I, along with many others, have been tracking with great
interest the progress of NewSpace companies in developing and subsequently providing “personal
spaceflight” services. It’s not that I’m
ready to pre-pay for a “ticket-to-ride” at current prices, but make no mistake, I would really like to ride. Some think that this new sector of
commercial space development could be a “tipping point” for significant private
investment flow and new customer generation that can create a new major market
sector. That could drive competition and
development of new transportation systems with lower-cost, more reliable, and
more frequent access to space – the “holy grail” for future space
commerce.
Based on that anticipation, I was fascinated recently to
learn about Robert Talmage, President of TAAS Company
in Acworth, GA, and patent holder for an Aircraft Escape
Cabin (AEC) designed for use on high-performance aircraft and space
planes. His goal is to develop a
practical and reliable escape system for vehicles traveling at very high speeds
and at altitudes between about 225 meters and low Earth orbit. His business plan includes validating the AEC
concept using a modified Learjet as a flight test platform and subsequently for
development and testing support of new efficient propulsion systems ideally
suited for aircraft style operations.
The Aircraft Escape Cabin (AEC) is mounted to the parent vehicle via a slide system and plug-in devices that
mechanically disconnect all interfaces when an emergency air-bag is
activated. When the AEC separates from
the vehicle, its built-in canards act as mini-wings to stabilize flight and
glide. Under crew control or by remote control, the AEC can glide to the
closest or optimal landing site (depending on altitude). At an appropriate
altitude, a ballistic parachute system is triggered which has been well-proven
as a recovery system for small aircraft moving at lower speeds. This allows the
AEC to parachute safely onto land or water.
Since the AEC is pressurized, it will float on water and protect the
occupants until rescued.
When I asked about the projected benefits for implementing
this safety concept, Talmage provided some background that is
illuminating. First, aircraft-style
operations have long been considered an ideal way for people to access space
and a space plane that transports people to the edge of space approximates this
goal. The AEC concept is highly-simplified
compared to: current military aircraft escape systems designed for individual
pilots; have explosive ejection systems requiring complete pressurized life
support suits; carry significant weight penalties; and include high costs and
complex disconnect systems.
Vertical launch systems, such as the one used for Apollo missions,
have always had crew capsules with attached rockets to lift them away from the main
vehicle, if necessary. The Russian Soyuz
version of this safety system has been used twice, once on the launch pad and
once in flight to successfully rescue cosmonauts .
The Space Shuttle design initially had an emergency escape capsule, however, it
was eventually eliminated due to its weight penalty and other design
complications. The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule system is designed
to carry both cargo and humans to the International Space Station and will
utilize a Soyuz-style rescue system for all human flights.
So, what are the rescue capabilities being developed for the
sub-orbital space planes that will transport humans to the edge of space? Talmage feels strongly that risks associated
with rocket engines, volatile fuels, extreme speeds and the space environment
justify an escape and recovery system.
However, it appears that neither the “SpaceShipTwo” nor “Lynx” space
planes have an emergency recovery capability at this time. The “SpaceShipTwo” carries two crew and up
to six passengers but the Lynx is basically a two-seater with a pilot and a
passenger and therefore has a much smaller cabin. Whether either could adapt the AEC concept to
their evolving craft is beyond my capabilities to conjecture here.
Burt Rutan, the “father” of SpaceShipTwo has noted that the reliability of the new space planes will inevitably be
much lower than that of commercial airliners that have evolved over 70 years,
and the safety issue is likely to be a hot one during the initial months of
personal spaceflight and beyond. In my
view, the success of this new industry in attracting the broad public will
ultimately hinge on cost and flight safety. The
more successful the flights and the lower the cost per person, the more it will
attract those with families, who want to have backup escape systems in place. Sustainability of companies serving the
emerging personal spaceflight market will no doubt require increasingly
reliable and safe transportation systems.
Comments
Personal Spacelight Safety Appears Very Vehicle-Specific
From: Richard Mains, 04/15/09
From tracking the wide range of comments to the original article based on R. Talmage's Aircraft Escape Cabin concept I'm concluding that safety is clearly recognized as key to market development and sustainability, but safety systems inherently must be designed into the various elements of the highly-variable space plane system designs including the spacecraft, their carriers, their pilot's capabilities and more. Profiling of safety systems and their operations by developers will increasingly become an issue for customers as actual flights approach and after, as problems occur and are resolved. Winners in this market space will eventually have good safety systems, implementation strategies and flight records to sell.
Safety
From: Doug Messier, 04/14/09
During Space Access 09, both Chuck Lauer of Rocketplane Global and Jeff Greason put a lot of emphasis on the safety features of their suborbital vehicles. Lauer talked about how if the rocket failed, the spacecraft would be able to fly for up to 90 minutes on its engines. Even if the engines failed, it could make a dead stick landing back at its base. The issue with an escape cabin is that adds weight and complexity to the design without really addressing the other issues that would make an in-flight emergency survivable. It could even take money and effort away from focusing on the other safety aspects.
In the end
From: Kathleen Connell, 04/14/09
Personal Space Flight is a niche that will help brand and also sell work-aday commuter point to point high altitude flights to a new market. That is where the money is, and that has to be seen as safe. One brand of Virgin's stable of products, can not really be separated from another when it comes to safety. Making PSF save ensures repeat customers, the basis of commerce. If this is selling Everest, its very niche, very thrilling, and not a very large market.
Safety - Backup Escape Systems Will Increase Sales
From: Brian Feeney, 04/13/09
Emphasizing safety as often done by Virgin Galactic and XCOR is good for business. Having additional back up escape systems and or capabilities will increase sales. Designed in from the start they are relatively inexpensive in the overall cost of the program with little to no detectable cost in the ticket. Retrofitting one is a different question that may result in a less than ideal system at a considerable cost and ticket price impact. Even the most adventurous customers will glow at the sight of levels of safety - especially if part of those "safe" wings are not there to land with (we have wings so no slant to XCOR). There is no “ultimate” safety device or system to save ones self against every conceivable scenario. Good engineering, relative simplicity and test, test test as pointed out already are good places to start. The aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Aviation popularized (not the first) full aircraft parachute recovery using the BRS parachute system. Most, but not all, uses of the system have resulted in saves. Nevertheless having that final big red lever to pull or button to push to separate (in some fashion) the crew cockpit, module whatever and recover it even with its less than 100% reliability is better than not having the option IMHO. If you don’t have the option you can always bail out. However you can always bailout as well from an unsuccessful module separation…The personal bailout to me is the last resort given the customers lack of training and the higher opportunity to hit parts of the craft, debris etc. We are opting for both options plus in our XF1 design.
Emergency Recovery Systems vs Escape Systems
From: Richard Mains, 04/13/09
Stephen raises a good point related to XCOR's "Lynx" space plane design. Having "recoverable" propulsion systems, wings that allow glide, and perhaps having just one passenger, can be considered "emergency recovery system" elements. They are not true escape systems in the same sense as the "Aircraft Escape Cabin" could be, but they are designed to increase safety. Surely many future customers will have great interest in such safety strategies as the market evolves.
Emergency Recovery Capability
From: Stephen Fleming, 04/13/09
XCOR's Lynx certainly does have an emergency recovery capability. It's a combination of having wings, having multiple engines -- each relightable in-flight -- and having a skilled pilot at the controls. And testing, testing, testing before taking up paid spaceflight participants. (Disclaimer: although associated with XCOR, I'm not authorized to speak for the company, yadda yadda.)
Risk
From: Erika Wagner, 04/12/09
Seems that success of this industry will depend quite a bit on public perception of acceptable risk. Is this seen as equivalent to commercial flight? Or climbing Everest? An amusement park ride? Or bungee jumping? The early days of flight were fraught with danger. It would be overly optimistic to think that this will be 100% safe. That said, thoughtful and patient engineering will go a long way!
There is no Thrill in Safety
From: Joan Vernikos, 04/12/09
For the foreseeable future space flight, personal or otherwise, is a high risk adventure.As such it attracts the thrill-seekers among us.There is no shortage of those that will take this risk and pay handsomely as part of the total experience. The next wave of customers, as with aircraft, will expect or demand the lower risk of an escape option.The option proposed in this article is an interesting concept building on the ejection seat.It is a start.
Does it Come Down to Ticket Price vs Safety?
From: Richard Mains, 04/10/09
There are surely many trade-offs that vehicle developers must make, especially space plane developers. Based on market research studies I've seen estimating customer demand, ticket price is a key factor. So, assuming safety features add to space plane costs, and customer flight experiences are equal, the big trade may be ticket price versus safety. That's a tough trade-off, but I'm wondering if, as the customer pool increases in size, having an edge in safety might not pay-off. I'm extrapolating here from my personal view, but what do other's think? Wouldn't you chose the safer option?
My Initial Rxn: This Is A Good Idea...
From: Ken Davidian, 04/10/09
... looking for a problem. Why haven't the air/space vehicle designers for whom this solution might be interesting (i.e. only XCOR at this time since this would only save the SS2 crew and not the passengers) incorporated this feature into their designs? I can only guess that it's because of the complexity and associated weight, but that's just a guess. This same concept was an integral safety feature of the Canadian Arrow Ansari X PRIZE design, using 4 JATO engines for emergency abort at any phase during the vehicle ascent phase of the mission. One of the things I think makes success in business so elusive is the fact that great technical ideas don't necessarily translate into great business ideas. That's probably impossible for most engineeris and scientists to get their heads around, and the those that can must then divorce their love for the technology they're developing from the product the customers are willing to purchase. I really like this idea, but it would only be applicable to a vehicle design like the XCOR Lynx. What about all the other vehicle designs? Just my two cents! Ken
Business Does Best With Low Risk!
From: Kathleen Connell, 04/09/09
Even if that business is aloft, the rules of the marketplace still apply. Not zero risk, as that is impossible and ridiculous. What do others think about risk, safety and personal space flight? Great piece.
Add Your Comment