nirvana of the Gita. They referred to the same state. He related how once the Buddha had fainted while fasting and a woman placed a few drops of milk on his lips... “Did the milk rouse his appetite? No; on the contrary, he realized God soon after.” The Buddha’s nirvana was only “a seeming inertness,” not shunya [nothingness]. It is “perfect disinterestedness.”16 He had written in a letter earlier that he drew “no distinction between Buddhistic nirvana and the Brahama nirvana of Shankara,” as he believed in the complete annihilation of one’s individually as being “an absolute condition of perfect joya and peace.”>

Jainism

Kalpasutra folio on Mahavira Nirvana. Note the crescent shaped Siddhashila, a place where all siddhas reside after nirvana.

The terms moksa and nirvana are often used interchangeably in the Jain texts.

Rishabhanatha, believed to have lived over a million years ago, was the first Tirthankara to attain nirvana.

Uttaradhyana Sutra provides an account of Sudharman – also called Gautama, and one of the disciples of Mahavira – explaining the meaning of nirvana to Kesi, a disciple of Parshva.

There is a safe place in view of all, but difficult of approach, where there is no old age nor death, no pain nor disease. It is what is called nirvāṇa, or freedom from pain, or perfection, which is in view of all; it is the safe, happy, and quiet place which the great sages reach. That is the eternal place, in view of all, but difficult of approach. Those sages who reach it are free from sorrows, they have put an end to the stream of existence. (81-4) – Translated by Hermann Jacobi, 1895

Sikhism

The concept of liberation as "extinction of suffering", along with the idea of sansara as the "cycle of rebirth" is also part of Sikhism. Nirvana appears in Sikh texts as the term Nirban. However, the more common term is Mukti or Moksh, a salvation concept wherein loving devotion to God is emphasized for liberation from endless cycle of rebirths.

Manichaenism

The term Nirvana (also mentioned is parinirvana) in the 13th or 14th century Manichaean work "The great song to Mani" and "The story of the Death of Mani", referring to the realm of light.

See also

 

Eternal oblivion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eternal oblivion (also referred to as non-existence or nothingness) is the philosophical or religious concept of one's consciousness forever ceasing upon death. This concept is mostly associated with religious skepticism, secular humanism and atheism. Unconsciousness and nonexistence after death is also believed by some religious groups like Jehovah's Witnesses. However they do not believe that death is necessarily the end since they believe in the universal resurrection.

According to most modern neuroscience theories of consciousness, the brain is the basis of subjective experience, agency, self-awareness, and awareness of the surrounding natural world. When brain death occurs, all brain function forever ceases. Many neuroscientists and neurophilosophers such as Daniel Dennett who believe that death is a forever cessation of consciousness also believe that consciousness is dependent upon the functioning of the brain. Scientific research has discovered that some areas of the brain, like the reticular activating system or the thalamus, appear to be necessary for consciousness, because dysfunction of or damage to these structures causes a loss of consciousness.

Through a naturalist analysis of the mind (an approach adopted by many philosophers of mind and neuroscientists), it is regarded as being dependent on the brain, as shown from the various effects of brain damage.

In philosophy

In the Apology of Socrates (written by Plato), after Socrates is sentenced to death, he addresses the court. He ponders the nature of death, and summarizes that there are basically two opinions about it. The first is that it is a migration of the soul or consciousness from this existence into another, and that the souls of all previously deceased people will also be there. This excites Socrates, because he will be able to conduct his dialectic inquiries with all of the great Greek heroes and thinkers of the past. The other opinion about death is that it is oblivion, the complete cessation of consciousness, not only unable to feel but a complete lack of awareness, like a person in a deep, dreamless sleep. Socrates says that even this oblivion does not frighten him very much, because while he would be unaware, he would correspondingly be free from any pain or suffering. Indeed, Socrates says, not even the great King of Persia could say that he ever rested so soundly and peacefully as he did in a dreamless sleep.

Cicero, writing three centuries later in his treatise On Old Age, in the voice of Cato the Elder, similarly discussed the prospects of death, frequently referring to the works of earlier Greek writers. Cicero also concluded that death was either a continuation of consciousness or cessation of it, and that if consciousness continues in some form, there is no reason to fear death; while if it is in fact eternal oblivion, he will be free of all worldly miseries, in which case he should also not be deeply troubled by death.

Similar thoughts about death were expressed by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius in his first-century BC didactic poem De rerum natura and by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus in his Letter to Menoeceus, in which he writes:

"Accustom yourself to believing that death is nothing to us, for good and evil imply the capacity for sensation, and death is the privation of all sentience; therefore, a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding to life a limitless time, but by taking away the yearning after immortality. For life has no terrors for him who has thoroughly understood that there are no terrors for him in ceasing to live. Foolish, therefore, is the man who says that he fears death, not because it will pain when it comes, but because it pains in the prospect. Whatever causes no annoyance when it is present causes only a groundless pain in the expectation. Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not. It is nothing, then, either to the living or to the dead, for with the living it is not and the dead exist no longer."

Paraphrasing philosopher Paul Edwards, Keith Augustine and Yonatan I. Fishman note that "the greater the damage to the brain, the greater the corresponding damage to the mind. The natural extrapolation from this pattern is all too clear – obliterate brain functioning altogether, and mental functioning too will cease".

Contemporary scientists Steven Pinker and Sean Carroll assert that death is equivalent to eternal oblivion, as science finds no mechanism to continue consciousness after death.

Legal use

The term "eternal Oblivion" has been used in international treaties, such as in Article II of the Treaty of Westphalia 1648. It has also been used in legislation such as in the English Indemnity and Oblivion Act 1660, where the phrase used is "perpetual Oblivion" (it appears in several of the articles in the act).

Oblivion and subjectivity

Thomas W. Clark, founder of Center for Naturalism, wrote a paper titled "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity" (1994). He critiqued what he saw as a flawed description of eternal oblivion as a "plunge into darkness". When some imagine their deaths (including the non-religious), they project themselves into a future self which experiences an eternal silent darkness. This is wrong, because without consciousness, there is no awareness of space and no basis for time. For Clark, in oblivion there is even an absence of experience, as we can only speak of experience when a subjective self exists.

According to neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, consciousness is "all we are and all we have: lose consciousness and, as far as you are concerned, your own self and the entire world dissolve into nothingness."

See also

 

Human extinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ext...