Space Forum / Shuttle / March 2009

Ladies and Gentlemen, some time back I posted a question in the thread
regarding two engines being researched for the F-35 program,
mentioning the possibility of a space rescue craft for emergency use,
if something went wrong with a spacecraft in orbit.

Mr. Ken S. Tucker asked if I would start a separate thread regarding
this concept, and expand upon it. It is an area I had considered for
some time, and had actually been thinking of how I would present it.
My first concept is similar to what I had been thinking of. I thank
Mr. Tucker for mentioning the Dyna-Soar program, because that is quite
similar to the type of craft I was considering.

Thinking it over, I tried to come up with designs for such a craft. I
came to the conclusion rather quickly that such a craft would need a
combination of several factors to be successful. It would need to be
able to prepare for a launch quickly, because a time window might be
very short in space. It would need to be based as much as possible in
existing technologies and equipment, to speed design and production as
well as keep costs manageable. While the life of a single human being
is without question beyond man’s ability to judge, the facts of
procurement being what they are, a lower budget would make for a
better chance of acceptance and development. It would also need a
capacity for at least seven or eight rescued passengers.

I also came to the conclusion that there would be two major branches
of rescue craft design that I could explore. The first would be an
unmanned craft, which would launch unmanned and be guided to the
stricken craft by remote control. The second would involve manned
spacecraft. Each type of craft had their own unique benefits and
concerns.

For an unmanned craft, there were several advantages. First, as an
unmanned craft, the G-loading and stresses of the launch phase could
be greater, without concern for human passengers. The design limits
for the craft in the launch phase could be pushed some. Second, the
craft could be smaller, with room for the rescued crew only on board.
Also, supplies aboard would necessarily take up less space and weight
than if there were a rescue crew aboard along with the rescued crew.
Finally, the unmanned craft would not put any additional personnel at
risk. They would go up, the crew would board, and then they would go
home.

There were also advantages that a manned craft had that an unmanned
one lacked. First, the human input during the launch phase would allow
for response to an emergency or problem, and increased chance of
mission success. Also, the presence of a human crew in space would
mean that the rescue crew could be an active part of the rescue,
assisting the marooned crew in clearing debris that might block their
escape, assessing the damage to their craft, helping to evacuate
injured crew members, and providing medical attention. These are all
invaluable functions that an unmanned craft would be less capable of
providing than a manned craft. As always, there are things that humans
can do in space than no machine can do, but the risk of exploration is
always present when humans go into space. As it has been since
Gagarin, so it is now.

This may bring the question of why I want a capacity of seven or eight
for my projected rescue vehicle. I will explain. The higher capacity
might be fitting for shuttle missions, and the shuttle is due to
retire eventually, but then again one cannot know the future. Perhaps
a problem would happen on the ISS that would render the Soyuz escape
capsule inaccessible. Perhaps the shuttle may continue flying into the
time where my rescue vehicle enters service. Perhaps a foreign craft
might get in trouble with more than three people needing a rescue. Or,
perhaps there might be future craft with more people we have not yet
envisioned. I look to my rescue ship project as something to be
developed and kept in service into the future, with a long service
life, able to be used with future craft as well as those of the
present. Updated, as the Atlas series of rockets have been, and
available into the future. This will provide a new era in space
travel, a space Coast Guard of sorts, and keep development costs down
in the future, as an existing system would be available for decades to
come.

This is a list of concepts for a rescue ship that can be used as soon
as she enters service and can continue in service in case of orbital
emergency for the next twenty years or more. I intend all of the
listed designs to fill that need, so that a crew in a damaged
spacecraft need not be “lost in space” in the future.

They Are: The Rescue Boats.

1. The Lead Sled
2. The Stacker II
3. The Flying Squirrel (The Dip-Chick)
4. The Bruce Willis Special

The first concept is the Lead Sled. This is the one I was thinking of
when I conceived this thread. It is a Dyna-Soar like craft, launched
on the proven ATLAS V – CENTAUR rocket. It was conceived originally as
a craft that would be launched unmanned and flown to a stricken
spacecraft by remote control. The Lead Sled, as its name would imply,
is a spaceplane, much like the Dyna-Soar, and will land as a glider on
a runway, most likely landing at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Of course,
any runway capable of handling a shuttle landing would be a suitable
backup location.

The second idea I had, I have dubbed the Stacker II. It is a space
capsule, with space for seven or eight people. The space is cleared by
stripping science gear from a capsule built using knowledge from the
ARES program. The name refers to the likelihood that there would need
to be two levels for rescued crew members put in to allow for a larger
crew capacity. Like the Lead Sled, she would launch atop an ATLAS V –
CENTAUR rocket combination. Also like the Sled, the Stacker II was
conceived as a spacecraft which would be launched unmanned. Unlike the
Sled, the Stacker II would re-enter much as an ARES or Apollo capsule,
using the method used since the Mercury program. The Stacker II
capsule would parachute to a landing at sea after re-entry.

Up third is “The Flying Squirrel.” I based the Squirrel on a concept I
had seen a while back during the X-Prize competitions. A quick look
around turned up some NASA data on similar experiments. This would be
a towed craft, which would be towed to a high altitude by a
conventional aircraft before releasing and launching herself into
orbit under rocket power. The tow plane or mother plane that I chose
was the Boeing 747 SP. As the aircraft are available for a reasonable
price, capable of relatively high altitude, and lighter in body weight
than a standard 747, I believe that they offer excellent potential as
tow planes for the Flying Squirrel. The towed craft would go into
orbit, meet up with the ship in distress, and there she would be to
pick up the crew. Unlike the first two, the Flying Squirrel was
conceived from the start as a manned spacecraft. Her crew, trained in
spaceflight and equipped with an array of tools in case of difficulty,
would actively assist in the rescue as well as flying the Squirrel up
into orbit and flying her back home once the pickup of the crew in
distress was complete. Like the Lead Sled, the Flying Squirrel would
land as a glider, most likely doing so at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
though any shuttle capable runway would be a capable backup location.

My final design concept is the Bruce Willis Special. This is a fully
functional spaceplane, with dual turbojet and rocket propulsion
systems. She is intended to fly to the limit of her jet engine
performance, mainly depending on fuel carried in external tanks, and
then discard them. At that point she will zoom climb to a transition
point where the jet engines will shut down and rocket propulsion
systems on board the Special will take over for the final push into
orbit. She will be, as her name suggests, fitting of the plane you
call on when things need repairing in space. The Special will have the
means to dock with a stricken craft and pick up survivors, as well as
a crew trained in rescue techniques and equipped with tools to help
clear obstructions that might be preventing them from exiting their
vehicle. The Bruce Willis Special is intended to land by reentering
the atmosphere on a shallow glide path, gliding to lower altitude, and
finally either landing as a glider or possibly using a small amount of
remaining jet fuel to make a powered landing, or as insurance in case
a go-around is needed at the airfield. Like the Lead Sled and the
Flying Squirrel, the Bruce Willis Special would be able to use any
runway capable of handling the Space Shuttle as a backup landing
location.

So there are my capsule reviews (wink wink, nudge nudge) of my four
designs. More detailed looks at each will be posted here for comment.
They will also be cross-posted to the sci.space.shuttle newsgroup. In
conclusion, I will share some final thoughts that came to me while
looking over these four concepts in particular as well as the concept
of a space rescue vehicle in particular.

The closest parallels I can see to such craft are in the rescue craft
designed over the years for submarine rescue around the world. The
Stacker II may be seen as a diving bell of sorts, returning a crew
from outer space instead of the deep sea, in a single rush, taking
them back to the surface of the sea. However, for all four designs,
and for any future rescue craft, the greatest parallel is with the
United States Navy’s Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle, or DSRV.

Among the lessons of such craft that can be applied in space are the
following: First, the craft must be conceived with the possibility
that she may have to dock with foreign craft in a rescue attempt or
dock with future craft yet to be designed or known. As such, any
docking or rescue equipment must allow for some variety of hatches or
craft profile. There must also be backups to the main system allowing
transfer even if the two craft cannot dock flush to one another. One
method which also has a history in sea rescues is the system of
sending lines or cables across the gap between the two vessels. This
could be a simple yet effective backup if direct docking is not
possible. There are various methods of accomplishing this, which I go
into further detail with in the individual design concept reviews.
Variations on gas-powered line cannon and small maneuvering thruster
units which could tow a line from one ship to another via remote
control are both possibilities.

The most important element will of course be crew training. This has
been demonstrated time and again by the United States Coast Guard and
by lifesaving services throughout the world. In the crews being
rescued, their level of training will be important. For crews on a
rescue craft, they will be important as well. This is one key
advantage that a manned rescue craft will have. The crews of a manned
rescue craft must be part aerospace mechanic, part astronaut, and part
Para rescue jumper.

Anyway, the reasons for such a craft are obvious. I have tried to vary
them in type but stick as close as possible to things already known
and items which could be bought off the shelf. Perhaps the last
design, the Bruce Willis Special, requires the most in new design.
However, it also has the quickest time window from receiving word of a
problem until launch. This is a key factor which I look at in all of
my design studies, as it would by of great importance if there was a
time critical situation in space. Also, all of the designs requiring a
runway landing could use the existing network of Space Shuttle runways
to land.

The Space Rescue Program gives NASA a chance to give a last chance to
astronauts in distress, or to crews of other nations’ space programs
who find themselves stranded in space. It gives NASA a chance, however
slim, to change a potential disaster into a triumph. It will give new
purpose and energy to the space program, and a new shot of power to
the image of space flight. Finally, it will usher in a new era of
space flight, an era of rescue crews and vessels standing ready to
help crews in distress regardless of nationality or circumstance. It
will be a renewal of the brotherhood between all humanity in space,
and a sign of it on earth.

With so much development work already done on each of the concepts I
have outlined, and the likelihood that a manned spaceflight presence
in orbital space will continue for the next few decades, I would also
conclude that there is no reason not to do it. This is an idea that
must be a part of future spaceflight. The moderate expense and long-
term utility make it worthwhile in budget terms, and the nature of the
mission makes it a natural extension of the American manned space
program in human terms.

What will follow this post will be four capsule studies of the Rescue
Boat concepts that I have mentioned above. I would like follow-ups and
discussion of these concepts, as well as the concept of a space rescue
craft in general, to be in this thread.

If there are replies to the four following threads, I would prefer
them to be specific to those designs. Replies to the idea of rescue
craft in general, etc. can be posted in response to this post. This
will keep there from being a giant crossover between the threads that
could make it hard to keep track.

Thank you very much for your patience in reading.

David Powell in New Jersey