Washington, D.C. \u2013 The Commercial Spaceflight Federation released the following statement on the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel\u2019s 2009 annual report:<\/p>\n
While the Commercial Spaceflight Federation agrees with the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) on its recognition of the importance of commercial spaceflight both for cargo and crew missions, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with certain other conclusions and finds some of the assertions in the ASAP\u2019s Annual Report to be incorrect.<\/p>\n
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation commends the ASAP on their finding in the ASAP 2009 Annual Report that commercial spaceflight \u201cis emerging as one of the critical programs for NASA\u201d<\/strong> and that \u201cif there is a widening gap, COTS could play a key role and could be a critical program for flight safety of the astronauts.\u201d<\/p>\n The Commercial Spaceflight Federation agrees with the ASAP that NASA must \u201cquickly establish fundamental safety requirements for\u2026programs that may in the future be used to get NASA\u2019s astronauts to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)\u201d<\/strong> and agrees with the ASAP\u2019s direction to NASA that \u201cconsiderable work must be done,\u201d and that NASA should \u201caccelerate the level of effort underway.\u201d To aid this process, the commercial space industry stands ready to begin working now with NASA to agree on a commercial human-rating plan, including the appropriate standards, requirements for vehicles to meet those standards, and the mechanism by which compliance with those standards will be validated, and industry has established a Commercial Orbital Spaceflight Safety Working Group to engage with NASA and FAA.<\/p>\n Since the ASAP correctly points out that NASA has not yet developed standards and processes for human-rating commercial vehicles, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with ASAP\u2019s implication that safety will be compromised because \u201cno COTS manufacturer is currently HRR qualified,\u201d because, quite simply, it is impossible for companies to meet standards that do not currently exist.<\/strong> Until such time as commercial human-rating standards are determined, industry continues to develop vehicle hardware based on the only standards available: those NASA established for its own vehicles, known as NPR 8705.2B. As no commercial provider has yet been tasked by NASA to begin working through a NASA human-rating process, for the ASAP to state that \u201cno COTS manufacturer is currently HRR qualified\u201d is akin to saying that someone didn’t pass his driver’s test when he’s still waiting in line at the DMV and hasn’t even been given the exam yet.<\/p>\n The ASAP\u2019s repeated references to the two \u201cCOTS firms\u201d ignores the fact that many companies, including both established firms and new entrants, will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee.<\/strong> While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard, several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.<\/p>\n Despite the ASAP Report\u2019s contention that commercial vehicles are \u201cnothing more than unsubstantiated claims,\u201d the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long, proven track record.<\/strong> The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and dozens of flights of the Atlas, Taurus, and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.<\/p>\n Further, thirteen former NASA astronauts, who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely: In contrast, ASAP describes the Ares I as \u201cdemonstrated\u201d despite the fact the Augustine Committee determined the Ares I vehicle will likely not fly until 2017, and the ASAP ignores the fact that NASA is planning to place astronauts on the second orbital flight of the Ares I system. As Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley recently stated, placing astronauts on these early Ares I flights poses a safety risk equal to or worse than that of the current Space Shuttle: The Commercial Spaceflight Federation disagrees with the ASAP\u2019s characterization of a Commercial Crew Program as an \u201calternative\u201d to Ares I, because these two systems fulfill very different missions \u2013 Commercial Crew is not an alternative to systems designed to travel beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).<\/strong> Commercial Crew is akin to developing a Gemini spacecraft for low Earth orbit, rather than an Apollo spacecraft for reaching the Moon. The Orion exploration vehicle, for example, must reenter the atmosphere at one-and-a-half times orbital velocity, encountering nearly double the heat loads that a LEO-only\u00a0spacecraft would encounter. Because it serves a simpler mission, any vehicle that is designed simply to service the Space Station and other LEO destinations will be more cost-effective without sacrificing safety.<\/p>\n The ASAP mischaracterized how safety was treated by The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (also known as the \u201cAugustine Committee\u201d).<\/strong> The ASAP\u2019s 2009 Annual Report perpetuates the unfortunate misconception that Augustine Committee inappropriately assumed safety to be a \u201cgiven\u201d (here the ASAP appears to be misquoting the Augustine Committee\u2019s statement that safety was treated as \u201csine qua non\u201d \u2013 in fact, \u201csine qua non\u201d is universally defined as \u201csomething absolutely indispensable or essential\u201d).\u00a0 As Norm Augustine stated in a Congressional hearing, safety was \u201cthe number one issue for us [the Committee] to consider.\u201d\u00a0 The Augustine Committee, whose 10 members have cumulatively amassed 293 years of space industry experience, spent an extensive amount of time on safety issues and determined that \u201cthe Committee\u2026 would not suggest that a commercial service be provided for transportation of NASA crew if NASA could not be convinced that it was substantially safe.\u201d In contrast, the ASAP stated it has \u201cnot yet had the opportunity to evaluate any of these [commercial] concepts with regard to inherent safety issues.<\/p>\n About the Commercial Spaceflight Federation<\/strong> Washington, D.C. \u2013 The Commercial Spaceflight Federation released the following statement on the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel\u2019s 2009 annual report: While the Commercial Spaceflight Federation agrees with the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) on its recognition of the importance of … Continue reading
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cWe are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle. Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans. These vehicles are already set to fly over 40 flights to orbit in the next four years.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cWhat at least some of our work suggests is that, yes, on the second launch the LOC [loss of crew] risk may be roughly on par with today\u2019s mature shuttle risk. Other assessments are less rosy (a little riskier than a shuttle launch).\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThe mission of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) is to promote the development of commercial human spaceflight, pursue ever higher levels of safety, and share best practices and expertise throughout the industry. CSF member organizations include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, and spaceports. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation is governed by a board of directors, composed of the member companies\u2019 CEO-level officers and entrepreneurs. For more information please visit http:\/\/www.commercialspaceflight.org<\/a> or contact Executive Director John Gedmark at john@commercialspaceflight.org<\/a> or at 202.349.1121.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"