Industry Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

Go ahead, Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

As a segue to that, as we walked in, Brian had the wonderful question as to how astronauts served dinner in space, and Mike Lake and Mike Wallace both yelled, “On a flying saucer”.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Like so many others, we grew up in the shadow of the greatness of astronauts and wanting to be astronauts. Some of us didn't quite arrive at that level. We wound up being members of Parliament, which we think is a very noble pursuit, and of course Mr. Garneau has proven that for us. He is not here right now, but he has.

I'm interested in the statement by President Obama and your interaction with the space station as it relates to near-Earth asteroids. I want a better description of what we're talking about here and what the real intent is. I take it there are a number of asteroids within reach of our planet that can be attained either by shuttle or by other forms of rockets. Is the intention, as is my understanding, to land somebody on an asteroid for the purposes of exploitation of product or understanding asteroids?

Perhaps any of you could answer this question. I'm very fascinated with the idea.

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

I'm trying to remember the number, but I think 3,800 asteroids are catalogued between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Some of them are one-third to one-half the size of our moon; others go all the way down to something the size of a football field in elliptical diameter. Every day they are finding more of these asteroids.

One of the reasons for going onto an asteroid--I'll get esoteric for just one second--is that sometimes they can put you into transfer orbit to somewhere else. There's an orbit taking place, so you match your orbit to when it's going to be in this section and land on the asteroid. Then you can head off to another location in space that allows you to observe a different section of space or look at things that are a bit different.

Why there are so many asteroids is something that is not well understood. Just as there are theories about the origins of the moon, there are theories about the origins of the asteroids, but they're not entirely well understood.

It is important from a scientific point of view to get there. We can do it robotically as well as by having humans go, and we already have gone. The Japanese have gone to an asteroid. The Americans have gone to a comet, which is an agglomeration of dirty rock and ice. It's not the same as an asteroid. An asteroid in theory was once a planetary body, just like the Earth or Mars.

The idea of going to an asteroid is to understand our world beyond low Earth orbit. We do not have a good understanding of this part of space. One of the reasons we fly at 300 or 400 kilometres, as Bob mentioned earlier, is that there is an atmosphere at that altitude. It's almost a vacuum, but there are single atoms and single electrons out there. There isn't an oxygen molecule, but there are oxygen atoms. Here in our space there are 10 to the power of 23. Out in space there are somewhere between 10 to the 10th or 10 to the sixth, depending on your altitude. That gives drag, as Bob said, but it also protects us from the ionizing radiation.

It's important for us to get outside the protective environment of the Earth and see if we can operate beyond that. We have that issue with our geosynchronous satellites that go up to the altitude of 36,000 kilometres. They need to have electronics that are hardened to radiation relative to the ones that are lower.

Your final point was on whether it's really exploitation. That's a tough question to answer because of the costs associated with returning that kind of thing.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Excuse me. Is there any calculation on the possibility of any of these asteroids becoming dangerous in their proximity to Earth?

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

Yes, there's one--in fact, the one they're going to go to, which I feel is coincidence. It is Apophis. It has a keyhole that will be between the Earth and the moon in 2036. Don't quote me on the year. As it comes around, if it hits that keyhole....The keyhole is an area in space defined by the orbit it takes to hit it on the next cycle. Apophis has been identified at the UN as the one that we know about that has the closest chance of doing that. I will say, though, that the error bandwidth on those calculations is quite high.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I'm going to an area that you may not want to talk about, but I'm quite interested in it, as I think are all parliamentarians.

Is it correct to say that your budget has not increased substantively or in any way, shape, or form since 1999? In other words, the budget you were originally given, notwithstanding your requests, has not been changed to meet even the value of the 1999 Canadian dollar in real terms--

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

Right. I can give you the data; giving you my opinion is where it gets a little dangerous for me, but here are the data, and this is just CSA's budget. In 1997, our budget was $496 million. When we were promulgated as an agency we were given a budget of $300 million. I was sitting in the back row in those days, and the concept was that the Canadian Space Agency would be given a budget of about $300 million and then a series of major crown projects that would add up to $600 million or $700 million.

I think the leadership with the CSA at that time did a good job to get the agreement that they'd have a base budget of $300 million and then a project budget of $300 million to $500 million.

Of course the project budget never materialized. As well, our base budget has gone like this--downward. Our budget this year was $358 million, and that includes some money from the stimulus program. That's why it's a little higher than the $300 million. With the strategic review, it's predicted to be $278 million in just a couple of years. In order for us to be a vibrant space nation, we need much more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Dr. MacLean.

Go ahead, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm going to be fairly quick because I have four questions. I'm also on the finance committee, so I'm going to challenge those numbers I heard a little bit.

The estimate we have in front of us in the budget for this coming year is $390 million, all in. You were right that it was approximately $355 million last year, in 2009-10. Then it was $378 million the year after, and then it does go down again. You're right that it goes to $312 million.

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

The reason it was $390 million, though, was because of reprofiling.

One of the issues that an agency has--all space agencies in the world--is that we're working on international projects, so if we have a big project that is $1 billion, as we had with space station, and it delays one year, we have to reprofile a substantial amount of money into the next year. Our budget is the $358 million, but the reprofiling adds it up for the next year--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

But sir, the reprofiling would happen within the agency. If the project doesn't get off the ground and you don't spend the money that year, you have to reprofile it. Just because you were granted it, if the project doesn't happen, it doesn't mean you get to keep the money.

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

If we're not able to reprofile, that is true.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My point to Mr. Masse was that you're actually at $390 million this year, which is 721 FTEs. It goes up a little bit next year and then it comes down a little the year after.

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

Yes, and I think you'll see that in five years it will be around $280 million.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I only have three years in front of me here.

I have a question for Dr. Wakata. Konnichiwa.

The government in Japan has changed, after 40 years. Is the new government's commitment to the space program the same as the previous government's?

[Dr. Koichi Wakata]

The commitment of the government is the same, and now, with Mr. Obama's proposal to extend the international space station by five years to 2020, in Japan as well as in Canada and Europe we are discussing very vividly if it's worth expanding the life of the space station.

So far we have had very supportive opinions from the public, especially last year with six of us flying in space. Right now we have one Japanese astronaut on a long-duration basis, and last month we had another Japanese female astronaut. There were two Japanese flying at the same time in space. That was the first time. Last year it was Julie and Bob flying at the same time.

However, so far we have a very supportive general public.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Did the government have a position on it when they ran for office?

[Dr. Koichi Wakata]

In general it is very supportive. As for the exploration, two weeks ago I was with the science minister in Japan and we had a symposium on whether we should go to the moon or to Mars. So far, in Japan the interest in the moon is very high.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Arigatou gozaimasu.

There has been talk about Obama and the mention of the extension and so on. We need to be somewhat frank here that the position of the financial system in the United States is very bad. Somewhere along the line they're going to have to bite the bullet and start looking at their debt and their deficit. I don't know when that will happen, but it may happen.

If the United States decides to pull back on their space spending, what does that do to Canada's space agency? Can you survive without their spending the amount of GDP they're spending now?

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

The relationship with NASA is about 70% of our budget. The relationship with ESA is about 30%. As well, although it's a small percentage, we have some very interesting projects with Japan.

We don't have acess to space. Right now we rely on Russia and the United States to get us into space. India is helping us with a couple of projects as well.

If a major partner such as the United States decides not to create a space vehicle for a number of years, it would nail us to the ground as well. One of the ways I look at our partnership in exploration is that, in a sense, we're waiting for the invitation from the United States to participate in this grand adventure into space, and if they decide not to make that grand adventure, then it would be difficult for us to contribute a major piece of it. That would be quite serious for us.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The U.S. is a big partner, obviously. Are you looking at developing further partnerships with other places just in case they do decide to pull back?

[Dr. Steve MacLean]

Yes, we are. In fact, our industry is talking with Turkey. You mentioned Turkey. They are an emerging nation, and they're planning on spending some money on Earth observation satellites. Our industry is talking to them, as they are with Brazil and even Dubai. Dubai is quite interested in getting observation capability up there.

Let me show you something. We all know of the financial crisis. I don't want to make it sound like a cliché, but I believe that we are not.... If we do what we're suggesting in our plan--for example, do the precision farming, look after our coastlines, work with ocean science and improve capabilities of the oceans there--not only would we contribute to solving this economic crisis, but we would also contribute to economic growth and economic renewal.

The numbers are quite compelling. The numbers in agriculture are quite compelling. The numbers in the military area for keeping the country safer by using space assets more and in a more integrated way are compelling, and I think that if we were to pursue that plan, we would help the world to get out of this financial mess it's in.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have one last personal interest question. It's on sleeping in space. Does your sleep change in terms of now you need six or seven or eight hours? I know you have to keep your muscle mass up through exercise. Does sleeping change? Do you actually turn the lights off so that you know it's nighttime, or how do you know?

[Dr. Robert Thirsk]

If you're the type of person who enjoys camping, you'd enjoy being an astronaut, because a lot of the things you do when you're camping are the same. We eat freeze-dried food, we don't have running water, there's no fridge, there's no freezer, and we use sleeping bags. Typically we sleep in sleeping bags. I slept in a sleeping bag that was attached to the wall of a sleep station. When you're in a neutral weightless environment, your body goes into something like a fetal position. You're totally relaxed. There is no pressure of the mattress on your body at all. Every night I would put my iPod on; during the first song I'd be asleep, and I'd sleep very well.

On a previous flight we did some sleep studies that involved EEGs, as well, and we did find one thing. You probably know that sleep is associated with various stages. There's one stage of sleep associated with delta waves in the EEGs. We miss that phase of sleep in space, and that's the restful phase, so I would find that I'd wake up tired every day.

But falling asleep was no problem. I'd wake up tired in the morning, but then, you know, you wake up and you think, “Holy crow, I'm in space.”