Human Rating A Spacecraft

Great read, and I think it is a very good starting point for any discussions about the commercialization of human spaceflight. The quote at the end was a nice touch.

Very interesting observations from Wayne. Based on what has been achieved in the commercial airline industry, I believe that private enterprise can certainly create and operate a vehicle with the same level of safety as a NASA can.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone besides me think that it's a bit odd for that plaque to only name Neil Armstrong and not his crewmates (I won't even get into the subject of Tenzing Norgay)?

My first thought while reading this was the same as Mark Simpson's. Please point us to the website for the Russian space agency's man rating documentation for the Soyuz. Do the Russians adhere to the 40,000+ standards. Oh, that's right. It's okay because it is a mature craft that has been flown for 43 years. Despite the fact that they have had 2 loss of crew failures which is the same as the Space Shuttle which has only been flying for 29 years (at least when the cart them to the museums the can get classic plates). And in the 29 years, the reusable, complex Space Shuttles have flown MORE times than the Soyuz. The only reason that there is more loss of lives in the shuttle program is because of the orders of magnitude greater capabilities it has over the Soyuz such as routinely carrying 7 astronauts vs only 3 on the Soyuz. When Shuttle which has only been flying for 29 years (at least when the cart them to the museums the can get classic plates). And in the 29 years, the reusable, complex Space Shuttles have flown MORE times than the Soyuz. The only reason that there is more loss of lives in the shuttle program is because of the orders of magnitude greater capabilities it has over the Soyuz such as routinely carrying 7 astronauts vs only 3 on the Soyuz. When the Russians were having pretty bad problems with reentry of the Soyuz a few years back and there was a news conference on it Mike Suffredini basically side stepped the question as to whether NASA was being given access to all of the analysis and documentation.

So should SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing fire the American astronauts they have and instead hire retired Russian cosmonauts? If they answer the phone calls from NASA with a "Hello comrade" will the standard be lowered for them as well?

Wayne writes:

How will that fit with a lean, entrepreneurial commercial organization with a profit/loss bottom line? Heck if I know.

NASA should ask the FAA. They know. And for the record: I do not think NASA should be involved in the human rating of commercial spacecraft. I think that should fall to the FAA. For when you compare the per-departure rate of loss of human life for transport aicraft against the same per-launch rate of NASA human spaceflight, you will see a large disparity. Yes, some of that could be because "space is harder". But in the case of Challenger and Columbia, the vehicles were human rated, and it was operational decisions on NASA's part in both cases that were the critical link in the causal chain that lead to loss of human life.

In another comment thread here, I had a discussion with another poster who seemed to think the FAA, and not NASA, would be the ultimate certifier of commercial human-rated spacecraft. But more and more it seems that NASA will not accept that and is planning to do it all by itself. IMO, NASA is not competent to do that, mostly because their regulatory model is too incestuous, unlike the FAA's. The FAA can never issue a requirement waiver, because everything ties back to the FARs of CFR Title 14. NASA can and has issued waivers. Not good.

Thanks Wayne
##
The agency tried really hard to be as safe as possible and we still had the Apollo 1 fire, close calls on several lunar missions - the most famous of which was Apollo 13 - and we lost Challenger and Columbia. In spite of our best intentions and best efforts.

I'll quote myself from my blog post Sine Non Qua on Sept. 11, 2009:

"Six years after the loss of Columbia, I'm not sure that we can make a spacecraft safe, but I have empirical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can make it expensive."
##
so here is a start:

Contact: Sara Frueh
news@nas.edu
202-334-2138
National Academy of Sciences
Strengthening NASA's suborbital program

REVITALIZING NASA'S SUBORBITAL PROGRAM: ADVANCING SCIENCE, DRIVING INNOVATION, AND DEVELOPING WORKFORCE, a new congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council, recommends ways NASA can strengthen its suborbital program, which conducts research using aircraft, balloons, and rockets. The program enables cutting-edge research in areas such as climate science and astrophysics and is vital in developing technologies and training personnel, the report says. It recommends that NASA reorder its priorities to increase funding for this program and create a new leadership position to coordinate it.

###
THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. Reporters may obtain copies by contacting the Office of News and Public Information at tel. 202-334-2138 or e-mail news@nas.edu.

NASA, FAA and DOD also like the activity.

best

Airline safety is the result of having thousands of flights per day, and a rigorous program of collecting failure and anomaly data that come from both accidents and non-injury incidents.

It's outrageously premature to assert that HSF by any organization can fit into that FAA model today or soon. Even if, 20 years from now, some company is launching once a week, it'll still strain credibility.

Having said that, modification of the HSF safety standards is essential to the success of commercial launch providers, and the first small step toward the FAA model. Applying the current requirements structure to commercial HSF is a sure way to kill the business, at least for non-government customers. And as Wayne hinted, perhaps not all of that burden is really increasing safety.

BTW, 1mm = 0.039" not 0.254"

'The agency tried really hard to be as safe as possible and we still had the Apollo 1 fire ... and we lost Challenger and Columbia. In spite of our best intentions and best efforts.'

Say what? In at least two of those cases (Apollo 1 and Challenger), they were explicitly warned by engineers about the thing that caused the loss of life - and went ahead anyway.

NASA has always been willing to take some risks - just as they are now, by continuing to fly the Shuttle when they know it has an unavoidable safety issue (due to the side-mount).

One can argue whether their safety dial is set too high or too low - if you try and avoid every risk you'll never fly. But they also always catch heat when there's a loss.

They probably can't win; they get criticized for being too risk-averse, and criticized again when something goes wrong.

Mr. Hale wrote: "In fact, a committee is already working on a new version which would apply to vehicles on which NASA might buy seats."

Does this mean that Elon Musk will need to modify per this new version that Mr. Hale is talking about, his Falcon 9?

Does this mean the astronauts can't sit in on Space X (or other Merchant 7) design meetings to offer their perspective and re-direction - a policy in full swing post Apollo 1 fire up through Cx?

not confused,

What does your post have to do with human rating spacecraft?

LOL! I didn't pick that up. Isn't conversion from English to metric units a recurring NASA problem? Like satellites crashing into Mars? Maybe have to tighten the standard on that.

Pretty obvious even for a nerd. The more restrictions and standards and triple and quadruple redundancy you require, the more layers of checking, rechecking and triple checking that you add the more something costs. This is not to say that it shouldn't be done. Just pointing out the obvious.

Wayne, I have a lot of respect for you, you are an outstanding engineer and project manager but your statement

"How will that fit with a lean, entrepreneurial commercial organization with a profit/loss bottom line? Heck if I know."

Indicates that you like most NASA Civil Servants I have worked with over many years are not competent to comment on the ability of a commercial company to provide a safe vehicle because you haven't stepped outside your government world enough to develop an understanding of how and why commercial business endeavors succeed or fail.

If you want to understand how this works, I suggest you look into what motivates a commercial company to build safe airplanes. The same business strategies will guide commercial space and if you want to particpate in it, you better start learning something about how it works.

> Does this mean the astronauts can't sit in on Space X (or other Merchant 7) design meetings to offer their perspective and re-direction - a policy in full swing post Apollo 1 fire up through Cx?

I think it's safe to say that Ken Bowersox (former Shuttle commander, Shuttle pilot, and current SpaceX VP of Astronaut Safety) has been involved in quite a few SpaceX design meeetings. I'm sure the same goes for former astronaut Brewster Shaw, who's VP at Boeing.

There is a mindset among commenters here and on other sites, to the effect that "SpaceX [or any commercial provider] doesn't care about safety, they only care about profits. Therefore our astronauts are gonna die." Lots of snarks along the lines of "have they even read the specs?" It's like, Ken Bowersox has suddenly morphed into Snidely Whiplash.

The reality is that the SpaceX execs and workers are peeing themselves worrying about making their rockets and spacecraft as safe as humanly possible. They realize the (pardon me) gravity of the situation.

Doesn't mean that SpaceX won't make a terrible, fatal mistake (as NASA has, more than once), but: They Get It. Anyone who doesn't think so is not thinking clearly, possibly because their thought processes are distorted by anger and anxiety about their job situation (understandably so).

Moving up the scale, there are the numerous fellows who seem overjoyed at the prospect of F9 crashing into downtown Orlando. Pretty unhinged.

What does your post have to do with human rating spacecraft?

I suggest you read the NAS report and also this quote:
"Six years after the loss of Columbia, I'm not sure that we can make a spacecraft safe, but I have empirical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can make it expensive."

If you cannot understand the above, it maybe why you do not understand what is currently happening with the NASA budget as a process in planning the future.

have a great day!

I'm curious - what are NASA's current standards for purchasing an aircraft? What about purchasing an experimental aircraft? What are their standards for letting a NASA employee ride in someone else's experimental aircraft? These may provide some useful intermediate starting points between standards for building a spacecraft internally and buying a commercial ticket.

'The reality is that the SpaceX execs and workers are peeing themselves worrying about making their rockets and spacecraft as safe as humanly possible. They realize the .. gravity of the situation.'

I actually feel really sorry for the people at the private enterprise space organizations. Their job was already hard enough, and now they have the added pressure of being under the microscope as the nation's principal path to space.

I can see it now - one loses a launch, and there's a Congressional investigation, and demands as to why we're 'wasting' tax-payer money on this organization which 'clearly' cannot deliver the goods... (' marks indicate sarcasm at Congress)

The reality is that the SpaceX execs and workers are peeing themselves worrying about making their rockets and spacecraft as safe as humanly possible. They realize the .. gravity of the situation.'

gravity hahahahah that's classic..

SpaceX has a very ambitious launch manifest. Is anyone taking odds on it actually meeting those dates?

Noel

Given the current FAA flight rules and the NASA Human Rating STD edited to fit constellation(now defunct). It appears some learning and writing needs to take place. How many spaceports are now in the USA ? What is the current regulatory body for USA airspace?, NEO space?

This is currently being discussed, It is was not a CxP effort this is for sure. ESMD is funding a small part of the activity.

If a flight activity harms the public, yes there should be a Congressional investigation, this is the purpose of the NTSB.

There is much room for discussion and actual flight time to determine the best approach. We shall see what the future holds.

"The more restrictions and standards and triple and quadruple redundancy you require, the more layers of checking, rechecking and triple checking that you add the more something costs."

Huh? Where do you get "more restrictions and standards and triple and quadruple redundancy" from a press release about "Strengthening NASA's suborbital program" that "enables cutting-edge research in areas such as climate science and astrophysics"?

not confused,

Please point out in your post

"Strengthening NASA's suborbital program

REVITALIZING NASA'S SUBORBITAL PROGRAM: ADVANCING SCIENCE, DRIVING INNOVATION, AND DEVELOPING WORKFORCE, a new congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council, recommends ways NASA can strengthen its suborbital program, which conducts research using aircraft, balloons, and rockets. The program enables cutting-edge research in areas such as climate science and astrophysics and is vital in developing technologies and training personnel, the report says. It recommends that NASA reorder its priorities to increase funding for this program and create a new leadership position to coordinate it."

has anything to do with human rating spacecraft?

And if you can't carry on a conversation without acting like a jerk, go somewhere else.

This applies to STS-107 as well. Wayne Hale himself tried at least twice to get authorization for the DOD to image the orbiter prior to entry. Space Shuttle Program management stopped him. It's all in the CAIB report.

Hey spacenerd99
Contact: Sara Frueh
news@nas.edu
202-334-2138
National Academy of Sciences
Strengthening NASA's suborbital program
again:
I suggest you read the NAS report.
Read the report. If you cannot read and understand it is not my duty to educate you.

And if you can't carry on a conversation without acting like a jerk, go somewhere else.

touchy now...I'm not here to make sure you agree with my post. your free not to read also

Again Keith, while exerpting/reposting with attribution is legal, it's also good etiquette to provide a link back to his blog.

Editor's note: I did. Look more closely.

Why do you assume that just because they are former astronauts they will place the needs of NASA ahead of the needs of their company? I am sure that their heart is in the right place and they want to do the right thing but when doing the right thing means their company is going to take a bath financially who will they serve?

As someone who has worked with commercial providers in DOD acquisition and development as well as manned space flight over 25 years I don't assume that commercial providers "get it". I have worked with some companies senior management that do in fact get it and are great partners in providing the best possible vehicles and services. I have also worked with companies that only care about following processes and doing the bare minimum to meet their contractual obligations with no concern for what that means for safety or the ability to do the mission. So rather then trust that a company "gets it" NASA needs to make sure that they get it until they prove they can be trusted as a true partner. Trust but verify.