Abstract
Abstract
Safety oversight of commercial space transportation by the government can come in two forms: a certification regime or a licensing regime. Certification addresses design characteristics of a vehicle and is common in aviation. It is typically based on decades of extensive flight experience and data. While aviation certification can be expensive, there is a large and mature market to offset initial investment. However, certification may not be the best approach for a new industry such as commercial human spaceflight. Although there is a history of government funded orbital spaceflight, most commercial companies do not have the same resources as government programs. In addition, new suborbital vehicles have less in common with historical government suborbital test aircraft, and to date only a few commercial flights have been carried out. The market for carrying people into space shows great potential but is unproven for both commercial orbital and suborbital vehicles. In 1984, the Department of Transportation (DOT), as the regulator of U.S. commercial space transportation, established a regime to license the safety of launch events instead of certifying launch vehicles. The Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has this authority within DOT today. Instead of imposing a prescriptive and limited set of design criteria, AST has performance-based requirements to ensure safe operations. Thus far, results indicate greater innovation by industry at a much lower cost, along with the ability to test designs and methods before entering the market. This article will examine some of the key differences between certification and licensing in commercial space transportation and evaluate the U.S. approach to growing a new industry while maintaining safety. The article may be useful to countries that are considering safety oversight for the development of new spaceports and vehicles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.