Mar11
Inspiration Mars Regulatory Issues
on March 11, 2013 at 7:21 amI have a book teaser over at the Safe Is Not An Option blog.
I have a book teaser over at the Safe Is Not An Option blog.
Comments are closed.
©2001-2013 Transterrestrial Musings | Powered by WordPress with Easel | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑
Rand
You are off quite a bit in some of your assumptions.
it could do as much or more damage than a meteoroid
Not going to happen. An incoming Dragon would only weigh about 5 metric tons. It’s reentry velocity of 14.1 km/sec max is at the average of planetary impactors at Earth’s orbit but well below the 18 km/sec of the recent Russian bolide. The low end of the Russian bolide mass is estimated at 7000 metric tons. Thus just looking at the basic kinetic energy..
(0.5 X 7000) X 18^2 = 1,134,000 (russian bolide)
(0.5 X 5) X 14.1^2 = 497.025 (Dragon reentry)
This is about a 3.5 orders of magnitude difference.
Yes, I didn’t mean to imply it would do as much damage as that particular meteoroid, just a meteoroid of similar mass and velocity. I was just using that as an recent example of damage that meteoroids can do. It could still cause damage on the ground, even if it’s three orders of magnitude less than Chelyabinsk (just as Shuttle did, with much less velocity). I’ll clarify that in the book.
Thanks.
But Columbia had much more mass than a Dragon has, and many more large heavy parts that were less likely to break apart (like the engines) when they fell or burn up. And the slower speed actually increased the risk to those on the ground since it made it less likely debris, even small ones, would burn up. So the Shuttle was also an order of magnitude more dangerous to the folks on the ground than this is mission.
If you want a good analogy look at some of the satellites of similar mass that re-entered. There have been many over the last several decades to select from. Then figured in what the increase friction would do to the survival of the debris from the breakup.
Also you need to add in that the re-entry point will likely be over the Pacific, a pretty big target to miss. And yes, it will be the Pacific even though it hasn’t been announced. The same reasons the Pacific was used for the Apollo missions will be why it is almost certain to be selected for this mission once the analysis is paying for is finished, its a large re-entry target with little to no risk to those on the ground if something goes wrong. And plenty of room to drop the propulsion and crew modules. Recall Apollo 13 where you not only had a Service Module and LEM to splash but a radioactive RTG which now is sleeping with the fishes off of New Zealand? That is why the only risk for the re-entry will be to those aboard.
Also you should re-examine your view that if the propulsion and crew module are separated earlier they will be a risk. Why? They will be traveling far too fast to be captured by the Earth and would simply be boosted by the gravity of the Earth into a solar orbit. They would be no more a risk to navigation then the Saturn V third stages that are orbiting the Sun now.
So basically in terms of risk to those on the ground the launch will be much, much more risky than the re-entry and I don’t see any safety problems with either the launch or the re-entry in the licensing process, just the questions the mission itself may rise in terms of the authority of the FAA AST for human deep space missions which is another issue.
No meteoroid of a similar mass and size to the dragon ever reaches the ground, ever…..
So, without getting into the details of whether or not I agree with that, can I take it that it is your considered position that FAA-AST has no legitimate interest in crew safety of Inspiration Mars at all in issuing a launch license, under current law?
Rand
It is my opinion that the basis for the concerns that you listed in the book excerpt do not apply, excepting for the general one that the FAA now has regulatory authority over reentries. Also, there is a difference between legitimate interest and legal authority. It is an interesting new realm of law, but your theory based upon possible harm to people on the ground as the basis is on very shaky technical grounds.
Does being shaky on technical grounds ever stop a bureaucrat from regulating?
Also, I’m glad you included Inspiration Mars, but it gave me the thought, what if the rate of new companies exceeds your ability to include them???
Wouldn’t that be a nice problem?
Ken,
True, Which is why Rand shouldn’t be giving them ideas
Dennis,
I agree, especially as any re-entry will be over the ocean for the reasons I noted above, just as the current re-entry of the Dragon is over the ocean. Whatever small risk that MAY exist would be eliminated completely by notifying aircraft and ships to stay clear of the re-entry corridor allocated to it as is currently done with ballistic missile tests in the Pacific Ocean. So its really a non-issue for the license in terms of potential third party damage.
your theory based upon possible harm to people on the ground as the basis is on very shaky technical grounds.
I don’t think that AST would agree.
Rand,
I think they will.
You do know that the very first AST license ever issue was for an unmanned sounding rocket launch? I know as I got to watch it in 1989. Check their website on it. And they have issued many more for similar suborbital launches. The risk from a such a suborbital launch is likely greater that a Mars re-entry simply because far more pieces reach the Earth. That is the key metric, the percentage of mass that will reach the ground in large nasty pieces.
If go to WSMR you will find tens of thousands of such debris fields dating to the 1940′s, with a handful of them actually off range, which was why the first AST commercial launch was there in 1989. Just because its a Martian re-entry doesn’t make it more risky. Its actually the opposite especially given that it will be far out over the ocean and the higher speed will burn most of the debris up if anything goes wrong.
The pacific ocean thing is interesting. What if they register the spacecraft in Togo? Would FAA rules still apply? I know that generally the launching nation has jurisdiction/responsibility but it is also my understanding that this responsibility/jurisdiction ends after one year. Thus the registration of the vehicle could be shifted in mid flight, removing any FAA regulatory oversight for reentry.
Dennis,
That is an interesting question, but since I see the launch license(s) and re-entry license being issue together as a package deal I don’t see any advantage in switching ownership mid mission.
However what you could do is set up a corporation in Tonga or other Pacific nation and sell the “stack” going to Mars to it. Then you would basically be launching a foreign payload and U.S. responsibility would end when the launch vehicle is no longer in “control” of the launch and responsibility would go to the foreign nation the organization that owns the payload is hosted in.
But that would only be trading the issue of the re-entry license for the more complex issue of ITAR. Plus the U.S. may still argue a re-entry license is needed since it is an American crew (not passengers) and Americans are funding/owning/controlling the Tonga organization.
But really I don’t see what big the issue with a re-entry license is. The Dragon has already re-entered twice with more re-entries in the future. This give one series of data points to assess risk. The Apollo lunar and test missions would provide another. So there is sufficient data to analyze properly the re-entry risk.
If I was Dennis Tito I would be taking advantage of the FAA AST willingness to do pre-license consultations to discuss the issue and include the FAA AST input in the mission design process. Indeed he may well be doing this already. So I really see the re-entry as a non-issue in terms of risks to third parties and don’t understand why Rand is trying to make it one.
So I really see the re-entry as a non-issue in terms of risks to third parties and don’t understand why Rand is trying to make it one.
I’m not “trying to make it one.” I am pointing out that it is one, despite your pollyanna attitude.
Rand,
Exactly what evidence do you have it will be any more of an issue than getting a launch license?
Yes, it is a hoop Dennis Tito will need to jump through, but not a difficult one given the reasons I outlined above.
I’m not “trying to make it one.” I am pointing out that it is one, despite your pollyanna attitude.
Sorry, I don’t see it. If it completely missed the ocean and came in over the U.S. that would mean that it missed its reentry corridor. If it went long then it would skip out of the atmosphere and we would get to talk to the crew as they become humanity’s first inner solar system tomb. If they go short, they become a meteor and meteors of that size simply burn up high in the atmosphere with no where near enough energy to do any damage.
Since you and many others have pushed the idea of informed consent as the criteria for humans in space, then the human safety aspect is mooted.
I think you are trying to make something out of nothing here.
In terms of what to do with spent upper stage and crew modules, I think it is a much more practical option to just allow the Earth to just sling shot them into solar orbits.
This not only eliminates the need to do a re-entry license for them but could actually turn then into an asset since space could be sold on both at a modest price to entities that want to place instrument packages on them for deep space or solar research.
Of course the mass that could be allocated would be very limited and the experiments would have to operate independently without the elements having attitude control, but I am sure someone would be creative enough find some value for such “missions of opportunity”.