Who rescues private astronauts on commercial missions?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- With the dawn of a new era of commercial human spaceflight missions, an unsolved question arises: whose responsibility is it to rescue commercial or private astronauts in distress? International treaties and agreements remain vague and may only apply to government astronauts. What might a rescue mission on a free-flying SpaceX Dragon look like, who is planning for it, and who pays for it? These remain open questions that the US government needs to begin addressing as more fully commercial missions such as Inspiration4, the Polaris program, Fram2, and others are planned and carried out.
Thumbnail background image credit: NASA/SpaceX
In-video image and audio credit: NASA, SpaceX, FAA, Blue Origin, Inspiration4, Polaris Dawn
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC): Afternoon Session (September 16, 2024), time stamp 2:08:27: www.youtube.co...
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: www.unoosa.org...
Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space: www.unoosa.org...
Artemis Accords: www.nasa.gov/a...
Space Force rescue units prepare for ‘new era’ of commercial human spaceflight: spacenews.com/...
Novel Workshop Spotlights Need for In-Space Rescue Capabilities: aerospace.org/...
Grow your business in space: astralytical.com/
Follow me at:
x.com/LauraFor...
/ lauraforczyk
/ lauraforczykspace
/ lauraforczyk
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
My first thought: About 10 years ago a caver here in my state crawled into a very dangerous cave and got stuck in an upside down position. Immediate rescue efforts were launched but in the end, there was no saving him... he died a horrible death stuck deep inside of a cave upside down with no hope of rescue. These things happen and the outcome is not always a happy ending. I have no doubt that all existing launch capable entities would give a space rescue serious thought and if there was any way possible, a rescue would be attempted but hopeless situations do occur and sometimes you just need to face tragedy. Life goes on.
That sounds awful about the caver! I fear you may be right about some situations not being salvageable.
@@lauraforczyk The reaction of the community in the case of this caver deserves a footnote: The cave's opening was permanently sealed with concrete and obviously no-one is allowed into that cave (his body was left where he died). If we did the same thing with space, I'm afraid there would be a push by some to prohibit future commercial space missions. Hopefully we wouldn't allow that to happen.
Oh wow. Yeah, there's no "sealing off" space. But the reaction to a tragedy on a commercial space mission would not be good from a government/regulator perspective and likely from a customer or potential customer perspective.
It is this way with basically all of aviation- if you have a problem while in flight, we'll talk to you and do the things to help out that are easy, but that's why flight is treated differently than, say, operating a car: you can't just pull over and park.
Evan a 747 full of passengers is on their own if something goes very wrong in flight, all they have is what the captain and crew can manage, with whatever meager informational assistance can come from the ground.
I think the only reason rescue was considered for Shuttle was because it was eminently achievable, since basically all the flights were going to the ISS and thus they had a place to hang out if the orbiter was damaged, and ALSO because the shuttle was a national symbol. A Delta 747, with 50x the lives aboard, just doesn't have the ability to stay airborne long enough for anything that looks like a rescue to happen, so the focus is on doing everything possible to get this flight down safely, without endangering anybody else.
And that's where I think things have to head toward with other vehicles: don't build rescue stations for the sake of rescue stations, because that's just too expensive. But if you've got a busted ride and you're at a rescue station, you can hang out there.
The requirements that this will drive is for anything space-station-like will probably need to have a significant amount of excess life support in case someone docks unexpectedly and will also be using the consumables.
I wonder if I'll ever see someone turned away in such a situation.
@@ahgflyguy Space is even more complicated than that since a plane has to land/crash somewhere and then rescue efforts can be made.
In space, you never land. So the analogy is more "ships in distress at sea". But worse because of the tyranny of orbital mechanics. If a shuttle had had an "abort to orbit" and couldn't re-enter, its likely that it would not have the altitude to reach the ISS because "close enough" doesn't count IRL (ie bad example of The Martian). That is why post Columbia, there was always a stand-by shuttle in case of that scenario.
But that is far too expensive to maintain for just any eventuality, and mainly useless because there are many orbits that would take too long or be impossible to reach. And that is just LEO, if we extend this to LTOs or even interplanetary then... no you are on your own just like that falling 747.
Thunderbirds springs to mind 😁.
*_"Thunderbirds are GO!"_*
Beat me to it
@@JamesHardaker>>> 👍
When we see space triple A we'll know commercial space is a mature industry.
@@CanalTremocos That will be the day!
Where are the " Thunderbirds " when you need them.
Thanks for your analysis on this subject Laura. Private astronauts may well accept the risk of their missions legally, but in the event of a loss of private crew. The authorities would surely face a reputational backlash from the media and the public for not acting.
Sounds like Triple A needs to start a space program!
FWIW: If a manned _Dream Chaser_ ever rescued a _Dragon Capsule_ or _StarLiner_ {IF those things are not discontinued}, it would be a real-life version of the 1969 motion picture *MAROONED.*
At this point both will be retired and there will only be Starship before Dream Chaser (if) ever flies.
Interesting topic!
Thanks!
Just looking at the potential recovery window highlights the scope of the problem. Spacewalker - hours, capsule - days, station - week but could be a lot less depending on the emerency. Minimum duration launch to ISS around 6 hours from lift plus emergency launch prep 12-24 hours (ignoring regulation) giving a theoretical rescue arrival of 18-30 hours to the ISS.
The biggest problem with space rescue just in principle is that space is big and crew resources are low so just getting a recovery capsule to the stranded astronaught would be a recover for the funeral problem in most cases at the present time unless they are in a space station. We simply don't have the ability to launch a crew rated vehical in the available recovery window and none of the current orbital space stations have the free resources to send a capsule.
I certainly do think that the most likely solution in the shorter term is for a space station in orbit to have a capsule reserved for this purpose another short term solution is to have a hotpad at a launch complex with a rocket ready to go on short notice falcon 9 most likely with it's fuel and go approach. Once we start getting larger and more capable stations into orbit the situation should become easier to have recvery shuttles available to retrieve astronaughts and bring them to a station for stabilization before being transfered to earth.
One of my new favorites 🎉
@@NivCalderon Thanks!
Hi Laura. I have an answer for you on the question you posed about Shuttle launches. After the Shuttle resumed flight following the Columbia accident, NASA required that every Shuttle mission either be able to reach the ISS, or there had to be another Shuttle available to "launch on need" and perform a rescue mission. Every Shuttle flight post-Columbia wound up headed to the ISS, except STS-125, which was a Hubble servicing mission flown on Atlantis. If Atlantis had been unable to return to Earth -- due to a Columbia-type incident or any other reason -- Endeavour was prepared to fetch them, and four astronauts (Chris Ferguson, Eric Boe, Robert Kimbrough, and Stephen Bowen) had trained to fly that rescue mission, denoted as STS-400. An STS-400 rescue mission would have required Endeavour to return with 11 crew on board -- more than any Shuttle orbiter had ever been designed for. I don't recall the exact plans for where everyone would sit. (If you want a good laugh, do a web search on "sts-400 mission patch").
@@whirlwind201 Thanks, that is very interesting! Makes sense.
@@whirlwind201 That STS-400 mission patch is brilliant. I’m glad they never had to do the mission.
The FAA is going to be a major problem for recovery type missions, can you imagine a stranded astronought waiting 2 weeks or more for the FAA to autherize a rescue launch. The best solution at present would be developing a space based rescue craft that undocks from an orbital station to perform the rescue negating the majority of the red tape and expense of getting a rescue craft into Leo from earth.
You have a valid point about the slowness of the FAA. In an emergency situation, would they significantly speed up the process? In-orbit on-demand emergency craft may be a speedier option, but costly.
Well the original US Coast Guard came from the United States Life-Saving Service that grew out of private and local humanitarian efforts to save the lives of shipwrecked mariners and passengers. Perhaps if private group of some kind did the same, working with companies like SpaceX or BlueOrigin, it could lead to a Orbital Rescue Service of some kind. If people are REALLY going end up working on semi-regular basis in orbit, such a service would be needed.
Absolutely! That reality of having an orbital rescue service seems so far away at this point. Who would fund it?
It is simple. With every launch they should have a rocket on another pad ready to do a chase mission.
Providers with one rocket should be required to contract another chase provider to be ready.
How about the non-commercial variation...where something goes wrong on NASA's Orion in the future. By that time it has launched a few times, Starship may be at a point it can do crew flights (and likely the only option for the time window). But no means for the government to pay for it, or even contract to do so. Even if SpaceX was willing to do it for free, could they receive a launch license in time?
A good question! With the Starliner “rescue”, NASA is already paying for Crew-9. I don’t know how it would work if there wasn’t already a SpaceX mission planned capable of rescuing Orion.
I thought we had the thunderbirds
The current rescue solution of appears to consist of get them to the ISS and we will sort it out later. It's only with the recent dragon free flying crew missions that have not had an option to dock there as the majorty of flights have that as a destination.
Wow, what an interesting topic! It's like how do you rescue a team in a deep sea submersible? Just thinking about it is mind boggling. Just thinking about how Crew Dragon has been configured (Cupola/Skywalker) with no docking port makes the rescue operation so much more complicated... Crazy. Great video!
Thanks! You're right, with the lack of a docking port, I don't even know if rescue on a Dragon is physically possible. But maybe? SpaceX hopefully has considered this.
@@lauraforczyk That in itself should hopefuly be resolved once spacex gets their space suit to a point that it can operate for even a short period without external connections, long at least to transfer from dragon to a station.
Most of the things you say are unknown are actually quite well known.
We know a lot about the space shuttle contingency missions post-Columbia. All but one post-Columbia shuttle flights were to the ISS and the STS-3xx missions were on standby to recover astronauts stranded at the ISS. For the final Hubble servicing mission the ISS was not available so STS-400 was on the pad ready to launch in an emergency scenario.
We also know whether SpaceX has any plans to rescue astronauts on free flying Dragon missions, they do not. We can say this with confidence because Inspiration4 and Fram2 both lack docking ports and EVA suits, leaving no viable way of extracting astronauts on orbit. Polaris dawn did have EVA suits and the astronauts could leave Dragon, but had to remain tethered for life support, so couldn't have reached the safety of another Dragon.
I said *I* didn't know about shuttle rescue, not we didn't know. You're only speculating about SpaceX's rescue or emergency capabilities.
Polaris dawn had an eliptical orbit so it could re-enter early on short notice if there was a problem.
Right now, private companies rescue commercial astronaut missions.
The government doesn't have a rescue protocol. Commercial stands a better chance of getting rescued. Why are we now talking about it? I think the Government is thinking of ways to prevent Commercial enterprise from succeeding.
Given NASA's history, I would much rather a commercial rescue.
How about just extending SOLAS to spaceflight?
so,it seems that SpaceX is the ONLY company that can rescue ANYONE For SpaceX it needs a quick deploy ship on stand by.Later we can get other companies to have a ship ready to launch AS a rescue vehicle
Whose responsibility is it to rescue stranded climbers from the top of Mount Everest? Who pays?
Insurance paying for emergency services in the long run.
You bring up such a good point because just last week, NASA released a brief study about commercial space station asset and liability insurance. The document mostly focused on asset insurance, but liability insurance was mentioned as a longer-term need.
@@lauraforczyk Cool. I think launch providers will require passengers to carry insurance that covers all sorts of predictable mission mishaps, or post a very large bond.
@@lauraforczyk That is because it is covered by "sovereign liability". The OST puts responsibility on damages caused by spacecraft on Nation-States, private or public. Its the responsibility on governments in turn on minimizing those risks by regulation and approval on any activity it allows.
An example of how Russia paid for a nuclear powered satellite that came down in Canada.
@@yamahaeleven They don't have to because the "participants" sign waivers just like any other high risk activity. If they want to get insurance coverage that is on them. But the launch providers "only" need to cover uninvolved damages.
@@obsidianjane4413 For sure, but will change over time so that rescue readiness capabilities can be covered. Those costs could be covered by other mechanisms, such as launch fees, industry associations, all of the above, none of the above?
In six years, the problem is going to get notably worse; the ISS will be decommissioned and destroyed upon reentry. At this point in American spaceflight, LEO is getting completely turned over to the commercial sector. There will be at least one if not three commercial spacestations in LEO being serviced by the commercial Dragon and possibly the Russian and/or Chinese government vehicles.
Boeing better get its act together and get Starliner reliably functional. We need at least two independent human rated launch and spacecraft systems. Actually, we really need more than just two.
This commercialization of LEO will definitely move on to the moon, Mars and beyond and not just by SpaceX.
I am glad the discussion has started. There is a ton of work that has to be done, and like you said, talking alone will not get the job done. There has to be a roll-up your sleeves and get to work attitude from here on out because the problem will not just get worse; it will grow at an accelerated rate.
Exactly. I feel like people are so used to ISS scenarios, they haven't adjusted their mindset to the whole new world that is commercial space stations and commercial missions. The time to start planning is now.
@lauraforczyk Excellent point.
I am 65; it is too late for my generation to change its attitudes, but this generation has no choice but to change its attitude. I am confident that it will.
Other private astronauts, because NASA will take 6 months and 3 studies to do it.
Are not astronauts 'persons' ? Space Rescue should be a human right.
I’m not sure that the government can afford to be prepared to rescue humans from every stupid situation they ever manage to get themselves into. Hell, the government can’t even afford to pay for life-saving medical treatments that people require through absolutely no fault of their own.
Interesting, no.
The Boeing group had no plan for getting back. You make it sound like they had a way. They don't without stranding 2 other Astronauts if wanted to get them back sooner. We still have a problem. If ISS craps out between now Dragon reaching ISS in 2025 how do expect to get those Boeing astronauts back? Assumptions are being made that nothing will go wrong.
Soyuz.
They are not out of options, they are just slightly worse than normal. Their current primary emergency exit from ISS is to ride unseated in the Dragon capsule under the seats, and one of them doing it "naked" as in not wearing a space suit. Since the Boeing suit is not compatible, it cant be plugged into the Dragon life support system. There was just one spare Space X suit on ISS at this time. Not being plugged in this way would only be an issue if the capsule were to have an atmosphere breach on the way back. So less than ideal, but once the next Dragon arrives, hopefully in a couple of weeks, there will be two empty seats reserved for them, so from that time on they are just regular ISS crew with normal access to an emergency departure.
Dragon can support 7 crew it just normaly flies with 4 seats. Still not found anyone with a good reason why this is the case.
@@shaung949 1) NASA decided to only use 4 seats, therefore there are no additional seats in the current Dragon generation even if the initial plan was for more.
2) The issue with life support is not related to if there are 4 or 6 astronauts on board. The Boeing and Space X spacesuit interfaces are incompatible, so you can not plug a Boeing spacesuit into the Dragon life support system.
Since there has rarely been a case where a landing spacecraft has lost its atmosphere (there was one in the early sixties in the Soviet).
Not being plugged in, is unlikely to be an issue; it's just one less backup system being available if things go wrong.
The reason there is a spare Space X suit on the ISS is that previously one astronaut arrived on a Dragon and left on a Soyuz, since that space suit wouldn't be usable on the Soyuz it was stored on ISS as a backup item,
The issues are for the simple fact that our government is too focused on general issues going on in this country and other places they don't have the time to think about space right now.. but it does need to be addressed yes but then u have the budget committee who takes the funds to fund things.. they rather spend money on other things then space programs that and we are in debt as it is.. I think it's interesting to see this idea happen unfortunately it may not happen any time soon.. if our government gets their crap together and stop dividing our country and a POTUS who ever it is can just stop long enough to really take the time and responsibility to listen band together and help the space program we can over come the odds heck China and NASA and SpaceX congratulated the Polaris dawn crew for completing the successful mission and return home safely FAA blue origin ULA and our own government didn't even congratulate Polaris dawn crew and SpaceX for their success. Where's are leadership.. only JFK and and a few POTUS in the past were really interested in space cause they realize how important it was for us.. neither trump vance nor Harris nor Biden or Congress congratulated them.. so I ask where's our leadership? Bring it back
@lauraforczyk >>> Great video...👍
Thanks!
@@lauraforczyk>>> YW!