NASA and FAA administrators are having a joint press conference. Announcing that FAA will license all flights to ISS, that NASA will be responsible for crew safety for flights with NASA crew, NASA will not be involved in non-NASA flights. Irene Klotz asking why two separate sets of requirements. Bolden says that Phil McAlister may elaborate, but he anticipates that there will be human flights not NASA flights, and NASA would have no involvement. Huerta noting that requirements will be same for both NASA and non-NASA flights (not clear if he’s referring to safety or protecting public). Bolden trying to clarify in response to question from Keith Cowing, McAlister says that non-NASA missions will have no NASA involvement, and FAA will regulate only for public safety until 2015. Alan Boyle: is the MOA going to be published so we can see? How will it work for non-crew flights? New role for FAA for cargo resupply? Answer: MOU link is in press release. Nield: MOU oriented toward commercial spaceflight, cargo already licensed by FAA. For non-NASA missions, will it be like Everest, or will FAA have safety standards? Huerta reiterating all of the FAA responsibility, that do not include crew safety. FAA participation in crew selection? Current regulatory authority only over launch and entry at least until 2015. How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.
30 thoughts on “NASA/FAA Press Conference”
Comments are closed.
So if a US company wanted to take people (non NASA) to the ISS NASA would have nothing to say about it?
The sooner a private person can pay for a trip to ISS on an American rocket the better.
ISS (at least our modules) are still US government property. You can’t just walk into any government research lab (which ISS is) on Earth, can you? Being in orbit doesn’t change that.
The orbital tourism we’ve had so far has been through the Russian facilities (for the first one, Dennis Tito, they made it clear that they *were* going to bring him up, over the objections of then NASA administrator Dan Goldin, even if they had to confine him to their module), and the volume of tourists has been too low to be detrimental to station operations.
If the demand gets that high, then it’s clearly time for a dedicated tourism facility (perhaps combined with other commercial applications), and Bigelow’s phone number isn’t hard to find…
If I recall, Dennis Tito was originally told he could go up, and could stay in the Russian modules. That was the argument until people started considering the practicality of such an arrangement and a precedent it sent over one nation limiting access to parts of the ISS. Then the argument became, he could enter the USOS portion, but definitely not the Space Shuttle when it visited. About that point, the crew office started inquiring what the fuss was all about.
I think the reality is starting to hit home. The demand may be high, but the supply is still low, so fighting to prevent space tourism is stupid. The ISS still needs a number of its full time crew for maintenance, and I suspect at some point a fee will be determined to cover the expense of maintaining the orbital
international park. By that time, perhaps those who work at NASA and claim to be interested in manned spaceflight will start realizing that having too many paid visitors isn’t the problem they were making it out to be. It’s a problem, but one with a solution that supposedly meets their desire to expand and enhance spaceflight.By the way, the last time I read FAA’s guidelines, it aligned with NASA’s which in short (as Jonathan Card stated) is “informed consent”.
This could get interesting. If NASA is serious about allowing FAA to license the flights and also CASIS getting half the American lab space as a national lab, that opens the door to Charlie Walker type research flights under commercial crew. Fly up with the new vehicle and crew, perform your experiments, and fly down with the old vehicle and crew.
Presumably, when the FAA eventually adopts flight participant standards, the NASA crew safety standards will be deemed a “safe harbor”, meaning that if you can demonstrate compliance with them you will be deemed to have met FAA safety requirements . That doesn’t prevent them from having another set of standards, which might include an “Everest” type category. Another way of looking at it might be that of a vulcanologist exposing himself to substantial risk in order to study an active volcano.
Jim,
The big question will be which standards the insurance firms will require before they agree to offer insurance for the flight. My guess it is it will be the NASA standards given how conservative insurance firms are.
The second big question is if the same standards will apply to non-ISS flights, especially those to Bigelow Habitats. My guess is probably yes since FAA is unlikely to go on the bureaucratic limb and set “lower” standards then those being set by NASA. Nor will the insurance industry likely insure flights with standards lower then NASA ISS flights…
So it looks like my prediction is coming true. Thanks to COTS/CCDev/CCP NASA is effectively going to set the safety standards for the entire industry. Thank You COTS/CCDev/CCP advocates for burdening the entire industry with NASA regulations for HSF.
Not necessarily. The FAA has been receptive in the past to “informed consent” standards to sub-orbital tourism and it doesn’t say which branch of the FAA specifically is covering it, but if Nield is speaking, it’s the same group overseeing this. And insurance companies have the ability to set different standards with different premia for different risk levels, so it doesn’t have to be any kind of show-stopper.
Jonathan,
The question is what those different rates will be. As a result of the accident last year at the Reno Air Races the insurance rate went up by 700 percent. They group holding the races is now struggling to meet the costs. I also recall a time in the 1990’s went a sting of failures sent insurance costs soaring until insurance premiums accounted for over 25 percent of the entire cost of the launch, so just saying firms will just need to pay more for insurance is not a minor issue. And you need to keep in mind that the number of firms that offer launch insurance is limited, so its really a sellers market for it.
So the question is which will now be cheaper, meeting the new “NASA” standard for the industry or paying for the insurance premium if you decide not to. Either way COTS/CCDev/CCP has just raised both the launch costs and regulatory burden for the entire industry including the firms that don’t have anything to do with NASA.
I don’t know much about spacecraft but I do know a fair amount about insurance.
Whether you are insuring for property or casualty is an important question and one which gets overlooked in these discussions about insuring spacecraft. Different underwriting rules apply to each. When you refer to the air races you are talking about Casualty. With Casualty, you are dealing with potential exposures of different types of activity under tort law. Your potential for financial loss is almost unlimited.
When you refer to cargo you are talking about Property. With property, your potential for loss is strictly limited to the value of the risk being underwritten.
Insurance carriers, while not oblivious to government standards, have their own standards for assessing risk. They may or may not care about whether a launcher does or does not meet NASA or FAA standards.
Thomas Matula wrote:
“…My guess….my guess….probably…Thanks to COTS/CCDev/CCP NASA is effectively going to set the safety standards for the entire industry.”
I hope I don’t have to point out that “My guess is…therefore it will happen” is not a logic sequence.
You are making the mistake of assuming politics and business is logical. If either were they could be turned over to computers to do…
No, I’m pointing out that your conclusion is based not on any objective evidence but upon your own guesses and assumptions.
The burning ships you see exist only in your mind.
Somebody will write insurance for an FAA-licensed flight even if it’s in a different category than the NASA standard. The question will be, what’s the premium differential? If you can provide a cheap enough flight people will be willing to pay the higher premium. Also, people crazy enough to fly at this stage of the industry’s maturity are probably crazy enough to fly naked; i.e., without insurance at all. After all, people do lots of risky things without insurance all the time.
Jim,
The insurance is not for the flyers, its required for the firms doing the actual launch. And under FAA licensing its required that launch firm have insurance or they will not receive a license to launch if the launch is commercial. So launching without insurance is not an option.
Which means that the higher premium the launch firms pay will now pay for insurance in result higher costs for their flights, even if they are not funded or part of COTS/CCDev/CCP. So basically the cost of for all providers of HST will be going up thanks to COTS/CCDev/CCP.
But if we had universal federally mandated flight insurance that spread the costs across everyone who could fit inside a space capsule, then we wouldn’t have uninsured astronauts creating a burden on launch providers.
George,
You are thinking of the wrong kind of insurance….
The insurance requirement, per CFR Title 14 section 440.9, is (up to) $500 million third-party liability coverage and $100 million for damage to the launch range. There is no, repeat no, requirement for insurance against claims by or damage to paying customers or spaceflight participants.
It is at present entirely permissible to launch with zero insurance against loss of the vehicle, the payload, the crew, and the passengers.
John,
That is what I stated, you need launch insurance for to get a license. Individuals flying on the vehicle won’t need it.
But the third party insurance is impacted by the perceived risks to third party from launches and one key difference between launching a satellite and launching humans is that there are launch abort options for HSF that will change the risk parameters of the launch. But time will tell how launch insurance rates change for HSF.
Thomas,
There is no “launch insurance.” The act requires the launch provider to provide General Liability coverage(Casualty Insurance) just like any other NASA contractor. Any contractor on any NASA campus has to have GL to enter the campus. I am familiar with this because I insure a few small contractors who enter JSC. The loss limits required for launch providers are higher but that is only because the potential loss via a launch is greater than the potential loss via a delivery van.
John,
The act provides the launch provider to enormous outs:
(2)The maximum available on the world market at a reasonable cost, as determined by the Office.
(f) In lieu of a policy of insurance, a licensee may demonstrate financial responsibility in another manner meeting the terms and conditions applicable to insurance as set forth in this part. The licensee must describe in detail the method proposed for demonstrating financial responsibility and how it assures that the licensee is able to cover claims as required under this part.
The insurance is not for the flyers, its required for the firms doing the actual launch.
So why bring it up now? The only difference here than other commercially launched satellites, it this type of satellite is designed to survive entry.
So basically the cost of for all providers of HST will be going up thanks to COTS/CCDev/CCP.
I don’t think you provided anything to support this claim. The only thing this press conference made clear is NASA will not regulate manned spaceflight to ISS, which is counter to your argument.
And your comparison to the Reno Air Races misses a key point. The insurance rates didn’t go up because of any FAA certification or regulatory changes. The insurance rates went up because it became obvious the risk to the spectators on the ground that are not regulated by the FAA. To the extent manned spaceflight is similar to the Reno Air Races, is that this commercially launched satellite is designed to survive entry. Otherwise, you are not making an apple and oranges comparison, but an apple and tang comparison, where the orange flavoring your claiming is purely artificial and in fact was not created by NASA.
Leland
Go ahead, keep whistling in the dark that NASA’s requirements won’t become industry requirements…
[[[I don’t think you provided anything to support this claim. ]]]
You remind me of that scene from Pearl Harbor, where Admiral Kimmel asks the OOD for proof that the U.S.S. Ward sank a midget sub. When he finally gets to the office the OOD just points to Pearl Harbor and says there is your proof. You will have your proof in a few years when NASA’s standards become the default standard for the industry…
So in short, you just believe something to be true without anything to back it up beyond absurd annecodotes of unrelated history which have zero context or meaning.
Where’s NTSB in this mix?
I’m not sure whether this is good or bad, it’s probably both but at the very least it lets vendors know what they have to deal with and gives advocates a starting point to argue for changes.
Rand,
Your transript says “Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could.” What did Bolden mean by “as best they could”? At best NASA can or at best the commercial crew can?
Thanks.
I don’t know — you’d have to ask General Bolden.
I am not a reporter, I can’t really ask him… I was asking for your understanding of what he meant. In any event, it seems that you don’t know because it wasn’t clear. Good enough. Thanks.
P.S. Incidentally, in the post above, I meant to ask “At best NASA can or at best the commercial crew company can?”
I think what he meant is that the “half” would have to kick in more of its own money.
That would make sense. Thanks.