Recently in Personal spaceflight Category

Flightglobal Hyperbola column's analysis of the new privately-led space race to land a man or woman on Mars (between Dennis Tito's outfit, SpaceX and Mars One) has led us to consider how we would do it.  Actually, we would go for the "Tuco" approach.  Tuco was the villainous character in the Spaghetti western directed by Sergio Leone, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1967), who liked to use different parts of various revolvers: barrel, cylinder etc  to build his ideal pistol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0uoeZwCOCY

In this instance we would use different elements for differnt firms to form our ideal mission.  For example, the Isle of Man's Excalibur outfit's electric thruster powered space liner, launched via a Proton or Falcon Heavy or even via an SLS, and attached to a chemical transfer and braking stage, would be an ideal manned transfer vehicle.  Its electric thrusters, used on the return leg, might make a Mars mission faster than it would be using an energy efficient Hohmann transfer orbit.  But getting to and from Mars orbit is only part of the problem.

 

 

While originally mooted for Moon missions, Excalibur Almaz's converted space station could be ideal for Mars missions. Courtesy: Excalibur Almaz

 

For such a mission, you need an Earth planetary re-entry vehicle to return at superorbital velocities (any partially lifting blunt body capsule could do this e.g. Soyuz, Orion or Almaz).  Our choice would be NASA/Lockheed Martin's Orion. 

 

But the bit we are missing a lander and ascent vehicle to get to and from the surface (Dennis Tito's initial mission is apparently only going to be sending a two-man crew on a free return trajectory with no orbital insertion or Mars landing). It would be very expensive but perhaps SpaceX aided and abetted by Northrop Grumman, the builder of the Apollo Lunar Module, would have the answer.  We might be tempted to send one or more ahead of any manned mission orbit around Mars first, just in case the one used had trouble with its ascent stage.

While Reaction Engines' rocket designer Alan Bond still hopes to see his airbreathing-rocket powered Skylon space plane design fly one day and may even ride in it inside its passenger cabin himself when it does so, he told the audience at the European AstroFest astronomy conference in London in February, that Skylon would not actually have a pilot, using on board systems and command data links to control the craft instead.

Apart from the extra development and operational costs as well as the loss of payload capability that having a pilot would incur, there was another reason whey it is best not to have pilot capability, "We are not allowed to kill test pilots like we used to." Bond quipped in a moment of black humour, raising a laugh from the audience as he did so..

While this writer is a small shareholder in Reaction Engines he does not really want to fly on a aircraft or spacecraft without a pilot.  For while it is true that when it comes to air accidents, pilot errors are often cited as being part of the cause, having a pilot aboard may also be best hope of getting you out of trouble when it happens.

At the International Institute of Space Commerce' sponsored event "Space Tourism: Risks and Solutions" workshop which was held at Lloyds of London under an arrangement with the Broker Aon, the insurance of suborbital space tourism was discussed.  Apart form the obvious risks to astronaut human life and third party life and property, other risks were considered including political, reputational  and financial risks. However, it was the risk to the passengers and their potential for claims, along with how to insure the spaceplane hulls, that most exercised most of the attendees. 

What is "informed consent"?

The need to plan for failures was one of the topics of conversation at the workshop. While many space tourism firms are hoping that the potential for liability claims in the event of an accident (assuming no gross negligence) could at least be restricted by signed waiver agreements with participants on the basis of "informed consent", the definition of what is "informed" remains unclear.  Some of the workshop speakers suggested that only rocket scientists would be truly "informed" as to the risk of such suborbital rocket flights, while others noted that information disemination regulations (e.g.ITAR) might restrict the flow of information prventing a participant from being "fully informed"

With respect to the medical risks for space tourism flights, it was suggested that these would be low due to the estensive training and tests undertaken by prospective participants before hand including undertaking peak gravitational g-loads (about 4.5g) and having special medical checks for older astronauts.   For the pilots themselves, it was suggested that their salaries should reflect the higher risk of spaceflights when compared to their atmospheric equivalents.

Space Insurers remain wary but aviation insurers jump in for the test flights

With respect to insurance, it was noted by space underwriter David Wade of the Atrium consortium that space underwriters had been reluctant to underwrite early flights of the Virgin Galactic operation at the rates offered, regarding the craft as "rockets with wings" with the weakest link being the rocket engine.   He noted that the hull insurance had instead been passed to over the aviation class which was insuring the hull effectively as an "aircraft with rocket engines".   Akiko Hama,space underwriter at the underwriting firm Global Aerospace which also deals in the aviation class, added that the risk had been insured in the same way as a manufacturer's test aircraft would be.   

 

SpaceShipTwo on approach during atmospheric test flight.  Couresy: Virgin Galactic

Wade himself has doubts about the demand for space tourism noting a major difference in the predictions for this in different marketing surveys. Neverthless, his suggested that the microgravity market could be a driver for the suborbital market which will allow space tourism to follow.

At a technical level most of the workshop opinion was that hybrid rocket engines, with fewer moving parts, would be less likely to go wrong than a conventional bi-propellant liquid rocket type.  That said some did express concern over the choice by Virgin Galactic of using Nitrous Oxide as the oxidiser for SpacePlaneTwo's HTPB fuelled hybrid rocket engine. Garrett Smitth, of Cosmica Spacelines, a travel agency for the rival XCor Lynx operation.described natural tendency of Nitrous Oxide to exhibit an exothermic disassociation reaction.  "It has to be handled carefully," warned Smith.  

Astrium suborbital spaceplane is not dead

At the meeting, Christophe Chevagnac of EADS Astium revealed that the EADS Astrium research programme into suborbital spaceflight was not dead.  There design, which is still on the drawing boards, the so-called Astrium Space Plane will use a bi-propellant engine burning liquid natural gas (mainly Methane) with Liquid Oxygen. Chavagnac considered that the engine lifespan would be the key determinant of ticket cost for those who wanted to travel on such craft.  Hinting that an the Astrium ticket price might be less than its Virgin Galactic and Lynx competitors, he noted that Astrium was aiming for the ordinary public rather than very rich clients.

The need to get away from suborbital spaceflight's "elitist image"  was also mentioned by Garrett Smith of the Cosmica Spacelines noted the post financial crisis-driven political sea change which meant that politicians no longer wanted to be seen supporting the political or financial elite.  

With respect to financial risks to the space tourism business, Smith noted that the potential for investment was often damaged by the surfeit of unrealistic space transportation projects with no "staying power" that later fall away.  The good ones were thus being denied access to financiing by poor operations ruining space tourism's collective reputation.

Full operational insurance may be unaffordable for a while

With respect to full operational insurance, Garrett Smith noted that the cost of hull insurance (insuring the actual vehicle) for early commercial suborbital flights would probably be too large to be affordable.  In other words that fims would have to "self insure" the risk.  He suggested that this would be the case "until we reach 10,000 successful flights"..

Space writer and would be space tourist who holds a booking with Virgin Galactic, Nigel Henbest, reminded the audience that before the Space Shuttle had even flown, its design engineers were predicting a failure rate of less than 1 in 100,000 flights.  Its true fatal accident rate was  2 in 135 (1 in 67).  

Warning that failures could kill off the space tourism industry, Henbest reminded the workshop that the two Space Shuttle failures were the key reasons why that programme was ended by NASA and the US Government.  Nick Hughes, aerospace lawyer at Holman, Fenwich Willan, said that failures do happen and that firms should plan for it. 

For the astronaut space tourists themselves, Jenny Roberts of the space insurance broker Aon noted that they can insure themselves on a personal basis under policies available via the Personal Accident or Adventure Sports markets.

Isle of Man is not a "launching state" but is insured for liability anyway

While it was decided that claims for third party liability would be significantly reduced by launching over uninhabited areas, representatives of Government of the Isle of Man Alex Downie and Tim Crane, noted that the low-tax induced burgeoning space industry may one day be responsible for launches.  As a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, it was noted taht it would the latter which was classed as the "launching state" under international space law.  Nevertheless, under an agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man had now insured its unofficial "share" of this liability on the space insurance market via the broker Aon.

When it came to making laws with respect to licencing space tourism operations, while some complained of delays in this process, most agreed that space tourism had not been held up.  In truth it was technical delays that had led to the slow pace in actually begining commecial launches.

Comment by David Todd:  While it is true that so far test flights of the SpaceShipTwo craft have been endoatmospheric insuring what is a rocket space plane that will soon fly above 100km, on the aviation insurance market, presumably at a lower rate that would be the case on the space market, has echos of what happened with the insurance of the SpaceHab module.  After the STS-107 Space Shuttle Columbia re-entry failure, it was discovered that the SpaceHab Research Double Mobule which was lost on that flight had been insured on the Cargo Market (insured value $17.6 million) at a much lower rate than it would have had on the space insurance market.  Caveat emptor as they say.

The news that Lockheed Martin has finally got back into commercial manned spaceflight transportation by joining the Sierra Nevada led team building the second Dreamchaser spaceplane will probably be a relief to its board.  For while Lockheed Martin beat its main rival Boeing to the glory of building the Orion space capule for NASA's long range manned exploration extravaganzas (to borrow from Neil Armstrong's quip: Orion was the one part of Project Constellation that could not be "executed") in truth, this victory was a slightly hollow one.

The Dreamchaser Spacecraft -  Courtesy: Sierra Nevada Corp 

For as Boeing licked its Orion wounds, it translated its non-selected design into a smaller capsule called CST-100; one that was less capable, but one would be perfect for launching humans to and from low Earth orbit several times a year.  This flight rate compared to the one or two missions per year (at best) that the Orion space capsule might fly. 

Boeing's "Orion loser" CST-100 design thus became one of the likely winners of NASA contracts for regular crew transportation, along with the SpaceX Dragon and the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser.  As such, Lockheed Martin found itself iced-out of this potentially more lucrative business, albeit that it had a launch vehicle interest via its man-rated Atlas V expendable rocket which will probably be used by the CST-100 and by the Dreamchaser. 

Having realised that it was in danger of missing much of this "commercial transportation boat", Lockheed Martin initially allied itself with ATK's Liberty capsule/launch vehicle contender - a design that was so far behind the others that it was never seriously going to gain NASA funding.

Subsequently, in NASA's most recent commercial crew development move, a two and a half award style Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) contract was awarded to Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada respetively, albeit the latter got substantially less funding that the other two.   The decision to give it lower funding, officially due to Dreamchaser's higher technical risk. may have been good news for Lochkheed Martin asitd may have been the spur for Sierra Nevada to get Lockheed Martin's involvment. 

So Lockheed Martin finally finds itself riding on a realistic runner in the commercial transportation race, and on one that might even win most of the business.  For while winged/lifting body vehicles such as the NASA HL-20-derived Dreamchaser do have more technical risk, they have considerable advantages over capsule designs.  For example, they offer a much more benign "lower-g" re-entries and have better cross range capabilities. Dreamchaser, as a sort of "son of the Space Shuttle" will be returned to a launch site in a Shuttle style gentle touch down, will not have to make higher risk parachute descents or rocket powered touchdowns or ocean spashdowns as it returns to Earth. 

Blunt body capsules come into their own when used on lunar and interplanetary flights as they are better able to stand up to the aerothermodynamics of re-entry into Earth's atmosphere at superorbital speeds. Hence this is the reason that Orion and its Apollo space capsule forerunner have large radius blunt rear ends.

As the British Army (along with the Royal Navy/Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force) finally moves from its old 9mm Browning L9A1 (GP-35/Hi Power) semi-automatic pistol to the even higher magazine capacity (17 shots compared to 13), lighter (due to its partial polymer construction), and quicker-on-the-draw (due to its trigger-within-a-trigger safety catch) 9mm Glock 17 (Gen 4) for its standard service sidearm, it has to be noted that not all moves to new service weapons have been successful.  And sometimes space travellers can be affected as well.

The Glock 17 (left) replaces the Browning L9A1 (right).  Courtesy: British Army/MOD

The British Army's officers and men have had more luck that most with their service pistols..  Their ever-reliable Webley and Enfield service revolvers were followed in 1957 by the high-capacity 9mm Browning and, more recently, by the interim Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic pistol. These, plus a few "non-standard" types (e.g. the US .45 Colt 1911 semi-auto chosen by the Commandos during World War II), have served the British armed forces well for more than 130 years as they fought off enemies ranging from Zulu warriors to Nazi stormtroopers, and most recently Taliban warfighters in Afghanistan. 

However, while British soldiers, sailors and aircrew have been/are mainly satisfied with their past and present sidearms, actually, it may now be Russia's cosmonauts who find themselves most under-equipped on the pistol front.

Carrying firearms on their manned spacecraft has long been a Russian practice.  This was introduced after the Voskhod 02 crew (including first spacewalker Alexei Leonov) found themselves threatened by hungry bears after landing 1000km off course in the wild's of Siberia in March1965. 

Full bore rifles, which would normally have been the first choice for predator defence and hunting, were probably deemed to be too large to carry in the manned Soyuz capsule (the successor to Voskhod). As such, a special hybrid shotgun/rifle carbine/ flare pistol with a detatchable shoulder stock called the TP-82 was designed to be carried on board for the purpose of defending aganst large predators such as lions, bears, wolves etc, and for hunting and launching flares when required.

However, in 2007, the Russian Space Programme found that it could no longer supply stable ammunition for its specialist TP-82 firearm. .Instead with the TP-82 retired, it was decided that the cosmonaut surivival kit would now include a small 9mm Makarov double-action automatic pistol.

Space tourist Anousheh Ansari had to learn how to fire the three-barrelled TP-22 as part of her cosmonaut training.  www.anoushehansari.com

While NASA did not really want to discuss this choice of firearm as it turns a blind eye to firearms being on the International Space Station (probably not wanting to consider the consequences of one going off aboard* or even the technicality of having a "weapon" in space) this column, or rather its predecessor, Space Intelligence News, pointed out that such a pistol would not be a good choice in the Earth predator-defence role.  We warned that shooting a large brown bear of circa 700kg with an underpowered 9mm Makarov would just serve to make it angrier and make an"exit stage left pursued by bear" (or much worse) a much more likely outcome. 

Of course, even the British Army's more potent 9mm parabellum calibre Glock 17 would probably not be powerful enough to defeat such an adversary.  In fact, the Glock 17 pistol may even struggle to defeat 70-100kg humans if they are wearing modern body armour. 

The 9mm Makarov automatic pistol Courtesy: www.Makarov.com

Instead, we suggested (and still suggest)  that a better pistol choice for an on-board firearm for wild animal defence would be a much more powerful and penetrating .41 or .44 Magnum-class double action revolver, ideally in a compact four-inch barrel "mountain gun" or "woods gun" size.  While these "Wild West"-derived six-shooter wheel-guns are now regarded as too old-fashioned and having too few rounds in their cylinders for modern military and police use, this remains the type fhat many outdoor travellers and hunters currently carry in their holsters for just such a purpose as they travel in the wilder parts of the United States of America.

Brown and Grizzly Bears are noted for their ability to make ferocious attacks. Courtesy: wikipedia

As it is, while high-capacity multi-shot semi-automatic pistols and rifles may yet get banned in USA following a recent spate of gun outrages, the need for personal protection against wild animals should mean that "traditional" six-shot revolvers will survive in this legitimate role. 

Soyuz TMA-07M approaches the International Space Station with both its crew and gun aboard.  But if it has to have one, why not make it a good one? Courtesy: NASA

There is still a chance that the TP-82 may become available again - albeit in Western equilvalents of the original Russian calibres.  Two years ago, there were reports that the US gun maker Kel-Tec CNC Industries Inc were considering producing an authorised replica of the TP-82 Russian survival gun,  However, if this does not happen, then perhaps Roscosmos and its cosmonauts should seriously consider getting a Smith and Wesson Model 58 or Model 29 revolver (or Russian equivalent) instead.  Well, that is - if they want a proper defence against dangerous predators.  

Smith and Wesson Model 58 revolver in .41 Magnum calibre would be a better choice for cosmonauts although a spray might be even better. Courtesy: www.gunsandammo.com

It should be noted here that the US Fish and Wildlife Service quotes evidence that bear sprays provide better survivability in fending off bear attacks than using guns against them.  However, given that it is probably inadvisable to carry pressurised spray cans inside a Soyuz spacecraft, and that several different sprays might be needed to account for different species which might be encountered (e.g. bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc),.a hgh-powered pistol remains probably the best alternative.   

Finally, you can take it as read that if ever a manned mission to Mars is undertaken, guns will be carried on that mission.  For if a crew sees any kind of alien (or predator) apparently threatening them, as Star Trek's Captain Kirk character might say: "We come in peace...Shoot to kill! Shoot to Kill!"

*Apart from the danger of gunshot wounds and explosive decompression to astronauts/cosmonauts, firing a gun too much in the wrong direction, could, according to Newtonian mechanics, actually de-orbit the spacecraft.  

 

The most recent update of NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) programme (and its CCiCap follow-on) had one interesting point: all three of the leading commercial firms involved, Boeing, Sierra Nevada and SpaceX, plan to have their own test-pilot astronauts fly the initial suborbial and later initial orbital manned launches of their spacecraft: the CST-100, the Dreamchaser and Dragon respectively.  These should take place in the 2015-16 time frame.

Artists impression of CST-100 approaching International Space Station. Courtesy:Boeing

Spaceflightnow reports that NASA complies with this strategy noting that a demonstration of the safety of the said crew delivery systems is the commercial firms' responsibility as part of their contracts,  NASA astronauts will apparently not be allowed to fly on initial orbital flights. 

If they are not aboard, gone will the days when NASA needed glamorously-brave test pilot school graduate astronauts with"The Right Stuff" to fly on these very dangerous test missions,  From now on, unlike Neil Armstrong and most of his Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle-commander colleagues, NASA's space men and women will apparently just be fare-paying passengers.

Comment by David Todd:  No more heroes anymore.  Perhaps this heath-and-safety-first risk-reduction stance has been forced on NASA by its insurers and lawyers.  Schoolboys in the UK have been banned from playing conkers for the same reason.

Northrop Grumman, the manufacturer in its Grumman-guise of the world's only proven manned lunar lander, the Apollo programme's lunar excursion module (LEM), has been awarded a contract to provide design studies for another lunar lander - this time from the commercial lunar tourism firm, Golden Spike. 

Golden Spike which in December 2012 announced plans to finance its project by offering lunar landing and exploration tickets to very high wealth individuals, shows a bubble shaped capsule configuration landing module on its website.  This may not be how the final landing vehicle will look however.

Early concept for Golden Spike lander.  Current plans are for the lander to fly on a separate launch to the moon from the crew.   Courtesy: Golden Spike

While the Flightglobal Hyperbola column reported newswire reports of her negotiations in August, in early October the singer Sarah Brightman  formally announced that she has booked a seat on a Soyuz to the International Space Station via the space tourism arranger, Space Adventures.  Brightman, who was once a dancer in the sensous dance troupe "Hot Gossip" and once had a minor pop song hit with "I lost my heart to a starship trooper", will have a 10-day stay on the station in 2015. Now a well regarded soprano singer, Brightman, is also the former wife of the famous stage musical composer, Sir Andrew Lloyd-Webber. 

Having passed medical tests, the 52-year-old singer will being her Cosmonaut training shortly.Brightman apparently had to battle for the seat with NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, as most of the "extra seats" had been booked until 2016.  It was only after NASA and Roscosmos decided to send a two crew team (one astronaut and one cosmonaut) on a 12 month stay to the space station mimicking the length of a Mars mission flight in microgravity conditions that two "tourist seats" became available. 

While the terms of Brightman's flight in 2015 have not been disclosed, NASA currently pays $63 million per flight.  Brightman is reported to be working with UNESCO to perform demonstrations and experiments to promote girls' aspiration for careers in engineering and science.

Russian newswire reports indicate that the British pop and theatrical singing star Sarah Brightman wants to become a space tourist.  According to the reports representatives of the singer, who once had a minor hit with "I lost my heart to a starship trooper" and who was once the wife of Sir Andrew Lloyd-Webber, are currently in negotiations with US firm Space Adventures and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, for a seat on Soyuz flight to the International Space Station. 

NASA will shortly have to choose which two or three (or even two and a half) commercial crew systems it wishes to carry on funding in the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) development programme.  While lawmakers and even ex-Apollo astronauts note the excellent and good value progress that the commercial manned space transport firms have managed so far with the limited funds available (well compared to a typical government-run space development programme that is) they do suggest that for safety and experience reasons, the actual flight operations to low Earth orbiit (LEO) might yet be best left in NASA hands. At present NASA plans to just procure 'seats' aboard these craft leaving all operations to the commercial concerns themselves..

Of course, there could be another way.  And the fictional superspy James Bond, or rather the plot of his Moonraker movie, might just have the answer.  In that adventure film, Drax Industries, a firm owned by the fictional billionaire called Hugo Drax, was building the Space Shuttle for NASA but keeping some "Moonraker" orbiters for Drax's own use. 

Moonraker orbIters attached to Drax's space station in Moonraker (1979).  Don't ask how he got it up without someone finding out.  Courtesy: MGM

In other words, using this as the template, NASA might still remain as an operator of commercially developed hardware, but would still allow a commercial firm to run its own services seperately. 

Of course, NASA might still have to be watchful.   In the film's plot, Hugo Drax turned out to be an evil menace whose plan to kill off most of 'imperfect' mankind with space-borne Orchid-derived biological warfare became delayed by a fault to one of his own Moonraker spacecraft.  To rectify this, Drax then set about pinching one of NASA's orbiters by firing it off the back of its Boeing 747 transfer aircraft, at which point our superspy hero become involved, eventually to save the day. 

Nevertheless, while this parallel operator plan was turned to evil, it might otherwise have been to the benefit of NASA.  Likewise, at least the Moonraker movie showed that even billionaire space enthusiasts cannot get everything their own way.  Elon, Jeff and Sir Richard take note - even if you are really the good guys. J  

And if any of you does turn out to be a real villain, to make it easy for us don't forget to flag this up by going "Muahahahahahaha!" at a key moment. J