A
university-based review of astronaut safety has flagged issues, concerns, and
has suggested safety enhancements for the space shuttle and International Space
Station programs.
The
wide-ranging report is targeted at making human space travel less hazardous,
calling for a shut down of the space shuttle program as soon as possible and
limiting some aspects of International Space Station construction.
Titled
Space Safety Report: Vulnerabilities and Risk Reduction In
U.S. Human Space Flight Programs the independent assessment was prepared by the
Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute (SACRI) of George
Washington (GW) University in Washington,
D.C. The just-issued research
report was conducted for the Space Shuttle Children's Fund under a two year
$300,000 grant.
The
lengthy, 8-section interdisciplinary academic study represents a combined
cumulative effort by a dozen faculty and graduate students, undertaken during
2004 into early 2005, delving into human space flight safety in the past,
present and into the future.
Lead
investigator for the space safety report is Joseph Pelton,
a research professor with the Institute for Applied Space Research at the George Washington
University. "We think
there are ways of improving astronaut safety and saving the taxpayers a
significant amount of money," Pelton told SPACE.com.
"The
big issue here is...does NASA have a program that gets the support of the person
on the street? Is anyone trying to develop a fresh look at where we are
now...because now is a very good time for stock taking," Pelton
said.
Concerns and
potential risks
The
report takes a look at the management, technical and operational aspects of all
NASA astronaut-related programs, sharply focusing on the space shuttle program,
the International Space Station, and various human spacecraft and escape
vehicles that have been initiated by NASA within the past fifteen years.
As
part of its assessment the team reviewed the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV),
along with the new private entrepreneurial programs to develop human access to
space.
While
saluting NASA's efforts stemming from the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board's (CAIB) recommendations following the loss of Columbia and its crew on
February 1, 2003, the GW study team found "both concerns and potential risks"
that may be of importance, even after the recommendations of the CAIB have been
implemented.
"Our
report is indeed a call to action to work toward retiring as soon as feasible
the aging shuttle fleet for human space flight, i.e. before 2010 if possible."
Furthermore, the report explains, from a safety perspective the GW study team
believes that 30 or more additional launches of the shuttle system with a full
crew represent "an increasingly unacceptable risk for an aging system" that may
have something like a 1-in-50 to 1-in-60 chance of a 'category one' failure
with every launch.
In
NASA terms, a "Criticality 1" failure could result in loss of vehicle, loss of
crew.
Heavy lifting
Among
key findings, the GW study team reports:
- A
replacement crew vehicle system for the shuttle should be developed as
soon as possible. Any financial benefits resulting from shutting down of
the shuttle at a somewhat earlier date should be reinvested in the earlier
development of the replacement vehicle or other system requirements of
President Bush's "Moon, Mars and Beyond" space vision.
- In
general, robotically controlled cargo vehicles should in the future do the
heavy lifting into space. Doing so minimizes astronaut risk. Specially
designed crew vehicles should fly separately or in tandem with cargo
vehicles and should provide a "full envelope" - all phases of flight --
escape mode for the crew.
- Serious
consideration should be given to the feasibility of converting and
operating one or more of the orbiters as a "robotic" cargo vehicle. This
could reduce risk to astronauts on missions where crews were not essential
and increase cargo lift capability.
- Explore
reducing the number of remaining flights for the shuttle by limiting some
aspects of International Space Station construction. This should be
considered in concert with the international partners and should not
involve reduction of flights related to major international subsystems,
specifically European and Japanese elements.
- Evolution
to launch systems that use new technology such as ion engines, tethers, or
electrical and nuclear propulsion systems instead of "chemical
explosions" may represent the key to providing safer and more
reliable access to space in the future.
Extended safe
haven
The
report underscores the lack of an effective escape capability from the
International Space Station (ISS) or the ability to use the ISS as an extended
safe haven when the Shuttle is not available - tagging this fact as a "major
concern".
To
address this issue, the study team calls for re-activation of NASA's scuttled
X-38 lifeboat program or obtaining of U.S. legislative authority and
funding to buy additional Russian-supplied Soyuz vehicles - the current model
as well as the expanded crew-carrying design now being touted by Russian space
designers.
The
GW report points to the newly-formed International Association for the
Advancement of Space Safety as a way to cut across national boundaries and
provide for a more integrated ISS operational process for safety and emergency
procedures. This association was formed last year and is dedicated to
furthering international cooperation and scientific advancement in the field of
space systems safety. The first meeting of the group is being held this coming
October in Nice, France.
Historical
lessons for the future
Current
plans by NASA to develop the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) are also reviewed
by the GW study team. The CEV is central to moving explorers beyond low Earth
orbit, back to the Moon, to Mars and other destinations.
"It
is important that historical lessons from the shuttle be learned and applied to
future planning," the report notes. Key aspects in this regard -- specifically
pointing to the Crew Exploration Vehicle -- include: don't combine too many
missions and capabilities; ensure the ongoing infusion of new technology;
provide complete launch-to-land escape capability; and seek simplicity of design,
operation and retrofit of certain systems.
Planting
a highly-reliable CEV on top of a launch vehicle that is not as highly rated
could still represent a "questionable" system, the study suggests.
Cashing in on
entrepreneurial capital
Study
leader, Pelton, said there was "an astonishing degree
of agreement" among those questioned by the team -- including NASA officials,
ex-NASA officials, astronauts, entrepreneurs - about the idea of letting new
private space initiatives bloom.
In
taking a look at private space initiatives, the study appraises new
human-carrying space capabilities, space tourism and even private "spacehabs" that are moving forward in response to "prize
awards". The study team notes that there is the specter of new "entrepreneurial
capital" and new regulatory authority provided to the Federal Aviation
Administration in this arena.
The
study contends there are "new paradigms" with regard to "private" astronauts
and even approaches to passenger liability, insurance, and risk assessment.
"This may offer NASA new opportunities in the future. It may eventually also
allow NASA's 'manned space and astronaut' programs to work in parallel or
competition with private ventures. This may not reduce risk but nevertheless
help redefine 'public' and 'private' safety definitions and accepted standards
for safety performance."
As
for the longer-term future of astronaut safety, developing the safest
transportation systems may not be the greatest challenge, the study team
reports. Instead the prime issues may relate to protecting astronauts in space
from debris, micro-meteorites, comets, radiation, zero and/or low gravity
environments, and thus a move toward the more difficult aim of long-term
survival in space.
Space
exploration: not risk-free
"Exploration
is one of the hallmark characteristics of a dynamic civilization," the GW study
concludes. "From Lewis and Clark's travels to the first Moon landing, this
willingness to define and explore new frontiers is a basic American trait. We
know that the exploration of space by humans is not risk-free. Nor will major
risks soon be eliminated. Yet, we think that this report, if considered and
acted on, can help to make future space exploration and travel safer."
Pelton said that the
Challenger accident in 1986 should have spurred a rethink of the space program,
both in terms of moving toward a shuttle replacement and a more modularized
space station for easier construction in times of shuttle groundings.
"In
terms of grounding the shuttle, we've lost more than 5 years now after
Challenger and now Columbia.
Essentially, we've been twiddling our thumbs so to speak," Pelton
said.
The
final report has not as yet been briefed to NASA, Pelton
said, but added that he would embrace an invitation to discuss its findings
with the new NASA Administrator, as well as Congress.
"Some
people do say NASA is broken and can't be fixed. I don't believe that," Pelton said. "There are reasonable suggestions of things
that can be done without totally taking a sledge hammer to everything that they
are trying to do."
The
GW report was commissioned by the Space Shuttle Children's Fund. According to a
link provided to their web site, the non-profit, tax exempt Fund was founded on
the day after the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy in 1986. It was established
"to provide for the health, education, and support of the children of the
astronauts who perished in the Challenger tragedy and of astronauts who might
perish in the future while involved actively in participating in space
exploration and travel conducted under the auspices of NASA."
For
access to the full report go to: http://www.spacesafety.org/
advertisement
