Proposal: International Human Rating Standard

[Matthew Raymond]

   The general idea is to have an international standard for manned lift vehicles, so that anywhere in the world you can say your rocket is human-rated to a certain level and everyone would know what you're talking about. My initial thought are to have a tiered system where each tier is a progressive increase in safety:

HR0 - Requires the maximum level of waivers from a government to launch with humans aboard. This would include legacy systems that do not meet minimum safety standards (such as the shuttle) and also vehicles that are essentially "not human rated".

HR1 - This would signify a rocket which has met minimum human rating requirements for a non-commercial crew and is ready for its first launch. Predicted safety would be at least 1:1,000 chance of Lost of Crew. Commercial rockets could get waivers from their respective governments to perform necessary test flights to qualify for higher tiers.

HR2 - This would signify a rocket which has met minimum human rating requirements, has undergone manned flight testing, and is certified for non-commercial human space flight. In addition to HR1 qualifications, the rocket must have completed all necessary test flights. Commercial rockets could get waivers from their respective governments to perform necessary test flights to qualify for higher tiers.

HR3 - This tier is for commercial passengers that have signed wavers. Predicted safety would be at least 1:10,000 chance of Lost of Crew. In addition to HR2 qualifications, the rocket must have completed a specific number of manned test flights in its final commercial configuration (say a minimum of 10 for the sake of argument).

HR4 - This would be equivalent to the same level of safety as flying in a commercial airplane. In addition to all qualifications for HR3, at least 100 consecutive successful flights with no loss of crew will be required.

   Well, that my initial starting point. Not sure what specific systems should be required for each tier, so I'll leave that open for discussion. Any thoughts on this idea?

[Jim]

waivers from what requirements.
what are minimum safety standards?
Define "necessary" test flights.
1:1,000 chance of Lost of Crew is not viable for any current vehicle.
min

minimum safety standards AND 1:1,000 chance of Lost of Crew are mutually exclusive.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I suppose that such a thing could become a voluntary industry standard as exists in some other industries.  However, enforcement would neither be easy nor legally clear-cut.  Then, as Jim points out, you would have all the compromise and horse-trading on what these standards are.  Not eveyone can afford to spend $30B to $40B on a LEO crew taxi, you know.  Now I mention it, not even NASA can afford that as Norm and his merry crew have found out.

Seriously, I'm thinking it would need an amendment to the Federal Aviation Act to allow the FAA to enforce it and maybe even an amendment to the Outer Space Treaty to give it international force.

[kneecaps]

I think the general concept of a standardized rating makes sense, what always concerns me with such things is that it can lead to complacency...

"Yeah..no need to think about problem X...our rocket is H4 rated" (with dismissive wave of the hand). It's can  a way of trivializing/sugar coating risk .

[Lars_J]

The industry is waaaaay to early in its infancy to impose such standards, IMO.

If the companies and the people being launched into space are happy with accepting the risks - why should we stop them?

Eventually the market will reach a point where such a thing will be necessary. But not yet.

The aviation industry flew essentially unregulated for decades. (until the "Air Commerce Act" of 1926) Yes it was risky. Yes people died. But those were risks that people took.

[SpacexULA]

   The general idea is to have an international standard for manned lift vehicles, so that anywhere in the world you can say your rocket is human-rated to a certain level and everyone would know what you're talking about. My initial thought are to have a tiered system where each tier is a progressive increase in safety:

It's a good idea, but considering almost all space launchers are "national prestige" issues, the values are always up for political manipulation.

The debate over the relative safety ratings of Ares-1, J-130, D-IV, Atlas, Taurus 2, and Falcon 9 are passionate enough.  How passionate would the debate be if Ariane 5, H-IIB, Long March 2F, and Soyuz, plus all the American possible man launchers where put on an absolute scale of safety?

It just isn't going to happen.