FAA AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation

1. Federal Aviation Administration FAA AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation Preliminary Approach to Commercial Human Spaceflight Presentation to COMSTAC Systems Working Group May 11, 2012 Pam Melroy Director of Field Operations

2. COMSTAC Briefing Outline • Background • Preliminary Approach to Occupant Safety Regulations • Safety Approaches • Notional Groundrules and Assumptions – some examples • Takeaways • Possible Forward Discussion Topics

3. Background • Currently the FAA’s regulatory focus is protecting public safety (third parties and their property). • The moratorium on proposing regulations that address occupant safety has been extended to October 2015. So why are we talking about it today? • AST wants to use this time to begin a dialogue with industry and understand the consequences of implementation

4. Background • When regulations are required, it will be a major undertaking taking several years to assemble them, even if perfect words are ready to go • Best practices are out there – we can and should begin the work to collect them, organize them, and think about how they might be structured in the future • AST is motivated by the concern that if a mishap occurs, an emergency rulemaking will be mandated….if unprepared, a rushed response may result in poor quality regulations

5. Background • NASA’s pursuit of commercial crew transportation also leads to a need to begin thinking about effective FAA regulations in this area • Highly desirable that systems be designed both for NASA missions and commercial customers • Industry has requested that NASA and FAA work together to ensure compatibility between requirements and regulations • This briefing updates the tentative approach to FAA licensing of commercial orbital human space flight introduced last year • Content is preliminary but maturing • Industry input is desired – please tell us what you think!

6. Background • The process is only just beginning and nothing is cast in stone • The process will take significant time, so the discussion must start now if we want a quality product • AST wants to engage industry early through COMSTAC, and continuously every step of the way – as much as permitted by law

7. Approach to Occupant Safety Regulations Need Statement A set of regulations which neither stifle technology development nor expose occupants to avoidable risks.

8. Approach to Occupant Safety regulations Our goals are to develop a set of regulations that: • Protect occupants from avoidable risks. • Leverage existing knowledge of human spaceflight safety. • Are easily understood. • Are performance-based to the greatest extent possible. • Are applicable to all known likely system designs/uses • Do not restrict innovation. • Will minimize cost burden on industry. • Will be easily updated with new knowledge and as technology evolves.

9. Approach to Occupant Safety regulations What AST IS NOT working on: • How and where the new regulations will be integrated • Not discussing potential changes to Part 460 • Not discussing how to integrate new material into existing public safety regulations • Will be addressed further along when potential regs are developed • Certification similar to the aviation model • Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) – no authority • Specific Loss of Crew probability thresholds • Security (criminal intent)

10. Approach to Occupant Safety Regulations Team conducted review of content from other efforts: • NASA 1100 series Commercial Crew Program requirements documents • Existing aviation regulations • ESA Safety Requirements for Human Rated Systems • NPR 8702B – NASA’s Human Rating Requirements • Aerospace Corporation’s Human Space Flight Safety Guidelines for Reusable Launch Vehicles • IAASS/ISSB Space Safety Standard, Commercial Human-Rated System • IAC Medical Safety and Liability Issues for Short-Duration Commercial Orbital Space Flights

11. Approach to Occupant Safety Regulations Conclusions from the review: • Not all design requirements = good regulations • Customer requirements are very different than safety regulations • Many customer requirements are mission specific and exceed safety goal • Many requirements blend mission assurance and occupant safety • Government infrastructure & ops assumptions are different from current commercial aviation infrastructure and operations • FAA has efforts underway to improve structure of aviation regulations to allow faster response to technological changes – some good lessons learned are available

12. Approach to Occupant Safety regulations Structure of regulations and use of standards ….“Easily updated as technology evolves” • AST proposes to use performance-based and top-level regulations • Advisory circulars (much easier to update) will discuss best practices for how to comply for various vehicle types and purposes (e.g., orbital-suborbital, horizontal launch vs vertical launch, etc) • For example – regulation for habitable atmosphere, with an AC describing an acceptable means of how to achieve for orbital vehicle, and a separate AC for suborbital • Industry Standards – how to incorporate is still an open issue, but AST thinking is: • Should not be mandatory (alternate standards or methods ok) • Should be embedded in ACs for ease of updates • Should make use of industry standards organizations where appropriate

13. Safety Approach As a regulatory agency, the benefits of any regulation that we impose should justify its costs. Should use the “sweet spot test.” Risk Cost Sweet spot Rigor of AST regulations

14. Safety Approach • With regard to level of safety, together we must address in the near term: • Should crew and space flight participants have different regulations for safety? • Greater redundancy in systems such as oxygen for crew? • Higher levels of protection in restraints for SFP? • Should regulations vary based upon flight profile and purpose? • Test flights, not for comp or hire • Tourism vs. Research

15. Safety Approach • Should crew and space flight participants have different regulations for safety? • AST has noted: • Current designs have a high crew-to-spaceflight participant ratio • Both likely to be exposed to the same hazards • Both may be called on to perform basic tasks in an emergency • As a result, AST thinks standards should be broadly applied to both • For this reason, AST has generally referred to “occupant safety” rather than “spaceflight participant safety” or “crew safety.” • Potential for different hazard mitigations for crew and spaceflight participants addressed on a case-by-case basis in a hazard analysis.

16. Safety Approach • Should regulations vary based upon flight profile and purpose? • AST thinks that industry maturity does not warrant multiple standards of safety. • Not enough clear stratification of purposes yet. • A single performance-based standard of safety should be used in determining regulations. • Note: Regulations should only apply to flights for comp or hire. “Public-safety only” regime must remain to allow flight test for verification.

17. Safety Approach How Far Should Safety Extend? • In general, a single level of fault tolerance to critical hazards should be required for continued operations • When a system becomes zero fault tolerant due to critical element(s) failure, AST expects the launch operator will want to end the flight as soon as practicable without introducing significant new risk • AST suggests that contingency/emergency equipment should only provide a reasonable chance of survival

18. Groundrules and Assumptions Some examples of our groundrules and assumptions….

19. Groundrules and Assumptions • AST does not expect to require that it witness design, test and development activities. The current statutory requirement is for a license determination to occur in no more than 180 days. Because the design, development, and test of Space systems takes far longer than this time and take place at remote locations, it is not practical for AST to require it be involved in those activities. It is possible that eventually AST may have a process similar to aviation’s Designated Engineering Representatives for technical representatives resident at developer locations to assist in approving engineering changes and other design issues, but this is not in the near future.

20. Groundrules and Assumptions • Hazards If a hazard is universal for all anticipated system designs and operations, then protection from it should be explicitly called out in the regulations. If a hazard may be present depending on planned systems design and operation, AST thinking is that it will be documented in the description of hazards that must be addressed in the hazard analysis.

21. Groundrules and Assumptions • Occupant Performance Assumption AST thinking is that occupants should be trained and otherwise capable of executing individual emergency procedures such as emergency egress, operation of individual emergency equipment, etc. There is no expectation of real-time guidance and help from crew or other space flight participants. Also known as “The no-flight-attendant assumption.”

22. TAKEAWAYS AST desires feedback on our groundrules and assumptions, and welcomes proposed regulations from industry • AST thinking is to have top-level performance-based regulations with Advisory Circulars for how regulations should be met for different vehicle types • We prefer “occupant” safety rather than “crew” or “spaceflight participant” safety • A public-safety only regime will likely stay in place for test missions – not for comp or hire • AST believes a single set of safety regulations for comp or hire missions may suffice.

23. Possible Forward Discussion Topics • Definitions of various terms such as: • Contingencies vs emergencies • Early flight return • Abort • How human errors should be addressed • “Level of safety” and “level of care” • Need for industry consensus standards • General structure of regs • Public-safety only regime for flight test – any constraints? • Verification • When some potential guidance has been drafted, how should we discuss? By topic? By system? All at once?

24. Questions?