Congress, NASA

Preparing for today’s human spaceflight safety hearing

With all apologies to House Transportation Committee’s hearing on commercial space transportation, arguably the more interesting—or, at least, potentially more contentious—space-related hearing this morning will be two floors up in the Rayburn House Office Building, where the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee will examine the issue of the safety of human spaceflight. The committee has posted the hearing charter, which includes a detailed overview of the hearing topic and issues it plans to cover.

A review of the charter makes it clear that a major emphasis of the hearing will be whether commercial providers can meet NASA’s safety requirements, and even whether it’s in the best interest of such ventures to pursue ISS crew transportation services given their very early stage of development. Some sample issues:

  • What would be the safety implications of terminating the government crew transportation system currently under development in favor of relying on as-yet-to-be-developed commercially provided crew transportation services? What would the government be able to do, if anything, to ensure that no reduction in planned safety levels occurred as a result?
  • What do potential commercial crew transportation services providers consider to be an acceptable safety standard to which potential commercial providers must conform if their space transportation systems were to be chosen by NASA to carry its astronauts to low Earth orbit and the ISS? Would the same safety standard be used for non-NASA commercial human transportation missions?
  • If a policy decision were made to require NASA to rely solely on commercial crew transfer services, which would have to meet NASA’s safety requirements to be considered for use by NASA astronauts, what impact would that have on the ability of emerging space companies to pursue innovation and design improvements made possible [as the industry has argued] by the accumulation of flight experience gained from commencing revenue operations unconstrained by a prior safety certification regime? Would it be in the interest of the emerging commercial orbital crew transportation industry to have to be reliant on the government as its primary/sole customer at this stage in its development?

This debate is also played out in dueling op-eds in this week’s issue of Space News (subscription required). In one, Congressman Ralph Hall, ranking member of the full science committee, warns that commercial crew options can’t be developed in time to fill the gap between shuttle and Ares/Orion. “[I]t is important to note that Congress did not endorse a commercial crew option as an appropriate solution for the United States to meet our responsibilities and commitments to our international partners. A commercial crew capability simply could not be properly evaluated and ready in time to safely fly our astronauts during the gap,” he writes. (A copy of his op-ed is freely available on the committee’s Republican caucus site). “As I said, astronaut safety must be the top priority.”

Patti Grace Smith, former associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the FAA, takes a different view. “Several policymakers seem to make the unwarranted leap of logic that if commercial space travel costs less than a government program, it is inherently less safe,” she writes, adding that during her time at the FAA, “I never had any serious commercial human spaceflight company come to me with plans for a launch vehicle that would be less safe than existing NASA systems, and they had no less commitment to maintaining safety at the highest level.”

The hearing will also take a look at the safety of the currently-planned successor to the shuttle, the Ares 1. There could be some tough questions for that system, though. The Orlando Sentinel noted that the 2005 ESAS study found that there should be at least seven uncrewed flights of the vehicle before it should carry a crewed Orion spacecraft, yet current plans call for only a single unmanned test flight. (Jeff Hanley, Constellation program manager and one of the witnesses at today’s hearing, explained to the Sentinel that “advances in engineering risk assessments” suggest the first crewed Ares 1/Orion flight will have a risk “on par” with the shuttle system today.) And NASA Watch notes that a chart used by another witness, Joseph Fragola, during an Augustine committee public meeting was different from an internal version, which showed that the Ares 1 risk falls short of the target of 1-in-1,000 for loss of crew set by the astronaut office.

So, yes, it should be an interesting hearing this morning. Whether it will change many minds on the issue, though, is another question entirely.

12 comments to Preparing for today’s human spaceflight safety hearing

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Pardon me for repeating myself too often!! Hopefully the Congress will ask questions about the two sides of systems safety. One part is hardware – selecting reliable components, testing, etc. The other side is where NASA in particular has failed – they have discouraged dissenting opinions, focused on launch schedule instead of responsible engineering. Who are the people that have made those mistakes – were they fired? NO. They are the people running the Constellation program. Sadly, we have to note that our two Shuttle losses were due to managers dismissing requests for testing, etc. Isn’t that what Constellation is doing, by reassuring us that supercomputers are making Ares so safe that testing is not needed?
    Let’s face facts that we are in a tough spot – we want to replace a known vehicle with a vehicle in flight test. That requires us to have a responsible approach to flight testing – even if it adds delays.
    Or – we could go with a proven system such as Delta, with decades of flight history. This would give us a reliable booster long before Ares was ready.

  • I find it ironic that Hall is talking about how commercial launchers wouldn’t allow us to fulfill our commitments to international partners (I assume he means ISS), when Ares-I won’t either.

    ~Jon

  • Robert G. Oler

    Aside from the commercial/government run aspect of the something else/Ares debate…what I am struck by is the nonsense of “safety”.

    I am not so sure why we are unwilling to have our “astronauts” face the same odds of survival that a Marine on patrol in Fallujah a few years ago would have faced.

    Particularly since the 14 astronauts NASA has killed so far, have died from sheer negligence of the agency.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “I am not so sure why we are unwilling to have our “astronauts” face the same odds of survival that a Marine on patrol in Fallujah a few years ago would have faced.”

    Agreed. Or worse, as the line of questioning in the hearing charter implies, why would flight safety for NASA astronauts, who are paid by taxpayers to take risks for the public good, be held to a higher standard than flight safety for space tourists and private astronauts taking risks on their own or their organization’s dime? Do NASA astronauts really need to be handled with kid gloves? If I was part of the corps, I would have found parts of this hearing insulting. For that matter, the astronaut corps should be speaking for itself on these matters instead of retirees like Stafford telling Congress what they think the corps should be thinking.

    The witness list for the human spaceflight safety hearing was also very lopsided given the charter and the actual discussion. When the witness list was released, it appeared that most of the hearing was going to revolve around examining the safety credentials of the existing Constellation program. But the charter and discussion revolved around the Ares I versus commercial debate set up by the Augustine committee’s options instead. If the committee staff understood that, then they should have had the COTS program manager (Lindenmoyer) and one or two Space X, ULA, or OSC representatives testify to balance the Constellation program manager (Hanley) and his industry representative (Fragola). Then Alexander would only have had to compete with Marshall from ASAP and Stafford. It’s especially biased to have an individual like Fragola criticize EELVs (or any other solution) and not have a representative from ULA (or whatever organization represents that solution) testify in their defense. It’s also very biased to have an individual like Stafford criticize the Augustine committee’s final report and not have a member of the Augustine Committee present to defend the report.

    I don’t know if the witness list was intentionally so lopsided, but it either speaks to very poor committee staffing or naked parochial bias on the part of the committee’s membership. Either way, democracy was not served. There are kangaroo courts in banana republics that demonstrate less bias in their witness lists.

    That said, it’s hard to get too worked up about this hearing. With no access to the appropriators’ purse strings, the House Science and Technology Committee will have little influence on the outcome. The decision rests with the Obama Administration, budget realities will force the Administration to go one way or the other, and the appropriators will be in no position to reverse or add to the Administration’s decision given the budget situation (and historically they don’t do so, anyway).

    And according to nasaspaceflight.com, the only options that are being put on the table at the White House include commercial crew and exclude Ares I.

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/11/ares-pressing-forward-plans-ares-i-x-prime-flight/

    If true, then the decision has already been made, and this hearing is too little, too late.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    I concur with Major Tom’s post and would add this. Courtesy of NASA Watch this is the “hill” Of logical fallacy that the Ares Huggers have built for themselves.

    Opening Statement By Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords: Hearing on Spaceflight Safety

    “Let me list just a few of the questions that we would like our witnesses to address today. As several of the witnesses at today’s hearing will testify, the Constellation program strove to respond to the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board that “The design of the system [that replaces the Shuttle] should give overriding priority to crew safety…” The result is a system that is calculated to be significantly safer than the Space Shuttle, and 2 to 3 times safer than the alternative approaches considered by NASA. Given that, we hope to hear from our witnesses as to whether they believe that the burden of proof should be put on those who would propose alternatives to the Constellation program to demonstrate that their systems will be at least as safe as Ares/Orion. ”

    I(t is a very deft bit of wordsmithing that indicates the Congresswoman’s bias toward the government run program (I like the word “strove” it indicates almost super human effort…but moving on)

    She admits that Ares safety record is “calculated” ..but then moves on to state that it should be the marker or standard by which all other vehicles should be evaluated by. Implying of course that it is real. In other words she is stating that a safety record and safety number that is at best the product of “number crunching” (and whose number crunching seems to be the topic of some recent backwalking by those who have done the number crunching…see the Orlando Sentinel piece) should be what other vehicles (including some that are flying) should meet.

    What that indicates to me is that either the Congresswoman and her staff are complete idiots as to the meaning of the words “safe” or “safety”…or that they have bought into the NASA (and Ares huggers) line…which is 1) safety is our most important criteria (back to the Marine on patrol in Fallujah a few years back) and 2) somehow a paper study of that safety should be the standard that not only other vehicles should be judged by…BUT

    and this is important…

    is a standard which we should accept defacto in terms of evaluating the Ares system. A standard we should accept with no real proof or no real data behind the numbers.

    It is the ultimate Gilbert and Sullivan theater. “Stay close to your desk and never fly in space, and you will have the safest launch vehicle in the world”.

    I agree with Major Tom that these hearings are a shame and of little real importance.

    But the greater shame is that corporate NASA and its contractors and its flunkies (not to mention the internet Ares Huggers) have either all bought into this safety issue or recognize it is a fracker but that it is the only fracker that they have.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    If safety is so paramount, and given the current state of the economy, why don’t we just utilize the safest rocket option of them all

    Not fly astronauts. Chairwoman, Giffords, I would like to know why? If we are so concerned about providing inspiration, lets put $8 B in the NEA.

  • I don’t know if the witness list was intentionally so lopsided, but it either speaks to very poor committee staffing or naked parochial bias on the part of the committee’s membership.

    Gee. I think I know which way I’d bet…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    If safety is so paramount, and given the current state of the economy, why don’t we just utilize the safest rocket option of them all..

    in my humble opinion safety is not the paramount concern of any of the political people advocating Ares. it is just the only argument that they can latch onto which has any traction in the “world” whatsoever.

    Had Buzz and Neil died on the Moon there would have been reason for a great national time of mourning. Those two (and Collins) were doing things which were the focus of a genuine national.

    Really that cannot be said for either the Columbia or Challenger crew. It remains somewhat infuriating to me, that when Columbia went bang, the Bush administration made the deal it made out of it, while Marines and other members of the armed forces were dying in a true national effort in Iraq and Afland (or in theory a national one).

    What the entire “safety dance” comes down to is that is what supporters of Ares are left with. One cannot argue the cost of the effort (“Ares is the cheapest option available” is a dog that not only wont hunt, it wont stand up) nor will “It will be ready soonest” or anything else.

    What they are left/stuck with is it is “calculated” to be safer. Calculated in many respects by the same dremel tools that were talking up shuttle safety.

    My wife and I love “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister”…one can almost hear Sir Humphrey explaining to the Minister how to argue what they have left…safety.

    good night

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Robert – that wasn’t serious – it was entirely sarcasm

  • NASA Fan

    The committee hearings are a staged event to show voters that the congress people care about jobs in their respective districts. Committee members know they have little influence in the appropriations process or what the White House will some day (some day never comes by the way) put into it’s budget submission to Congress.

    Other agenda’s are at play here.

    Lots of arm waving and hand gestures, nothing more.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris…yeah your sarcasm was good, I just couldnt resist saying what I did…take care

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “why would flight safety for NASA astronauts, who are paid by taxpayers to take risks for the public good, be held to a higher standard than flight safety for space tourists and private astronauts taking risks on their own or their organization’s dime?”

    Well yes and no. I would certainly say that considering the current actual cost of forming an astronaut it makes a lot of sense to ensure the highest safety possible, regardless of the actual value of their hmmm lives. These are not military personel who essentially sign in to die for the country. Astronauts don’t as their mission is not the mission of the DOD. Were they be flying as DOD personel then it’d be different but NASA is a civilian agency, is it not? And beyond that, the current corps of NASA astronaut represent the country. The private astronauts do not. So when the NASA astronauts fail and/or die it means the country failed too. There is an enormous prestige/image issue at play. It cannot and should not be taken lightly. However if and when the private sector becomes fully operational in space then those signing for an assignment for a flight should be held to some standards that need to be defined. In other words having private astronauts will reduce the pressure somehow on safety. I believe the FAA or some similar organization will define the safety standards for future private astronauts, not necessarily NASA. Even though NASA may have their own specific requirements. Finally what is really annoying me is that the mathematical approach to safety involving probability is taking precedence over good engineering judgements in Constellation as was recently reflected by Hanley’s comments (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/12/hanley-changes.html). This is a never ending process as algorithms and computer performance keep changing. And worst of all those techniques use weights to tell what is more important therefore arbitrarily changing the weights will result in totally different biases and outcomes. They should only be tools to make sure the engineering design makes sense, they should not drive the engineering.

    “Do NASA astronauts really need to be handled with kid gloves? If I was part of the corps, I would have found parts of this hearing insulting. For that matter, the astronaut corps should be speaking for itself on these matters instead of retirees like Stafford telling Congress what they think the corps should be thinking.”

    The active corps will most certainly not speak in fear of losing their flight assignment. Would you? I am sure you know what it “takes” to become an astronaut. A few spoke about Shuttle safety in the past but were largely ignored.

    “There are kangaroo courts in banana republics that demonstrate less bias in their witness lists.”

    As I previously said, do you really think that the old status quo will easily go away? “New Space” after being derided for years has become a real threat to “Old Space”. It is unbelievable though that NASA feels somehow treaten too. Even though I can only imagine what it would take NASA to get in a new way to do their work [trying not to say that some NASA people used to find their way into the contractors workforce after some time].

    “And according to nasaspaceflight.com, the only options that are being put on the table at the White House include commercial crew and exclude Ares I.”

    Probably an easier battle for this WH than that for health care or those for both wars. With a little luck…

    Oh well…

Leave a Reply to CharlesTheSpaceGuy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>