Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

Synergies of Earth science and space exploration

S.Y. Chung a, P. Ehrenfreund a,*, J.D. Rummel b, N. Peter c

a Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University,1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, USAb Institute for Coastal Science and Policy, East Carolina University, 2200 South Charles Boulevard 1500, Greenville, NC 27858-4353, USA

c European Space Policy Institute, Schwarzenbergplatz 6, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Received 15 June 2009; received in revised form 23 October 2009; accepted 29 October 2009

Abstract

A more flexible policy basis from which to manage our planet in the 21st century is desirable. As one contribution, we note that syn-ergies between space exploration and the preservation of our habitat exist, and that protecting life on Earth requires similar concepts andinformation as investigations of life beyond the Earth, including the expansion of human presence in space. Instrumentation and datahandling to observe both planetary objects and planet Earth are based on similar techniques. Moreover, while planetary surface oper-ations are conducted under different conditions, the technology to probe the surface and subsurface of both the Earth and other planetsrequires similar tools, such as radar, seismometers, and drilling devices. The Earth observation community has developed some exem-plary tools and has featured successful international cooperation in data handling and sharing that could be equally well applied torobotic planetary exploration. Here we propose a network involving both communities that will enable the interchange of scientificinsights and the development of new policies and management strategies. Those tools can provide a vital forum through which the man-agement of this planet can be assisted, and in which a new bridge between the Earth-centric and space-centric communities can be built.� 2009 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earth observation; Space exploration; Astrobiology; Space weather; Biodiversity; International space cooperation

1. Introduction

The global environmental situation is alarming and rep-resents a major action-item on the agenda of internationalpolitics. Humanity faces a number of important environ-mental problems including global warming, climateextremes, depletion of natural resources, and pollution.Associated with those problems are global issues thatinclude climate catastrophes, poverty, diseases, and theirassociated mortality.

For example, the oceans comprise nearly all the wateron planet Earth, with fresh water in rivers and lakes, andtrapped in polar ice caps and glaciers, only making up3% of the overall total. By far the largest amount of freshwater is frozen; ground water makes up 0.28% and the

0273-1177/$36.00 � 2009 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights rese

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2009.10.025

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 994 5124; fax: +1 202 994 1639.E-mail addresses: syc1231@gwmail.gwu.edu (S.Y. Chung), pehren@

gwu.edu (P. Ehrenfreund).

water found in fresh water lakes and rivers, readily avail-able for use, makes up only 0.009% of Earth’s total. Notsurprisingly, the quantity and quality of this water isstretched to the limit. Industrialization has modified alsoour atmosphere, affecting its ability to protect us from dan-gerous solar radiation. Resources on land and in the oceansare over-exploited, and all over the world unsustainablepractices have led to environmental degradation that needsto be halted, such as desertification and deforestation. Pol-lution is ubiquitous and degraded air, water, and soil causedetrimental impacts on human health and living condi-tions. More than 1.2 billion people on our planet have noaccess to clean water, and drinking polluted water is thenumber one cause of death for children in Africa. Forests,deserts, wetlands, and mountains each provide habitat fornumerous species and ecosystems. Forests contain 70% ofthe carbon of biological systems, but industrializationand modern technology have led to widespread habitatdestruction. A critical goal must therefore be to halt this

rved.

156 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

destruction of our own habitat, which is coupled to theoverall decline of Earth’s biodiversity. We have to ensuresufficient resources to account for the ever growing popula-tion (to 9 billion by 2050) and find solutions while balanc-ing resource allocation among regions.

Increasingly, it has been shown that space technologycan be applied to address problems on Earth (UNOOSA,2006). For instance, satellite imagery can cover large terri-tories over regular time periods and obtain information indifferent wavelength regions and thus deliver a comprehen-sive picture of planet Earth. However, while the “Missionto Planet Earth” enabled by Earth observation satelliteshas been recognized in the past decades, the role and poten-tial contribution of space exploration activities to under-standing and protecting our home planet has not beenaccepted to the same degree. Indeed, such a link may notbe apparent at first thought: in fact, many believe thatthe exploration of our solar system brings only marginalbenefits in improving and understanding life on Earth.Some of the space activities involved in investigating oursolar system have nonetheless equally significant implica-tions for understanding the evolution of life on Earthand how Earth has become—and remains—habitable. Inparticular, studies of the Sun and of the potential for lifeon other planets in our solar system provide examples ofthe linkages between space exploration and Earth sciences.

One facet of the new era of space exploration currentlyunfolding that may provide a further link is a global effortto investigate the Earth–Moon–Mars system that can beundertaken by many space-faring countries and new spacepowers. Moving human exploration to the next step,returning to the Moon with the objectives to build habitats,infrastructure, and initiate commercial exploitation areways of coping with technological and intellectual evolu-tion. Many philosophers and biologists have discussedthe possible (and likely) short lifetime scenario of humanson planet Earth. In his recent book, Charles Cockell(Cockell 2006, p. 173) states: “the fusion of environmental-ism and space settlement is a unique opportunity in the

emerging history of humankind: one that is now, for a rela-

tively brief period, available for us to grasp” which is anacknowledgement that synergies between space explorationand preserving our habitat do exist.

In order to provide direction in the use of those syner-gies, we have to understand some of the parameters suchas the uniqueness of the Earth, what we know about theorigin and evolution of life, what satellites can be used tosupport scientific efforts, and what management strategiesare needed to bridge the two communities (Earth-centricand space-centric).

2. Current and future space activities in Earth observation

and space exploration

Ambitious space projects that address Earth science andspace exploration are currently in the planning and devel-opment stage. Satellites monitoring the environment and

climate will play an ever increasing role in the near futureand ambitious space exploration roadmaps to explore theEarth–Moon–Mars system are planned in worldwide coor-dination involving established and new rising space powers.

2.1. Space-based Earth observation

The ability to observe the Earth from space has trans-formed our view of our own planet. One clear example ofthat transformation is the “blue marble” view of the Earthseen first by the Apollo astronauts and the object of a rev-olutionary change in the way humans view their home inspace. With the appreciation of the space vantage-pointbrought by Apollo emerged a greater appreciation of themore mundane but increasingly sophisticated views of theEarth brought through orbital spacecraft, which haveevolved from returned photographic platforms to quantita-tively oriented instrument platforms, capable of measuringvariables such as temperature, concentration of atmo-spheric trace gases, and the exact elevation of land andocean. These measurements have led to a new scientificunderstanding of the Earth system, which both representsa major intellectual accomplishment and provides impor-tant societal benefits through the improvement of the pre-dictability of everyday life on Earth (NRC, 2008a).

Earth observation satellites provide the most straightforward example of how space technology contributes toovercoming environmental challenges on Earth. Closemonitoring of environmental parameters, natural phenom-ena, and resources is crucial for effective management andto ensure future sustainability of the Earth’s critical lifesupport systems. Space-based systems comprise the center-piece of future environmental monitoring. Where ground-based systems are limited in the frequency, continuity,and coverage of important ecosystems, satellites can pro-vide essential Earth observation data on a continuous basisat a range of scales—from local to global. Increasingly,environmental measurements are most effectively oruniquely obtained from space. Satellite instruments candeliver images and measurements of various geophysicalparameters of the atmosphere, land, ocean, ice, gravity,and magnetic fields. According to the Committee on EarthObservations Satellites (CEOS) space-based measurementscan currently provide 25 out of the 45 Essential ClimateVariables (ECV) identified by the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (seeCEOS, 2008). The implementation plan of the Global Cli-mate Observations System (GCOS, 2004, p. 7) notes that“a detailed global climate record for the future critically

depends upon a major satellite component”.

An international effort in Earth observation is beingmade through the Group on Earth Observations (GEO),a voluntary partnership of governments and organizationscurrently comprised of 77 countries, the European Com-mission, and 56 participating organizations, collaboratingto build the Global Earth Observation System of Systems(GEOSS). GEOSS will link together various types of exist-

1 Augustine report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf.

2 http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Aurora/SEMZOS39ZAD_0.html.

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 157

ing and planned Earth observation systems to provide aunified environmental information service to support themultitudes of users around the world. GEOSS’s 10-yearimplementation plan (GEO, 2005) addresses nine societalbenefit areas (disaster, health, energy, climate, water,weather, ecosystem, agriculture, and biodiversity). CEOScoordinates the contribution of space-based systems toGEOSS (see UNFCCC, 2006).

Space-based systems are also being integrated into disas-ter monitoring and management schemes. The Interna-tional Charter on Space and Major Disasters, establishedin 2001, mobilizes Earth observation capabilities of spaceagencies—upon disaster occurrence—to provide satellite-based information, such as the maps of disaster affectedareas, to assist disaster relief activities. The United Nationsare now working toward developing a more elaborate uni-versal platform—the space-based Information for DisasterManagement and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER)—to support the disaster management community.

While space-based systems have successfully demon-strated capability in measuring key Earth environmentalvariables, the current capabilities do not adequately mapall required parameters nor fully meet the quality and stan-dards required by the user community (CEOS, 2008). Inaddition, there are also concerns of “satellite data gaps”

from lapsed observing programs, which stand in stark con-trast to the stunning and growing needs for space-basedinformation by the world’s users (NRC, 2008a; CSIS,2008). Building a reliable Earth observation capacity reliesstrongly on the availability of inter-calibrated long-termdata records, which can only be maintained if subsequentgenerations of satellite sensors overlap with their predeces-sors. The capability to observe Earth from space is jeopar-dized by delays and lack of funding for many criticalsatellite missions.

2.2. Space exploration in the 21st century

The term “space exploration” encompasses both roboticand human exploration activities. Using ESA’s definitionfrom the document entitled: European Objectives andInterests in Space Exploration (ESA, 2007), space explora-tion is defined as to “extend access and a sustainable pres-

ence for humans in Earth–Moon–Mars space, including the

Lagrangian Points and near-Earth objects.”

Space exploration, an issue that used to be of marginalpolitical interest in recent years, has returned to the topof the space policy agenda of many space-faring countries.Space exploration can provide many socio-economic bene-fits ranging from more influence on the international sceneto increased industrial competitiveness. Human spaceflightis also a source of inspiration for the general public, andthe youth in particular. Space exploration is thus not onlyseen as a destination, but also rather as a process driven bypolitical and socio-economic motives. However, spaceexploration is a very demanding endeavor both in termsof financial and technological resources.

The challenge posed by the complexity of long-term,multi-destination exploration activities calls not only fora broad public support but also for a sustained politicalengagement in order to have a wide and resilient backingof space exploration plans. The current international spaceexploration environment is dramatically evolving due totwo main trends.

� Following the changing geopolitics of space activities,new actors are increasingly becoming involved in spaceexploration. A growing number of space agencies haveplanned lunar and Martian orbiter and lander missionsoften in the context of preparations for future humanexploration. New actors are demonstrating great interestin exploration, mainly for international reasons and thewill to strengthen greater regional or even global (Sci-ence and Technology, S&T) leadership.� International cooperation has become a central element

of the strategy of most countries involved in explorationas symbolized by the International Space Station (ISS)but also the Global Exploration Strategy (GES) or theInternational Lunar Network (ILN) initiatives (GES,2007). Recent (and future) geopolitical developments,combined with the funding constraints of the variousspace-faring countries, have made it clear that greaterinternational cooperation will be important for futurespace exploration activities.

The major space powers—the United States, Russia,Europe, Canada, Japan, China, and India—have devel-oped ambitious space exploration programs (Peter, 2008).In early 2004, the United States announced its Vision forSpace Exploration (NASA, 2004), which includes develop-ment of a new space transportation system, a return to theMoon and construction of lunar bases, and eventualmanned missions to Mars. Exploration System Architec-ture (NASA, 2005) has been studied by NASA and its com-ponent systems and technologies are currently underreview.1 Europe’s long-term plan for exploration is pursuedwith the robotic and human exploration program, Aurora(Messina et al., 2006). Europe’s Aurora program was actu-ally initiated in 2001, several years before NASA’s Visiondocument.2 Russia approved the Federal Space Program2006–2015 (SE Russia, 2005), in which it recognized that“space exploration and research, including exploration and

research of the Moon and other space objects, have the high-est national priority in the Russian Federation”. In Japan,JAXA has announced its long-term vision, JAXA 2025(JAXA, 2005), highlighting lunar and primitive bodyexploration that involves robotic missions to the Moon,human lunar system, and asteroid missions. China’s spaceambitions, as underlined in its 2006 White Paper (SEChina, 2006) on space activities, includes a series of robotic

158 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

missions to the Moon and a joint mission to Mars withRussia. China intends to continue with its manned spaceprogram. India has also embarked on exploration endeav-ors, with a series of robotic missions to the Moon and thepotential launching of astronauts into LEO by 2015. SouthKorea tested a space launcher without success, butannounced its participation in lunar exploration (Cho,2007). In view of these plans, the International SpaceExploration Coordination Group (ISECG) was establishedin 2007 to act as a body to facilitate the coordination andcollaboration in the exploration activities among differentcountries (see GES, 2007; ISECG, 2008, 2009).

Astronauts have spent short periods in Earth orbit andon the Moon, and relatively extensive periods in space inorbital stations such as Mir and the International SpaceStation (ISS). One ambitious plan for future space explora-tion includes even longer stays on the Moon and humanjourneys to Mars. The ISS is now coming to the end ofits construction phase and accommodates six-person crewsand gives them the time to fully utilize ISS’s researchcapacities to conduct various research activities for science,commercial application on Earth, and preparations forfuture exploration.

Nonetheless, more advanced capabilities are needed. Inorder to carry out the future manned and robotic missionsto Moon, Mars, and beyond, not only the existing technol-ogies should be significantly advanced, but also new andinnovative technologies must be developed to make theplanned exploration missions feasible. For human missionsto Moon and Mars, the development of new space trans-portation capabilities and long-duration human supportsystems are critical. Current time estimates for a travel toMars are �6 months one-way. Such long journeys and pro-longed stays beyond the Earth’s radiation belts (and there-fore exposure to proton storms and galactic cosmicradiation) add a new dimension to human space flight.Humans will be put under extreme stress during suchlong-term space voyages and be exposed to major risksand hazard. Survival of humans beyond Earth under suchconditions, and their continued health upon return, mustfirst be demonstrated. Space radiation, isolation, and med-ical problems such as muscle-loss and in particular bonedemineralization require countermeasures if astronautsare to retain full functionality. Survival training in extremeenvironments and isolation studies in artificial habitatsneed to be extended and included in future astronaut train-ing. Life support systems, energy production and advancesin space materials are among the new technologies thathave to be further developed to enable future explorationobjectives. In robotic exploration, improving technologiesfor entry, descent, and landing (EDL), drilling and sampleacquisition, are identified as one of the next major chal-lenges. A recent assessment of NASA’s Solar SystemExploration Program (NRC, 2008b, p. 59) revealed thatNASA has cut back the funding for its technology develop-ment programs. However, these enabling technology pro-grams need to be adequately funded to guarantee future

progress in implementing future exploration goals. A previ-ous funding reduction for astrobiology research andrelated instrument technology development has also hadimpacts on future solar system exploration (NRC, 2008b,p. 5). For continuous improvement in technologies, thesebreaks in funding are extremely disruptive—but the realkey to productive technology development activities is reg-ular opportunities to employ them. Here both space mis-sions and analog missions have proven to be important.

3. Where space meets Earth

Planet Earth is currently the only habitable world weknow. Although life may have existed as early as 3.5 billionyears ago, humans have lived for only a rather short timeon Earth—about 2 million years. Nonetheless, we are(unfortunately) making up for lost time as a factor affectingthe habitability of the planet. In the last 200 years humanshave changed the Earth dramatically, calling into questionhow long the Earth and its natural systems can balance itslimited energy and material resources against the effects ofhuman-caused pollution.

Keeping Earth’s natural “life support” processes operat-ing, and the planet habitable by humans, has become a crit-ical challenge. Space activities, particularly environmentalsatellites that monitor the biosphere, are becoming essen-tial tools to help us to manage and sustain our very lives(Sadeh et al., 1996).

Space observations can tell us about our current bio-sphere, but the Earth as a system has not always been hos-pitable to human life. For approximately half of itsexistence, there was virtually no free oxygen in the Earth’satmosphere, and a completely different set of biogeochem-ical cycles operated to keep the Earth relatively stable inthat state. Fundamental knowledge of the Earth is of morethan casual interest—it is essential that we understand howto keep it from changing back to a stable state with condi-tions that would not support human life.

Astrobiology, the study of life in the universe, seeksanswers to fundamental questions on the origin, evolution,distribution and future of life, wherever it may exist. As aninterdisciplinary science field that unites astronomers, biol-ogists, physicists, chemists, geologists and many of theirsubdisciplines it addresses many questions that are relevantfor sustaining life on planet Earth—and in particular, therelationships between a planet (especially the Earth) andlife, and how each affects the other. Astrobiology providesboth the knowledge and perspective to inform us abouthow to maintain the Earth as a long-term habitable homefor humanity. Originally a creation of NASA (under thetitles, “exobiology” and “planetary biology”), astrobiologyhas grown worldwide as a multi- and interdisciplinaryendeavor. Together, astrobiologists have collaborated inwriting down a “NASA Astrobiology Roadmap” (DesMarais et al., 2008) now in its third iteration that coversseven main goals, given in temporal, and not priority,order. Of particular interest here in joining Earth sciences

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 159

and space studies is roadmap goal number 6, which statesthat astrobiology, as a field, should work to,

Understand the principles that will shape the future oflife, both on Earth and beyond. Elucidate the driversand effects of microbial ecosystem change as a basisfor forecasting future changes on time scales rangingfrom decades to millions of years, and explore thepotential for microbial life to survive and evolve in envi-ronments beyond Earth, especially regarding aspects rel-evant to US Space Policy.

Here “US Space Policy” is a reference to the specific USinterest in returning to the Moon and going on to Mars, asmentioned above. Astrobiology, and particularly the desireto understand the origin, evolution, and distribution of lifein the universe, is one of the chief motivators for expandedhuman capabilities to conduct science on other worlds(Fig. 1).

3.1. Lessons from astrobiology: conservation of biodiversity

and life in extreme environments

Over the course of the last 4.5 billion years, Earth hascreated an ideal environment to sustain life of an astonish-ing variety. Dynamic processes in the Earth’s interior haveestablished a magnetosphere that protects the Earth fromharmful cosmic ray particles. The Earth’s atmosphere, in

Fig. 1. Astrobiology connects space and Earth science to answer fundam

turn, shields life from harmful ultraviolet radiation andallows for a stable climate and temperature cycle by pro-viding a “greenhouse effect” that retains some of the infra-red radiation that is emitted from the Earth’s surface.

A brief look at our planetary neighbors shows thatVenus, with an average surface temperature of 500 �C (asa result of a “runaway” greenhouse effect), and Mars, witha surface temperature from �60 �C to +10 �C and a thinatmosphere (with an insufficient greenhouse effect), areboth unable to sustain life as we know it at the surface.

The combination of Earth’s physical and chemical pro-cesses (e.g. ocean circulation, atmospheric flows, plate tec-tonic recycling of the crust, etc.) and living processes,together, form biogeochemical cycles that transform theelements and compounds related to life (the bio-elementssuch as H, C, O, S, N, P). While humans originally werepart of these natural cycles, the discovery and proliferationof human-discovered technology have caused major dis-ruptions to these bio-cycles in many, if not most, parts ofthe globe. As a consequence, and with the orders-of-magni-tude rise in human population over the last 200 years,humans are coming to dominate and destroy the naturalcycling of the elements with unpredictable consequences.While it is well known that natural processes have led toextinction of species, other life forms arose over time.Regrettably, the effects of modern human activities arerapid on the evolutionary timescale, and consequently are

ental questions about life in the universe (Des Marais et al., 2008).

Table 1Examples of parameters constraining life processes.

Parameter Limiting conditions Type of organism

Water Liquid water requiredTemperaturea Minimum �2 �C Psychrophiles

50–80 �C Thermophiles80–121 �C Hyperthermophiles

Salinity 15–37.5% NaCl HalophilespH 0.7–4 Acidophiles

8–13.2 AkalophilesAtmospheric pressure Up to 130 MPa BarophilesEnergetic radiation Up to 3 kGy Radiophiles

a Note that the lowest temperature known to allow microorgansms tometabolize is ��20 �C and the highest �121 �C.

160 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

impacting climate, ecosystems, and other species at a ratethat does not allow for natural replacement of ecosystemsin the same time-span. Consequently, the loss of ecosys-tems on which we depend is affecting human habitatsadversely, all over the planet.

Biodiversity is a measure of the variety and numbers oflife found at all levels of biological organization. As a con-cept, biodiversity can embrace all forms of diversity in bio-logical systems: in genetics, species, and ecosystems. Theconservation of biodiversity has become a global concernbecause different species contribute in essential (and oftenuncharacterized) ways to the functioning of the Earth’s lifesupport systems, on which we all depend. Effectively, theloss of biodiversity results in the loss of valuable ecosystemservices that we take for granted, and which we (if we careto continue to inhabit the Earth) can ill-afford to lose.

The ongoing loss of biodiversity is of concern to astro-biologists, in particular, they realize that the Earth, as asystem, is quite capable of operating without it—but thatit can operate as a system that does not provide essentialsupport (e.g. oxygen in the atmosphere) for human life.In fact, the most critical difference between today’s Earth,and that of 2.5 billion years ago, is biodiversity. The effectsof other living systems have made the Earth the extremelyhabitable planet that it is today, and it would be ironic ifhumanity’s influence were to destroy those systems onwhich we all very much depend. Scholes et al. (2008) notethat unlike climate change there are no widely acceptedand globally available set of measures to assess biodiversityand critical information that can aid in the preservation ofbiodiversity. Thus, challenges lie in integrating biodiversitydata that are diverse, physically dispersed, and in manycases, not organized in a way that makes them accessibleto modern researchers.

The threat to biological diversity was among the topicsdiscussed at the UN World Summit for Sustainable Devel-opment in 2002. At the Summit, the governments adoptedthe “Convention on Biological Diversity” to conserve bio-logical diversity. “Biodiversity” is one of the nine ‘societalbenefit areas’ identified by GEOSS.

The Biodiversity Observation Network (BON) (Scholeset al., 2008) is an initiative within GEOSS which establishesa framework for data collection, standardization, andinformation exchange in biodiversity studies (BON,2009). NASA and DIVERSITAS, an international pro-gram of biodiversity science, is leading the planning phaseof GEO-BON, in collaboration with the GEO secretariat.Nine other organizations and programs are participatingin this initiative.

In a sense, the astrobiological interest of life in extremeenvironments is complementary to the study and apprecia-tion of biodiversity. Life on Earth is extremely adaptable,and has been shown to overcome extremes in temperature,pH, and pressure in abundance (see Table 1). Equally inter-esting is the fact that some microbes depend exclusively onabiotic processes for their existence, including organisms indeep mines that survive on the products of radioactivity

and organisms at deep sea vents. While it is encouragingthat life is so tenacious, it is also humbling in a sense. Whilethese microbes live in “extreme” environments quite suc-cessfully (and thus would not be hurt if the Earth, itself,were to become “extreme”) the word “extreme” is usedbecause it connotes an environment where humans couldnot live, at all.

The study of extreme life is important in determiningboth where life may be found elsewhere, and in under-standing the functioning and adaptability of life that wehave here on Earth. Both NASA and the US National Sci-ence Foundation have had or currently have programs tostudy “extremophiles” and recently, the European Com-mission has initiated within its “Framework 7” a programcalled CAREX (Coordination Action for Research Activi-ties on life in Extreme Environments), that coordinates andsets scientific priorities for research of life in extreme envi-ronment (ESF, 2007). CAREX endorses cross-sector inter-ests in microbes, plants, and animals evolving in diversemarine, polar, and terrestrial extreme environment as wellas outer space (CAREX, 2008).

By relating information on both biodiversity andextreme life, this synergy of Earth and space science canhelp to provide concepts (based on recent scientific data)on how ecosystems respond to rapid rates of change anddetermine possible directions by which the Earth and itsbiosphere (including humans) will survive and co-evolvein the future. This approach requires applying the princi-ples and perspectives of astrobiology to identify optionsthat might allow humanity to halt the destruction of itsown habitat as well as the decline of biodiversity on Earth,while addressing a variety of related economic and energy-related scenarios associated with those options.

3.2. Space weather and its impacts on anthropogenic

activities

Space weather and space climate (Mursula et al., 2007),in analogy to conventional weather and climate of theEarth, conceptualizes variations of environmental condi-tions in outer space. Space weather on Earth is primarilydetermined by the solar activity and interplanetary mag-netic field and their interaction with the Earth’s atmo-

Table 2Space-based instrument measurement requirements for space weatherstudies (adapted from Hapgood and Oliver, 2001, p. 9).

Space instrument measurement types

Solar imagesAuroral imagesSolar X-ray and UV fluxesSolar wind plasma propertiesInterplanetary magnetic fieldMagnetospheric magnetic fieldCross-tail electric fieldBulk plasma propertiesElectron and ion fluxesDebris and meteoroid propertiesInterplanetary radio emissions

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 161

sphere, magnetosphere, and ionosphere. The Sun’s activityundergoes dramatic changes, both short- and long-term,with a range of regular and irregular phenomena. A streamof ionized particles is enduringly emitted by the Sun. Thiscomponent increases in solar luminescence with the sun-spot cycle while the galactic cosmic rays are anti-correlatedwith the sunspot cycle.

More galactic cosmic rays cause a radiation risk for satel-lites and trans-polar aviation. Solar eruptive events occurgenerally in phase with the sunspot cycles, and consist ofsolar flares, coronal mass ejections and solar energetic parti-cles. Those events can cause ionospheric storms, which candisrupt Global Navigation Satellite Systems as well as com-munication. Increased radiation affects also the health andsafety of astronauts and airplane passengers (WMO, 2009).

The United States National Space Weather ProgramCouncil defined space weather as “conditions on the Sunand in the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere and ther-mosphere that can influence the performance and reliabilityof space-borne and ground-based technological systemsand can endanger human life or health” (NSWP, 1995).Historical records reveal that unusually large spaceweather events occurred in the past such as the geomag-netic superstorms in 1859 and 1921. Moreover, in 1989 apower blackout in Canada caused by a geomagnetic stormleft millions of people without electricity for several hours.Such extreme events, though rare, can occur again. Sincemodern society depends heavily on a variety of complextechnology infrastructure, a possible loss of core functions(e.g. communication, navigation, and power supply) due toa severe space weather event poses serious socio-economicand security implications (see NRC, 2008c).

The study of solar activity, solar wind, and their effectson the near-Earth environment has been shown to haveimportant implications both for life on Earth and forhuman space exploration. Space weather can interfere withastronaut operations in space, and because humans nowreside in low Earth orbit on the ISS, and may soon travelto further destinations within the solar system, the signifi-cance of these studies is growing. While the influence ofspace weather on global warming is still uncertain, it isthe subject of ongoing scientific investigations. A numberof space-based probes monitor solar activity and providedata for space weather predictions. The variety of measure-ments enabled by space-based instruments is summarizedin Table 2. The ESA–NASA Solar and Heliospheric Obser-vatory (SOHO) spacecraft and NASA’s Advanced Compo-sition Explorer (ACE) provide near real-time coverage ofspace weather data from the L1 Lagrangian point. Moni-toring from L1 point is particularly important to providingearly warning of geomagnetic storms. A number of Earth-orbiting satellites as well as ground-based facilities providedata for space weather services. A recent addition to spaceweather monitoring is the NASA–ESA Solar-TerrestrialRelations Observatory (STEREO), which performsstereoscopic imagery in the region between the Sun andthe Earth. And for “customer service”, the United States

provides various space weather services through theSpace Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) operated bythe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). A space weather hazard scale provides guidanceto its users by quantifying the severity of the anticipatedevents, and an effort is underway at WMO to facilitatean international collaboration in operational space weatherservices (see WMO, 2009).

4. Exploiting synergies of Earth science and space

exploration

While there are areas of common interests and identifiedsynergies between Earth science and space exploration,such potential synergies have not been fully recognizedand exploited. The importance of an interdisciplinaryapproach to bring together both Earth and space commu-nities has been recognized in the 2003 decadal survey ofNASA’s heliophysics program (NRC, 2003).

Future settlements on other planets require the con-struction of habitats, life support systems and access toresources such as water, oxygen and other elements. Per-manent settlement of the human race beyond Earth mayresult in terra-forming of the new habitat. Although thegoals and objectives have changed, synergies are given inthis scenario, in particular concerning operations inextreme environments and space hazards. Commercialapplication has a much stronger involvement in humanexploration. National space agencies do not have sufficientfunding to cover the costs for human space exploration andneed the commercial sector as reliable partner. New legalframeworks will be required including planetary protectionguidelines to exert control over extended and more fre-quent space activities (Kminek and Conley, 2008; William-son, 2003). Furthermore, the general perspective of societywill change. Leaving Earth for extended periods to exploreother solar system objects and eventually settle on anotherplanet in the far future augments technical requirementsbut requires evolving policy aspects that impact gover-nance, society and the commercial sector.

Fifty years of Earth observations from space hasaccelerated the cross-disciplinary integration of analysis,

Table 3Synergy matrix between planetary space exploration and Earth science activities.

Life on Earth Science Instruments Data and predictions Technology

Space Solar-terrestrial connectionCosmic effectsPlanet dynamics

Particle sensorsDust collectionSky surveysRadiation sensors

Solar flaresCosmic raysNEO impactsSpace weather

LaunchersSatellitesSpace probesPlatforms

Planets AtmosphereSurfaceSubsurfaceInterior

Remote sensingSurface probesRadar/drillSeismometer

GreenhouseGeological historyVolcanismQuakes

OrbitersRoversBalloonsIn situ instrumentationAutomated systems

Earth AtmosphereSurfaceSubsurfaceInterior

Remote sensingSurface probesRadar/drillSeismometer

ClimateOceansVolcanoesQuakes

OrbitersGround segmentsBalloonsIn situ instrumentationOcean drillsAutonomous systems

Governance Education Commerce Society

Space Space treatiesInternational space cooperation

PerspectivesOrigins of Solar System

Transportation systems CommunicationPositioningWeather

Planets Planetary protection GeologyOrigin of lifeHabitability

Resources, Preparationfor human space flight

ExplorationInspirationKnowledge

Earth Environmental policiesPollutionDisaster control

Global warmingBiodiversityLong-distance education

Satellite services(environmental,communication, security)

Climate controlHumanitarian aid information

162 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

interpretation, and ultimately our understanding of thedynamic processes that govern the planet; this newapproach plays a critically important role in helping societymanage planetary-scale resources and environmental chal-lenges (NRC, 2008a). The exploitation of synergies inEarth science and space exploration provides opportunitiesfor both communities to further this achievement. Bothscenarios, Life on Earth and Life beyond Earth not onlyshare similar goals but also need similar information toconduct a successful program. Table 3 portrays the syner-gies of robotic planetary exploration and Earth scienceactivities aimed to protect the environment and life onEarth. Table 3 indicates that science goals and the requiredinstrumentation for Earth observations and planetary sci-ence are often similar. There are obvious synergies in tech-nology and data handling that could lead to a fruitfulexchange of scientists and engineers. The synergy matrixaddresses not only science and technology but also socio-economic issues. Table 4 summarizes the synergies betweenthe human exploration of the Earth–Mars–Moon systemand Earth sciences. The challenge of building new infra-structure for planetary environments and new humantransport systems and cargo vehicles has a strong impacton the stakeholders, such as the space sector and societyat large and requires an interdisciplinary approach.

In order to successfully explore another planet we need athorough understanding on the limits for life on Earth andhow to survive in harsh environments. The Earth observa-tion community has developed exemplary tools and suc-

cessful international cooperation in data handling andsharing that could be applied to robotic planetary explora-tion as well. Education and awareness of the society willbenefit from the knowledge of habitability in our solar sys-tem including aspects of planetary protection.

Earth and space communities should join in order toexploit the synergies in the form of collaborations. Suchsynergies can arise on technical, managerial, and politicallevels. Technical synergies can result from sharing scientificknowledge, data, and experiences, as well as commoninfrastructures, technologies, and skills. Managerial syner-gies can arise from sharing institutions, governance struc-ture, and learning from management knowledge andskills of the other community.

At the political front, coalitions can be formed toaddress common policy goals and strategies that could beshared to address common issues. The following subsec-tions identify specific areas of synergies that could beexploited by the two communities.

4.1. Sharing of scientific knowledge, instrument technologies

and data

Synergies of the instrumentation and data handling con-cerning planetary objects and Earth observations are evi-dent. Remote sensing instruments on planetary orbitershave been modeled after instruments that study the Earthatmosphere (cf. as the proposed MATMOS instrumentfor Mars atmospheric studies, derived from the ATMOS

Table 4Synergy matrix between human space exploration and Earth science activities.

Life beyond Earth Science Instruments Data and predictions Technology

SpaceISS

Solar-terrestrial connectionCosmic effectsPlanet dynamics

Particle sensorsDust collectionSky surveysRadiation sensors

Solar flaresCosmic raysImpactsSpace weather

LaunchersSatellitesSpace probesPlatforms

MoonMarsAsteroids

HistoryGeologyConditions for life resources

Surface probesRadar/drillRobotic toolsPenetrators

Geological historyRadioactive datingCompositionConstraints for life

Rovers, robotsAutonomous systemsImpactorsIn situ instrumentationLife support systems

Earth AtmosphereSurfaceSubsurfaceInterior

Remote sensingSurface probesRadar/drillSeismometer

ClimateOceansVolcanoesQuakes

Ground segmentsBalloonsIn situ instrumentationOcean drillsAutonomous systems

Governance Education Commerce Society

SpaceISS

Space treatiesInternational spacecooperation

PerspectivesHuman expansionSurvival in space

Human transport systemsCargo vehiclesSpace tourism

Advanced access to spaceTechnology advancesSpace rides

MoonMarsAsteroids

PlanetaryProtectionMoon treatyRescue agreement

New territoriesHabitabilityHumans and robot synergies

HabitatsResourcesExploitationSpace suits

Lunar baseHuman transport to MarsFuture settlements

Earth Environmental policiesPollutionDisaster control

Global warmingBiodiversityLong-distance education

Satellite services(environmental andcommunication, security)

Climate controlHumanitarian aid information

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 163

instrument that flew on the Space Shuttle, or EPOXI,3 amission that studies comets, exoplanets and Earth). Plane-tary surface operations are conducted under different con-ditions, but with a number of technological similarities tosystems used to investigate both the surface and subsurfaceof the Earth’s surface and oceans.

Both environments feature autonomous systems, powerconservation, and the use of radar instrumentation, seis-mometers and drilling devices to probe below the surface.Data characterizing space weather and space climate(short-and long-term variations, respectively) can serveboth communities.

Adoption of common standards and calibration isimportant in Earth observations because the data obtainedfrom various systems and instruments must be comparedor stitched together to make the information more usefuland comprehensive. In Earth observations, such effort isunder way. As part of a solution to calibration problems,a Global Space-based Inter Calibration System has beenproposed to allow calibration of various different instru-ments to assure comparability as well as quality of data.GEOSS also adopts and promotes standardization andprocessing of data.

Full and open access to satellite data is crucial—as onlywhen a sufficient number of scientists are trained in theeffective use of these data, will the analysis tools mature

3 http://epoxi.umd.edu/#.

to the benefit of all parties. In addition, training and main-taining the required workforce is possible only if the dataare continuously accessible to the broad scientific commu-nity. The concept of open data access was adopted by theInternational Geophysical Year some 50 years ago whenestablishing the World Data Center System. It requireddecades for the analysis tools used in Earth observationto mature.

In space exploration, standardization of planetary datais also important—ISECG has started the standardizationeffort with the Space Exploration Coordination ToolINTERSECT (see ISECG, 2009). In lunar exploration,common standards and interfaces are being consideredand developed through the International Lunar Explora-tion Working Group (ILEWG) from coordination. Dataprocessing algorithms, data package formats, softwaretools are among the intellectual properties that could bemutually exploited. To summarize, it is highly desirablethat knowledge on the standardization process concerningdata analysis and archiving of remote sensing data shouldbe exchanged for cross-fertilization between bothcommunities.

4.2. Combining efforts in education and public awareness

Over the past years, there has been an increasingawareness in environmental impact and climate change.However, the crucial role played by space systems indelivering environmental data has not been fully recog-

164 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

nized. Moreover, in the case of space weather, ignorance inpotential hazard caused by severe space weather is pro-found. Space exploration programs may be more visiblebut equally suffer from lack of public support. The amountof budget on space programs often puts them under doubt:“Why go into space when we have so many problems here onEarth?” or “What does the space program do for me?” Suchquestions largely originate from the lack of awareness howspace activities contribute to daily life. Both communitiesEarth and space-centric could benefit from awareness cam-paigns highlighting spin-offs from space activities.

Making the public aware how strongly they are depen-dent on satellite communication controlling phone and tele-vision transmission and dominating the daily life androutine is an important endeavor (Grimard, 2008). Promot-ing “spin-offs” that have originated from space programsincluding computer technology, manufacturing, healthand medicine, safety, and transportation is an importanttool to win public support. Some of the spin-offs have pro-ven to be useful in meeting environmental challenges, e.g. toharness solar energy originated from the need to generateelectric power in outer space before being adopted as cleanenergy source. To reverse the current public opinion aboutspace activities will require a strong effort in public outreachand education involving interactive technologies to reachyoung people (Ehrenfreund et al., 2010).

4.3. Forging a common policy for long-term commitment and

planning

Assuring the availability of continuous and comprehen-sive Earth observation data is the biggest challenge facedby the Earth observation community. Continuity is espe-cially important for monitoring long-term phenomena suchas climate change. Currently most of the Earth observationsatellites are being developed for scientific or experimentalpurposes, and transition of these systems into operationalphase is perceived critical in assuring long-term continuousavailability of Earth observation data. Europe has commit-ted itself to the development of the Global Monitoring forEnvironment and Security (GMES/Kopernikus) program,an operational Earth observation constellation to be func-tional for the next 25 years.4 In contrast, the United Stateslacks long-term commitment and planning in Earth obser-vation and this is considered a serious problem. For exam-ple, in space weather monitoring, the fragility and lack ofrobustness of the US’s current capabilities have been per-ceived as problematic. Not only is there a lack of a dedicatedsystem of space weather monitoring, but also there are noimmediate backups or replacements for the spacecraft thatspace weather prediction services currently rely on.

Long-term sustainability of human exploration has alsobeen championed but its feasibility remains uncertain. Theretirement of the Space Shuttle will limit crew access to ISS

4 http://ec.europa.eu/gmes/index_en.htm.

using Soyuz rockets only, unless otherwise enabled by aCOTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) sys-tem. In robotics, the US Mars program has been conduct-ing a mission every 26 months, but the future roadmap(along with programmatic missteps and budgetary issues)indicates gaps in that schedule.

A program for international Mars cooperation betweenESA and NASA is currently under review that would focuson space missions to Mars in 2016, 2018 and 2020. TheRussian Phobos-Grunt mission is scheduled to bring backa sample from the Martian moon in 2011. Since space sys-tems take a long time to develop, it is important to planahead and secure a long-term commitment. However, dueto high costs, complexity in technology, and the nature ofpolitics, it is very difficult to plan and commit to anylong-term roadmap in space programs. A common effortto establish a space network related to the conservationof biodiversity and the study of life in extreme environ-ments (or the search for life) may capture the attentionof the public and lead to larger governmental support.Within a more stable funding system, such a programcould be implemented by current space powers and new ris-ing space-faring countries, alike.

4.4. Developing a private sector participation strategy

While private actors are increasingly relying on theEarth observation data, their participation in the domainhas been very limited. For example, there was no sufficientinput to the set of Earth observation requirements from theindustry as from the scientific community, which may inhi-bit private sector use and support of space system develop-ment (CSIS, 2008). Space weather data are crucial for anumber of industries that are operating airlines and electricpower grids.

Input from the private industry is essential for makingthe data useful to them. In addition, business opportunitiesof the private sector in both Earth observation and spaceweather services should be explored. Solar and geospatialimaging instrumentation could be transitioned into opera-tional programs for the public and private sectors. Public–private partnerships in space exploration are evolving andgovernments are likely to rely more on commercial spaceservices in the long-run. NASA has invested and commit-ted to purchase potential COTS crew and cargo servicesto the ISS.

The successful launch of the Falcon 1 in September 2008is seen as a key milestone. Entrepreneurs are finding mar-ket opportunities in space tourism and starting to playunique visionary roles. For example the X PRIZE Founda-tion (X-Prize, 2009) and Google announced a new cashprize competition aiming to start a commercial race tothe Moon. Looking two decades ahead, in conjunctionwith the recent progress of the private sector the situation,may shift strongly toward more involvement of spaceentrepreneurs and the private sector. The rise of new spacepartners and environmental and social responsibility

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 165

should enhance more public private partnerships in spaceexploration and Earth sciences.

4.5. Implementing an international cooperation strategy

In the past years, various international collaboratingand coordinating efforts in Earth observations have beenformed (see Section 2.1). The international definition ofspace exploration defined by the Global Exploration Strat-egy (GES, 2007) may be read as “a global, societal project

driven by the goal to extend human presence in Earth–

Moon–Mars space.” The main international coordinationmechanism for space weather has been the InternationalSpace Environment Service (ISES), which shares modelsand research results with a limited partner base. Althoughthere is no global framework for space weather monitoringarchitecture currently in place, there is a strong case forspace weather monitoring activities to be organized in aglobal context as events occur at global scale and it natu-rally embraces an array of international issues.

While international efforts increasingly become a normin both Earth and space activities, challenges in interna-tional cooperation still remain. Cooperation is often hin-dered by US export regulations, including InternationalTraffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). These regulationsapply not only to the space system hardware but also tospace-obtained data, personnel exchange, and informal dis-cussions. The sensitivity of relying on satellite assets con-trolled by foreign governments could also become anissue. For example, national security implication of relyingon China on monitoring at L1 for space weather has beenaddressed in the United States (NRC, 2008c, p. 89).

The existing international coordination mechanisms areall on a voluntary-basis, thus there is no enforcementmechanism or legal framework supporting cooperationschemes. In addition, the existence of various internationalorganizations and coordination mechanisms adds layers ofbureaucracy and complexity, and dilutes the resourcesavailable for cooperation. Thus, the role and responsibili-ties of various cooperative bodies should be clarified inorder to effectively manage cooperation. Sharing of inter-national legal frameworks and, for example an interna-tional environmental regime that includes the concept ofplanetary protection will be a future asset to sustain ourglobal protection of environment on Earth and beyond.

5. An interdisciplinary approach to bridge the Earth and

space communities

An interdisciplinary approach is needed for all initia-tives to bridge activities in Earth observation, spaceweather, biodiversity, and space exploration. Bringing dif-ferent groups (international, private/public, provider/user,space/non-space, raw-data to operational service) togetherto work on a common challenge is difficult. However, net-working and sharing of data, knowledge and experience iscrucial to exploit synergies.

Cross-boundary sharing of information, coordination,and collaboration among the space and Earth science com-munity will be necessary to address key questions for ourfuture such as sustainability of our biosphere. For example,in space weather, the concept of Earth–Sun as a system hasbeen successfully adopted over the past years. However, bothcommunities, Earth and space-centric, suffer from similardrawbacks, such as lack of coordination, resources, long-term strategies, standardization and of public support. Asynergy between two different communities can only beachieved by bringing the communities together in a suitableenvironment to exchange ideas and expertise. And that exer-cise alone might not be successful. Exchange of expertise dur-ing short conferences (with both communities present) willnot lead to a strong collaborative effort, and may even resultin a culture clash. The Earth observation community has theEarth-centric approach, whereas the space community is dri-ven by desire to explore, innovate and push boundaries.

In order to align members of both communities teambuilding exercises will be necessary as used in large compa-nies. The team structure suggested to enable collaborationsbetween Earth and space communities is a global problem-solving team that develops potential solutions (Hellriegeland Slocum, 2008). Team members should include expertsfrom science, technology, the private sector, politics, law,information technology as well as public representativesand teachers. A mixture of task related members and rela-tionship oriented members will bring balance to such teams.

Task-oriented problem-solving teams can elaborate con-crete action plans that can be discussed with a larger partof the community and later be implemented in policy doc-uments and governmental roadmaps.Examples for specific goals that could be addressed by suchteams are:

� Conduct space endeavors in synergy with Earth sciencesand develop satellites or instruments that help to solveimminent problems on Earth; e.g. use the ISS for Earthobservations.� Conduct an enhanced program for field tests of plane-

tary exploration in extreme environments on Earth (ant-arctic stations, dry deserts, ocean drilling ships, etc.)including rover operation, catastrophe training, anddrilling exercises.� Prepare activities for human space travel in science and

related technology (material science, medical science, lifesupport, and isolation/habitats).

The activities of cross-cultural, interdisciplinary andproblem-solving teams may pace a successful way to finda consensus strategy between the Earth and the space com-munities. Governments have to provide such teams withsufficient resources and an environment that enables crea-tive thinking. Carpenter et al. (2009) have recently dis-cussed networked social–ecological research that shouldsupport a better understanding of the relationship betweenhumans and the ecosystems on which they rely.

166 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

Often space agencies are hosting both the “Earth” and“planetary” science communities within the same institu-tion. NASA, for example, hosts both groups under the Sci-ence Mission Directorate (SMD). This makes a spaceagency an ideal place for a cross-disciplinary approach.Not only should the communication barrier between thetwo groups be comparatively low, but also there are manyopportunities for the groups to interact, both formally andinformally, within the institutional setting. However, cur-rently their work is narrowly divided. The two communi-ties often compete for the limited budget allocated to thescience programs. Managerial separation within the orga-nization (in addition to academic disconnection) is a chal-lenge when bringing the two communities together, sounderstandings of the benefit of interdisciplinary workcan be promoted and institutionalized. Any joint activityor establishment of working or coordination groups, suchas the one described above, may be facilitated within aspace agency.

Another possible way to encourage important personalinteractions, and thus understanding and cooperation,would be to set up an exchange program where scientistsfrom each group are exchanged for a certain period of time.Space agencies could allocate a special budget for suchinterdisciplinary effort within their organization. CharlesCockell, in his book Space on Earth (Cockell, 2006, p.115), notes that “Space faring environmental ethics provides

a completely new reason for ecosystem preservation and con-

servation—an understanding that ecosystems have universal

value as unique examples of life and evolution”. He makesa number of suggestions to help to bridge the Earth andspace-centric communities. For instance, he proposes anew alliance such as a “Department of Earth and SpaceAffairs” on governmental level. In the academic environ-ment, study programs of “Environmental and Space Stud-ies” should be offered.

Cross-disciplinary publications can certainly improvethe education of society and new academic generations.Furthermore, companies that are both Earth and space-aware and that develop products that are useful for bothEarth and space applications could play an important rolein bridging the Earth and space communities.

The lack of space awareness has a negative effect on thepublic opinion of space activities and consequently there isno force on governments to increase the space budget. Newparticipatory strategies to engage the public as major stake-holder need to be elaborated. The role of environmentalsatellites in climate control, disaster management, educa-tion and security is immensely powerful (ESPI, 2007). Ben-efits and spin-off from space technology have to be widelypublicized. The younger generations that should be moreconcerned about the sustainability of planet Earth needto be targeted with new media technology such as interac-tive tools in the form of reality shows and computer games.Worldwide awareness campaigns (e.g. entitled “Space forEarth”) will support governments in assuring long-termfunding and planning. We have to recognize that the public

has a strong influence on the decision-making process offuture space endeavors.

Williams Burrow, in Survival Imperative (Burrows,2006, p. 317) notes, “The most daunting obstacle to a perma-

nent program to use space for the protection of Earth is not

financial or technical. It is political”. He argues that“Planetary defense should become normative like military

defense” (Burrows, 2006, p. 247). The lack of coordinationstructures that possess budgetary authority as well as scat-tered responsibilities among several agencies has been iden-tified as a major risk for effective cooperation. ProtectingEarth should be institutionalized and financed accordingly.To solve humanitarian and environmental problems onEarth or to embark for exciting new human space endeav-ors and to exploit synergies among those two goals requiresinnovative concepts and brainstorming. Implementing suchconcepts would provide an impulse for new collaborationswithin the space sector, opportunities for international col-laboration and give new insights how the human race canefficiently protect its habitat.

6. Conclusion

Synergies of Earth science and space exploration wereexplored. Without doubt space technology has strongly con-tributed to our understanding of planet Earth and helps con-tinuously to improve environmental issues, communicationand in areas like disaster management. Future human spaceexploration endeavors to Moon, Mars and beyond target theexpansion of human presence in space. Both scenarios sharesimilar goals—the protection and evolution of humanity—and need similar information to conduct a successful pro-gram. Synergies between both communities can arise on tech-nical, managerial, and political levels. Commonality in dataproducts and software in space technology is essential. Edu-cation and awareness of society can benefit tremendouslyfrom knowledge of the overall habitability of our solar sys-tem. For a long-term planning a clear management structureand a stable and protected budget by the individual space-faring countries are essential in order to make the globalcoordination effort between space and Earth science mean-ingful. International cooperation and sharing of interna-tional legal frameworks that include the concept ofplanetary protection will be a future asset to sustain the glo-bal protection of the environment on Earth and beyond.

A network bridging both communities and advancingthe exchange of information on biodiversity, space weatherand other areas of common interest will allow the develop-ment of new policies and management strategies to effec-tively exploit synergies of Earth science and spaceexploration.

Acknowledgements

S.Y. Chung and P. Ehrenfreund are supported byNASA Grant NNX08AG78G and the NASA Astrobiol-ogy Institute (NAI).

S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168 167

References

Burrows, W.E. Survival Imperative: Using Space to Protect Earth. ForgeBooks, New York, 2006.

Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., et al. Science for managingecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(5), 1305–1312, 2009.

Cockell, C.S. Space on Earth: Saving Our World by Seeking Others.Macmillan, New York, 2006.

Cho, J.S. Korea plans to send Moon orbiter in 2020, in: The Korea Times,26 November 2007.

Des Marais D.J., Nuth III, J.A., Allamandola, L.J., et al. The NASAastrobiology roadmap. Astrobiology 8(4), 715–730, 2008. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/roadmap/.

Ehrenfreund, P., Peter, N., Schrogl, K.U., Logsdon, J.M. Cross-culturalmanagement in global space exploration. Acta Astronaut. 66, 245–256,2010.

Grimard, M. Is Space a Luxury Activity? Back to Concrete Figures. IAC-08-E5.2.2, Glasgow, UK, 2008.

Hapgood, M., Oliver, M. Definition of instruments needed for spaceweather measurement, draft version. ESA Space Weather Study, 2001.http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/esa_initiatives/spweatherstudies/RAL/wp421_report_v14.pdf.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum Jr., J.W. Organizational Behavior, 12th edSouthwestern Publishing, Cincinnati, 2008.

Kminek, G., Conley, C. Planetary protection constraints for futureexobiology missions. Astrobiology 8 (2), 437–441, 2008.

Messina, P., Gardini, B., Sacotte, D., et al. The AURORA programme:Europe’s framework for space exploration. ESA, ESA Bulletin 126,2006. http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin126/bul126b_mes-sina. pdf.

Mursula, M., Usokin, I.G., Maris, G. Introduction to space climate. Adv.Space Res. 40, 885–887, 2007.

Peter, N. Space Exploration 2025: Global Perspectives and Options forEurope. ESPI Report 14, September 2008.

Sadeh, E., Lester, J.P., Sadeh, W.Z. Modeling international cooperationfor space exploration. Space Policy 12 (3), 207–223, 1996.

Scholes, R.J., Mace, G.M., Turner, W. Towards a global biodiversityobserving system. Science 321 (5892), 1044–1045, 2008.

Williamson, M. Space ethics and protection of the space environment.Space Policy 19, 47–52, 2003.

Reports

[CEOS 2008] Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). TheEarth Observation Handbook 2008, Climate Change Special Edition,2008. http://www.eohandbook.com/.

[CSIS 2008] Wigbels, L., Faith, G.R., Sabathier, V. Earth Observationsand Global Change. CSIS, Washington DC, 2008. http://www.csi-s.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=4569.

[ESA 2007] European Objectives and Interests in Space Exploration, p. 8,November 2007.

[ESF 2007] European Science Foundation (ESF). Investigating Lifein Extreme Environment: A European Perspective. ESF, Walter N.(Ed). Strasbourg, France, 2007. http://www.esf.org/research-areas/life-earth-and-environmental-sciences/publications.html.

[ESPI 2007] European Space Policy Institute (ESPI). Case for Space:Space Applications Meeting Societal Needs. ESPI, Report 7, Vienna,Austria, 2007. http://www.espi.or.at/images/stories/dokumente/stud-ies/report_case_for_space.pdf.

[GCOS 2004] Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). ImplementationPlan for Global Observing System for Climate Change in Support ofthe UNFCCC. WMO, GCOS-92 and WMO-/TD No.1219, Geneva,Switzerland, 2004. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-92_GIP.pdf/.

[GEO 2005] Group on Earth Observation (GEO). GEOSS 10-YearImplementation Plan, 2005. http://www.earthobservations.org/docu-ments/10-Year%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf.

[GES 2007] The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coor-dination, 2007. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/178109main_ges_ framework.pdf.

[ISECG 2008] Annual Workplan 2008 of the international space explo-ration coordination group, 2008. http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/exploration/InternationalCoordination/ISECG_workplan%202008%20.pdf.

[ISECG 2009] International Space Exploration Coordination Group(ISECG). The 2008 Annual Report of the International SpaceExploration Coordination Group. ISECG, 2009. http://esamultime-dia.esa.int/docs/isecg/ISECGAR08.pdf.

[JAXA 2005] Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). JAXAVision: JAXA 2025, JAXA, 2005. http://www.jaxa.jp/about/2025/pdf/summary_e.pdf.

[NASA 2004] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).The Vision for Space Exploration. NASA, Washington DC, 2004.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf.

[NASA 2005] National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study – Final Report,NASA, Washington, DC, 2005. http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html.

[NRC 2003] National Research Council (NRC). The Sun to the Earth –and Beyond: A Dacadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics.National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10477.

[NRC 2008a] National Research Council (NRC). Earth Observationsfrom Space: The First 50 years of Scientific Achievements. NationalAcademies Press, Washington, DC, 2008a. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11991.

[NRC 2008b] National Research Council (NRC). Grading NASA’s SolarSystem Exploration Program: A Midterm Review. National AcademyPress, Washington, DC, 2008. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12070/.

[NRC 2008c] National Research Council (NRC). Severe Space WeatherEvents – Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A WorkshopReport. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2008. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507.

[NSWP 1995] National Space Weather Program Council. National SpaceWeather Program. Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorolog-ical Services and Supporting Research, Washington, DC, 1995. http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/pdf/NSWP-SP-1995-scan.pdf.

[SE China 2006] People’s Republic of China. China’s Space Activities in2006. Information Office of China State Council, Beijing, 2006. http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620681/n771967/79970.html.

[SE Russia 2005] Government of the Russian Federation. Russian FederalSpace Program of the Russian Government Federation (2006–2015),Special Complete Edition of the Russian Federal Space Program forRoscosmos web-site, 2005. http://www.federalspace.ru/DocFiles/FKP_2015_for_site_ENG.doc/.

[UNFCCC 2006] UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Techno-logical Advance, 25th session, Nairobi, 6–14 November 2006. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/misc14.pdf.

[UNOOSA 2006] United Nations Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). SpaceSolutions for the World’s Problems. UNOOSA, Vienna, Austria, 2006.http://www.uncosa.unvienna.org/pdf/reports/IAM2006E.pdf/.

[WMO 2009] World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The PotentialRole of WMO in Space Weather. WMO, WMO/TD No. 1482,Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. ftp://wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/sat/SP-5_TD-1482_2008_SpaceWeather.pdf.

Referenced websites

[BON 2009] Biodiverstiy Observation Network (BON). http://www.earthobservations.org/cop_bi_geobon.shtml.

168 S.Y. Chung et al. / Advances in Space Research 45 (2010) 155–168

[CAREX 2008] Coordination Action for Research Activities on life inExtreme Environment (CAREX). http://www.carex-eu.org/.

[X-Prize 2009] http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/.

Related websites

Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int.GCOS Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). http://www.wmo.int/

pages/prog/gcos.GEO Group on Earth Observation (GEO). http://www.earthobservations.

org.CEOS: Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). http://

www.ceos.org.

GEOSS Global Environmental Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).http://www.earthobservations.org/geoss.

ILEWG International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG).http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34125.

NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov.United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster

Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER). http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/en/unspider.

Further reading

International Charter on Space and Management Disasters. http://www.disastercharter.org.