Space Tourism - From Dream to Reality...Space Tourism – From Dream to Reality iv List of Authors...

International Space University Summer Session Program 2000 © International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

Final Report

The 2000 Summer Session of the International Space University was hosted by the Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile.

Shuxing Feng created the title of this report, From Dream to Reality. It is a reference to the dream or folk tale in China of travelling to the Moon to visit the mystical princess who

lives there.

The cover depicts the Earth as seen from the eyes of the first space tourists. A student´s spacecraft blueprint represents the dreams of tomorrow. On the back cover a

painting depicts the elegance and romance of love with no bounds.

Cover design by Patricia Garner. Front cover image courtesy of NASA, vehicle sketch by Li-Te Cheng. Back cover art, copyright 1984 by Pamela Lee, from the book Out of the Cradle, by William Hartman, Ron Miller & Pamela Lee, Workman Publishing, New

York, 1984.

Additional copies of the Final Report or the Executive Summary for this project may be ordered from the International Space University (ISU) Headquarters. The Executive Summary and the Final Report can also be found on the ISU web site.

International Space University Strasbourg Central Campus

Attention: Publications Parc d'Innovation

Boulevard Gonthier d'Andernach 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden

FRANCE

Tel: +33 (0) 3 88 65 54 30 Fax: +33 (0) 3 88 65 54 47

http://www.isunet.edu

Acknowledgements

iii

Acknowledgements Project Faculty and TA

Angie Bukley – 1st half co-chair Wendell Mendell – 2nd half co-chair

Maryann Brent – TA

Faculty, TA’s, Staff, Consultants Sheila Bailey

Victor Bensimhon Lin Burke

Li-Te Cheng Patrick Collins

Dan Glover Doug Hamilton Henry Hertzfeld

Tarik Kaya Greg Maryniak Kristian Pauly

Roy Nakagawa Nikolai Tolyarenko Marleen Van Mierlo Gudrun Weinwurm

And all the others who gave us their help and moral support.

Thank you all!

Space Tourism – From Dream to Reality

iv

List of Authors Weng Ang

UK

B.Sc Physics with Astrophysics, 1993, Birmingham Univ., UK. M.Sc Astronautics & Space Engineering, 1994, Cranfield College of Aeronautics, UK. Spacecraft systems engineer, ESA

Olaf Appel

GERMANY

M.Sc. Mechanical Engineering, 1997, University of Wuppertal. Mechanical engineer, ESA.

Brain Arenare

USA

MD, 1983, Yale University. MBA, 1992, Columbia University. Master of Space Science, June 2000, University of Texas. Working in Flight Medicine at Johnson Space Center.

Yanqiang Bai

CHINA

M.Sc. Institute of Space Medico-Engineering, CHINA.

Bertrand Beaud

FRANCE

French Aeronautical Engineering degree, ENSICA, 1995. Structure engineer, EADS Launch Vehicle Company.

Thomas Berger

AUSTRIA

Ph.D. Student, Atominstitute of the Austrian Universities. Physicist for the Austrian Society for Aerospace Medicine.

Philippos Beveratos

GREECE

Diplôme d'Etude Approfondie (DEA): Economics and Management of Innovation and Knowledge, University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg.

Torsten Bondo

DENMARK

M.Sc.Physics, 1999, University of Copenhagen. Satellite antenna engineer, TICRA, Copenhagen.

Barry Cayen

CANADA

M.Sc, 1999, University of Toronto. Medical Student, University of Toronto.

Kimberly Cyr

USA

Ph.D.in Planetary Sciences, 1998, University of Arizona. Space Scientist, NASA Johnson Space Center.

Frederico De Faria Elsner

BRAZIL

M.Sc. Electrical Eng (control systems), 1999, University of Brasilia. Lecturer at University of Brasilia, control systems group.

Frans Doejaaren

THE NETHERLANDS

M.Sc. Aerospace Eng, 1995, Technical University of Delft. Rocket Scientist and Mechanical Engineer at Fokker Space B.V. The Friendly Farmer.

List of Authors

v

Katia Dyrda

CANADA

M.Sc. Eng, Queen´s University, Kingston; P.Eng. Medicine class of 2003, University of Ottawa. Research Assistant, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Cardiovascular Devices.

Shuxing Feng

CHINA

B.Sc. on satellite geodesy, 1983. M.Sc. Space mission management, 1994. Senior engineer in Beijing Institute of Tracking & Telecommunication Technologies, China.

José Luis Flores Martin

SPAIN

Telecommunications Engineer, Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona. MMIC Design Engineer, SIVAN Consulting, Paris, France.

Patricia Garner

UK

Master of Aeronautical Eng., 2000, Cambridge University, England.

Patrizio Graziano

ITALY

Master of economics, 1989, University of Torino, Italy. Contracts Officer for Microgravity and Space Station Utilisation Programmes, ESA.

Alina Hale

UK

M.Sc. Physics, 1999, Lancaster University, UK. Studying towards PhD in Physics, Lancaster University, UK.

Felipe Hernandez

CHILE

Master of Building Science, School of Architecture, University of Southern California. Architect.

Loretta Hidalgo

USA

B.S. Biology, 1996, Stanford University. Ph.D. Candidate, Biology, California Institute of Technology.

Tomohiro Ichikawa

JAPAN

B.Sc. Chemistry, Tohoku University, Japan. M.Sc. in Biochmistry , Tokyo Institute of Technology. Senior Engineer, Utilisation and Operation Department, JAMSS (Japan Manned Space Systems Corp.).

Arif Janjua

CANADA

B.Sc. in Physiology and Physics, 1998, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec. Studying towards Doctor of Medicine, University of Alberta.

Hiroshi Kawabe

JAPAN

B.Sc. in Earth and Planetary Science, Kyusyu Univ., Japan. M.Sc. Student (Space Robotics, Spacecraft Control), Dept. of Aeronautics and Space, Engineering, Tohoku Univ.

Shane Kemper

USA

Mechanical Engineering Graduate Student (MS and PhD), California State University Sacramento.

Jan-Albert Koekemoer

SOUTH

AFRICA

B.Eng (Electronic Eng), 1995, Univ. of Stellenbosch. M.Sc (Electronic Eng), 2000, Univ. of Stellenbosch. Director, Sun Space and Information Systems (micro satellite development).


vi

Raffi Kuyumjian

CANADA

B.Eng in Structural Eng,1992, Polytechnic School of Montreal M.D, 1997, Laval University, Canada. Lower North Shore Health Center, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Canada, Physician.

Pierre Lenhardt

FRANCE

Degree in business and management, 1999, INSEEC Business School Paris. Manager, Business Development, Boeing Space and Communication group, France.

Guanghua Luo

CHINA

M.Sc. in rocket launching technology, 1997, National University of Defence Technology, Chang Sha. Rocket testing engineer, Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center of China.

José Mariano López Urdiales

SPAIN

Aerospace Engineer, 2000, Polytechnic University of Madrid. Young Graduate Trainee at ESTEC from October 2000.

Keiko Minagawa

JAPAN

Bachelor degree, Dept. of Foreign Languages, Sophia University, Japan. Staff, Office of Space Transportation Systems, National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA).

Henrik Norin

SWEDEN

Studying towards Masters Degree in Space Technology, Department of Space Physics, Umeå University, Sweden

Niall O´Byrnes

IRELAND

B. Eng. Aeronautical, 2000, University of Limerick. AIRBUS.

Valerio Raganelli

ITALY

Ph.D. (Physics), 1975, University of Rome, Italy. A grade official, Industrial Policy Office of ESA.

Vemund Reggestad

NORWAY

Studying towards M.Sc. Degree, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Michiel Rodenhuis

THE

NETHERLANDS

M.Sc. Aerospace Engineering, 1999, Technical University of Delft. Young Graduate Trainee at ESA´s Operations Centre (ESOC).

Steffen Scharfenberg

GERMANY

Studying towards Diplom Engineer of Astronautics, University of Applied Sciences, Aachen, Germany.

Anja Strømme

NORWAY

Ph.D. student in ionospheric physics, University of Tromsø, Norway.

Asll Plnar Tan

TURKEY

M.Sc. Electrical & Electronics Engineering., 1997, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. Telecommunications Design Engineer, NETAS-NORTEL Networks Turkey, Istanbul.

List of Authors

vii

Elaine Tan

CANADA

LLB, 1995, Osgoode Hall Law, School, York, University (Toronto, Canada). BSc, 1998, University of Western Ontario (London, Ontario). MBA, 2000, McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada).

Caroline Tomas

FRANCE

Degree in Spanish law, 1998, Complutense, University, Madrid. Degree in French law, 2000, Sorbonne, University, Paris. Master in political sciences, Sciences-po. Paris.

Michel Van Pelt

THE

NETHERLANDS

M. Sc. Aerospace engineer, 1998, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Technical University of Delft Cost Engineer at ESA-ESTEC in The Netherlands.

Doinita Magdalena Voica

AUSTRIA

Ph.D. Physics, 2000, University of Graz, Austria. Research and teaching lecturer at University of Graz

Bin Wu

CHINA

Master Degree (Electronics and Communication), 1988, Chinese Southeast University. Working in Beijing Institute of Tracking and Telecommunications Technology (BITTT), China.


viii

Faculty Foreword The International Space University (ISU) strives to prepare young space professionals for positions of leadership in the next generation of space endeavours. The Summer Session Program, now completing its 13th year of operation, gives its participants basic information about current space activities in nine different disciplines. In addition, each student is required to participate in one of two Design Projects (DPs) chosen each year by the ISU Academic Council prior to the session. The student DP group is presented with a general problem statement, and they must come together as a multidisciplinary, multinational team to define the scope of the project, research its content, and produce a report—all within the constraints of a hectic 9-week program. The actual time in the daily schedules devoted to DP activities is amazingly small. Only in the last two weeks are the students working full time on the report. The final version is actually submitted to the printer a week before graduation, and the students are presented with a bound version at the closing ceremonies. Work goes on around the clock as the submission deadline approaches. This document, Space Tourism: From Dream to Reality, was prepared during the “summer” session in Valparaiso, Chile, hosted by the Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria. Forty-three young professionals from 21 countries studied and debated all aspects of this controversial topic. As a group they adopted a positive attitude towards the prospects of a new growth industry and present their ideas and opinions here. The reader will find both the dream of access to a new frontier for everyone and the reality of the obstacles that must be overcome to accomplish this goal. The optimism of the authors runs contrary to the scepticism found in much of the “Space Establishment”. Nevertheless, they present evidence that senior government and industry officials are moving toward an acceptance of the inevitability of generally available space travel. The ISU Design Project reports give a unique multicultural perspective from a new generation dedicated to space exploration and development. This report is no exception. However, the most valuable product of the effort may be the learning and bonding experiences among the authors as much as the written conclusions. With the production of this document, the ISU2000 students join the ranks of more than 1500 ISU alumni, who are rapidly becoming a major influence on the direction and the goals of space programs of the 21st Century. Ad Astra! Wendell Mendell, Ph.D. Angie Bukley, Ph.D. Co-directors, Space Tourism Design Project, ISU2000 SSP

Student Foreword

ix

Student Foreword Space Tourism – From Dream to Reality, is one of two design projects of the International Space University (ISU) 2000 Summer Session. This year’s ISU was hosted by the Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, whose campus sits above the beautiful Valparaiso harbour in Chile. It was ISU’s first time in the southern hemisphere. Students battled the cold instead of the heat and found the sun setting at 18:00 rather than after 21:00. The session was also 9 weeks instead of 10, compressing the schedule and amplifying the pressure. Some faculty claimed the long nights helped us to be more productive. Perhaps, it helped us to work harder and play harder. Our team consisted of 43 members from 21 countries, which gave us the opportunity to explore different ideas, values, and cultures. We started out the project with a new team-building module that gave us the tools and the direction needed to organise ourselves. Our common commitment to space and to each other kept us going. We were not only talking about the dream of human space flight, we were investigating the issues involved with sending ourselves into space! Our first goal was to show the world that space tourism is imminent and will play an important role in expanding future activities in space. Our second goal was to work well enough together to be the first Design Project team to sleep more then 2 hours a night before the deadline. Thirdly, we wanted to contribute something to space tourism that reflected the combined efforts of our diverse, interdisciplinary, and international group. Overall, we hoped the experience could help us create for ourselves a model of what effective international cooperation can be like. Our fondest memories include watching the whales playing in the harbour, seeing the Southern sky from Mamalluca, enjoying the incredible sunsets, and eating off steel trays in the university cafeteria. However, the most enduring memory for all of us is living and working closely with such amazing and unique people. We came here as individuals and leave as friends. Our fondest wish is that someday, future Summer Session students will be able to take a 1-hour sub-orbital flight to their host country and marvel at the days when we spent more than 24 hours just to get around the world…


x

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... iii

List of Authors ............................................................................................................. iv

Faculty Foreword....................................................................................................... viii

Student Foreword ........................................................................................................ ix

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... x

List of Figures............................................................................................................ xiv

List of Tables............................................................................................................. xvii

1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Adventure and Fun: Rationales for Space Tourism ................................... 3

1.1.1 Human Exploration, Travel and Tourism ........................................ 3

1.1.2 Humans in Space........................................................................... 4

1.2 Economic Rationale for Space Tourism ..................................................... 6

1.3 Report Overview ........................................................................................ 7

1.3.1 Space Tourism Defined.................................................................. 7

1.3.2 Mission Statement and Report Scope ............................................ 9

1.3.3 Subject Areas................................................................................. 9

1.3.4 Audience ...................................................................................... 11

References ............................................................................................................ 11

2 Current Space Tourism ....................................................................................... 13

2.1 Currently Available Space Related Tourism Activities .............................. 15

2.1.1 Adventure Tourism....................................................................... 15

2.1.2 Ground-Based Space Related Tourism........................................ 16

2.1.3 Air Based Space Related Tourism................................................ 18

2.2 Legal And Regulatory Issues ................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Preliminary Remarks .................................................................... 20

2.2.2 International Space Law............................................................... 20

2.2.3 Aviation Law and Space Tourism ................................................. 21

2.2.4 Liability ......................................................................................... 23

2.3 Business and Marketing Issues................................................................ 23

2.3.1 Market Evolution........................................................................... 23

Table of Contents

xi

2.3.2 Market Surveys.............................................................................24

2.3.3 The Current Space Tourism Industry ............................................25

2.4 Medical Considerations in the Space Environment ...................................29

2.4.1 Human Hazards of the Space Environment ..................................29

2.4.2 Successful Countermeasures and Re-Adaptation to 1g ................34

2.4.3 Medical Standards and Astronaut Selection..................................34

2.5 Current Engineering and Environmental Issues........................................37

2.5.1 Current Methods to Access Space................................................37

2.5.2 Other Ways to Get Into Space ......................................................39

2.5.3 Current Engineering Limitations....................................................41

2.5.4 Environmental Aspects .................................................................41

2.6 Summary..................................................................................................44

References.............................................................................................................45

3 Pre-Orbital Space Tourism ..................................................................................51

3.1 Next Generation Space Tourism Products................................................53

3.1.1 Overview and Analysis of Products...............................................53

3.1.2 Selection of a Space Tourism Product for further study ................54

3.2 Balloons to the Edge of Space .................................................................54

3.2.1 Historical overview and current situation.......................................54

3.2.2 Rationale for Balloons as Space Related Tourism ........................56

3.2.3 Technical Assessment ..................................................................57

3.3 Implementation Plan for Sub-Orbital Flights..............................................58

3.3.1 X-Prize Competition......................................................................58

3.3.2 Sub-Orbital Flight and the Client ...................................................59

3.3.3 Technology ...................................................................................62

3.3.4 Legal, Policy and Regulatory Issues .............................................65

3.3.5 Cost Estimates for the Sub-Orbital RSTV .....................................67

3.3.6 Space Tourism Market Surveys ....................................................71

3.3.7 Financing......................................................................................71

3.3.8 Medical Considerations.................................................................75

3.4 Summary..................................................................................................78

References.............................................................................................................79

4 Tourism in Earth Orbit .........................................................................................87

4.1 Introduction to Orbital Tourism Flights ......................................................89

4.1.1 Economic Rationale for Orbital Flights ..........................................89


xii

4.1.2 The Human Dimension................................................................. 89

4.1.3 Technological Boundaries for this Chapter ................................... 90

4.2 Financial and Market Aspects of Orbital Flight ......................................... 91

4.2.1 Orbital Flight for Tourists: Economic Background......................... 91

4.2.2 Marketing Strategies .................................................................... 97

4.3 Orbital Vehicle Configurations.................................................................. 99

4.3.1 Should an Orbital Facility be part of the System? ....................... 100

4.3.2 Single versus Two Stage To Orbit .............................................. 103

4.3.3 Air-Breathing versus Rocket Engines ......................................... 105

4.3.4 Vertical Versus Horizontal Takeoff and Landing ......................... 107

4.3.5 Configuration Examples ............................................................. 109

4.4 Law and Policy Issues............................................................................ 114

4.4.1 A Model for Space Tourism Policy.............................................. 114

4.4.2 A Model of Law for Space Tourism............................................. 117

4.5 Medical Care of Orbital Flight Clients ..................................................... 120

4.5.1 Medical Selection and Training................................................... 120

4.5.2 Life Support Systems ................................................................. 121

4.5.3 Key Physiological Effects of Orbital Spaceflight.......................... 123

4.5.4 Medical Care of Tourists from Earth ........................................... 130

4.6 Orbital Tourism from the Perspective of the Client ................................. 131

4.6.1 Pre-Flight ................................................................................... 131

4.6.2 In-flight ....................................................................................... 134

4.6.3 Post-flight ................................................................................... 139

4.7 Some Detailed Aspects of Orbital Flight ................................................. 140

4.7.1 Orbit Selection............................................................................ 140

4.7.2 Air & Space Traffic Control ......................................................... 141

4.7.3 Automated Vehicles for Space Tourism...................................... 142

4.7.4 Safety & Reliability ..................................................................... 144

4.7.5 Space Debris Protection............................................................. 145

4.7.6 Ground Infrastructure and Communication................................. 146

4.7.7 Ground Operations and Maintenance......................................... 149

4.7.8 Tourism at the International Space Station (ISS)........................ 157

4.8 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................... 159

References .......................................................................................................... 161

5 Future Visions of Space Tourism ..................................................................... 169

Table of Contents

xiii

5.1 Engineering Matters to Ponder ...............................................................171

5.1.1 Technological Requirements.......................................................171

5.2 Visions of Future Space Tourism Clientele .............................................176

5.2.1 Feeling Fine in Zero-g.................................................................177

5.2.2 To the Moon, Alice… ..................................................................178

5.2.3 Mars Beckons.............................................................................179

5.2.4 Into the Great Beyond.................................................................180

5.3 Pondering the Future Medical Issues......................................................181

5.3.1 Radiation ....................................................................................181

5.3.2 Sustenance.................................................................................182

5.3.3 Psychosocial Issues ...................................................................184

5.3.4 Ethical Viewpoints from a Medical Perspective ...........................184

5.4 Business Perspectives for Future Space Tourism...................................185

5.4.1 Basic Suppositions .....................................................................185

5.4.2 The World Economical Forecast .................................................186

5.4.3 Financing Planning .....................................................................188

5.4.4 Marketing Analysis......................................................................189

5.5 Legal and Regulatory Issues ..................................................................189

5.5.1 Legal Regime .............................................................................190

5.5.2 Legal Visions to Ponder ..............................................................190

5.6 Summarising Visions for Space Tourism’s Future...................................191

References...........................................................................................................191

Appendix A - Glossary..............................................................................................194

Appendix B – X-Prize Vehicles.................................................................................200


xiv

List of Figures Figure 1. "Space Tourism" in many languages............................................................... 8 Figure 2-1 Picture of a TsF-18 centrifuge in Star City Russia [source: Energia] ............ 17 Figure 2-2 Cosmonaut training in Neutral Buoyancy Hydro Lab in Star City,

Russia [source: Energia].............................................................................. 17 Figure 2-3 A sketch of one parabola during a parabolic flight [source: NASA]............... 18 Figure 2-4 A picture taken during a zero-g flight onboard an Ilushin-76 [source:

Space Adventures] ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 2-5 Hypothetical evolution of a tourist area [source: Canadian

Geographer] ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 2-6 Percentage of respondents interested in travelling to space by age

and country [source: Abitzsch, 1996] ........................................................... 25 Figure 2-7 EVA Astronaut during 6¾ hour space walk on STS-101 [source:

NASA] ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 2-8 The telemedicine instrumentation pack [source: NASA]............................... 36 Figure 2-9 NASA Space Shuttle [source: NASA]........................................................... 37 Figure 2-10 The Russian Soyuz [source: SpaceAndTech] ........................................... 38 Figure 2-11 The Hermes shuttle [source: ESA]............................................................ 39 Figure 2-12 The HOPE-X shuttle [source: NASDA]....................................................... 40 Figure 2-13 The Shenzhou capsule [source:................................................................. 40 Figure 2-14 Orbital debris currently in LEO [source: NASA] ......................................... 43 Figure 2-15 Orbital debris impact damage on Space Shuttle STS-8 forward flight

deck window [source: NASA]....................................................................... 44 Figure 3-1: Artists conception of high altitude balloon flight [Source: NASA] ................. 56 Figure 3-2: Ascender [Source: Bristol Spaceplanes] ..................................................... 59 Figure 3-3: The Pathfinder [Source: Space Future]....................................................... 63 Figure 3-4: Typical trajectory of sub-orbital flight using Pathfinder [Source:

Pioneer Rocketplane] .................................................................................. 63 Figure 3-5: RSTV Launch Rate versus Ticket Price ...................................................... 69 Figure 3-6: Flight Cost Distribution................................................................................ 70 Figure 3-7: Return on investment analysis for the sub-orbital flight scenario

[Source: ESA, 1998] .................................................................................... 73 Figure 4-1: The activities respondents from different countries would prefer

during a space trip. [Source: Abitzsch, 1996]............................................... 90 Figure 4-2: Configuration tree for a orbital Tourism Vehicle ........................................ 100 Figure 4-3: Using a free-flying vehicle versus docking to an Orbital Facility ................ 101 Figure 4-4: The ratio between total mass and payload for different ∆V and Isp ‘s

for a single stage to orbit rocket................................................................. 103 Figure 4-5: The ratio between total mass and payload for different ∆V and Isp ‘s

for a two stage to orbit rocket .................................................................... 104 Figure 4-6: Altitude versus flight Mach number for various propulsion types ............... 106 Figure 4-7: Artist's Rendering of HYPER-X [Source: NASA] ....................................... 106 Figure 4-8: Artist’s view of Skylon [Source: SpaceFuture.com] ................................... 107 Figure 4-9: Artist’s impression of the X-33 vehicle. [Source: Lockheed Martin] ........... 110

List of Figures

xv

Figure 4-10:Artist’s impression of the Kankoh-Maru vehicle being readied for launch [Source: SpaceFuture]....................................................................111

Figure 4-11: Artist's impression of the Star Raker concept [Source: SpaceFuture] ......112 Figure 4-12: Artist's impression of the Saenger TSTO concept [Source:

SpaceFuture] .............................................................................................113 Figure 4-13: Artist's impression of the DC-X vehicle [Source: NASA] ..........................113 Figure 4-14: Mission duration versus cost for life support. [Source: Keys to

Space] .......................................................................................................122 Figure 4-15: Radiation environment Space Shuttle STS-60 (inclination 57°,

altitude 352 km). [Source: NASA]...............................................................123 Figure 4-16: Photograph of TEPC equipment. [Source: Vana 2000]............................124 Figure 4-17: Photographic representation of a thermoluminescent dosimeter.

[Source: Vana], 2000 .................................................................................125 Figure 4-18..................................................................................................................128 Figure 4-19..................................................................................................................128 Figure 4-20..................................................................................................................128 Figure 4-21: The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle [Source: NASA] ......................................131 Figure 4-22: The length of a space trip preferred by respondents from different

countries [Abitzsch, 1996] ..........................................................................134 Figure 4-23: Earth seen from the Space Shuttle cargo bay [Source: NASA]................135 Figure 4-24: Enjoying zero-G [Source: ESA] ...............................................................136 Figure 4-25: Microgravity experiments [Source: NASA]...............................................137 Figure 4-26 Pressurised volume per person in relation to mission duration: ................139 Figure 4-27: Distribution of orbital debris as a function of particle size [Source:

ESA] ..........................................................................................................145 Figure 4-28: Distribution of orbital debris as a function of direction of impact

[Source: ESA] ............................................................................................146 Figure 4-29: The launch site for the X-33 vehicle, with nearly all infrastructure

combined into one facility [source: NASA/Lockheed Martin].......................148 Figure 4-30: The relationship between habitable volume and launch mass .................152 Figure 4-31: Space Island concept using multiple re-used Shuttle External Tanks

[Source: SpaceFrontier.org] .......................................................................154 Figure 4-32: This design concept illustrates the TransHab module as proposed

for use on the ISS [Source: shuttle.nasa.gov]] ...........................................154 Figure 4-33: Cutaway of TransHab module with crew members [Source:

shuttle.nasa.gov]........................................................................................154 Figure 4-34: Skylab shower [Source: NASA] ...............................................................155 Figure 4-35: Space toilet [Source: NASA]....................................................................155 Figure 4-36: Astronauts eating in the Shuttle mid-deck [courtesy NASA].....................156 Figure 4-37: Proposed Enterprise module [Source: SpaceHab]...................................158 Figure 5-1Postcard from a space tourist......................................................................171 Figure 5-2 Lift-off of a laser rocket to LEO [Source: NASA] .........................................173 Figure 5-3 Warping to NGC 6070 for the weekend [Source: NASA] ............................174 Figure 5-4 Visit the newly remodel Bernal Resort [Source: NASA] ..............................175 Figure 5-5 Lounging around the swimming pool [Source: Spacefutures] .....................177 Figure 5-6 The first tourist to step on the Moon [Source: NASA]..................................178 Figure 5-7 A good lunar mountain to climb [Source: NASA] ........................................179 Figure 5-8 The birth of a Martian holiday spot [Source: NASA]....................................179 Figure 5-9 Morning hike in the Vallis Marineris [Source: NASA] ..................................180 Figure 5-10 Taking the family out for a Sunday drive [Source: NASA].........................180


xvi

Figure 5-11The Lunar Emergency Response Team fixing a broken leg. [Source: NASA] ....................................................................................................... 181

Figure 5-12 Learning about a new culture in the spacious GEO resort. [Source: NASA] ....................................................................................................... 184

List of Tables

xvii

List of Tables Table 2-1 Some space related activities with prices and “extremity level”......................19 Table 2-2 Space tourism regulatory issues....................................................................20 Table 2-3 NASA classification of space motion sickness (SMS)....................................32 Table 2-4 Summary of physiologic effects of microgravity ............................................33 Table 2-5 Current knowledge of different types of pollution ..........................................42 Table 3-1: Pathfinder Technical Data [Source: Space and Tech]...................................62 Table 3-2: NRCP Recommended Dose Limits for all Organs and Ages (Sieverts).........76 Table 3-3: Updated 1999 NRCP Recommended Career Dose Limits (Sieverts)............76 Table 4-1: Choices for an Orbital Tourism Vehicle.........................................................99 Table 4-2: SSTO mass breakdown..............................................................................104 Table 4-3: TSTO mass breakdown..............................................................................105 Table 4-4: Example of some current and future launch vehicles..................................108 Table 4-5: Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Systems.........................................109 Table 4-6: Comparison of the VentureStar and X-33 vehicles to the Space

Shuttle. [Source: Lockheed Martin] ............................................................111 Table 4-7: The Pensacola survey and SMS symptom definitions ................................126 Table 4-8: Summary of successful countermeasures ..................................................129 Table 4-9: Comparison of current and future spacecraft..............................................144 Table 4-10: Maintenance comparison between commercial airliners and the

Space Shuttle orbiter, [Morris, 1997] ..........................................................151 Table 4-11: Relationship between habitable volume and launch mass........................153 Table 4-12:Characteristics of ISS................................................................................158 Table 5-1 Space exploration progress table ................................................................177 Table 5-2 Simulated Long Term World Economic Growth Scenarios for 2050 and

2100...........................................................................................................187 Table 5-3 World economic forecast and the expenditures on space technologies

(Assumptions: Average economic growth rate is 3% per year and the commercial expenditure is assumed as same as the governments.)..........189

Introduction

1

1 1 Introduction

“Sure it´s expensive…But what´s the cost of an unfulfilled dream?”

- Mike Saemisch [Triplett, 1994]


2

Introduction

3

The beauty of the cosmos continually inspires wonder and curiosity. Throughout history, space has provided humanity with both practical benefits and fertile grounds for the imagination…Together with future generations, we will be the next explorers to unravel the mysteries of the universe [United Nations, 1999].

Over the course of human history there has always been a strong drive to explore and to travel to new and exciting places. In this chapter we will give an overview of human exploration and its natural extension as tourism, which is itself a continually evolving business. The last decades show a strong increase in people voyaging to the last remote areas on earth, searching for adventure, fun and recreation. For the tourist of tomorrow, space is the next step and the reasons why tourists might go will be addressed in this chapter. Space exploration has captured the imagination of the general public for the last 30 years; it is only natural that the everyday person begins to ask if and when they too might venture to space. Consequently, the main purpose of this report is to propose an evolutionary framework for space tourism, discussing how we might proceed from the current state of space tourism activities in order to arrive at a future in which the average person may safely journey into and enjoy space. Before the framework is presented, we discuss in this chapter the two main rationales for space tourism—the human desire for adventure, travel and fun, and the economic motivation for creating a space tourism industry. We then conclude by giving our rationale for this report, which entails defining space tourism, presenting our mission statement and describing the overall scope of the report and our intended audience.

1.1 Adventure and Fun: Rationales for Space Tourism

1.1.1 Human Exploration, Travel and Tourism Migration and travel has been an important part of human nature since the birth of humankind. The oldest modern human, Homo sapiens, developed about 130,000 years ago. Current archaeological evidence suggests Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus in Africa, and then rapidly migrated over the rest of the world. [Roberts, 1996]. Over the epochs since then, humans have continued to travel and explore this planet. There were various reasons for these constant movements. For some, it was the need or desire for new land and resources, or for new routes to known destinations. For others, there was a political or social motivation. Is the need of adventure, travel and exploring simply a fundamental part of being human? It certainly seems that way. People throughout the ages have enjoyed visiting or travelling, as time and funds permitted. Ancient Romans travelled to spas [Towner, 1996], the British made travelling to seaside resorts in Brighton and Bath fashionable in the 16th and 17th centuries [Towner, 1996], many Russians enjoy vacationing at the Black Sea or in their country houses, and modern cruise ships tour most of the Earth´s major waterways, to name but a few examples. Thus, over time a new leisure time pursuit and category of industry developed. The ideas of being a tourist and of tourism were born


4

1.1.2 Humans in Space

Why Go Into Space? For many people, the idea of venturing into space is a closely held dream. The thrill of being selected to strap into a space vehicle and roar towards the heavens, of freely floating in three-dimensional space and looking down at the earth below is at once sublime and euphoric. It is hard to put words to the feelings of this group of dreamers, they are at once passionate and committed, perhaps beyond what surveys can capture. The dream of becoming a space explorer is a common one among young people all over the world [Collins et al., 1994]. As they get older many go on to a variety of careers, yet the dream of travelling into space stays with them. For Tom Hanks, working on Apollo 13 was fun because it let him live out his boyhood dream of being an astronaut [Myers, 2000]. Others do go on to work on space projects but find their dreams of getting selected to fly fade as time goes by. Space tourism will offer these people the opportunity to realize their dream of space flight. The first tourists will not only be those who have always dreamed of being space explorers. Adventure seekers and unconventional travellers will also want to be among the first to try such a grand undertaking, perhaps after having already travelled to Nepal and Antarctica. For them, travelling is about experiencing all the beauty life has to offer and seeking out that which is new, challenging and inspiring. The zero-g environment will offer them a new way to play and being on orbit will give them a new view of their favourite playground, the Earth. While early space tourism may not have the same physical rigor as climbing Mt. Everest, for example, it will appeal to

The Price of a Dream (Excerpted from Triplett, 1994) [MiG29 flight customers] Michael Mettler, Bob Threatt, and Mike Saemisch [are] an executive with a packaging materials company in Germany, the chief financial officer of a real estate development firm in Connecticut, and an aerospace engineer in Utah… "Sure it's expensive," says Saemisch, who cashed in a sizable chunk of his 401(K) retirement account to pay for this ticket. "But what's the cost of an unfulfilled dream?" The people who are paying to fly today are probably not much different from those of seventy years ago in one particular: flying caught their imaginations and never let go. But that doesn't quite explain why seemingly practical, sensible people are willing to part with a lot of money for a relatively short-lived experience. "It's the what if," says Tom Bishop. "You always hit a fork in life and end up going one way. But you always wonder, What if I'd gone the other?" "It's hard to put a price on it," says Threatt, who says he would have paid double to fly the MiG. But neither he nor any of the others would pay a dime to drive a race car or go bungee jumping or skydive. The craving is less for pure thrill than it is for a certain identity, and for a short while these people get to go back in time and down the other fork where that identity may once have waited for them. Who wouldn't pay good money for that?

Introduction

5

the adventurous tourist because space is sexy—risky and unavailable to the mass market, only available to the dedicated, the unconventional and the daring.

Social Impact What will it mean for these people to travel into space? What impact will their experiences have on them, their families and their societies? Many astronauts have lamented the difficulty in communicating the experience of space flight to others. Michael Collins of Apollo 11 commented, “a future flight should include a poet, a priest and a philosopher … we might get a much better idea of what we saw” [English, 1996]. Certainly the technical and military traditions that have surrounded human space flight have limited the discussions of the philosophical, spiritual, and purely fun aspects of space flight. Nonetheless, traces of philosophy, spirit and fun have been communicated to us and have given us our first glimpses of some of the profound ideas and feelings people have experienced because of their time in space [White, 1987]. With the advent of commercial tourist launch capability, a more diverse array of people will suddenly have the opportunity to experience the cosmos. Whatever the mix is, it will certainly be interesting. Musicians, politicians, environmentalists, movie stars, mountain climbers, and heads of companies may all find themselves on the same trip enjoying a view of a world that they share. What will happen? According to Frank White [1987], space has had an indelible impact on space travellers’ perceptions of themselves, their world and the future. The sense of place in the universe, the humbling awareness of the vastness of space and time is a profound experience. Some people also feel a sense of heightened connectedness and thus protectiveness towards their home planet. The “pale blue dot” of the Earth looks so fragile, so awe inspiring. The idea of “us” and “them” breaks down and only the overpowering sense of “we” is left, of a small planet united against the cold hardness of space. Certainly people have felt similarly before. The creation first of turnpike roads, then railways changed passengers’ perceptions of time and space and their relationship with the landscape they saw [Towner, 1996]. A similar increased awareness also happens when visiting another country or continent. Why is this important for Earth? Bringing a heightened sense of unity and environmental awareness to the general public, politicians and business leaders may help all create a better world back home. On an even more basic level, the beauty of space inspires us, as images from the moon, from space station MIR and the shuttle already have. As more space farers are moved to write, sing, or dance their experience for us, we will be more likely to hear their message. The experiences communicated from the new frontier will inspire a generation to reach for their dreams just as we were inspired to reach for ours.

Recreation, Tourism and Space People spend their leisure time travelling for several reasons: adventure, education, culture, and recreation. Additionally, regardless of the reason, as more and more people visit new places for recreation, the type of traveller or tourist evolves. The first to travel to a region are the relatively few explorers who seek out the undiscovered, later in time arrive relatively more travellers who only voyage on pre-established routes, and lastly


6

arrive large numbers of people, mass tourists, who travel these paths only after extensive publicity about the region has occurred [Towner, 1996]. The current tourism market recognizes the various distinctions among tourists and offers the customer a broad variety of options for enjoying their holidays. Adventure tourists are similar to explorers, searching for excitement, challenge or the extraordinary. They go to places where no tourism infrastructure exists and so are willing to take higher risks. However, as the tourism industry grows and evolves, many places that were exotic a few decades ago are now common tourist destinations and so are easily accessible. It is getting harder to be a pioneer, so the adventure tourists must seek more extreme places. The exotic position that Africa held 30 years ago for tourists is now occupied by Nepal and Antarctica [Plog, 1991]. Given this evolution, space is the logical next step for adventure tourists, who will be the first wave of space tourists. What might the tourist do in space? Fundamentally, travellers want to enjoy their vacation. They want to have fun and also perhaps to get a glimpse of adventure and of being involved in something different. Space is the one of the best environments to satisfy these desires. There is the anticipation and excitement engendered during ground-based training or preparation for a space trip, the thrill of the ride up (and down), the profound experience of being in space and looking out the window at the Earth, and the unique possibilities for weightless recreation and entertainment that zero gravity provides. The adventure of going into space will, indeed, be an outstanding memory for a lifetime.

1.2 Economic Rationale for Space Tourism In addition to the motivation for having space tourism because of the basic human desire for adventure, travel and fun, there is also the economic motivation. The economic rationale for space tourism is founded on two aspects—one is the stimulation of the space industry and space exploration by opening a new market for reusable launch vehicles, and the second is the establishment of a new global industry. The only successful commercial space activity today is satellite communications. Although the emergence of mobile communications is leading to this industry´s continued growth, satellite communications companies represent a small fraction of market capitalization of the entire telecommunications industry [Glover, 2000], and satellite companies face competition from global optical fibre and local microwave systems. Though satellite communications companies have a secure hold on certain niche markets, e.g. digital radio, and provide complementary services to the terrestrial market, the recent demise of Iridium, a low Earth orbit telecommunications satellite constellation, has cast a shadow over short-term future prospects. In order to maintain their level of competitiveness within the telecommunications industry, communications satellite companies are compensating for the high cost of access to space by increasing the number of transponders on each satellite, to as many as 150 channels, as well as designing for longer lifetimes. Since communication satellites comprise the major customer base for the current commercial launch market, these trends lead to forecasting only negligible increases in future commercial launch rates. While the development of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) is the key to substantially reducing the cost of access to space, the high associated costs and required long-term

Introduction

7

development timeframes provide major disincentives to potential private investment. Development or studies of next generation RLVs have been undertaken by government space agencies in countries in Europe, the United States, and Japan, as described in section 2.5.2. However, the current global launch rate of approximately 100 satellite launches per year [Collins and Ashford, 1986] does not appear to be sufficient to justify the high cost of the development of a RLV; yet the lower cost target for RLV development can only be accomplished with much higher launch rates. Thus the prospect for RLV development suffers from a dilemma—which comes first, lowering the cost to increase demand or waiting for increased demand to lower costs? The difficulty is that both factors are complementary. High launch costs lead to low transportation demand, low demand results in small markets, and small markets discourage private investment in developing expensive new launchers—the result being that the cost of access to space remains high and markets remain small. Space tourism provides the market potential needed to justify both the higher investment by governments into the acceleration of RLV technology development as well as to attract the private sector into helping to finance the development costs. Private sector involvement will lead to the increase of commercial space activities enabled by the decreased cost of access to space by RLVs. Tourism is one of the world’s largest businesses. It employs over 200 million people worldwide, or one in every nine workers. Tourism is the world’s leading economic contributor, producing 10.2% of the world gross national product, and generating the greatest amount of tax revenues at US$655 billion per year [Naisbitt, 1994]. Given the scale of the global tourism industry, there is huge economic potential for space tourism—but only if space transportation is safe, reliable and the cost per passenger is substantially reduced. Based on the wide range of unique activities in space and the commercially vigorous nature of the tourism industry, the various aspects required to establish a robust space tourism industry would initiate a whole new global paradigm—creating new business for companies in various industries such as the entertainment, media, advertisement, insurance, investment, ground operations, and medical support industries. It is clear that when space tourism is able to operate as a normal commercial industry, it will have a profound beneficial effect on the global economy.

1.3 Report Overview The foregoing rationales for space tourism ultimately led to the development of the mission statement for our project, which in turn led to the development of our project and report scope. This section provides an overview of our work and its presentation in this report. As a starting point, we define the terms “space tourism” and “space tourist”; though basic, these definitions are fundamental to our work. Then, we present the project mission statement and discuss its implications for the report scope, and lastly, we give an overview of the report scope, issues addressed and intended audience.

1.3.1 Space Tourism Defined In order to define the term “space tourism”, we consider current definitions of both space and tourism.


8

Romturisme

Turismo spaziale

Rymdturism

Uzay Turizmi

Torism Spassial

ììç úåøÖú

Tourisme Spatial Ruimtetoerisme

Weltraumtourismus Turism spatial

kosma spaco turismo

Turismo Espacial

Turisme i rummet

Turasóireacht Spáis Vesoljski Turizem

Figure 1. "Space Tourism" in many languages.

Introduction

9

• Space: The empty area outside the earth’s atmosphere, where the planets and the stars are. [Cambridge, 2000] Although the frontier between the atmosphere and space is not officially defined, it is generally accepted that space begins at one hundred kilometres from the surface of the earth. [Sanz, 2000]

• Tourism: 1) Provider-oriented definition: providing services such as transport, places

to stay or entertainment for people [Cambridge, 2000]. 2) Client-oriented definition: doing that which allows one to experience “in reality” the pleasures imagined in one’s dreams [Campbell, 1987].

Thus, • Space tourism: Providing services for humans to access and experience space for

adventure and recreation. • Space tourist: A person who travels to and experiences space for adventure and

recreation. Also, space traveller, space client, space passenger.

1.3.2 Mission Statement and Report Scope Our mission is to expand opportunities for humans to experience space by proposing a framework for tourism that is enduring, evolutionary and open to all.

The purpose of this report is to propose a step-by-step framework for space tourism. Each stage of this framework builds progressively on the prior stages and results in a natural, evolutionary path for long lasting space tourism. Consequently, we envision that the framework proposed here will ultimately lead to space tourism that will be open to all clients, though particular early stages in the framework may limit the clientele. Following from the mission statement above, this report considers space tourism at various stages in time. Chapter 2 covers current space tourism activities, such as ground-based theme parks and parabolic flights. Chapter 3 considers space tourism activities taking place within the next 10 or so years, such as sub-orbital flights and high-altitude balloon flights. Chapter 4, the focus of this report, covers low Earth orbital (LEO) space tourism, discussing both LEO flights and facilities. Lastly, Chapter 5 covers future visions of space tourism.

1.3.3 Subject Areas Within each Chapter or evolutionary stage of space tourism presented in this report, issues relating to five main subject areas are discussed. These areas are policy and law, business and management, medical issues, technology and engineering, and client issues. This section gives a brief overview of the scope of each of these subject areas.

Policy and Law Chapter 2 presents a brief overview of current space policy and regulatory systems, emphasizing that there is today no commitment of countries to foster space tourism, and showing the regulatory limitations and the need to implement changes to promote space tourism. The aviation regulatory system is discussed as a possible regulatory model.


10

Chapter 3 considers that no sudden political commitment for space tourism will appear in the next few years, and thus shows how to deal with this policy environment, as well as with regulatory system limitations in order to make commercial sub-orbital flights feasible. Chapter 4 then describes the needed policy environment to achieve space tourism 20 years from now and provides a possible regulatory model for long-term space tourism. Lastly, Chapter 5 discusses future liability, citizenship, environmental protection, and judicial concerns, e.g. crime, concerning space tourism.

Business and Management Chapter 2 specifically examines the current space tourism industry, a subset of adventure tourism, by identifying the present and potential industry players as well as analysing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the industry as a whole. Chapter 3 considers business and management issues with respect to near-term future sub-orbital flights, specifically cost estimates, marketing and financing, and the identification of potential key players in this upcoming phase of space tourism. Chapter 4 discusses orbital flights, research and development issues, possible marketing strategies and the financial and market aspects of an orbital flight venture. Lastly, based on several assumptions, Chapter 5 hypothesizes the future economy of tourism.

Medical Issues Throughout the report, we consider the physiological effects of the space environment on the human body, countermeasures for these effects and in-flight and ground-based medical support of human space flight. Chapter 2 reviews the current status of these topics, drawing primarily from the experiences of trained astronauts and cosmonauts. Chapter 3 considers the same topics as applied to sub-orbital flights. Chapter 4 provides a discussion of life support systems and environmental requirements, medical selection of clients and crew, medical standards, and space medicine issues including prevention, emergency procedures and post-flight rehabilitation. This chapter also addresses in detail the issues of space motion sickness and radiation exposure in the context of orbital flight. Finally, Chapter 5 considers medical issues related to long duration stays in space, including the long term effects of radiation exposure, psychosocial concerns and overcoming the detrimental effects of microgravity.

Technology and Engineering Chapter 2 contains a technical discussion of current space transportation systems, engineering limitations and ground infrastructure. Chapter 3 discusses engineering specific to commercial sub-orbital and high-altitude balloon flights. Chapter 4 provides a comprehensive discussion of possible technical choices and issues regarding orbital flights, covering topics such as single stage to orbit vehicles versus two stage vehicles, separate or combined transport vehicles and tourist facilities, the radiation environment, space debris hazards and vehicle maintenance. Lastly, Chapter 5 discusses the technology development necessary for a variety of future tourism options.

Client Issues Many client-related aspects are considered throughout this report, including client desires, client concerns and what the space experience will be like for clients. Chapter 2 focuses on different kinds of space-relevant adventure tourism, such as Antarctic expeditions, parabolic flights, and MiG flights, and why they appeal to adventurers and space enthusiasts. Chapter 3 discusses contests, which will make the space experience more broadly accessible; the range of client perspectives on safety issues; and what a

Introduction

11

sub-orbital flight might be like for a client. Chapter 4 addresses the client requirements and options for both short and long duration orbital flights. Finally, chapter 5 considers the client in future space experiences involving the Moon, Mars and beyond.

1.3.4 Audience Though the subject areas in this report address topics at some technical depth, the expected audience for this report is the general, international public. For this reason, relatively technical or obscure terms are defined at the end of the report in the Glossary. Our expected audience also specifically includes space organizations, such as agencies, launch companies and X-prize competitors; the tourism industry; governments that might be interested in stimulating national industry or considering future space policy; and, of course, future space tourists.

References Abitzsch, S. (1996). Prospects of Space Tourism. Presented at: 9th European Aerospace Congress - Visions and Limits of Long-term Aerospace Developments, 15 May 1996, Berlin, Germany (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/prospects_of_space_tourism.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Beckey, I. (1998). Economically viable public space travel. Presented at: 49th International Astronautical Federation Congress, 28 Sep-2 Oct, Melbourne, Australia (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/economically_viable_public_space_travel.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Cambridge Dictionaries Online. (2000). Cambridge International Dictionary of English (WWW Document). http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ (accessed Aug 2000). Campbell, C. (1987). The Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Modern Consumerism. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Cited in: Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London. Collins, P. et al. (1994). Commercial Implications of Market Research on Space Tourism. Journal of Space Technology and Science, Vol.10, No.2, pp 3-11. Collins, P. and Ashford, D. (1986). Potential economic implications of space tourism. In: 37th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, Innsbruck, Austria, October 4-11, 1986, IAA-86-446. English, Dave. (1996). Great aviation quotes: Space flight. (WWW Document). http://www.skygod.com/quotes/file11.html (accessed Aug 2000). Glover, D. (2000). Telecommunications. Core lecture, International Space University Summer Session Program 2000, Valparaiso, Chile (unpublished). Myers, Robert. (2000). SPACE.com Exclusive: For Tom Hanks, Apollo 13 was a personal adventure. SPACE.com, 11 April 2000 (WWW document).


12

http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/apollo13_hanks_000411.html (accessed Aug 2000). Naisbitt, B. (1994). Global Paradox. Cited in: O’Niel, D. (compiler). (1998) General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 1 Executive Summary, Appendix B. NASA MFSC. OŃeil, D. (compiler). (1998). General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 1 Executive Summary (WWW Document). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. NP-1998-3-11-MSFC. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml. (accessed Aug 2000). OŃeil, D. (compiler). (1999). General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 2 Workshop Proceedings (WWW document). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. CP-1999209146. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism_volume_2.shtml. (accessed Aug 2000). Plog, S. (1991). Leisure travel: Making it a growth market…again. Wiley and Sons, New York. Roberts, Michael. (1996) The origin of modern humans: Multiregional and replacement theories (WWW document). http://www.linfield.edu/~mrobert/origins.html (accessed 11 Aug 2000). Sanz Fernandez de Cordoba, S. (2000). 100km altitude boundary for astronautics. In: Astronautics Record Commission, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (WWW document). http://www.fai.org/astronautics/100km.asp (accessed Aug 2000). Towner, J. (1996). An Historical Geography of Tourism and Recreation in the Western World 1540-1940. Wiley and Sons, London. Triplett, William. (1994). Dreams for sale. Air and Space, Dec 1994/Jan 1995. Excerpted by Incredible Adventures (WWW document) http://www.incredible-adventures.com/dreams.html (accessed 11 Aug 2000). United Nations. (1999). Technical Report of the Space Generation Forum, UNISPACE III Conference, Vienna, Austria, 19-30 July 1999, A/CONF.184/L.14, 4. Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London. White, Frank. (1987). The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

Current Space Tourism

13

2 2 Current Space Tourism

The Moon is the first milestone on the road to the stars. Arthur C. Clarke


14


15

Our continuing desire to travel and explore new places has led us to develop technology to reach some of the most spectacular places imaginable on our beautiful planet. However one of the most inspiring and constant sources of amazement will always be the cosmos. For many the dream of travelling to space is the ultimate adventure but few of us have actually achieved this, namely less than 500 astronauts and cosmonauts in total. In this chapter we will look into why this has essentially remained an exclusive privilege for them. In doing this we will examine the current issues related to space exploration to investigate just how far we have advanced both technologically and economically. This chapter will also look at the currently available space related tourism activities by first addressing what ground based space activities exists and how they relate to tourism. The importance of current space policy and law will be considered to investigate why they are essential. Our only medical experiences of the effects of outer space on the body are from observing the effects on astronauts and cosmonauts, but this data holds valuable information, important for the first “real” space tourists. Finally, with 1960´s technology we sent a man to the Moon but now three decades later we will address the current status of launch vehicles and the technology available for putting humans into space.

2.1 Currently Available Space Related Tourism Activities According to the definition given in Chapter 1 of a space tourist, namely “a person who travels for adventure and recreation to space”, the activities offered to tourists today are not space tourism, but “space related tourism”. Space related tourism in this context therefore means adventures and recreation opportunities that in one way or another are related to space. It can be physical (experience of high/low/zero gravitation), visual (star/sky/northern light watching, museums, launch of rockets/shuttle) or experimental (meteorite expeditions, rocket/robot building, running telescopes, virtual reality). Space-related tourism activities are very important in raising public awareness and interest in space tourism, thereby increasing the market potential for actual space tourism. In addition, these activities can also raise significant amounts of capital for real space tourism developments [OŃeil, 1997].

2.1.1 Adventure Tourism Chapter 1.1.2 discussed the increase in the adventure seeking and “off the beaten path” tourist market. Tourists demand more individual and extreme activities, and this has led to an enormous and very diverse tourist market. Common to most tourists is the impression of pioneering and the potential risk involved. People are willing to pay a substantial amount of money for these activities; the first space tourists will emerge from this group of tourists.

Mountaineering Expeditions The Himalayas, and especially Mount Everest, are a growing place of interest for adventure tourists from all over the world. Far more than 600 climbers from 20 countries have climbed to the summit. Climbers' ages range from nineteen to sixty years. Permits cost thousands of U.S. dollars (US$50,000 for a seven member party, 1996), and are difficult to obtain. In some cases waiting lists extend for years. The total price, including guides and porters, is closer to US$60,000 per person. The Treks


16

to Everest base camp, excluding the summit attempt, is becoming increasingly popular [Peakware, 2000]. In 1993 approximately 300,000 tourists have visited the camp and the number is rapidly increasing [TED, 2000].

Arctic and Antarctic Expeditions Several companies offer trips to the Arctic and to Antarctica. The level of extremity and prices vary a lot. Tourists can now fly for day trips in a B747-438 plane from different cities in Australia to Antarctica, crossing the South Pole, for prices ranging from US$1199 (tourist class) to US$3739 (first class) [Antarctica, 2000]. There are also ships going from South America (Argentina and Chile) to Antarctica, both for cruises and expeditions. The prices range from US$4000 to US$10,000 [Quark, 2000]. On the other more extreme end of Arctic tourism, skiing trips to the North Pole are available from a polar base in the Arctic. The North Pole can be reached after about 12 days of skiing [Journeys, 2000].

Other Adventure Activities Some available activities can be classified as falling between “regular” adventure tourism and space related tourism. One example is meteorite expeditions to Antarctica. Meteorites have been falling to Earth for millions of years. In Antarctica they are well preserved and it is considered to be one of the best places on Earth to find them. Some of these meteorites are from Mars and Moon. On an Antarctica meteorite expedition tourists can search for and collect meteorites, called Stones from Space. The meteorites collected are used and studied by NASA or other research organisations and may therefore not be kept as collector items [Space Adventures, 2000]. Another indication of the growth in the number of adventure seeking tourists is the large number of companies offering “survival tours” in various deserts and jungles around the world [Southern, 2000 and others]. Rafting, scuba diving, parachuting and similar adventure activities are getting more accessible for people, and are big markets today. The focus of the next two sections is on some of the space related activities that are commercially available today.

2.1.2 Ground-Based Space Related Tourism

Gravitational Force One important and distinct feature of space travel is the experience of different gravity forces. During launch to and re-entry from space, a space tourist will experience a high gravitational force, several times higher than the gravity force on Earth. For the Space Shuttle the maximum acceleration during launch is about 3g, three times higher than on Earth, and for the Russian Soyuz it is slightly higher, about 5g on re-entry. These conditions can be simulated on Earth in centrifuges1. In the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre in Star City, Russia, several companies offer rides in centrifuges, for prices around US$1150 [Space Adventures, 2000]. See Figure 2-1.

1 A centrifuge is a capsule spun around at high velocity giving the person inside the feeling of high gravitational acceleration.


17

Figure 2-1 Picture of a TsF-18 centrifuge in Star City Russia [source: Energia]

Weightlessness In Orbit around Earth (or other planets/celestial bodies) tourists within a spacecraft will have the feeling of zero gravitation or “weightlessness”. In a Neutral Buoyancy2 Hydro Lab (essentially a huge heated swimming pool) you have an environment very similar to true weightlessness. In this environment tourists are offered the opportunity to do training and mission simulations (see Figure 2-2). The price for neutral buoyancy training is around US$7000 [Space Adventures, 2000].

Figure 2-2 Cosmonaut training in Neutral Buoyancy Hydro Lab in Star City, Russia [source:

Energia]

Cosmonaut/Astronaut Training Packages Packages, such as cosmonaut training and space camps [Incredible Adventures, 2000], combine many activities related to space and space exploration. It gives the tourist a broader picture of space exploration by providing a complete setting. At space camps the tourists take part in all the different aspects of cosmonaut/astronaut life, from eating freeze-dried space food, training in partial gravity simulators, mission control aspects, simulating EVA in five degrees of freedom simulators and performing different jobs and tasks as real cosmonauts/astronauts would do. Cosmonaut training in Star City, Russia, gives the tourist access to different simulators such as Mir, Soyuz-TM and navigation. It also includes rides in centrifuges, experiences in a low-pressure chamber, mission 2 Neutral buoyancy is the term used to describe when an object has an equal tendency to float and to sink. Objects that are configured to be neutrally buoyant seem to "hover" underwater. This is accomplished with a combination of weights and flotation devices.


18

simulation and training in Hydro Lab, as well as stellar navigation in a planetarium and walking tours and museum visits in Star City.

Hands-On Activities There is also a whole range of experimental and “hands on” activities that are related to space and that are offered to tourists today. Other activities that can also be considered as being related to space tourism include opportunities to have an instructor, a rocket scientist or a Mars Pathfinder scientist teaching a tourist to build rockets and Mars rovers. During one weekend the tourists learn how to design, build and launch a rocket or to build a Mars rover.

Astronomy Just by looking towards the night sky, the stars, the planets, comets and meteorites, tourists get a feeling of space and the universe. Services provided for this kind of observation can also be considered as space related tourism. In the Polar Regions in the north and the south, companies offer Aurora (northern and southern light) watching. Many observatories around the world offer visitors the opportunity to look at the night sky through telescopes. These activities are also important for increasing the public awareness of space.

2.1.3 Air Based Space Related Tourism

High-Altitude Flights High and low gravitational acceleration can also be experienced in the air. Adventure tourism companies now offer flights in different jet fighters that are able to fly at very high altitudes and at high velocity. The MiG-25 and MiG-29 jet fighter planes can reach over 25,000 metres. From this altitude it is possible to see the curvature of Earth. These jet fighter planes typically have a maximum velocity in the order of Mach 2.5, or 2.5 times the speed of sound.

Parabolic Flights One of the most extraordinary aspects of space flight is the feeling of weightlessness. By flying a Russian Ilyushin-76 jet plane in a parabolic flight path, one can create a zero-g environment for a short period of time.

Figure 2-3 A sketch of one parabola during a parabolic flight [source: NASA]


19

The parabolic manoeuvre starts from level flight at 8000m. The plane is pitched up approximately 45 degrees (as shown in Figure 2-3), and during this part the passengers feel an acceleration of up to 1.8 g. The engines are then throttled back, and the airplane glides over the top of the path with just enough power to overcome air friction and drag. Everyone inside the airplane experiences the sensation of free fall or zero gravity. Passengers obtain approximately 28-30 seconds of microgravity during the top of the parabolic path. The max altitude of the parabola is approximately 10,000m. Typically about 40 parabolas can be executed during one flight. During the parabolic flight, tourists get a chance to experience extended zero-g, to play and to do experiments in this unusual environment (see Figure 2-4).

Figure 2-4 A picture taken during a zero-g flight onboard an Ilushin-76 [source: Space

Adventures]

The table below summarises the different activities that are currently available for space tourists, as discussed above. The extremity level also gives an indication of the type of tourist these activities are aimed at.

Table 2-1 Some space related activities with prices and “extremity level”

Activities Price range Extremity level from 1 to 5 Merchandising

Cosmonaut training medium 5 none

Shuttle Launch Tour low 1 various

Antarctica Expedition high 3 various

Neutral Buoyancy medium 4 none

Rocketry Weekend low 1 video

Robotic Seminar low 1 none

Northern Light Watching low 1 none

Zero-Gravity Flights medium/high 5 video/souvenirs

MiG Flights all 5 video

Price range: low US$1000 – US$5000 medium US$5000 – US$10,000 high > US$10,000


20

2.2 Legal And Regulatory Issues Legal and regulatory issues have to be considered carefully as they play a significant role in the feasibility of space tourism. In this paragraph, the regulatory system applicable to space activities is assessed. The impact on space tourism activities is evaluated by considering both space and aviation regulations.

2.2.1 Preliminary Remarks Space policy in this section refers to the strategy and actions undertaken by governments to implement their space activities. Space law on the other hand refers to the set of rules enforced by national or international organisations to regulate space activities. Table 2-2 summarises the major regulatory issues related to space tourism.

Table 2-2 Space tourism regulatory issues

Pre-launch Launch Flight Post-return

Registration Licences

Authorisation Liability Insurance Environmental impact Criminal law Traffic regulation

Liability Properties

The major players involved in regulation issues are: • The customer (space tourist), • Tour operators and contractors, • Launching states Each of the above has to adhere to a certain legal system that can normally be divided into international and aviation (national) law.

2.2.2 International Space Law International law is a “special” law and therefore applies in “first lieu” in the case of a binding treaty or agreement. However, when such a law does not exist, the national law relating to a particular case will automatically apply. All space tourism activities will have to be compliant with these two sets of laws. Contrary to current space law that can be classified as being international, aviation law is merely national, for example the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the US and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) in Europe. In contrast to the early days of aviation, space tourism activities will have to deal with a complex legal framework. At the time of writing this report, no specific international space law has yet been defined for space tourism. However, existing space laws can have a significant impact on space tourism activities:

The Cold War International Rules Following the launch of the first satellite in 1957, the United Nations formed the Committee for Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) in 1959. This committee


21

set up five major international treaties that are summarised below [Houston and Rycroft, 2000]: Outer Space Treaty (1967): Establishes that outer space is not subject to national appropriation and is to be used only for peaceful purposes. The rescue treaty (1968): Presents a convention on astronaut rescue and return of objects launched into space. Space liability treaty (1971): The launching country would be absolutely liable to pay compensation for loss of life, injury, or damage to property resulting from objects launched into space by that country. Convention on registration (1974): Covers registration of objects launched into outer space. The Moon treaty (1979): Deals with commercial exploitation of the Moon. In addition to the above treaties, governments have adopted non-binding conventions. They are referred to as resolutions and mainly concern international broadcasting from satellites, remote sensing, and the use of nuclear power in space.

Comments Relevant to Space Tourism Binding international treaties and conventions can have significant impact on space tourism activities. The liability treaty and the convention on registration are major issues concerning any private tourism activities in space since they have the following implicit consequences: • a state is entitled to prohibit any private space tourism pre-launch activity on its

territory, • non-governmental activities in space tourism will require authorisation and continuing

supervision by the appropriate state party. For example, any kind of private space vehicle will have to receive the full approval of the launching state. Thus the equivalent of an aircraft certification and license will be required for space tourism purposes.

A possible solution to the above issues is presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.

Regulations Pertaining to the International Space Station (ISS) In addition to the international space laws mentioned above, some specific laws are created for future space activities. For example, the ISS agreement will regulate the life of member state’s astronauts on-board the space station. This law can be regarded as a first step towards on-orbit laws that will be required for space tourism activity. It is important to remark though that this law will only be verified once astronauts/ cosmonauts will actually occupy the ISS.

2.2.3 Aviation Law and Space Tourism

Introduction The current aviation industry is a global industry operated by commercial companies. There is a comprehensive legal framework of national law and regulations linked to international treaties that has been revised as the industry evolved. In particular, a high level of safety standards has been developed over decades of experience of passenger


22

transport. Recently it is being recognised that the most appropriate regulatory framework for commercial space activities is aviation law. The establishment of OCST as an organisation within the FAA can be seen as a reflection of this trend. This section discusses the current studies on aviation law and how it may be applicable or relevant to commercial space activities, and ultimately, to space tourism. The discussion forms a foundation for following chapters dealing with legal and regulatory system envisioned for the space tourism industry.

The Origin of Aviation Law Modern aviation law was established in 1944. The contracting nations adopted international regulations, standards, and procedures for issues including airport requirements, air traffic control, airworthiness, the registration of aircraft and the licensing of operating and mechanical personnel. In addition, the established principle of sovereignty of airspace above a certain territory was reaffirmed. In 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) was established to promote cooperation in international civil aviation.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Currently, authorities in the United States are working towards the establishment of a legal framework for its commercial space industry. In 1999, the issue of a licensing procedure for commercially operated reusable launch vehicles has been studied by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) within the FAA. This resulted in the publication of a draft guideline for licensing private space vehicles [Associate, 1999a]. The safety approach is based on the system developed in civil aviation, reducing the risk of accidents to levels that are acceptable to the travelling public, to third parties, and to insurance companies. The issue of space traffic control was addressed in a 1999 AST study extending the existing air traffic control to include vehicles in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) [Associate, 1999b]. This was done in order to create a comprehensive legal system, accommodating both air and space vehicles. The formation of an International Space Flight Organisation (ISFO) - the equivalence of the ICAO for aviation - has also been proposed in the AST study. The latter is seen as “genuinely path-breaking, proposing a range of initiatives and tackling key issues needed to realise space travel by the general public” [Collins and Funatsu, 1999].

Japanese Rocket Society (JRS) In the non-government sector, the JRS has been actively conducting research on space tourism, led by people with long experience in the aviation industry. In all these studies, aviation is considered as the precursor to space tourism, particularly in the field of legislation research. JRS also studies issues for "space-worthiness" and certification of its passenger-carrying concept vehicle, “Kankoh-maru”, with reference to existing aviation rules. The "aviation model" is most appropriate for the broad range of legal and regulatory issues that need to be resolved in order to realise space tourism. This can be seen in various studies. From these current studies, it is easily imaginable that the space tourism industry can greatly benefit from the experience of the aviation sector.


23

2.2.4 Liability The Liability Treaty formulates that any launching state is liable for any damage caused by its spacecraft, whether publicly or privately operated. This unlimited liability is due to the high risk of today’s space activities, and has led governments to enforce very strict vehicle licensing procedures and safety regulations. Such liability philosophy is substantially different from the liability provisions applicable to the aviation sector, a well as the established global passenger transportation industry [Collins, 2000]. Since the early days of aviation, the Warsaw Convention played an important role in the establishment of the international air travel industry by introducing the maximum liability principle. This provision has safeguarded aviation industry and enabled insurance companies to operate with confidence and limited risk. However, after several decades of experience in airline operations and with the increased reliability of aircrafts, aviation and insurance companies no longer need the protection of a limited liability. It is highly advisable that a similar pattern be followed for space tourism, to allow for its development and expansion towards a mature market.

2.3 Business and Marketing Issues

2.3.1 Market Evolution The Space Tourism industry is likely to follow a cycle of evolution similar to the pattern observed in many terrestrial tourist areas [Butler, 1980]. This evolution can be described by a basic ‘s’-curve (see Figure 2-5) to illustrate the pattern of growth in popularity of such areas. The different phases shown in the figure are described below:

Figure 2-5 Hypothetical evolution of a tourist area [source: Canadian Geographer]


24

The Exploration Phase This phase is characterised by a small number of tourists. At this time there would be no specific facilities provided for visitors. The flow of tourists will be of relatively little significance to the economic and social life of the permanent residents. The Japanese journalist, Tohiro Akiyama, who paid US$28m to visit Mir in 1990 serves as a good example.

The Involvement Stage This stage starts when the local residents provide facilities exclusively for visitors. A basic initial market area for visitors can be defined. This stage can be compared with Dennis Tito who will travel to Mir, the latter receiving a tourist even if the facilities are not designed for tourists.

The Development Stage This stage reflects a well-defined tourist market area, shaped in part by heavy advertising in tourist-generating areas. As this stage progresses, local involvement and control of development will decline rapidly. It is then time for private initiatives to supply the space tourism market.

The Consolidation Phase This phase begins when a major part of the area's economy will be tied to tourism. When capacity levels for many variables will have been reached the space tourism market will enter the stagnation stage.

2.3.2 Market Surveys One of the significant problems for the space tourism field is the lack of in-depth market studies necessary to convince potential investors that there is enough demand for commercial space flights to make investment worthwhile [Foust 2000]. Many studies claim to have obtained various results, but it should be noted that these results are limited due to one or more reasons [Rogers 1995]: • Some were based on demography, income distribution and the experience of “exotic

tour” businesses with various assumptions and extrapolations; • Some were based on old data; • Some sample sizes were very small or gathered from space-interested populations; • Some were so vague that respondents were unaware of the characteristics of a

space trip; • Some of those carrying out the survey may have been biased towards achieving

specific outcomes. More in-depth and credible surveys are also required because institutional investors e.g. pension funds, insurance companies, etc. do not accept current surveys as proof that a market for space tourism exists. However, while the quoted cost of conducting a survey by a professional institution is relatively high (between US$25,000 and US$250,000), the cost would still be far less than 1% of the investment required for a near-term space tourism product. The above said, all current available market surveys about space tourism still indicate that people would like to pay for a space tourism product. However, what people say


25

and later do with their money are often quite different. Figure 2-6 shows the percentage of respondents to a market survey interested in travelling to space by age and country. There is clearly an enormous unsatisfied desire among the general public to travel to space [Collins 1997]. Results claim approximately 80% of young people up to the age of 40 years and approximately 30% of people in their 60s and 70s say they would like to travel to space [Collins et al. 1994], [Collins et al., 1995]. The most enthusiastic potential space tourists appear to be the Japanese (70% interested) and the least interested appear to be those living in Germany (43% interested).

Figure 2-6 Percentage of respondents interested in travelling to space by age and country

[source: Abitzsch, 1996]

When asked how much they would be prepared to pay for a short visit to space, the majority of those in favour said that they would pay 3 months' salary; about 25% said that they would pay 6 months' salary, and 10% said that they would pay 1 year's salary or more [Collins, 1997]. However, it is unclear whether or not some people would actually pay 3 years´ or 5 years´ salary for a space tourism product. Also, for individuals of high net-worth, their total wealth may be significantly higher than their annual salary. These figures may not accurately reflect the absolute amount they are willing to pay. The common ticket price target for space tourism opportunities of US$50,000 has an expected market of 1 million customers per year but it is projected that a ticket price above US$100,000 would not lead to a sustainable market (US$110,000 price gives a market of only 5000 people per year) although data is limited.

2.3.3 The Current Space Tourism Industry When excluding those activities that are only indirectly related to space, the current space tourism industry is only in its infancy. Porter´s “Five Forces Model of Competitive Structure” [Porter, 1998] categorises current and potential players in a particular industry to enable the formulation of competitive strategies. It places emphasis on external factors by examining the nature of the market environment. Although specific market and financial data regarding the current space tourism industry are still not available, a high level categorisation of the current players is as follows:


26

Industry Competitors At least three companies, Space Adventures, Incredible Adventures and Spacetopia are organising some of the activities mentioned in Paragraph 0 on a commercial basis. These companies are taking advantage of the current economic situation in Russia, which has forced the Russian Space Agency and Air Force to look for additional funding, apart from government support. Space Adventures, Ltd. This U.S. company is a partnership between a travel agency, Omega Travel, and Quark Expeditions, an adventure travel company specialising in tours to remote, extreme destinations. It was created in 1996 by a group of aerospace experts, including several NASA astronauts, for the purpose of offering a broad set of space-related and space tourism programs, eventually leading up to public flights into space once commercially available. In addition to setting up a representative outlet in the United Kingdom, called WildWings Space Travel, Space Adventures also currently has agreements with several launch vehicle companies to develop the transport carriers it plans to use for suborbital flights. Space tourism activities offered: zero-gravity flights, MiG-25 flights, sub-orbital flights (to be offered 2002 or 2003) [Space Adventures, 2000]. Incredible Adventures Inc. This U.S. company has offered a number of different adventure tourism programs since 1993, and has also expanded its products to space tourism [Incredible Adventures, 2000]. Space tourism activities offered: zero-gravity flights, MiG-25 flights, cosmonaut-training and sub-orbital flights (taking reservations for flights to be offered in a few years to come). Spacetopia Inc. This company, established in 1998, is Japan´s first space travel company. It was established to exploit the emerging market for space tourism and related services in Japan and offers space, space-related, and adventure tours [Spacetopia, 2000]. Space tourism activities offered: zero-gravity flights, MiG-25 flights and sub-orbital flights (to be offered soon). MirCorp This Amsterdam-based company provides the opportunity for tourists to visit and stay at the Russian Space Station, Mir, formerly abandoned in August 1999. MirCorp was set up by U.S. millionaire Walter Anderson, who gathered together a group of influential investors, to lease Mir from the former Russian state agency RSC Energia, which itself has a 60% stake in this space venture. MirCorp is spending up to US$200 million on renovations and requires an additional estimated US$100 million a year to operate and maintain it [Spaceviews News, 2000a]. The company plans to fund this venture by renting the space station to companies that want to conduct microgravity experiments, by performing repairs on satellites, by using the station for advertising, and by turning it into the first space hotel for space tourists (or “citizen explorers” as MirCorp likes to call them). The company believes these business strategies could generate US$500-600 million a year in revenue [Spaceviews News, 2000b]. As mentioned earlier, Dennis Tito will be MirCorp´s first client. The ticket prices for each trip to the station have been


27

indicated by MirCorp to be around US$20 million [Spaceviews News, 2000c], [MirCorp, 2000].

Suppliers Launch vehicle companies The launch vehicle companies have remarkable bargaining power with space tourism competitors because their developmental capabilities determine who will enter the sub-orbital space race first to capture and lead the waiting market. As the 3-man Soyuz is currently the only system available for space tourism, it will be used for launching MirCorp’s “citizen explorers” to the Mir space station. However, the Soyuz capsule requires a two-man crew, which limits the number of tourists that can be launched at a single time to one. Over 20 years ago [Koelle, 1997], a plan to equip the Space Shuttle with a tourist module was already proposed. However, we cannot expect the use of the Shuttle for touristic excursions in the near future since the U.S. government is not likely to allow for its use for space tourism in light of the Challenger accident in 1986. Russian Air Force and Space Agency Selling flights in military jet aircraft helps to keep the Russian Air Force planes operational while also adding flight hours to the pilots’ training, necessary for maintaining their competence levels. The Russian space agency is using the money obtained from tourists paying for cosmonaut training at Star City to help maintain the facilities. Since these business relationships are mutually beneficial in nature, these suppliers do not hold much bargaining power. Orbital Facilities MirCorp is heavily reliant upon the lease arrangement it holds with RSC Energia for the use of the Mir space station. Considering the Mir Space Station had already been completely abandoned, RSC Energia holds immense bargaining power with MirCorp.

Buyers There are two categories of customers for the space tourism industry: individual tourists and corporations planning to offer tickets for promotional reasons. Depending on the initial demand and price elasticity levels, both groups will hold equal bargaining power with space tourism companies. Their business is critical to the continued survival of this high-cost industry and its successful transition into sub-orbital and orbital flight services. Despite the space tourism industry’s high dependency upon its buyers, the buyers hold less bargaining power in comparison to the suppliers because the latter group is comprised of only the few select companies/agencies who are presently capable of providing the required infrastructure.

Substitute Products Until space travel becomes commercially available to the general public, the products outlined in Paragraph 0 will remain as substitutes to the enthusiastic space tourist at the moment. These substitutes will continue to be alternative choices for those tourists who cannot afford, are not eligible for space tourism activities, or are simply indifferent or not interested in the idea. All of these products will pose a real threat to the business of space tourism until the ticket price range for space tourism is reduced to affordable levels.


28

Potential Entrants It is anticipated that once the space tourism industry succeeds in making sub-orbital flights a reality, many players from related service industries will flood this brand new market. This will happen because the initial barrier of Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) development and its high associated risk will no longer exist. Unlike the current competitors, some potential entrants (like travel agencies, airlines, hotel operators etc.) will suffer from the competitive disadvantage of not having developed their own RLV. They will therefore either have to buy or lease RLVs directly from launch vehicle companies or form strategic partnerships with them.

S.W.O.T. Analysis of the Current Space Tourism Industry In addition to presenting the various players within the industry, an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) to the current space tourism industry as a whole is provided.

Strengths

• There is tremendous market potential across all cultures for this industry once costs of access are sufficiently reduced.

• There is already a small niche market of individuals who are able and willing to pay current launch rates so that they can travel to space.

• There is a strong economic rationale for government and private sector support for this part of the tourism industry (see Chapter 1.2).

• The view offered of Earth and the cosmos cannot be experienced firsthand from the surface.

Weaknesses

• Present launch rates are too high to offer affordable ticket prices. • A reusable launch vehicle has not yet been developed for public travel. • There is a lack of both private sector and government investment in RLV

development. • The recent failure of Iridium satellite constellation casts a shadow over any future

large-scale investment in commercial space ventures.

Opportunities

• The current launch industry needs a new market to penetrate. • RLVs can be partly based on existing technologies. • Various space agencies are also developing RLVs. • Various space agencies are beginning to acknowledge the feasibility, importance,

and reality of the coming space tourism industry, and therefore may be more willing to participate.

• The Mir Space Station and the International Space Station are currently orbital facilities that can potentially be used for additional purposes.

• The hotel industry has already begun investing in the design and development of future orbital/lunar hotels, indicating confidence in the evolution of space tourism.

Threats

• Potential investors from the private sector recognise that the present lack of laws/policies/regulations governing this emerging industry could potentially limit or derail plans of current players or future entrants.


29

• Any accidents/injuries/deaths that occur during the initial phases of space tourism could potentially setback the development of the entire industry by many years.

• Some physiological effects experienced by humans in space are still not fully understood by medical science and therefore pose risks towards passenger safety and eligibility.

• The risk from unexpected space debris impact and intense radiation exposure needs to be addressed and somehow minimised before the space tourism industry can make the transition from sub-orbital flights to orbital flights/facilities.

2.4 Medical Considerations in the Space Environment “[…] Space tourism has medical implications. [...] The effects of acceleration and microgravity exposure are well known on the corps of astronauts and cosmonauts. [...] However, there are problems using astronaut data to make inferences about the general public. Astronauts are not necessarily representative of the general public, since they are highly fit, highly screened individuals. Astronaut data tells us very little about the potential hazards of microgravity in paediatric, obstetric and geriatric populations, all of whom are potential space tourists. […] It will not be a trivial task drafting minimal medical standards for commercial space travel. It will require the collaboration of space medicine physicians, making the best guesses possible, based on limited amounts of data, with limited applicability” Robert Tarzwell [Tarzwell, 2000].

In nearly four decades of human spaceflight and exploration, our knowledge, activities, and capabilities have grown tremendously. We recognise the space environment to be both uniquely remote and hostile, with potential hazardous effects on both humans and spacecraft. Medical and physiological considerations have played a critical role in the identification and management of risks of crewed space missions since humans first ventured into space. We are, in the current decade, just beginning to appreciate the physiological and psychological effects of longer duration spaceflight beyond one or two months, and recognising potential strategies to overcome these limitations to living and working routinely in space [Nicogossian et. al., 1993] This section reviews current understanding of several of these issues and discusses examples of successful countermeasures and risk mitigation strategies. It also addresses medical support of spaceflight, including on-board capabilities, ground support and crew selection.

2.4.1 Human Hazards of the Space Environment The hostile environment of space presents extremely varied human hazards, ranging from minor annoyances with no operational or mission impact, to severe and emergent life-threatening situations. These hazards span a wide range of events, some predictable, some less so. Examples range from expected physiologic alterations to orbital debris impact during Extra Vehicular Activities (EVAs). However, the primary threats can be considered to fall in one of the following categories: • Cabin environment & altered atmosphere • Radiation • Microgravity (Cardiovascular, Neurovestibular, Musculoskeletal)


30

Cabin Environment & Altered Atmosphere Cabin pressure Since any spacecraft is a closed pressurised vessel, a safe, breathable cabin atmosphere must be continually provided to support humans. The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) on the Space Shuttle provides a safe, pressurised sea-level equivalent atmosphere of 97.9 kiloPascal (or 14.2 psi) with a 21:79 ratio of oxygen:nitrogen. Changes in atmospheric pressure can cause significant and uncomfortable, physiological effects, such as trapped gas in sinuses and ear block. Life-threatening effects can also occur due to formation of nitrogen bubbles in the bloodstream (a condition known as decompression illness or ¨the bends¨). Bubbles lodged in muscles may cause limb pain, but those in vital organs could result in stroke or life-threatening cardio-respiratory effects [Sawin and Charles, 1998]. EVA During EVA however, astronauts must work at a much lower pressure suit environment of 31.0 kiloPascal (or 4.5 psi). Higher suit pressures, besides being technically challenging, severely restrict movement necessary for EVA work. This suit pressure is therefore physiologically equivalent to a high altitude, un-pressurised flight. To minimise risk of decompression problems, during a period of two hours prior to EVA, the Shuttle ambient pressure is decreased to 70.3 kiloPascal (or 10.2 psi) and EVA crewmembers undergo a pre-breathe protocol using 100% oxygen, to ¨wash out¨ nitrogen. During EVA, the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) functions as the crewmember’s sole life support system, with a breathable atmosphere, environmental protection, and consumables that are fully self-contained. While there has not been a documented or reported case of decompression illness (“bends”) occurring in nearly 400 person-hours of EVA to date, the risk is an ever-present one. Air and water quality Since there are many serious threats to air quality aboard a spacecraft, atmospheric monitoring, often with crewmember intervention, is an important additional element. Air quality can also be threatened by accumulation of toxic contaminants from hardware off-gassing, presence of combustion products, utility chemicals, or even local accumulation of exhaled carbon dioxide. There are also biological sources of possible environmental contamination, such as microbiological contamination and human waste storage. Another important ECLSS function is to provide a safe and adequate supply of onboard portable water, which is essential for drinking, hygiene and food preparation. Smoke, fire & toxic inhalations An ECLSS system must provide adequate warning and be fault-tolerant in emergency situations. Immediate threats such as those that occurred on the Mir space station (fire, atmospheric contamination with ethylene glycol solution - i.e. antifreeze - or a cabin depressurisation) can have potentially fatal consequences. Adequate, redundant, and fault-tolerant environmental control systems, combined with appropriate crew training, have been the available countermeasures to mitigate these risks. Other environmental concerns A spacecraft environment must provide varied facilities: for scheduled activities, adequate rest, feeding, exercise, hygiene, and entertainment (such as Earth viewing).


31

Environmental issues can potentially impact these functions. For example, noise levels that exceed the 85 dBA Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) standard for occupational exposure are likely to require acoustic monitoring and hearing protection. Concerns for noise from cabin fans and onboard equipment have driven the use of acoustic dosimeters to measure sound pressure levels on the ISS on recent Shuttle missions.

Radiation Our knowledge of human exposure to the radiation environment in space has grown considerably in recent decades, but there is still much to be learned. We understand with reasonable confidence how to predict and monitor human exposure to low-dose ionising radiation given various orbital altitudes, inclinations, ground tracks, and mission activities. Standards for radiation exposure are based on the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. We also hope that these standards will minimise, with reasonable certainty, the long-term cancer risk. However, our current capability to predict and monitor Solar Particle Events (SPEs) is somewhat limited. We may be able to give LEO vehicles advance warning of an approaching solar flare, but with notice of only a few hours. More research is needed in ground-based radiobiology and the improvement of current models for the interaction of radiation with biological matter, tissues or organs. In space, the highest radiation exposure risk clearly occurs during EVA activities. Since astronaut Ed White’s first step outside the orbiting U.S. Gemini spacecraft in 1965, NASA has conducted about 400 hours of space walks (see Figure 2-7 for instance). In contrast, to assemble the different modules of the ISS will require some 160 space walks – some recently completed - totalling nearly 2000 crew hours [NASA EVA, 2000].

Figure 2-7 EVA Astronaut during 6¾ hour space walk on STS-101 [source: NASA]

The amount of radiation exposure on a future tourist vehicle will depend on the type and inclination of a LEO. For instance, at a high-inclination orbit of 51.6 degrees, the track of the ISS traverses high-latitude radiation environments that vary greatly over time and are sometimes quite harsh. During intense solar activity, areas around the poles, which are accessible to SPE particles, enlarge until they engulf more than a quarter of the ISS orbit. Current countermeasures against space flight radiation exposure are limited to


32

setting ALARA standards, prediction, and monitoring. Some biologically active antioxidant compounds to be used orally have also been investigated. Clearly, for a mission and tourist excursions beyond LEO, additional spacecraft shielding and/or a radiation storm shelter will be required, as well as an autonomous capability for solar activity detection to monitor the spacecraft’s local radiation environment.

Microgravity Human exposure to the microgravity environment of space has effects on many physiological systems, but the effects on the neurovestibular, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems predominate, particularly immediately following exposure and on return to 1g. Table 2-4 summarises the physiologic effects of microgravity. Neurovestibular Human spatial orientation in microgravity differs significantly from that on Earth [Glasauer and Mittelstaedt, 1998]. In microgravity, normal signals of head tilt and linear acceleration must be reinterpreted by the brain, resulting in disorientation and the experience of Space Motion Sickness (SMS). The latter syndrome, a result of inadequate ambient orientation cues, is one of the first physiologic alterations noticed during someone’s first hours in space. Studies performed on Shuttle astronauts have shown that 2/3 of crewmembers develop symptoms [Jennings et. al., 1998], [Davis et. al., 1988]. Some of these crewmembers use pre-flight or in-flight medications to minimise the adverse effects of SMS. Susceptibility to SMS is difficult to predict and appears to be independent of provocation during parabolic flights and ground-based training [Markham and Diamond, 1993], [Harm and Parker, 1994]. See also Table 2-3. It is reasonable to anticipate that SMS will be a concern for civilian space travel, but it should not be a significant limitation for initial sub-orbital flights. For short duration spaceflight, SMS might be readily managed by pre-flight medication of passengers. The possibility of side effects in crewmembers, however, would preclude medication use.

Table 2-3 NASA classification of space motion sickness (SMS)

Classification Features SMS incidence (first time Shuttle astronauts)

None No signs or symptoms 33%

Mild

One to several transient symptoms No operational impact All symptoms resolved in 72 hours

31%

Moderate

Several symptoms of a persistent nature Minimal operational impact All symptoms resolved in 72 hours

24%

Severe Several symptoms of a persistent nature Significant performance decrement All symptoms resolved in 72 hours

13%

Cardiovascular Microgravity has profound effects on the cardiovascular system which appear early and continue to develop over time. Once on orbit, the blood, which is normally pooled in the


33

legs, moves to the area of least resistance, the large venous vessels in the chest. About two litres of fluid shifts headwards, resulting in the facial puffiness commonly seen in photographs of astronauts. This is accompanied by an alteration of taste and smell, feelings of nasal congestion, and a decrease in leg diameter known as “bird legs” of space. Volume receptors in the neck and heart mistakenly perceive this shift as a fluid overload and signal the kidneys to excrete the “extra” fluid in the form of urine (diuresis). Upon return to one-g, fluid returns to the legs and some individuals may be unable to stand without feeling dizzy or light-headed, some may even faint. This phenomenon is called orthostatic intolerance – an inability to maintain blood pressure upon standing.

Table 2-4 Summary of physiologic effects of microgravity

Neurovestibular Cardiovascular Musculoskeletal

On Orbit More than 2 out of 3 will develop SMS, some with severe nausea & vomiting May be unable to tolerate rapid head movement May last 24 to 48 hours

Puffy neck and face, leading to decreased taste and smell Decreased cardiac muscle size and filling Up to a third of aerobic exercise capacity may be lost on long-duration flights

Lower extremity and Paravertebral muscle strength decreased 40% Upper extremity strength decreased 20% Weight-bearing bone mass decreased 1 to 3 % each month, on average, based on Mir Experience

Return to One-G

Rapid head movement incapacitation Target acquisition delayed > 2 seconds Difficulty with eye-head coordination and tracking

Baroreceptor / autonomic nervous system dysfunction Orthostatic Intolerance: Up to 20% may feel lightheadedness after 10-day mission After long-duration mission all crew remain supine at landing Fluid loading and LCG minimise intolerance

For short duration missions, exercise in the days prior to Earth return improves tolerance of One-G. There is significant individual variability. For long duration missions, crew are not expected to be able to egress unassisted.

Recovery Return to normal from several hours to few days

Return to normal from several hours to few days Cardiac effects (arrhythmias) may persist post flight

For long duration flight data limited. If full recovery occurs at all it may require 2 to 3 years following a 4 to 6 month flight

Musculoskeletal - bone loss and muscle wasting In microgravity, loss of physical stress or loading on weight bearing bones causes adverse effects. The weight bearing bones in the back and lower extremities are affected more than those in the upper extremities and rest of the body. Bones weaken


34

and demineralise, losing on average 1% to 3% calcium per month, which is excreted in the urine. In microgravity, humans do not move by locomotion or walking but rather by translation, utilising upper body muscles, hence the large muscles in the lower extremities quickly begin to lose mass (disuse atrophy). This occurs despite regular on-orbit exercise of various types, such as treadmill, cycle ergometer, rowing, bungees. Upon return to Earth, muscle mass can be fully recovered through physical rehabilitation.

2.4.2 Successful Countermeasures and Re-Adaptation to 1g A great variety of countermeasures have been tried to mitigate the untoward effects of a deconditioned crewmember returning to Earth after exposure to microgravity. The most successful (for short duration flights) have in some ways been the simplest. Exercise (especially during the days before return to Earth) and fluid loading (Shuttle crewmembers drink water and ingest salt tablets before landing) can mitigate against orthostatic intolerance. For musculoskeletal decrements, the recovery period, in general, is dependent on the time spent in space but varies among individuals. During recovery, individuals may be restricted in some day-to-day life activities, particularly driving and flying. Following return from long-duration spaceflight, readaptation is slower (than after short-term flight) and its effects more pronounced. An otherwise healthy, deconditioned crewmember, upon re-exposure to 1g, will most likely be unable to egress, stand, or walk without assistance, and may be significantly incapacitated. With only a few individuals who have lived in microgravity for extended time periods, interpretation of data from long-duration missions has been challenging. The longest duration spaceflight to date was made by Cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov, who was on board the Mir Expedition EO-15 for 437 days ending in 1994. Astronaut Shannon Lucid currently holds the United States single mission space flight endurance record, from 1996 on the Russian Space Station Mir, of 188 days [Mark Wade, 2000].

2.4.3 Medical Standards and Astronaut Selection “Less than three years ago (from 1998), the FAA was delegated the responsibility of licensing all US commercial space launch activities to ensure they are conducted safely and responsibly. This oversight includes commercial launch sites, commercial launch vehicles, and the payloads launched aboard these vehicles. Within the FAA, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, is tasked with carrying out this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interest of the United States […] The agency has not yet had to confront the safety issues surrounding the transportation of humans into space as part of a commercial venture. However, this will soon change”, Jon L. Jordan (MD, SD, FAA Federal Air Surgeon), [Jordan, 2000].

The remoteness of space has dictated careful selection, evaluation and training of crewmembers since human spaceflight began. It has also influenced medical requirements for on-orbit medical capabilities and mission ground support. Currently astronauts and cosmonauts undergo careful medical and psychological screening,


35

selection and physiologic training prior to spaceflight. Nevertheless, in just over 60 person-years of human presence in space by the world’s various agencies, medical treatment of ill or injured astronauts and cosmonauts has occurred with a low yet regular frequency. Ground based and on-board medical support is designed to address some of these risks and will also have to be an integral part of commercial space travel.

Clinical Conditions During Spaceflight Despite crew selection and training, a variety of clinical conditions have occurred on orbit and many have required treatment. Some are a direct consequence of the human hazards already discussed. Other are related to additional adverse physiological effects of spaceflight, such as decreased cell-mediated immunity (immunosuppression), delayed wound healing, increased urinary and respiratory infections, latent virus re-activation, anaemia, weight loss and stress. The operational impact of these events can be minimised by both ground-based and on-orbit medical support. Some typical conditions encountered during spaceflight (in approximate order of occurrence), include loss of appetite, space motion sickness, fatigue, insomnia, dehydration, dermatitis (general skin irritation), back pain, upper respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, cardiac arrhythmia and others [Billica et. al., 1996].

Earth-Based Medical Support During Shuttle operations, ground-based NASA physicians, known as flight surgeons, assess crew health and well-being during all mission activities. They are supported by biomedical engineers who monitor life support parameters such as atmospheric pressure, oxygen concentration, ambient temperature, humidity and radiation levels from Mission Control Center – Houston (MCC-H). Private medical conferences, using a secure, air-to-ground communications link, are routinely conducted between MCC-H and the orbiter. In addition, NASA physicians can conduct two-way telemedicine between the orbiter and MCC-H, as well as utilising input from a network of medical specialists.

On-Orbit Medical Care NASA trains all flight crewmembers in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and first aid procedures. Astronauts, flight surgeons, and biomedical engineers receive training in high altitude physiology. In an altitude (hypobaric) chamber, they experience the physiologic changes and alterations caused by changes in ambient pressure and hypoxia. Training is also provided to deal with psychosocial issues. The equipment listed below forms part of the medical care system in place for astronaut support. The Shuttle Orbiter Medical System (SOMS) The SOMS and the Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) contains equipment for in-flight medical care and support for illnesses and injuries, and provides capability to stabilise crewmembers for return to Earth. The medical kit provided in-flight is called the Shuttle Orbiter Medical System. Although not as large in volume as the IMSS used in Skylab, this system is comprised of several kits3. During Shuttle missions of 12 days or more, considered long duration missions, the SOMS kit is complemented by the Medical Extended Duration Orbiter Pack (MEDOP), which contains additional medical capabilities.

3 Emergency Medical Kit (EMK); Medications and Bandage Kit (MBK) Electrode Attachment Kit (EAK); Medical Accessory Kit (MAK); Contamination Cleanup Kit (CCK); and Airway Medical Accessory Kit (AMAK)


36

The Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) To support in-flight medical care, monitor the environment, and minimise risk during construction and operation of the ISS, NASA has developed the Crew Health Care System. This system consists of three components: (1) Health Maintenance System for providing medical care; (2) Environmental Health System for monitoring of the internal environment of the ISS; and (3) Countermeasures System that provides hardware and procedures for crew member exercise to minimise the effect of space flight on the body. The Telemedicine Instrumentation Pack The telemedicine instrumentation pack (see Figure 2-8) collects medical audio, video and data from the patient in space and also interfaces to the SOMS and CHeCS. Data capabilities include electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms, heart rate, blood oxygenation, and blood pressure. Medical video capabilities include eye, skin, ear-nose-throat and general macro imaging, and an electronic stethoscope can be used to collect hear heart and lung sounds [Logan, 1997], [NASA/JSC Medical, 2000]. Private medical conferences (PMCs) between crewmembers and their flight surgeons, as well as vital physiological parameters continue to characterise telemedicine in space flight. In addition, video downlink capability can be used to support medical events when they occur.

Figure 2-8 The telemedicine instrumentation pack [source: NASA]

During the ISS programme and future commercial space flight, telemedicine will play a critical role. In the case of the ISS, private medical conferences will be conducted on a regular basis between the crewmembers and the flight surgeons at the MCC-H. MCC-M in Russia and other control centres around the world will be able to talk with their flight surgeon in their home country. Additional hardware will be provided on-orbit to facilitate and enhance current capabilities. Physiological parameters will be down-linked to ground controllers during extravehicular activities while construction or maintenance is being conducted on the ISS. In addition, biomedical data will also be transmitted to the ground during medical and biomedical research conducted on the ISS. The ISS will provide a platform for evaluating emerging technologies in telecom-munications and information systems. These technologies will include things like virtual


37

environments, smart sensors, and decision support systems for aiding a medical provider on-board the ISS.

2.5 Current Engineering and Environmental Issues

2.5.1 Current Methods to Access Space Currently there are only two launch vehicles in operation that can carry humans into space, both funded by government space agencies. That is NASA with the Space Shuttle and the Russian Space Agency with the Soyuz launcher and capsule. These vehicles have been used to conduct various scientific missions, but ever since the initiation of the ISS assembly in 1998, both vehicles are now devoted to its assembly, crew transfer and supply flights. Therefore, at least for the near future the ISS is the sole destination and reason for government space agencies to operate manned RLV´s [Aviation Week, 2000]. Some Soyuz vehicles funded by MirCorp are however still launched to this Russian space station. One of the intentions of MirCorp is the use of Soyuz and Mir for the launch of space tourists [Associate, 2000].

Transportation Systems The NASA Space Shuttle The Shuttle (see Figure 2-9) was the first reusable space ship to go into space and is also the most complex flying vehicle ever constructed. By 1993 the Shuttle had flown over 50 missions after its maiden voyage in 1981. It is considered to be the first generation of reusable launch vehicles. The design is still considered state of the art and was originally conceived to be the universal spacecraft that would replace all the previous crew carrying spacecraft. The Space Shuttle consists of a reusable orbiter with two recoverable and reusable solid rocket boosters and an expendable external tank. It can carry a crew of 8 people but in case of an emergency can carry an additional two people [Harland, 1998].

Figure 2-9 NASA Space Shuttle [source: NASA]

The Soyuz capsule


38

The Soyuz (see Figure 2-10) is used mainly for LEO missions and uses its three stages to get three people into orbit. It was developed in the mid 1960´s, but modernised several times and is still the only manned vehicle operated by Russia. The latest version, Soyuz TM2, will be used to launch cosmonauts to the ISS and will also serve as an emergency return vehicle during the early operation phases of the station.

Figure 2-10 The Russian Soyuz [source: SpaceAndTech]

The Shuttle and the Soyuz are currently the only viable vehicles for the space tourist. There are however several areas to consider, such as cost, capacity and risk as well as the possibility of these vehicles actually being used for space tourism.

Launch and Landing Sites The launch sites currently used by the only manned space vehicles are Baikonur for the Soyuz and the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida for the Space Shuttle. These sites are only equipped for regular launches (as currently conducted), and would have to be expanded to be suitable for space tourism. For space tourists, the ideal case may be to have a separate launch site but currently only the above launch sites are available. The Soyuz capsule descends with the aid of parachutes and lands on land. The Shuttle orbiter however lands as an airplane, although unpowered. After re-entry, the orbiter glides to Earth and lands on a runway with a touch down speed of approximately 190 knots. It can therefore be landed at many regular airports.

Cost of Operation Cost will be an important factor for the space tourist. The Shuttle is still expensive to launch at a high-end price of US$20,000 per kilogram and actually the most expensive launch vehicle currently in operation. As for any launcher, the Shuttle is designed to have minimum mass. This leads to a relatively small crew cabin, which could also be interpreted as minimum comfort. Furthermore, the average cost of a Shuttle trip is in the order of US$400 million, mainly for operations and maintenance. Hence for a journey in a cabin obviously not designed for tourists, there will be a very limited market. Studies have been performed for fitting the Shuttle orbiter with a passenger module in its cargo


39

bay, but this resulted in still too high a ticket price of around US$3.6 million [Rogers, 1999].

Reliability The NASA Shuttle boasts the title of most reliable launch system in service anywhere, with a success to failure ratio of better than 98%. However, following the Challenger disaster, it emphasised just how fragile and dangerous these forms of transport are. Although we have the ability to send humans to LEO using 1960´s government developed technology, the high costs and risks will probably limit the usefulness of the current launch systems for space tourism purposes. Access to space may have a long way to go before it ever becomes routine.

2.5.2 Other Ways to Get Into Space There have also been other developments of vehicles capable of transporting humans to space [Shahrokhi et. al. 1989].

The Buran (Soviet Union) In the mid 1970´s, the Soviet Union initiated the development of a reusable launch vehicle as a means to match the US Space Shuttle. It was known as the Buran and in November 1988 was launched into Earth orbit and returned un-piloted. The second Buran was designed and built to carry up to 10 crewmembers. However, due to lack of funds the Buran program was cancelled in June 1994. Only two flight mock-ups and six full-scale mock-ups of the Buran were ever built.

The Hermes (ESA) The European Space Agency (ESA) planned a piloted, reusable space plane to be launched on an expendable Ariane 5 booster. Although originated as a French project, development costs increased to such an extent that other European countries were asked to support through ESA. In 1987, ESA initiated the development of the small shuttle known as Hermes (see Figure 2-11).

Figure 2-11 The Hermes shuttle [source: ESA]

Hermes was designed to launch three astronauts to orbit up to 800km altitude on missions of 30 to 90 days. But after consideration of a possible joint development of an in-orbit infrastructure with Russia, the Hermes programme was cancelled in 1995 as a result of political and financial reasons. Although much technology was developed for the vehicle, it was never build.


40

The HOPE-X (Japan) The National Space Development Agency (NASDA) in Japan also attempted to produce a first step towards the next generation space transportation by developing a small, unmanned re-entry vehicle, the H-IIA Orbiting Plane – Experimental (HOPE-X, see Figure 2-12) that would be launched by the H-IIA launch vehicle. Following two consecutive failures of the H-II launch vehicle in 1998 and 1999, NASDA reviewed its overall projects to focus its resources on the success of the H-IIA launch vehicle, an upgraded version of H-II. The development of the HOPE-X is therefore currently on hold.

Figure 2-12 The HOPE-X shuttle [source: NASDA]

Shenzhou (China) China is currently developing a manned capsule under the name Project 921. The first, unmanned test capsule, called Shenzhou (see Figure 2-13), was launched on November 20, 1999 from the Jiuquan Launch Centre. It carried a dummy passenger to measure the effects the flight would have on humans, and was safely returned and retrieved after completing 14 orbits. At the moment of writing, it is believed that a second unmanned flight will follow soon and a manned flight will be performed in the next couple of years.

Figure 2-13 The Shenzhou capsule [source:

Unfortunately the shuttles mentioned in this section have all not succeeded for one reason or another. Apart from Soyuz and the Space Shuttle, there are other launchers that may possibly be modified to accommodate humans, such as the Ariane 5, Titan and Proton. However, none of these launchers is currently man-rated or can be fitted with a passenger capsule.


41

2.5.3 Current Engineering Limitations We are at the frontier of engineering and rocket building and due to our limited, although highly successful technological advancements, there exist today many limitations that prevent us from having more regular and cheaper flights to space. Currently liquid rocket propellant systems have an advantage over other types of chemical combustion such that they have the highest achievable performance and can be operated during all phases of the flight. Solid rocket propellants are however still used (mainly for lift-off) because of their high thrust. For space tourism, the use of solid propellant rockets will very probably not be an option because they cannot be turned off. The relatively high risk involved with the use of these systems will not be acceptable [Sutton, 1986]. Because of the limitations of rocket and structure materials technology available today, it is not possible to construct a single stage rocket that can effectively deliver itself or a spacecraft into orbit. Instead, a series of smaller rockets are used that are ignited and then burn out in succession, a process known as staging. Ideally, the next generation of launchers would be formed by fully reusable, single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles.

2.5.4 Environmental Aspects Environmental impact issues are one of the key elements to consider since they can have a major impact on launcher selection and the space tourism industry. One good example of the importance of environmental aspects on an aerospace project is the Concorde. Indeed, in the early 1970s, environmental groups (“Anti-Concordists”) protested the use of the Concorde because of its deleterious effects on the environment [Feldman, 1985]. The exotic fuel it used to achieve supersonic speed at about 18,000m (close to the ozone layer) produced nitrogen oxides among other gases when burned. A fleet of these planes would have contributed in reducing the ozone layer faster than the total worldwide output of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Noise pollution was another issue: the sonic boom created by the plane travelling above the speed of sound restricted its use over land. These factors greatly contributed in limiting the use of the Concorde. The three major environmental issues to be discussed pertaining to civilian space transportation systems are air pollution, noise pollution and space debris.

Air Pollution The “cleanest” current propellants are liquid oxygen with liquid hydrogen, where the main exhaust gas is water vapour, and liquid oxygen with kerosene where the exhaust gases are water vapour and CO2. The latter gases could contribute to greenhouse effects if produced in large quantities; contribution of the total production from today’s rocket engines is negligible [Sauvel and Revue, 1993]. Solid propellants, such as butalane used in the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters produce potentially more harmful substances such as hydrochloric acid for example and other gases that could contribute to ozone layer depletion. Although current space activities have a very limited if not negligible contribution to air pollution, future activities will be on a more massive scale and could certainly have a significant impact if the transportation system is not carefully designed. The following table summarises the different types of pollution generated by different types of rockets/propellants as compared to other human activities and natural emissions.


42

Table 2-5 Current knowledge of different types of pollution

Toxic Cloud Acid Rain Ozone Layer

Depletion Greenhouse

effects

Solid Propellants

Low local effects (HCl)

Low local effects Infinitesimal quantities but effects not well known (ClOx, NOx, HOx)

Infinitesimal effects (CO2, H2O)

Liquid Propellants (incl. Hypergolics)

Local danger in case of accident during ground testing

Very low

Other human activities

Important effects from chemical industries and all energy producing activities

Important effects from vehicles, incineration plants, thermal generation power plants

Important effects (CFCs)

Important effects: Fires, thermal generation power plants, vehicles…

Natural events

Volcanoes Volcanoes Marine aerosols

Volcanoes

Translated from French, Nouvelle Revue d’Aéronautique et d’Astronautique, numéro 3, 1993.

Noise Pollution Irrespective of their design philosophy (expendable vs. reusable, vertical vs. horizontal take-off), space transportation vehicles will be equipped with more powerful and potentially noisier engines than conventional aircrafts. Assuming that noise regulations currently applicable to airports will be extended to space vehicles, the issue will become increasingly critical as the space tourism industry expands [Nagatomo et.al. 2000]. If the same nuisance quantification units presently used for aviation will be applied (i.e. WECPNL, or Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived Noise Level), the expected increase of space flights traffic will probably exceed the currently allowed noise levels. Initial absence of regulations aviation benefited from during the first few decades of its development will not apply to space tourism. While spaceports have traditionally been located in remote and isolated areas for public safety reasons, the involvement of the general public as potential market will lead space tourism ventures to operate their vehicles from airport-type facilities close to urban areas, or even make use of existing air transportation services and infrastructures. Strict noise reduction requirements imposed on space vehicles will therefore have a significant impact on their engineering development. This might lead to satisfactory control of the resulting noise pollution levels.

Orbital Environment Pollution Production of debris The production of Earth orbiting debris or “space junk” has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the space exploration activities. Despite the general awareness of the need for protection of the space environment on a universal scale, the international space community has not yet reached the necessary level of consensus to


43

allow for the introduction and implementation of effective mitigation measures [Jehn, 2000]. In the perspective of a significant growth of private commercial space activities, operators of space tourism services will have to contribute together with the other space users to the resolution of this problem. In particular, the most likely introduction of some sort of liability or penalty for debris production applicable to owners and operators of space vehicles and orbital accommodation infrastructures will contribute to minimising the risk for even accidental fragments release. “Since human activities in space currently take place at low altitudes, the debris they release experiences rapid orbital decay and does not contribute to the long-term debris population. Although a number of methods exist to bring refuse back to Earth, they will not reduce the overall long-term debris hazard” [National Academy, 1995].

Figure 2-14 Orbital debris currently in LEO [source: NASA]

The interest of commercial ventures in ensuring the safety of space tourists will hopefully lead to their active participation in collective actions of space cleansing, from de-orbiting to removal or destruction of orbital debris. The resulting cost impacts may possibly be compensated by the expected reductions in launch costs. Impact by debris The current hazards of crewed spacecraft encountering space debris in LEO are relatively low. The probability that a given spacecraft will be struck by debris varies with its orbital altitude and, to a lesser extent, its orbital inclination. LEO activities take place below the regions where impact with medium (1 mm to 10 cm) or large ( > 10 cm) debris is most likely, namely between 750km and 1000km and again around 1500km. Additionally, the number of catalogued debris objects is highest between 60º and 100º orbital inclination, in contrast to current crewed LEO activities at 28.5 and 51.6º [Stitch, 1994]. “In 39 years of space activities some 3750 launches led to more than 23000 observable space objects (larger than 10 cm) of which currently 7500 are still on orbit. Only 6% of the catalogued orbit population are operational spacecraft, while 50% can be attributed to decommissioned satellites, spent upper stages, and mission related objects (launch adapters, lens covers, etc.). The remainder of 44% is originating from 129 on-orbit fragmentations which have been recorded since 1961” [ESA, 2000]. Also see Figure 2-14.


44

Nevertheless, there are no confirmed instances of orbital debris seriously damaging or destroying a spacecraft or injuring a crewmember during EVA. To help minimise the hazard from orbital debris, whenever mission objective allows, a Space Shuttle orientation is generally chosen that will cause the least number of window impacts [NASA, 1993a]. See Figure 2-15 for the damage on a Space Shuttle window caused by debris impact. Also, an orbital altitude below 320 km is chosen whenever possible [NASA, 1993b]. A requirement for the ISS is that the probability of a critical failure due to debris impact be less than 0.5% per year.

Figure 2-15 Orbital debris impact damage on Space Shuttle STS-8 forward flight deck window

[source: NASA]

2.6 Summary Currently Space related tourism is restricted to adventures and recreation opportunities related to space but yet never leave Earth’s atmosphere. These activities help to increase the market potential for actual space tourism by making the client crave for the “real” space tourism experience. Adventure tourism is clearly a large market and still growing and may be the branching arm into space tourism related activities. With current market trends it is clear that there is a huge potential market for space tourism and many people are willing to pay a considerable amount to experience space travel. But before space tourism can really flourish, some important key areas must be addressed. In contrast to the early days of aviation, space tourism activities will have to deal with a complex legal framework. No specific international space law has yet been defined for space tourism. However, existing space laws can have a significant impact on space tourism activities. Including in these laws are a number of international treaties, conventions and resolutions drawn up by a UN subcommittee. The ISS will serve as a first testing ground for some of these laws that could later be adapted for the space tourism market. Further examples can be drawn from the current aviation industry regulations. Due to the initial high risk the space tourism industry will experience, governments will have to provide unlimited liability. This responsibility will then shift to private companies having only limited liability as the industry becomes more mature and reliable.


45

The space tourism market will evolve through different phase, starting with adventure tourists exploring space travel by paying several million dollars for a space journey ending in a well-developed tourist market with lower prices and easy accessibility. Current market surveys already indicate that on average 80% of people between the age of 20 and 29 are interested in space travel. Several industry competitors are aiming for this market by providing Earth-based space related tourism activities. For wealthy space enthusiasts, MirCorp will offer rides to the Mir space station from 2001. One of the biggest strengths of the emerging space tourism market is the strong economic rationale for government and private sector support. As opposed to the infancy of the space tourism legal frame, a lot of ground-breaking work has already been done in the space medicine field. The altered cabin atmosphere, increased radiation environment and effects of microgravity on the neurovestibular, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems are all fairly well understood, especially for short duration space flights. Through a network of Earth-based medical support, various minor clinical conditions encountered during space flight can be treated, using telemedicine facilities available at mission control centres. Unfortunately space transportation is still very expensive and only the USA Space Shuttle and the Russian Soyuz capsule can carry humans into space today at a high-end cost of about US$20,000 per kg. Efforts to expand the range of human-rated vehicles have not succeeded up to now, for example the Hermes, HOPE-X and Buran shuttles. Various engineering limitations, for example engine technology, will have to be overcome before the price of space transportation will drop. Technology developments must also take environmental aspects such as air and noise pollution, space debris production and debris impact into account. We are at the very frontier of space tourism. We have sent humans into orbit and with the incredible pace of technological advancements it is now time to address the above issues. The next Chapter looks at the near-term prospects of space travel as opposed to the current activities related to space tourism discusses in this Chapter.

References

Antarctica Flights Online (2000). (WWW document) http://www.AntarcticaFlights.com.au/. (accessed August 2000). Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST), Federal Aviation Administration (1999a), Interim Safety Guidance for Reusable Launch Vehicles. (WWW document) http://ast.faa.gov/pdf/isg_draft_a.pdf (accessed August 2000). Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST), Federal Aviation Administration (1999b). Concept of Operations in the National Airspace System in 2005. Aviation Week and Space Technology Aerospace. (2000). Source Book 2000. Volume 152, No. 3. McGraw-Hill.


46

Billica, R.D., Simmons, S.C., Mathes, K.L., et al. (1996). Perception of the Medical Risk of Spaceflight. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. 67(5), 467-473. May. Collins, P et al. (1994). Commercial Implications of Market Research on Space Tourism. Journal of Space Technology and Science, Vol 10, No 2, pp 3-11. Collins, P et al. (1995). Demand for Space Tourism in America and Japan, and its Implications for Future Space Activities, Proceedings of 6th ISCOPS, AAS Vol 91, pp 601-610. Collins, P. (1997) . Space Tourism – The Surprising New Industry. (WWW document). www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_the_surprising_new_industry.shtml (accessed August 2000). Collins, P. and Funatsu, Y. (1999). Collaboration with Aviation - The Key to Commercialisation of Space Activities. In: 50th IAF Congress, October 7, 1999, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Collins, P. (2000). The Regulatory Reform Agenda for the Era of Passenger Space Transportation. (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_regulatory_reform_agenda_for_the_era_of_passenger_space_transportation.shtml Davis, J.R., Vanderploeg, J.M., Santy, P.A., Jennings, R.T., Stewart, D.F. (1988). Space motion sickness during 24 flights of the space shuttle. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. December. ESA (2000). Space Debris Activities at ESOC. (WWW document). http://www.esoc.esa.de/external/mso/debris.html . (accessed August 2000). Feldman, Elliot. (1985). Concorde and Dissent: Explaining High Technology Project Failures in Britain and France. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Foust, J. (2000). Slow Progress for Space Tourism. (WWW document). SpaceViews. www.spaceviews.com/2000/07/article1a.html (accessed August 2000) Glasauer S, Mittelstaedt H. (1998). Perception of spatial orientation in Microgravity. Brain Research Reviews. November. Harland, D.M. (1998). The Space Shuttle, Roles, Missions and Accomplishments. Praxis Publishing. Harm, D.L., Parker, D.E. (1994). Preflight adaptation for space orientation and SMS. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. June. Incredible Adventures (2000). (WWW document). http://www.incredible-adventures.com (accessed August 2000). Jehn, R. (2000). Introduction to the problem of space debris. Presented at ISU-SSP 2000, Valparaiso, Chile.


47

Jennings, R.T., Davis, J.R., Santy, P.A. (1998). Comparison of aerobic fitness and space motion sickness during the shuttle program. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. May. Jordan, J.L. MD (2000). Commercial Space Transportation: Coming Attractions. (WWW document). JDAA Medical Standards http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400A/FASMB/fas9802/editorl.htm. (accessed August 2000). Journeys and expeditions to the geographical North Pole (2000). Ski trip schedule. (WWW document). http://www.polarcircle.com/pages_us/program_ski.htm (accessed August 2000). Houston, A. and Rycroft, M. (2000). Key’s to Space. International Space University. Chapter 12-3. Basic Principles of International Space Law. McGraw-Hill. Koelle, D.E. (1997). Technical Assessment of the Minimum “Cost per Flight” Potential for Space Tourism. International Symposium on Space Tourism, Bremen, March 20-22. Cited in: Reichert, M. (1999). The Future of Space Tourism, IAA-99-IAA.1.3.07. 50th International Astronautical Congress, October 4-8, Amsterdam. Logan, J. (1997). Operational medicine and health care delivery; in long-duration space flight. Fundamentals of space life sciences. Vol. 1; Malabar, FL, Krieger Publishing Co., 1997, p. 149-157, Fundamentals of space life sciences. Vol. 1; Malabar, FL, Krieger Publishing Co., 1997, p. 149-157. Markham, C.H., Diamond, S.G. (1993). A predictive test for SMS. Journal of Vestibular Research. Fall. Mark Wade´s Encyclopedia Astronautica (2000). Lucid. (WWW document). http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/astros/lucid.htm. (accessed August 2000). MirCorp press release. (August 8, 2000). MirCorp and Producer of Network Television Blockbuster Series "Survivor" Announce Partnership to Produce New Television Series (WWW document). http://www.mirstation.com/news_news13.html . (accessed August 2000). Nagatomo, M., Hanada, T., Naruo, Y., Collins, P.Q. (2000). Study on Airport Services for Space Tourism. (WWW document). Presented at the 6th International Space Conference of Pacific Societies. Marina del Rey, CA. USA. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/study_on_airport_services_for_space_tourism.shtml (accessed August 2000). NASA EVA Chronology. (2000). Space Station Extravehicular Activity. (WWW document). http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/eva/index.html, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheet/pdfs/EVACron.pdf (accessed August 2000) NASA (1993a). NASA Johnson Space Center Flight Rules. FlightRule 2-77. Pp. 2-80a – 2.80b. Houston, Texas: NASA Johnson Space Center.


48

NASA. (1993b). Space Shuttle Operational Flight Design Standard Ground Rules and Constraints. NSTS-21075, Rev. A, Leve B, Change 6, April 30, 4.2.4.2. Washington, D.C. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA/JSC Medical Operations Branch Mission Support web site. (2000). (WWW document). http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/sa/sd/sd2/missup.htm. (accessed August 2000). National Academy of Sciences. (1995). Orbital Debris – A Technical Assessment National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Nicogossian, A.E., Huntoon, C.L., Pool, S. (1993). Space Physiology and Medicine, Third Edition. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. OŃeil, D. (compiler) et al. (1997). General Public Space Travel and Tourism – Volume 1 Executive Summary. NASA & STA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. http://www.spacetransportation.org/genpub~2.pdf. (accessed August 2000). Peakware World Mountain Encyclopedia (2000). (WWW document). http://www.peakware.com/encyclopedia/peaks/everest.htm (accessed August 2000). Porter, Michael E. Michael E. Porter on Competition. Harvard Business School Pr: 1998. Quark Expeditions. (2000). Explore Antarctica (WWW document). http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/antarctic/nav/vavil_set.html (accessed August 2000). Rogers, T.F. (1995). Space Tourism: The Perspective from Japan and Some Implications for the United States. Journal of Practical Applications in Space, Vol. VI, No. 2, 109-149. Rogers, T.F. (1999). A Conceptual Space Transportation "Window Of Opportunity" – Private Sector Use Of Some Very Low Cost Shuttle Trips During The Next Five - Six Years. (WWW document). http://www.spacetransportation.org/window.htm (accessed August 2000). Sauvel, J., Revue, N. (1993). L’examen des Pollutions liées aux moteurs-fusées, d’Aéronautique et d’Astronautique, numéro 3. Sawin, Charles, F. Space Medicine Exploration Risk Status. (1998). Presentation to Pillars of Biology Workshop. September 14. NASA Johnson Space Center. Houston, Texas. Shahrokhi, F. Greenberg, J.S. and Al-Saud, T. (1989). Space commercialisation: Launch Vehicles and Programs. Progress in Aeronautics and Aeronautics. Volume 126. Southern Africa Tourism Update – for organisers of tours to southern Africa (2000). (WWW document). http://rapidttp.com/tourism/99/99novn.html (accessed August 2000). Space Adventures. (2000). (WWW document). http://www.spaceadventures.com (accessed August 2000).


49

Spacetopia. (2000). Company Profile. (WWW document). http://www.spacetopia.com/frames/spacetopia.html. (accessed August 2000). Spaceviews News. (June 13, 2000a). MirCorp Looks for Funding as Current Mission Winds Down. (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/13b.htm. (accessed August 2000). Spaceviews News. (June 16, 2000c). Report: American Businessman to be First Mir Tourist (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/16c.html (accessed August 2000). Spaceviews News. (June 19, 2000b). MirCorp Announces First Space Tourist to Mir (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/19b.html (accessed August 2000). Stitch, JS. (1994). Conjunction Summary for STS-26 through STS-61. NASA JSC Memo DM42/93-010. February 7. Houston Texas: NASA Johnson Space Center. Sutton, G.P. (1986). Rocket Propulsion Elements. John Wiley & Sons. Tarzwell, Robert. (2000). The Medical Implications of Space Tourism. B.A., Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Volume 71, Number 6 (p. 649-51). TED Case Studies. (2000). Case number 252: Everest tourism. (WWW document). http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/EVEREST.HTM. (accessed August 2000).


50

Pre-Orbital Space Tourism

51

3 3 Pre-Orbital Space

Tourism

It's human nature to stretch, to go, to see, to understand. Exploration is not a choice, really; it's an imperative.

— Michael Collins


52


53

In the next few years we will see the first people flying to sub-orbital altitudes in privately developed vehicles. This will be a revolution in space flight, opening up a new chapter in human space travel, and will play an important role in the evolution of space tourism. This chapter bridges the current space tourism activities discussed in the previous chapter with orbital flight and facility opportunities analysed in the next chapter. It considers near-term space tourism activities that could be undertaken before orbital flights become a reality. In section 3.1, parabolic flights, sub-orbital flights, high altitude balloon flights and expendable rocket flights are discussed in terms of market impact, cost, view of the Earth, safety and other factors. Following this analysis, high altitude balloons and sub-orbital flights are considered further. For sub-orbital flights, Section 3.3 outlines the engineering, business, legal, client and medical issues a company should address when offering them.

3.1 Next Generation Space Tourism Products

3.1.1 Overview and Analysis of Products There are many ways in which space tourism will expand and only a few of the first possible products are discussed below. The purpose of this section is to select the products that we think are the most viable future ventures to focus our discussion on.

Parabolic flight At the top of the parabolic curve, weightlessness can be experienced for up to 30 seconds and at the bottom, increased weight is felt. Many parabolic curves can be flown in one flight giving a reasonable amount of weightlessness in total. These flights could be incorporated into a space theme park offering a number of other space-related activities, e.g. planetarium, astronaut training, remote-control rovers.

High altitude balloon flight The balloons rise to altitudes of approximately 40 km giving a limited view of the Earth. The balloon could be deflated at the start of the descent to give passengers some experience of microgravity.

Sub-orbital flight Both horizontal and vertical take-off systems are being developed. Depending on the trajectory, the whole flight can take anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours. At 30 km (where a MiG29 can fly) the blackness of space and the curvature of the Earth can be seen, and the vehicle continues to 100 km. During the top of the parabolic flight path the vehicle will be in freefall, giving the passengers inside the sensation of weightlessness for 3-15 minutes.

Expendable rocket flight Passenger capsules attached to expendable rockets and vertically launched up to sub-orbital altitudes would allow the passengers to feel some seconds of weightlessness at


54

the top of the trajectory curve. On descent, the capsule parachute will deploy to give the passengers a reasonably comfortable landing.

3.1.2 Selection of a Space Tourism Product for further study To select the most promising space tourism product for further study, the following important factors were considered:

• Environmental Impact • Excitement • Microgravity Duration • Price • Safety • Impact to space tourism industry: To what extent the product will lead on to

further space tourism products such as orbital flights and facilities. • Technological Feasibility: The amount of technology development required to

realise the space tourism product in the next 5-10 years. • View of Earth

From the assessment of the space products described in section 3.1.1 against the criteria above, high altitude balloon flights and sub-orbital flights appeared to be the most promising and were studied further in the following sections.

3.2 Balloons to the Edge of Space In this section the idea of using high altitude balloons as a precursor to orbital space tourism will be assessed.

3.2.1 Historical overview and current situation To trace the origins of ballooning we have to go back to 240 B.C. Legend has it that Archimedes was having a bath when he suddenly noticed that the water level raised when he immersed himself in it. In doing so he discovered the principle of buoyancy. Unfortunately it took about 2000 years until this principle was applied as a means of air travel. On September 17th 1783 the Mongolfier brothers made the first flight in a manned balloon, inaugurating the era of air-flight that eventually led to space flight. Balloons were used as observation platforms during the American Civil War for watching troop movements. It is widely known that the United States of America and the Soviet Union had a competition in space in the sixties. Less known is that, in the thirties, a long time before the space-race, they competed in flying manned balloons to the highest altitude. At that time the Americans Stevens and Anderson reached 18.3km, being the first to report seeing the curvature of the Earth with their own eyes. If we looked carefully at the origins of manned space flight we would find out that the first step was not attained with rockets but with high-altitude balloons. Tremendous public attention was paid to this activity; to illustrate this fact we should mention that three Russians that died in 1934, in a failed


55

attempt to reach the stratosphere, were buried in the Kremlin, which is a great honour in Russia. The era of modern ballooning started when the United States Navy introduced polyethylene as a balloon material. This allowed the craft to reach the stratosphere, carry greater weight and stay aloft longer. Since then polyethylene balloons have been used to study the weather and for scientific research. As previously mentioned, manned balloon missions played a major role in the early space programs. Using stratospheric balloons space suits were tested and the reactions of the human body to a near-space environment were studied. In 1961 Ross and Prather rose from the deck of an American aircraft carrier to reach a world record height of 34.7km. This record has never been beaten, partly because Yuri Gagarin became the first human being to go into orbit in the same year. From then on the public moved its attention away from high-altitude ballooning to rocketry. Balloons have also been successfully used in planetary exploration. In 1985 two Soviet unmanned balloons successfully flew in the clouds of Venus, just 54 km above its surface, gauging the temperature and pressure. They became the first interplanetary “aerobots”. In March 1999 ballooning obtained renewed attention when Piccard and Jones successfully landed in Egypt after the first balloon flight around the world. The high-altitude balloons currently used by scientists can lift 3-ton payloads to about 39.6km. They can be ready to fly in as little as six months and the success rate is in excess of 92%. However, they can remain aloft for only a few days and their maximum altitude and performance is very dependent on the atmospheric temperature. These balloons cannot support a pressure difference between the inside and the outside due to the low strength of the material. Therefore they have to vent some helium or throw ballast to control their altitude. Since the pressure is the same inside and outside the balloon they are called zero-pressure balloons. Super-pressure balloons are balloons that can maintain a pressure difference between the inside and the outside. Consequently the balloon preserves a constant volume and stays at the same altitude. Super-pressure balloons promise better performance and more stable flight. Another problem associated with current balloons is the difficulty of predicting their flight path, but recent advances in weather prediction are expected to reduce this problem. In 1997 the NASA Office of Space Science, managed by Goddard Space Flight Center, initiated the Ultra Long Duration Balloon (ULDB) project. The goal of the ULDB is to create a balloon that can fly up to 100 days above 99 percent of the atmosphere and they are developing the critical new technologies required to make this possible. The first operational flight will carry an instrument to measure the elemental abundance of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and is scheduled for December 2001.


56

3.2.2 Rationale for Balloons as Space Related Tourism In the previous section we discussed how balloons were a fundamental precursor of human space flight. As we believe that the introduction of space tourism will be an evolutionary process it is reasonable to suppose that leisure high-altitude balloons will soar to the stratosphere before sub-orbital flights become a tourist activity. Imagine for a moment what the environment is like at the stratospheric altitudes that are attainable with current balloons: around 40 km. The air density is about 0.3% of the air density at sea level, the sky is always black and the stars can be seen even during the day. A surface of around 1400km of diameter can be seen below and the curvature of the Earth is clearly visible. All in all, it will be a beautiful experience.

Figure 3-1: Artists conception of high altitude balloon flight [Source: NASA]

In order to correctly evaluate a space tourism product we have to keep in mind the reasons why someone would like to spend his/her money in space tourism. In Figure 4-1, a list of desires has been identified. It is clear that a high-altitude balloon would satisfy most of them. For example, astronomical observations would benefit from almost the same clarity as orbital platforms can offer, and the view is surprisingly similar to the view from LEO. Exclusivity for the customer is also an issue and it should be mentioned that more people have spent time on-orbit than on the stratosphere. From a technology stand point we should note that the technology is ready and that a plethora of advances in materials, navigation etc. are currently arising. The technologies used are intrinsically safer than those of rockets, i.e. no explosives are used. Hence it is reasonable to presume that the system will be safer than sub-orbital rockets. Another fundamental issue for the development of space tourism is to increase public awareness. Based on the cost of fuel used, technology development costs, ground infrastructure development costs and operations costs we can assume that the ticket price of a balloon flight, although not affordable for everyone, will be significantly lower than the price of a sub-orbital trip. This will make balloon flights available to more people. Public excitement about space will increase thus providing a stronger market for further space tourism developments. As a final point, we should emphasise the importance of help from government agencies. At the moment all major agencies have strong balloon programs and are


57

increasing their expenditure in balloon technology research. There could be an interesting synergy to exploit between the needs of scientists to raise heavy instruments on balloons and the interests of space tourists. We should remember that no transportation system in history has been developed solely with private money.

3.2.3 Technical Assessment The proposed concept is to use a high-altitude balloon to lift a pressurised capsule carrying three people to the stratosphere at about 40 to 50 km. The balloon would stay aloft for several hours. The descent would be performed by separation of the pressurised capsule from the balloon; in other words, the cable is cut. At this moment the capsule starts free-falling. During the initial phase of the descent the capsule will traverse a region where the atmosphere is very thin attaining about 30 seconds of micro-gravity before the atmospheric drag starts to decelerate the capsule significantly. It is interesting to note that with an appropriate aerodynamic design of the capsule (if the drag coefficient is small) supersonic speeds could be attained. The balloon and part of its helium could be retrieved with the aid of a compressor, a bottle and a positioning system. The manned capsule would be finally decelerated using parachutes. The capsule would weigh less than 3 tons, the weight of a Soyuz capsule, and would carry two passengers and a navigator-pilot. It would also carry the life support system, entertainment material e.g. a telescope, the navigation system and the descent-recovery system. The navigation system would use Global Positioning System (GPS) to position the craft. Recent advances in high altitude navigation technology could greatly enhance the capabilities of the balloon. As an example, The Global Aerospace Corporation (Altadena CA, USA) is currently developing a system that could eventually be used to control the flight path of balloons. It is named Stratosail and it takes advantage of the different wind velocities at different altitudes. The basic idea is to suspend a wing several kilometres below the balloon in the region where favourable winds exist. The wind will cause a sideways “lift” that can pull the balloon in the desired direction. If this technology is successful the proposed balloon could be steered to fly over desired countries or geographical features. Additionally, the balloon could be manoeuvred towards a predefined landing site, which would greatly simplify operations. The strato-craft should be able to operate in three modes: controlled from the ground, piloted or reliant on an autonomous system based in on-board avionics and computers. Most of the technologies needed for this vehicle are already mature or have experienced enormous advance in the last five years. These include materials, structure, guiding and recovery systems, but probably the most remarkable is the development of a new polyester composite material developed in the framework of the NASA ULDB program. It consists of three co-extruded and bonded layers of polyethylene to provide sealing and toughness, and polyester to provide stiffness and strength. The material can resist fractures, tears and pinholes, and is durable enough to resist prolonged UV (Ultraviolet) exposure, tough enough to survive the high winds and dust, and strong enough to maintain pressure differences. Another advantage is that it can be manufactured at a low cost. The density is only 55 grams per square metre, the thickness is 0.0381mm and the yield strength is 2600N/m. Great progress is also being made in the shape of the


58

balloon. New designs rely on a lobular or pumpkin-shape configuration that shifts the loads to the tendons.

3.3 Implementation Plan for Sub-Orbital Flights A sub-orbital flight allows passengers to experience the excitement of a high acceleration lift-off, a few minutes of weightlessness at the peak of the trajectory and a spectacular view of the Earth. It will be an amazing experience and could potentially be available to the public within the next few years. However, before it becomes possible, advancements in the areas of technology, law, policy and regulation are required and major investment in the industry must be encouraged. In order to focus our discussion in these areas and to enable us to do a detailed cost estimate we have chosen some specific parameters for a sub-orbital flight. These parameters closely follow the X-prize competition requirements as it is thought that the vehicles being developed for this competition will be among the first to enter the space tourism industry. The X-prize is a privately funded competition with a US$10 Million prize awarded to the first private individual or company to build a flight vehicle capable of accommodating 3 persons to an altitude of 100 km, to be flown twice within a 14-day period [Clash, 2000]. More details of the competition are included below. Other factors chosen for the design process are that the company is American and the launch-site is in Japan. This enables us to take advantage of two countries which have a large potential space tourism market. Also included in this section are medical considerations, financing and client issues. These are all independent of the specific parameters and give insight into sub-orbital space activities as a whole.

3.3.1 X-Prize Competition In identifying the potential key players of near-term space tourism activities, this section discusses organisations that are currently developing or planning to develop a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). There are three types of organisations: private aerospace development companies, government-funded space agencies, and other space-related support organisations. For space tourism to open up as a viable commercial venture the most likely starting point will be from private aerospace development companies. Many of these companies are operating on small budgets and have a difficult time attracting investors to their programs. They often rely on unconventional sources of funding, for example, the X-Prize competition, which was specifically set up to help entrepreneurial companies and groups develop sub-orbital vehicles. There are currently 17 entrants from 5 countries offering a variety of different RLV concepts [Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, 2000]. Appendix B shows a table containing a summary of all the X-Prize vehicles. A vehicle meeting the X-Prize requirements would exhibit the capability for sub-orbital space tourism operations. Several of the X-Prize competitors already have commercial plans for their vehicle after the contest is over. Kelly Space & Technology plans to use it’s vehicle for small to medium-sized Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, and Scaled Composites plans for its vehicle to be used in missions such as atmospheric research or as a telecommunications platform over metropolitan areas. Advent Launch Services and Bristol Spaceplanes plan for their vehicles continued use as commercial platforms for


59

space tourism. Pan Aero and Dynamica Research are proposing both satellite launch and space tourism missions.

Figure 3-2: Ascender [Source: Bristol Spaceplanes]

3.3.2 Sub-Orbital Flight and the Client As the opportunities for private individuals to experience space expand, the field of space tourism will become very exciting.

How to get into orbit cheaply Although common estimates for the price of an early sub-orbital flight are close to US$100,000, there are a number of contests and funding ideas for those who cannot afford it [Glionna, 2000]. There are plans to have a game show type program on television in the fall of 2001 that follows 13-16 people as they train in Star City competing for a chance to go to Mir [Chapter 2]. Certainly more such contests, competitions and unique funding concepts will accompany the early steps to private space travel and will be critical in helping make space travel possible for more then just those capable of buying their own ticket. Sub-orbital reservations have been awarded as prizes to 5 people in a Japanese Pepsi promotional campaign. In the United States, Dole (a fruit and juice distributor) has also awarded a flight, and future flights will be awarded by Sweepsclub.com, First USA (a credit card company - through their X-Prize credit card) and Talkway (a telecommunications company) [Clark, 2000]. Taco Bell and Pizza Hut have also bought flights in the hopes of hosting similar competitions [Clash, James, 2000]. Indeed even Britain’s only Cosmonaut, Helen Sharman, was privately funded and chosen by means of a contest [Collins, 2000]. The ShareSpace Foundation, founded by Buzz Aldrin, also has a plan to open up space to more people. By contributing as little as US$10, one can become a member and be entered in a contest to win a trip into space. As described in chapter 1, people who have the money, or can raise it, who are interested in cultural travel, adventure travel, and/or specifically space travel will also be


60

flying. But what will these contest winners and their paying counterparts fly on? And what kind of experience will they want or will be available?

Promise of X-Prize Certainly one of the most exciting new developments in the next few years will be the awarding of the X-Prize. This event will be a clear media opportunity that will spur interest and increase people’s beliefs that they themselves may soon get to go. Sub-orbital flight, more then zero gravity flights or trips to space centres, is really the product that people have been waiting for. One of the reasons that sub orbital flights are exciting is that the development costs (potentially US$100 million for a commercially viable design) are reasonable for one company to undertake. This is especially true if the owner of the company is personally interested in the outcome, for example, Robert Bigelow who invested US$500 million into Bigelow Aerospace to work on developing space hotels [Glionna, 2000]. All it takes is one person to break open the industry. The most important role of the X-Prize vehicles will be to change people’s mindset about space flight. The announcement of Dennis Tito’s flight to Mir has already had quite an impact on this but the advent of a private launcher as well as a private traveller will certainly be even more compelling. People will begin to see space tourism as a normal future development, perhaps even something they may one day do themselves.

Being Afraid: Safety Concerns of Our Clients It is only normal for people to be concerned about safety. Even on commercial aeroplanes many passengers still get a little uneasy when the plane encounters turbulence. A commercial venture will have to make safety a top priority in order to earn the trust of their passengers. However, the early days of sub orbital flight have the potential to be marketed at the not-so-faint-of-heart. If the first customers are the type of people who would also be willing to climb Everest, then they know intimately the types of risks that can be involved and are willing to take them. One idea to help with the early days of space flight regulation is to start with “accredited passengers” [Collins, Diamandis, 1999] - people who understand and agree to the risks. This idea is discussed further under the Legal and Policy section of this chapter. Eventually, the level of comfort will increase with the new technology as it gets proven and the market will grow to include space enthusiasts who do not need to be among the daring first. With more and more flights there will also be more and more coverage and discussion of this new activity. Even word of mouth advertising will bring in more interested people as they perceive the venture to be safe enough.


61

Ultimately, to be widely accepted, a space vehicle needs to have a safety factor greater than the Space Shuttle. Although the quoted safety rate is 1/140 [NASA Spaceflight, 1999], people perceive the Shuttle to be safe because there has not been an incident for over 12 years and it has a familiar plane-like body. The ultimate goal of space tourism is to achieve “airline-like” reliability and this will certainly attract the broadest range of clients perhaps denoting the realisation of a mature tourism industry. What if there is an accident? In these early days of “accredited passenger” flying [Collins, Diamandis, 1999], the industry must make it clear to the public that the passengers knew the risks they were taking. Although many potential passengers would delay their trips for the moment, there will always be a list of people still ready to fly. People still climb Everest every year, though the mountain has claimed more explorers´ lives than space exploration.

Why Fly Sub Orbital? If sub orbital flights are 3-4 years away (2003-4) and orbital flights are 7-10 years away (2007-2010), why wouldn’t people just wait? [Clash, 2000]. Many are simply excited to see the dawn of the space tourism age and don’t want to have to wait any longer. Others may want to be among the First to go. Of course, some customers will do both realising that they offer different experiences. The allure of sub-orbital flights will be the excitement and astronaut-like feeling of pioneering into the unknown. It is possible that a vertical take off will enhance this feeling, though many people will enjoy taking off horizontally for its sense of familiarity. In reality, the market is likely to have different vehicle options, allowing the passenger to choose the experience they want.

Diary excerpt from one of the first sub-orbital passengers: I have been waiting 4 years for this. I put down my refundable down payment as soon as I heard about the chance to go into space. I was thrilled when someone won the X-Prize early last year. A few of the other teams have since followed and I really think they will be done flying all their proving flights and will be certified to fly special “X-Club member” passengers soon. I am scheduled to fly on the 6th flight and have already emailed the other passengers. We are all excited to fly to the spaceport to begin training for our flight. Our physicals are already passed, and now I am really anxious to begin the training. We will get to try on real pressure suits, and get to talk to some people who have flown in space before and learn some of the basics of being a space explorer. What we will see, what we will experience, what the engine is doing… Mostly so I can answer all the questions correctly when I get home! Really I feel like I am getting the chance to do something that is a once in a lifetime experience. I have wondered what the earth would look like from space since I was 10 years old. Its nice to have this to look forward to, I can’t wait to meet the rest of the crew. It should be a pretty intense 7 days, worth every penny as far as I am concerned. Mostly I am looking forward to the excitement of the launch, the breathtaking view out the window and the freefall. It will definitely be a big day for me. I am sure we will all spend the last two days just telling our stories! Afterwards we will get a chance to make inputs to the design for the theme park they are building for the next generation orbital vehicle. Being alumni will give us a special discount when we want to come back for a longer stay above the Earth and will also give us the chance to add our contribution to the Wall of Explorers. We can write, paint, or leave whatever we want. I am not sure what I want to do with my part, but I think I’ll have it figured out by the time I get back…


62

3.3.3 Technology

Vehicle As described earlier, many vehicles are being privately developed for the X-Prize competition. We concentrate this technical discussion on one of the entrants, a vehicle under development by Pioneer Rocketplane: Pathfinder. This was chosen as the case study because the proposal made by Pioneer Rocketplane is very comprehensive and well defined. The main purpose of Pathfinder is to dramatically reduce the cost of launching satellites to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) [Pioneer, 1999]. However, it is a piloted spaceplane and so there is the opportunity for the dual function of a satellite launcher and a space tourism vehicle making this a very attractive commercial venture. The company is also supported by well-respected members of the space industry. Scaled Composites, a company headed by the renowned aviation innovator Burt Rutan, is working on the airframe and structure and NASA Ames Research Center is carrying out research in the area of re-entry thermal environments prediction. Pathfinder is a two-seat fighter-bomber-sized aircraft powered by two turbofan engines and one kerosene/oxygen-burning RD-120 rocket engine. The Pathfinder rocket plane is designed to take off with its turbofan engines, and climb to approximately 6,000 metres where it meets a tanker aircraft. The tanker then transfers about 58,900 kg of liquid oxygen to the Pathfinder rocket plane. After disconnecting from the tanker, the rocket plane lights its rocket engine and climbs to 112 km altitude reaching a speed of Mach 15. By this time, the rocket plane is outside the atmosphere and can open its payload bay doors, releasing the payload with a liquid rocket upper stage, which delivers the payload to its intended LEO. The doors are then closed and the Pathfinder aircraft re-enters the atmosphere. After slowing down to subsonic speeds, the turbofan engines are restarted and the aircraft is flown to a landing field. The main data for Pathfinder is shown below:

Table 3-1: Pathfinder Technical Data [Source: Space and Tech]

Stage 1 Stage 2 Length 26.1 m 3.1 m Wingspan/Diameter 14.9 m 2.76 m Gross Mass 108,840 kg 15,460 kg Thrust 830,280 kN 268,500 N Propellants LOX and Kerosene LOX /RP Specific Impulse 350 s 310 s

Pathfinder rocket plane is designed as a reusable vehicle for carrying satellites to orbit. It carries an expendable upper stage, which delivers the payload to LEO. For a Reusable Space Tourism Vehicle (RSTV), the upper stage is not necessary. From the above table it can be seen that the volume for the upper stage is large enough to fit a passenger capsule of 3 people. For a sub orbital tourist flight, the full Mach 15 speed and an altitude of 112 km are not required so the propellant mass can be decreased. This could potentially provide more volume for a larger number of passengers. The main problem with the system is designing a capsule with a life support system and an environment control system for passengers. The technology required for such a capsule is readily available as there have been numerous successful manned flights in the past. As the flight is short (less than 2 hours), only a basic life support system needs


63

to be designed to supply the manned capsule, at least for the initial flights. Furthermore, the passengers will be in spacesuits, which may also enhance the experience for the passenger as he will feel more ástronaut-like´. For manned flight the reliability of a spaceplane should be higher than 0.999. Adding redundancy to the system adds mass but does also increase the safety of the flight. As the Pathfinder is designed to carry people, initially in the form of a two-person crew, the reliability is high. It has two turbofan engines and one rocket engine. If the rocket engine has a problem, it can enter the atmosphere and use the turbofan engines for an emergency landing. If the plane experiences a problem on take-off it can perform an emergency landing in the same way as a commercial airliner.

Figure 3-3: The Pathfinder [Source: Space Future]

Trajectory The Pathfinder takes off from and lands on a runway in the same way as an aircraft. The typical trajectory is shown in Figure 1-4.

Figure 3-4: Typical trajectory of sub-orbital flight using Pathfinder [Source: Pioneer Rocketplane]


64

Infrastructure This aircraft-like take off and landing was one of the main reasons to focus on the Pathfinder rocket plane. It was felt that this would be highly beneficial to enable us to take advantage of existing aviation infrastructure and hence lower ground station development costs. The navigation system of the airport can be used for guiding the Pathfinder in take off and during landing. To support the Pathfinder and the passengers flying in the outer atmosphere, some other issues should be considered, as described in the following subsections. The runway for takeoff and landing The main differences between a rocket plane and a conventional aircraft are that the rocket plane will be more powerful, have noisier engines and a higher landing speed. So it is necessary to build a longer runway for the airport. Propellant supply The propellants for the Pathfinder rocket plane are liquid oxygen and kerosene. The storage of a large quantity of liquid oxygen will be a challenge to the airport. For frequent space flight the quantity of liquid oxygen for the rocket plane is so large that a production plant will be necessary for the airport. In addition to this, a propellant supply system should be built. Telemetry, Tracking, and Communication facilities (TT&C) TT&C facilities are used to position, monitor and keep in contact with the rocket plane. The TT&C Earth Station has the capability of receiving telemetry and tracking data from space vehicles. Only one telemetry-tracking station is needed so we can choose one station from the worldwide TT&C network or space centre, which is nearest to the airport. The communication facilities in the airport can also be hired to communicate with the rocket plane. Other facilities required for Space Tourism There are several other facilities required for an airport to accommodate such a space plane:

• As soon as a rocket plane returns and lands, some ground support equipment

will be needed for the safety of the rocket plane and the disembarkation of the passengers. There are various types of mobile ground support equipment used to provide regular services for aircraft. These should also be utilized for the rocket plane as well as the passenger services in the landing airport (e.g. passenger boarding bridge, passenger steps, etc.).

• To change malfunctioning parts or components as large as those in a rocket engine, special handling tools and working platforms will be necessary. The rocket exhaust flow tunnel and necessary mechanical systems have to be designed to assure safety and efficiency of maintenance work. The space tourism carrier industry should not own buildings and physical property, but should rent these from airport companies. Existing aircraft maintenance buildings are large enough to carry out the maintenance of the proposed space vehicle.


65

3.3.4 Legal, Policy and Regulatory Issues In this section the legal and policy issues that arise with the introduction of sub-orbital flights are introduced. Within the area of policy we consider a global overview of the situation and the means proposed to help such a venture. The legal issues discussed include the different sources of law and which to apply in this case, and also the regulations to take into account. Before these issues can be examined in detail, there are two main concepts to explain.

Determination of the legal nature of the proposed vehicle There is an absence of a precise definition of the difference between a spacecraft and an aircraft. Following the distinction made by Hashimoto [1992] the vehicle described previously is a surface-to-surface type space plane. Other sources of law [Wollersheim, 1999] argue that the aircraft should be defined using a combination of the following concepts: purpose, function, technical configuration, capabilities and medium where the operation predominantly takes place. The confusion and difficulty of identifying the vehicle as an aircraft or a spacecraft comes from the fact that a transport system that conforms to the general aircraft definition but has the purpose and function of space flights could fall into the scope of air law as well as space law. The general trend proposes to regulate sub-orbital vehicles under air law jurisdiction because it is often more attractive. That is the case for safety regulations stipulated under the Chicago Convention [Chicago, 1944]: certification and standardisation are crucial to make risks manageable not only for safety, health and property, but also for insurance and launching state liability. The same applies for the limitation of liability provided for under the Warsaw Convention of 1929 (which covers a range of areas from damage and loss of luggage up to loss of life [Chapter 2]).

Determination of the legal regulation to be used in this case study The boundary between atmosphere and outer space is another undefined legal issue and is often placed somewhere around 100km. All the United Nations Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space treaties are vague and unclear on this point. The Federal Aviation Administration’s current proposal [FAA] and the most likely hypothesis is that governments will agree on extending the current regulation for aviation to the part of the atmosphere that goes to the limit of outer space. This will be the first encouraging step to help private companies undertake a space tourism business. For the purpose of this case study air law will be the applicable framework and the conventional atmosphere boundary will be fixed at 100km.

Policy Issues This section will study the policy required to support our project. Overview of the situation Since no political commitment for space tourism exists, it is generally assumed that the first step in space tourism will be achieved by the private sector. But even if the technology and the financing are provided by private companies, we must realise the great importance of the states in this venture. According to the rules set up in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, a state that would not be interested in commercial activities in outer space is entitled to block these activities on its territory. This is the opposite of the


66

aviation industry (Warsaw Convention) where the states were not accountable from the beginning because the airlines were fully liable. This was discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 and will be addressed further in Chapter 4, as the problem of liability may be one of the main constraints in the development of the space tourism business. To conclude, a strong commitment from states and agencies, as well as from the private sector, will be needed to achieve space tourism. A real cooperation from both parts seems to be the only solution to make space tourism feasible. Means proposed to help such a venture To establish a favourable framework for the creation and expansion of the space tourism business, governments and agencies should:

• cooperate with the private ventures in the development of the necessary technology, e.g. transfer of technology, private-public partnerships, spin-offs.

• establish a reasonable regulatory framework, in particular with respect to spacecraft certification and registration.

Legal issues After presenting the policy required, this section introduces the regulations needed to make such a venture possible. Certification of the vehicle The vehicle will have to comply with American and Japanese regulations.

Registration of the vehicle The vehicle will have to comply with the American and Japanese regulations, and the Registration Convention [Chapter 2], but this does not seem totally adequate for such a venture. In fact, the type of vehicle that we are proposing is legally undefined, so the procedure of registration required is not well identified. The great number of registrations that will be requested in the future could be a problem if they are not coordinated in an appropriate way. Launch site regulatory system The ship will have to comply with the Japanese regulation. Environmental law Environmental issues have not been studied under the Space Liability Treaty [Chapter 2]. Authorities should work out these issues early to ensure environmental standards are set out. For the moment, we have no clear idea of the regulation that would apply to this type of vehicle. However, we can imagine that noise and propulsion pollution will require specific regulation as soon as the number of flights increases. Criminal law If criminal incidents occur in the atmosphere where countries have sovereignty (up to approximately 30km), no further problem is raised. The criminal law applying in these cases is the one that corresponds to the country over which the vehicle is flying. But for the part of the atmosphere beyond that and for outer space nothing has been considered yet.


67

Insurance A distinction must be made between the two main areas of insurance involved here - the one that the company has to have and the one that the customer may take in addition. For the company, the regulation will depend on the company’s nationality. For the customer, the regulation to take into consideration will depend on the customer’s nationality. Liability issues An agreement will have to be reached between the two countries affected, the state of launch and the state of the company, under the rules of the Space Liability Treaty of 1971 [Chapter 2]. The Warsaw Convention can also be considered as a possible model for the legislation in this matter. Re-entry authorisation Nothing has been settled yet for this and this is another topic that is raised in chapter 4.

The Creation of an “Accredited Passenger” [Collins, Diamandis, 1999] The idea of creating a new category of passenger would help in bypassing the strict regulations now set up for the aviation industry, which, if extended to space tourism, would inhibit the expansion of the market. The proposal is to allow well-qualified people to undertake risks that are greater than those involved in flying on scheduled airline flights, in return for a rare and exciting experience. An accredited passenger would “have enough knowledge and experience in aviation and space-related matters to evaluate the risks and merits of the vehicle and spaceship operator, or be willing to acquire and demonstrate this knowledge through appropriate training”; he would “be familiar with the operations, safety and emergency procedures of the specific vehicle”; he would “have access to all relevant test information and flight safety records of the vehicle, engines, and major systems so as to be able to judge the safety of the vehicle on his own”. These guidelines are good for both the customer and the insurance company as both parties will be more informed of the risks they are taking. To conclude, we can say that, for the moment, the regulation of such a venture is not complete. In the next chapter, we will study how we could reduce the current legal gaps and propose policies and legal systems to help the development of space tourism.

3.3.5 Cost Estimates for the Sub-Orbital RSTV

Cost Estimate Model The cost estimate presented here is carried out on the X-34, a NASA technology demonstrator, as this is a good analogy for the type of sub-orbital vehicles that will be developed and there is more cost information on this vehicle than the Pathfinder vehicle described in the Technology section earlier. The cost estimate model for an X-34 derived RSTV is based on the Future European Space Transportation Investigations Programme (FESTIP) RLV cost estimate model developed by Deutsche Aerospace Airbus (DASA), as well as cost data on various RLVs. In order to evaluate the business potential of the system, the number of launches per year and the fleet size are chosen as variables, while all other parameters are fixed. The fixed parameters used in the model are as follows:


68

• All costs are estimated in thousands of US$, under the economic conditions of the year 2000;

• Total mass of the RSTV is 21 600 kg, including 13 500 kg of propellant; • The total operational lifetime of the system is 10 years; • The number of passengers is 3: 1 pilot and 2 paying customers; • The number of carrier aircraft is equal to the number of RSTVs; • The licensing program, which typically includes 1000 flights for an airplane, is

assumed to involve paying customers (the impact of this is discussed later in this section).

RSTV Development Cost Although the RSTV is derived from the X-34 developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) for NASA, significant additional development will be required to arrive at an X-prize type, passenger-carrying rocket plane. The X-34 development and test program, including the production of two test vehicles, costs US$85 million(´98) [Spaceviews, 1998a]. The development cost for the Kelly Astroliner is estimated to be US$140 million [Salt, 1998], the Pioneer Rocketplane Pathfinder development cost is assumed to be around US$100 million [Salt, 1998], and the X-38 development program budget is US$90 million(´98) [Spaceviews, 1998b]. Based on analogy with these projects, the development of the RSTV is estimated to cost US$50 million (2000). This includes the production and testing of one prototype model that can be used as an operational flight model after the development stage is completed. The development costs are amortised (distributed) over the total number of flights over a ten-year period.

Ground Segment Development Cost The ground segment includes the vehicle processing facilities, mission control facility, logistics facilities, runway, and ground support equipment. Based on the cost of the X-33 flight operations centre (US$32 million(´98) [Naftel, 2000]), the initial RSTV ground segment is estimated to cost US$20 million(2000), with an additional US$10 million(2000) required for every RSTV/carrier aircraft addition to the system fleet. This estimate assumes the facilities will be based near a regular airport, whose infrastructure can be used for the RSTV operations. Similar to the RSTV development cost, these costs are amortised over all flights.

Production and Purchase Costs The production cost estimate of the RSTV is based on the observed relationship between the vehicle development cost and the vehicle production spares and refurbishment cost in the FESTIP model. Based on this relationship, the average production cost for each RSTV vehicle (including spares and refurbishment) is estimated to be US$20 million(2000). The cost for obtaining and adapting a secondhand launch aircraft, such as the Lockheed L-1011 used for the X-34 project, is estimated to be US$80million(2000). This estimate is based on the cost for a secondhand Boeing 747 aircraft for transport of a RLV, as stated in the FESTIP cost model. RSTV production and carrier aircraft purchase costs are amortized over the flights.


69

Direct Operations Cost Direct operations costs have to be paid for each flight. Included are maintenance costs, propellant costs, ground operations costs, pre-flight operations costs, and insurance costs against public damage. Each of these costs is estimated as a function of the fleet size and the launch rate per year. The cost estimation relationships are based on those of the FESTIP cost model, but have been adapted to fit the specific case of the RSTV system (such as the expected aircraft-like flight operations).

Indirect Operations Cost Indirect operations costs include costs that are not directly related to flights, but have to be distributed over the total number of launches. Included are ground system maintenance and improvement costs, logistics costs, costs for management and marketing, the profit for the operating company, as well as various fees and taxes. Each of these costs is also a function of the fleet size and launch rate per year, and is based on the FESTIP indirect operations cost relationships.

RSTV Cost Model Results

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Average launch rate [launches/year]

Tic

ket

pri

ce [

x100

0 U

S$(

2000

)]

Fleet size = 1

Fleet size = 2

Fleet size = 5

Fleet size = 10

Fleet size = 25

Figure 3-5: RSTV Launch Rate versus Ticket Price

Figure 3-5 shows the results of the cost model, in ticket price versus launch rate, for various fleet sizes. For low flight rate numbers, the ticket price is obviously very high. For high numbers of flights, the individual ticket price asymptotes to around US$160 000. A larger fleet size results in higher ticket prices, but the fleet size, launch rate, and turn-around time are all related: a launch rate of 1000 flights per year will be hard to achieve with only one RSTV. Furthermore, the vehicle lifetime (the number of missions it can fly before replacement is required) is limited. The current lifetime goal for RLVs is about 120 missions, which would severely limit the profitability of any commercial X-Prize type vehicle. The identification of the most optimal combination of total fleet size and launch rate depends


70

on both the market requirements and the system technology. This should be an important part of the RSTV development process. Because of the lower total production cost, more frequent launches, and reuse of the launch vehicle, the balance between the different elements in the cost per launch for a reusable (sub-orbital) launcher is very different from that for an expendable launcher. For a reusable space tourist launch concept, indirect and especially direct operations costs comprise a much larger part of the total cost than for traditional expendable launchers. For instance, if 3 RSTVs are operated simultaneously and each has a turn-around time of 4 days, a maximum number of about 275 flights per year can be made. The average cost per flight is about US$1.1M, so for the operation to be profitable, the minimum ticket price would be around US$550 000. As shown in figure 3-6, for this example, 81% of the cost per flight is direct operations cost. For high flight rates, this percentage increases to 92% while the indirect operations cost asymptotes to 7%. Having the development of the RSTV financed by a government agency has only a limited effect on the ticket price, since for economical launch rates the development amortization constitutes only a few percent of the total cost.

Flight Cost distribution for an average launch rate of 275 flights per year and a fleet size of 3

3%9%

81%

7%

Development costamortisation

Production & Purchasecost amortisationDirect Operations Cost

Indirect Operations Cost

Figure 3-6: Flight Cost Distribution

Since the direct operations costs of the RSTV system will determine most of the ticket price, it is recommended to focus on optimising the operations that correspond to these costs. For instance, the number of carrier aircraft required may be less than the RSTV fleet size. Another obvious way of lowering ticket prices is to increase the number of passengers per flight. The assumption of having paying passengers during the licensing period of the RSTV has a significant effect on the cost. Assuming a typical aircraft license requirement of 1000 flights and an average flight cost of US$1.1M, the licensing cost would be over a billion dollars. This would add, over a ten year period, US$400 000 (or 73%) to the ticket price!


71

Although the use of the FESTIP cost model points out some important issues for the economic viability of the RSTV (which are also true for any other X-Prize type vehicle), the estimated ticket prices have a relatively high degree of uncertainty. This is mainly caused by the lack of applicable data as well as the fact that RLV cost models are not developed to handle the relatively high number of flights involved with the operation of tourist rocket vehicles. Significantly more cost estimate development work is required for the analyses of the economy of sub-orbital space tourism.

3.3.6 Space Tourism Market Surveys Market surveys and their results, conclusions and limitations were discussed in Chapter 2 but will now be more specifically applied to sub-orbital flights. As an example of the conclusions from one market survey, Abitzsch (1996) stated that the ticket price should approach US$50,000 to ensure a self-sustaining space tourism market but a price twice that may be sufficiently low to attract enough passengers. If we compare this figure to the cost estimate above (US$1.1million per flight giving a US$550,000 ticket price for a two person spacecraft) it can be seen that there is a huge discrepancy. This suggests that the only viable commercial venture would be with a larger spacecraft able to carry many more passengers and this is suggested in the cost estimate as a way of lowering the ticket price. Possible market segments to target include:

• High net-worth individuals • Thrill seekers • Corporate entertainment companies • Sponsors wanting to gain publicity or advertise products or services • Individuals with terminal diseases wanting to maximise enjoyment from their

remaining life-expectancy Hence, there appears to be a market comprised of people willing to pay substantial amounts for space trips, but more rigorous and credible research is required to attract investment for space tourism ventures. The financing of such companies is discussed in the next section.

3.3.7 Financing This section considers the viewpoint of potential investors faced with a request for funding from a space tourism venture. The general issues and factors influencing the decision to invest are presented. The return on investment and payback period demanded by potential investors is included. Finally, the calculated return on investment from a potential sub-orbital vehicle business and its implications for the financing of such ventures is discussed. Schick & Foley (1992) report that issues associated with a decision to invest in a space venture include:

• high capital requirements • long payback periods


72

• significant political risk • market uncertainty • technical risk

Investors seek to reduce risk as much as possible. The remaining risk is acceptable to an investor if it is reasonably controllable based on his/her individual criteria. It is difficult, although not impossible, to raise large amounts of investment capital at an acceptable cost in the face of a relatively high risk and long-term return on investment. There are currently about a half dozen new space transportation companies that have raised private funding for at least the initial design and test phases of their RSTV project. Schick & Foley (1992) state that in decreasing order of importance, the factors contributing to the decision to invest in a space venture are:

1. Quality of management 2. High return 3. Payback period 4. Market penetration 5. Ownership 6. Strategic Value 7. Competition

Overall, the experience and credibility of the management team, followed closely by realistic market assessments and validity of technology, are the most important considerations when evaluating a high technology investment option [Schick & Foley, 1992]. A clear definition of the product or service, together with a sound and consistent business plan, is essential to attract the attention of any investor. Alliances between tour operators and aerospace companies as well as advanced booking from an adventurous and excited public would also be recommended [Haltermann, 1998]. The average rate of return demanded by investors in a space project is 30% for a payback period of approximately 5 years. Venture capitalists may demand higher rates over a shorter payback period but they also accept greater failure [Schick & Foley, 1992]. In addition to considering the market potential estimates, an investment decision comes down to a decision on people. Investors seek management experience, business and technical excellence in both the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the management team. Credibility and space industry recognition of the CEO or key members of the board of directors is also essential to encourage potential investors. Space tourism carried out by commercial companies must make sufficient profit eventually and initial investments for the development and production costs usually have to be refinanced. Profit is calculated as a function of the operational year, both including and excluding financing costs, assuming a fare per passenger of US$50,000 as shown in Figure 3-7. If the financing costs are neglected, profit is first made in the 9th operational year and increases to about US$37 billion in the 30th operational year. If financing costs are considered (US$2.5 billion), the date of the first profit shifts to the 11th year and increases to about US$34 billion in the 30th operational year [Reichert, 1999, ESA, 1998, ESA, 1999].


73

O´ Neil et al. (1987) caution that such results are crucially dependent upon market elasticity surveys and space transportation service cost estimates that are at early stages of development. They each have major uncertainties and the general public's present trip expectations could change over a decade's time; therefore, such economic feasibility projections could be substantially error and should be updated every few years.

Figure 3-7: Return on investment analysis for the sub-orbital flight scenario [Source: ESA, 1998]

Furthermore, the date of first profit could be earlier if the repayment of the development and production costs is spread over a longer period [Reichert, 1999]. It is then claimed that the relatively early return on investment and the high achievable profits suggest the sub-orbital flights scenario looks promising from an economic standpoint although this payback period is almost twice that typically required by investors. This assumes that the proposed ticket price of US$50000 leads to more than one million passengers per year. Incidentally, the proposed fleet of 10 spaceplanes (carrying 3 passengers per flight) is only capable of transporting 43800 passengers per year. Reichert (1999) warns that the achieved profit mainly depends on low operation costs per flight. At the beginning of operations, a space tourism business should have an incremental business plan, starting with niche markets [O´ Neil et al., 1987]. In market surveys discussed in the previous chapter, the results indicate that some people would go on very expensive "space adventure trips" at the present time. A carefully planned public relations and marketing campaign would be needed to improve public awareness of this opportunity and to change public perceptions of risks and viability. This is essential not


74

just from the standpoint of informing eventual clients, but also from that of satisfying the concerns of potential investors. O´ Neil et al. (1987) also highlight that the perceived level of risk and uncertainty in a general public space travel and tourism venture will affect the availability and cost of money for that venture. Venture capital is a major source of “seed money” for start-up companies in many industries, but due to their high demands it is difficult to raise funds from them for future space ventures. In a study of 5 companies (SPACEHAB, Incorporated, Geostar Corporation, Orbital Sciences Corporation, External Tanks Corporation & Fairchild Space Operations Company) none was able to raise substantial amounts of equity capital from the venture capital markets [US Department of Commerce,1990]. Four of the 5 companies studied were partly financed through private placements [US Department of Commerce, 1990]. Unfortunately, the private placement market is limited to individual investors with substantial wealth and is highly unpredictable being subject to fashionable investment trends. In most cases, start-up space companies rely heavily on high repayment cost equity capital (as opposed to cheaper debt capital which is lent for a fixed price). Some of this may be supplied by a “strategic investor” whose decision to invest in a venture is only partially motivated by near-term gains [US Department of Commerce, 1990]. Examples of strategic investors include individuals, companies, universities, and governments. The primary motivation for strategic investment is the belief that the investment will position the investor to take advantage of some future opportunity. The investment may provide a new source of knowledge or access to new markets. For a new venture strategic investing is a critical component in raising capital, especially when a typical space hardware project can cost from US$50 million to US$500 million, figures that suggest that an affluent sponsor will be needed at some point. Multiple rounds of financing will probably be needed. For example, financing may be needed to build a prototype e.g. some companies are building technology demonstrators to win the X-Prize. Once the technology has been proven, further financing may be needed to build hardware to incorporate improvements for certification to carry passengers profitably. Hence, a company that builds a vehicle to qualify for the X-Prize may seek additional funds to build another vehicle to offer sub-orbital passenger flights. Foust (2000) reports that major investment firms are currently unwilling to invest in companies building space tourism vehicles and that this is unlikely to change for some time. One investor declined to make an investment in a company planning to build an orbital vehicle stating that the company faced 3 types of risk: technical risk, market risk, and “execution” risk of not properly carrying out a business plan. In contrast, the investor considered an internet company to face only an execution risk. This execution risk puts investment in a sub-orbital space flight company on the same terms as an internet start-up [Foust, 2000]. However, in general, internet start-up companies have lower initial costs and certainly lower operational costs.

Sub-orbital flights In comparison to orbital space flight, sub-orbital flight may be slightly less unattractive to potential investors because of the reduced technical risk. It is less technically challenging because a sub-orbital spacecraft would only need a small fraction of the


75

velocity of an orbital spacecraft, therefore reducing engine performance and thermal protection requirements. It is also claimed that the market risk of orbital flight is not present with sub-orbital flight, but this is not justified by evidence. It is suggested that a company planning to offer sub-orbital flights gain initial start-up funding by private placement from wealthy investors. The company should then conduct market feasibility studies for their engineering vehicle. Assuming the vehicle is commercially viable, a strategic investor should be found to fund the development and production cost of the vehicle. Strategic investors could be sought from existing airlines and tour operators, initially targeting adventure tourism companies. Sponsorship by companies wishing to generate publicity or advertise products or services may be additional methods of raising capital. Tickets for sub-orbital flights could also be auctioned off or sold in a lottery to raise publicity and enable ordinary members of the public to take sub-orbital flights, as has already been mentioned in Section 3.3.2. In summary, there may be a gap between the requirements of potential investors and the capability of space tourism companies to meet them in terms of risk and payback period. Hence, unconventional sources of financing may be required, for example, the X-Prize competition.

3.3.8 Medical Considerations For short duration exposures to micro-gravity, the effects on the cardiovascular, neurovestibular and musculoskeletal systems are limited, if at all present, compared to long duration flights. However, these issues must be considered in establishing the passenger selection criteria/guidelines to ensure client well-being and satisfaction. In addition, the potential biological effects of radiation can be quite severe and therefore an assessment of the radiation dose exposure for sub-orbital flights must be made. This section will provide insight into these issues, considering both the space tourist and the crew members.

Radiation Exposure The dose equivalent (unit: Sievert (Sv)) is used to quantify the relative biological effectiveness of radiation. It is obtained by multiplying the absorbed dose (unit: Gray (Gy)) with an experimentally determined Quality Factor. For a given absorbed dose of radiation, the biological effects vary with the type of radiation. An absorbed dose of energetic particles generally causes more biological damage than an equal dose of energetic photons, such as x-rays or gamma rays. The effects of radiation on the human body can be twofold. Acute effects, depending on the amount of absorbed dose, include damage to the skin, eye lens opacification, greying of hair, immune system suppression, effects on blood forming organs and cell death, while late effects include genetic mutations and cancer. Radiation constitutes the most important hazard for humans during long-term space flights, particularly those outside the Earth’s magnetic field. Sub-orbital flights, however, can be considered to be short-term and have limited exposure to radiation.


76

Some examples of equivalent dose measurements are listed below [Hamilton, 2000]:

• Living one year on Earth: ∼ 3.00 mSv (on average). • Transcontinental plane flight: ∼ 0.04 mSv. • Chest X-ray (lung dose): ∼ 0.10 mSv. • One year mission on Mir: ∼ 580 mSv (at 400 km, 51.5° inclination) • 84 days on Skylab 4: ∼ 80 mSv (at 430 km, 28.5° inclination)

From the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements [Radiation, 2000]:

Table 3-2: NRCP Recommended Dose Limits for all Organs and Ages (Sieverts)

Limit Bone Marrow Eye Skin 30 day 0.25 1.0 1.5 Annual 0.5 2.0 3.0 Career See below 4.0 6.0

Table 3-3: Updated 1999 NRCP Recommended Career Dose Limits (Sieverts)

Age at Exposure Female Male 25 0.5 0.8 35 0.9 1.4 45 1.3 2.0 55 1.7 3.0

(Based on 3% Lifetime Risk of Induced Cancer)

Although radiation dose exposure information on sub-orbital flight is limited, it can be estimated that the radiation dose exposure from a sub-orbital flight of 1 hour would be less than a transcontinental airplane flight. This estimate is based on the assumption that radiation levels will not exceed the levels measured during the Skylab 4 mission.

Space Motion Sickness [NASA, 1999] In 1961, on separate occasions, American astronauts Shepard and Grissom, aboard the Mercury capsule, undertook ballistic flights to an altitude of 180 km and 485 km away from Cape Canaveral. The maximum acceleration force experienced during re-entry was 11g. In a typical space tourism sub-orbital flight the maximum acceleration will not exceed 3g as in current Space Shuttle flights. The period of weightlessness experienced by the astronauts during the sub-orbital flights lasted approximately 5 minutes. Both astronauts performed manual operations successfully during the flights and neither one of them reported symptoms of space motion sickness (SMS). In orbit, the symptoms of SMS normally arise within the first 48 hours. Some astronauts do not develop them at all while others can develop them as early as the first hour. Since the time spent in weightlessness during a sub-orbital flight will be short it is probable that most clients will avoid SMS altogether. Since it is well accepted that head movements can easily induce SMS, a possible countermeasure could be to keep passengers seated with comfortable head rests. However, in order to ensure customer satisfaction, the sub-orbital passengers should be aware of the fact that nausea is a possibility. Travel bags should therefore be made available for all passengers.


77

Research is being carried out to determine the motion sickness susceptibility of humans through experiments in parabolic flights. Many people develop motion sickness during parabolic flights, although the time spent in weightlessness does not exceed 25 seconds per parabola. This is a consequence of the large number of parabolas experienced during the flight. The transitions from 0g to 1.8g and back to 0g are the cause of the SMS rather than the weightlessness. Although the mechanisms of action are different, parabolic flights can provide valuable insight into possible pre-flight countermeasures and/or medications. Details of this research work will be provided in Chapter Four.

Other systems: cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems Given the short duration of sub-orbital flights, there is no time for significant fluid shifts to occur in the cardiovascular system. Hence, the clients will not experience any discomfort. The same argument applies to physiological changes affecting bone and muscle function.

Passenger Medical Standards and Selection Minimum medical standards for space tourists will have to be established, since space flight entails certain inherent risks such as vacuum, microgravity and radiation. In addition, acceleration and deceleration effects are above those for a commercial airliner where medical standards per se for passengers are not necessary. Indeed, for commercial air travel, there are only medical “guidelines” as well as a process of “self-selection” whereby the elderly, the very sick, and near term pregnant women for example decide not to fly. To date, very little data on minimum medical requirements for space tourism exists. However, there are medical standards that are used by the various space agencies in the selection process of their astronauts. For NASA, for example, the USAF “class II” standards (including distance visual acuity: 20/200 or better uncorrected, correctable to 20/20, each eye, blood pressure: 140/90 measured in a sitting position, and height between 58.5 and 76 inches) are used with some modifications for mission specialists. These are considered standards needed for “operations” in an aerospace environment. Since space tourists are unlikely to be involved in so-called “operations”, except perhaps in the use of emergency procedures, and unlikely to be as fit as astronauts, there will have to be a distinction between “operational” contraindications and absolute contraindications. We will thus have to determine acceptable limits of pre-existing disease. Furthermore, we will have to think about whether there should be age limits for space flight or if pregnant women should be allowed to fly into orbit. There will have to be a balance between trying to err on the side of health preservation and being too liberal with medical selection criteria so as to maximize accessibility to the general public and profitability for a new industry. In order to achieve such a level of accessibility, it can be envisioned that a set of “guidelines” would be better suited for short duration exposure (such as sub-orbital or a few orbits) than a set of selection criteria, since it has been proven that this kind of exposure has no serious debilitating effects other than those experienced on a variable-gravity ride (roller coaster, high performance jet aircraft). These effects (nausea, headache, possible blackout), if they occur, are only transient and do not have any long-term health implications.


78

Crew medical standards and selection Whether for short or long duration exposure, medical standards will have to be based on what exists for commercial airline pilots (FAA medical standards) and astronaut pilots (NASA standards) taking into account maximum radiation exposure limits.

Medical insurance issues Since civilian space travel is still Terra Incognita, issues related to medical insurance will have to be resolved based on the closest existing analogs, which are adventure and eco-tourism. There are specialised insurance companies that cater to tourists who undertake unusual and risky endeavours (climbing Everest, hiking in jungles, parachuting) on a case-by-case basis. In addition, companies that offer Russian MiG “rides” as well as zero-G flights (Incredible Adventures) ask customers to sign a release form before allowing them to participate in their programs. Furthermore, participants have to provide a signed form from their doctor stating a “good health” status. However, it is important to note that it is assumed that the spacecraft designed for civilian use will have undergone thorough testing before certification and thus risk will have been substantially reduced as compared with present-day spacecraft. If the level of risk is close to the risk of flying on a commercial airplane, insurance premiums can be expected to be relatively low.

3.4 Summary The era of public space travel is approaching faster than most people think. To make this happen, public awareness of the possibility must be increased and worldwide excitement about space must be generated. The aim of this report is to do just that and this chapter has concentrated on the step required to bridge the gap between current space activities and orbital flights. We envision the next step in the evolutionary process of the space tourism industry will be sub-orbital flights but this will very soon lead onto orbital flights which are presented next. There are many factors involved in the development of sub-orbital flights and some of the most important have been considered in this chapter. Another promising future space related tourism product discussed was high altitude balloon flights. The technology is well advanced making them close to being realised and the cost of a flight would be less than a sub-orbital flight. This would open up space to more people and generate a very favourable arena in which to introduce the next space tourism products. Market surveys conclude that there are many people interested in going into space who are willing to pay between US$50,000 and US$100,000 for the opportunity. Comparing this figure to the result of the detailed cost estimate carried out in this chapter (giving a US$550,000 ticket price) it can be seen that there is a huge discrepancy. Lowering the ticket price could be achieved by developing a larger spacecraft able to carry many more passengers. For those passengers who cannot afford the ticket price there will always be a number of contests and sponsorships. The visibility and excitement of space flight is a great advertisement opportunity for companies and sub-orbital reservations are already being awarded as prizes. For space tourism to open up as a viable commercial venture the most likely starting point will be from private aerospace development companies. In terms of investment in


79

a space tourism start-up company, there is a gap between the requirements of potential investors and the capability of companies to deliver them. Unconventional sources of financing may be required to overcome the difficulties of risk and payback period. The X-Prize competition was specifically designed to help entrepreneurial companies and groups develop sub-orbital vehicles. It offers US$10 million to the first vehicle to reach 100km with 3 passengers, to be flown twice in two weeks. Just one company achieving this will be an important step as it will change people’s mindset. They will start to realise that space tourism is possible in their lifetime. The technology section describes one of the X-Prize vehicles under development by Pioneer Rocketplane: Pathfinder. This is a piloted spaceplane designed for launching satellites into LEO but can be modified to include a manned capsule. The system takes advantage of existing aviation infrastructure as it takes off and lands horizontally. For manned space flight, reliability and safety are very important. Both have been a priority from the beginning of the Pathfinder design process in order to ensure the well being of the two-person crew. The legal, policy and regulatory issues of sub-orbital flight were considered. Much of the subject of space tourism is legally undefined because we are entering a completely new area. The FAA is proposing extending the aviation regulations to space flight. This is a good basis but it may be restrictive to the expansion of the industry as it starts out. Further to the discussion in Chapter 2, the laws and regulations required have been identified here. In the following chapter, new ideas to fill these legal gaps are proposed. The exposure to microgravity is short for sub-orbital flights so the effects on the cardiovascular, neurovestibular and musculoskeletal systems are small. Effects of radiation and space motion sickness are also limited due to the short-term nature of the flight. This means that medical requirements are not needed and a set of guidelines, rather then selection criteria, can be set up for passengers. Crew medical standards will be based on what exists for commercial airline pilots and astronaut pilots taking into account maximum radiation exposure limits. This chapter covers many of the issues involved in making space tourism possible and, perhaps more importantly, making people realise that space tourism is possible. The next chapter discusses where we go from here to build up a mature space tourism industry.

References

Abitzsch, S. (1996). Prospects of Space Tourism. Presented at: 9th European Aerospace Congress - Visions and Limits of Long-term Aerospace Developments, 15 May 1996, Berlin, Germany (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/prospects_of_space_tourism.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Adams J.H., Gadhwar G. D. & Letaw J. R. (1992). Dose equivalent from cosmic rays in deep space. In: Abstracts, The World Space Congress, Washington, D.C., USA, p. 568. Apel, U. (1999). Human Factors and Health in Space Tourism. In: 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, 21-23 April 1999, Bremen, Germany (WWW Document).


80

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/human_factors_and_health_in_space_tourism.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Bristol Spaceplanes. (WWW picture). http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/gallery/animation.shtml Carten Jr., A. S. (1974). An Investigation of the Applicability of High Altitude, Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) Vehicles to the Tactical Communications Relay Problem. Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, 20 Aug 1974, BT-1020. Champion, K. and Schweinfurth, R. (1972). A New Mean Reference Atmosphere for 25 to 500km. Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, 2 Oct 1972, BT-1016. Chicage Convention. (1944). Convention on International Civil Aviation. (WWW document). http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/airlaw/public/chicago/chicago1944a.pdf (accessed Aug 2000) Clash J. (2000). The Ultimate Trip. Forbes Global – The Adventurer, 7 Feb 2000 (WWW Document). http://www.forbes.com/forbesglobal/00/0207/0303094a.htm (accessed Aug 2000). CNN. (1999). Space balloon launch could happen Saturday. CNN.com, 6 Jan 1999 (WWW Document). http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9901/06/balloon.update/ (accessed Aug 2000). Cohendet, P. (2000). Core Lecture 2.05 – Cost Estimation and Risk Management. International Space University, Summer Session Program 2000, Valparaiso, Chile (unpublished). Collins, P. Legal considerations for traffic systems in near-Earth space. Space Future (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/legal_considerations_for_traffic_systems_in_near_earth_space.shtml (accessed Aug 2000) Collins, P. The regulatory reform agenda for the era of passenger space transportation. Space Future (WWW document). http://ww.spacefuture.com/archive/the_regulatory_reform_agenda_for_the_era_of_passenger_space_transportation.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Collins, P. and Diamandis, P. (1999). Creation of an accredited passenger regulatory category for space tourism services. In: 1st STA Conference on Space Tourism, June 1999 (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/creation_of_an_accredited_passenger_regulatory_category_for_space_tourism_services.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Collins, P., Isozaki, K. and Wakamatsu, R. (1998). Progress Towards Space Tourism in Japan. Presented at: 49th International Astronautical Federation Congress, 28 Sep-2 Oct 1998, Melbourne, Australia (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/progress_towards_space_tourism_in_japan.shtml (accessed Aug 2000).


81

Collins, P., Isozaki, K. and Wakamatsu, R. (1999). Space tourism in Japan - the growing consensus. In: 2nd International Symposium on Space, 21-23 April 1999, Bremen, Germany (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_in_japan_the_growing_consensus.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Collins, P. and Yonemoto, K. (1998). Legal and regulatory issues for passenger space travel. Presented at 49th International Astronautical Federation Congress, 28 Sep-2 Oct 1998, Melbourne, Australia (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/legal_and_regulatory_issues_for_passenger_space_travel.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Committee on Solar and Space Physics, et al. (2000). Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Diaz, A.V. (2000). Personal communication from Director of Goddard Space Flight Center NASA. ESA. (1998). S&U Study: System Concepts Architectures and Technologies for Space Exploration and Utilisation. Final Report, ESTEC Contract No. 12756/98/NL/JG(SC). ESA. (1999). S&U Study: System Concepts Architectures and Technologies for Space Exploration and Utilisation. Final Report, ESTEC Contract No. 12756/98/NL/JG(SC). FAA. Federal Aviation Administration (WWW Document). http://www.faa.gov/ (accessed Aug 2000). FAA. Medical Standards and Certification (WWW document). http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-300/part67.html (accessed Aug 2000). Flying Pictures, Ltd. (2000). Edge of Space. Flying Pictures, Special Projects (WWW document). http://www.flyingpictures.com/projects/edgeofspace.html/ (accessed Aug 2000). Foust, J. (2000). Slow Progress for Space Tourism. SpaceViews (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/07/article1a.html (accessed Aug 2000) Funatsu, Y. (1999). Some aspects of space navigation law. . In: 2nd International Symposium on Space, 21-23 April 1999, Bremen, Germany (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/some_aspects_of_space_navigation_law.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Glionna, J. (2000). Space—Tourism’s Hot Ticket. Latimes.com, 22 May 2000 (WWW Document). http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates/lat_space000522.htm (accessed Aug 2000). Global Aerospace Corp. (2000). Stratosail Trajectory Control System. (WWW document). http://www.gaerospace.com/publicPages/projectPages/StratoSail/index.html (accessed Aug 2000).


82

Glossary “Juno Project”. (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com (accessed Aug 2000). Government of Japan. (1996). Fundamental Policy of Japan's Space Activities, revised 24 Jan 1996 (WWW document). http://www.sta.go.jp/sora/airospac/Fanda96.html (accessed Aug 2000). Hamilton, D. (2000). Core Lecture - Space Medicine. International Space University Summer Session Program 2000, Valparaiso, Chile. (unpublished). Hashimoto, Y. (1993). The status of astronauts towards the second generation of space law. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_status_of_astronauts_toward_the_second_generation_of_space_law.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Hashimoto, Y. (1992). The Space Plane and International Space Law. International Symposium on Space technology and Science, 94-n-26 (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_space_plane_and_international_space_law.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) (WWW document). http://www.icao.int/ (accessed Aug 2000). ISU. (1998). MAGIC - Moving Aside Gravity´s Influence and Constraints, a discussion of microgravity and our future in space. International Space University (ISU) Summer Session Program 1998 design project, Cleveland, Ohio. Jordan, J. (1998) Commercial Space Transportation: Coming Attractions. Federal Air Surgeon’s Medical Bulletin (WWW document). http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-400A/FASMB/fas9802/editorl.htm (accessed Aug 2000). Kiefer, J., Schenk-Meuser, K. and Kost, M. (1996). Radiation biology. Biological and Medical Research in Space, European Space Agency. Koelle. (1998). TRANSCOST 6.1, Statistical-Analytical Model for Cost Estimation and Economical Optimization of Space Transportation Systems. TransCost Systems, Germany. Lachenmeier, TA. (1999). New Long Duration Variable-Density Super-pressure Balloon Platform. AIAA 99-3871. Lindsey, C. (2000). Space Contests. HobbySpace (WWW document). http://www.hobbyspace.com/Contests/index.html (accessed Aug 2000). Lindsköld, A. (1999). Space tourism and its effects on space commercialization. Individual Project Report for Master of Space Studies, International Space University, Strasbourg, France.


83

Mitarai, G. (1993). Space Tourism and Space Medicine. Journal of Space Technology and Science, 9 (1), 13-15. Also, as WWW document at http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_and_space_medicine.shtml Naftel, C. (2000). Creating a “Highway to Space”, Presentation to the International Space University Summer Session Program 2000, August 12, Valparaiso, Chile. (unpublished). Nagatomo, M. (1993). Space tourism: Space flight for the general public. Journal ofPractical Applications in Space, Summer 94, V (4), 291-298. Naja, G. (2000). The Second Report by ESA’s Long-Term Space Policy Committee (LSPC), ESA Bulletin 102, May 2000 (WWW document). http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/bulletin/bullet102/Naja102.pdf (accessed Aug 2000). NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. (2000). New NASA Balloon May Carry Large Telescopes to the Edge of Space (WWW document). http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/press/cw00_13.html (accessed Aug 2000). NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. (1998). NASA Balloon Program Fact Sheet (WWW document). http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/balloon.htm (accessed Aug 2000) NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. (1997). Ultra Long Duration Ballooning Technology Workshop, NASA GSFC, Greenbelt, MD, 24-25 June 1997 (WWW document). http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/balloon/technology/workshop.html (accessed Aug 2000). NASA Kennedy Space Center. (1999). Project Mercury, Program Overview (WWW document). http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/ (accessed Aug 2000). NASA Space flight. (1999). Shuttle Upgrade Elements: Program Goals and Objectives (WWW document). http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/upgrades/goals.html (accessed Aug 2000). OŃeil, D. (compiler). (1998). General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 1 Executive Summary (WWW Document). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. NP-1998-3-11-MSFC. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml. (accessed Aug 2000). Pioneer Rocketplanes. (1999). Rocketplane System -Trajectory Ground Path and AltitudeRocket plane. (WWW document). http://www.rocketplane.com/Trajectory.html (accessed Aug 2000). Popular Mechanics. (1997). Countdown Begins For Earth Orbiting Balloons. Popular Mechanics – Technology Watch Archive, May 1997 (WWW document). http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/balloon/ULDB_study/PM_article.html (accessed Aug 2000)


84

Reichert, M. (1999). The future of space tourism. In: 50th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 4-8 October 1999, IAA-99-IAA.1.3.07, AIAA, Reston, VA. Reinbold, G. (1997). Life Cycle Cost Estimates for Festip Concepts, SCT-Report (WP 4014), Dasa-RI, Bremen, Germany. Rey, R.J. (2000). Deriving an acceptable level of reusable launch vehicle flightworthiness. In: Space Technology and Applications International Forum - 2000, edited by El-Genk, M. S., American Institute of Physics. Russian Federation. (1996). Law of the “Russian Federation” About Space Activity, No. 147-FZ (WWW document). http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/russia/pol_docs.htm - cnt01 (accessed Aug 2000). Ryan, C. (1995). The Pre-Astronauts: Manned Ballooning on the Threshold of Space. United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, MD. Salt, D.J. (1998). Small Reusable Launch Vehicle Concepts. Report for ESA Headquarters by VEGA GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany. Schick, R.W. and Foley, T. (1992). Space Finance Survey. KPMG Peat Marwick, Washington, DC. Simberg, R. (2000). Near term prospects for space tourism. Interglobal Space Lines, Inc. (WWW Document). http://www.interglobal.org/sophron/title.html (accessed Aug 2000). Smith Jr., I.S. and Cutts, J.A. (1999). Floating in Space. Scientific American (WWW Document). http://www.sciam.com/1999/1199issue/1199smith.html (accessed Aug 2000). Space and Tech. (1999). Pioneer Specifications. (WWW document). http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/pioneer_specs.shtml Space Future. How to get to space. Space Future (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/tourism/gettingthere.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Space Future. (2000). Vehicle Designs. Space Future (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml#CURRENT. (accessed Aug 2000). Spaceviews News. (1998). X-34 Gets Additional Test Flights, New Test Site (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/12/20a.html. (accessed Aug 2000). Spaceviews News. (1998). X-38 Test Delayed Until Thursday (WWW document). http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/03/10a.html. (accessed Aug 2000).


85

Tatsuzawa, K. The regulation of commercial space activities by the non-Governmental entities in space law. International Institute of Space Law IISL-88-083 (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_regulation_of_commercial_space_activities_by_the_non_governmental_entities_in_space_law.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). United Nations. (1998). International Space Law. Office for Outer Space Affairs, United Nations Office at Vienna (WWW document). http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/spacelaw.html (accessed Aug 2000). United Nations. (1994). United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space , A/AC.105/572, Office of Outer Space Affairs. United States of America Department of Commerce. (1990). Commercial Space Ventures. A Financial Perspective. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. van Pelt, M.O. (1998). Review of the Operation Costs as estimated for the FESTIP study, IMT-CA/9281/BS, ESTEC report, December 22, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. Wollersheim, M. (1999). Considerations towards the legal framework of space tourism. In: 2nd International Symposium on Space, 21-23 April 1999, Bremen, Germany (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/considerations_towards_the_legal_framework_of_space_tourism.shtml (accessed Aug 2000).


86

Tourism in Earth Orbit

87

4 4 Tourism in Earth Orbit

You see things and say, “why?” But I dream things and say, “why not?”

George Bernard Shaw


88


89

This chapter, which represents the main focus of the present report, will address issues pertaining to tourism flights to Earth orbit. Although these issues are closely linked, the topic has been divided into several areas that will be addressed separately. After a brief introduction, the economic basis for orbital tourism flight will be discussed, together with marketing, financing and organisational issues. The second, more technical section, describes the major design options for an orbital vehicle and the factors that will drive a choice. The major focus here is the method of achieving orbit and returning to Earth. Following this, a section will provide some insight into the policy and law issues raised when tourists are sent into orbit. The medical implications of sending individuals into orbit who are not trained as astronauts are of major concern and are carefully addressed. A section will then be dedicated to orbital flight from the perspective of the client. Since very little information is currently available, the section will provide a proposal for the process the tourist will follow, from the day that person purchases a ticket until he or she returns. Finally, a section will go into further detail on a large number of aspects of orbital flight, such as the choice of an orbit, safety and reliability, vehicle operation and maintenance, and so on. The chapter will end with a summary and a number of conclusions will be drawn.

4.1 Introduction to Orbital Tourism Flights

4.1.1 Economic Rationale for Orbital Flights Orbital flights are the next logical step following sub-orbital flights. The economics supporting orbital activities will be based on the market generated from sub-orbital ventures. Therefore the sub-orbital industry will be critical to introduce the idea of orbital flight, prepare the market and help secure the support of strategic partners who will then help realise this endeavour. In order to achieve orbital flights for the general public, much applied research and development effort will be required. Cost projections based on current space vehicles show that this will take place at a relatively high cost. However, once a prototype is designed, built and proven reliable, it will be possible to create a vehicle fleet, see it through a normal operation cycle and generate revenue. These building steps in the development of the space tourism industry explain the difference between the ticket price the tourists would like to pay and the price that will cover development costs and operations.

4.1.2 The Human Dimension In the very near future a dream many of us share will turn into reality. It will become possible for tourists to travel into space. This next generation of adventurers will spend their holidays in an excitingly different, exotic environment, an environment which has been restricted to a small number of highly trained specialists up to now. However, if space is to be considered as a destination for the next holidays, some fundamental questions must be posed. What do the future explorers expect from their holiday adventure? What are their dreams? Would they prefer a short stop over to look at the Earth, or a long-term stay out in space? Will space be open to everybody, or will it necessary to select people based on their medical status? How much are the travellers willing to pay for the fulfilment of their dream? What risks are they willing to take, and


90

what security can they be offered? These questions will be addressed in this chapter since they must be clearly answered before the first traveller can fly… fly toward the fulfilment of his or her dreams. In his study, Abitzsch showed that people share common dreams all around the world.

Figure 4-1: The activities respondents from different countries would prefer during a space trip. [Source: Abitzsch, 1996].

Looking at the Earth from up above is a wonderful dream. It is also one of the most memorable experiences cosmonauts and astronauts report after a space flight. Many of them complain about the limited time available to look at this beautiful blue planet floating through space. An equally important part of the experience is the exposure to the microgravity environment. This environment can be viewed as a playground by the tourist since it offers the idea of strange new sporting activities. The possibility of being an astronaut, if only for a limited time, to work, research and improve one’s knowledge, are all opportunities to be explorers in a new territory which excite the future travellers.

4.1.3 Technological Boundaries for this Chapter In order to keep the audience as large as possible and ensure that the report remains valid over a long period, it has been decided not to try to provide a detailed design for an Orbital Tourism Vehicle. Instead this chapter will review all issues relevant to orbital tourism in as much detail as possible. The goal is to identify the barriers preventing tourism flights and to provide solutions where possible. The discussion is limited to LEO to avoid many of the problems for which there are no acceptable solutions today. The overall discussion is focused on making space travel accessible to the tourist. Thus, cost effectiveness, safety and reliability are key factors. General aspects of space flights are not covered unless they are related to the feasibility of space tourism. The focus is placed on existing technology although special emphasis is put on realistic concepts that could be implemented if developed. This thus requires that current environmental, economical and political problems be considered when investigating the technology.


91

4.2 Financial and Market Aspects of Orbital Flight

4.2.1 Orbital Flight for Tourists: Economic Background From surveys, we are assured that people are ready to support a space tourism industry and that they understand that this product will be very expensive. However, the cost of access to space for people using vehicles operational today remains extremely high. For the moment, only one half dozen astronauts can accompany the delivery of payloads to space on Space Shuttle trips that cost approximately $400 million each [OŃeil, 1998]. In addition, the current safety and reliability of operational space transportation vehicles is far too low: A 1% risk of failure involving fatalities, like that of the Space Shuttle, may be acceptable today for government missions and for some adventure travellers, but in order to be acceptable for public passenger-transport operations, safety must be increased by several orders of magnitude [OŃeil, 1998]. The search for better solutions has already begun. The main objective of the OŃeil [1998] NASA-Space Transportation Association study was to determine the feasibility of a commercially viable, general public space tourism business created in the US through private initiatives with private resources. In this study, the business also received government encouragement, cooperation, and key scientific research and technology development investments. The study cited major uncertainties that will affect the initiation of public space travel and tourism business start-ups, including market demand and elasticity, transport vehicle acquisition and operating costs, trip price, reliability and comfort, and insurance and regulatory burdens. Further, theoretical business models suggest that the profitability of large-scale service operations will depend on per orbital trip costs being not more than about US$1-2M. In addition, space tourism businesses will need an overall safety level comparable to current airline standards. It is vital that during the business start-up process, businesses grow incrementally via niche markets. These niche markets should be targeted after concluding the first steps to space accessibility, proposed in the previous chapter. In order to achieve acceptability, the space tourism industry should initially promote limited trips for highly specialised groups, travelling at their own risk. The financing of these test phases must be examined since the space tourism market lacks major financial support. Large-scale public space tourism will require an infrastructure comprised of launch and landing sites, vehicles, training and medical diagnostic capability, and overall facilities to support hundreds of trips per year. Until now, the commercialisation of space has been heavily handicapped by the high cost of space transportation and the operational costs of reusable vehicles. Traditional space transportation approaches are limited, thus different approaches are now needed. Public space tourism requires a dedicated transportation system and infrastructure, designed and built specifically for public use. The space transportation vehicle will need extra capacity for cargo needs. The use of the cargo market to test the reliability of the vehicle and gain customer acceptability can be considered as a potential means for space certification. The vehicle must be designed at a price that the initial


92

small-sized market will bear. Capacity, obtained through new processes and technologies could then expand at lower prices as business expands.

Considerations for Space Transportation and Destination Facilities Fundamental requirements for space tourism are getting to and back from space safely and reliably, travelling to a target destination, at an acceptable price and in reasonable comfort. A space tourism business will need to consider many issues related to these requirements, from design and operation of space transportation vehicles, to space habitats and other space facilities, which will eventually serve as destinations. Some kinds of early space transportation vehicles could also serve as habitats for short duration trips, while dedicated space residences would eventually develop to support long term stays, similar to Earth-bound travel. Appropriate passenger-carrying Earth-orbit transport vehicles are clearly essential. These may well be feasible in the relatively near future; however, depending upon their size, overall length and the sophistication of the voyages, the required investment costs will most likely be high. At present, there are several aerospace government-industry and several fully private sector programs underway that could provide some initial space tourism capability [OŃeil, 1998]. However, space tourism needs dramatic advances in propulsion systems and structures in order to be able to develop the lowest unit cost vehicle and largest service market; this is a consequence of the high cost of launch. Developing new systems will cost much, therefore the space tourism industry will need government research and development co-investment. Getting proof that a real market exists for space tourism is an essential step, however, we will not be able to get that proof, i.e. market demand, with the low reliability and safety of current vehicles. High levels of reliability, robustness, reusability, durability, and low levels of cost for a space tourism vehicle, are the keys to a successful, long-term tourism business. These keys will help to develop a public perception of safety in a business that will very likely rise or fall on its safety record regardless of its financial viability.

Research and Technology Development Requirements Many research and development (R&D) activities, particularly research in advanced technologies, do not lend themselves to meaningful cost/benefit analysis [DOT, 1971]. In large part, they are a process of discovery and advancement that is to some extent inherently unpredictable. Their uncertainty of success often makes parallel approaches necessary, because results cannot be precisely scheduled. Cost/benefit analyses have more meaning at the project level for development when there are specific program plans, costs, schedules, and clearly definable applications. However, in many cases data is not yet available for these analyses. There are several R&D activities that must be the responsibility of governments, in order to allow for the future creation of privately-funded space tourism. This includes all technology development or demonstrations that are too risky or too long-term for the private sector to undertake under normal market circumstances. The main reason why passenger travel services to and from space are not available today is not because they are too difficult or expensive to develop, but because government space agencies are not trying to develop them [O’Neil, 1998].


93

Through the centuries, there have been several major waves of economic growth arising from the development of new transportation technologies. These developments have involved both private and public investment. Consequently, it is clear that the development of a space transportation network has the potential to stimulate economic growth, both as a new transportation system and through the opening of new territories for expanded business activity. Thus economic analyses in connection with the planning of specific space tourism projects should address the cost of doing nothing, including the existing penalty and the loss of possible benefit; the relative cost and relative effectiveness of R&D compared to other solutions; and the relative costs and benefits of alternative R&D solutions [DOT, 1971]. We also believe that space tourism and its associated spin-offs—the possible unanticipated useful new ideas gained from all the research mentioned above—will both positively impact economic growth, and likely lead to high growth from the start. For instance, the reusable launchers used to ferry tourists on orbit could also potentially serve as cargo ships of material goods. Furthermore, R&D must also aim to find cheaper ways to operate, both in performing the research itself and in developing low cost materials and processes. Applied research is supposed to produce technical innovation, and the innovations coming out are economically successful only if they either produce new products which satisfy existing needs at lower cost or in a qualitatively better way for the same price, or produce new methods that allow the production of the same outputs by using fewer inputs. The only exception, which occurs sometimes, is the invention of some product so new that it satisfies some want not previously expressed because until then it was impossible to satisfy it. It is worth stressing that, even if no real breakthroughs are needed, much technical progress is still required to produce space vehicles that are able to reach orbit at a low cost per kilogram, including maintenance costs, while still being safe, reliable and able to accommodate comfortably several tourist passengers. Such vehicles do not exist at present.

Financing of Orbital Fights The economics of starting a viable space tourism business are sobering. Such a business must consider capital needs, financial planning for the enterprise, acquisition procedures and sources, size and elasticity of markets, growth from initial demand, and the criteria for financially viable ventures.

Capital Sources The potential sources of capital for investment in these enterprises include private investors, venture capital, international capital markets, strategic capital markets, space transportation vehicle manufacturers, spaceport construction companies, debt financing, initial public offerings, or any combination of the above. Space tourism will need a forum which will act to facilitate and catalyse new space travel and tourism businesses, and assure growth for those already in existence though presentation of new business opportunities to various business elements, particularly major investment institutions.


94

Many ways of financing have been proposed. Most of them can be viewed as complementary in a general financing strategy. Providing a lottery and/or auction can be a solution to financing costly space initiatives. A lottery would provide funds needed to work out the procedures for training and supporting non-professional space travellers. The purpose of an auction would be to determine at what price private trip services might be able to sell their initial tickets; the answer would significantly reduce the uncertainty about the initial market for space tourism, and thus improve the ability of commercial space travel companies to secure financing for private spacecraft. Although the capital markets seem able to finance development of space commerce, they seem less willing to do so in the case of some space activities. The primary business activities in the space industry are in the telecommunications sector, not space transportation or space manufacturing. Because the financial ability is there, but the interest seems lacking, capital markets must be given financial incentives, such as tax exemptions. Even if there is a risk that the development of the space tourism industry will slow again at the end of the tax exemption period, exemptions are still worthwhile. In contrast with the risk that the private sector takes in financing the Internet industry, where the risk is borne by the investor rather than the taxpayers, supporting space commerce through the tax code forces all taxpayers to bear the risk for that industry. Investors decline to finance a project because they believe that there are more productive uses of their capital. Some steps might be taken to make “being in space” more attractive for industry, particularly through enabling, encouraging, and facilitating space research for commercial purposes in order to generate more demand for using space. These approaches include supporting a broad range of innovation through the general tax code or auctioning access to space laboratories and transportation. These steps will show what the market is willing to pay. Offering prizes, by following the X-Prize initiative, will improve the market in terms of both people and ideas, and allow the space community to interact with a broader community of interest. A space tourism industry development scenario need not be profitable from the start in order to be economically worthwhile; existing government space activities are not profitable by normal commercial standards. If the operating costs of the first passenger vehicle were even tens of times higher than the target price of approximately $1 million/flight, this first vehicle could still be an economically valuable development and would become the basis for a second generation vehicle with lower costs. Several RLV ventures have stalled because of their inability to find investors to complete their development programs. The challenge we face is to find ways to convince “Wall Street” to accept some front-end risk for the large rewards that will be realised in the years ahead. Legislation to ease the risk is one way to help. Using capital markets to develop new space systems is at best risky. The recent bad experience of Rotary Rocket Inc. is a sobering reminder of this fact. One can argue that this experience is linked to the recent bankruptcy of Iridium Corp.; unfortunately investors, and above all institutional investors, have excellent long-term memories. Other companies trying to finance space developments by private capital raised in the financial markets have trouble too, for instance Kelly Aerospace. On the other hand, it is perfectly sensible to look for capital on the market to finance the investments and initial operations of a start-up space tourism company, provided that the technological research and development has already been done. The government should finance this R&D work,


95

though co-financing by private funds might be possible eventually. In any case, at the beginning of space tourism, capital markets will surely view the first firms venturing into this field as high risk, and will consider the whole sector very risky. Once the viability of space tourism is established, it is still uncertain if capital markets will consider space tourism companies to be more like terrestrial tourism companies, e.g. Club Méditerranée, or more like airline companies. This view will affect the behaviour of space tourism publicly traded shares, credit risk, and interest rate premiums.

Potential Strategic Partners Companies that could be interested in space tourism are:

• Major cruise ship companies, who have a long track record of financing large state-of- the-art vehicles;

• Major international hotel chains, given that, for example, the average casino currently built in Las Vegas earns US$1billion [Macauley, 2000];

• Major international airlines; and • Entertainment-related companies, including major theme park operators and

major international media organizations. The first purchased stay at the Mir space station came from a Japanese news organization. Current products of the entertainment industry earn, on average, $70 million per venture [Macauley, 2000].

Predicting the future of companies is a very sensitive task. In the long term, all sectors will find themselves involved with space tourism activities. We can assume that space activities will be supported by a diverse range of commercial corporations. Thus the foundation of space access will be the current wide range of the transportation market. We anticipate that accommodations in future space facilities will be provided by existing hotel operators and entertainment companies. By answering the question “Who will benefit from space activities, directly and indirectly?” we can extrapolate to possible scenarios of product spin-offs from the high-tech space sector. The market for transportation services is driven by customer demand, and innovation is similarly driven by potential new demands. In particular, unless the forecast of the demand for a new capability or service is sufficiently large, investors will not undertake the cost and risk of innovation. The contemporary aviation industry provides a complete organizational model for the coming passenger space transportation industry. With almost a century of experience in development and operation of advanced technology systems, a current operating scale of more than 1 billion passengers/year, and a global network of national and international services and regulation, it is but an incremental step to extend this industry to include flights to and from space.

Criteria for Government Funding For a meaningful consideration of R&D funding criteria, it is essential to distinguish the three major kinds of activities comprising the total R&D effort:

• Research: a discipline-oriented activity directed towards an increase in knowledge in the physical, biological, or social sciences.


96

• Technology: the application of knowledge to arrive at techniques, design data, or design criteria, or to demonstrate the feasibility of a concept with no intention of going into quantity production of operational articles.

• Development: the application of technology to the design and fabrication of specific components, systems, subsystems, or processes, and to the testing and evaluation of these articles or processes with the intention of going into production. This is commonly referred as prototype development.

As in Schumpeter ‘s innovation push process, the rationale behind governments funding research is the expectation that such activities will eventually produce profits and pay for themselves in the long term, however uncertain the length of that term may be [DOT, 1971]. On the other hand, civil vehicle prototype development has generally been left to private industry, because industry can forecast a clear opportunity for profit within a reasonable time. Technology is therefore a grey area in which both private industry and governments can provide considerable sponsorship. The use of government funds for space tourism R&D should be based on the determination that there is significant public interest in space tourism, related to issues of public safety, and that one or more of the following conditions exists:

• The government is the primary customer, operator or beneficiary; • The technological risk is too high or the return on investment is too low or

unpredictable for private investment, but the potential general public benefit is great;

• The size and duration of the financial risk exceeds the financial capability of any company in the private sector; or

• The market opportunity is not clear to the private sector because of factors beyond its scope of activity.

Towards the Long Term We can conclude that it is likely that the general space tourism industry will follow a four-phase cycle [DOT, 1971]:

• In the first phase there will be the creation and development of the basic elements. Will the X-prize lead this phase?

• In the second phase, the product undergoes substantial change in order to be accepted by the general public. The issues raised in this chapter help describe what these changes are.

• In the third phase, attempts will be made to optimise the entire system. This will lead to airline-like operations of space activities. This goal is very ambitious and so it is difficult to predict the timeframe for it.

• In the fourth phase, the industry will move on a broad scale into new applications for which the original system was never intended. We can confirm that the aviation industry is now in the fourth phase [DOT, 1971]. Is this phase the start of space-aviation?

Back in the 1970s, visiting an airport and watching aircraft operations became a popular pastime [DOT, 1971], but then airports evolved into a ‘bad neighbour’ as a result of the associated noise, pollution, and ground congestion. A similar evolution was observed with railroad transportation; at the beginning of the 20th century, people would buy a ticket just to visit the platform. Space travel can be expected to follow the same


97

evolutionary path. Current launches are still admired by a certain group of people, but there is generally less admiration than there was 20 years ago. Space tourism will engender a “virtuous” circle: a space tourism market is opened by technological progress, the added wealth brought in by its growth in turn makes more technical research and more progress affordable, thus making space tourism gradually more affordable and more profitable, which in turn lets the market grow, bringing with it still more wealth, and so on in an upward spiral.

4.2.2 Marketing Strategies As discussed in Chapter 3, although existing market surveys lack the sufficient depth and reputability required to attract substantial investment from the private sector, it is still quite clear that a market, of some significant size, does indeed currently exist for the emergence of an orbital space tourism industry. Collins et al. ‘s [1994] study reports that approximately 80% of young people (under 40 years old) in Japan, Germany, and North America claim they would like to travel to space, in comparison to approximately 30% of people in their 60s or 70s. The majority of respondents claimed to be willing to pay up to 3 months salary for a short visit to space; at least 10% in each country were prepared to pay a ticket price equivalent to their annual salary. From these preliminary results, it appears that the Japanese market is the most enthusiastic to commit to such ventures [Collins et al., 1994; Collins et al., 1995]. Abitzsch [1996] integrated the results of the above national surveys to conclude that the global industry would be self-sustaining once the ticket price drops below $50,000, although possibly as high as $100,000. Since these ticket prices act as a barrier to a large majority of the general public, even for those willing to pay up to 3 months salary, we would advise initial competitors to simultaneously target both large corporations and young, wealthy, adventurous individuals at the outset. More than other potential space tourists, these target markets will possess the capability to purchase the product. At present, many wealthy cruise takers spend over $100,000 per person for one cruise—even paying as high as $350,000 for one 6-month cruise in the master suite of the Queen Elizabeth II [Stone, 1994]. Only after industry growth enables a reduction in price should competitors expand their marketing approach to include a greater proportion of the general public. By then, most people will have already been introduced to the product, space tourism, through secondary promotion by corporate customers offering sponsorships or tickets as prizes or rewards to their employees or client base. For example, Pepsi just recently gave away five sub-orbital flight reservations in a contest held in Japan. In addition to the $500,000 the company paid for the tickets, it spent $10M on the advertising campaign [Collins, 1998]—which translates into “free” advertising for small private space travel companies. Large corporations will be an easy market to target due to their natural desire to be the first to offer the best, most attention-grabbing, media-friendly prizes. Although technology-specific companies will be the natural targets, any corporation with a large marketing/public relations budget and broad adult customer base will be interested. For example in the US, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Dole Food, and First USA have already paid deposits for future orbital spaceflight tickets with the intention of offering such trips as contest prizes [Clash, 2000]. In fact, the first private space tourist to the Mir Space Station ten years ago was actually a journalist whose $28M ticket was paid for by his employer, a Japanese television network [Spaceviews News, 2000].


98

In addition to rich, young individuals having the means to purchase initial tickets and the ability to take time off from work to attend pre-flight training, they are also the most physically suitable market segment for the early implementation phases of the orbital spaceflight industry. Young wealthy people are, in general, more concerned about their physical fitness levels than other demographic groups. In light of the risks inherent in the harsh space environment and the physiological stressors experienced by similarly-aged and physically fit astronauts/cosmonauts, it is more appropriate for young, healthy individuals to be the first tourists in space, due to their higher physical tolerance levels. It is of prime importance to initially target the niche market of young adventure-seekers because of the higher inherent risk and the lower comfort levels early customers will be expected to accept in exchange for being among the first to explore this new frontier. The necessary reduction in amenities should be strategically marketed as part of the over-all challenge of the experience. Initially providing space tours to this typically more adaptable group of individuals will also give the space tourism industry more time to meet the medical and aesthetic requirements of the rest of the general public. Leisure-seeking tourists, especially older ones, should not be targeted until safety and comfort levels have met particularly high standards, or else the industry risks negative publicity, a death knell to any new business. In addition, the leisure-seeking tourist would also be less willing to participate in rigorous countermeasure exercises or to contribute to scientific research, both necessary components for the beginning stages of the space tourism industry. Because the number of travel destinations on Earth is limited, extreme adventure-seeking tourists comprise one of the fastest growing market segments for the tourism industry. Expeditions to conquer Mount Everest are becoming more popular and increasingly attempted by non-professional mountain climbers. From 1989 to 1992, the number of passengers on Society Expedition’s Antarctic voyages more than doubled, while those of other exotic destinations decreased [Collins, 1990]. Over the last decade, companies across the globe have constructed over fifty tourist submarines, which provide the opportunity to view creatures of the sea to approximately 2 million passengers each year, while generating $150M in revenue [Marzwell, 1999]. As one wealthy software developer explained, after paying a five-figure deposit to secure a future trip with Space Adventures: “I’ve been to the South Pole and the bottom of the ocean…the only direction left is up” [Clash, 2000]. Space tourism companies should personally approach potential corporate customers and offer a discount rate for purchases of bulk numbers of tickets. In contrast, individual customers must be targeted differently. In order to target the young, wealthy, active demographic segment, companies must specifically utilize private distribution channels such as golf, tennis, yacht/sailing, and flying clubs; expensive car companies; private member clubs; and exclusive travel agencies that only cater to the elite class. Space tourism companies should focus on the experience of orbital space travel as a status symbol. In addition to the above highly specific target campaigns, it will also be necessary to engage in a minor mass-marketing campaign, using all the regular marketing tools, to generate anticipation and future demand within the rest of the general public, to prepare them for when the cost of access is eventually reduced. Since preliminary survey results indicate a higher demand for space tourism activities in Japan, it is suggested that any


99

mass marketing campaign use Japan as a test market to gauge effectiveness before full implementation.

4.3 Orbital Vehicle Configurations A critical aspect of orbital flights for tourists is the method used to achieve orbit and to return the passengers safely to Earth. The technologies available today and those expected to become available in the coming years offer a number of possibilities for doing this. Combining the available options in different ways leads to a multitude of different orbital vehicle configurations. How to choose a vehicle configuration is the topic of this chapter. An overview of the major configuration options is given in Table 4-1 below:

Table 4-1: Choices for an Orbital Tourism Vehicle

Choice Options available

Flight destination Free-flying Flight with docking to an orbital facility

Staging Single stage to orbit Two stage to orbit (Multiple stages)

Propulsion Rocket engines Combination of Rocket engines with Air-breathing engines

Takeoff direction Horizontal Vertical

Landing direction Horizontal Vertical

The first choice is whether to have a single vehicle ferrying tourists to orbit and back or have a tourist shuttle flying passengers to an orbital facility and returning them after their stay ends. In the first case, the vehicle would need to be equipped with all necessary amenities for the passengers during the flight, whereas in the second these could be located at the facility, making the shuttle a small and light transport vehicle. The number of stages is a second consideration. Although never demonstrated in-flight, Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) is thought to be within today’s technological possibilities. The basic assumption has been made that, for sustainable flights to space on a regular basis, the vehicle will need to be largely reusable. This drives towards using fewer stages to ensure simple operations. The discussion will therefore focus mainly on the choice between one or two stages although using more stages is also possible. The third choice is for the type of propulsion. In this discussion, classical chemical rocket engines will be compared to concepts using air-breathing ramjet and scramjet types of engines. As can be seen from the table, advanced propulsion concepts such as nuclear rockets and laser propulsion will not be considered. It is believed that most of these technologies are still in too early a phase of development to become available in the


100

near term. For nuclear propulsion there is the added concern of safety and environmental impact. Finally, choices will have to be made on the way in which the vehicle takes off and lands: vertically or horizontally. Safety considerations are a major issue here. Combining these options into different concepts leads to a “configuration tree” as depicted in Figure 4-2 below:

Orbital Tourism Vehicle

Docking to Orbital Facility

No Docking

SSTO SSTO TSTOTSTO

Air Breathing v. Rocket engines

Horizontal v. Vertical landing

Horizontal v. Vertical takeoff

Figure 4-2: Configuration tree for a orbital Tourism Vehicle

Each branch leads to a different vehicle concept, although some combinations of options may be impossible or impractical. For example the combination of horizontal takeoff and vertical landing is not normally considered to be useful, just as a vertical takeoff vehicle using air-breathing engines. The optimum solution will not be the same under all circumstances but will vary under the influence of a number of factors such as flight duration, number of passengers, flight frequency, safety requirements, the state of technology etc. This section does therefore not seek to choose a single optimum solution, but will instead discuss these choices in detail. Based on requirements for the factors named above, the reader should be able to use this information to make a choice. The following subsections will address each choice individually.

4.3.1 Should an Orbital Facility be part of the System? Tourists travelling to Earth orbit will need various amenities to make their trip comfortable and worthwhile. Two basically different ways of doing this can be devised: either the vehicle carrying the passengers to orbit is equipped with everything they will


101

need on-board or the vehicle docks with an already orbiting facility that provides these things for the duration of the trip, see Figure 4-3 below. The argument for a “free-flying” system as opposed to docking to a facility in orbit is quite complex. The main parameter to consider is the total amount of mass that must be launched into orbit during the lifetime of the system and the costs associated with this. The free-flying vehicle will, due to the extra equipment on-board, be heavier and therefore more costly to launch than a transfer vehicle which docks with an orbiting facility. On the other hand, the facility itself will be very expensive to develop, launch and operate. This section will analyse how various factors can drive towards one or the other option.

LEO

Earth

Free Flyer Docking with Orbital Facility

Figure 4-3: Using a free-flying vehicle versus docking to an Orbital Facility

Launch Vehicle Technology With today’s space technology, constructing and operating a free-flying orbital tourism vehicle or a system including an orbital facility poses no major technical problems. The main barrier to space tourism, or indeed large-scale exploitation of space, is the cost associated with launching cargoes into orbit. In the case of the facility option, the facility needs to be launched only once and so expendable launchers, which exist today, could be used. In relative terms the cost of launching the facility would be quite small compared to the cost of the complete system. Using a facility would mean that the vehicle carrying passengers into space could be lighter which would save propellant cost. An orbital facility would then become economically attractive if these savings exceed the cost of developing, launching and operating it. This in turn means that an improvement in launch vehicle technology that would lead to lower launch cost per unit mass would actually make the option using an orbital facility economically less attractive.

Mass By the same token, if the difference in mass between the free-flying orbital vehicle and the transfer vehicle using an orbital facility becomes larger, the option using a facility becomes more attractive. This means that the level of comfort required on orbit by the tourists becomes a factor to consider. If the passengers need a lot of space and equipment, such as personal cabins, showers etc., it would be better to let the mass


102

associated with this remain in orbit, and have a passenger shuttle service fly between the Earth and this facility.

Number of Flights As can be readily seen, the number of flights is also an important factor in the decision of whether to use an orbital facility or not. Even if using a facility saves only a little mass on the vehicle travelling to orbit, it could still be an economical solution if the number of flights would be high enough. This underlines the importance of reliable and detailed market predictions. Before committing to developing a “hotel” in orbit, it should be thoroughly investigated whether the number of flights will be large enough to sustain it.

Length of Vacation Length of the vacation will be one of the main factors in choosing either an orbital only system or a facility. There is no real limit to the number of orbits that the free-flying vehicle could stay up, but the longer it stays in orbit, the more space and facilities, both practical and for entertainment is needed for the passengers. This would cause the mass of the vehicle to increase driving up the price of the ticket. The facility can offer much more space per passenger and for a longer period of time once the supply system is sufficient. Therefore, a free-flying craft would be better used for short missions, while the facility would be more suited to longer vacations.

Entertainment and Activity Possibilities The facility option can provide more options than just orbiting. The orbiting only system requires that the entertainment facilities be launched every time and so it causes the mass to be larger. Every piece of entertainment equipment flown on the orbital only vehicle is a penalty to the system as it adds mass that needs to be flown on every launch. To offer the chance to experience microgravity, the craft should have a dedicated area where the tourist can get out of the seat and float around. To stay in the seat and simply loosen the seat belt would not be acceptable. The on-orbit facility can offer many more entertainment possibilities for the tourist. For example it can have a large space used only for enjoying microgravity, specialised eating facilities and personal sleeping areas.

Orbit/Fuel Considerations For the free-flying orbital craft an orbit of 200 km, which is relatively low, could be used, providing the tourists with a good definition of the features on Earth. If it remains in orbit only a short time, then orbit degradation due to air drag is not a huge factor. For the facility this is a little more complicated; a trade-off between orbit stability and altitude needs to be made. Most likely, the facility would reside at a higher orbit, about 350km, requiring less fuel to maintain orbit. However the transport craft would then need more energy to get to the facility. The trade-off would therefore be dependent on the launcher technology of the transport vehicle.

Resupply The orbital option would carry all its necessary supplies on each flight. This means that the food or other supplies could be tailored to the tourists, and to the duration their stay. The facility could be supplied by the transport craft that would be making regular visits or by a separate vehicle. There could be a similar vehicle as the transport craft that ferries


103

up supplies frequently or a large resupply vehicle sent infrequently, for example a large conventional expendable rocket sent every three/six months. Station keeping or orbit boosting could be accomplished either by using the engines on the resupply craft or transport craft (as the Ariane 5 ATV on the ISS) or they could be used to ferry the fuel.

4.3.2 Single versus Two Stage To Orbit Traditionally, rockets have employed several stages to achieve orbit. Staging, as this is called, makes reuse of vehicle components more complicated as each stage needs it’s own recovery system. For orbital tourism vehicles, which need a high degree of reusability to become profitable, using fewer stages is therefore better. Advances in materials and propulsion technology has made Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) an option that can be seriously investigated. However, compared to using two stages (TSTO), SSTO still requires significantly more fuel. This section will present a comparison of the two concepts, SSTO and TSTO, mentioned above.

Single Stage To Orbit

Figure 4-4: The ratio between total mass and payload for different ∆V and Isp ‘s for a single stage to orbit rocket

Figure 4-4 shows the relationship between the percentage of vehicle mass available for payload and the Specific Impulse (Isp), which is a measure of the efficiency of the rocket engine used. Different target speeds and a 10% structural coefficient are used in this example. It is based on the rocket equation so the numbers are only approximations. From the orbital discussions, (se 4.7.1) the spacecraft must be capable of a total ∆V of 9 km/s to reach orbit. Today a technological feasible Isp is 425 sec. This gives very small margins and a very bad mass fraction. Creating a spacecraft with a low structural


104

coefficient to meet this requirement makes the development cost of SSTO very high. Advanced materials and new technology is required to lower the cost of both building and designing this kind of vehicles. The advantages of SSTO are the simplified operation and logistics needed to operate the vehicle. Since no mating of stages is required the turn-around time for SSTO can be smaller than for other configurations [Landis, 2000]. This means that the vehicle has an opportunity to be very cost efficient if you include the entire life cycle of the vehicle in the calculations. The figure also shows how important the Isp is for the possibility to make good SSTO spacecraft. Increasing the Isp gives a direct increase in the payload capacity of the vehicle and makes the construction much easier. To further illustrate the problem, the following calculation has been made: A vehicle using Hydrogen and Oxygen fuel with an Isp of 450 sec. is used to put 1 ton into orbit. The mass fraction gives a liftoff mass of 33 tonnes. This mass is distributed as follows (Table 4-2):

Table 4-2: SSTO mass breakdown

Structural 3.3 t Fuel 28.7 t Payload 1 t

As a first order approximation these numbers are linear with the size of the spacecraft. This means that if you want a payload of 10 ton, you have to use approximately 290 ton fuel and assuming a propellant cost of 1 US$ per kg (see box at the end of this section). This leads to a price of 290.000 US$ for fuel per launch.

Two Stage To Orbit

Figure 4-5: The ratio between total mass and payload for different ∆V and Isp ‘s for a two stage to orbit rocket


105

If you compare the graph for the TSTO solution with the SSTO, it shows that a TSTO solution gives a much better payload fraction than SSTO. This is especially true for a Isp below 500 sec, which is the case for all launch systems today. The disadvantages of a TSTO solution are the increased complexity in the operation of the vehicle. Making two stages that both are reusable and without increasing the logistic cost of the operation is difficult. Another consideration is legal issues involved in the recovery of the burnt-out first stage. The launch site should be chosen so that this stage can return to Earth in a safe way without threatening inhabited areas. Also, the return trajectory should not be too steep as this leads to high structural loads. To make the comparison with SSTO easier, the same example is being calculated. To take 1 ton to orbit with an Isp of 450 sec. will in a TSTO configuration lead to a takeoff mass of only 14 ton. These 14 tons are distributed as follows (Table 4-3):

Table 4-3: TSTO mass breakdown

Structure stage 1 1.4 Propulsion stage 1 8.95 Structure stage 2 0.37 Propulsion stage 2 2.34 Payload 1

For the 10 ton to orbit solution this ends up with only 113 tons of fuel, which is less than half of the fuel needed in the SSTO example.

Hydrogen and Oxygen Propellant Cost Estimation This comparison is based on the cost of fuel in the year 2000 [Reinbold, 1997] Oxygen: 0.2 US$/kg Hydrogen: 5.0 US$/kg Hydrogen and Oxygen are burned with a mass ratio of approximately 1:5. That is, for every 5 mass units of Hydrogen, 1 unit of Oxygen is burned. This gives an approx cost of: (5*0.2 + 1*5)/6 = 1 $/kg for hydrogen and oxygen propellant.

4.3.3 Air-Breathing versus Rocket Engines One of the enabling technologies for low-cost orbital flight could be the use of air breathing engines during the phases of the flight in the atmosphere. This would limit the amount of oxidiser required onboard the launcher, and therefore lower the mass of the vehicle. Air breathing engines in the form of jet engines are well developed and used in many types of airplanes. However, for use in reusable launch vehicles that fly through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, ramjets and scramjets will be required. In a ramjet, the high pressure required for the combustion is produced by "ramming" external


106

air into the combustion chamber using the forward speed of the vehicle rather than by the use of a compressor as in a normal turbojet engine. Therefore, ramjets are lighter and simpler than a turbojet, but they only produce thrust when the vehicle is already moving; it cannot produce thrust when the engine is stationary or static. Furthermore, it requires a vehicle speed of between Mach 3 and Mach 5 while the flow exiting the inlet of a ramjet must be subsonic. This is complicated by static temperature increase in the combustion chamber. For higher velocities, scramjets that can combust mixtures of air and fuel at supersonic velocities (Mach 3 – Mach 15) can be used. While the technologies for ramjets is relatively mature and a number of ramjet aircraft and missiles have flown since the 1950 ‘s, scramjet technology is still under development. Russia has launched scramjets on rocket stages to obtain the required initial velocity for testing and NASA has also conducted several research programmes on this topic. An example of one of the few currently ongoing research projects is the Hyper-X hypersonic experimental research vehicle (X-43), carried out by NASA’s Dryden research centre in cooperation with Langley research centre. (See Figure 4-7). Flight tests for this vehicle are planned to start in 2000, after successful tests of the Hyper-X Flight Engine (HXFE) in the NASA Langley 2.6-m. High Temperature Tunnel. In Hyper-X, a single engine called a Rocket Based Combined Cycle (RBCC) engine is used, which is designed to work in both air-breathing and rocket mode. It is designed to use rocket technology for horizontal take-off, switches to air-breathing ramjet/scramjet mode, and applies rocket technology for the orbit insertion.

Figure 4-6: Altitude versus flight Mach number for various propulsion types

Figure 4-7: Artist's Rendering of HYPER-X [Source: NASA]

A different approach to reducing the mass of the air-breathing engines by combining turbojet technology and rocket technology resulted in the LACE (Liquid Air Cycle) class of engines in which the rocket combustion chamber, pumps, preburner and nozzle are utilised in both modes. These engines employ the cryogenic hydrogen fuel to liquefy the airflow prior to pumping. Unfortunately, among other disadvantages (ISP < 1000 s) the thermodynamics of this type of cycle result in a very high fuel flow and a relatively massive precooler/condenser.


107

By addressing the faults of the LACE cycle the SABRE engine was proposed. This engine will be used on Skylon, a proposed HTOL aerospace plane (see picture) currently being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd and its partner companies.

Figure 4-8: Artist’s view of Skylon [Source: SpaceFuture.com]

These new engines cool the air down close to the vapour boundary (but avoid liquefaction) prior to compression in a relatively conventional turbo compressor. The resulting engines have approximately half the fuel flow of the LACE cycle and are capable of operation from zero to Mach 5 with a thrust/weight ratio much higher than normal air-breathing engines. At transition the air-breathing machinery shuts down and the engine reverts to a high performance closed cycle rocket mode [Varvill et. al., 1995]. A single stage air breathing launcher would probably take-off with the use of a rocket engine4, then switch to a ramjet engine at supersonic velocities, subsequently switch to a scramjet at hypersonic velocities and would finally turn on the rocket engine again for flight outside the atmosphere. Ideally, these different functions would be combined in one single engine. Air breathing, single stage launch vehicles are still in the early stages of development. The first generation of reusable launchers that can be used for space tourism may well be single or dual stage vehicles using only rocket propulsion, such as the Venture Star studied by NASA and Lockheed Martin. Summing up, different types of engines are needed to reach Mach 10-12, so the overall air-breathing solution is very complex. New technology is needed in order to combine this engine into one system that can work during the whole launch.

4.3.4 Vertical Versus Horizontal Takeoff and Landing

Classification of current and future launchers Launch and landing systems are characterised by the direction of launch and takeoff into two types: Vertical systems such as conventional rockets and horizontal systems such as aircraft. So far most of the launchers have been vertical systems having no parts returning to Earth or systems using a parachute landing system because they are simpler in technical respects. We can divide current and future launchers into VTOL (vertical take-off and landing), VTOHL (vertical take-off and horizontal landing) and

4 A jet engine would be inefficient for this, as it can be used only for a very small portion of the flight and would subsequently increase the number of engine types to 4.


108

HTOL (horizontal take-off and landing). The Space Shuttle is the only reusable launcher that classifies as VTOHL.

Table 4-4: Example of some current and future launch vehicles

SSTO TSTO

V / - Ariane, H-IIA, Proton,Titan, Zenit,

Long March

V / V (VTOL)

Roton, Kankoh-maru

V / H (VTOHL)

X-33, Venture Star Space Shuttle, Hope-X, Buran, X-38/CRV

H / H (HTOL)

Cosmos Mariner, STAR-RAKER Space Cruiser, Astroliner, X-34, X-37, Sterbooster, Pioneer

V/-: Vertical launch and no lander, V/V: Vertical launch and vertical landing, V/H: Vertical launch and horizontal landing, H/H: Horizontal launch and horizontal landing.

Comparison of vertical and horizontal systems An orbital tourism vehicle must perform a commercial manned mission that targets the general public. The transportation system has to be cheaper, safer and more comfortable than current man-rated vehicles. Especially the cost and safety are crucial issues that must be taken into account. Table 4-5 shows some characteristics of vertical and horizontal systems in these respects. The greatest advantage of a vertical launcher is simplification of the structure because wings or lifting surface are not necessary. This means the payload capability can be increased, and the conical shape is aerodynamically very simple to control both during the ascent and the re-entry. Another advantage of vertical launch/landing is its small footprint, which does not require airport-sized launch/landing pads. This provides an advantage in terms of the initial cost of infrastructures. [Rotary Rocket Company, 1998] On the other hand wings or lifting surface of a horizontal launcher such as an aircraft not only save fuel in landing but also is possible to land safely in case of an engine-out failure. In addition, alternate landing sites may be available in case the intended landing site is not available, because it has a larger range. A horizontal launcher can lift off and land under the same weather conditions as an aircraft. Flexibility of flight conditions like this makes flights frequent and results in lower cost per flight. [Space & Technology, 1999]


109

Table 4-5: Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Systems

Vertical Systems

Horizontal Systems

Direct Cost Drivers

No wings/lifting structure à Add to payload capability Small launch/landing field More fuel to land à Lower payload capability Transportation on ground

++

+ - -

Use of conventional system à Lower the cost to new facilities Wings/lifting structure à Lower payload capability Long airfields

+ - -

Indirect Cost Drivers

Sensitive to the weather à Limit the number of flight Orbital inclination limited by launch sites à Low flexibility

- -

Tolerance of the weather à High flight frequency

++

Safety Drivers

Small footprint à Accessibility of landing field Multiple engine failure could cause loss of control

+ -

Gliding to land à Engines-out landing capable Greater cross-range capability

++

+

Great Advantages: ++ Advantages: + Disadvantages: - As seen in Table 4-5 above, while a vertical system offers advantages in direct costs, a horizontal system offers advantages in indirect costs and also safety. In the case of a single mission such as a satellite launch, direct cost drivers as payload capability are most important to lower the price of commercial launch. With respect to launch mass that influences directly payload capability, a vertical system has advantages in terms of structure, which does not need wings or lifting surfaces, and a horizontal system has advantages in fuel, since hardly any fuel is necessary for landing if the vehicle has gliding capability. On the other hand, in the case of repetitive missions such as for space tourism, indirect cost drivers such as flexibility may be more effective in the end to lower the price of a ticket per flight. To be tolerant of the weather is particularly important for space tourism because postponement of flight is unacceptable to tourists. Furthermore flexibility in the choice of orbit for horizontal systems offers the advantage to plan various tour options. Also a horizontal system has naturally many safety advantages. Though it is possible to provide redundant safety systems to a vertical system, these imply extra weight. In these respects, a horizontal system has natural advantages compared with a vertical system.

4.3.5 Configuration Examples According to the previously mentioned distinction between single stage to orbit/two stage to orbit, horizontal/vertical operating launch vehicles as well as air breathing or rocket engines some examples, currently designed or designed in the past, are given for each of these configurations. It is important to note that these are just a selection from all the orbital vehicles proposed worldwide.


110

None of these designs have been developed yet, but each of them represent the technology that has to be developed in order to build reusable launch vehicles. Examples of currently designed vehicles are the VentureStar, Kankoh-maru, Star-Raker and Skylon, whereas the Saenger and Delta Clipper are older designs.

VentureStar VentureStar is a vehicle proposed by the Lockheed Martin company as a candidate for replacing the NASA Space Shuttle. It is planned to be a single stage to orbit spacecraft with vertical takeoff and horizontal landing. The experimental vehicle X-33 is a 1/2-scale technology demonstrator that will demonstrate the technology needed to create VentureStar, see Figure 4-9. These technologies include [VentureStar, 2000]: • The RS2200 aerospike engine (Recently successful 775 seconds engine burn test) • The lifting body configuration • Lightweight protective shell as thermal protection • Composite liquid hydrogen tanks. (Recently failed in test [X-33 News, 2000]) • Lightweight, strong composite structure

Figure 4-9: Artist’s impression of the X-33 vehicle. [Source: Lockheed Martin]

Verifying the maturity of these technologies is an important requirement for the VentureStar concept. According too the current plans the VentureStar is supposed to offer the same payload capabilities as the Space Shuttle today. However to provide a payload capacity of 20 t on the first SSTO solution might be a very hard requirement.


111

Table 4-6: Comparison of the VentureStar and X-33 vehicles to the Space Shuttle. [Source: Lockheed Martin]

Lift of mass Length Payload to LEO

2.800 000. t 56 m 28 Mt

~1.200 000 t. ~39 m

~ 20 Mt

129 000 kg 21 m

-

Kankoh-maru Space tourism has received a lot of attention in Japan recently; an example to illustrate this is the Kankoh-Maru vehicle currently being designed by the Japanese Rocket Society. It would be a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle that would launch and land vertically (VTOL), carrying 50 passengers to a 200km orbit and back.

Figure 4-10:Artist’s impression of the Kankoh-Maru vehicle being readied for launch [Source: SpaceFuture]


112

Very detailed studies have been completed in the past decade, including estimating Kankoh-maru's development and manufacturing costs, studying its operation from airports and potential business development scenarios, and considering requirements for accommodation facilities in orbit, and safety and regulatory issues.

Star-Raker Proposed by Star-Raker Associates, Star-Raker is a single stage to orbit horizontal take off and landing (SSTO HTOL) vehicle intended to launch payloads of up to 22 ton and 90 ton in its standard and largest configurations, with an estimated cost of $220/kg of payload to LEO. Low altitude engines comprise of ten supersonic multi-cycle airbreather ramjets, based on current existing technology, that lift the vehicle to (30000m) at a speed of Mach 6 from take off at a conventional commercial airport, at which point rocket propulsion takes over. The aeroshell is a tri-delta form with Whitcomb airfoil lifting sections that provide a high volume for LOX/LH storage. The conical fuel tanks imparting increased strength and resilience to the wing sections in normal flight and volumetric properties of comparable efficiency to normal rocket fuel tanks when ballistic.

Figure 4-11: Artist's impression of the Star Raker concept [Source: SpaceFuture]

Skylon SKYLON is an aerospace plane currently being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd and its partner companies. It is considered to be a potential propulsion concept for SSTO launchers and it would be unpiloted but fully reusable. It has been designed to be sold to, and operated by, commercial operators in mutual competition for traffic. The final engine/airframe combination (Sabre/Skylon) is supposed to be capable of placing a 12 ton payload into an equatorial low Earth orbit at a gross takeoff mass of 275 ton (payload fraction 4.36%). This is claimed to be possible using today's materials and aero-thermodynamic technology. It is an aircraft that uses atmospheric oxygen in the rocket motors during its climb and pure rocket technology once it has exited the atmosphere for the final phase of flight into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). It is both an aircraft and a spacecraft, and has the size of a Boeing 747. The last two examples, Saenger and the Delta Clipper, are both existing designs for orbital vehicles. Their development is not currently being pursued but they are included here for completeness and background information.


113

Saenger This is a design for a 2-stage HTOL launch vehicle produced initially by the company MBB in Germany. The first stage would use air-breathing rocket engines (which have not yet been developed) to reach approximately Mach 6, at which point the upper stage would separate and use rocket engines to reach orbit. Piloted versions of the upper-stage have been designed to carry 36, 40 and 44 passengers.

Figure 4-12: Artist's impression of the Saenger TSTO concept [Source: SpaceFuture]

Delta Clipper The Delta Clipper is a proposed VTOL orbital vehicle. The DC- X and later DC-XA (derived from the DC-X) were low- speed reusable rocket test-vehicles built by McDonnell Douglas which flew 15 times between 1993-96, until destroyed after falling over when a leg failed to deploy on landing.

Figure 4-13: Artist's impression of the DC-X vehicle [Source: NASA]


114

4.4 Law and Policy Issues From a political and regulatory point of view, it will be more than a challenge to provide the public with the ability to experience space tourism within the next few decades. In this Chapter we attempt to describe a model of policy and law, which will realise this endeavour. Given the assumptions of this Chapter, we focus our study on orbital flight vehicles and a time frame of the next 20 years.

4.4.1 A Model for Space Tourism Policy Could we launch a space tourism business without the help of a government or space agency? It might be possible given a totally different technological and political context. However, a swift change in these domains within the next 20 years is unlikely. This section thus presents a model of policy based on today’s context, aimed at creating a favourable environment for space tourism expansion.

Space Tourism as Part of Agency Policy Until now, space tourism has been very rarely mentioned in space agency publications and agency director speeches. Tourism is not part of government space programme objectives, at least not explicitly. Possible explanations for governments publicly ignoring space tourism are:

• Politicians believe that the public considers space tourism too futuristic and unrealistic a topic. In other words, politicians do not believe in the willingness of people to experience space or to fund space tourism.

• In the United States at least, politicians still consider space as a major component of their national security and foreign policy strategy. Therefore, they could view the ability of private companies to access space as a potential risk.

• In the short term, space tourism favours technological development over fundamental science. In the United States, space scientists are a vocal lobbying group and tend to get the attention of their elected officials. If scientists are uninterested in or actively against public funding of space tourism, politicians and agencies will be less likely to pursue tourism.

In the long-term view adopted in this Chapter, we suggest that space tourism should be included into governmental and agency space policy, for at least two reasons. First, it is in a government‘s and space agency‘s interest. Space agencies and space tourism companies have major common concerns, such as the desire to lower the cost and increase the reliability of access to space. Second, it is part of a government’s and agency‘s function. Assuming that there is a major potential market for space tourism, the role of government is to develop technology and to create the environment that will lead to commercial ventures and economic prosperity. Moreover, it seems unrealistic that private companies will be able to make a profit by sending tourists into orbit, without any help from the government. Even today, the aviation industry still receives some aid through technology development programmes. For example, the Brite-EuRam programme supports European transportation industries and organisations for pre-competitive research on materials, design and manufacturing technologies. The goals of this programme are to “stimulate technological innovation, encourage traditional sectors of industry to incorporate new technologies and processes,


115

promote multi-sector and multidisciplinary technologies, and develop scientific and technological collaboration” [IMT, 1999]. Such a course is an example of a government-led programme that could help to develop space tourism. We do not expect that space tourism launchers and services will be fully operated by private companies within the next few decades. It seems more likely that a combination of government and commercial missions will be needed. Over the next 20 years, this sort of public-private combination could significantly reduce the cost of access to space and make space tourism a reality. What do we have to do to convince politicians? Make the public aware of the possibility for them to experience space! Since space tourism appears as a feasible endeavour technically and economically, it will be important to make the public aware of this possibility that will be offered to them. Clients then have to express to their politicians their willingness, excitement and desire to travel into space. One way to do so is to create a debate among public, political and space communities. This debate can be initiated through press releases, radio and television broadcasts, and public surveys. It is an encouraging sign that we already see an increase in articles about space tourism. Then, if the predicted large demand for space tourism is confirmed, governments and space agencies will view space tourism as politically advantageous. At that stage space tourism, like terrestrial tourism today, will finally be considered as having significant public interest and economic value. The next step is to consider how space policy should be applied, keeping in mind that space tourism will have to be a completely privately operated endeavour in the long term.

Scientific and Technical Policy for Space Tourism In this section we highlight some space agency programme efforts needed for space tourism. Note that we are aware that this description is rather brief and not comprehensive; our goal is only to raise some salient points in the following fields. Scientific Policy In terms of scientific research, we use life sciences as a main example. Research in this field is already included as part of the tasks of several space agencies. However, this research is conducted only on astronauts who are not very representative of the general population. The life sciences research programme of a space agency will need to be extended to regular people and thus cover a much broader range of physical types and issues. Such a programme will therefore also have more relevance for the general public and for terrestrial applications. For example, the studies of space motion sickness could have bearing on terrestrial motion sickness issues, and methods of preventing and countering bone and muscle loss in space could benefit the ageing terrestrial population with these problems. Technology Policy Technology is sometimes regarded as a minor issue for space tourism [Simberg, 2000]. However, technology is directly related to reliability, and increasing the reliability of space hardware is one of the major issues and challenges for space tourism. Therefore we consider it of highest importance for space agencies to have a policy of technology research and development. In addition to increasing reliability, one of the other priorities of this policy should be to develop low cost technologies. This is already being done at


116

some level by some agencies and private companies. For instance the European Space Agency (ESA) and Arianespace are currently conducting a programme to decrease the Ariane 5 launcher price. For space tourism, however, a similar effort will have to be conducted on reusable launch vehicle technologies. With regard to space tourism, i.e. reusable vehicles, two specific areas that require new, low cost technologies are propulsion systems and materials. For instance, the X-33 Aerospike engine is being developed by Rocketdyne as part of a cooperative agreement between NASA and Lockheed Martin [Boeing, 2000]. This engine is being designed to adapt to every altitude, a major improvement for a single stage launch vehicle. In addition, low cost development requires the use of well known and easily manufactured materials. Aluminium became the first such material. For example, in the X-38 vehicle structure, aft longerons that were originally made of titanium/composite fibres were replaced by aluminium pieces, although this resulted in a decrease of performance. Agencies and private companies need to continue to research and develop materials so that 20 years from now, today’s high strength/low mass materials become cheap and reliable, and so aid the development of low cost space tourism vehicles.

Development Policy for Space Tourism There are several development policies a government can have which would help promote space tourism, including the following: 1. A policy promoting fully reusable launch vehicle (RLV) development. This is a high

priority, for at least two reasons. Because a RLV is reusable, there will be a quicker turn-around time on the ground between flights, thus more flights can occur. Because more flights can occur, more tourists can be taken into space, thus increasing the bulk space tourism industry. Additionally, the more flights that occur, the cheaper the launch costs, which would increase the profit margin for space tourism and encourage tourism industry development. Currently, the U.S. and Europe are beginning to work toward the development of RLVs, with the NASA demonstrator X-33 developed by Lockheed Martin and the ESA/NASA crew return vehicle (CRV) for the International Space Station. The final step would be to promote the development of a fully reusable orbital vehicle.

2. A policy promoting infrastructure development. In order to expand, space tourism will

require dedicated ground infrastructures, such as client/crew training facilities and launch pad facilities converted into a spaceport. Currently, launch pads are not designed at all for commercial purposes or for large numbers of human passengers. Airports can provide a first example of what will be needed for space tourism.

As mentioned above, some of these policies have already been undertaken, at least in part, through government and industry cooperation. This shows that, even if elected officials are reluctant to publicly mention space tourism, some of their current policy is already promoting space tourism.

Creating a Favourable Regulatory System Creating a favourable regulatory system is another key to space tourism feasibility. In this field, governments have a major role to play in terms of anticipating and preparing a regulatory frame for space tourism in order to guarantee public safety. A proper interface between private companies and regulatory bodies will also need to be established.


117

In terms of regulation, it is likely that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would be assigned the huge task in the United States to provide a real regulatory framework for space travel and tourism. However, models other than the US aviation model are also available such as other aviation and maritime legal frameworks. The FAA or other such space travel regulatory body will need to consider: licensing and certification of a vehicle; liability sharing among companies, passengers and states, including liability limits and absolute liability clauses; and insurance issues, perhaps creating a law to limit third party liability insurance for the carrier, facility and tour operator. Besides this regulatory environment developed by a body like the FAA, governments could also provide favourable legislation for new transportation and tourism ventures, such as guaranteed Federal government backed loans and tax breaks for space tourism businesses during the early, high cost phase of tourism businesses.

Conclusion If there is, indeed, a large potential market for space tourism, it will be the role of space agencies and governments to conduct policies and programmes, including cooperative public-private programmes, aimed at creating a favourable technical and regulatory framework within the next 20 years.

4.4.2 A Model of Law for Space Tourism In this section we consider the legal system required for the operation of orbital vehicles described in this chapter, as well as for the related infrastructures. We use the current aviation regulatory system as a model for space tourism.

Liability Liability issues considered include State liability and third party liability. Regarding State liability, the United Nations 1972 liability convention [United Nations, 1997] stipulates that the launching country will be absolutely liable to pay compensation for any damage, such as loss of life, injury, or material damage, resulting from objects launched into space by that country. This convention may be the most important barrier that prohibits access to space by private companies. Currently, this liability convention results in extensive licensing and certification requirements for launched vehicles. Thus in this framework, an orbital vehicle will have to satisfy all the certification and licence rules explained below, before getting the authorisation to be launched. The notion of an “accredited passenger”, presented in Chapter 3, will not be relevant for most of the space passengers we expect in the timeframe covered by this chapter. As a result, a complete third party space liability regulation will be needed. One of the advantages of adopting the aviation model is that it sets limits on third party liability insurance and related insurance costs. For a space tour operator, such limits will be extremely important in order to quantify risks and lower costs.

Insurance Various kinds of insurance will needed for tourism in low Earth orbit, including life insurance, damage insurance and third party liability. Insurance issues will be strongly linked to certification and licensing of tourism orbital vehicles, discussed below, since insurers will need guarantees of the vehicle reliability.


118

Certification Regulation for a Space Tourism Orbital Vehicle Certification regulation describes design rules and performance requirements that a spacecraft has to meet. The spacecraft must demonstrate either theoretically and/or by ground or in-flight testing that it obeys the rules and fulfils the requirements. Certification rules for an aircraft are defined through the Federal Aviation Administration in the US and the Joint Aviation Authorities in Europe. Certification requirements for unmanned commercial space launches or manned government space launches have been drawn up either by space agencies, for example in the SP-8000 series of NASA Special Publications [Boggs, 2000], Ariane General Specifications for industrial ESA contractors working on Ariane programmes, or by the industry itself, as in Boeing manuals. Space tourism certification standards could be adapted from these existing air- and spacecraft design rules. This undertaking could be assigned to the Federal Aviation Administration and Joint Aviation Authorities, with the cooperation of major space industries such as Boeing, United Space Alliance (USA), and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). A model of organisation and list of tasks for such an undertaking is described by Gaubatz [1996]. Note also that, a first answer to certification standards is provided in Chapter 3, the near term space tourism chapter of this report. Following this lead, the next step would be to go from certifying a single prototype vehicle, as for sub-orbital flight vehicles, to an established system for certifying mass production of orbital spacecraft. In this case, one cannot control and certify every individual piece, but must rather control and certify the process and test every several pieces for confirmation. A major task for the space industry will be to work on the manufacturing and control processes, because currently neither are set up for mass serial production of hardware.

License Regulation for a Space Tourism Orbital Vehicle The goal of licensing is to ensure public health and safety. The Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) of the FAA in the US issues a license when it determines that an applicant’s launch or re-entry proposal or launch site operation proposal will not jeopardize public health or safety, property, US national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the US. The main barrier in acquiring a license is in ensuring public safety. Two main types of licenses may be released, a launch-specific license, which is more limited, or a launch operator license. A launch-specific license authorises the licensee to conduct only one or more launches, all having the same launch parameters, using the same type of launch vehicle and from one launch site. The license explicitly “identifies by name of mission each launch authorised by the license or the expiration date stated in the license.” On the other hand, a launch operator license is more general. It “authorizes a licensee to conduct launches from one launch site, within a range of launch parameters, of launch vehicles from the same family, transporting specified classes of payloads” [AST, 2000]. Both types of licenses are potentially applicable to space tourism, though the launch operator license is clearly more useful for a sustained, long-term tourism business. In either case, the launch licensing process will require a pre-application consultation, an application evaluation, and compliance monitoring. The application evaluation requires a policy review and approval, a safety review and approval, a payload review and


119

determination, a determination of financial responsibility, and an environmental impact review.

In-Orbit Laws What law system should apply for our low Earth orbit space tourists while they are in orbit? The question of jurisdiction may follow the lead of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) for the International Space Station (ISS). The IGA has provisions relevant to space traveller activities, covering topics including criminal jurisdiction, bases for States to exercise jurisdiction and extradition. For example, under Article 22 of the IGA, criminal jurisdiction is determined by the nationality of the alleged perpetrator not, as before, by the “nationality” of the flight vehicle [Farand, 2000]. The IGA can provide a starting point for drafting regulations for life in a space tourism orbital vehicle. Unforseen incidents during the ISS era and the first experiences of early space tourism (Chapter 3) will also no doubt require modifications this framework, as necessary. Such in-orbit laws would only apply to the tourist operator and her contractors and customers. Laws regulating daily life in-orbit during a space tourism flight, will need first and foremost to address security issues. Some problems may arise since space tourist crews and passengers will be chosen with lower selection requirements and preparation than astronaut missions. Legal and regulatory issues that must be addressed include establishing a clear chain of command between the members of the professional crew and the tourists; how to treat problems such as “unruly” passengers, for which the airline industry model can be a guide; establishing criminal laws; and establishing security guidelines and responsibilities for equipment use. Both aviation industry regulations and the Crew Code of Conduct provided by Article 11 of the ISS IGA [Farand, 2000], provide a starting point for defining these regulations for space tourists.

Environmental issues for orbital flights As the space tourism industry becomes more vibrant and the launch rate increases, environmental issues, specifically noise pollution, space debris and air pollution [described in detail in Chapter 3] will inevitably arise. To address these issues, the following innovations in regulatory laws will be required. Noise pollution Vehicles that are capable of conducting orbital flights will obviously generate high noise levels, since they will expend a substantial amount of energy during the short duration of ascent. In addition, supersonic shock waves will be generated from the high-speed flight during departure or return. The regulations needed to minimize such impacts will be to increase the clearance zone around a space tourism launch/landing facility, and to control the launch and return air corridor. Space debris As the space tourism industry grows and more people travel into space, the risk of damage caused by space debris will increase proportionally. While this is a subject of concern for regulators tasked with ensuring passenger safety, it will also be in the interest of space tourism launch vehicle operators to actively remove space debris. Regulations are needed which require any jettisoned part of the passenger vehicle or debris produced by the orbital facility to be de-orbited or destroyed. It will thus become feasible to introduce legal liability for damage caused by space debris.


120

Air pollution With the exception of a launch vehicle whose only source of propulsion is liquid oxygen and hydrogen and thus whose main exhaust gas is only water vapor, exhaust gas from launch vehicles will cause an impact on the atmosphere. Regulations will be called for which require environmentally clean propulsion systems as well as environmentally safe propellant manufacturing, processing, storage and handling procedures.

Space Traffic Control As the launch rate for space tourism increases, a framework to manage the traffic of launch and landing will be required. Foreseeing this need, in 1999 the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation published a conceptual overview of commercial space transportation operations in the year 2005 and beyond [FAA, 2000a]. In this report, the FAA identifies a Space Operations Coordinator and an International Space Flight Organization, which should be established in order to “integrate space transportation operations and air traffic” as well as to “collaborate and exchange information on an international level for planning and notification to mitigate contention for airspace.” Also, allocating slots for particular low Earth orbits has been proposed—especially for those orbital slots that might be considered valuable, such as those that are “rendezvous compatible” and “site-synchronous” for a particular launch site and operations [Collins]. We envision a regulatory structure for space tourism similar to that which is currently in place for the aviation industry. It will be important to develop this structure in a timely manner so that the dependability of space tourism operations is not affected, however one should also keep in mind that the evolution of the comparable regulatory structure for the aviation industry took decades to develop into its current robust state.

Conclusions A myriad of legal issues arise, when considering sending tourists into orbit. Assuming that a large demand for orbital space tourism appears within the next decades, governments urgently need to provide a legal framework for issues such as liability, certification, licensing, traffic regulation and environment laws. Both the aviation industry regulatory system, and the Inter-Governmental Agreement developed for the International Space Station, may serve as models for developing a space tourism legal framework.

4.5 Medical Care of Orbital Flight Clients

4.5.1 Medical Selection and Training In the US, the FAA has the double mandate of ensuring passenger safety while promoting growth of the industry. Initial sub-orbital flights might be pursued with minimal medical guidelines for passenger selection. Orbital flights of short duration (less than a week) entail potentially greater risks than those discussed in the sub-orbital flight section (chapter 3). For such tourism oriented flights, medical standards that will be established will be a precedent in the travel industry. Currently, there are no clearly defined standards for passenger exclusion for tourist travel, such as cruise ships and railway excursions. Passenger health standards will seek to decrease the probability of an on board accident or the deterioration of a pre-existing condition, such as diabetes or heart


121

diseases. Would we need to have a relatively complete health care facility (like major cruise ships for example) in order to avoid evacuations? Any medical scenario that would require Earth return will be quite costly. Until passenger volume grows appreciably, this type of medical facility is unlikely to exist due, to low benefit-to-cost ratio. How will we determine acceptable levels of pre-existing disease and who will be charged with this function? [Mitaria 1993, Nagatomo 1993] Private or civilian pilots must meet FAA standards or their equivalent outside the U.S. These standards are based on the ability to perform flying duties. To the extent that passengers are responsible for important flight duties, current aviation medical standards (discussed in Chapter 2) are a sensible starting point for the space tourist. Limited understanding of the physiologic effects of microgravity on large non-astronaut populations will initially impose additional restrictions. With little data regarding space pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, common medications could cause unpredictable effects. Clients who would otherwise be aviation qualified might thus be restricted from spaceflight. [Upe Apel 1999] Physically challenged individuals will have to be assessed on an case by case basis. Access to handicapped persons may be, initially at least, limited (depending on the type of handicap) because of an increased design cost and a small market size. However, as market size increases, space tourism will have to be as accessible (and perhaps even more) as commercial air travel is today for the handicapped. It is arguable that the significance of a microgravity environment will be more important to a paraplegic for example, because of the ability to escape gravity’s pull to freely move around. In addition to physical standards for space tourists, some degree of psychological assessment may be warranted. Obviously, tourists with a known history of certain psychiatric illness (suicide attempts, personality disorders, claustrophobia etc.) would be excluded. International aviation authorities and the FAA will need to collaborate to determine minimal medical standards for commercial spaceflight crew and passengers based on scarcely available data. Without hindering access to space for civilians and profitability for a new industry, they will have to be responsible for health preservation, and safety of passengers and crew.

4.5.2 Life Support Systems Life support systems aboard a space tourism facility should provide a comfortable environment in addition to one that meets the safety standards currently applicable to astronauts in orbit. The basic criteria are outlined in Section 2.6.5. Since space tourists will not be ¨mission-oriented¨, they may not be as tolerant of environmental inconveniences such as limited bathing facilities, the use of absorbent undergarments, and the need for hearing protection. Noise levels inside a tourist facility should be below the level currently predicted for the International Space Station (ISS). Life support systems can be of “open-loop” or “closed-loop” design. Open-loop systems require a constant exchange of materials between Earth and the space facility. Resupply of all environmental consumables (food, water and oxygen) from Earth must occur at regular intervals and waste products must be returned as necessary. Open-loop technologies have been used extensively in manned spaceflight and tend to be simple


122

and highly reliable. Their initial mass is relatively low, but resupply requirements increase linearly with mission duration and crew size. In contrast, closed-loop systems involve recycling of materials within the space facility. The initial hardware is heavier, but resupply missions are not necessary. Such systems are appropriate for long manned missions or those for which resupply is not an option (e.g. missions to Mars). The ultimate closed-loop life support system uses bioregenerative techniques (i.e. plants) to produce oxygen and food for human consumption, and to consume exhaled carbon dioxide, a product of human respiration. These techniques are currently in experimental phases on Earth. However, partially-recycling hybrid systems are currently available and used on Mir space station. They use physicochemical machinery to recycle human liquid waste and produce both potable and hygiene water.

Figure 4-14: Mission duration versus cost for life support. [Source: Keys to Space]

Both types of systems offer advantages for space tourists. The choice will in large degree, depend on the tourist ‘s vehicle or facility design: shuttle vehicle vs orbiting station. Open-loop systems are generally used in shuttle type vehicles because of their weight and cost advantages, and available resupply opportunities. A vehicle using such a system could launch, stay on orbit for a short duration and re-enter. For a permanently occupied space station, a bioregenerative and completely closed-loop system would be favoured. Alternatively, if a permanent space facility is to be intermittently visited by tourists, its life support systems could be remotely activated and validated from Earth in anticipation of their momentous arrival. This could add an economic advantage. Still, a completely bioregenerative system is labour intensive, requiring human activity for plant maintenance and harvesting. For a facility that will be occupied on a discontinuous basis and over a long period of time, a partially closed-loop hybrid design would perhaps be most economical, require less re-supply, and increase passenger flight opportunities.


123

4.5.3 Key Physiological Effects of Orbital Spaceflight A myriad of physiological alterations due to microgravity exposure, of both short and long duration have previously been addressed. Two of these, radiation and SMS, represent the greatest barriers for a successful orbital space enterprise.

Radiation Effects The space radiation environment includes the solar wind, solar flares, GCR flux, and trapped charged particles in the Earth’s magnetosphere (Van Allen radiation belts). Solar wind radiation consists of a continuous flow of low energy protons and electrons, which poses a small hazard. In contrast, solar flares produce high-energy protons and electrons with a high flux density. The flares are intermittent and may last for hours or days. They can result in space radiation doses that may cause acute radiation injury to an unprotected human. During the last few years considerable effort has been devoted to measuring solar flares and seeking ways predict them based on theoretical models. Presently, reliable prediction methods are not available. GCR’s consist of protons, electrons and heavy ions, such as iron nuclei. They are an important hazard to both biological and electronic systems because of their high energy and their very high local energy deposition. Radiation belts are composed of charged particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field consisting of electrons, protons and very few heavier ions. The penetration power of the electrons is rather low, but the protons can penetrate the shielding material of a spacecraft appreciably, producing secondary radiation. While trapped particle radiation belts are not of great concern for sub-orbital flights, their extension to lower altitudes in the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is an important concern for spacecraft in low Earth orbit. For orbital flights with a high inclination, like the Mir space station or ISS, crossing the SAA may account for up to 2/3 of the radiation exposure of the crew.

Figure 4-15: Radiation environment Space Shuttle STS-60 (inclination 57°, altitude 352 km). [Source: NASA]

Short duration orbital flights can be planned to minimize radiation exposure by avoiding solar events and selecting optimum orbits. However, planning to minimize radiation exposure in longer duration orbital flight becomes problematic. Two primary factors


124

become critical considerations: lifetime radiation monitoring and in-flight monitoring of the spacecraft interior and individuals. At the altitudes of current commercial air travel, there is very little risk of hazardous radiation exposure to either crew or passengers. Based on average duty times between 600 and 1000 hours per year for aircrew, the typical annual radiation dose is between 4 and 8 mSv, the equivalent of a few medical chest x-rays annually. For Concorde flights, which reach higher altitudes, occupational health standards require radiation exposure assessments for employees. Employees exposed to more than 1 mSv must be monitored and their maximum annual exposure may not exceed 15 mSv. Additional occupational radiation standards and comparisons with spaceflight dose exposure were provided in section 3.3.3 For orbital space flights, 1 mSv can be surpassed in a single day by traversing the South Atlantic anomaly. In absence of threatening solar activity, the anticipated dose for the crew and passengers of a 5-day space tourism flight is approximately 5 mSv. As a result, for a given crew member who might work up to 6 flights per year, based on potential scheduling and recovery concerns, the annual exposure could reach 30 mSv. Such crew members must be treated as occupational workers with a 5 year exposure limit of 100 mSv. In-flight radiation exposure measurements are also required and can be performed using a variety of devices. Measurement devices A Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter (TEPC) is an active radiation measurement device used as a reference measurement on the Space Shuttle. It provides real-time measurement of the absorbed dose inside the spacecraft and, by determining the quality factor of the mixed radiation field, indicates its relative biological effectiveness. Another advantage of this system is that changes in the radiation environment due to solar flares or other events (intended radiation such as nuclear detonation) can be seen directly on a laptop display. For comparative measurements other devices like silicon detectors can be used.

Figure 4-16: Photograph of TEPC equipment. [Source: Vana 2000]

Individual personal surveillance of astronauts/cosmonauts and future space tourists can be achieved using passive dosimeters (thermoluminescent detectors). An additional advantage of these systems lies in their small dimensions, hence they can be worn in a


125

pocket or on a spacesuit. However, individuals must commit to wearing them. The collected data can be evaluated on the spacecraft or upon return to Earth.

Figure 4-17: Photographic representation of a thermoluminescent dosimeter. [Source: Vana], 2000

Space Motion Sickness To be successful, a space tourism venture that intends to carry the general public to orbit for a duration of hours to days must address ways to improve the discomfort of SMS. SMS is a common problem that can equally affect both crew and passengers. This is unlike radiation exposure which, for space tourism ventures, would be more problematic for crew members (due to flight regularity ) than tourists. Because NASA generally does not plan critical activities during the first 48 hours of a Space Shuttle flight, the mission impact of SMS is minimised. For the space tourist however, getting sick within a few hours of launch can ruin the entire experience. In addition, pre-flight anticipation of SMS by passengers may be just as anxiety producing as actually getting sick. Before flying, the space tourist passenger will have to be well instructed, mentally prepared, and possibly pre-medicated. Pilots and responsible crew members, on the other hand must be capable of handling safety functions and respond to emergency situations within the first 48 hours whether they suffer from SMS or not. In their case, treatment of SMS could be controversial. Strategies to effectively overcome this potential barrier to space tourism must be based on better characterization, prediction, and prevention of SMS. Characterization of SMS An existing tool used to describe the severity of SMS is the “Pensacola Motion-Sickness Survey”[Lyne 2000], shown in Table 4-7 below. This tool presents eight classes of symptoms: nausea, temperature, pallor, sweat, salivation, drowsiness, headache and dizziness. Each symptom is ranked by subjects and observers as mild, moderate or severe. A numerical weighted score is summed to obtain one of five overall severity levels ranging from slight malaise to frank sickness.


126

Table 4-7: The Pensacola survey and SMS symptom definitions

Severity ranking by observer and subject:

Symptom Class:

Slight Moderate Severe

Temperature Skin warmth starting on face & neck

_ Extending to chest, back, under arms or thighs

Pallor

Noticeable whitening of the skin color on small areas of the face _ Complete loss of color on the

face and upper torso

Salivation

Noticeable increase in amount of saliva and frequency of swallowing

_ Copious amounts of saliva drooling from the mouth

Sweat

Light amounts of sweat on the forehead, upper torso or under arms

_

A profuse whole body sweat. Noticeable damp clothing, particularly on the chest, under arms and back

Drowsiness

Feeling of being slightly sleepy Boredom, apathy and/or fatigue Subject’s desire to fall asleep

_ Subject literally falling asleep. Inability to perform required tasks, even when prompted

Headache Feeling of a headache which was not present prior to the test

Dizziness

Presence of “dizziness, vertigo, disorientation, wobbliness, unsteadiness”

_ Sensations persist beyond several seconds after the subject’s head stops moving.

Nausea Minimum stomach awareness or discomfort. Slight nausea. _

Severe nausea “About to vomit” feelings Vomiting or Retching

Prediction of SMS susceptibility Tests to attempt to predict individual susceptibility to motion sickness under weightlessness involve a variety of studies both in parabolic flight and ground-based facilities. Some measure differences in eye movements, others are based on motion of the visual surroundings, such as the Coriolis Sickness Sensitivity Index (CSSI) and the Staircase Velocity Movement Test (SVMT). The reliability of individual tests might be improved by combining scores [Calkins 1987]. One limiting factor in this research is that on orbit studies are significantly hampered by small sample sizes. It will be interesting to study larger numbers of naïve subjects (those who have never experienced microgravity, such as candidate astronauts or space tourists) to compare test results with actual flight outcomes. One interesting hypothesis to explain SMS describes a left-right asymmetry between the gravity-sensitive “otolith organs” of the inner ear from physiological or anatomical


127

differences. This proposed asymmetry only becomes evident in novel gravitational states (zero or partial g) and leads to unstable vestibular responses and head motion sensitivity. Disconjugate, or dis-coordinated eye movements may be one indicator of SMS susceptibility in microgravity. Markham and Diamond studied eye movements in astronauts during parabolic flight. Astronauts who had previously experienced SMS on orbit exhibited more disconjugate eye movements than those who had not. Ground-based susceptibility tests cannot yet reliably predict on-orbit experience – for a given individual, one flight may be different from another. In addition, predictive tests do not attempt to determine SMS severity. Anecdotally, experienced space travelers sometimes develop personal pre-flight regimes that may help minimize SMS. Prevention of SMS Current research aimed at prevention of SMS includes Pre-flight Adaptation Training devices (PATs) [Harm 1994, Reschke and Parker 1988] and in-flight pharmacologic therapy. PAT’s are designed to condition astronauts to novel sensory stimulus conditions similar to those experienced in microgravity and might be useful to alleviate or shorten the duration of SMS. By intentionally rearranging relationships between visual and otolith signals, these devices evoke sensory compensation or adaptation process believed necessary to maintain spatial orientation in microgravity Treatment of SMS with anti-emetic agents such as Promethazine, carries with it the problem of undesirable side-effects on psychomotor performance [Pavy-Le Traon 1987]. Promethazine is most effective and has the least side effects when injected intramuscularly [Putcha 1999].

Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal Countermeasures For space tourists, who can be expected to loose approximately 2% body mass and experience variable degrees of cardiovascular changes over a 3 to 5 day orbital flight, deconditioning is a problem to be addressed. Research on highly trained astronauts indicates that these are limited and pre-flight levels are regained within 2-3 weeks. To conserve bone strength and muscle mass, normal loading of the axial skeleton (as occurs in one-G) is necessary. In space, this load is greatly reduced, resulting in a reduced bone density and muscle mass. Muscles that have an antigravity function, such as the calf and quadriceps are affected more severely those of the upper extremities. Bone demineralisation is commonly measured in the calcaneus (heel bone) using an x-ray bone densitometer called Dexa scan. Countermeasures against for bone demineralisation and muscle atrophy have been developed both in the U.S. and the Russian space programs and have shown to be effective to a certain degree. Various skeletal loading systems, such as bungees, the Russian “Penguin suit” have been studied. as well as exercise programs like cycle ergometers, treadmills, and rowing machines. Limitations on scientific conclusions are the small subject size and the variability that has occurred in amount and kind of exercise between individuals and by flight. Space tourism might help increase scientific results valid for a wider population. Untrained passengers will surely benefit from


128

application of the countermeasures that have helped astronauts to date, but their responses are difficult to predict. Table 4-8 below provides a summary list of successful countermeasures. Space tourists will benefit from regular on-orbit exercises such as cycling and rowing. They will also need fluid-loading before return to Earth and will wear anti-g suits. [Helmut 1996, Jack 1996]

Figure 4-18

Figure 4-19

Figure 4-20

Figure 4-18, Figure 4-19, Figure 4-20: Typical exercise facilities used by current astronauts [Source: NASA]


129

Table 4-8: Summary of successful countermeasures

Space Environment Hazard

Examples of Successful Countermeasures

Cabin Environment & Altered Atmosphere - Decompression Risk - Smoke, Fire & Toxic Inhalations - Acoustic Environment

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) Pressure Suits/EVA Cuff Classification for DCS Combustion Products Monitoring CO2 monitoring Custom Hearing Protectors/Acoustic Monitoring

Radiation Lifetime Crew Monitoring Solar Radiation Monitoring & Prediction Avoidance

Microgravity -Cardiovascular -Neurovestibular & SMS -Bone Loss & Muscle Wasting

Exercise & Fluid Loading Temperature Control (Liquid Cooling Garment) LCG Recumbent Seating for missions > 30 days Critical mission activities, including EVA, usually not scheduled in first 24-48 hours Oral meds / iv meds, experience Exercise, Medications

Acceleration

G suit & Re-entry profile

Egress, Escape and Survival

Launch/Entry Suits (LES) and CRV ¨lifeboat¨

Circadian Desynchrony

Pre-flight circadian shifting with bright, full-spectrum lighting, Melatonin Health Stabilization Program (HSP) isolates crew during week prior to flight

Additional factors to be considered are spine elongation due to an increase in intervertebral disc space in microgravity and straightening of the spine. These effects can result in height increases up to 10 cm. These changes may both worsen or alleviate common back pain, depending on the individual.


130

4.5.4 Medical Care of Tourists from Earth

In-flight and Ground Support Just as governmental space programs have done for astronauts, private ventures must provide medical support to passengers. This begins with medical standards for safe flight and training. Before flight, possible restrictions on exposure to ill persons (like NASA’s week long Health Stabilization Program) would help minimise in-flight illness. In addition to ground support, a physician must be available in the orbiting facility, with communication with the ground for telemedicine. NASA’s communication systems used for medical support have been described in Section 2.4.3. For space tourism, real-time teleconferencing links should be linked to a network of hospitals on Earth. Collectively, this network should have full access to all medical specialties, 24 hours a day. Facilities on the tourism vehicle should include technology capable of telemetry for electrocardiographic, ophthalmologic, ultrasound and possibly x-ray data for transfer to Earth-based specialists.

Medical Training of Crew Space tourists can reasonably expect access and quality of medical care in orbit that is equivalent to that offered in adventure tourism on Earth. A medical crewmember aboard the vehicle should be a trained physician, able to manage problems ranging from nausea and visual disturbances, to sore throats and musculoskeletal injuries. The mental health of the tourists should not be overlooked. This crewmember should also have some psychiatric training, to deal with a potential panicked or combative client experiencing claustrophobia or isolation. The on-board medic should be able to receive treatment advice from Earth-based specialists if needed, via the telecommunications link. Since the number of staff in a space tourism facility will be small, the medic should also be trained for other, non-medically related tasks as necessary.

Emergency procedures If a permanently orbiting facility for space tourism is to be realised, the need for an evacuation vehicle will be imperative. Among other uses, this vehicle should serve as an ambulance to shuttle a pilot, a medic and the patient in a stretcher back to Earth. If such a secondary vehicle is incorporated into the orbiting facility, a sick patient need not compromise the trip for the rest of the passengers. In the interest of cost efficacy, a vehicle like the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle currently being developed by NASA could be employed. The vehicle should be equipped with all the amenities that are included in an Earth ambulance. The X-38 vehicle is currently designed to be flown autonomously which may absolve the need for a pilot to be flown back to Earth with the medic and the patient. It is possible that the medic could also be trained to fly the vehicle if required. This may require few design changes from the current X-38 vehicle.


131

Figure 4-21: The X-38 Crew Return Vehicle [Source: NASA]

Post-Flight Rehabilitation Upon return to Earth after three to five days in space, the space tourist will likely experience discomfort to a greater extent than trained astronauts. Medical support upon Earth return is valuable for to achieve customer satisfaction and good public relations. Staff must be immediately available to assist with passenger egress. Facilities for a two to three day period of rehabilitation should be available for the space tourist and be included in the travel package. Muscle strengthening, weight bearing exercise and activities challenging the vestibular system should be included in a post-flight rehabilitation regimen. Passengers will appreciate quality rehabilitation facilities, perhaps of a resort type, that provide entertainment while being medically useful.

4.6 Orbital Tourism from the Perspective of the Client

4.6.1 Pre-Flight The preparations for the people signing up to go to space on vacation will start some months before the actual launch. First of all, medical checks are important to see whether or not the person is fit enough to go to space. This medical selection is discussed in chapter 4.5. In addition to the medical checks and preparations there will be mental preparation. For most people, going to space will be an experience unlike any other. Thus, in this pre-flight phase, information will be very important for the travellers, so that they can better prepare mentally and know what to expect. A six-month pre-flight period will be sufficient to take care of the medical testing and to get the needed information, and short enough to “stay focused”. It is important to create a well-organised program where the initial information is basic, with increasing level of details towards the end of the pre-flight preparations. This


132

information phase will not be a one-way communication but will depend on feedback from the customer in order to ensure maximum “return” from their journey. The first “information package” to the customers should be information about deadlines for medical checks and further correspondence. At this point it is very important to build up enthusiasm and excitement with information, maps and pictures. Customer information will be important at the early phase of the pre-flight preparation, and a questionnaire must be included and returned. Central questions would be:

• Name and contact information (address, email, phone etc) • Sheets to be filled in by customers medical doctor and returned to company

within given deadlines. • Request to take part in scientific experiments during flight, including some pre-

and post-flight tests/examinations. (Possible experiments will be discussed in chapter 4.6.2).

• Personal information form (age, nationality, interests etc). This is optional, and if filled, will be distributed to the other travellers to start the teambuilding process as soon as possible.

The information should arrive to the customers in packages distributed over the 6 months of pre-flight training. All information must be available in different languages, and the customers can individually choose in which of the available languages they want their information. Some of the information in this pre-flight period will be:

• The complete program, including deadlines both for the traveller and the company, medical requirements with deadlines.

• Where and how to get additional information. This should be easy to find. • Technical description of all parts of the system (pre/post-flight centre, launcher,

vehicle, facility if these are separate). • Basic information about in-flight activities. • Information about scientific experiments the traveller can take part in during the

flight with guidelines and deadlines for signing up. • Maps and pictures of the vehicle(s). • List of suggested items to bring “to orbit” • Name and address list of the other travellers (must be clarified with each person

if this information should be released). All the information provided should be put in a positive way, but without “hiding” facts. It is important to tell about the dangers and potential risks involved. In the information packages given to the customers, there should be references to scientific works on the different fields like radiation risks, orbital debris, medical/physiological considerations (fluid shift, reduction in bone and muscle mass etc.). These papers should be sent to the customers upon request.

One Week before Departure One week before departure the “crew” (travellers) will arrive to a pre-flight centre for the last briefing and preparations before the flight. The last medical examinations will be performed during this week and the optional scientific experiments will be started.


133

Crucial teambuilding and mental preparation will also take place. The pre-flight centre should be similar to a theme park that can be visited independently of space flights as a ground-based, space-related activity. Part of the preparation should be a visit to models of the facility (if there is one), a visit to the launch pad, and information about the procedures for the launch, flight and re-entry. At this stage, briefing about emergency procedures will start. At the pre-flight centre, the passengers will get a chance to experience and prepare for the high and low g-force that will appear during the flight. This is an important part of the mental as well as the physical training. If the traveller is familiarised with the feeling of high g’s in a safe environment on Earth, he or she will know what to expect during launch and re-entry. This can take away some of the fear involved in these “higher risk” parts of the journey. An acceleration corresponding to an increased level of gravity can be simulated in a centrifuge. Cosmonauts, astronauts and jet fighters train in centrifuges in the shape of capsules mounted on a long arm spun around at high velocity to achieve high g forces (picture of a centrifuge in chapter 2). The tourists will not experience extreme g forces during their journeys. The Space Shuttle has a maximum acceleration of 3 g, and we can expect the tourist-carrying vehicle to stay at or below this value. This can simplify the construction of the centrifuges needed for tourist training. In a spinning circular room several persons can at the same time experience the centrifugal force pushing them against the wall. By mounting chairs along the walls, the travellers will have the feeling of high g forces. A parabolic zero-g flight should also be offered to the participants during this week of pre flight training. This will mentally and physically prepare the travellers for the weightless environment they will experience in orbit. By having some experience of weightlessness before the actual space flight, the time it will take to mentally adapt to this new environment in orbit will be reduced. Having a short adaptation time is important to get as much as possible out of the trip. Pre-flight preparations in zero-g parabolic flights will be most important for short space travels. For short flights, the time in zero-g is limited, and it is important to adapt fast. Some of the travellers will probably be interested in learning more about space and the spacecraft. Different courses and classes can be offered prior to the flight. Basic courses in spacecraft design, the near Earth environment, history of space travel and other courses directly related to the flight would increase the awareness of space and the trip they are taking. The persons that have already been to space (cosmonauts and astronauts) tell that looking at the Earth from above is one of the greatest experiences of the flight. Before going to space, the customers can be offered courses in geography to learn what is where on planet Earth, what to look for, what they actually see and how to spot the differences between landscapes. Also courses in photography can be given. If there are onboard cameras, the travellers should learn how to operate them before launch. During the last day before the flight a complete “dry run” of the launch procedure should be performed. This could be in the actual vehicle or in a simulator. It should be as close to the actual launch as possible, to give the passengers a feeling of “controlling” the situation during the actual launch. If pressure suits and helmets are required, this should be tried on and worn during this simulation. Knowing what is happening and what will happen next, gives the persons a feeling of participating, and it also gives the people a


134

chance to prepare for the different stages of the launch (initial acceleration, drop of stages if MSTO, and “entering” zero-g environment). The pre-flight training must be organised in such a way that the customers feel it as part of the travel, part of what they pay for, not only preparations for the travel. [Abitzsch, 1996] The theme park at the pre/post-flight centre can also contribute to recruit future space travellers. Visitors at the team park get the chance to meet and talk to the people on their way to space, and to those coming back. Positive feedback from other travellers is often an important factor in deciding when people choose whether to go or not.

4.6.2 In-flight

Introduction An important point for the future space explorers is that they should get the feeling that they are being treated like explorers and astronauts/cosmonauts, starting with the six months pre-flight phase. This will give them the feeling that they are part of a “space crew” that will travel together into orbit. As mentioned in chapter 4.6.1 the space travellers will spend the last days before their flight in a theme park to get their final physical, information and mental training. They will enjoy the thrill of a zero g flight experience and they will also have the possibility to socialize with their “astronaut-crew”. After these days of holiday and education they will fly into space for a short or long duration stay. In the previous chapters we discussed the reasons why people would want to go to space and also what the people want to do once there. It is important to think about the kind of facilities they need to enjoy their stay. Strongly related with the options for entertainment and recreation in space is the time the adventurers are willing to spent in space.

Figure 4-22: The length of a space trip preferred by respondents from different countries [Abitzsch, 1996]


135

The figure above shows the length of a space trip preferred by respondents. This survey shows that a majority of the people would like to go to space for 2 or more days. He [Abitzsch, 1996] claims that there is little variability between market surveys on this point. One serious point which has to be taken into consideration when we are talking about the length of the stay in space, is the effect of Space Motion Sickness. Space Motion Sickness occurs during the first 2 days in space, and the tourists have to be informed and receive on-ground training in this regard. Currently effective medication exists but there could be the problem of undesirable side – effects on psychomotor performance. Regarding these side effects, there has to be a trade off of risk versus benefit for the tourists. [See chapter 4.5.3]

Lift of and Re-entry Although the tourists will be treated like astronauts/cosmonauts they will only have had a small amount of training before they fly into space. It will be very important to make them feel comfortable during lift off and re-entry. This implies the necessary reduction of the high g environment below a certain limit. The launch vehicle has to offer an environment, which both satisfies their interest in adventure, and provides a certain amount of comfort. This includes music for the take off and landing and also seats that help them feel relaxed. A good relationship between the travellers and the spacecraft crew will also be necessary for a safe and healthy start. Meetings with the travellers and the spacecraft crew will have been arranged during the week before launch.

Experiences in Space

Figure 4-23: Earth seen from the Space Shuttle cargo bay [Source: NASA]

View of the Earth Seeing the Earth from above is one of the most impressive experiences cosmonauts/astronauts have in space. The travellers must have enough time to enjoy the view of Earth. This implies that there are enough windows available. The size and


136

the positions of the windows have to be adjusted to give the crew a comfortable place to look at Earth. If a spacecraft is orbiting the Earth, the “crew” also sees one sunset and sunrise every 90 minutes. So not only the view on Earth but also the outlook into space and to the stars is worth the visit. It is important to point out that since there is no atmosphere in space, the view of the moon and stars is much clearer than on Earth. Moreover, travellers can also pass by and have a closer look at the International Space Station ISS or at Space Station MIR. To conserve these impressions the “crew” can be trained to work with onboard cameras. It will be possible for them to work as a director filming a short movie clip from the first sunrise they saw in space, to take pictures of their country or to make some astronomical observations of stars and the Moon. Enjoying microgravity One of the main differences of space compared to Earth is the microgravity environment. For the travellers it will be very important to enjoy this new environment and to have enough space available for free floating. On the other hand the amount of space to make the travellers feel comfortable will limit the number of people going. If there is enough room the crew will have the possibility to perform sports activities and acrobatics, to play games or just feel free to use this space for their own ideas. There will be a lot of different activities related to zero-g that can be performed during a space flight. “Zero-g hair styles” where the three dimensions of space will encourage the creativity of the travellers. Also fashion shows will have a new dimension in orbit, where the clothes no longer hang down as on Earth. A variety of different ball games will be very different in microgravity compared to on Earth. Everything you throw will move with a constant speed as soon as it leaves your hand or foot. This makes the games slower, but more complex since they will be fully three-dimensional. The rules for these new microgravity games still need to be defined.

Figure 4-24: Enjoying zero-G [Source: ESA]

There are also many activities not directly related to zero-g and space that will be interesting for the more romantic travellers. Today people go to many different places to get married. Weddings under water, on mountaintops, in the air parachuting and similar places are getting more common. People who would like to spend their wedding and honeymoon in exotic places will find space very interesting alternative. The honeymoon would require a certain amount of privacy. ☺


137

Experiments in space Starting with the pre-flight phase the travellers get the opportunity to be involved and to perform scientific experiments in space. “Science in Space” is very interesting because of the unique microgravity environment and the impact this environment has on humans and also on the outcome of non-human related scientific experiments. Involvement of the tourists and travellers in experiments will contribute to their feeling of being like astronauts for a certain period of time. This will raise their understanding and awareness of the usefulness of performing science in space. These experiments in space can be related to different scientific fields such as life science, biology, and material physics. There will be members of the staff (space tourist guide) available to offer guidance and help in performing these experiments.

Figure 4-25: Microgravity experiments [Source: NASA]

Regarding life science experiments, the current available data concerning some questions about the impact of the space environment on humans is limited due to the small number of astronauts/cosmonauts, which have been in space. Part of the life science program for pre-, in-, and post-flight could be the measurements of bone mass, muscle and exercise capacity of the travellers. The exercise capacity includes the verification and measurement of workload, heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory gas exchange, cardiac output, and stroke volume. A countermeasure program adhered to by the travellers in space and supervised by an astronaut can accompany this life science package. This will include daily exercises using a treadmill and an ergometer. Experiments to get information about the adaptation phase to microgravity and the readaptation time on Earth are also very important. Currently there is a lack of data concerning these effects, because so few astronauts have flown and because they are unable or unwilling to devote time to human physiological studies. The purpose of these experiments is to gather data regarding the time the travellers need to adapt to the zero-g environment. They should be performed on a daily basis to monitor the adaptation time. Many other experiments in different scientific research fields can be carried out in space. This includes the observation of the behaviour of different fluids and also crystal-growth techniques in space. In the field of biology the tourist could study plant growth and insect behaviour: How does a spider build a web in microgravity? While considering all these experiments it is necessary to keep in mind, that the travellers are up there to enjoy themselves, to feel the experience of space. So it is very


138

important to include also experiments in a more entertainment way. If you observe the behaviour of fluids it also possible to wonder: How do you mix a cocktail in space? Another point to consider when going into space is the different sense of taste due to the fluid shifts to the higher parts of our body. Based on this all the food has to be very spicy to taste. A scientific game experiment could be the measurement of change in taste during the stay in orbit. How does champagne taste after 1 hour, 1 day or at the end of the journey? In including the “crew” actively in these experiments, they help to create a database and also a better understanding of the reactions of the human body to microgravity. Indeed, the clients are also explorers and scientists. Communication A direct communications link between the travellers in space and the ground facility should be established. This gives the passengers the opportunity to talk with future passengers on ground, to share their experiences and their feelings. They should also have the opportunity to send e-mails or talk to their family and friends over videoconference.

Voyage Duration and Space Needed Time is a very important barrier in the amount of entertainment and recreation the tourists can get in space. It is necessary to distinguish between short duration stays, and a longer vacation in space. For short duration stays the experience of microgravity and the view out of the spacecraft will satisfy the travellers. They will enjoy floating around and taking pictures of the Earth. There will be little time to perform scientific experiments and to play games because the duration of the flight is very limited. Longer duration stays (2 days and more) will expand the opportunities for the travellers. There will be time for sports, games, and for scientific experiments. When thinking about these opportunities for recreation, science, and fun, we also have to consider that in order to enjoy these entertainment options the travellers will need space. They will also need some time and space for privacy if they stay up in orbit for one week or more. This includes more comfortable lodging and improved personal hygiene facilities. [see chapter 4.7.9] The Space Shuttle crew compartment's volume with the airlock in the middeck has a volume of 2,325 cubic feet. If the airlock is in the payload bay, the crew compartment's cabin volume is 2,625 cubic feet. The amounts of space people need to feel comfortable increases with the time the spent in a new environment. To fulfil the needs of the travellers for long term stays the amount of space has to be increased to satisfy the crew.


139

Figure 4-26 Pressurised volume per person in relation to mission duration:

Considering these arguments, the available space in a spacecraft and the time for the vacation limits the number of travellers going up there for one flight. In thinking about offering all these different possibilities to the travellers and the amount of space, which is needed to offer them comfortable accommodation, and fun the idea of using an equipped orbital facility has to be taken into account.

4.6.3 Post-flight On arrival back to Earth after the space flight, the passengers might need help to get out of the seats and the vehicle, and a welcoming crew from the pre/post-flight centre should be ready to meet the passengers in the vehicle right after re-entry. This crew should contain medical staff in case of urgent medical needs after landing. Shuttle busses should be ready to take the passengers from the landing site to the centre where the medical checks take place. The post-flight medical care and rehabilitation offered to the customers depends on the duration of the flight, and are discussed in chapter 4.5.4. The follow up to the scientific experiments continues through the first hours after arrival to get data about the readapting phase to 1 g after the space flight. The travellers should at an early stage after re-entry get the opportunity to call/mail home to their friends and family. The stay at the post-flight centre will last on the order of 2-3 days, depending on the duration of the space flight. Through this whole period, medical checks and rehabilitation will be performed, but also mentally de-briefing is important. The travellers will need some time together to talk about their experiences before returning to “real life”. Cosmonauts and astronauts often tell that one of the problems after returning from space is the difficulty to communicate the feeling of the experience of space flight to the people who have not been there. The days on the post-flight centre must also be considered as a part of the “package” or the vacation, and the rehabilitation activities must be in such a way that they are regarded as pleasant for the customers. The lodging at the pre/post-flight centre should be in a hotel like facility, where the pre flight customers, post-flight customers and theme


140

park visitors live side by side. This will be a good opportunity for the travellers in the pre flight phase to get “first hand” information about the actual flight from the people who have just returned. The people on post-flight rehabilitation will get a chance to “put words” to their experience by discussing their flight with them. Of great importance is also the communication between the space-flying customers and the visitors to the theme park. From several investigations done in the tourist industry, one of the most important factors for people deciding to go somewhere on vacation is the information from previous customers. By providing a good product, from the pre-flight, via the in-flight to the post-flight period, the feedback from the space flying passengers to the theme park visitors will most likely be positive and enthusiastic, specially such a short time after the flight when the impressions are still fresh in their minds. At the pre/post-flight centre there will also be places where the travellers can by souvenirs from their stay at the centre and in orbit. The last night of the stay at the centre there should be a ceremony where the travellers get the pictures taken during the flight and a video from the whole trip. This video can include parts from the pre-flight training, the launch (from ground and from within the vehicle), special events that occurred within the vehicle or facility during the flight, sights from the window (Earth, Moon, stars, ISS, MIR) and the landing (from within and from ground). Also “cosmonaut/astronaut” diplomas or astronaut “wings” will at this point be given to the travellers, and they will be registered as “space flight alumnus”.

4.7 Some Detailed Aspects of Orbital Flight

4.7.1 Orbit Selection In the context of space tourism, it is essential to choose an orbit inclination which will provide the clients with an opportunity to look down at their home. It is expected that most of the customers will come from North-America, Europe and Asia. Choosing an orbit close to that of the ISS (51.6 degrees) gives a ground track that covers both the USA and Japan. Northern-Europe and Canada are not covered but may have to be sacrificed in order to avoid a very high inclination, which has disadvantages regarding both space debris and radiation. However, the radiation from the South Atlantic anomaly will still be a problem even with a 50 degree inclination orbit. The altitude of the orbit should be as low an orbit as possible to minimize the ∆V needed to achieve it. However, a low orbit increases the atmospheric drag of the vehicle, and a ∆V is needed to adjust for this drag. There is thus an optimal altitude of operation for the spacecraft which is a function of [Chobotov, Orbital Mechanics]:

• The atmospheric density - the space-weather at a given time • The ballistic coefficient of the vehicle - design parameter of the vehicle • The time in orbit - requirement from the passengers

The ISS orbit is at an altitude of 350 km. This orbit is chosen for a much longer time in orbit than 1-14 days expected for space tourism vehicles. Also, the ISS most likely experiences a higher drag coefficient. The orbit of a tourism vehicle could be chosen as low as 200 km.


141

∆V needed to go to orbit:

Speed in orbit + Los during launch + Los during orbit - Speed at launch site

7.7 km/s 1.7 km/s 0 km/s 0.56 km/s

Numbers from Ariane 5 Short period in orbit If you launch from equator

Total 8.9 km/s The orbit must also allow the desired mission duration. One circular, low orbit of 50 degree inclination takes approx. 90 min. Landing is only possible when the landing site is close to the orbital plane, which is fixed in space. Due to the Earth’s oblateness the orbital plane rotates 6 degrees/day towards the west [Williams and Collins, 1999], which results in the launch and landing being limited to certain periods in a 23.6 hours cycle. In other words, the optimal launch/landing time for a given orbital plane shifts by 24-minutes every day. Since it takes much fuel to change the orbital plane significantly, the mission duration should be chosen to avoid large phase plane changes. In addition, launching and landing from the same site simplifies logistics and is probably cheaper.

4.7.2 Air & Space Traffic Control

Rationale for ASTC Air traffic control (ATC) consist of scheduling, monitoring, and controlling aircraft traffic in the air and during taxiing on the ground. To accommodate the space tourism industry, a space traffic control (STC) infrastructure will have to be developed, to control the space traffic and to prevent any collisions between spacecraft during launch, while in orbit, during re-entry/landing, and facilities in orbit (space stations, satellites, etc). Moreover, air and space traffic control (ASTC) will need to be incorporated in order to prevent collisions between aircraft and spacecraft during phases of launch, re-entry and landing. Thus, pre-scheduling of spacecraft and aircraft landing must be performed so as to avoid the presence of aircrafts close to the spacecraft’s landing site and re-entry airspace. This is a costly task, but a necessary one to ensure the safety of both aircraft and spacecraft. Furthermore, emergency cases must be handled in such a way that the spacecraft is given priority for landing to the nearest landing site, possibly a conventional airport by providing full clearance from all aircrafts in the entry and landing air space as well as the airport, in enough time for the spacecraft to land safely. Hence, an incorporated Air & Space Traffic Control system is crucial for orbital space tourism. This infrastructure needs to be realised at the same time as the orbital flights.

Extending Air Traffic Control to include Spacecraft. The best way to extend ATC to handle STC would be a proposed system called Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B), which is now in the in the test phase with demonstration projects run in both America and Europe. ADS-B does not need to interrogate targets to display them. Rather, it relies on GPS. An aircraft has to be equipped with ADS-B equipment in order to utilize this new system. Each ADS-B equipped aircraft broadcasts its precise position in space via a digital data link along with other data, including air speed, altitude, and information on whether the aircraft is turning, climbing, or descending. This provides anyone with ADS-B equipment a much more accurate depiction of air traffic than radar. Also, since the equipment is small and light, it can become a standard part of the equipment on board the aircraft, allowing


142

pilots to have an accurate depiction of real-time air traffic, along with controllers. The same should be the case for spacecraft; however it is important to note that the information will be lost for a short period of time during atmospheric re-entry because of radio block out. Unlike conventional radar, ADS-B also works at low altitudes and on the ground, and thus can be used to monitor traffic on the taxiways and runways of an airport. It is effective in remote areas, in mountainous terrain and at very high altitudes where there is no radar coverage, or where radar coverage is limited. The new ADS-B software and hardware will provide pilots visual and audible cues, when it detects a potential conflict with another ADS-B equipped aircraft. The system will be capable of making this determination at greater distances than is possible with current collision avoidance equipment. This is important because spacecraft will need to fly more than 10 times faster than commercial subsonic aircrafts. The ADS-B project represents a rare opportunity for government / private sector cooperation to create a safer, more efficient, ATC system. Incorporating the ADS-B system into a spacecraft may be a convenient solution to combine ATC and STC. This would allow traffic data of a given aerospace sector to be accessible to both aircrafts and spacecraft at the same time as they are to the ASTC controllers. A STC system was proposed in 1995 by the Advanced Space Traffic Regulation Organization. ASTRO was contracted to submit a comprehensive conceptual design for an STC system, due to the concerns about space flight safety from the hazards of orbital debris. The amount of space debris is increasing. Hence, the tracking and monitoring of space debris position and speed needs to be merged to an ASTC system. The STC system proposed by ASTRO intended to provide manned and unmanned spacecraft with a reliable navigation and surveillance system up through the geo-synchronous orbit, by performing the following four functions:

• To track and catalogue both natural and man-made orbital debris • To monitor space traffic (such as the Shuttle or Space Station) • To determine free orbits, orbits with minimal probability of collisions, for insertion

of new satellites, or for avoidance manoeuvres • To predict and warn of potential collisions.

The STC system program proposed by ASTRO includes both detection and tracking of space debris using radar and optical systems. It also describes the necessary infrastructure that is needed to achieve STC. This system proposed by ASTRO can be combined with the ADS-B system to incorporate the required ASTC system for the future space tourism network of sub-orbital flights, orbital flights, and orbital facilities, together with the conventional ATC.

4.7.3 Automated Vehicles for Space Tourism A short duration trip to space in a manned craft lasting a few days up to a week is technologically viable today. A space tourism vehicle could for instance accommodate a crew of two, one pilot-commander and one mission specialist, and four to five


143

passengers. The mission specialist need not be a scientist but both crewmembers would require previous training and spaceflight experience (essential for the pilot). The commercialisation of such an enterprise presents some economic limitations; the costs are still too high. One of the main contributing factors to these high costs is the operational aspect. The crew will not be operational for a set time period following each flight. This assumption is based on the recovery time currently needed for STS astronauts after their missions. The minimum rest period between two consecutive missions for a crew would be as long as three to four weeks, for every one-week mission into LEO, and may be even be longer for the pilot. In order to sustain business and provide an appropriate frequency of flights (i.e. one flight every week), many crews would then be required. This will result in high maintenance costs as flight time per crew would be low compared to recovery and training time. Since current technology allows for a fully automated vehicle operation not only during flight, but also during launch and re-entry, another scenario could be a crewless vehicle used for a short duration (less than one day) flight. This type of mission would require some degree of preparation and/or selection of the space tourists. It is interesting to note that the first manned spaceflight in history was fully automated and the cosmonaut was a mere “passenger” in his capsule:

“During the flight of Vostok 1, Gagarin was not given control of his craft. This was because of the [...] insecurity regarding reactions of the mind and physics in weightlessness. The Russians didn't want to risk the cosmonaut losing control over himself while in space, and thus endangering the mission. There was a key available in a sealed envelope which enabled the cosmonaut to take control over the vessel in case of an emergency.” [www.kosmonaut.ru website]

A third scenario could be a fully automated “mission” in which a “space guide” or trained professional would be responsible for the safety and well being of the passengers and the successful completion of the mission. This person would not have any control over the spacecraft and the trip could last several days.

Current Spacecraft and Trends in automated Vehicles Some Space Shuttle subsystems are automated but require pilot operation in certain phases of the mission. Automated landing should be possible but this performance has never been tested. The Russian counterpart Buran performed its maiden flight in November 1988 with fully autonomous re-entry and landing but has not been flown since then [www.buran.ru website]. The future VentureStar will have very close characteristics to the Space Shuttle in terms of payload launch capability and volume. It will have a fully automated operation (see Table 2), but it is not defined to be a manned spacecraft. It’s technology demonstrator X-33 is currently in the development phase [www.venturestar.com website]. The future ISS’ emergency Crew Return Vehicle, CRV, will have a fully automated capability for re-entry and landing and a capacity to accommodate up to seven passengers. The project is also aimed at developing a design that could be modified for other uses, such as a possible vehicle that could be launched on an Ariane 5 booster. Its


144

technology demonstrator X-38 is also in the development phase [www.dfrc.nasa.gov website].

Table 4-9: Comparison of current and future spacecraft

Payload to LEO (metric tons)

Payload bay (m2)

Manned spacecraft

Capability for fully automated mission

Shuttle 28.8 4.5x18 Y N Buran 30 4.5x17 Y Re-entry and landing VentureStar < 22.7 � 4.5x15 N Y CRV - - Y Re-entry and landing

4.7.4 Safety & Reliability Safety standards of commercial airplanes and spacecraft are currently very different. A vehicle developed for space tourism will most likely have to meet the safety requirements that apply to commercial airplanes. Hence, a radical change in the development process of spacecraft is needed. The reliability of the engines is critical. The fuel used both in spacecraft and airplanes are highly flammable and the engines work under high pressure. A small leakage can cause fatal explosions or fires. All engines should thus have monitoring equipment and automatic shut down capabilities if a malfunction is detected. Modern airplane engines have a rate of 1 in-flight-shutdown (IFSD) per 20 000 hours flight time (Flight safety foundation, 2000). These airplanes are designed so that an IFSD is not critical by designing for more than one engine, thus allowing for a controlled emergency landing. This should be implemented on space vehicles also but will be difficult to do because of the extremely large takeoff mass. Currently most launch vehicles use strap-on boosters to gain enough thrust during takeoff. This does not provide enough margin to allow an IFSD during takeoff without a fatal loss of the vehicle. In addition, strap-on boosters present a serious problem for the overall safety of the vehicle. Solid rocket boosters, which are the most commonly used today, cannot be turned off and have to burn until they run out of fuel. Although the safety of these boosters has been improved since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, they are most likely to fail the commercial aviation safety requirements. Besides the engines, current spacecraft have very complex control systems. For a vertical takeoff vehicle, which is inherently unstable at takeoff, a malfunction in the control systems will result in a vehicle that is impossible to control. In contrast, a horizontal takeoff airplane is inherently stable, with the exception of some military fighting planes. A failure of the control system is then less severe, especially since the planes can usually be turned over to manual control. Thus with a vertical takeoff vehicle, there is complete dependence on the control system and the reliability of the system is critical. This underlines the importance of reliable software and computer systems. Redundancy in both software and hardware is the current solution. In modern fly-by-wire systems of commercial airplanes, three independent control systems work in parallel as redundant systems, requiring independent power supplies, different cable gates for


145

wiring, sensors for feedback, and control software and hardware. This results in a complex, expensive, and heavy system. This explains in part why SSTO vehicles do not fly today. The space tourism industry needs a reliable and safe vehicle. If the launch vehicle is grounded for long periods of time, the entire enterprise will be in jeopardy. Hence the vehicle design must attempt to minimise unforeseen technical problems that would increase the need for maintenance. This is a very difficult engineering requirement to satisfy for a reusable vehicle given the extreme environment that such a vehicle must operate in.

4.7.5 Space Debris Protection As discussed in orbital environmental pollution section (section 2.5.4), the amount of space debris in orbit around Earth has been growing since the beginning of space exploration. There are currently more than 100000 objects larger than 1 cm in orbit around the planet. These objects pose a severe and constant threat to spacecraft. However only objects larger than 10cm can be tracked today. The probability of a serious impact with orbital debris can be predicted from various models. An example is provided here which used the ESA MASTER 99 model build from the 1999 space debris population. As shown in Figure 4-27, a spacecraft must expect many impacts of small objects. The ISS is designed to withstand the impact of objects smaller than 1cm and the probability of a serious impact must be less than 0.5% per year. From the figure we can approximate this collision risk for orbital vehicles by multiplying the fraction of time the vehicle is in orbit. Comparing these figures with the current aviation safety standards, we find that 0.5% per year is equal to an accident probability of 0.6 per million of flight hours. Based on data from the Extended Range Operation with Two engine Airplanes (ETOPS): FAAS.FC 120-42A, today airplanes have a design target of all-causes accident probability of 0.3 per millions of flight hours.

1e-008

1e-006

0.0001

0.01

1

100

10000

1e+006

1e-006 1e-005 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

diffe

rent

ial f

lux

[1/m

^2/a

]

impactor diameter [m]

2D flux distribution vs. impactor diameter300 km orbit 51 deg inclination

esa MASTER-99 model Total flux is 1.5355E+04 [1/m^2/a]

cat. slag dust ejec. Figure 4-27: Distribution of orbital debris as a function of particle size [Source: ESA]


146

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

diffe

rent

ial f

lux

[1/m

^2/a

]

impact azimuth [deg]

2D flux distribution vs. impact azimuth300 km orbit 51 deg inclination

esa MASTER-99 model Total flux is 1.5355E+04 [1/m^2/a]

cat. frag.

slag NaK

dust paint

ejec.Sum of all

Figure 4-28: Distribution of orbital debris as a function of direction of impact [Source: ESA]

The model also shows that the most likely direction of impact is the direction of the velocity vector. Windows should therefore not be pointed this directions since it is more difficult to protect against fatal impact on windows than on the rest of the vehicle. NASA inspects the Space Shuttle windows after every flight to ensure no damage was incurred during the mission. Typically, up to 4 windows must be replaced following a 10 day flight, depending on the orientation in orbit. To satisfy the customer, space tourism vehicles will likely be designed with a larger window area. This will increase the maintenance cost and limit the turnaround time of the vehicle. Another factor which will increase cost and complexity is the need for the vehicle to be able to change orbit in case of close encounter with catalogued space debris.

4.7.6 Ground Infrastructure and Communication Two types of currently existing ground infrastructures are relevant for future space tourism operations, space launcher and airport infrastructures. While launcher ground infrastructures are optimised for the launching of satellites, they are not designed for the launching of tourists and future space tourism vehicles. Airport infrastructures are optimised to handle aircraft and passengers quickly, safely and efficiently, but are not designed to handle rocket vehicles launching into Earth orbit. Future spaceports will be a mix between an airport and a space launch site.

Existing Launch Sites For a list of existing launch sites see Chapter 2.5. These sites have typical a very complex infrastructure. The Space Shuttle facilities at Kennedy Space Center provide a good example, it comprises the following [from the NASA spaceflight website]:

• The Orbiter Processing Facility for preparation of the Shuttle orbiter; • The Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), were the orbiter is mated with the External

Tank and the Solid Rocket Boosters; • The Launch Control Center attached to the VAB, housing telemetry and tracking,

instrumentation, data reduction and evaluation equipment and the Checkout, Control and Monitor Subsystem (CCMS).


147

• The Mobile Launcher Platforms, used to support the Space Shuttle system during assembly, transport to the launch complex and launch;

• Crawler-transporters, to transport the Space Shuttle and the Mobile Launcher Platforms from the VAB to the launch complex;

• Launch complexes 39-A and 39-B, were the final launch preparations and the actual launch take place.

• The Solid Rocket Booster Disassembly Facility, to prepare the Boosters. • The Refurbishment Processing Facility, were the booster segments are brought

after cleaning and stripping. • The Parachute Refurbishment Facility, were the booster parachutes are

prepared. • The runway on which the Shuttle lands

Furthermore facilities include many offices, payload handling facilities, tracking and communications equipment, press rooms, astronaut facilities etc. Apart from the Kennedy Space Center, a Shuttle mission requires tracking and communications facilities along the launch trajectory and orbit ground track, as well as abort landing facilities. The most important facility after lift-off is Mission Control in Houston, which assumes responsibility over the Shuttle as soon as the vehicle has left the launch pad. It keeps in contact with the Orbiter through the rest of the flight through the various ground stations and the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). TDRSS comprises a series of satellites that are used for communications with the Orbiter when direct contact with a ground station is not possible. The Space Shuttle is very complex system, requiring an extensive ground infrastructure, hundreds of people and many operations before, during and after launch. In spite of the enormous amount of equipment and facilities, the Kennedy Space Center launches only 3 to 8 Shuttles per year, making the Space Shuttle a very costly launch system.

Future Launch Facilities Future launch facilities for reusable (satellite) launch vehicles will be designed for optimised launch operations than currently is the case. A good example of what is to come is the launch complex for the X-33 experimental, sub-orbital, single stage rocket vehicle. The X-33 flight centre is built to service and launch the vehicle from the same location, eliminating movement of the X-33 on the ground between these operations [http://www.venturestar.com]. The complex provides for maintenance of the vehicle in the horizontal position, and rotation of the vehicle to the vertical position for pre-flight servicing and takeoff. According to the Marshall Space Flight Center fact sheets, the complex includes:

• A rotating vehicle mount and strong-back for lifting the vehicle from a horizontal servicing position to a vertical takeoff position for flight;

• A pre-flight checkout position and flame trench; • A moveable shelter positioned on rails; • Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks capable of storing the required fuel; • A water tower to dampen acoustic vibrations during launch; • A small operations control centre located inside a hill less than 2 km from the

pad. The X-33 lands away from the site, at Edwards Air Force Base. However, its intended full-scale, orbital successor named Venture Star will land near its launch site to simplify transport operations.


148

The launch operations are highly automated; the X-33 vehicle even performs its own auto-safing after landing to enable the ground crew to approach the vehicle without risk. Turn-around times of two days will be tested, while all operations require only 50 people.

Figure 4-29: The launch site for the X-33 vehicle, with nearly all infrastructure combined into one facility [source: NASA/Lockheed Martin]

Airport Facilities Modern airport facilities are optimised and designed to enable many aircraft to make multiple flights per day. Usually the infrastructure comprises more than one runway, hangars for maintenance and parking, fuelling equipment, air traffic control, passenger, luggage and cargo handling etc. A plane lands near the processing facilities, parks at a gate where all subsequent operations are performed (maintenance, fuelling, cargo loading) and subsequently taxies on its own power to the runway for take-off. Major maintenance is only required periodically. Air traffic control follows all approaching and departing aircraft on radar, while each airplane transmits an identification signal. Procedures and flight corridors are set up to handle multiple aircraft at the same time. Airports have facilities to handle large numbers of passengers, cargo containers for the aircraft, restaurants, shops and entertainment facilities for passengers and visitors. In 1998 the combined airports of Paris handled 188 000 aircraft movements (landings and take-offs) and checked-in 4.8 million passengers [Aéroports de Paris website].

Tourism Spaceports From the point of view of infrastructure and operations, launch bases have not attained the efficiency of airports. Spaceports launching tourists into orbit will have to combine launch base and airport facilities and operations. The inherent complexity of the technology and operations of rocket vehicles will require the first spaceports be closer to launch sites than to airports. They may very well resemble the experimental X-33 facilities.


149

The infrastructure and operations at major airports should serve as an example for the development of space tourism launch sites. Investments should be made to develop the technology that can make the operation of rocket launch vehicles similar to that of normal airplanes. Fast turn-arounds, cost-effective ground operations, reliability and safety are the keys to success for future large-scale space tourism ventures.

4.7.7 Ground Operations and Maintenance Ground operations for (partly) reusable spacecraft can be divided into three major parts: pre-flight operations, post-flight operations, and maintenance and refurbishment [Reinbold, 1997]. The exact content of each of these phases is strongly dependent on the type of launcher, type of propellants, etc., but a number of activities and issues are identified that will be important for any type of space tourism vehicle.

Pre-flight Operations The pre-flight operations include all activities that need to be performed before launch or take-off. They include:

• Flight segment mating: the assembly of the various stages of the flight vehicle • Payload installation: in case of a space tourism vehicle this would be just the

boarding of the passengers. • Servicing: this involves propellant fuelling, tank pressurisation and activation of

the on-board avionics, power systems, communication equipment etc. • Ground segment preparation: the preparation of the launch control centre,

tracking facilities, abort landing facilities and emergency services. • Checkout: final checking of the launch vehicle and its systems, as well as the

status of the ground segment. • Safeguard: the clearing of the launch pad or runway and its surroundings, as well

as the part of the airspace through which the vehicle will travel. In case of a space tourism vehicle, the pre-flight activities may also include typical airport passenger operations such as luggage handling, customs, boarding etc. An important issue for the pre-flight operations (and also for post-flight and maintenance) is whether a vehicle can be processed horizontally or has to be prepared vertically like must current expendable launchers. Horizontal processing is easier and less labour-intensive, an important factor when the flight rate is high and the turn-around time (processing time between flights) needs to be low. Another factor is the type of propellant: kerosene can be handled like on any airport, while cryogenic propellants like liquid oxygen and liquid hydrazine require on-site production, intensive cooling, insulation of piping, vapour removal and more rigorous safety requirements. Toxic propellants like hydrazine also require special handling procedures and equipment. In comparison, the pre-flight operations for a commercial airliner are much more limited and simple than for current launchers, involving mainly fuelling, cargo loading and passenger boarding.


150

Post-Flight Operations The post-flight operations include those activities that need to be performed right after the return of the vehicle. Examples are release of remaining propellant and pressure in the tanks, decontamination in case toxic propellants are used, and preparations for transport and storage. For a commercial airliner the post-flight operations include, to name a few, driving the aircraft to the gate or hangar, off-loading of the cargo and passengers, cleaning, replacing drinking and sewage water. Similar operations should be required for spacecraft although today, the Space Shuttle Orbiter requires special operations immediately after landing because of the danger of toxic vapours from the attitude control thrusters.

Maintenance and Refurbishment Both corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance are required for any part of the launch vehicle that is reusable. Corrective maintenance of the launch vehicle involves repairs on sub-systems or equipment that are not in-flight qualified shape anymore after a flight. For the Space Shuttle for example, much effort is spend in replacing damaged thermal protection tiles. Preventive maintenance consists of repairs that are performed before a system or component degrades too far to be disqualified for flight. Examples of this are the main engines of the Space Shuttle, which are removed and serviced after each flight. Apart from maintenance, refurbishment is also a necessity. Refurbishment is replacement of a major part of the vehicle that has become unusable, and involves disassembly and reassembly of the vehicle. For aircraft, major overhauls are performed at set intervals in the vehicles lifetime (each time after a certain number of flights), for the Space Shuttle this is done for each flight. All this requires more than 92 700 man-hours of maintenance after a mission for the Space Shuttle Orbiter. This is costing about $7.5 million per flight [Morris, White, Ebeling, 1996] and it does not included the work performed on the main engines, separately from the Shuttle in the Vehicle Assembly Building engine shop or the cleaning and refilling of the two solid propellant boosters. The table below shows the difference in the ratio between scheduled an unscheduled work for the Shuttle and a airplane. Clearly, the maintenance service for each flight for commercial airliners is much less intensive than for the Shuttle [Morris, White, Davis, Ebeling, 1997].


151

Table 4-10: Maintenance comparison between commercial airliners and the Space Shuttle orbiter, [Morris, 1997]

Airliners Space Shuttle Orbiter Ratio of scheduled to unscheduled maintenance man-hours

0.5 1.7

Typical number of scheduled maintenance tasks per flight

< 10 1000

Typical number of unscheduled maintenance tasks per flight

< 10 1600

Size of typical maintenance crew 2 – 3 4 – 9

Makeup of typical maintenance crew Crew chief, technicians

Test conductor, systems, quality, safety engineers,

technicians

Space Tourism Launcher Ground Operations From the comparison between airliners and the Space Shuttle in the previous sections, it becomes clear that for space tourism operations involving high flight rates and fast turn-around, the Shuttle processing is not a good reference. Future space tourist vehicles will require aircraft-like operations to be profitable, requiring advances in technology and a different design philosophy governed by maintainability and operations, rather than development and production optimisation. For instance, current rocket engines are not nearly as reliable as jet engines and require much more maintenance. Also, the effort spent on the replacement of heat shield tiles on the Shuttle would be unacceptable for any space tourism vehicle. Future reusable (space tourism) launch vehicles will very probably include a built-in health monitoring system, which measures all loads and stresses during the flight as well as the operation of all systems. Upon return of the spacecraft, this monitoring system will indicate malfunctions or required preventive maintenance tasks, minimising the number of inspections and tests required before the next flight. Operations will have to be highly optimised and standardised, in order to ensure both safety and the efficient processing of the launch vehicles.

Habitable Volumes In order to meet the physical and psychological needs of the anticipated crew and the needed life support systems, a sufficient habitable volume is essential for long-duration human space flight. Throughout the history of human spaceflight, weight and habitable volume have been key requirements of spacecraft design. As mission duration increases, crews of even just a few persons require larger spacecraft volumes [Wiley Larson, 1997]


152

Figure 4-30: The relationship between habitable volume and launch mass

Requirements for increased habitable volume also drive mass. A number of possibilities have been considered over the last twenty-five years to create large habitable volumes in space. This section will discuss two. The first, reuse of the Space Shuttle External Tank, is a historical one and dates back to the mid 1980 ‘s. The other, the TransHab module, is an innovative, inflatable habitat to be brought to the ISS as it is completed in 2005, on Flight 26A.

Reuse of the Space Shuttle External Tank In December 1985, The Space Studies Institute (SSI) (Princeton, NJ) published the SSI External Tank Report, reviewing possible in orbit applications of the External Tank (ET) of the Space Transportation System. With the United States working toward a continuous manned presence in space, interest in a similar presence by industry was becoming. Using the ET was envisioned as a way to build a Corporate Space Station at a far lower cost than the $8 billion planned cost of the Space Station, at that time. The ET is a large mostly aluminium structure – nearly 50 m high, 8.7 m in diameter, and weighs 29.930 kg empty. It carries cryogenic fuel for the Space Shuttle Main Engines - liquid oxygen 632,772 kg and liquid hydrogen 103,420 kg. Nine minutes after launch, the ET is jettisoned from the Orbiter after it has reached approximately 98% of the energy necessary to insert it in orbit. When jettisoned, each ET carries internally an average of 6804 kg of residual cryogenic fuels. The entire ET is destroyed as it re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere.


153

Table 4-11: Relationship between habitable volume and launch mass

Vehicle: Launch Weight (kg)

Total Habitable Volume (m3)

Habitable Volume per crewmember (m3)

X-38 / Crew Return Vehicle 8,163 ~ 12.2 ~ 1.7

Mercury spacecraft 1,355 1.7 1.7

Gemini spacecraft 3,851 2.55 1.28

Apollo command module 5,806 6.17 2.1

Soyuz-TM 7,250 9.0 3.0

Space Shuttle Orbiter 99,117 65.8 9.4

Mir station -base block only

20,900 90.0 30 (crew size=3) ~ 12.9 (crew size=7)

ISS - October 2000 - Assembly Complete

33,566 ~ 453,597

142.9 1217.6

47.6 (crew size=3) 174.9 (crew size=7)

TransHab - inflated 13,200 339.6 ~ 28.3 (crew size=12)

External Tank empty, lightweight tank 66,000 lb, 46.88 x 13.8 m

29,937

1334 estimate based on 80% scale

-

[Sources: ENCYCLOPEDIA ASTRONAUTICA © Mark Wade, 2000; Space Shuttle Reference Manual; NASA International Space Station Factbook, July 1999; NASA Facts “The TransHab Module: An Inflatable Home in Space” May 1999] The key points from the report were the following;

• Residual cryogenic fuel could be used for operations at a cost far lower than if the cryogenics are carried aloft in a tanker version of the Orbiter

• Over 24,040 kg aerospace grade aluminium - could be formed to suit future structural needs

• Partially disassembled in orbit, pieces of the ET could be reassembled in the construction of large structures - the oxygen and hydrogen tank of the ET are two to five times larger in volume than any space station yet flown or planned.

• Adaptation of the tank interiors for habitation, storage or maintenance facilities will require minimal time and effort.

• SSI identified two major problems with the use of the ET in orbit: - The most critical is orbital maintenance - the orbital lifetime of a tank

inserted into a parking orbit is days to months. Any plan to use the ET in orbit must address this problem.

- Another problem is possible contamination due to out-gassing of the Spray-On Foam Insulation - this may be a problem for proposed space based operations.

The ET could also be partially disassembled in orbit to be used in varied potential structural applications – a valuable early test platform for the later construction of larger structures. With its long axis pointing Earthwards in a gravity-gradient orientation, the ET could help stabilize another structure to which it could be attached. The ET oxygen tank could be made into a liquid or gas storage reservoir. Attached tethers might provide


154

some advantages such as artificial gravity, momentum exchange, electrical power generation, or electric propulsion.

Figure 4-31: Space Island concept using multiple re-used Shuttle External Tanks [Source: SpaceFrontier.org]

TransHab, an Inflatable Module for Space The concept for the TransHab inflatable module originated at NASA’s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, in 1997 as a possible design for living quarters on a future Mars-bound spacecraft. It then became rapidly proposed as a possible module for the ISS and a prototype was developed (Figure 4-32). It would be a home for up to six astronauts, complete with bedrooms, a kitchen, a dining table that seats 12, two windows, a gym and a pantry. (Figure 4-33) [NASA Facts, May 1999, IS-1999-05-ISS027JSC]

Figure 4-32: This design concept illustrates the TransHab module as proposed for use on the ISS [Source: shuttle.nasa.gov]]

Figure 4-33: Cutaway of TransHab module with crew members [Source: shuttle.nasa.gov]


155

In launch configuration, TransHab is a 11m long cylinder with a diameter of 4.25 m and mass of 12 tons. But, after inflation, once attached to the station, it almost doubles its diameter (up to 8.2 m) and acquires a volume of 340 m3 -comparable to a 140 m2 home. It then becomes almost three times as big as other conventional metal modules. The six individual crew quarters will be surrounded by a circular water tank that can provide protection from solar radiation storms when needed and water storage. The multilayer structure of the shell provides a better protection than metal against space debris. The shell is composed of almost two dozen layers that are fashioned to break up particles of space debris and tiny meteorites that may hit the module at very high speed (about seven times as fast as a bullet). The shell also provides insulation from temperatures in space that can range from +120 C in the Sun to –-130 C in the shade.

On-board Architecture & Facilities for Tourists The requirements for the life support systems were discussed in the medical chapter (4.5). This section will provide further detail regarding the facilities, which should be made available on board a spacecraft and their characteristics. Noise levels inside a tourist facility should be below the level currently predicted for the International Space Station (ISS) and must be below the standard limit for occupational noise exposure (85 dB). The problem arises from the fans of the atmosphere management system, which generate most of the noise due to turbulent airflow. Safety considerations however require the atmosphere management system to be placed inside the living areas. Development of quieter fans is required to alleviate the problem. For short duration missions (up to two weeks in the launch vehicle), personal hygiene facilities will have to be limited. Most of the water consumed, is used for hygiene and housekeeping activities. For theses purposes, the required water quality is less stringent than water used for drinking. Water consumption must be low to save mass since no recycling capabilities will be available. For example, a shower uses a lot of water and is very complicated and expensive to build, because it is very difficult to prevent the water from floating freely in the spacecraft. These limitations will likely make the experience feel like a camping trip rather than a stay in a luxury hotel.

Figure 4-34: Skylab shower [Source: NASA]

Figure 4-35: Space toilet [Source: NASA]


156

The complexity of the toilet is even higher than the shower, using an air flow to direct waste to the bottom of the toilet, where it is processed, dried under vacuum conditions and stored. Having one toilet is mandatory, two toilets is a luxury, which can only be provided in a permanent space facility. Permanent facilities require better personal hygiene capabilities to satisfy the needs of the tourist, i.e. gender designated showers and toilets. Design of sleeping quarters for tourists has to take into account several issues. We have to make maximum use of the limited space available, even more so if the launch vehicle itself is used. We can envision sound proof compartments (to ensure privacy) of different sizes (single/double) based on volume rather than floor-space. The leading feature will be an Earth-facing window for each compartment. “Beds” in microgravity do not have the same requirements as they do on Earth. In space, beds can simply be padded “alcoves” that restrain the client from floating around the cabin and can be used also as a “chair” or a “couch” to view the Earth. They should be easily stowed. Each cabin should be equipped with built-in telecommunication and entertainment media. Padded wall surfaces with non-flammable fabrics in a variety of colours/textures will contribute to comfort and safety. Initially dehydrated food, which enables mass and volume optimisation as well as limited requirements for the galley, will be available. Today’s astronauts spend time on the ground sampling different types of food and choose their favourite meals before going to space. A similar approach can be used for space tourists. It is worthwhile to note that the senses of smell and taste are altered in microgravity and space tourists should be prepared beforehand to expect this. Concerning the galley, the use of dehydrated food will make the design simple. The dinner area can be large enough to accommodate all passengers and promote interaction and discussion.

Figure 4-36: Astronauts eating in the Shuttle mid-deck [courtesy NASA]

Radiation Protection Radiation can have serious impact on human health. For space tourism to exist, technological devices and advances are required to make human space travel safe. We


157

must provide radiation protection such that space tourists are always within the limits of acceptable radiation exposure (see section 4.5). Shielding sufficient to protect human organism from electrons could be as low as 2-3g/cm2 but to protect against the secondary x-ray radiation effects the mass must be increased to 10 g/cm2 [N. V. Tolyarenko]. The craft should also contain a special small radiation shelter (sleeping area) with a specific mass 3 to 5 times greater than this in the case of really violent solar flare. Some polymeric carbons possess the ability to absorb particles without generating a great amount of secondary radiation and so would be excellent for shielding. An inventive idea used by the Russians is to construct a radiation shelter with two aluminium walls separated by water. This provides a very effective shield and reduces the mass dramatically compared to solid aluminium. Local shielding can lead to a reduction in overall mass, however, this poses limits to the positioning of the spacecraft. However, to reduce the impact of space debris, the preferred position of the spacecraft is to have the engine in the orbiting direction. A method of accurately predicting solar particle events would provide an alternative to shielding since the exposure could be avoided altogether. However, reliable methods of prediction of the time of occurrence and the strength are presently not available. Therefore, for the time being it is safer to allow tourists to experience space when there is minimal solar activity and no time is spent in the radiation belts given an altitude of 200km. Radiation is indeed very dangerous for humans but it can also have some lethal effects on the equipment used on the spacecraft. Radiation can lead to degradation, static discharge on outer surfaces and cause malfunctions for electrical equipment. Failure of electrical equipment can easily lead to life threatening scenarios, which of course must be avoided.

4.7.8 Tourism at the International Space Station (ISS)

Commercialisation of ISS A critical issue related to the ISS project in the United States concerns securing domestic support. Some scientists take a unfavourable view of the situation, saying that the project is unlikely to come up with results which warrant the amount of money invested. Russia also has struggled to secure a budget for ISS, which has resulted in delaying progress of the construction. As a result, the idea of the participation of private companies has been proposed. NASA ‘s Administrator Daniel Goldin proposed that 30 percent of the experimental equipment on-board the station be leased to private companies for commercial projects. SPACEHAB and RSC Energia are building Enterprise [SpaceHab, 2000] which is a commercial module to be docked to the Russian section of the ISS, see Figure 4-37. The interior of the module will be partitioned into 3 segments: microgravity research facilities, stowage area and/or crew support, and a multimedia centre housing the first media studio in orbit. In the context of space tourism, it would be possible to use ISS as a docking site, tourists could stay in the Enterprise module or another commercial module. Alternatively, an orbital tourism vehicle could perform a fly-by of the ISS. Due to the extreme clarity of empty space, the ISS would be visible to the naked eye from several


158

kilometres distance. Table 4-12 below presents some basic characteristics for the ISS [spaceflight.nasa.gov, 2000].

Table 4-12:Characteristics of ISS

Size Approx. 110 m by 75m Mass Approx. 415 t

Power 108 kW average (Main segment: 78 kW, Russian segment: 30 kW)

Orbit Circular orbit, Orbital Altitude 370-460 km, Inclination 51.6°

Experimental Modules (6)

US Laboratory, ESA Columbus Orbital Facility, Japanese Experimental Module, Russian Research Modules (3)

Pressurised Modules

Habitat Modules (2) US TransHab, Russian Service Module Data Relay Satellites

US tracking and data relay satellite (TDRS), Other satellites of Japan, Europe, Russia Communicati

ons Data Rate Uplink: 72 kbps, Downlink: 150 Mbps

Lifetime > 10 years

Figure 4-37: Proposed Enterprise module [Source: SpaceHab]


159

4.8 Summary and Conclusions All of the technologies needed to carry passengers into orbit are available today, however the real difficulty lies in achieving this in a cost-effective way. A number of technological issues have to be resolved before Orbital Space Tourism can become a profitable business. Key questions are the configuration of the launch vehicle and the method employed to reach orbit. A choice has to be made between five basic options:

1. Free-flying vehicle vs orbital facility - Using a facility means the launch vehicle can be a very light transfer vehicle. However, the complexity of the vehicle design increases due to the required docking capabilities. An increase in the number of flights, number of passengers, length of stay or the amount of space and equipment the clients can bring will make the orbital facility more attractive economically. A decrease in launch cost per unit mass will make these weight savings less critical.

2. One vs two stages - SSTO is thought to be possible with today’s technology. A

single stage vehicle will be easier to operate and reuse but will need significantly more fuel than a two-stage option. One case calculation showed the propellant mass to be halved when using a two stage vehicle over a single stage. Still SSTO may become the most attractive option if propellant costs are relatively low compared to vehicle processing costs.

3. Rockets vs combination with air-breathing engines - Air-breathing engines offer

the potential of large mass savings because very little oxidizer need to be carried. They are however very complex systems which have not matured technologically yet. Rocket engines have the benefit of a higher thrust to weight ratio.

4/5.Horizontal vs vertical takeoff/landing - VTOL saves mass because the

vehicle structure can be simplified. However, extra fuel may need to be carried for landing. Although HTOL vehicles are heavier and more aerodynamically complex, they are safer in case of engine malfunction. A combination with vertical launch and horizontal landing, VTOHL, is also possible.

Safety for orbital tourism vehicles is a key issue. The vehicles have to be reliable during takeoff and landing but must also have sufficient shielding against debris and radiation hazards. In order to be cost-efficient, the vehicle will most likely need a high level of autonomy, since pilots cannot fly very frequently due to both recovery time limitations and radiation risks. The ground facilities used for these vehicles will have to operate more like an airport than a classic launch pad. Maintenance and launch preparation must be efficient in order to maximize the flight time for a vehicle. Furthermore, new systems for Air & Space Traffic Control will need to be developed in order to handle the increase in traffic and avoid conflicts between space tourism vehicles and airlines.


160

From the legal perspective, a myriad of issues arise when thinking about sending a tourist in orbit. For Space Tourism to prosper within the next decades, it will be the role of space agencies and government bodies to create a favourable technical and regulatory environment. Law frameworks concerning such issues as liability, certification, licensing, traffic regulation, taxation, and environment law will need to be created. The tourism industry represents 10% of the world market. It is an industry capable of pushing governments and private entities in building cost effective RLV, which will give better means for further human space exploration. The high starting costs of such a venture are making decision makers sceptical. Nevertheless among the public, there is a willingness to pay for a ticket to travel into space. An incremental business plan has to be prepared and implemented in order to reach this market. Current market research shows a factor of 10 difference between what the market is ready to pay and what technological capabilities can offer. Government input could help private investors narrow this gap and help them establish niche markets. This is truly needed since the high investment cost and the long term pay back period are discouraging private initiatives. However, some successful first steps have been taken. X-Prize and MirCorp are heading towards private space transportation and space lodging. These companies, even if their long-term viability cannot be predicted, are pioneers in helping realize the dream of experiencing space. For the first space travellers, going into space will generate the memory of a lifetime. During a stay in Earth orbit, the travellers will get the chance to view our beautiful planet from above while enjoying the microgravity environment. According to surveys conducted on the needs of potential travellers, the preferred duration for an orbital spaceflight would be approximately one week. This would give travellers opportunities to enjoy microgravity entertainment but also to take part in some experiments or scientific work to get a taste of the lifestyle of an astronaut. Well-equipped sleeping quarters with appropriate noise insulation as well as client oriented hygiene facilities will have to be provided for client comfort and satisfaction. For space tourism oriented flights, medical standards that will be established will be a precedent in the travel industry. The passengers will be average citizens who will not have received extensive physical and psychological training. Passenger health standards will seek to decrease the probability of an on-board accident or the deterioration of a pre-existing condition such as diabetes or heart diseases. Psychiatric illnesses and conditions such as pregnancy may also be criteria for exclusion. Space motion sickness can seriously preclude an enjoyable touristic experience. SMS can develop within a few hours of flight and usually subsides after 48 hours. It will thus be a concern for orbital flight passengers and crew but unfortunately, susceptibility is difficult to predict. An improvement in the efficacy of SMS drugs would be a key player in ensuring customer satisfaction. Microgravity effects must be considered during orbital flights. Fluid redistribution will cause facial puffiness, nasal congestion and fluid loss, which will require fluid loading before return to Earth. However, a minimal reduction in total muscle and bone mass can be expected from a week long space flight. Countermeasures such as treadmill running or resistance exercises during a stay of that duration are not medically necessary. However, they are recommended to provide a full astronaut-like experience for the tourist and to accelerate recovery upon return to Earth.


161

Short duration orbital flights can be planned to minimize radiation exposure by avoiding solar events and selecting optimum orbits. However, as the flight duration increases, minimizing exposure will rely on appropriate vehicle shielding. Lifetime radiation monitoring as well as in-flight monitoring of the spacecraft interior and individuals will be critical parameters for the passengers to feel safe.

References

Abitzsch, S. (1996). Prospects of Space Tourism. Presented at the 9th European Aerospace Congress – Visions and Limits of Long-term Aerospace Developments, 15 May, 1996, Berlin, Germany (WWW Document). www.spacefuture.com/archive/prospects_of_space_tourism.shtml (accessed 20. Aug 2000). ADS-B: What is it? (2000). Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document). http://www.ads-b.com/Content/index.htm. (Accessed 21 August, 2000). Aéroports de Paris website. Ground Handling Figures, Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document ) http://www.adp.fr/webadp/a_cont01_an.nsf/$$Affich?ReadForm&cle=X2002302320A81BB11132E7E7904125678D0036DA3D. (Accessed 23 August, 2000) AST. (2000). About the Licensing Process. Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, US (WWW Document). http://ast.faa.gov/licensing/intro.html (accessed Aug 2000). Boeing. (2000). Aerospike Rocket Engine Basic Concepts (WWW Document). http://www.boeing.com/space/rdyne/x33/aerospik/basics/basics.htm (accessed Aug 2000). Boeing. (2000), International Space Station (WWW document), http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/spacestation/ (accessed August 2000). Boeing. (2000). The Boeing Company (WWW Document). http://www.boeing.com/ (accessed Aug 2000). Boggs, D. (2000). Introduction to NASA Special Publications (WWW Document). http://www.collectspace.com/resources/nasapubs.html (accessed Aug 2000). Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian geographier. Calkins DS, Reschke MF, Kennedy RS, Dunlop WP. Reliability of provocative tests of motion sickness susceptibility. Aviat Space Environ Med 1987 Sep. Chobotov Vladimir A.,1996, Orbital Mechanics Second Edition, AIAA education series, Reston.


162

Chris Naftel, 2000, “Creating a “Highway to Space””. Lecture notes ISU SSP`2000, Valpariso Chile Clash J. (2000). The Ultimate Trip. Forbes Global – The Adventurer, 7 Feb 2000 (WWW Document). http://www.forbes.com/forbesglobal/00/0207/0303094a.htm (accessed 21 Aug 2000). Collins, P. Implications of reduced launch costs for commercial space law (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/implications_of_reduced_launch_costs_for_commercial_space_law.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Collins, P. (1990). The coming space industry revolution and its potential global impact. Journal of Space Technology and Science, Vol.6, No.2. Collins, P., Isozaki, K., & Wakamatsu, R. (1998). Progress Towards Space Tourism in Japan, 49th International Astronautical Federation Congress, 2 October, Melbourne, Australia (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/progress_towards_space_tourism_in_japan.shtml (accessed 22 August 2000). Collins, P. The coming commercial passenger space transportation market. Space Transportation Planning department NASDA, Japan. Collins, P. (1999). Space activities, space tourism and economic growth. 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, 21-23 April, Bremen, Germany (WWW Document). http://spacefuture.com/archive/space_activities_space_tourism_and_economic_growth.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Collins, P. et al. (1995). Demand for space tourism in America and Japan, and its implications for future space activities, Proceedings of 6th ISCOPS, AAS Vol 91, pp.601-610. Collins, P. et al. (1994). Commercial Implications of Market Research on Space Tourism. Journal of Space Technology and Science, Vol.10, No.2, pp 3-11. Collins, P. and Diamandis, P. (1999). Creation of an accredited passenger regulatory category for space tourism services. In: 1st STA Conference on Space Tourism, June 1999 (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/creation_of_an_accredited_passenger_regulatory_category_for_space_tourism_services.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Diamond SG, Markham CH. Prediction of SMS susceptibility by disconjugate eye torsion in parabolic flight. Aviat Space Environ Med 1991 Mar. Doll, Susan, 99, Environmental control and Life support, chapter 8.5 In: Keys to space, edited by A Houston and M. Rycroft, McGraw-Hill.


163

DOT-NASA. (1971). Civil Aviation Research and Development Policy Study. Report by US Department of Transportation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, March 1971, Washington D.C. EADS. European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company N.V. (WWW Document). http://www.eads-nv.com/ (accessed Aug 2000). ENCYCLOPEDIA ASTRONAUTICA. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.friends-partners.org/~mwade/spaceflt.htm(Accessed 25. August, 2000) Environmental control and Life support system, Nikolai Tolyarenko, ISU2000 lecture, 21 July 2000. FAA. (2000a). Concepts of Operations of Commercial Space Transportation in the National Airspace System, Version 1.1, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, January 2000. FAA. (2000b). Federal Aviation Administration (WWW Document). http://www.faa.gov/ (accessed Aug 2000). Farand, A. (2000). Policy and Law Department Lecture: Astronauts in the Space Station Era, International Space University, Summer Session Program 2000, Valparaiso, Chile. Federation of American Scientists: Space Policy Project, (1994), SPACECAST 2020 Technical Report (WWW document), http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2020/index.html (accessed August 2000). Flight safety foundation, Feb. 2000, Flight Safety Digest: A review of Transport Airplane Performance Requirements Might Benefit Safety. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_feb00.pdf (Accessed 23. August, 2000) Flight safety foundation, Jan. 1998, Flight Safety Digest: A Safe Flight into the Next Millennium. . Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jan98.pdf (Accessed 23. August, 2000) GATES. Global Access Tele-health and Education System. ISU SSP, 1994. Gaubatz, W. A. (1996). Comments on certification standards for new reusable launch vehicles. FAA, Office of Commercial Space Transportation (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/comments_on_certification_standards_for_new_reusable_launch_vehicles.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). G. Mitarai: Space Tourism and Space Medicine, Journal of Space Technology and Science, 1993 “Habitation Module Commercialization Conference” JSC, NASA Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document ) http://technology.jsc.nasa.gov/habconference/(Accessed 25. august) Harm DL, Parker DE. Pre-flight adaptation training for spatial orientation and space motion sickness. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1994 Jun.


164

Helmut C. Hinghofer-Szalkay, Physiology of systems, Chapter 2 of ESA publication: Biological and Medical Research in Space, 1996. HMX, (1996), The Roton Concept (WWW document), http://www.hmx.com/roton_paper.html (accessed August 2000). “House may pull plug on Transhab module” (August, 99) The Huntsville Times. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document ) http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/1999-may/9-nas.html (Accessed 25. august) The Huron Valley Community Network: The Anbor Space Society, (1999), The X-33 Home Page for Space Activitist (WWW document), http://www.hvcn.org/info/a2s2/x33.html (accessed August 2000). I see Earth. It’s so beautiful. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document). http://www.kosmonaut.se/gagarin/index_article.html (Accessed 25. August, 2000) Interanational Space Station Fact book. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/reference/factbook/index.html (Accessed 25. August, 2000) IMT - Industrial Materials and Technologies. (1999). Brite-EuRam III (WWW Document). http://www.cordis.lu/brite-euram/home.html (accessed Aug 2000). Isome, N., Matsumoto, S., Takagi, K., Onuki, M. (1999). Tour for staying in orbital space: Going to space by private initiative. Group of living in Space, Shimizu Coorporation 4-8 Oct. JAA. Joint Aviation Authorities of Europe (WWW Document). http://www.jaa.nl/ (accessed Aug 2000). J-Track Satellite Tracking. (2000). Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document).. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/realtime/JTrack/. (Accessed 21 August, 2000). Koelle, D. E. (1995). TRANSCOST 6.0, Statistical-Analytical Model for Cost Estimation and Economical Optimization of Space Transportation Systems, 1995 edition, TransCostSystems, Ottobrun, Germany Landis, G. (2000). Access to Space: Beyond the Next Generation. From: ISU SSP`2000 handout. Loon, Jack J.W.A. van, J. Paul Veldhuijzen & Elizabeth H. Burger, Bone and space flight: an overview, Chapter 5 of ESA publication: Biological and Medical Research in Space, 1996. Lyne L.,. Artificial Gravity: Evaluation of adaptation to head movements during short-radius centrifugation using subjective measures. Masters Thesis. MIT. 2000 May


165

Macauley, M. (2000). Commercializing Space . Committee on Science, Subcommitee on Space and Aeronautics, Financial Commercial Space Ventures, 18 July 2000. "Magic" design project, ISU SSP Cleveland 1998 Markham CH, Diamond SG. A predictive test for SMS. J Vestib Res 1993 Fall Marzwell, N. (1999). Financial, Economic, Business Planning, and Market Requirements to Start a Viable Space Tourism Business. Part IV of General public space travel and tourism. Vol.2: workshop proceedings, compiled by David O’Neil, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center, CP-1999-209146 (also available online at www.spacefuture.com). “Mobilize To Save Transhab From Rohrabacher Wrecking Operation”, Mars Society Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document ) http://www.marssociety.org/bulletins/bulletin_170599_01.asp(Accessed 25. august) "Molniya" Research & Industrial Corporation. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document). http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.html (Accessed 25. August, 2000) Morris, W.D. (1993). NASA Technical Memorandum 4453: X-15/HL-20 Operations Support Comparison, Hampton, Virginia, USA. Morris, W.D., N.H. White, C.E. Ebeling. (1996). Analysis of Shuttle Orbiter Reliability and Maintainability Data for Conceptual Studies, AIAA 96-4245. 1996 AIAA Space Programs and Technologies Conference, September 24-26, Huntsville Alabama, USA. Morris, W.D., N.H. White, W.T. Davis, C.E. Ebeling. (1997). Estimating logistics support of reusable launch vehicles during conceptual design. 32nd Annual International Logistics Conference and Exposition, August 5-7. Nagatomo M.: Space Tourism: Spaceflight for the general public, 1993 NASDA Space Station Home Page, (1999), International Space Station (ISS) and Japanese Experimental Module ´Kibo´, http://jem.tksc.nasda.go.jp/iss/index_e.html (accessed August 2000). NASA Facts, May 1999, IS-1999-05-ISS027JSC NASA, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama NASA /CP-1999209146 February 1999 General Public Space Travel and Tourism Volume 2 – Workshop Proceedings http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism_volume_2.shtml NASA Human Space Flight, International Space Station (WWW document), http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/ (accessed August 2000). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center March 1998 NP-1998-3-11-MSFC General Public Space Travel and Tourism Volume 1 Executive Summary Daniel O'Neil http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml


166

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Fact Sheets. X-33 Flight Operations Center Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document). http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/news/background/facts/x33_site.htm (Accessed 23 August 2000). NASA Space Shuttle. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/(Accessed 25. August, 2000) NASA Spaceflight website. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-74/shutref/sts-lcc.html. (accessed 23 August 2000). Nicogossian A. E., Biomedical challenges of space flight, Chapter 29 of Fundamentals of aerospace medicine, 1985 “NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual”, KSC, NASA “TDRS System” (WWW Document) http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-jsc-comm.html OŃeil, D. (compiler). (1998). General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 1 Executive Summary (WWW Document). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. NP-1998-3-11-MSFC. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism.shtml. (accessed Aug 2000). OŃeil, D. (compiler). (1999). General Public Space Travel and Tourism, Volume 2 Workshop Proceedings (WWW document). NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. CP-1999209146 http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_space_travel_and_tourism_volume_2.shtml. (accessed Aug 2000) Parker DE, Reschke MF, von Gierke HE, Lessard CS. Effects of proposed pre-flight adaptation training on eye movements, self-motion perception, and motion sickness: a progress report. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1987 Sep. Pavy-Le Traon, A., Saivin, S., Soulez-LaRiviere, C., Pujos, M., Guell, A., and Houin, G. (1997). Pharmacology in space: Pharmacotherapy. Adv. Space Biol. Med., 6, 93-105. Putcha L, Berens KL, Marshburn TH, Ortega HJ, Billica RD. Pharmaceutical use by U.S. astronauts on space shuttle missions. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1999 Jul. Reid J., A telemedicine Primer: Understanding the Issues. . Call # RC1145R44 at the ISU library. Reinbold, G. (1997). Life Cycle Cost Estimates for Festip Concepts, SCT-Report (WP 4014), Dasa-RI, Bremen, Germany. Reschke MF, Parker DE, Harm DL, Michaud L. Ground-based training for the stimulus rearrangement encountered during spaceflight. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1988 Rotary Rocket Company, (1998), Technology (WWW document),


167

http://www.rotaryrocket.com/tec/tec.html (accessed August 2000). Russian Aerospace Guide, (1997), The Mir space station complex (WWW document), http://www.mcs.net/~rusaerog/ (accessed August 2000). Sherwood Brent and Fowler C. Rob, Feasibility of Commercial Resort Hotels in Low Earth Orbit, Boeing Defense and Space Group, presented at the 1991 NSS (National space Society) SPACEHAB, Enterprise (WWW document), http://www.spacehab.com/enterprise/ (accessed August 2000). Space & Technology, (1999), Reusable Launch Vehicles (WWW document), http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/rlvs.shtml (accessed August 2000). “Space Studies Institute Report on Space Shuttle External Tank Applications” Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.space-frontier.org/ Projects/ExternalTanks/ssi%20et%20report/et_%20contents.htm (Accessed 25. August, 2000) Spaceviews News. (June 16, 2000). Report: American Businessman to be First Mir Tourist (WWW Document). http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/19b.html (accessed 11 August 2000). STA. Space Travel and Tourism. The Space Travel and Tourism Division of the Space Transportation Association (WWW Document). www.spacetransportation.org (accessed Aug 2000). Simberg, R. (2000). Near term prospects for space tourism. Interglobal Space Lines, Inc. (WWW Document). http://www.interglobal.org/sophron/title.html (accessed Aug 2000). Stone, B.A. (1994). Space tourism: A flight of fantasy or the next major space product? Presented at the 31st Space Congress, 26-29 May, Florida, USA (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_a_flight_of_fantasy_or_the_next_space_product.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). Students of University of Texas at Austin. (April 7, 1995). Space Traffic Control System. Designed by: Advanced Space Traffic Regulation Organization. Distributed by: Texas Space Grant Consortium. Telehealth Magazine, on line. (WWW Document) http://www.telemedmag.com/ The Space Frontier Foundation. . Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.space-frontier.org/ (Accessed 25. August, 2000) Tolyarenko N. V. Advanced Systems for Radiation Protection in Space and Problems of Spacecraft Outer Atmosphere. Moscow Aviation Institute


168

United Nations. (1997). Treaties and Principles on Outer Space. A/AC.105/572/REV.2. Also on: Space Law. Institute of Air and Space Law (IASL), McGill University (WWW Document). http://www.iasl.mcgill.ca/spacelaw.htm (accessed Aug 2000). Uwe Apel: Human Factors and Health in Space Tourism, 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, April 1999 Vana N., Berger T., Hajek M., Minarik M., Noll M., W. Schöner, Analysis of the Neutron Component and Determination of the LET Spectrum at High Altitudes, Atominstitute of the Austrian Universities and Institute for Space Dosimetry, Vienna, Austria, 2000 Varvill, Richard and Bond, Alan. (1995). SKYLON -THE SKYLON SPACEPLANE. IAA 95-V3.07 Venture Star website. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.venturestar.com (Accessed 25 August 2000). Williams T and Collins P, 1999, "Orbital Considerations in Kankoh-maru Return-Flight Operations”. Proceedings of 8th ISCOPS; Downloadable from www.spacefuture.com (Accessed 24. Aug. 2000) Wollersheim, M. (1999). Considerations towards the legal framework of space tourism . In: 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, 21-23 April 1999, Bremen, Germany (WWW Document). http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/considerations_towards_the_legal_framework_of_space_tourism.shtml (accessed Aug 2000). X-33 News, MSFC, NASA. Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/news/SpaceTransportation/x-33/x-33.html (Accessed 25 August 2000) X-38 Crew Return Vehicle http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/elements/x38/ “X-38 Technology”. . Citing from Internet resources (WWW Document) http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/X38/index.html (Accessed 25. August, 2000)

Future Visions of Space Tourism

169

5 5 Future Visions of Space

Tourism

“If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong”

Arthur C. Clarke “The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create”

Leonard I. Sweet “I never worry about the future, it comes soon enough”

Albert Einstein

“May your future be limited only by your dreams” Christa McAuliffe


170


171

Figure 5-1Postcard from a space tourist

5.1 Engineering Matters to Ponder The futuristic space tourism activities we are investigating in this paper are of a time frame greater than 50 years from now. This requires us to look at exotic ideas, problems and their solutions, as the market for space tourism grows and matures. The space tourism industry will appear to be similar to the current international tourism and air transportation industry of today. Historically, as the logistics of travelling became more inexpensive and convenient, people in large numbers have travelled abroad. Now a holiday overseas in a different continent is not uncommon. For many people, less then a generation ago, this activity seemed impossible. Space tourism will undergo a similar process. After we have accomplished orbital flights for tourists around the Earth and viewed our fragile little planet from above, what will be the next great “adventure holiday”? Will space tourism be solely for the thrill seekers or is possible that it will become an annual holiday for families and friends? In either case, the demand from people is likely to force the market to grow from orbital flights to interplanetary travel to space hotels in orbit or on planets. Then in the future, we will take cruises of Saturn’s rings, observe the spectacular active volcanoes on Io, take advantage of the package deals available for Mars, and eventually experience interstellar travel.

5.1.1 Technological Requirements Assuming space tourism will follow the same evolution, as that of tourism in general, there will be few people initially, as discussed in Chapter 4, travelling into space for a holiday. But as the industry grows many more people will take advantage of this ultimate holiday; and maybe in the future there will be permanent human settlement on other planets at which point space tourism will be a common occurrence. For these incredible


172

activities to be realized, we require advancement in engineering technology. This will include a propulsion system capable of interplanetary or interstellar travel, the development of structures and vehicles for space for planetary environments, and improvements in safety factors to prevent serious risks for tourists. These futuristic ideas may presently be beyond our technological knowledge and ability. However, we cannot predict distant technologies from the current technological rate of progress. In order to forecast impending space technologies, we must assume that the laws of physics will remain, and what is presently theoretically possible now, could be attainable in the future.

Propulsion Currently, the specific impulses of spacecraft engines are too low for rapid interplanetary travel, but space flight transportation is only at the beginning of its evolution. The crucial aspect of travel for these vast distances will always be speed. The distances between the celestial bodies and stars are vast; it takes days to reach the Moon, months to see Mars, years to visit the outer planets and lifetimes to visit distant stars. Most space tourists would not have the abundant amount of time to travel for years just for the ability to take a few pictures or obtain a few good stories for their diaries. Therefore, it is important to produce a rapid transportation system. Science fiction authors have found the obvious choice: human teleportation. Currently, it is just not possible to transmit people as electromagnetic waves at the speed of light across the vast ocean of space to any point. Physicists have calculated that it would take about one hundredth the age of the Universe to transmit all the information about a person, at the speed of light to a distant star [Clarke, 1972]. Now, we can only explore rocket based transportation systems with high specific impulses, It is predicted that the rocket speed which is needed to cover the vast distances between the heavenly bodies will increase substantially over the next few decades. The only restrictions that appear to exist will be economical or political, rather than technological [Hujsac, 1994]. Nuclear, electrical, and photon propulsion systems may be considered as futuristic, but their development has already started, each with its own advantages and disadvantages [Winter, 1990]. Compared to conventional chemical systems, nuclear rocket propulsion promises to yield much higher specific impulses, and therefore higher exhaust velocities. The Orion fusion rocket concept works by successive controlled nuclear-pulsed fusion can theoretically be propelled to near relativistic velocities. However this would present major engineering challenges with respect to safety, and may never be launched for political reasons alone. Another exotic idea for propulsion is an interstellar ramjet that scoops up the hydrogen gas in interstellar space and feeds it to a fusion reactor to produce propulsion. Unfortunately hydrogen in the interstellar medium is very sparse and to produce enough power, the scoop must be in the order of thousands of kilometres across. Electric propulsion engines are being used successfully. These engines have higher specific impulses and low fuel consumption compared to chemical rockets. These engines are classified as either ion or plasma. Plasma engines work by accelerating ionised gas with electromagnetic fields to very high velocities. These types of engines are well suited for interplanetary travel. On the negative side such engines can only operate in space due to their low thrust characteristics.


173

Solar and laser sails have also been suggested for interplanetary travel. They use the pressure of solar radiation for thrust, but their drawback is that the sails must be large, light and very reflective. Using large lasers on Earth to push a spacecraft could enhance their effectiveness, but this also effectively limits the distance the spacecraft can travel because a laser beam diverges in proportion to the distance it travels. It is very expensive to maintain the intensity of the beam throughout its trip.

Figure 5-2 Lift-off of a laser rocket to LEO [Source: NASA]

A mass driver is yet another exotic propulsion system that is being ground tested. The system has a series of large super-conducting magnets along a kilometre-sized track that electromagneticly accelerates a payload at a very high rate. This propulsion system would probably be used as a first stage planetary or lunar-based transportation system. This system will not transport humans due to the high forces that are generated during the acceleration phase. Many more mysterious, revolutionary, and apparently outlandish propulsion ideas exist. Popular ideas include using wormholes, warp drive, and harnessing the quantum vacuum energy. Such ideas were once in the realm of science fiction writers but are now being investigated by NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project Office. Although these propulsion ideas may not be applicable to interstellar travel, they are most interesting to investigate. For example, Stephen Hawking and Kip S. Thorne discovered that a black hole could connect our universe with another domain of space and time via a tunnel to another area within our universe. This connection is known as a wormhole. This has led scientists to speculate that a wormhole could theoretically be used for travelling through space and time. However, further calculations reveal that the gravity needed to create the wormhole would also cause it to collapse almost as rapidly as it had formed [Kaufmann, 1994]. Manipulating gravitational effects would be needed, when humans stray too close to a black hole, the forces would be so great that they could stretch into a fine filament. Also, once a person has entered the event horizon of a black hole, they are trapped in its gravitational clasp permanently [NASA website, 2000].


174

Figure 5-3 Warping to NGC 6070 for the weekend [Source: NASA]

Another exotic propulsion system that is used frequently in many science fiction stories is anti-matter. Anti-matter is not purely fictional. It has been detected and stored for short periods of time. When matter and antimatter are near each other, they are annihilated. Their mass is turned into energy, which is described by Einstein’s famous equation

2mcE = . Storage and production of antimatter is a major technological obstacle, but the tremendous amount of power that could be harnessed to propel payloads throughout the universe will be phenomenal.

Structures Accommodation for future space tourism adventures will essentially come in three forms: an Earth orbiting hotel, a spacecraft analogous to the “Star Trek” fantasy capable of interplanetary or even interstellar travel, and a facility on a planetary body. During this century we assume that the physical size of spacecraft will grow to accommodate the growing number of space tourists. This situation will require further technological advances in the miniaturization of components, in lightweight structures, and in exotic control systems. Using engineering judgments based on the current understanding of physics, the extrapolation of technology, and our imagination, we can speculate what future space hotels will probably look like [Price, 1990]. The first stage in developing a space hotel will be created from small orbiting clusters of pre-fabricated modules. These modules will need to be large and can be transported to orbit by doubling up as the partially filled propellant tank of a rocket. As the industry grows, demand for larger and more complex structures will also grow. Due to the possibility of assembling buildings in orbit, there will not be a limit to the number, shape and size that may be constructed. Hence, orbital architecture will have the opportunity to change shape and to grow just like a Lego


175

construction, by adding new modules, moving modules to different space hotels and removing old out-of-date parts. Due to the possible dynamic state of a modular facility, where the centre of mass will be altered, there will be a need to tightly scrutinize the orbital facility so not to affect its stability. It is foreseen that large space structures could be designed and constructed in space with the abundant materials that are available throughout the cosmos.

Figure 5-4 Visit the newly remodel Bernal Resort [Source: NASA]

A number of science-fiction writers, including Arthur C. Clarke, have drawn the parallel between cruise ships and space ships carrying passengers on long-distance journeys lasting long periods of time. Cruise ships are better analogies for space hotels than Earth-based hotels, since they are self-sufficient in food, water, staff, and entertainment, while they are at the sea. Similarly, just as in a cruise ship while it is at the sea, in a space hotel it will not be possible for passengers to go out for a meal or to seek entertainment "outside" - at least not in the early days of the industry - before there are multiple tourism facilities sharing the same orbit (thereby enabling guests to make a visit between them). Also, the hotel site will be very important. If the facility is at very high orbit or located outside the Earth’s magnetic field, a no "extra-vehicular activity" policy might have to be enforced due to radiation hazards. Once we have harnessed advanced space technologies, the solar system begins to appear to decrease in size. This is similar to modern intercontinental travel, where the Earth is now a small, navigatable place. For interstellar travel, we would require a propulsion system millions of times more powerful than what we have today. Many


176

scientists would deny this could happen, but almost a century ago they laughed at the possibility of human powered flights. A wonderful idea has been suggested by [Ciesla, 1990] to travel interstellar distances using an antimatter propulsion system. The technological challenges will be great for interstellar travel and to meet this challenge, one could travel by a terraformed asteroid. Ciesla assumes that the journey to Alpha Centauri (a nearby star) could take about 30 years by travelling at 30% of the speed of light. This is truly a once in a lifetime holiday. Mars is considered a good place to develop for tourism, since it possesses the full array of materials and energy sources necessary to support life and human civilization [Zubrin, 1996]. It contains resources needed to grow food, make plastics and metals, and generate large quantities of power. Mars’s environmental conditions such as sunlight and day and night temperature swings are suitable for human settlement because these conditions are similar to those on Earth. To extract and use these materials, new technologies and habitable constructions will need to be developed for a “live off the land” approach. This could become a space tourist activity similar to a Mars eco-tourist package. Radiation from solar flares and cosmic rays are two problems that need to be considered. Solar flares are relatively easy to mitigate if we are in Low Earth Orbit and hence partially protected by the Earths magnetic field, a modest amount of shielding will protect the space tourist. However, cosmic rays are composed of particles with very large energies and this would take meters of shielding to stop them. This will prove a challenge for interplanetary flight. Alternatively, future advances in technology may permit the generation of intense magnetic fields to shield the interplanetary habitat. Gravity is an elusive, mysterious force whose origin and form remain unknown. There have been discussions by physicists and science fiction writers to generate localized gravity, but this is not yet possible. Long duration holidays in orbiting hotels or on bases on planets with gravities lower than Earth could cause problems for the deterioration of human muscles and bones. With the current understanding of physics we could develop rotating facilities to simulate varying gravitational fields. In a book by Lester Del Rey [1957], his first line of text says “In the future, schools will probably have courses in space and space travel, just as boys and girls are now taught all about other lands in their geographies”. This has happened and it is called the International Space University. Lester Del Rey also dreams of journeys to other planets and stars. All of this may be a reality: all we need is time, and not limit our imagination.

5.2 Visions of Future Space Tourism Clientele The idea of tourism in space is the central story line in a number of science fiction stories. In these stories and ideas space is open to all of those that wish to experience its wonders. In the following pages we will discuss these visions that were pictured in books and movies as well as our own perspective. What is it that we will be able to do in space in the future? As shown on table 1-1, the technology breakthroughs enable longer stays. With great progress orbital flights become more common and attract more travellers.


177

5.2.1 Feeling Fine in Zero-g With longer stays, the diversity of travel experiences in Earth orbit will increase. More luxurious cruise like options will become available along with packages appealing to other niche markets back on Earth. Science fiction themed hotels, spas, retreat centres, more astronaut simulation experiences, conference centres and Mars mission training simulations are some possibilities. Hotels may have theme experiences such as environmental Earth observation activities, international and cultural exchanges, astronomical observations programs, and space arts workshops. Ultimately, there will be on-orbit entertainers as well. ZZ Top (a rock band from the U.S.) has indicated that they want to be the first lounge act of the Shuttle. (Musicians broadcasting from space may even be among the first customers on the first wave of orbital vehicles!) An exciting entertainment possibility in microgravity is swimming through a large spherical mass of water that is floating in the air inside orbiting spacecraft or facility.

Figure 5-5 Lounging around the swimming pool [Source: Spacefutures]

Table 5-1 Space exploration progress table

Space tour Location Space Facility Duration in space

High altitude balloon flights Earth´s atmosphere Balloon Weightless for seconds

Intercontinental suborbital flights

High Earth atmosphere

Spaceplane Weightless for minutes

Three orbit flights Low Earth orbit Space tour vehicle A few hours Half day orbital flights Low Earth orbit Space tour vehicle 12 hours Co-orbit with space facility Low Earth orbit Space tour vehicle Hours Visit to orbital tourist facility Low Earth orbit Ss tourist facility 1-5 days Lunar tour Lunar

Circumnavigation Space cruise ship 8-9 days

Lunar orbit tour Lunar orbit Lunar cruise ship 9-10 days Lunar facility visit Lunar surface Lunar facility 10-12 days Longer lunar facility visit Lunar surface Lunar hotel 14+ days


178

5.2.2 To the Moon, Alice… One of the first steps in the development of further space tourism activities is a trip around the Moon. This idea of joining the Moon in orbit is in most everybody’s mind since man first stepped on it on that day of July 1969. The 21st century is the right time for humankind to take action to make this dream come true. The first travellers to go for the Moon trips are the ones whose thirst for excitement is not satisfied with the “regular” Earth-orbital flights. With the lunar-orbital flights the view of Earth is impressive and the Moon appears very differently from the way we see it from Earth. With another small step in time comes the need for the first lunar base to be built. This will be an opportunity for multiple-days stays. In the lunar base we will find all of what was available on a cruise ship in the 20th century: restaurants, shops, casinos, entertainment, sport facilities, individual and collective housing, medical services, observation and science centres.

Figure 5-6 The first tourist to step on the Moon [Source: NASA]

Another ultimate experience and a big step in space tourism activities is a lunar EVA. This will be accessible to everybody in good health conditions and will also make possible a whole new variety of activities:

• Experience high-speed racing pods and space motorcycles • Trampoline aerobatics • Flying in space suits with individual and autonomous propulsion system • Sightseeing/Visiting historic monuments • Mountaineering/Rock Climbing/Spelunking • Lunar dance composition


179

Figure 5-7 A good lunar mountain to climb [Source: NASA]

5.2.3 Mars Beckons From the experience gained in constructing and operating lunar attraction spots, the next holiday spot is Mars. The reason to concentrate on Mars is that it is a target for a new civilization and with that target in focus people will want to visit the uniqueness that Mars offers.

Figure 5-8 The birth of a Martian holiday spot [Source: NASA]

It is possible to assume that the future Martian facilities will be similar to lunar facilities. Mars is often considered as being the Earth’s sister planet, it is possible to imagine Earth-like cities, major spaceports and all other kind of infrastructure that are needed to support human habitat. In addition one can assume that as civilization settles on Mars, a new kind of tourism will rise: people will go there to visit their families and friends as well as to enjoy the fabulous landscapes of the red planet; they will also be able to:

• Go hiking and rock climbing in Vallis Marineris, the longest canyon in the solar system.

• Visit Olympus Mons, the most extraordinary and tallest volcano in the solar system.


180

• Hunting for martian fossils • Sand car racing

.

Figure 5-9 Morning hike in the Vallis Marineris [Source: NASA]

5.2.4 Into the Great Beyond Visionaries share other far-out tourist dreams: skiing on Europa, going on romantic cruises to the rings of Saturn, visiting the Lagrange casinos, running on an small asteroid, sailing on the liquid ocean of Titan, paragliding in the different atmospheres of Jupiter, and even exotic far-future possibilities in other star systems.

Figure 5-10 Taking the family out for a Sunday drive [Source: NASA]

No matter how fantastic these visions of future space activities might sound, it's worth remembering the striking effects of compound economic growth. However expensive you want to assume interstellar travel will be, it won't be more than a few hundred years before it will be economically feasible - a short time even in human history.


181

5.3 Pondering the Future Medical Issues

Figure 5-11The Lunar Emergency Response Team fixing a broken leg. [Source: NASA]

What a day it will be when the first civilian space travellers launch to LEO, orbit the Earth, and safely return home. Today, we eagerly await the first tourists´ fifteen minutes of Earth viewing in microgravity. However, it is another, very different challenge to imagine private space activities several decades after those first early adventures. As we advance towards the future, we need to anticipate how current scientific and technological barriers may be overcome so that the idea of tourist-based space missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond will no longer be the dream of an elite group. The following sections will address several issues that currently limit us and provide some insight as to what direction we will evolve in. In addition, several questions pertaining to ethical issues of space medicine will be posed.

5.3.1 Radiation The monitoring systems required to provide a better understanding of the radiation events encountered during a mission can fall into one of three categories: terrestrial-based monitoring, interplanetary travel monitoring and terrestrial-independent local radiation monitoring onboard a spacecraft. These monitoring systems will be of paramount importance to design the future radiation protection systems, which ensure human survival and well-being but also to maintain computers and on-board electronics operational. Reduction of Long Term Radiation Effects Besides radiation shielding, which directly reduces the radiation levels, some medical developments will help reduce the long-term effects of radiation. Much progress is taking place in the fields of radiation biology that may provide useful countermeasures for human radiation protection. Pharmacological (medication-based) bioprotection is one promising avenue, which may help minimize the long-term cancer risk when exposure is unavoidable. Current advances in oncology, therapeutic radiology (use of radiation to treat certain types of cancer), and medical physics may achieve further understanding of the


182

mutations and transformations leading to the development of cancerous cell lines. We may be able to prevent initial radiation injury or even intervene and detect malignant transformations before the situation becomes life threatening. An example of a nonhuman space mutation is illustrated by the following quote.

¨[..] a mutating fungus is taking over the interior of the Russian space station Mir. Cosmonauts who spent two months on Mir earlier this year found the view from a porthole on the station was being obscured by a film of fungi that were growing on, and even damaging, the window's surface. Cosmonauts also found that electronics equipment on the station has been damaged by fungi. Russian scientists believe that the fungi are ordinary, less harmful terrestrial species that have mutated under exposure to radiation while in orbit. "Regular and relatively harmless microbes can dramatically change their characteristics in extraterrestrial conditions," said researcher Natalia Novikova. [SPACE.COM WWW]

Note that some mutations that may take place might prove to be beneficial.

Age Considerations There are currently no age limits for space flight, but we may have to establish age-specific medical standards. For example, based on cumulative radiation exposure, there are lifetime limits for both crew and passengers. For space tourism to be truly viable, regularly scheduled space flight must be anticipated, indicating that the crewmembers staffing these flights must be protected far better than present-day astronauts. Another issue to consider is the age at exposure to such radiation. Should children be allowed to participate in space travel? Should women of childbearing age be allowed to partake in long duration space flight where they could possibly conceive? How and when will we collect sufficient data to quantify these risks? For space tourists, the safety quotient is likely to be set high. These questions will need to be addressed as people migrate into the cosmos. Risks of a major system malfunction are likely to be considered unacceptable for everyday individuals who have not dedicated their life to space exploration. Based on this, it can be argued that the future radiation levels must be at least a factor of 10 lower than presently experienced on Mir and Space Shuttle flights.

5.3.2 Sustenance

Physiologic Adaptations With the increase of data gathered on manned space flights, our understanding of the adaptations of human physiologic functions in microgravity will improve. In the future, it should be possible to adapt countermeasures suitable for a general civilian population of varied age, fitness, and general health. Presently, although we can safely assume that a partial gravity environment during a lengthy space mission will help reduce bone loss and muscle atrophy, we are unable to provide specific partial gravity guidelines. Indeed, we have not yet been able to establish a relationship between different levels of partial gravity (and minimal duration of exposure to these levels), and physiologic response to these levels. This will become a key issue when designing missions to other planets, when crew and passengers both must be able to perform necessary tasks and enjoy their experience upon arrival at a partial gravity environment, whether on a space station or a planetary surface.


183

Preliminary developmental biology experiments on amphibian cells in microgravity show that the possibility of normal fertilization and embryogenesis exists. However, the full implications of reproduction and growth in such environments remain unquantified. It is uncertain what the full impact of zero or partial gravity will be on an infant and whether an infant born in space during a long duration flight, would be able to survive and adapt to life back on Earth. Physical exercise alone has not shown to be sufficiently effective to counteract bone loss and muscle atrophy. Hence, for long duration space missions, a combination of exercise and a gravity field (at least partial) is necessary.

Space Facility Comfort As with many adventures, second and third wave private space travellers will appreciate comforts that their predecessor pioneers, current astronauts and cosmonauts, had only hoped for. Current space mission designers carefully provide requirements for life support systems ensuring adequate cabin environment, potable water, hygiene, food supply and preparations. However, for private space travel to flourish, another design layer will be needed to ensure passenger comfort as well as safety. Ergonomics will become one of the chief design considerations for the space tourist. Refrigeration of fresh food items, washing facilities, entertainment systems are but a few of the needed elements. An important variable to consider for long duration missions is habitable volume. Currently, design for non-tourist space travel provides habitable volumes based on crew size, mission duration, and scientific needs. However, interpolating this information to satisfy tourism requirements remains to be determined. Indeed, space tourism missions will need additional habitable volume in order to offer a more comfortable living space, privacy, recreation and entertainment. As the duration of a space tourism journey increases (travel to the outer planets for example) so will the requirement for personal space per passenger/crew member.

Bioregenerative Closed-Loop Life Support System As the number of passengers, the length of stay and the quality of the services provided increase, the material requirements to satisfy them will also increase. In the case of a space station/hotel in LEO, regular supply vehicle flights can maintain an open or semi-open loop system. In a vehicle designed for long duration travel outside LEO, a bioregenerative closed-loop (self sufficient) life support system will be required. The critical functions of this system would include food provision, air and water purification and waste management.


184

Figure 5-12 Learning about a new culture in the spacious GEO resort. [Source: NASA]

5.3.3 Psychosocial Issues A number of psychosocial issues, as discussed in previous chapters, must be taken into account when designing a package for the space tourist. Although all the participants will have one common interest, space travel, there may be differences in ideas, behaviours and beliefs. During a long duration spaceflight or stays in a space hotel, these people will have to adapt to their new surroundings, learn to interact and will in time begin to develop a new cultural environment. This space culture will progressively evolve as more and more people participate in space travel and contribute their ideas and customs. As a result, a cultural gap may evolve that will set apart the space travellers from others who will not have had this unique experience. It is also suggested that once permanent settlements become established, new cultures and customs will appear. This might become an attractive feature for tourists to experience. Another important issue to be addressed is claustrophobia. Even if habitable volumes increase to Earth-like conditions, i.e. volumes of 50m3 per person or more, claustrophobia will still be an issue to deal with, since for many, the available volume is less of a concern than the feeling of being trapped and not able to “go out”. One of the ways to deal with this problem would be to have simple-to-use and safe EVA suits to allow people to get outside the vehicle or hotel whenever possible.

5.3.4 Ethical Viewpoints from a Medical Perspective Space medicine, and terrestrial preventive and occupational medicine, cover similar grounds. Both practices involve optimising the workplace performance of essentially


185

healthy individuals. Medical decision-making involves achieving a balance between safety, well-being, career livelihood of individuals and attainment of mission success. Every aspect of space medicine practice is influenced by these variables, from the mission design, development and execution to the selection, training, monitoring and follow-up of the crew. Given the potential hazards offered by the space environment, every in-flight medical contingency cannot be predicted. However, generalized on-board protocols for anticipated medical scenarios can provide a framework for crew and ground personnel to minimize deliberation when making decisions that will impact the mission such as evacuation or mission abort. As our focus changes from astronaut-based to tourist-based space flight, a number of new questions arise. We are no longer considering a mission with a team of astronauts working on specific research or scientific goals, we are now looking at offering a quality experience to a group of individuals who share their experience as a group but whose individual interests will likely remain a priority. The response to medical scenarios will have to weigh the impact on the rest of the group, keeping in mind customer satisfaction. For example, if evacuation is required and a single evacuation vehicle is available, should the entire crew evacuate thus ending the mission or should only the ill crewmember accompanied by a medical care provider evacuate? The level of complexity in the decision-making matrix increases even further when travel beyond Earth orbit is considered. Compared to transport time of several hours from LEO, evacuation from the Moon or from a space station would likely require days. If on a Mars mission, communication delays may hinder real-time discussion with ground support and there may not be evacuation possibilities at all. The crew of a deep space mission will have to generate contingency plans to deal with long term illness of a crew member and will need to be prepared for the unfortunate event of a fatality.

5.4 Business Perspectives for Future Space Tourism

5.4.1 Basic Suppositions It is difficult to forecast future space tourism enterprises, activities, and to gaze into the global economic climate beyond 50 years. However, a few assumptions can be made to assist in this task:

♦ The tourist activities that are possible today will be possible in 50 years. ♦ Humanity will make great progress in developing innovative space technologies. ♦ Space transportation will be more convenient and will operate similarly to the

current airline industry ♦ The population of people willing to tour space and be able to go into space will

increase. ♦ There will be more investment from private companies in space technologies and

the space tourism industry. ♦ The majority of space investment will come from private and international

companies, rather than from governments.


186

5.4.2 The World Economical Forecast To consider the future economic feasibility of future space tourism ventures, it is necessary to forecast future global economic conditions. To prepare a very long term forecast, the design team decided to use the theoretical economic prediction framework from Luigi Pasinetti (Italian) and inspired by J. Schumpeter (Austrian). These two economists pointed out that the long run effects of human learning, technical advancement and innovations in process of production and in products themselves, would overwhelm the effects of industrial cycles and trade. Taking this into account when forecasting the GGP (Gross Global Product) three different growth scenarios need to be determined (high, moderate, and low). For the high growth scenario, the GGP in 2050 was determined to be 4.7 times the current GGP, the medium growth scenario GGP in 2050 will be 3.5 times the current GGP, and the low growth GGP scenario in 2050 will be 2.3 times the current GGP. The table below summarizes the possible long-term world economy patterns under the following assumptions:

1. Long-term world economy grows exponentially 2. There are a number of crises years (recessions and other interruptions) per

every 50 years (9 or 10 years per every 50 years). 3. Low growth is considered to be around 2% a year. 4. Moderate Growth is considered 3% a year. 5. High Growth is considered 3.75% a year. The resulting long-term trend appears to be increasingly optimistic, based on the average economic growth. The conclusion is that, in the long run even modest differences in the yearly growth rate can have sizeable cumulative effects.

As the world becomes wealthier, there will be more money available for research and development, and there will be more capital available to finance and invest in space tourism enterprises. There will also be more people able to afford a ticket to space, which in turn will increase the space tourism market. From an engineering vantage point, many space technological advances and radical breakthroughs must occur before space tourism becomes a viable, growing industry. This holds true in economical terms. For instance, a lunar exploration museum on the Moon could be built and operated by using present day technologies, but the huge cost makes it impractical. To give an idea of such a cost we may think of the cost of the Apollo programme to be 90 billions U.S. dollars at 1998 prices [Logsdon, 2000]. If we decide to neglect the development costs, by assuming that the technology developed in the sixties can be used again, then [Raj Chengappa, 2000] to bring one kilogram of material to the Moon would cost U.S. US$22,000. To build and operate a museum would imply transporting thousands of tons of materials costing more than US$20 billion.


187

Table 5-2 Simulated Long Term World Economic Growth Scenarios for 2050 and 2100.

Numbers in Bold: Ratio between G.G.P. of line year and G.G.P. of 2000

Low Growth

Throughout

1st Half: Low

Growth

2nd Half: Moderate Growth

Moderate Growth

Throughout

1st Half: Moderate Growth

2nd Half:

High Growth

1st Half: High Growth

2nd Half: Low

Growth

High Growth

Throughout

Normal Growth Rate

2.0%

2.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.8%

3.8%

1st Half

Crisis Growth Rate

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

Number Crisis Years

10 10 10 10 9 9

In 2050 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.4 4.7 4.7 Normal

Growth Rate

2.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.8%

2.0%

3.8%

2nd Half

Crisis Growth Rate

0.0%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

Number Crisis Years

10

10

10

9

10

9

In 2100 5 8 12 16 11 22


188

The costs that need to be considered for space tourism activities are:

• Research and development (R&D) costs • Production costs • Investment costs • Operational costs

The R&D expenses preclude most other costs since they are a general requirement that will allow space tourism activities. From an economic view, research expenditures need to promote less expensive ways to archive space tourist activities. Fundamental research is not enough to enable space tourist activities; applied technological research will be needed. This research should focus on but not limit to:

• Space transportation • Closed life support systems for space flight • Space structures • Space communications

5.4.3 Financing Planning Through the centuries several major waves of economic growth arose from the development of new transportation technologies: Roman roads, sailing ships, railways, steam-ships, automobiles, and aircraft [Patrick Collins, 1999]. From this perspective, it is clear that the development of new space transportation network will stimulate economic growth. Due to this principle, countries involved in the space industry should support the development of space technologies. Beyond 50 years, the rich countries will face the slowing of economic growth and rising unemployment, salaries rise and people consume more and more goods and services. The large scale of space tourism will create new markets, new commercial opportunities and several million permanent jobs in aerospace and related industries. It will also make a potentially critical contribution towards overcoming the deflationary pressures in the world economy caused by over-supply in older industries and insufficient development of new industries. [Patrick Collins, 1999] In modern societies the process of specialization is responsible for the enormous growth of engineering and scientific knowledge, together with the use of machines. The productive efficiency is so high that about 5% of the population can produce enough food for everyone and 95% of the population will be “released from the land”. Governments currently spend US$25 billions a year on civilian space activities, but essentially none of this is aimed at realizing passenger space transportation. Over the next 30 years, US$750 billion of investment could cumulatively create permanent employment for over 15 million people [Patrick Collins, 1999]. Research data that was generated from various organizations indicate that the R&D expenditure is about 0.5-1.5% per year of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in each country around the world. It was also discovered that this value is increasing throughout the globe. The expenditure of R&D of the space industry is between 0.05% and 0.2% of GDP. The long range global economical forecast and the ratio of R&D to GDP indicates that there will be US$110 billion a year spent on civilian space activities by 2050,


189

US$230 billion a year by 2075 and US$480 billion a year by 2100. From this research, we can conclude that there will be significant amount of funds available to invest in space tourism. The ratio of commercial to governmental expenditures is increasing, and may surpass 50% in 2050.

Table 5-3 World economic forecast and the expenditures on space technologies (Assumptions: Average economic growth rate is 3% per year and the commercial expenditure is assumed as same as the governments.)

Year GDP (Times of 2000)

Governmental Expenditure

(US$bil.)

Commercial Expenditure

(US$bil.)

Total Expenditure

(US$bil.) 2050 4 110 220 330 2075 9 230 460 690 2100 19 480 960 1440

5.4.4 Marketing Analysis During the 20th century, civil aviation has grown to a turnover of almost US$1 trillion a year, and may grow to several more US$billion a year as tourism spreads further around the world with continuing economic growth and growth of middle classes in developing countries. [Patrick Collins, 1999] The satellite telecommunications has become a mature commercial industry with a turnover of US$50 billion a year. The “Engel coefficient” is used to define the proportion of people’s income that is used to purchase necessities. In the developed nations, the coefficient is between 0.3 and 0.4. The costs will fall to 0.03 within next 100 years with real economical growth of 2-3% a year. From these calculations, only 3% of the people’s income will be used on necessities. From this study, we can determine that a larger proportion of people’s income may be used on space tourism. [Patrick Collins, 1999] At the second half of 21st century, there will be more than 100 Earth orbital hotels, which are in high- inclination orbits for giving guests good views of the Earth, and hotels on the Moon [Patrick Collins, 1999]. Space tourism will offer round-trips with stays in space hotels and will have schedule daily flights. The passengers will reach 10 million a year and orbital population will be 0.14 billion. [Robert L. Haltermann, 2000] These are hopeful expectations of the space tourism market, but it is inevitable that space tourism will be commercial, and has huge potential to stimulate the world’s economy and bring great benefits to humanity.

5.5 Legal and Regulatory Issues

“The best way to predict the future is to invent it” Alan Kay

There are both national and international laws applicable to space activities that have been addressed in previous chapters. We can assume that some of these laws will not


190

be applicable in an era when space tourism is a widespread, fully vibrant industry. A significant evolution of the current applicable space legislations can therefore be expected. How to best regulate space tourism and other new commercial activities in space will require continuous discussions among the concerned governmental and regulatory bodies, as well as among companies manufacturing and operating vehicles and other infrastructures for space tourism and insurance companies.

5.5.1 Legal Regime In the case of commercially owned and operated vehicles or infrastructures for space tourism, the selection of the applicable jurisdiction will be a critical issue in many respects. Owners and operators of space tourism assets may want to select the legal regime, which has the most favourable conditions for their commercial exploitation. In particular, different liability policies as well as different certification procedures may render specific jurisdictions particularly attractive to space tourism operators. The enforcement of an international treaty such as an “Outer Space Commercialisation Act” can be envisaged as the only way to avoid the occurrence of situations similar to the maritime sector, where some “cheap-flag states” apply very low safety requirements.

Taxation An issue strongly connected to the legal regime and of great interest to space tourism is the question of taxation. Space tourism companies will be subjected to taxation on the basis of their nationality. If a new local authority responsible for maintaining a safe and efficient planetary orbital space traffic system will be established (an extra-terrestrial government?), this may in turn lead to the introduction of an additional taxation system. Needless to say, such a development would raise many interesting new legal issues, including customs or tariff enforcements and the issue of ‘duty-free goods’ for tourists.

Criminal and Anti-Trust Other issues that can be envisaged are the extension of the currently applicable anti-trust and competition laws to ensure efficiency and reliability for the customers, or the evolution of the currently applicable intellectual property international regulation. Moreover, the enforcement of an extra-terrestrial criminal law and related police authority to deal with crimes committed by and on space tourists will become necessary.

Non-Appropriation of Space The currently applicable Outer Space Treaty provides for the principle of non-appropriation of space. When the space tourism industry will reach the stage where trips to other celestial bodies become common and permanently inhabited planetary accommodation facilities will be established, the construction, maintenance and operations of these and other space facilities that commercial companies will want to own and exploit will imply a substantial derogation of the non-appropriation principle.

5.5.2 Legal Visions to Ponder The legal framework currently applicable for space activities appears to be inadequate to the fully commercialised future space tourism activities. It is probable that the existing framework will be updated to acknowledge and support the expansion of the space tourism business and involved enterprises. This process will ensure public safety,


191

provide for great economic benefits to humanity, and set the framework for humanities progression into the cosmos.

5.6 Summarising Visions for Space Tourism’s Future

“It is difficult to say what is impossible, for yesterday’s dream is today’s hope and tomorrow’s reality”

Robert Goddard In summarising the future visions of space tourism, place no limits to our imagination. With humanity’s strong will to keep exploring the cosmos, and the technologies that are and will be available, any thing is possible. Nevertheless, we must face the realities of the known understandings of the physical universe, monetary allocation to projects, political and societal will, and time. We live in an amazing period; we are at a threshold of opening space to all people that dream to see, hear, feel, taste, and smell the wonders the cosmos has to offer. It is unimaginable to understand the wonderful ramifications and paradigm shifts humanity will have when the first space tourist sees the Earth as a pale blue dot rising above the martian landscape. This can be possible only when we turn our dream into reality.

References Chengappa, Raj, Space Moon Mission, India Today, July 3, 2000 Ciesla, T. M., 1990. The Centauri Project: Manned interstellar Travel. Vision-21: space Travel for the next Millennium. In: Proceedings of the symposium, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, April 3 –4 1990. NASA Conference Publications 10059. Clarke, A. C., 1972. Profiles of the Future. A daring look at tomorrow’s fantastic world. Bantam Science and Mathematics. Clèment, Gilles, 1999. Keys to Space, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Space Studies, Chapter 18, Space Biology, 1999 Collins, P., 2000. The Regulatory Reform Agenda for the Era of Passenger Space Transportation. (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com (accessed 23 August 2000). Collins, Patrick, 2000 Space Activities, Space Tourism and Economic Growth, 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, Bremen, April 21-23, 1999 Collins, Patrick, 2000 The Space Tourism Industry in 2030, Albuquerque, New Mexico State, March, 2000 Haltermann, Robert L., 2000. The Private-Public Space Tourism Partnership, Space New, August 7, 2000 Hujsac, E. 1994. The future of U.S. rocketry. Mina-Helwing Company.


192

Kaufmann, W. J. 1994. Universe, 4th ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York. Logsdon, John M., 2000. Major Issues Facing Government Space Programs, ISU SSP Lecture Handout, Valparaiso, p.12, July, 2000 NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Laboratory. (2000). Citing Internet resources (WWW document). http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/. (Accessed August 2000). Pasinetti, Luigi, 1981. Structural Change and Economic Growth: a theoretical essay on the dynamics of the wealth of nations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (U.K.) 1981 Price, H. W. 1990. Advanced spacecraft: What will they look like and why? Vision-21: Space Travel for the next Millennium. In: Proceedings of the symposium, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, April 3 –4 1990. NASA Conference Publications 10059. Rey, L. D. 1957. Rockets Through Space. A story of Man’s Preparation to explore the Universe. John C. Wilson Company. Roberts, L. 1998. Planning a Trip into Space? Bring Your Lawyer Along for the Ride, Ad Astra, May/June 1998 Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1954. Capitalism Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Row publishers, London, 1954 Space Fungus: A Menace to Orbital Habitats. SPACE.COM (2000) (WWW document) http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/space_fungus_000727.html (accessed August 2000) SpaceFuture. (2000). Citing Internet resources (WWW document). http://www.spacefuture.com. (Accessed August 2000). Winter, F. H., 1990. Rockets into space. Harvard University Press Wollersheim, M. 1999. Considerations Towards the Legal Framework of Space Tourism. In: 2nd International Symposium on Space Tourism, Bremen, Germany, April 21-23, 1999 Zubrin, R. 1996. The Case For Mars. Simon and Schuster.


193


194

Appendix A - Glossary

A

Adventure tourist, tourism

A tourist who seeks adventure, the unknown, willing to accept risk. Typical tourism activities include climbing Mt. Everest, traveling to Antarctica.

ADS-B Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable ALS Advanced Life Support Arianespace Private company which provides commercial launch services with

the ARIANE 4 and 5 launchers. http://www.arianespace.com/

AST Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation ASTC Air & Space Traffic Control ASTRO Advanced Space Traffic Regulation Organization ATC Air Traffic Control ATV Autonomous Transfer Vehicle

B

Bioprotection Protection by biological means

C

CAA Cargo Airline Association CAF Collision Avoidance Facility CCF Central Control Facility CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CHeCS Crew Health Care System Constellation Group of several satellites, e.g. the Iridium constellation was a

system of 66 or more satellites in low Earth orbit. COPUOS Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, UN; also

UNCOPUOS CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation CRV Crew Rescue Vehicle CSSI Coriolis Sickness Sensitivity Index

Appendix A

195

D

DASA Deutsche Aerospace Airbus, Germany DCS Decompression Sickness ∆V “Delta V”; change in velocity

E

EADS European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company N.V. ECG Electrocardiogram ECLSS Environmental Control and Life Support System Embryogenesis Formation and development of the embryo. EMU Extravehicular Mobility Unit Ergonomics An applied science concerned with designing and arranging things

people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely -- called also human engineering

ESA European Space Agency ET External Tank ETOPS Extended Range Operation with Two engine Airplanes EVA Extra Vehicular Activity

F

FAA Federal Aviation Administration, US FESTIP Future European Space Transportation Investigations Programme Flux density Number of particles per area

G

“g” Gravitational acceleration of the Earth. GCR Galactic Cosmic Ray/Radiation GDP Gross Domestic Product; measure of a nation´s wealth GGP Gross Global Product; measure of global wealth GPS Global Positioning System GSE Ground Support Equipment

H

HSP Health Stabilisation Program HTOL Horizontal Takeoff and Landing HXFE Hyper-X Flight Engine


196

I

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IFSD In Flight Shut Down IGA Inter-Governmental Agreement ISFO International Space Flight Organisation ISP, ISP Specific Impulse; the propellant mass flow with time. ISS International Space Station IVA Intra-Vehicular Activity

J K

JAA Joint Aviation Authorities JRS Japanese Rocket Society

L

LACE Liquid Air Cycle LCG Liquid Cooling Garment LEO Low Earth Orbit LES Launch/Entry Suits LET Linear Energy Transfer, dE/dx energy deposition of the

particle/path length LH Liquid Hydrogen Longeron A major structural member of an aircraft fuselage, running from

front to rear. LOX Liquid Oxygen LTA Lighter Than Air

M

Mach (number) The ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of sound in the surrounding medium. For example, an aircraft moving twice as fast as the speed of sound is said to be travelling at Mach 2.

MCC-H Mission Control Center – Houston, US MiG Soviet Union/Russian high-performance military jet fighter aircraft,

e.g. MiG-15, MiG-29. MirCorp An internationally funded company that has officially leased the

Russian space station Mir. MirCorp’s goal is to preserve Mir through private enterprise and to lease its resources to commercial users. http://www.mirstation.com

MSTO Multi Stage To Orbit; vehicle requiring several stages to get to orbit

Appendix A

197

mSv mili-Sievert

N

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the US space agency.

NASDA National Space Development Agency, Japan NORAD North American Aerospace Defense

O

OCST Office of Commercial Space Transportation Oncology Cancer research and therapy OSC Orbital Sciences Corporation OSHA Occupational Safety Health Administration, US

P

PATs Preflight Adaptation Training devices PMC Private Medical Conference PSR Primary Surveillance Radar

Q

Q Quality factor

R

R&D Research and Development RBCC Rocket Based Combined Cycle RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle RSTV Reusable Space Tourism Vehicle

S

SAA South Atlantic Anomaly SEC Securities Exchange Commission SMS Space Motion Sickness SOMS Shuttle Orbiter Medical System Space Tourism Providing services for humans to access and experience space for

adventure and recreation.


198

Space Tourist A person who travels to and experiences space for adventure and recreation.

Space-related tourism

Adventure and recreation related to outer space in some way but not actually taking place in outer space.

SPE Solar Particle Event SSN Space Surveillance Network SSR Secondary Surveillance Radar SSTO Single Stage To Orbit; vehicle requiring one stage to get to orbit STC Space Traffic Control STS Space Transportation System SVMT Staircase Velocity Movement Test SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats; type of analysis

T

TDRSS Tracking and data relay satellite system TEPC Tissue Equivalent proportional counter Terraform Making a place “earth like” Therapeutic Radiology

The use of radiation to treat certain types of cancer

TLD Thermoluminescent dosimeters TSTO Two Stage To Orbit; vehicle requiring two stages to get to orbit TT&C Telemetry, Tracking and Control

U

UK United Kingdom ULDB Ultra Long Duration Balloon project UN United Nations UNCOPUOS United Nations Committee for Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; also

COPUOS US United States of America USA United States of America (country); United Space Alliance

(company) USAF United States Air Force

V

VTOHL Vertical Takeoff and Horizontal Landing VTOL Vertical takeoff and landing

Appendix A

199

W

WECPNL Weighted Equivalent Continuous Perceived Noise Level

X Y Z

X prize US$10 million prize to be given to the first team to successfully fly a privately funded and constructed vehicle capable of carrying at least 3 passengers 100 km in altitude, twice in two weeks. http://www.xprize.org

Zero g Zero gravity, or weightlessness.


200

Appendix B – X-Prize Vehicles

Program Developer Vehicle Type Advent Advent Launch Services Cylinder-shaped glider powered by

liquid-fueled rocket engines. The vehicle will launch vertically from water and and land horizontally in water.

Ascender Bristol Spaceplane Limited Spaceplane powered by two conventional jet engines and a liquid-fueled rocket engine. The vehicle will take off and land horizontally.

Cerulean Cerulean Freight Fowarding Company

Horizontal launch and landing vehicle powered by liquid fueled rocket engines.

Cosmopolis XXI Cosmopolis XXI Cylinder-shaped rocket which is launched off carrier aircraft "Geophisika". The vehicle will take off vertically and land horizontally.

Cosmos Mariner Lone Star Space Access Corporation

Spaceplane powered by two air-breathing engines and one rocket engine. The vehicle will launch and land horizontally.

da Vinci The da Vinci Project Vehicle will be air launched from hot air balloon, firing liquid fueled engines at 40,000 feet alititude, land by parachute

Eclipse Astroliner

Kelly Space and Technology Spaceplane towed into air by conventional aircraft and then use a reusable rocket engine to ascend.

Gauchito Pablo De Leon & Associates Two-stage vehicle that will launch vertically. The first stage booster and the second stage passenger capsule return to Earth using parachutes.

Green Arrow Graham Dorrington Cylinder-shaped rocket using liquid-fueled rocket engines. The vehicle will launch vertically and land vertically using parachutes and air bags.

Lucky Seven Mickey Badgero Cone-shaped vehicle powered by rocket engines. The vehicle will launch vertically and land using a parafoil.

MICHELLE-B TGV Rockets The vehicle will launch vertically and

Appendix B

201

land vertically using ascent engines in a deep throttle mode.

PA-X2 AeroAstro, LLC Cylinder-shaped vehicle usign a liquid-fueled engine. The vehicle will launch vertically and land horizontally using a steerable parafoil.

Pathfinder Pioneer Rocketplane, Inc. Spaceplane powered by air-breating jet engines and liquid-fueled rocket engines. LOX supplyed by air-to-air refuling method.

Proteus Scaled Composites, Inc. Two-stage vehicle consisting of the conventional turbo-fan powered Proteus aircraft and a rocket-powered second stage.

The Space Tourist

Discraft Corporation Disc-shaped vehicle powered by air-breathing "blastwave-pulsejets". The vehicle will take off and land horizontally.

Thunderbird Starchaser Foundation Cylinder-shaped rocket using air-breathing engines and liquid fueled rocket engines. The vehicle will launch and land vertically.

XVan2001 Pan Aero, Inc. Pan Aero has publicized two designs for the X Van. The entry may be a TSTO system comprised of a booster stage and orbitor stage, or a single-stage system flying a sub-orbital trajectory.

unnamed Earth Space Science Transport System Corporation

No information on this entry has been released.


202

Us

Date post:	28-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Space Tourism - From Dream to Reality...Space Tourism – From Dream to Reality iv List of Authors...

Documents