My AAAS experience began early this morning at a session entitled "50 years of the space age: looking back, looking forward." It was a discussion panel that included Roald Sagdeev, a professor of physics and space science at the University of Maryland, Kathy Sullivan, a retired astronaut who was the first US woman to go on a spacewalk, and Andrew King, a VP of Boeing's Civil Space Program.

It began with a discussion on the start of the space race, which dawned just over 50 years ago with the launch of Sputnik 1. Occurring during the height of the cold war, this singular event made headlines across the United States and catalyzed the formation of NASA the following year. However, in the Soviet Union, the event was not front page news. According to Prof. Sagdeev, who played a key role in the Russian space program, the launch of Sputnik was downplayed to Soviet leaders, as it was done in response to a call from international scientists looking to celebrate the International Geophysical Year. Sputnik was viewed by the Soviet Union as more of a byproduct of an ICBM test than as a satellite launch.

The moderator then asked the panel what purpose they felt was served by putting humans in space. Andrew King stated that this was clear cut during the cold war: it was done for national interest. He also stated that in the future—how far in the future is up for discussion—he believed we would have large scale space structures that would have clearly defined purposes and therefore human involvement would again be clear. However, now we are in what he referred to as a stage of "ugly adolescence," where we have no clear purpose but are laying the ground work for humanity's future.

Discussing the future of humanity in space, Dr. Sullivan recalled how, back in the 1960's, there were often linked discussions about both space exploration and deep sea ocean exploration; clearly one still captures our imagination, yet the other has dropped off the list of public concerns. She suggested that we need to understand what caused one to stay in the public eye even though both remain grand challenges involving exploring the unknown.

At this point, the moderator asked people in the audience who would like to go into space. Nearly everyone raised their hand, but one person asked the poignant question: "How much would it cost?" If it were free, the non-scientific study (survey of 30 or so people in the room) says that everyone was in, if it cost $10,000, then only a few were still willing, and if it cost $100,000, then almost nobody was willing. This turned the discussion to the topic of consumer space tourism. It was clear that the entire panel was skeptical of the concept of space tourism, and that they all clearly felt that there should be a delineation between orbital and sub-orbital space tourism. According to Dr. Sullivan, SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo will bring people no closer to true space tourism, as they merely represent a sub-orbital 'pole-vault' that lets passengers experience a touch of microgravity. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this, as people are still technically crossing the boundary of space (100km), but they are indeed not getting anywhere near orbit.

Dr. Sagdeev pointed out that the suborbital travel requires between 30 and 40 times less fuel than it takes to get a craft into orbit. All panelists agreed that for actual space tourism to become a reality, it would take a large-scale concerted national (or international) effort into propulsion research to bring the economics and capabilities into line. According to data from Dr. King, the market for space tourism is on the order of 800 million dollars a year, and this is only enough to support about five spacecraft around the world.

When put in terms of hard numbers, Dr. King said that, in order for space tourism to be a widespread reality, the overall cost of dry materials would need to be on the order of a few hundred dollars a pound, similar to what we see in commercial airliners today. For reference, the space shuttle costs around $21,000/lb of dry material. An audience member then asked a question about what would happen to the economics of the system if point-to-point suborbital flights that carried packages were taken into account—think UPS Space. The panelists' reply was that there would be little added benefit over a standard overnight transport, yet it would incur a significantly higher cost, so none felt that this would appreciably change the financial proposition.

The final major topic of discussion was sparked by the moderator's question: "What would you tell the new President of the U.S. about spaceflight?" Dr. Sullivan responded by saying that what has been a small fraction of the US's total budget has given back a large amount of both tangible and intangible things. She said that the next president needs to stay the course on the grand challenge of planetary and space exploration. Dr. King said that we need a lasting infrastructure and balance in the space program. if we undertake a new grand challenge—going back to the moon, or going to Mars and beyond—with out leaving behind an infrastructure for further use, then we are just going to be doomed to start from scratch each time. He also said that it must be stressed that our science and technology portfolio must contain a balance of all fields of science and engineering.

Finally, Prof. Sagdeev stressed the need to ban weapons in space—made all the more important by the recent announcement of the US's intention to shoot down its failed spy satellite. He also suggested creating large-scale international groups to specialize in the exploration of space.