Space X 2nd stage recovery

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2018
02:00:28 -0400:

On 2018-04-29 20:51, Fred J. McCall wrote:

No, things don't change. NASA owns a bunch of 'commercial' aircraft.
Do you seriously believe they just ignore the existence of an FAA type
certification and use their own airworthiness rules?



I'm going to save time and space and merely say that droning on about
aircraft certification and the fact that there are always new things
to learn even on certificated aircraft is irrelevant and just snip all
the spew about airplanes. Bottom line, NASA does *NOT* have its own
rules for aircraft that it uses, so why should they do that for
spacecraft?


https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets...m?newsId=19074
This fact sheet seems to imply FAA only cares about launch and re-entry.

Since since until now, all FAA approved launches/launchers were
commercial cargo launches, does it have what it takes to certifiy manned
flight? (aka: man rate a rocket).


And of course you think they don't and won't, but then you're
frequently a bit of a nitwit.


http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?p...edition=prelim

§50905. License applications and requirements

(a)(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish
procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, reentry vehicles,
safety systems, processes, services, or personnel (including approval
procedures for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of crew,
government astronauts, and space flight participants, to the extent
permitted by subsections (b) and (c)) that may be used in conducting
licensed commercial space launch or reentry activities.


Pay attention to this next bit.


(b) (2) The Secretary may prescribe—
(D) additional license requirements, for a launch vehicle carrying a
human being for compensation or hire, necessary to protect the health
and safety of crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants,
only if such requirements are imposed pursuant to final regulations
issued in accordance with subsection (c); and


So while the FAA has the ability to regulate manned spaceflight, it
isn't clear that at this point in time, they have developped the
regulatiosn for commercial manned flights other than what it has for
commercial cargo (namely to ensure the safety of people/infrastructure
on the ground).


Why would they develop such things before they had to?


If NASA dictated man rating requirements as part of its contracts for
Dragon and Starliner, would FAA just need these 2 to pass regular cargo
requirements because FAA doesn't yet have its own rules& for manned
space flight?


Until such time as one of them is being used for commercial operations
the question is irrelevant. Once one of them is wanted for use in a
purely commercial operation, I suspect FAA is going to have to develop
something, since NASA has neither the authority to 'approve' manned
spacecraft for purely commercial use nor the desire to have the legal
responsibility if they use their own rules and they don't cover
something.


So when the time comes for FAA to develop the supplemental regulations
to upgrtade from cargo to manned launches/re-entry, how will it proceed?


I suspect it will look a lot like aircraft certification, given that
FAA tends to be pretty conservative about such things. If they take a
long time to figure it out, FAA could be a significant barrier to
commercial business (see the case of certification of the Raytheon
Starship business aircraft, for example).


-just copy he NASA "man rating" regulation ?


No.


-or develop regulations as needs arise, as happened with the A320.


That's not what happened.


Or would this be an FCC like process where FAA might propose adoption of
the NASA man-rating rules, and lobbyists from Boeing and SpaceX and
others would work hard to remove the more onerous requirements?


No.


Considering BFS is being designed right now, shouldn't SpaceX get some
sort of clarity of what rules will be applied to its ship?


Not an issue until they start selling tickets.


BFS accident with 100 passengers aboard with no means to survive/escape
would be akin to Titanic. And people would ask FAA why it didn't require
BFS habve enough lifeboats aboard etc etc.


How many 'lifeboats' does the typical airliner carry? Why would the
question even arise, given that it has never come up with regard to
aircraft carrying hundreds of people crashing?




But how will NASA certify manned commercial operations? Won't it use
NASA standards or develop their own?


If the vehicle they're using has an FAA certification, why would they?
The only conceivable reason would be because they're trying to block
the use of the vehicle because they have their own agenda and their
own vehicle.


The other aspect is that NASA will have its standards still apply
becauyse of a ship docking/berthing to its property (space station) and
launching from its property (KSC). (for insance, requiring commefcial
operator cede authority to military who gets the right to press the red
button to detonate the rocket).


Totally different issues than NASA 'man rating'.



Just a bit more on this idea. NASA doesn't have its rules apply to
Russian spacecraft which are not only docking to NASA property (sort
of), but are carrying NASA astronauts.

As for things like Range Safety, commercial aircraft are required
during operation to obey all sorts of rules. None of those rules are
part of type certification.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw