Considerations for the Implementation of Privately-Built Manned Orbiting Vehicles

On October 4 th 1957, the launching of the USSR’s Sputnik satellite opened up a new era for orbital spaceflight. The subsequent astounding growth and challenges of mankind’s emergence onto the threshold of space over the past fifty years has led to many successes such as America’s manned landing on the moon, the rise of space stations culminating in the development of the International Space Station, and a new-found era of international cooperation - evidenced after the tragic loss of the Challenger and Columbia spacecraft. Until the X-Prize was championed by Peter Diamandis as an incentive to spur on private industry into sub-orbital space, the space-flight domain was held only by the government. The recent October 4 th 2004 winning of the Ansari X-Prize with SpaceShipOne brought about a new level of excitement and derring-do that is reminiscent of the early days of the space race. Certainly the methodical and iterative approach of Burt Rutan’s team in building this spacecraft is deserving of the many honors and accolades it has earned in this historical feat. However, as worthy as this achievement may be – and as follow-on efforts into sub-orbital space appear to be in the running with SpaceShipTwo and other private endeavors, an appetite is being whetted with regard to this emerging technology: The evolution of the Privately-Built Manned Orbiting Vehicle for Low Earth Orbit. This essay presents a high-level overview in the pursuit of this challenging feat. This paper is therefore a treatise on several key considerations that will need to be taken into account for an aerospace entrepreneur having the technical, financial, governmental, and personal wherewithal to undertake this ambitious step for such a stunning enterprise. These key considerations are looked at in the following methodology: -The problem of orbital flight must be bounded and understood how it can be achieved. For instance, energy requirements will be compared for sub-orbital versus orbital flight. Energy-efficient techniques will be viewed for launch, in-flight maneuvers, and re-entry. Safety, both for the flight crew, the ground-support personnel, and those that are near the launch & recovery zones will be absolutely paramount for the ultimate enterprise success. -Financing of the enterprise is needed for its continued presence as a sustainable industry. The initial outlay of the financing will provide the foundation for the design, building, testing, development, & refurbishment of the flight vehicle with its accompanying supporting infrastructure. The business model for the privately-built manned orbiting vehicle would have to be refined so as to make a profit that keeps the enterprise solvent, have working capital for continued growth, and provide a satisfying return to its investors. -Community support emanates from several agencies: local, state, and federal. International support would also need to be garnered for those regions where over-flight and inadvertent re-entry could take place. These bureaucratic steps would have to be carefully negotiated in such a manner as to preclude any type of down-range incident. -The mission of the enterprise is a reflection of the personal resolve and moxie of the aerospace entrepreneur. This is an emotional undertaking as well as a technical, governmental, and business risk. As the entrepreneur will be the spokesperson for the enterprise, he will have to engender the vision of why this venture is aesthetically worthy. The raison d’etre must be carried forward as an inspiration for future space-flight growth.