Delight Over ISS Extension, Debate Over Regulations Highlight 2014 FAA Commercial Space Conference
The FAA’s annual Commercial Space Transportation conference covered a lot of ground this week (February 5-6, 2014), but two topics were highlights: the Obama Administration’s recent decision to extend operations of the International Space Station (ISS) by four more years and debate about the extent of government regulation of commercial human spaceflight.
Extending ISS to 2024. NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Bill Gerstenmaier opened the conference by noting progress in the commercial crew and cargo programs and how the business environment for those companies has improved with the decision to keep ISS operating through 2024. Gerstenmaier praised that “tremendous decision” by the Obama Administration, announced last month, and the fact that it was made quickly rather than requiring independent reviews or extended debate. Gerstenmaier acknowledged that it may take several years for the other partners in the ISS to decide if they will follow suit, but “I believe they will over time.” (Editor’s Note: As we pointed out in a recent editorial, SpacePolicyOnline.com does not share his enthusiasm for extending the ISS to 2024 without an independent technical review.)
He went on to praise Russia’s “innovative spirit ... that pushes us in the right direction and helps us,” offering space tourism, the just-installed Earthkam, and the Olympic torch relay as examples: “Think Russian, think commercial.”
Not surprisingly, the decision to extend ISS to 2024 was greeted warmly by the commercial crew and commercial cargo companies whose business plans benefit from the decision. Representatives of Boeing, Orbital Sciences, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada participated in a panel discussion later that day along with Phil McAlister, NASA’s Director of Commercial Spaceflight.
McAlister said the decision took him by surprise, but he was delighted because “as of now we’ve never had a better business plan” for commercial crew. Chris Ferguson, director of commercial crew for Boeing, praised the decision, but wondered what the industry will do after 2024. “We really need to maintain this toehold” in low Earth orbit (LEO), he stressed, then asked rhetorically whether ISS will be extended to 2028 or will there be a market for commercial LEO stations. “We have to have a destination in low Earth orbit or we’ll struggle to keep the business model going,” he concluded.
McAlister was asked why ISS was extended only to 2024 instead of 2028 (when the first ISS modules will be 30 years old, a timeframe NASA has been discussing for quite some time), but said he had no insight into that decision.
Regulating Commercial Human Spaceflight. Another panel debated the regulatory environment for commercial human spaceflight. Moderated by Wayne Hale, it had an interesting group of participants– a former astronaut, Ken Reightler; an economist with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Ken Heyer; a Boeing lawyer, Russ McMurry; and a commercial space industry political insider, Jim Muncy. Collectively they offered a range of views on the issues of informed consent and the role, if any, for government regulation beyond what is already provided by the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments (CSLAA). Muncy was substituting for XCOR's Jeff Greason. All were speaking in their personal capacities.
The primary areas of contention were the need for government regulation versus voluntary industry standards and how to ensure spaceflight participants (passengers) really do have informed consent when deciding whether or not to step aboard an orbital or suborbital commercial human spaceflight vehicle.
Under the informed consent provisions of CSLAA, companies must explain the risks and provide information on their vehicle’s safety record. Prospective passengers then make their own decisions on whether to board the flight. CSLAA prohibits the FAA from adding more regulations for a fixed period of time except under certain conditions (like a fatal accident) and one of the debates is over whether this “moratorium” or “learning period” should be extended beyond its current expiration date of September 30, 2015.
Generally, Reightler and McMurry argued in favor of some level of government regulation, while Heyer and Muncy questioned the need for anything beyond current law.
Heyer, the economist, focused on whether or not there is a market failure that makes it essential for the government to step in. He does not see one now. McMurry took the position that the government is the repository of lessons learned from 50 years of human spaceflight and “the more we push government away” the more “we fail to avail ourselves of some valuable lessons learned.” Muncy agreed that it would be “insane” to not take advantage of government help in developing space systems that are as safe as possible, but “there are a thousand ways” to do that “other than writing regulations.”
McMurry disagreed, worrying that companies who chafe at oversight by a government that has 50 years of experience in human spaceflight are exactly the ones that will “ruin the industry by creating a death that is avoidable” because they will adhere only to minimum safety standards. Reightler agreed with McMurry, cautioning that a spaceflight accident will get more public attention than a train wreck, for example.
McMurry went further, arguing that industry self-regulation lends itself to manipulation of the rules in order to turn situations to a competitive advantage. He likened it to the difference between a pick-up sports game versus a game with a referee: “If you really want fairness and ... equality, you need regulations. To what extent? Up for debate. But we need a referee.” Heyer argued that in most industries consumers are the referees. If they do not approve of a company, they take their business elsewhere. He wondered why it would be different in this case.
At the end, the panelists were asked if they, personally, would fly on one of the commercial vehicles, which elicited some of the more entertaining answers of the day. Reightler – who flew on two space shuttle missions – offered what he said was a good engineer’s answer: “it depends.” In this case, it would depend on the details, into which he would dive deeply. Heyer asked “will it cost money?” evoking jokes that that was a good economist’s answer. He added, however, “even if it was perfectly safe I still might not do it.” More broadly, he said the question is whether the average person will fly. He thinks the initial market will be wealthy thrill-seekers and scientists who have experiments to conduct, not the average person. McMurry displayed company loyalty: “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going.” Muncy said he would be delighted to go, “but I’m not paying for the ticket.”
Other Notable Notes from the Conference
SpacePolicyOnline.com has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate. We do not post comments that include links to other websites since we have no control over that content nor can we verify the security of such links.