Briefing Europe and Space Tourism In 2004 Burt Rutan s SpaceShipOne met the challenge of the $10 million Ansari X Prize to produce the world s first affordable and re-useable spacecraft for sub-orbital flights. Developments in the Space Tourism industry have been rapid since that time with a number of companies looking to profit from the new industry and spaceports proposed for sub-orbital space tourism and beyond. Activity is currently occurring predominantly in the U.S but Europe has a number of options open as regards increasing involvement in the private spaceflight industry following the current resurgence of interest. VEGA s Sam Adlen describes the space tourism market, key developments and issues therein and presents some actions that might be pursued in support of European involvement with private spaceflight. What is Space Tourism? The expression space tourism broadly defined by S. Hobe and J. Cloppenburg as any commercial activity offering customers direct or indirect experience with space travel 1 emphasises that space tourism does not necessarily imply activities taking place in outer space. Orbital space tourism, for which there is presently only the option of a $20 million trip to the International Space Station (ISS), demonstrates continued demand. However, it is space tourism services at the lower end of the cost scale (Virgin Galactic are currently charging approximately $200,000) which are likely to develop significantly over the coming years. These consist of short-duration sub-orbital flights which give passengers the impression of experiencing the absence of gravity 2. This paper concentrates on suborbital space tourism 3 and associated issues and activity surrounding the development of this industry both globally and particularly in Europe. What is the Predicted Market for Space Tourism? The sub-orbital space tourism experience has been likened to little more than a fairground ride, however, the opportunity of experiencing weightlessness, viewing the Earth from 100km above the surface and becoming a certified astronaut have certainly attracted interest. 1 S. Hobe and J. Cloppenburg Towards a new aerospace convention? Selected Legal issues of Space Tourism, published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). 2 The flight plan proposed by Virgin Galactic gives approximately seven minutes of weightlessness. 3 The term personal spaceflight is now more widely used than space tourism amongst industry players. info@vega.co.uk
The current definitive market study for space tourism was conducted in 2002 by the Futron Corporation 4. The Futron study predicts that there will be approximately 1000 sub-orbital passengers per year by the end of the decade and paying passengers generating a market for space tourism of nearly $1bn globally by 2021. Futron's other forecasts specifically for suborbital space travel project that by 2021 over 15,000 passengers could be flying annually, representing revenues in excess of US$700 million. With ticket prices of around $200,000 for a two hour sub-orbital trip, including around five minutes of weightlessness, space tourism is currently feasible only for the wealthy enthusiast. However, prices are widely predicted to drop by a factor of ten within a decade and despite the current asking price, there is more substance to the claims of a market than just paper studies. 29,000 people have said they are willing to pay Virgin Galactic deposits of up to $20,000 for spaceflights within a range of prices of up to $200,000. In addition, Virgin Galactic has collected $13 million in cash from some 157 people who have signed contracts to be among the first people to be flown to the edge of the atmosphere. In the U.S. the private spaceflight industry is certainly seen as being hugely important. House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert added after the passage of bill HR 3752 (The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004) through the US House of Representatives that "This is about a lot more than 'joy rides' in space, although there's nothing wrong with such an enterprise. This is about the future of the U.S. aerospace industry. That's important to our nation's future. Tim Huddleston, Executive Director of the Aerospace States Association added that "Today, the U.S. House of Representatives has led the nation toward a significant next step in developing space and creating a major new economic engine for powering our nation's economy. Why Now? Though the technologies employed by SpaceShipOne date back to the 1960 s, serious activity in the private space industry and hence space tourism has only just begun to emerge due to a confluence of factors. Challenges of government space programmes: The Shuttle and ISS have failed to realise their original goals of providing routine access to space, while future plans face possible funding difficulties. Growth of new space ventures: A number of influential groups and individuals in the US now believe that private enterprise is a feasible route to achieving a growing and sustainable presence in space and are spending significant amounts of their own money to realise this goal (e.g. Elon Musk has invested $100 million 4 450 telephone interviews of qualified" individuals in the United States were undertaken by Zogby International in January 2002. The survey margin of error was +/- 4.7%. Futron restricted the respondent pool to people with a household income of at least US$250,000 annually, or a minimum net worth of US$1 million. These particular figures were carefully chosen as the parameters necessary to identify the proper market segment and to extrapolate the survey results. The income/net worth qualifier selected to identify the survey population was the highest-level qualifier that would enable a statistically valid sample that could be extrapolated for a global forecast. info@vega.co.uk
in a launcher, while Robert Bigelow has invested $75 million in an inflatable space station module). Improved development and production methods: Powerful computer based analysis and design tools, coupled with advanced materials and manufacturing techniques enable small teams to rapidly design and test complex systems. This also reduces the risk on private sector investment which is usually subject to very rigorous controls. Increased wealth of the individual: World economic growth, particularly in the US, has increased the disposable wealth of much of the population, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people who are both willing and able to purchase a trip into space. The current wave of sub-orbital ventures is driven by the combined effect and interplay of these factors. They also help explain why US companies are the dominant players. A Summary of Recent Developments There has been much activity recently in the realm of space tourism as players position themselves to try and secure parts of the predicted billion dollar market. The major players include Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures and Rocketplane with each company suggesting that commercial operations will begin before the end of the decade. Alongside the development of vehicles, there has been significant activity across the globe with regard to the development of spaceports. Most spaceport developments are proposed in the U.S. with much public money being invested due to the anticipated returns. In addition to the $225 million proposal for a spaceport in New Mexico, the states of Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and California have all made proposals to invest in spaceports. There are further developments proposed for Singapore and the UAE with Virgin Galactic also exploring opportunities for spaceports in Sweden (to view the Northern Lights), Australia and the North of Scotland. A Summary of Issues Effecting Space Tourism in Europe While there is much excitement and activity occurring, there remain several potential blockages to the successful evolution of space tourism to profitable operations. Some progress has been made in the U.S. but equivalent activity in Europe is slow in getting started. Lack of a Regulatory Framework: Regulations are highly important to the nascent private spaceflight industry but as a new activity it is uncertain how it should be classified and thus how progress should be made. As an activity for paying passengers, safety requirements should be as stringent as possible but it is important not to stifle the industry. Regulations are needed in the following areas as a minimum: Vehicle Safety Crew and Passenger Safety info@vega.co.uk
Environmental Impact Uncertainty Regarding Insurance and Indemnification: It is essential to establish liabilities with regard to space tourism. Blockages to Open Competition: The US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) make it very difficult for European companies to be involved with any undertakings that involve US technology. It also makes it difficult to export US technology for operation in Europe. Most activity regarding private spaceflight has been occurring in the U.S. With the strong support of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and issues posed by ITAR it could be considered that the US is trying to dominate the space tourism market and there are certainly grounds to consider that this might be true. The following sections discuss the legal and political issues surrounding private spaceflight in greater detail before making some suggestions on how activity may be advanced within Europe and the returns that they might bring. Lack of a Regulatory Framework Laws governing private sector space endeavours, such as satellite launches, have existed for some time but there has previously been no regulation of commercial human spaceflight. As a hybrid activity sub-orbital space tourism may call for the development of new law as it could be considered to invoke elements of both air law and space law. There is currently no delineation between air space and outer space 5 and so it is difficult to determine what law applies. Progress is being made in the U.S. on transitioning law between air and space. The US has taken a lead with regard to regulations surrounding space tourism 6 but issues still remain. Burt Rutan recently commented that he remains worried about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commercial space transportation regulations. There remain several sticky, red tape rules that may well cripple experimental research and development of passenger-carrying space planes. Whilst safety needs to be ensured it is important not to stifle the industry. The US House of Representatives approved bill H.R. 3752, The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. This bill gave the FAA authority to license commercial suborbital launches, such as the vehicles being developed by groups competing to win the X-Prize. It also made it easier for companies to test new kinds of reusable suborbital vehicles. This bill was amended slightly and passed by the Senate as bill HR 5382 and successfully enacted into law (specifically Public Law 108-492). The major provisions of the US legislation were designed to: 5 Except in Australia. 6 The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) being part of the FAA will help in creating a seamless regime that covers space and airspace. info@vega.co.uk
Eliminate any confusion about who should regulate flights of suborbital rockets carrying human beings by explicitly locating all commercial space flight authority under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST); Make it easier to launch new types of reusable suborbital rockets by allowing AST to issue experimental permits that can be granted more quickly and with fewer requirements than licenses. Permits must be issued in 90 days, vs. 180 days for licenses. Permits may be issued only for R&D showing compliance with license requirements, or crew training. Permits authorise unlimited experimental flights, like current experimental airplane practice. Permits specify what changes could be made to the vehicle. Permits prohibit carrying people or cargo for hire, like current experimental airplane practice; Specifically authorise commercial human space flight, including space tourism; Define "suborbital rocket" and "suborbital trajectory," clarifying FAA/AST jurisdiction over suborbital launch vehicles; Define "crew" and "space flight participant" (a customer, but distinct from a passenger of a common carrier); Require that training and medical standards be set for crew members; Require launch providers to disclose their safety records, in writing, to prospective space flight participants; Require launch providers to obtain informed consent, in writing, from space flight participants before launch; Create a "fly at your own risk" liability regime for space flight participants (requires that they mutually waive their liability with the launch provider, like any other payload operator); Extend government indemnification for the entire commercial space transportation industry (including licensed, non-experimental commercial human space launches) for a period of three years, but the bill did not grant indemnification for flights conducted under experimental permits, which will be more lightly regulated; Require a study on how best to gradually eliminate indemnification for the commercial space transportation industry by 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter. In order to help the space industry flourish at its outset without too much government interference the Federal Aviation Administration is required to conduct a "phased approach" to regulating commercial human space flights. While the first set of regulations, dealing with crew qualifications and training and informed consent for passengers, is expected to go into effect in June, some other safety-related rules cannot by law be issued for eight years unless specific design features or operating practices are brought into question as a result of an incident causing serious injuries or a fatality. This means that the FAA has to wait for harm to occur or almost occur before it can impose restrictions, even against foreseeable harm. Instead, Congress required that passengers be informed of the risks. In turn, passengers would have to provide written consent before takeoff that they understand and are aware of the risks. info@vega.co.uk
The Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher commented on H.R. 3752 that This fine piece of legislation carries forward my goal of promoting this new industry and cutting back bureaucratic red tape, while protecting the public health and safety. Europe needs a similar framework. The bill demonstrated real vision for America's future in space. This bill helped define the critical framework for a commercial space regulatory process and authorised the federal agency that is responsible for commercial space regulation. The goal of this bill was to promote robust experimentation, to make sure that entrepreneurs and inventors have the incentives and the capabilities they need to pursue their ideas. It is clear how important the U.S. sees the private spaceflight industry to be and Europe needs to follow suite. Virgin Galactic President Will Whitehorn praised the FAA/AST for its approach to regulation of the nascent space tourism industry in remarks to the European Center for Space Law. Whitehorn noted that the FAA has waived insurance and other securityrelated rights. He said that the FAA regulations will provide safety for people and property whilst enabling "adventure capitalism." Specific progress regarding regulations in the U.S. relating to space tourism, in addition to the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, includes: Environmental Regulations. In the U.S. every licensed launch is a "major Federal action," and according to the National Environmental Policy Act, needs an environmental assessment. This takes months at best but every rocket launched since 1972 has flown under a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI), including Titan IVs carrying hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic propellants. H.R. 3752 encourages the Secretary of Transportation to use his waiver authority under 49 USC 70105(c)(2)(C). AST could use this to issue FONSIs, on a case by case basis, for launches of suborbital RLVs carrying thousands of pounds of non-toxic propellants. This would allow AST to issue permits in 90 days with no adverse consequences to the environment. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is due to release legislation surrounding the operation of the spaceport in New Mexico. This will address issues of environmental impact and whilst the environment is big concern they will hopefully not stifle the industry. Crew and Passenger Safety Regulations: Safety regulations for passengers and crew are crucial. The FAA released draft regulations in this respect in 2005 and plans to release the regulations in June of this year. The regulations essentially allow passengers to waive liability, thus setting up a "fly at your own risk" model. Medical and safety issues for passengers are a big concern for operators looking to be involved in the private spaceflight industry. The U.S. legislation will ensure that private spaceflight will be regulated in a fair and streamlined manner and also gives confidence to investors. However, U.S. persons or organisations operating suborbital test flights outside the U.S. will still have to obtain a Federal Aviation Administration permit, according to newly proposed rules. This is because, under existing international treaties (the Outer Space Treaty of 1967), governments are responsible for launches made by their citizens or legal entities beyond their own borders. It is thus becoming increasingly important that Europe address issues surrounding private spaceflight so that the U.S. does not have undue control over the whole market. info@vega.co.uk
Regulatory Bodies in Europe There are a number of regulatory bodies in Europe that could have some jurisdiction over future private spaceflight regulation in Europe. The following presents a brief discussion of these bodies and how they might regulate the industry in Europe. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) The EASA, based in Cologne, has been established as Europe starts to coordinate and harmonise regulation of aviation activities across member states. The EASA currently deals largely with the certification of aircraft and continued airworthiness but their remit is being constantly expanded. In the future, while responsibility for ensuring that rules are abided by will remain with member states, the EASA is likely to assume nearly all rulemaking responsibility. The EASA has already taken responsibility for aircraft certification. At the current time, due to the fledgling nature of the organisation some regulatory responsibilities remain unclear and private spaceflight is unlikely to have been considered yet. In a recent exchange with a spokesperson for the EASA it was stated that he considered that private spaceflight is entirely outside their remit. He commented that whilst there have been some efforts to harmonize national efforts, private spaceflight still predominantly falls to national agencies. Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures. This co-operation is intended to provide high and consistent standards of safety and a "level playingfield" for competition in Europe. Much emphasis is also placed on harmonising the JAA regulations with those of the U.S. It is envisaged that the European Aviation Safety Agency would absorb all functions and activities of the JAA in as short a period as possible. The opinion of the JAA was not sought with regard to this briefing note and their functions should be undertaken by the EASA. International Spaceflight Organisation (ISFO) The ISFO is analogous to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). It is a unified body that represents international space mission interests. There could be a role for the ISFO in the future of space tourism. U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority is included as an example of a national regulatory body that may have some influence over developments in private spaceflight. Whilst the activities of other national bodies have not been researched, the U.K. is likely to have moved quicker than many other member nations due to Virgin Galactic s links with the U.K. In an interview with the CAA they commented that they have not been seriously engaged in consideration of the issues that might attend any proposals for sub-orbital launches by U.K. citizens or legal entities. However, the CAA Safety Regulation info@vega.co.uk
Group (SRG) and CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy did meet recently with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) British National Space Centre (BNSC) team to share views on respective regulatory responsibilities. The CAA commented that they do not have a formal perspective on 'private spaceflight', or the commercial undertakings that may be implemented in the future but did make the following points: Requirements relating to the carriage of passengers are needed. Safety requirements are usually most stringent where the carriers are operating for hire and reward. Aircraft and airfield safety is essential to ensure the safety of the flying public. It is unclear how feasible it is to apply standard regulations to space tourism without stifling the industry. Firstly it is most important to establish how to categorise private spaceflight. The SRG consider their responsibilities to be focused on civil aviation and suborbital reusable vehicles are not captured within current aviation legislation. They do have some limited regulatory responsibility on the launching of rockets but this excludes activities to which the Outer Space Act (1986) applies (and military rockets). Unlike the American FAA, the CAA has no equivalent of its experimental aircraft permit system, nor the associated operating and licensing processes. It is considered important to develop something similar in order to support the private spaceflight industry and readily enable hybrid activity. A framework is needed that captures the hybrid activity of private spaceflight. The differing environments of the U.S. and Europe must be recognised. The advantage that the U.S. has is two fold. Firstly, they have a great deal more free airspace than in Europe. Secondly, there are less weather barriers to hybrid flights. The CAA does not wish to impede the growth of the industry but must consider safety aspects. They are not there to unduly obstruct progress but safety of operations is important and particularly so if it is a paying activity. The CAA considers that it is probably most sensible if regulations are decided at a European level. It would be strange to develop these rules at a national level when everything else is being centralised. It would be better if the rules were given a European dimension. National Space Agencies With the current state of flux between national and European regulatory bodies as regards regulatory responsibilities, national space agencies can have quite a lot of influence. This varies on a case by case basis however. As mentioned above, in the U.K. the BNSC is involved in talks with the CAA. Most of the opinions of the BNSC are presented above. The BNSC currently has responsibility under the Outer Space Act for all activity by U.K. nationals. The BNSC is undertaking a consultation on the Outer Space Act in the next few months. For the time being the BNSC is just monitoring developments. Due to the weather in Europe it does not consider that it will be a leader in pushing this industry forwards. It is more likely that others will lead the way and that Europe will follow. info@vega.co.uk
European Space Agency (ESA) and European Centre for Space Law (ECSL) ESA is beginning to take an interest in private spaceflight. It is intending to release up to three contracts titled Survey of European Privately-Funded Vehicles for Commercial Human Space Flight. As an agency it is also becoming increasingly aware of possible commercial opportunities in delivering services to the private spaceflight industry. A recent restructuring has seen the introduction of the Human Spaceflight Promotion Division. This division reports to the head of the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) and is responsible amongst other things for education and commercial exploitation of ESA facilities. As regards regulation, the 2006 ECSL Practitioner s Forum was organised on 17 th March 2006 at ESA Headquarters. The theme was Space Tourism: legal and institutional issues. ESA is clearly interested in monitoring matters and moving things forward although with the Outer Space Treaty currently leaving regulation with national bodies, it is unclear as to what ESA s involvement in regulation might be. Moving Forward In the opinion of VEGA it is important that any legislation developed covers the following. The whole mission lifecycle from launch to return. If there are different regulatory regimes within a mission lifecycle then needless arguments may arise based around millisecond scale time differences as boundaries (e.g. separation) are crossed. Ideally legislation should be multilateral. A multilateral treaty using the Outer Space Treaty as a cornerstone (e.g. space for the benefit of all mankind) would seem to be the best way to progress forward. The industry needs a catch all e.g. this is governed by x, rather than the potential cross border fighting that might ensue in the current regime. In order to move the private spaceflight industry forward within Europe, several steps are required. Determine whether private spaceflight will be regulated at a national, European or Global level: Under the Outer Space Treaty regulatory jurisdiction falls to national bodies. However, given the general trend towards centralised rulemaking it would seem most sensible that European wide regulations are developed as a minimum. It is probably even better to push for a flexible multilateral framework. Determine which organisation(s) will be responsible within Europe: The best placed organisation to establish regulations relating to private spaceflight within Europe would seem to be the EASA. Initially in the U.S. there was no clear policy concerning how the FAA would regulate space launch for suborbital space tourism. This was primarily because of a jurisdictional dispute between two FAA organisations involving which has oversight over commercial human spaceflight operations. In contrast to the situation in Europe where no-one seems to want to own it, the FAA's Aircraft Certification and Regulations Office (AVR), which regulates the commercial airline industry, believed that it should regulate suborbital space vehicles carrying tourists, because according to the U.S. Code for Aviation Safety, it has regulatory authority over passenger-carrying vehicles info@vega.co.uk
that traverse the U.S. national airspace. But FAA's Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST), which regulates traditional rockets of the kind that launch satellites into orbit, disagreed. AST asserted that its authority under the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) [P.L. 98-575] authorized it to regulate the U.S. commercial launch industry, including suborbital launch vehicles, even those that carry passengers should they be developed. Congress was required to intervene legislatively to resolve this agency impasse with the AST being awarded jurisdiction. In the same way, regulatory bodies in Europe may need to assign responsibilities within Europe but even this probably needs to be part of an activity at a global level. Develop an Experimental Class Permit: In addition to the other regulations that are required, as regards encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship, an experimental-class permit such as that offered by the FAA would be of great benefit. Issues surrounding bad weather and crowded airspace in Europe must be considered if this evolves. Uncertainty Regarding Insurance and Indemnification The liability convention for outer space was developed during the cold war and never envisaged that private citizens would partake in spaceflight. The act is based on diplomatic procedures and is not particularly appropriate for private spaceflight. In the U.S. the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 has extended government indemnification 7 for the entire commercial space transportation industry (including licensed, non-experimental commercial human space launches) for a period of three years. Passengers are required to sign waivers against action against the federal government and as long as operators give proper notices of risks to passengers then they can also limit their liability (except to incidents of negligence). It will be interesting, however, to see whether people try to break waivers if there are ever claims to be made. All commercial space entrepreneurial ventures are certainly anticipating that they will be able to purchase third-party liability insurance. As regards the passengers, for the time being a fly at your own risk policy will attract a limited amount of interest but if appropriate insurance could be introduced this is likely to increase demand. A number of insurers including Lloyds are considering insurance for space tourism and it is a candidate for the emergence of a Third Party Liability (TPL) Market which may combine aspects of the space and aerospace insurance sectors. Air law liability would probably be most appropriate for passengers. Unfortunately, there is not necessarily an insurance market due to possible demand issues and most importantly the lack of a clear liability regime. A clear liability regime would help insurers to assess their risk parameters more easily and thus assist in introducing an insurance market. The market would be best served by a liability regime that covers all space transportation. It would seem most sensible to develop a 7 Currently, the US government provides indemnification to the U.S. space transportation industry as a condition for obtaining a license to launch a satellite into orbit. Government liability risk sharing for third-party claim (for example, if a rocket flies off course and lands in a populated area) against a space launch company follows a multi-tier regime, in which the FAA determines the level of financial responsibility (up to the first $500 million in damages) for the company, and requires the company to obtain private insurance against such losses. The government agrees to be responsible for damages that fall within a range of $500 million to $1.5 billion. The responsibilities for damages that exceed this range revert back to the company. In contrast, the EU offers full indemnification for its launch service providers. info@vega.co.uk
multilateral framework that covers all aspects of passenger transportation in space and can be easily amended in the future. Blockages to Open Competition Virgin Galactic and other operators would certainly like to see operations expand into Europe but the current regulatory environment and U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) mean that this is unlikely for the foreseeable future (certainly if they use U.S. technology). Virgin Galactic has commented that there is a lot of support from the U.S. and the FAA. However, this could be seen to be taking on a political flavour, as there is clearly a strong desire to try and corner the Space Tourism market in the U.S. Governed by the State Department, ITAR is America s way of restricting its own exports of dual-use technology without having any impact on what other nations are willing to sell. The ITAR concern stems from the inclusion of both launch vehicle and satellite component technologies on the US Munitions List, which results in a more restrictive and onerous export control process for developers of spacecraft and launch vehicles (orbital and suborbital). This is a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences: while designed to prevent high technologies from ending up in the hands of the "bad guys", it also ends up hurting US companies as customers turn to other sources. ITAR could require operators of suborbital space tourism vehicles to obtain export licenses for each individual passenger who is not a U.S. citizen, depending on the amount of technical information the operators have to divulge to those passengers. In the satellite sector, ITAR has been quite destructive for US companies. ITAR has hindered commercial manufacturers due to the length of time it takes to get an ITAR approval. ITAR approval is needed for a variety of reasons including being able to discuss technical performance details with the customer, obtaining insurance for a satellite (most insurers for spacecraft are based out of London), exporting a satellite to a launch base, and being able to talk to ground operators for help with flying the spacecraft. This increase in approval cycles has angered many customers from friendly countries and, as previously stated, driven traditional U.S. foreign customers like Telesat to European manufacturers. U.S. manufacturers are increasingly being weary of bidding on certain foreign contracts if they anticipate a certain level of ITAR problems. Current export policy has increased the cost associated with doing business for U.S. satellite manufacturers while at the same time decreasing their ability to compete in the global marketplace. Furthermore, it has given an edge to foreign manufacturers, most notably Alcatel Alenia Space. As a result, the U.S. market share in the commercial satellite manufacturing sector has declined and may continue to do so for years to come. Whilst a disadvantage to U.S. companies in the satellite sector, in the private spaceflight arena, ITAR means that European companies with relevant services will find it difficult if not impossible to be involved in the industry if it remains predominantly in the US. There is proof now, demonstrating that these hurdles can be overcome although even Virgin Galactic struggled. Virgin Galactic has had to work through the export control paperwork just so it can access the technical details of SpaceShipTwo. The State Department has issued an agreement (presumably a technical assistance agreement (TAA)) between US-based Scaled Composites and U.K.-based Virgin Galactic regarding the development of SpaceShipTwo. With their shareholding in The info@vega.co.uk
Spaceship Company this gives Virgin Galactic and its employees access to some information about SS2. However some of the US Founder astronauts know more about SpaceShipTwo than Virgin Galactic does. One of the problems of export control laws is that it does not treat nations nominally allied with the U.S. (like the U.K., Canada, etc.) any differently than other countries. A two-tier approach has now been proposed, with streamlined regulations for countries like the U.K. that are allied with the U.S. In order to stop ITAR from allowing the U.S. to capture the majority of the private spaceflight market, Europe can either develop its own capability or lobby to ensure that European enterprises wishing to benefit from the nascent private spaceflight industry are free to do so. Given that there has been talk of ITAR reform for so many years but no tangible change has been realised, it is unlikely that change can be expected in the short term. Even billion dollar losses in a large market such as the satellite market have not resulted in real reform so it is unlikely that recent interest in space tourism will make a difference. This is especially so as the U.S. currently have the most viable technical solution and hence the competitive advantage. Given this scenario, it is important that Europe builds capability under its own jurisdiction. Rather than seeing ITAR as a disadvantage, Europe should be spurred to create its own advantage by promoting the development of capability within Europe. European Interest in Space Tourism Virgin Galactic Virgin Galactic is one of best financed space tourism ventures and widely tipped to succeed due to the heritage it has from the Ansari X-Prize Winning Flights of SpaceShipOne. A company named the Spaceship Company will own the designs of the new SpaceShipTwo (SS2) and White Knight Two (WK2) launch systems that are now in development at Scaled Composites. The SS2/WK2 system will use the 'Care-free reentry' and the 'cantilevered-hybrid' rocket motor technology developed for the Ansari X prize-winning SpaceShipOne (SS1), and will license that technology from Paul Allen's Mojave Aerospace company. The Spaceship Company will manufacture the new launch aircraft, spaceships and support equipment and market them to spaceline operators, including the launch customer, Virgin Galactic. The Spaceship Company is jointly owned by Virgin and Scaled, and will contract Scaled for the research, development, testing and certification of SS2/WK2. Burt Rutan will head up the technical development team. Virgin Galactic is an operator, and will be responsible for Pilot and Astronaut Training, and Ground Operations and Mission Control. Virgin Galactic is very committed to developing business in Europe. They are also already looking to the long term prospects such as point to point travel. Whilst Virgin Galactic has stated that they would like to expand operations into Europe, ITAR restrictions currently mean that this could be difficult. info@vega.co.uk
European Private Spaceflight Vehicle Manufacturers With little public investment, Europe already has a number of organisations developing vehicles for private spaceflight. Project Enterprise - http://www.talisinstitut.de/ and http://www.spl.ch Project Enterprise is an alliance of Talis Institut and Swiss Propulsion Lab. They started out by proposing to develop a small satellite launcher, similar to Falcon 1 of SpaceX. However, recently they decided to shift their focus away from space launch towards space tourism. This activity has just started, and they are currently investigating the legal environment, i.e. the regulations that would govern a space tourism vehicle in Europe. Bristol Spaceplanes - http://www.bristolspaceplanes.com/ Bristol Spaceplanes Limited, based in Bristol, England, was formed in 1991 to provide technical assistance and consultancy to commercial organisations and aerospace companies interested in commercial opportunities in space. Since then it has prepared plans to develop the Ascender sub-orbital spaceplane, designed in-house from off-theshelf technology. Ascender operates like an aeroplane, however its rocket motor propels it to an altitude of 100km. Reaction Engines - http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/ Reaction Engines Ltd was created to design and develop advanced space transport and propulsion systems. By applying a combination of established physical principles and innovative engineering design, they intend to develop a range of products that will enable the commercial exploitation of space. The company is located at the Culham Science Center in Oxfordshire (U.K.) where it has offices and runs a heat exchanger research facility. Starchaser Industries - http://www.xprize.org/teams/starchaser_industries.php Starchaser began as an experimental rocket test program set up by engineer Steve Bennett back in 1992 to develop an inexpensive means of delivering small scientific payloads to high altitudes. Starchaser Industries was incorporated as a private limited company in 1998, with the intention of developing reusable launch vehicle technology. In 2001, the company transferred its manufacturing and rocket assembly arm to new premises in Hyde, Cheshire where a dedicated team of full time engineers now comprise the team. In November 2001, Starchaser successfully launched the 37-foot tall NOVA, which was the largest rocket ever to be flown from the British mainland. Starchaser is now building the Starchaser V rocket and the three-man Thunderstar capsule. ARCA - http://www.xprize.org/teams/arca.php Whilst not currently a member of the EU, Romania has a registered Ansari X-Prize Team. The Aeronautics & Cosmonautics Romanian Association (ARCA) is a nongovernmental organization that promotes innovative aerospace projects. ARCA was founded in 1999 but their members have worked together on an ambitious highperformance rocket engine development project since 1998. The most important achievement in ARCA s activities was to represent Romania in the ANSARI X PRIZE Competition. info@vega.co.uk
EADS Space Transportation and Dassault: EADS Space Transportation and Dassault are two large space primes with heritage and interest in vehicles for private spaceflight. Space Tourism Operators There are number of operators, tourism brokers and spacelines springing up throughout Europe. Some of these organisations include Pro Toura Space, Pure Galactic and Space Travellers. Whilst some of these companies are beginning to take reservations for space tourism experiences, each is very much in the fledgling stages of growth. Spaceports While the majority of spaceports are proposed in the U.S. Virgin Galactic has also set its sights on northern Sweden (Kiruna) and Northern Scotland. Flights from Kiruna could begin as early as 2011 and may feature flights through the aurora borealis. Because Kiruna is home to a sounding rocket range today, it has a number of benefits, including free airspace. Like Kiruna, northern Scotland also has relatively open airspace needed for suborbital flights to regularly take place. In order for progress to be made in developing these facilities, allowing Europe to capture part of the $1bn space tourism market, the necessary legal, regulatory and financial frameworks need to be implemented. How and Why Europe Might Support Private Spaceflight Two options are outlined below which detail ways in which Europe might support/invest in space tourism and the returns each option may bring. The options suggested are investing in developing a favourable regulatory environment for space tourism and funding for research and innovation relating to private spaceflight. 1) Develop a Favourable Regulatory Environment for Space Tourism in the Europe There are two elements regarding the regulatory environment that might be addressed by European administration both of which require minimal investment other than support from trade and industry and regulatory bodies. Ensure that European companies wishing to be involved in the space tourism industry are free to compete on a level playing field: Due to ITAR European companies with relevant services looking to profit from the growing space tourism industry are struggling to gain contracts with US companies. While Virgin Galactic has eventually managed to progress forward through ITAR this is presumed to simply be via a technical assistance agreement alone (TAA) and took over five months of negotiation with the State Department. Smaller Europe companies are unlikely to be as successful. info@vega.co.uk
Anything the European Policy Makers can do through lobbying or trade support to assist European companies in winning contracts relating to space tourism will help European industry to at least in part access the billion dollar space tourism market that is being created. Without intervention, the U.S. could seal up the entire market making it very difficult for Europe companies to obtain a share. Given that ITAR issues are likely to remain, however, a better solution would be for Europe to pursue its own capability for private spaceflight. Make Europe a favourable location for Space Tourism ventures. As previously mentioned, most space tourism ventures are based in the U.S. Aside from the restrictions imposed via ITAR, the U.S. (through the FAA) has created a favourable regulatory environment for Space Tourism. Whilst emphasising safety, regulations do not stifle the growing industry. No such regulatory environment has been seriously considered in Europe. A number of space ports have been proposed throughout the world, with public authorities in each case investing large sums of money due to the predicted economic return. The proposed spaceport in New Mexico called for a $225 million financial construction package, with $100 million of that to be paid by the state of New Mexico. Legislation appropriating these funds was passed by the New Mexico Legislature and signed by Governor Richardson in March 2006 and the project is projected to be completed by 2009 or 2010. A number of private spacetourism companies have already committed to locating at or operating from the proposed spaceport and more are expected to follow. Two entities have conducted studies on the economic impact of the spaceport, with differing, but positive projections. A study conducted by New Mexico State University projects spending of $1 billion, a payroll of $300 million and employment of 2,300 people by the spaceport s fifth year of operation (approximately 2014). A similar study by private sector consulting firm Futron Corporation estimates that by 2020, the projected spaceport will generate $750 million in total revenues and employ more than 3,500 people 8. Virgin Galactic has proposed spaceports in Europe and a spaceport would help Europe to leverage a large slice of the proposed space tourism market, particularly that originating in Europe. Europe is in a strong position to develop a European spaceport but needs to act quickly in developing the regulatory and financial environment to encourage private sector investment. Investing in a space port would bring the clearly measurable economic benefits suggested above but also many more less tangible benefits associated with the feel good factor of the population engaged in an emerging market. 2) Develop a European Manufacturing & Service Capability for Private Spaceflight Vehicles With very little public investment Europe already has a number of organisations actively trying to develop vehicles for Space Tourism. Each has had varying degrees of success in achieving their goals but each company is some way behind U.S. competition in actually producing hardware and attracting investors. Whilst each company has some excellent ideas and concepts in most cases this has advanced little beyond paper studies and limited technical demonstrators. They are predominantly small companies (less than 10 employees in most cases) and have not 8 Futron used the Regional Input-Output Modeling System II (RIMS II) developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis for their economic impact study. info@vega.co.uk
developed to a point where revenues are a suitable indicator. The companies have potential but financial and regulatory support is needed. The funding and regulatory infrastructure in Europe has not assisted and continues in not assisting the efforts of these companies. Virgin Galactic aside, European companies are feeling the pressure as they try to establish a foothold in this nascent market. With existing European technical capabilities and infrastructure, Europe could invest in developing private vehicles or components and subsystems for commercial spaceflight. Europe needs to maintain its aerospace manufacturing capability. If some investment is made now then this expertise can be developed and used to create a commercial space vehicle industry. Europe has access to technology that could spearhead a transformation of spaceflight and lead to a large new industry for commercial space vehicles. Whilst investment in developing vehicles for commercial spaceflight will cost billions of pounds, after a much smaller public investment to kickstart the industry in the Europe, private financiers may be interested in supporting developments. The benefits of public investment include: Investing in the Europe s technological and manufacturing future. A large number of jobs would be created by investing in a manufacturing and service capability. A report by the New Mexico State University estimated that through development of the spaceport, over 1000 jobs will be created excluding those associated with actually constructing the spaceport. Whilst these numbers need tailoring to be relevant to the European market it is clear that a large number of jobs would be created by investing in research and innovation relating to private spaceflight, allowing us to retain and grow capability within Europe. Private enterprise will move the whole industry forward and if only to encourage enterprise Europe should be involved. Building towards orbital capability. The orbital market that could develop through initial investments in suborbital technology is potentially vast if the cost to orbit is reduced through new technologies developed by tackling the suborbital market. The orbital satellite launch market is currently approximately $4bn per year although the market is thought to be over competitive. However, this does not include revenues from tourism and if new technologies facilitate cheap access to space then the entire orbital launch market will change and grow dramatically. Europe could play a large role if some money is invested now in supporting a European technical capability. Burt Rutan believes that personal spaceflight could dramatically alter spaceflight in general. The space market has never had any product, any payload, that is high volume, he said. If he reaches his goals on affordability and safety, it will affect everything else that is done in space. Such investments need not all take the traditional approach of study contracts and experimental projects. Government supported competitions or prizes could encourage entrepreneurial ventures in a process that rewards results rather than effort, like the X- Prize and the current series of NASA Centennial Challenges. Conclusions Private spaceflight is developing rapidly and is considered to be highly important in the U.S. There are clear benefits to involvement in the industry but in the present scenario, due to ITAR and regulatory efforts, the U.S. is likely to capture a large portion of the potential market. info@vega.co.uk