Guide to the Identification of

Safety-Critical Hardware Items for Reusable 

Launch Vehicle (RLV) Developers

(1 May 2005)

Prepared by

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Abstract

This document provides guidelines for the identification of potentially safety-critical hardware items in RLV 

designs. Possible risk-mitigating design strategies that may be incorporated into designs are also 

included. Such risk reduction measures may be necessary if vehicle operation poses risk to the 

uninvolved public beyond established thresholds of acceptability.
2

Published by

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191

Copyright © 2005 American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics 

All rights reserved. 

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval 

system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America. 
3

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................. v

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Interpretation of Safety-critical ............................................................................................................................... 1

3 Hazard Contributors ............................................................................................................................................... 2

4 A Three-Pronged Approach to Assessing Public Safety ...................................................................................... 4

5 Depth of Analysis Necessary to Identify Safety-Critical Items .............................................................................. 5

5.1 Risk Assessment Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 6

5.2 Depth of Analysis Examples .................................................................................................................................. 8

5.2.1 Sub-orbital Launch In Which the Dispersed IIP Does Not Intersect A Populated Area ...................................... 8

5.2.2 Sub-orbital Launch in Which the IIP Intersects a Small Number of Populated Areas ....................................... 11

5.2.3 Sub-Orbital Launch In Which the IIP Intersects a Large Number of Populated Areas ..................................... 13

5.3 Depth of Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................................. 14

6 Risk Assessment Methodologies ......................................................................................................................... 15

6.1 Methodologies ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 Appropriateness of Various Methodologies ........................................................................................................ 15

7 Guidelines for Identifying Potentially Safety-Critical RLV Items ......................................................................... 16

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

7.2 Safety-Criticality Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 16

7.3 Safety-criticality Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 17

7.3.1 STEP 1: List RLV Subsystems and Operations ................................................................................................. 19

7.3.2 STEP 2: List Subsystem Components ............................................................................................................... 19

7.3.3 STEP 3: Identify Failure Hazard Conditions ....................................................................................................... 21

7.3.4 STEP 4: Potentially Safety-Critical Items ........................................................................................................... 21

7.3.5 STEP 5(a and b): Preliminary Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction Measures ............................................. 21

7.3.6 STEP 6: Item-Level Risk Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 22

7.3.7 STEP 7: List of Developers’ Safety-Critical Items ............................................................................................... 22

7.4 Potential Safety-Critical Hardware Items ............................................................................................................. 22

Annex A X-33 Preliminary Casualty Expectation Analysis ................................................................................................ 51

Figures

Figure 1 – Hazard Contributors............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2 — Three Pronged Approach to System Safety ..................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3 — Casualty area for vertically-falling debris (ref. FAA AC 431.35-1) ................................................................... 7
4

Figure 4 — Nominal Flight Path and IIP Trace Superimposed on a Map of Census Blocks ............................................. 9

Figure 5 — Flight Path and IIP Trace With Dispersion ...................................................................................................... 10

Figure 6 – Flowchart of Safety-Criticality Assessment Methodology ................................................................................ 18

Tables

Table 1 — Examples of Hazard Contributors, Potential Countermeasures, and Cause Categories ................................ 3

Table 2 — Simplified Expected Casualty Analysis for Overflight of a Lightly Populated Area ......................................... 12

Table 3 — Potential Safety-Critical Hardware Items ......................................................................................................... 25
5

Foreword

Numerous Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) systems are currently under development and testing to serve 

a variety of markets, from sub-orbital personal spaceflight to remote sensing applications. As one part of

its mission, the Federal Aviation Administration’s Associate Administrator for Commercial Space 

Transportation (FAA/AST) has been tasked with protecting the uninvolved public from the risk inherent in

commercial space launch. The second part of AST’s mission involves “encouraging, facilitating, and

promoting U.S. commercial space transportation.” This project represents an attempt by AST to

simultaneously protect public safety and promote the developing RLV industry.

With the support and participation of FAA/AST, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(AIAA) formed an industry working group tasked with identifying reusable launch vehicle (RLV) potentially 

safety-critical systems in August 2003. This Guide is a result of that activity.

Developed through close cooperation between FAA/AST and commercial RLV developers, this document 

represents a systematic approach to identifying potentially safety-critical items on a vehicle. Possible risk 

mitigation strategies are currently listed for many of the items identified. It is intended that this list will be

expanded in future editions of the document. As more experience is gained in the design and

development of reusable launch vehicle systems, this Guide will be updated to reflect increased 

knowledge and changes in the state of the art.

The following individuals and their organizations were instrumental in the development of this Guide: 

Paul Birkeland Kistler Aerospace

Lyndon Bonaparte FAA/AST-300 (Systems Engineering and Training) 

Randall Clague XCOR Aerospace

Ralph Ewig Andrews Space, Inc.

Terry Hardy FAA/AST-300 (Systems Engineering and Training)

Sri Iyengar Lockheed Martin Corporation

Derek Lang, Pat Bahn TGV Rockets

Richard Lee AIAA Consultant

Dan Murray FAA/AST-300 (Systems Engineering and Training)

Bob Peercy The Boeing Company

Lorie Scheufule Northrop Grumman Corporation

Yvonne Tran FAA/AST-300 (Systems Engineering and Training)

This document represents a consensus of the RLV community represented above and was developed 

under the administration of AIAA. While this document is not an AIAA Standard, the process followed in

the development of this Guide was in accordance with AIAA’s Standards Program Procedures which have 

been accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Comments on the content of the document and suggested changes may be directed to Craig Day, AIAA 

Standards Program Manager, at craigd@aiaa.org.

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

This document provides guidelines for the identification of potentially safety-critical hardware items in RLV 

designs. Possible risk-mitigating design strategies that may be incorporated into designs are also 

included. Such risk reduction measures may be necessary if vehicle operation poses risk to the 

uninvolved public beyond established thresholds of acceptability.

The sole purposes of this document are to:

 assist developers by illustrating a systematic approach to identifying and mitigating the risk 

associated with safety-critical items;

 identify relevant and more in-depth documentation; and

 enhance understanding and communication.

It is expected that this document will be used by RLV developers in the design process to initiate the 

identification of potentially safety-critical items early in the development cycle. With this knowledge in

mind, sufficient actions can be taken early in a program to bring the risk to the uninvolved public 

associated with a safety-critical item to an acceptable level.

1.2 Scope

The first iteration of this guide is limited in scope to cover only on-board RLV safety-critical hardware 

items. It is intended that future editions be expanded to cover other aspects of RLV design and 

operations (i.e., ground hardware, software, etc.).

2 Interpretation of Safety-critical

The Commercial Space Transportation RLV and Reentry Licensing Regulations, 14 CFR 401.5, provides

the following definition of safety-critical. 

“Safety-critical means essential to safe performance or operation. A safety-critical system subsystem, 

condition, event, operation, process or item is one whose proper recognition, control, performance, or

tolerance is essential to system operation such that it does not jeopardize public safety.”

For the purpose of this document, a definition derived from MIL-STD-882D and 14 CFR 401.5 was utilized 

to interpret “safety-critical” in the following ways:

A “potentially safety-critical” item is one, the failure of whose proper recognition, control, performance or

tolerance could credibly pose a hazard to the uninvolved public.

A “developer’s safety-critical” item is one the failure, as shown by analysis, of whose proper recognition, 

control, performance or tolerance does pose an unacceptable level of risk to the uninvolved public.

The differences in these terms are subtle, yet important. The 14 CFR 401.5 definition is intentionally 

broad to allow federal regulators necessary leeway in determining what is safety-critical on a given 

vehicle. For a new developer, it is important to realize that this does not mean that everything in a design 

is necessarily safety-critical. Rather, it is necessary to work through a systematic process to ensure that 

all items that could pose a threat to the uninvolved public are addressed in an appropriate manner.

The two interpretations, “potentially safety-critical” and “developer’s safety-critical” are terms that are used 

in the process described in Section 7. “Potentially safety-critical” items are those that a developer has

identified through a screening process using the guidelines and criteria outlined in this document. Using 

this list of potentially safety-critical items as a baseline, the developer applies quantitative and/or 

qualitative risk assessment techniques to evolve the list of safety-critical items specific to his vehicle.
2

The use of the process outlined in Section 7 should yield a list of items that meet the definition contained 

in the regulation.

3 Hazard Contributors

There are seven hazard contributors that add to the overall risk a system can pose to the uninvolved 

public. These hazard contributors are represented in Figure 1.

Software Error Procedures

Hardware Failures

Secondary

Failures/Conditions 

Operations Induced

Environmental

Human Error/Limitations 

Figure 1 – Hazard Contributors

These seven hazard contributors can be generally categorized into the following higher level cause 

categories:

 Safety-critical hardware 

 Safety-critical software functions

 Safety-critical procedures 

Secondary failures/conditions can also occur as a result of problems with primary hardware, software or

procedures.

The following table illustrates examples, for each hazard contributor, of a specific hazard, potential risk 

reduction measures for that hazard, and which higher level cause category that hazard falls into. Every 

hazard contributor can have hazards belonging to any cause category, but each specific hazard will 

belong to only one cause category.
3

Table 1 — Examples of Hazard Contributors, Potential Countermeasures, and Cause Categories

Contributor Example(s) Potential

Countermeasures

Cause Category

Human Error/

Limitations

A. Accidental

activation of a

cockpit switch

1. Hooded switch cover

2. Mount switch recessed

within panel

3. Pull circuit breaker (CB)

until function is needed

Hardware

ProceduralProblem A. Incompatibilities

or errors within

Launch Commit

Criteria (LCC),

Flight Rules, etc.

1. Check hazard controls

against procedures

2. Rigorous evaluation of

each change to

preclude “control

erosion”

Procedures

HardwareFailure A. Tank or fluid line

rupture

B. Loss of power bus

1. Apply rigorous safety

factors

2. Multiple and/or

redundant sources of

power

Hardware

Secondary

Failure/Condition

A. Loss of

communication

during an

emergency

1. Alternate modes for

each critical function

2. Ground intervention for

emergencies

Hardware

Environmental A. Crosswinds at

landing site

B. Lightning near

launch site

1. Put constraints on

crosswinds in Launch

Commit Criteria (LCC)

2. Put constraints on

lightning in LCC

Procedures

SoftwareError(s) A. Data Corruption

in Storage or

Transfer

B. Algorithmic Error

1. Error Correction Codes

in Data Storage Units

andCommunication

Systems

2. Software Development

Review / Validation /

TestProcedures

Software

Operations Induced A. ”Go Fever”

B. Schedule

pressure

1. Fully understand and

document risk

2. Minimize exposures of

this nature

Procedures

An RLV developer should consider all of these hazard areas, to ensure a comprehensive safety

assessment of the vehicle and its mission. Each of these cause categories involving the RLV hardware,

software and procedures can contribute to hazards that may result in injury to, or loss among, the

uninvolved public.
4

This first iteration of these guidelines is limited in scope to cover only on-board RLV safety-critical 

hardware systems as hazard contributors. It is intended that future editions of this Guide will be

expanded to cover the other hazard contributors.

4 A Three-Pronged Approach to Assessing Public Safety

The following approach to assessing system safety is based on proven aerospace industry practice and

has been adapted by the FAA/AST for use in licensing commercially launched RLVs. The methodology 

has proven effective at assuring system safety and, as a result, the safety of the uninvolved public. It is

recommended that vehicle developers utilize this approach in their vehicle development program. Figure 

2 provides a graphical overview of the process.

Launch E + Reentry E = Mission E < 30 x 10-6

RLV Public Safety 

USE OF A SYSTEMATIC, LOGICAL,

DISCIPLINED 

SYSTEM SAFETY PROCESS 

EXPECTED CASUALTY

ANALYSIS 

PRUDENT

OPERATIONAL CONTROLS 

AND

Figure 2 — Three Pronged Approach to System Safety

The three prongs are inter-related throughout the system’s development and operation. In particular, a 

preliminary Expected Casualty analysis will provide an idea of the depth of safety analysis required as

part of the System Safety Process, as well as the extent of the Prudent Operational Controls. Section 5.3 

presents three examples of different levels of risk and, consequently, levels of analysis for the 

identification of safety-critical items.

A systematic, logical, disciplined System Safety Process generally consists of analyses and procedures 

undertaken as part of the design and development effort to ensure system safety. This document is

intended to support this aspect of a developer’s effort. Such effort may include:

 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

 Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

 Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)

 Sneak Circuit Analysis

 Event Tree Analysis

 Failure Reporting, And Corrective Action System (FRACAS)

 Reliability testing

 Verification and Validation (V&V) testing
5

Prudent Operational Controls may consist of:

 Allowable weather conditions for operations

 Launch area security requirements

 Launch crew training and certification requirements

 Clearly articulated lines of communications and responsibilities

 Launch commit criteria

 “No Fly” zones

 Abort lines

5 Depth of Analysis Necessary to Identify Safety-Critical Items

The process and procedure for identifying safety-critical items outlined in Sections 6 and 7 below are 

intended to assist new developers throughout their vehicle design and development. This section 

represents a preliminary characterization of the level of effort that a developer may need to expend in

order to identify their safety-critical systems by outlining three real-world vehicle examples of the process. 

The first two examples outline systems that lent themselves to a simplified analysis for identification of

safety-critical items. The third example is one of a vehicle that requires extensive analysis to identify the 

safety-critical items.

Many factors such as the size of the vehicle, the history and heritage of vehicle systems, the flight profile, 

the launch site location, and the developer’s business plan’s risk tolerance must be considered. Industry 

experience demonstrates that early assessment of required safety analyses is greatly beneficial to a 

vehicle developers’ long-term design strategy. Should a developer wish to consult a regulatory body for 

approval to fly a commercial spacecraft in, or around, the vicinity of the uninvolved public, early 

identification of safety analyses, and the depth of those analyses, necessary to gain approval will allow for 

sound financial and resource planning.

The depth of analysis that a developer should undertake for safety purposes requires some amount of

subjective judgment. Unlike regulations governing other aerospace-related endeavors, the current 

regulatory regime governing commercial space launch and reentry vehicles is intentionally broad and 

flexible. While this fact affords new vehicle developers the ability to work together with regulators, 

traditional aerospace organizations may find the lack of prescriptive regulatory requirements confusing. 

This section is an attempt to indicate by illustrative example how the developer might determine a 

sufficient depth of safety analysis early in his design process.

Many factors affect the degree of risk that a flight operation poses to the uninvolved public. However, the 

choice of launch site, the system’s operational scenario and vehicle configurations are fundamental 

drivers in all flight operations. The launch site is critical because the site’s proximity to populated areas 

strongly affects the level of risk posed. The operational scenario is critical because it determines how

close the vehicle approaches that population and how long the hazard persists and, consequently, the 

level of risk. While the following examples may not apply to the developer’s specific vehicle configuration, 

the three separate examples will explore the effect of these risk drivers on the depth of analysis 

necessary.
6

5.1 Risk Assessment Definitions

Expected Casualty Analysis

The launch industry’s fundamental method for assessing risk is called the Expected Casualty Analysis, or

the Ec (E-sub-c) Analysis. This methodology was developed in the early days of launch system design to

determine, through a set of conservative probabilistic models, the possibility of a given flight operation

causing a casualty among the uninvolved public on the ground. Accepted industry practice allows no

greater than 30 x 10-6 (30-in-a-million) probability of casualty among the uninvolved public on the ground.

Assumptions made in an Ec analysis could result in an oversimplification of the risk assessment, such

oversimplification could make the risk assessment less conservative. To account for this, it is important

that any assumptions made and their resultant effects on the overall risk be clearly documented in the

analysis.

The reader should refer to FAA Advisory Circular 431.35-1, Expected Casualty Calculations for

Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Missions, for a complete presentation of the Expected Casualty

analysis.

Instantaneous Impact Point (IIP)

While risk assessment discussions often refer to the “overflight of populated areas,” the physical location

of the vehicle actually has less effect on the risk to the uninvolved public than the Instantaneous Impact

Point.

The Instantaneous Impact Point (IIP) is the location on the earth’s surface where the vehicle would impact

if it were to stop thrusting at any given moment. The IIP is used in recognition of the fact that in the event

of catastrophic failure, the vehicle is unlikely to impact at the point directly below where the failure

occurred. Its energy will carry it away from that point.

In the case of a sub-orbital flight profile, the IIP will move away from the sub-vehicle point due to nominal

thrust vectoring in the mission profile, atmospheric disturbances, and performance variations. The extent

to which the IIP moves is dependent upon the vehicle’s flight profile. Just before landing, of course, the IIP

is once again directly beneath the vehicle.

In the case of an exo-atmospheric sub-orbital vehicle, the IIP will loiter in a Reentry Impact Zone (RIZ)

during the ballistic portions of the vehicle flight above the atmosphere. During this period, the IIP will

move very slowly or not at all. In the interest of public safety, the vehicle operator should operate the

vehicle so as not to place the RIZ in a densely populated area.

In the case of an orbital flight profile, the IIP will move downrange ahead of the vehicle due to the

vehicle’s pitching over to build up lateral velocity to enter orbit. The IIP, which is a mathematical abstract,

accelerates ahead of the vehicle and completes one circumnavigation of the earth before the vehicle

becomes orbital. (Once a vehicle is orbital, by definition it has no IIP.)

When an orbital RLV is decelerating to return to the earth, its IIP races back toward the vehicle, gradually

slowing and coming to rest at the landing site.

In practice, the IIP must be treated as a point with some degree of dispersions around it. Launch day

winds, for example, will cause pieces of debris to move off the computed IIP by an uncertain amount.

These dispersions are usually accounted for by extending the boundaries of any populated area outward,

or by circumscribing a dispersion ellipse about the IIP itself. This provides margins for the unavoidable

uncertainties inherent in this kind of analysis.

In any event, characterization of the IIP is critical to any flight risk assessment, and control of the location

of the IIP is critical to operational flight safety.
7

IIP Trace

A plot of sequential IIPs as they move over time may be superimposed on a map of the launch area. Such

a plot is called an IIP Trace.

Dwell Time

It takes a finite amount of time for the IIP trace to cross any given area on the earth’s surface. The amount

of time it takes to cross a given area of interest is known as the Dwell Time.

Population Density

The population density is the population of a given census block divided by the area of that block. The

United States Census Bureau provides data (population, land area, and water area) for calculating

population densities for each census block throughout the United States.

NOTE The U.S. Census Bureau does not generally calculate population densities.

Casualty Area

The casualty area of a given piece of debris is generally assumed to be the sum of the maximum possible

area presented by the piece of debris and the area presented by the individual at risk. All other conditions

being equal, the larger the casualty area, the greater the risk. In the simplest cases, these values may be

assumed in some logical fashion. In more complex cases, there are several probabilistic models that will

estimate these values. In either case, it is important to document assumptions and/or the models utilized

for future reference. Figure 3 below (taken from FAA AC 431.3-1) is a graphical representation of the

casualty area calculation for a piece of vertically falling debris.

Figure 3 — Casualty area for vertically-falling debris (ref. FAA AC 431.35-1)
8

5.2 Depth of Analysis Examples

This section presents three flight scenarios that present distinctly different levels of risk to the uninvolved

public. As such, one would expect that different depths of analyses would be applied in the design

process to identify safety-critical items for different scenarios. The first, and simplest scenario, for

example, presents a small, sub-orbital launch. There is no population beneath the dispersed IIP Trace at

any time during flight. In this case, some simple system analyses were undertaken and some top-level

operational restrictions were applied, the number of safety-critical systems was kept to a minimum.

The second case shows a sub-orbital launch in which its dispersed IIP intersects a small number of

populated areas. In this case, one would anticipate that some additional analyses may be required, and,

in fact, a simplistic Ec analyses was conducted. It is shown here. Again, however, the identification of

safety-critical onboard hardware items as described in Sections 6 and 7 of this document was not

required.

The third case presented here is that of NASA’s X-33. The vehicle in this example is larger and more

energetic, and its flight path more ambitious. As will be shown, the analysis required to identify safetycritical items of this system was quite extensive.

5.2.1 Sub-orbital Launch In Which the Dispersed IIP Does Not Intersect A Populated Area

The first case to be presented here is indicative of a situation where the vehicle size, operational profile,

and operation site were such that the simplest analysis was adequate to identify the safety-critical items.

The analysis itself does not ensure safety: the safety-critical systems, personnel, and operations do that.

This historical example is presented to illustrate the process used by this developer to determine the

depth of analysis required to adequately identify his safety-critical items. It involves a small, piloted,

winged reusable launch vehicle executing a flight in which its dispersed IIP does not intersect a populated

area.

The vehicle is approximately the size of a small airplane with the following characteristics:

 The vehicle is a piloted, winged, horizontally launched and recovered RLV

 Only non-toxic propellants are used in the vehicle

 Engine burns to propellant exhaustion

 Vehicle utilizes mechanical, unassisted flight controls

 The subsonic vehicle experiences moderate acceleration (2-3 g’s) throughout the flight regime

ensuring that the vehicle can be piloted using visual navigation to a demonstrated level of accuracy

In its operational scenario, it takes off under rocket power, climbs to 10,500 feet MSL (7700 feet AGL)

while flying east away from the airport, burns until it has exhausted all of its propellant, spirals down to

pattern altitude just east of the airport, enters the pattern, and lands.

In Figure 4, the black, crossed line segments to the left of center are the airport runways. The blue line is

the vehicle ground track, climbing off the runway, up to altitude, spiraling back down, and returning to the

runway. The red line shadowing the flight path is the vacuum IIP trace. The white irregular shapes west of

the airport are populated U.S. Census Bureau census blocks.
9

Figure 4 — Nominal Flight Path and IIP Trace Superimposed on a Map of Census Blocks

As the first step in determining the depth of analysis that would be required to identify the safety-critical

items, the developer used his extensive knowledge of the vehicle subsystems and components, the

vehicle operational concept, and engineering experience to identify any possible failure hazard conditions.

The developer concluded in this preliminary assessment that the only components of the vehicle whose

failure would result in any of the hazard conditions defined in section 7.2 were the pilot and vehicle flight

controls.

The developer then undertook a preliminary risk assessment to determine the extent of the risks posed by

the failure of systems other than the pilot or vehicle flight controls. The developer already knew from

Figure 4 that the nominal flight profile did not overfly any populated areas. But the question remained as

to whether or not another failure could cause sufficient perturbation in the trajectory so as to place

populations at risk.

The developer then made the following assumptions:

1. The Probability of system failure (Pf) is 1.

a. This assumption guarantees the maximum possible conservatism for likelihood of failure and

is a good practice for an initial look with this simplified analysis. If the risk posed with this

failure probability is unacceptably high, then analysis can be undertaken to more accurately

bound the value.

b. The reader should be aware that regardless of the level of analysis undertaken by the

developer, the Federal Aviation Administration will require the assumption of Pf = 1.0 to

determine operational restrictions for an unproven RLV at any time the IIP dwells over a

populated area for a substantial amount of time. In such cases, the expected average number

of casualties to members of the public shall still not exceed 30 x 10-6 (Ec < 30 x 10-6) over

that populated area.

2. Worst-case wind conditions exist at the launch location

3. There is no debris detonation upon impact with the ground

4. The pilot will not become incapacitated.
10

Given the simple, sub-orbital nature of the flight profile and the remoteness of the operational area, the

developer realized that the superposition of the vehicle’s nominal vacuum IIP trace over the launch area,

combined with a worst-case dispersion analysis, could demonstrate that no one on the ground is exposed

to the risks associated with these operations, thus demonstrating compliance with the industry practice of

-6

a collective risk threshold of 30 x 10 .

The dispersion of the IIP of this vehicle, flown under visual flight rules, consists of visual navigation error

and wind drift of any vehicle debris. The maximum navigation error for this vehicle for this flight path,

derived from a visual navigation demonstration flight, is 1,740 feet. The maximum wind drift for this flight

path on credible pieces of lethal inert debris, based on winds aloft data collected over a period of time at

the launch site, is 1,845 feet. Their sum, the worst-case dispersion, is 3,585 feet.

The burnout point indicated on the figure represents a point where the vehicle becomes inherently safer

due to a decreased level of potential energy.

Figure 5 is the dispersed IIP superimposed on the launch area.

Figure 5 — Flight Path and IIP Trace With Dispersion

A visual inspection of the chart in Figure 5 reveals that the dispersed IIP does not encroach upon a

populated census block. The only census block for which visual inspection does not obviously show its

distance from the IIP trace to be more than the maximum dispersion is the block to the southwest of the

active runway. The vehicle is only on or near the runway during takeoff and landing, during which its

altitude, and thus its dispersion, is much lower than the maximum possible. Further, aerial photographs

of the area show that the population within this block is clustered in its northeast corner, farthest away

from the active runway.

Given the above analysis, the developer confirmed that no further analyses would be necessary to identify

safety-critical items. However, it should be noted that any system, the failure of which causes violation of

any of the above assumptions or renders the analyses invalid, may be safety-critical and require further

analysis as outlined in the rest of the document.

The level of effort necessary to identify safety-critical systems in this example was relatively low since the

hazards associated with this vehicle are readily identifiable and its operations can be contained within an

area of no population. Given the lack of population overflight, the developer found it unnecessary to

perform further analyses to identify safety-critical items. If the population of the area under which the

vehicle is flown were greater, the complexity of this analysis would increase.
11

5.2.2 Sub-orbital Launch in Which the IIP Intersects a Small Number of Populated Areas

The second scenario is for a sub-orbital launch from an inland site in which the vehicle’s dispersed IIP 

intersects a small number of populated areas. The risk posed is low, but obviously greater than the 

previous example, and one would expect a somewhat more detailed set of risk and safety analyses would 

be required to identify the vehicle’s safety-critical items.

This vehicle was a traditional vertically-launched, fin-stabilized, unguided rocket. Figure 6 shows the 

computed hazard area (see below) overlying parts of two Census Blocks.

Figure 6 — Hazard Area Superimposed on a Map of Census Blocks

A review of the vehicle operations revealed that in order to contain the dispersed IIP within the identified 

hazard area, the propellant load on the vehicle at launch could not exceed 4 liters.

In order to approximate the depth of analysis that would be necessary to identify the vehicle’s safetycritical items the developer used his knowledge of the vehicle subsystems and components, the vehicle 

operational concept, and solid engineering experience to identify any possible failure hazard conditions. 

The developer concluded in this preliminary assessment that the only component of the system whose 

failure would result in any of the hazard conditions defined in Section 7.2 was the operational control on

the fuel load identified above.

The developer then performed a preliminary risk assessment on his vehicle making the assumption that it

would fail catastrophically (Pf=1) but that the operational constraint was not violated.

Other assumptions made by the developer in performing the assessment included:

1. worst-case wind conditions (at launch location), and;
12

2. no debris detonation upon impact with the ground.

The following outline of the preliminary risk assessment is provided for illustrative purposes only.

As a first step, the developer needed to estimate the size of the area put at risk. As shown in column 1 of

Table 2, the developer actually made two estimates here. The more conservative estimate is that the

vehicle WILL come down inside one of the census blocks. In this case, the at risk area is simply the sum

of the areas of each of the census blocks or 125,728,614 square feet.

Alternatively, the developer could make the more realistic assumption that the vehicle could come down

anywhere within a hazard circle.

It should be noted here that, so long as the results are acceptable, the more conservative the modeling for

the Ec analysis, the less depth of analysis on the system would be necessary. The goal of the Ec analysis

is not to accurately predict the risk exposure, but to demonstrate that it is below the various thresholds of

acceptability in the face of conservative assumptions and models.

Several probabilistic methodologies are available to determine the size of the hazard circle, but, for the

purpose of simplicity, the developer simply calculated the maximum possible ballistic range for the

vehicle. This represents a highly conservative estimate for this analysis. This led to an at Risk Area of

788,243,190 square feet as shown in the table.

The developer then overlaid that circle onto a Census map of population to determine the population of

Census blocks overlain by the at risk circle.

As shown in Table 2, the developer then proceeded to compute a population density for the relevant

Census blocks and At Risk Areas. The population of Block A was 2 persons. The population of Block B

was 7 persons. The total population of 9 was divided by the two At Risk Areas to yield a conservative

population density of 7.16 x 10-8, and a nominal population density of 1.14 x 10-8.

The developer then assumed, per FAA AC 431.35-1, that the radius of the space covered by a human is

1 foot, and that the radius of the crater is also 1 foot. Again, there are sophisticated probabilistic models to

determine these values, and these models become rather more necessary with larger vehicles and more

complex flight profiles. But for the case at hand, these simple assumptions were conservative.

The analysis then assumed a Probability of Failure (Pf) of 1.0, i.e. the developer made the assumption

that the vehicle WILL fail.

These assumptions led to an estimated Casualty Area (AC) of 12.57 square feet as shown in Table 2.

Finally, multiplying the Population Density by the Casualty Area and by the Probability of Failure, the

developer determined that the Expected Casualty probability for the conservative case was 9.00 x 10-7.

Likewise, for the nominal case the Expected Casualty probability was 1.43 x 10-7. These values are both

well below the industry accepted maximum of 30 x 10-6. With the knowledge that the vehicle could not

endanger the uninvolved public, further analyses were not performed.

Table 2 — Simplified Expected Casualty Analysis for Overflight of a Lightly Populated Area

Risk Area (ft2)

Fixed Pop.

(persons)

Exp. Pop. 

(persons)

Pop. Density

(persons/ft2)

Human

Radius (ft) Crater

Radius (ft)

AC

Radius (ft) AC (ft2

) Pf EC(cas)

Block A 10,596,351 2

Block B 115,132,283 7

Total Pop. Area 125,728,614 9 9 7.16E-08 1 1 2 12.57 1 9.00E-07

Total Risk Area 788,243,190 9 9 1.14E-08 1 1 2 12.57 1 1.43E-07
13

Given the above analysis, the developer concluded that there were no on-board hardware items essential

to ensuring that the risk to the uninvolved public remained acceptable. However, while not specifically

covered by this guide, the operational control identified above was safety-critical in that its violation could

put the uninvolved public at risk.

It is further noted that any system the failure of which causes violation of any of the above assumptions or

renders the analyses invalid may be safety-critical and require further analysis as outlined in the rest of

the document.

The effort necessary to perform this analysis was more complicated than the first example due to the

need to account for the small population in the vicinity of the launch site. As this example illustrates,

however, the simplified Ec analysis performed was sufficient to provide the developer with confidence that

his system, with certain operational constraints implemented, was sufficiently safe to operate from the

chosen launch location.

5.2.3 Sub-Orbital Launch In Which the IIP Intersects a Large Number of Populated Areas

Finally, the third scenario is for NASA’s X-33 vehicle, a sub-orbital launch in which the vehicle’s dispersed

IIP intersects a large number of populated areas. The risk posed is more significant because of the flight

path and the size of the vehicle, and one would expect a more comprehensive set of risk and safety

analyses would be required to identify safety-critical items.

The X-33 was expected to fly from Southern California to Montana. Its IIP passed over a greater

population than either of the above cases, and, consequently, a greater level of analysis would be

expected. Lockheed Martin, in fact, undertook the entire regimen of safety and reliability analyses for the

X-33 before it was cancelled. The following material was derived from X-33 Advanced Technology

Demonstrator Program Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G Flight Safety Analysis (NP1997-09-02-MSFC)

X-33 documents reveal the extent of analyses required to ensure safe X-33 flights between Edwards AFB

and sites in Utah, Montana, and Washington. Appendix G states:

“<Edwards Air Force Base> Range Safety, the organization responsible for flight safety, is chartered to

protect life and property during vehicle launch, flight, and landing operations for all flights originating

within their controlled airspace. In order to satisfy Range Safety’s requirements to launch from Edwards

Air Force Base and optimally land at one of three landing sites, the Program must provide:

Planning

 best estimate of trajectory

 establish nominal trajectory

 population density studies

 map generation

 launch and landing hazard analysis

 debris fragmentation patterns

 how to handle flight anomalies (deviations, accidents, etc.)

 establish nominal flight envelope

 determine vehicle discretes required for display

 best data source selection

 Range Safety Office and Range Operations Center (best data source) training
14

Launch

 activate ground support equipment

 certify configuration

 sub-system and end to end test

 weather data input

 launch risk analysis

 acoustic overpressure analysis if necessary

Post-Laun c h

 vehicle anomaly investigation if necessary

 support system anomaly investigation if necessary

 evaluate performance of:

- support system anomaly investigation if necessary

- evaluate performance of

 instrumentation systems

 communications systems

 computer systems”

It is beyond the scope of this document to fully elucidate the X-33 safety analyses. And, in fact, Appendix

G itself is only a topmost level perspective of the tasks required to better ensure safe operations. The full

extent of required analyses will probably never be known since the program was terminated before many

serious analyses were undertaken. The work presented in the referenced Environmental Impact

Statement is merely a preliminary analysis. It was more to explore and get approval for modeling methods

and identify the challenges that lay ahead.

It could be said that the developers of the vehicles in section 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 undertook the planning steps

outlined above. However, the vehicles’ concepts of operations and flight envelopes were such that the

depth of the analyses that support these steps was substantially lower than for the X-33 flight. The effort

necessary to perform these analyses for the X-33 flight would prove to be large due primarily to the

population densities under the vehicle flight path. That being said, it is worth garnering an understanding

of the preliminary Expected Casualty analysis planned for X-33. This analysis is presented in Annex A for

reference.

While the level of effort that would be necessary to utilize the process outlined in sections 6 & 7 of this

document for the X-33’s given flight path is quite extensive, the methods would be applicable.

5.3 Depth of Analysis Summary

The identification of safety-critical items as outlined in this document may not be necessary for all

developers and vehicles. There are many situations where such analyses may be inappropriate.

The developer does, however, need to make a conscious determination of the appropriate depth of

analysis for his or her system as early as possible in his or her development program. Such a

determination should take into account the developer’s own risk tolerance and applicable laws and

regulations.

The above three examples are intended to provide illustrations of situations that require:
15

 little additional analysis beyond a preliminary Casualty Expectation analysis;

 a moderate amount of additional analyses, and;

 and a significant amount of additional analyses.

While there are no firm rules governing the depth of analysis to undertake, the developer should now

have some sense of where his or her specific system falls. Regardless of the depth of analysis found for 

a particular vehicle, the processes outlined below in sections 6 & 7 for identifying safety-critical items may 

be used.

6 Risk Assessment Methodologies

As has been discussed earlier, RLV developers should identify the safety-critical items aboard their 

vehicles. Industry in general, and the aerospace industry in particular, have developed various 

systematic approaches to identifying safety-critical systems.

The methods referenced below represent a portion of methodologies that have been developed. The 

developer should select the approach most appropriate to their vehicle and its concept of operations.

6.1 Methodologies

FAA Advisory Circular AC 431.35-2 Reusable Launch and Reentry Vehicle System Safety Process 

(http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Ac4312a5.pdf) outlines various methodologies for assessing systems safety. 

Some of the more commonly utilized methodologies include Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEA), 

Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analyses (FMECA), and Event/Fault Tree Analyses. A number of

other methodologies exist and developers are encouraged to review AC 431.35-2 in its entirety for a 

greater understanding of the system safety process, especially as it may be phased in during the vehicle 

development program. 

6.2 Appropriateness of Various Methodologies

As stated in AC 431.35-2 Reusable Launch and Reentry Vehicle System Safety Process, a system’s life 

cycle may be divided into six (6) distinct phases.

1. Conception

2. Research and Development (R&D)

3. Design

4. Deployment

5. Operation

6. Decommissioning and Disposition

The identification of safety-critical systems should be undertaken as early as practical in the system life 

cycle. The developer should determine the appropriate methodology to use for each given stage of

development. Among the considerations in this determination should be:

1. the appropriateness of the methodology to the depth of technical detail available;

2. the appropriateness of the methodology to the type of system or operation being analyzed;

3. the appropriateness of the level of rigor in relation to the severity of the consequences of

failure; and

4. the best use of available resources.
16

7 Guidelines for Identifying Potentially Safety-Critical RLV Items

7.1 Introduction

This section contains a set of tools that RLV developers may use to screen their vehicles and concept of

operations to identify potentially safety-critical items. These tools include:

 a set of guidelines that may be used to evaluate a specific hardware item or system to determine 

if it may jeopardize the safety of the uninvolved public;

 an assessment process that may be followed to return a list of a developer’s safety-critical items; 

and

 a representative list of potentially safety-critical items.

7.2 Safety-Criticality Guidelines

The following guidelines may be used by developers to perform an initial screening of their vehicle to

make a preliminary assessment of safety-criticality. This screening is performed independent of a 

structured risk assessment.

In general, if BOTH of the following conditions are true for a particular item, the item is potentially safetycritical and may require further analysis.

(1) If the vehicle is over/in a populated area, or may reach a populated area as a result of failure, and

(2) the system could credibly fail, with the failure resulting in one or more of the five described hazard 

conditions below.

List of Hazard Conditions

 Failure causes vehicle breakup:

The vehicle is broken into fragments.

 Failure causes vehicle loss of control:

The vehicle can no longer be controlled by the crew (may be onboard crew or ground crew) or by

autonomous means.

 Failure causes uncontrolled debris:

The failure leaves the vehicle intact and controllable, but debris is ejected, without any means of

controlling where the debris will impact. For example, an engine failure leaves the vehicle intact 

and in control, but may cause a fan blade to be ejected from the vehicle; or a structural failure 

may lead to the separation of a aerodynamic control surface. The intentional jettison of a 

component (e.g. drop tank) in a designated area during normal or emergency operations is not

considered a failure.

 Failure causes uncontrolled discharge of hazardous material:

The failure leaves the vehicle intact and controllable, but leads to the discharge of hazardous

material (toxic, flammable, cryogenic, etc.)1. The controlled dumping of propellants in a 

designated area during normal or emergency operations is not considered a failure.

 Failure prohibits safe landing:

The failure leaves the vehicle intact and controllable in flight, but prohibits the vehicle from either 

reaching a designated landing location where the public is not endangered (e.g. a missile range), 

or prevents the vehicle from performing a controlled emergency landing without endangering the 

uninvolved public (e.g. at a public airport).

1 As defined by Table contained in 49 CFR 172.101
17

7.3 Safety-criticality Assessment

This section presents a step-by-step process that an RLV developer may use to generate a list of safetycritical items specific to his vehicle configuration. This process utilizes the guidelines presented in section

7.2. There are five steps in this process.

1. List the subsystems and operations of the RLV.

2. List hardware elements of each subsystem.

3. Question each component to determine if its failure presents a hazard to the uninvolved public.

4. If it does, designate it as “potentially safety-critical.”

5a. Perform a preliminary risk assessment. If it meets the allowable criteria, no further analysis may 

be required.

5b. Otherwise, apply risk reduction measures and iterate until risks are within acceptable limits.

6. Using the results of this assessment, determine which items must function correctly in order to

ensure an acceptable level of risk to the uninvolved public.

7. Prepare a list of the developer’s safety-critical items.

Figure 6 is a graphical representation of this process.
18

Figure 6 – Flowchart of Safety-Criticality Assessment Methodology
19

7.3.1 STEP 1: List RLV Subsystems and Operations

A typical RLV may involve some or all of the following systems. This list is included simply as a starting

point for developers. Some RLVs may incorporate systems not included in the list below. Therefore, a

first step would be the identification of various systems. Add or delete systems as applicable to the

systems and operations of the subject RLV.

a. Structures

b. Thermal Protection Systems

c. Propulsion

d. Pneumatics and Hydraulics

e. OperationalOrdnance

f. Flight Safety

g. Flight Controls (Mechanical)

h. FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)

i. Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

j. Recoveryhardware

7.3.2 STEP 2: List Subsystem Components

The second step in the process involves the identification of key elements in each system. Add or delete

components as applicable to the systems and operations of the subject RLV.

a. Structures

1. Fuselage

2. Wings

3. Stabilizers

4. Doors

5. Landing Gear

6. Propellant/Pressurant Tanks (if also used as load bearing structures)

b. ThermalProtection

1. Ceramic Tiles

2. Ablative Materials

3. CompositePanels

c. Propulsion

1. Engines

2. Propellant Tanks

3. Propellant Dumping Systems

d. Pneumatics and Hydraulics
20

1. PressureVessels

2. Piping (Rigid and Flexible)

3. Valves (Flow Control, Directional Control, Check Valves)

4. Regulators

5. Relief Devices (Valves and Burst Discs)

6. Pressure Gauges and Transducers

7. TemperatureProbes

8. Pumps

9. Accumulators

10. Electrical Motors and Solenoids

11. Interlocks

12. Logic Devices

e. OperationalOrdnance

1. Parachute Deployment Devices

2. Parachute Reefing Devices

3. Drogue Release Devices

4. Stage Separation Arming Devices

5. Stage Separation Charges

f. Flight Safety

1. Propellant Dumping System

2. Pilot

3. Flight/ThrustTerminationSystems

4. Ejection Seats

g. Flight Controls (Mechanical)

1. Elevators

2. Ailerons

3. Rudders

4. Spoilers

5. Flaps

6. Brakes

7. Drag Devices

h. FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)
21

1. Antenna

2. Data Receiver/Transmitter

3. GPS Hardware

4. Computer

5. VoiceCommunications

6. Active Sensors and Vehicle Position Transducers

7. Displays

8. Wiring/Connectors

i. Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

1. Cabin Materials

2. Cabin Atmosphere Regulation Hardware

3. PressurizedCabin

4. Cabin Atmosphere Controls

5. Cabin Temperature Control System

j. RecoveryHardware

1. Parachutes

2. Airbags

3. Landing Gear

7.3.3 STEP 3: Identify Failure Hazard Conditions

The third step involves assessing each component to determine if its failure can result in any of the

hazard conditions defined in section 7.2:

1. Vehicle breakup

2. Loss of vehicle control

3. Uncontrolled debris

4. Uncontrolled release of hazardous materials

5. Prohibits safe landing

7.3.4 STEP 4: Potentially Safety-Critical Items

If the answer is yes to any of the conditions in Step 3, the items are included on the potentially safetycritical items list.

7.3.5 STEP 5(a and b): Preliminary Risk Assessment and Risk Reduction Measures

The fourth step involves performing a Preliminary Risk Assessment assuming failures of the above

potential safety-critical items and the consequences and likelihood of failure.

If the Preliminary Risk Assessment shows the risk to be below the acceptable limits, no further analysis

may be required. If not, Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs) may be needed
22

Section 7.4 provides a number of generic risk reduction approaches that may be applied to RLV systems.

In addition, the table in Section 7.4 identifies specific RRMs for a number of items. Please note that the

implementation of these RRMs is an iterative process. Multiple RRMs may need to be applied repeatedly

to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

7.3.6 STEP 6: Item-Level Risk Analysis

Utilizing the results of this preliminary analysis, the developer identifies those systems on his vehicle

which must function correctly to ensure that the level of risk to the uninvolved public remains acceptable.

These are the developers’ safety-critical items. The items on this list should meet the definition of safetycritical published in 14 CFR 401.5.

Industry practice encourages developers to focus their resources on items that provide the greatest

reduction in risk to the uninvolved public. As a general rule, only a small percentage of system failures

may contribute to a significant portion of the risk.

7.3.7 STEP 7: List of Developers’ Safety-Critical Items

The final step in the process is simply the creation of a list containing the items identified by the developer

as safety-critical. In addition to this list, the developer should have a set of documentation that details his

process, the analyses performed, the results of those analyses, and any conclusions reached by the

developer concerning any item’s inclusion on this list. Alteration of a vehicle design and/or operational

concept subsequent to the identification of safety-critical items may necessitate subsequent analyses to

ensure proper recognition of all safety-critical items.

7.4 Potential Safety-Critical Hardware Items

The following table does not present a list of systems, subsystems, components, equipment or items that

will always be safety-critical; it simply provides a point of departure for additional analysis. The safetycriticality of each item on the list is highly dependent on the vehicle design and concept of operations. It

is impossible to conceive of all possible RLV configurations; therefore, the following table should not be

considered an all-inclusive list. However, the guidelines and process outlined above are also applicable

to any RLV system or hardware item that may not be included in the table.

As mentioned above, risk reduction measures are often applied to vehicle systems and hardware

components to reduce the risk to the uninvolved public to an acceptable level. The table below identifies

specific risk reduction measures for some of the components; however there are a number of general risk

reduction measures that are applicable to most space transportation systems. These include, but are not

limited to:

 increasing safety factors to provide adequate design margins;

 incorporating flight proven design concepts and materials;

 incorporating special design features;

 incorporating manufacturing and processing improvements;

 testing components to maximum limit loads and environments (for nominal and off-nominal

conditions);

 isolating critical components from each other and other critical parts;

 conducting subsystem development and qualification tests to demonstrate system performance

and verify design analyses; and

 modifying vehicle flight parameters (trajectory, velocity, etc.) to reduce operating loads, avoid

populated areas, etc.
23

For each item indicated in Table 3, the primary hazard condition that could result from a failure of the item

is indicated by an “X”. In some cases there are secondary hazard conditions that occur as a direct result

of the initial hazard; these are noted as well. The majority of the hazard conditions identified are followed

by explanations as to why they were included. Some of these explanations utilize examples of real-world

vehicles, most notably the X-15, the Space Shuttle, Soyuz, and the Armadillo Aerospace project. The

information contained in these examples was taken from the open, publicly available sources identified

below.

Space Shuttle Columbia: The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) Report, Volume I-VI, August

–October 2003 (http://www.caib.us/news/report/default.html)

X-15: Jenkins, Dennis R. and Landis, Tony R., Hypersonic: The Story of the North American X-15,

Specialty Press, North Branch, MN, 2003.

Soyuz, X-15: http://www.astronautix.com/

Armadillo Aerospace: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News


2

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Table 3 — Potential Safety-Critical Hardware Items

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material2

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Structures

Fuselage Loss of structural

integrity

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Loss of control

surface

X

(secondary

condition)

X

b Xc X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant flight control system to allow a level of control following loss of a control surface

 Use of adequate design margin for control surface strength and attachment

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDesign flaw in deHavilland Comet I (square windows) airliner led to metal fatigue and caused structure to fail in flight.

bObvious to most casual of observers (OMCO)

cA detached control surface can become uncontrolled debris.

Wings Loss of structural

integrity

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Loss of control

surface

X

(secondary

condition)

X

b Xc X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant flight control system to allow a level of control following loss of a control surface

 Use of adequate design margin for control surface strength and attachment

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring the final reentry of Space Shuttle Columbia, a puncture in the left wing allowed superheated gas into the wing cavity causing a loss of structural

integrity of the wing. As a result, the vehicle yawed left and subsequent aerodynamic loads led to vehicle breakup.

bOMCO

cA detached control surface can become uncontrolled debris.

25
3

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material3

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Structures

Stabilizers Loss of structural integrity X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Loss of control surface X

a Xb Xc X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant flight control system to allow a level of control following loss of a control surface

 Use of adequate design margin for control surface strength and attachment

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

If stabilizers are necessary for stable flight, loss of a stabilizer could lead to vehicle tumbling and subsequent break-up.

bOMCO

cOn X-15 flight 2-53-97, a shock impingement from the scramjet motor melted part of the ventral stabilizer, sending debris from the aircraft.

Doors (landing

gear, drag chute,

etc. doors)

Premature/Unintended

deployment

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

Detachment from vehicle X

b

Failure to function X

c

Specific RRMs:

 Add safety latches requiring two independent commands (or mechanisms) to “full open”

NOTE: Adding redundancy may add risk to the vehicle in order to reduce risk to the uninvolved public.

 Design two doors, inner & outer, with the inner door taking structural loads and the outer door taking aero loads

 Design control system to handle off-nominal loads from door failure

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aOn X-15 flights 3-15-25, 1-35-56, 2-33-56, and 2-36-63, landing gear doors opened in supersonic or hypersonic flight. Resultant asymmetric drag made

control difficult.

bOMCO

cThe failure of a drag chute door to function could prohibit a safe landing.

26
4

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material4

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Structures

Propellant/Pressurant

Tanks

(if used as a load

bearingstructure)

Tank burst X

a Xb Xc Xd X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Add redundant relief mechanisms (i.e., burst discs in parallel with a relief valve, typically with a lower setting); consider use of non-propulsive venting (i.e.,

a “T” orifice that provides a neutral thrust)

 Avoid the use of a hazardous media as a pressurant.

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aHistoric launch vehicles have utilized a design in which the vehicle structural rigidity is attained largely from its pressurized tanks. Loss of pressure in the

structure causes the vehicle to crumple, rather than breakup. This loss of structural integrity could lead to a decreased ability to sustain aerodynamic loads

which could cause the vehicle to breakup.

b

In the above configuration, a loss of pressure alone would cause the vehicle to crumple rather than breakup. Such crumpling could lead to a loss of the

propulsion, guidance, or other control systems.

c

In the event of a tank burst with sufficient energy to rupture the vehicle skin, tank and/or other structural debris could be shed.

d

In the above configuration, a tank containing a hazardous media (e.g., MMH, N2O4) could be damaged as the vehicle crumples.

27
5

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material5

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Thermal Protection System (TPS)

Ceramic Tiles Detachment from

vehicle

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

b X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate standard inspection process before and after each flight

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of TPS tiles could allow superheated reentry gases to enter the vehicle and melt the structural elements.

bCurrent operational ceramic TPS tiles are so small as to not pose a serious debris threat, however future technology may make this condition a concern.

Ablative Materials Prematuredegradation

of material

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Conduct degradation test program to determine heat flux vs. ablation loss data

 Incorporate sufficient design margin in material thickness

 Incorporate standard inspection process before and after each flight

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

If ablative TPS material erodes completely prior to completion of high-temperature reentry phase, superheated gases could melt vehicle structural elements.

28
6

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material6

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Thermal Protection System (TPS)

Composite Panels Detachment from

vehicle

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

b X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Puncture in panel X

c Xc X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

d

Multi-panel seam

degradation

X

e X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate standard inspection process before and after each flight

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDetachment of a composite panel at a critical location could allow reentry plasma to enter vehicle and melt structural elements, leading to vehicle breakup.

b

If composite panels are of sufficient size to cause concern for the uninvolved public on the ground, this becomes a concern. Note that this hazard is also a

secondary condition resulting from vehicle breakup.

cDuring the final reentry of Space Shuttle Columbia, a puncture in the left wing allowed superheated gas into the wing cavity causing a loss of structural

integrity of the wing. As a result, the vehicle yawed left and subsequent aerodynamic loads led to vehicle breakup.

dDuring the final Space Shuttle Columbia reentry, had the vehicle not been destroyed, unanticipated drag could have been sufficient to prohibit a safe landing.

eDegradation of a seam between panels could allow reentry plasma to enter the vehicle and melt structural elements, leading to vehicle breakup.

29
7

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material7

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Propulsion System

Engine

(Rocket & Air

Breathing)

Engine explosion X

a Xb Xc Xd Xe

Loss of propulsive

capability

X

f Xg

Combustioninstability X

h Xi Xj Xk

Specific RRMs:

 Isolate engines from other vehicle critical systems

 Isolate engines from each other, and design for engine-out capability (nominal throttle < 100%, multiple smaller engines, etc.)

 Incorporate a parachute system to minimize impact energy

 Incorporate a steerable parachute system to avoid densely populated areas

 Incorporate debris containment into engine / airframe design

 Incorporate risk reduction design features to minimize impact (automatic cut-off valves, etc.)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aOMCO

b

In the case of a Vertical Take-off, Vertical Landing (VTVL) vehicle configuration, a loss of propulsion could result in the inability to control the vehicle’s IIP.

c

In the absence of debris containment, an explosion could result in engine fragments being shed from the vehicle.

d

If the vehicle utilizes hazardous materials as propellants, an engine explosion could destroy the shutoff valves and allow release of the HAZMAT.

eEngine explosion could prevent the vehicle from reaching its destination and/or an abort site.

f

Loss of propulsion could cause the vehicle to lose control

g

Loss of propulsion could prevent the vehicle from reaching its destination and/or an abort site

hA combustion instability can impose side loads and torques greater than the vehicle was designed to tolerate. This can lead to vehicle loss of control if the

loads are high enough.

iCombustion instabilities can cause structural failure of a rocket nozzle extension which could become debris.

jCombustion instabilities can lead to a catastrophic engine failure, which could destroy shutoff valves and allow release of a hazardous material (if used as a

propellant).

kCombustion instabilities can destroy a propulsion system which could prevent the vehicle from reaching its destination and/or an abort site.

30
8

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material8

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Propulsion System

Propellant Tanks Tank burst X

a Xb Xc Xd Xe

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate heritage data into tank design

 Design tank to accepted industry standards

 Ensure that tank mount is sufficient for expected operating loads

 Qualify tank to loads expected in non-nominal operation

 Incorporate adequate design safety factors

 Perform structural (qualification) testing to verify design margins

 Perform proof testing at adequate factors

 Incorporate a parachute system to minimize impact energy

 Incorporate a steerable parachute system to avoid densely populated areas

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aPressure-fed rocket propellant tanks typically operate at full system pressure. In this scenario, a tank burst could easily release sufficient energy to destroy

the vehicle.

b

If the tank burst does not destroy the vehicle, the loss of propellant in a VTVL vehicle would lead to loss of vehicle control, as in the 8 August 2004 Armadillo

Aerospace test flight.

c

In the absence of debris containment, a tank burst could lead to the release of debris.

d

If the vehicle utilizes hazardous materials as propellants, a tank burst will lead to the release of a HAZMAT.

eA burst propellant tank will quickly lead to a loss of propellant, leading to the possibility of the vehicle not being able to make it back to its landing and/or abort

site.

Propellant Dumping

Systems

Premature/unintentional

activation

X

a Xb Xc

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring the 8 August 2004 Armadillo Aerospace test flight, control of the VTVL vehicle was lost when propellant was exhausted.

b

If the vehicle uses hazardous materials as propellant, a premature or unintentional activation would be an uncontrolled release of the HAZMAT.

cA loss of propulsive capability due to lack of propellant could prevent the vehicle from reaching its landing and/or abort site.

31
9

See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous Material9

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Pneumatics and Hydraulics

PressureVessels Tank burst X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

X

c

Pressurantleakage X

b Xc

Specific RRMs:

 Adequate design safety factors for strength, leak before burst design, testing, pressure reduction in an emergency

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring an X-15 ground test on 8 June 1960, an overpressurization of an ammonia tank caused the tank to rupture. The tank shot backward and damaged the

hydrogen peroxide tank; the mixing of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide caused an explosion and the vehicle was essentially blown in half.

bA pressure-fed VTVL vehicle would lose propulsive capability in the event of a pressure loss. As mentioned above, loss of propulsion in a VTVL translates to

loss of control.

c

In a pressure-fed propulsion system vehicle configuration, a loss of pressure would lead to a loss of propulsive capability. This could lead to an inability to

reach a landing and/or abort site.

Piping (Rigid and

Flexible)

Rupture/Leakage X

a Xb Xc

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of hydraulic pressure or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could lead to a vehicle loss of control.

bA ruptured or leaking pipe could allow a hazardous hydraulic fluid to be released. The leak would have to be large to affect the uninvolved public.

cA loss of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could impair performance enough to prevent the vehicle from reaching its

destination and/or an abort site.

32
11 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material10

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Pneumatics and Hydraulics

Valves (Flow

Control,Directional

Control, Check

Valves)

Rupture/Leakage X

a Xb Xc

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of hydraulic pressure or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could lead to a vehicle loss of control.

bA ruptured or leaking valve could allow a hazardous hydraulic fluid to be released. The leak would have to be large to affect the uninvolved public. 

cA loss of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could impair performance enough to prevent the vehicle from reaching its

destination and/or an abort site.

Regulators Rupture/Leakage X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb Xc Xd

Improper pressure regulation

(failure to provide correct

pressure; either over or under

design value)

X

e Xa X

(secondary

condition)

X X

d

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of hydraulic pressure or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could lead to a vehicle loss of control.

bA ruptured or leaking regulator could allow the release of debris

cA ruptured or leaking regulator could allow a hazardous hydraulic fluid to be released. The leak would have to be large to affect the uninvolved public.

dA loss of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators could impair performance enough to prevent the vehicle from reaching its

destination and/or an abort site.

eHistoric launch vehicles have utilized a design in which the vehicle structural rigidity is attained largely from its pressurized tanks. Loss of pressure due to a

regulator malfunction in the structure causes the vehicle to crumple, rather than breakup. This loss of structural integrity could lead to a decreased ability to

sustain aerodynamic loads which could cause the vehicle to breakup.

33
10 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material11

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Pneumatics and Hydraulics

PressureGauges

andTransducers

Rupture/Leakage X X X X X

No or faulty data return X X

a X X X

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of or faulty data could lead to erroneous guidance data that may affect vehicle control. (See Flight Control/Electrical Category)

TemperatureProbes No or faulty data return X

a Xa Xa X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of/faulty data could cause a component to thermally fail

Pumps Rupture X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X X Xb

Freeze-up or Oscillation

(Pogo Effect)

X X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA loss of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators due to a pump malfunction could lead to a vehicle loss of control.

bA loss of hydraulic and/or pneumatic pressure for control surface actuators due to a pump malfunction could impair performance enough to prevent the vehicle

from reaching its destination and/or an abort site.

Accumulators Rupture/Leakage X

(secondary

condition)

X X X X

34
12 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material12

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Pneumatics and Hydraulics

Electrical Motors

and Solenoids

Mechanical/Electrical

Malfunction (loss of control)

X

(secondary

condition)

X X X X

Interlocks Unplanned change of state X

(secondary

condition)

X X X X

Logic Devices Improper command, corrupt

signal, etc.

X

(secondary

condition)

X X X X

Operational Ordnance

Parachute

DeploymentDevices

Failure to deploy X X X

a

Notes:

 Failure of deployment mortars to fire could lead to impact outside the intended landing zone

 Premature or unintended parachute deployment could damage parachute and/or damage vehicle near parachute attach points

Specific RRMs:

 Designate and control a safety zone outside the intended landing zone.

 Redundant mortar firing mechanism

 Separate controls for arming mortar and firing mortar

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring the Soyuz 1 reentry, the main parachute failed to deploy. The reserve parachute tangled with the drogue chute and the capsule crashed. A similar

failure of a parawing could lead to an impact outside the landing zone.

35
13 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material13

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Operational Ordnance

Parachute Reefing

Devices

Failure to deploy X

a

Premature activation X

b

Specific RRMs:

 Designate and control a safety zone outside the intended landing zone.

 Redundant disreefing mechanism.

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aParachute reefing mechanism (cutter) failure could lead to hard landing, possibly outside intended landing zone

bPremature activation of the device could lead to torn or non-functional parachutes

Drogue Release

Devices

Failure to release properly or

releasesprematurely

X

a

Specific RRMs:

 Designate and control a safety zone outside the intended landing zone.

 Redundant drogue release mechanism

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a Drogue release failure could cause interference with later parachute stages, degraded performance, and/or a hard landing possibly outside the intended

landing zone. The reentry of Soyuz 1 resulted in a similar situation when the reserve parachute became tangled with the drogue chute and resulted in a hard

landing outside the intended landing zone.

StageSeparation

Arming Devices

Failure to arm or arms

inadvertently

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xa

Specific RRMs:

 Multiple “either/or” arming paths (timer, altimeter, sequencer, etc.)

 Arming circuitry and mechanisms feedback

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring Soyuz 18-1 launch, the third stage failed to separate. Control of the vehicle was lost and the crew capsule was separated from the booster. This led to

an uncontrolled landing in which the crew experienced a 20+ g reentry and landed thousands of km from the intended landing site.

36
14 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material14

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Operational Ordnance

StageSeparation

Charges

Failure to fire/initiate X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xa

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant firing system into design

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring Soyuz 18-1 launch, the third stage failed to separate. Control of the vehicle was lost and the crew capsule was separated from the booster. This led to

an uncontrolled landing in which the crew experienced a 20+ g reentry and landed thousands of km from the intended landing site.

Flight Safety Systems

Propellant Dumping

System

Failure to unload propellant

prior to landing

X

a

Premature or unintended

unloading during normal flight

X

b Xc Xa

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aPropellant dumping system failure may lead to inability to off-load propellant (and thus reduce vehicle mass) for a safe landing.

bUnintentional dumping of propellant could cause unexpected loads and forces (loss of vehicle mass) on the vehicle, leading to loss of control.

cOMCO if a hazardous propellant is used.

37
15 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material15

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Flight Safety Systems

Pilot Incapacitated X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condtion)

X

(secondary

condtion)

X

a

Notes:

 Pilot can become safety-critical if his incapacitation leaves the vehicle with no other means of control

 Pilot may not be on-board vehicle

 Circumstances which could lead to pilot incapacitation include:

o Injury/illness

o Human factors/human limitations issues

o Contaminated cabin atmosphere or breathing media

Specific RRMs:

 Procedures of contingency operations are identified and incorporated into system prior to launch

 Multiple fault tolerance in flight control systems

 Caution and Warning (C&W) available to pilot and ground support

 Alternate sources of coolant for the pilot suit pressure (redundancy)

 Appropriate safety factors of suit oxygen and coolant lines

 Human limitation considerations integrated into design solutions

 Crew procedure(s) readiness

 Pre-launch monitoring of vehicle flight systems (thermal, atmosphere, controls) by ground crew

 Launch commit criteria well-defined

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aOMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

38
16 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material16

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Flight Safety Systems

Flight/Thrust

TerminationSystem

Failure to initiate when

commanded

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

Premature or unintended

operation

X

b Xa Xc

Notes:

 The flight/thrust termination system does not necessarily have to be a destructive system.

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

In the case of a non-destructive thrust termination system, a failure to initiate could lead to unanticipated loads on the vehicle, causing a loss of control.

bOMCO for a destructive flight termination system.

cAn unanticipated loss of thrust could prevent a powered descent vehicle from safely reaching its intended landing and/or abort site.

Ejection Seats Unintentional activation X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Notes:

 Unintentional activation could incapacitate the pilot and/or lead to cabin fire

Specific RRMs:

 Use of proven ordnance, electrical circuitry and ejection seat technology with dual fault tolerance in control loop.

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aAn unintentional activation could incapacitate an onboard pilot. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

39
17 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material17

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Flight Controls (Mechanical)

Elevators Detachment from vehicle X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

Mechanical/Electrical/Pneumatic

Malfunction (to perform proper

operation)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of a control surface could lead to loss of vehicle control.

bDetached control surface becomes debris.

Ailerons Detachment from Vehicle X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

Mechanical/Electrical/Pneumatic

Malfunction (Failure to perform

Failure proper operation)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of a control surface could lead to loss of vehicle control.

bDetached control surface becomes debris.

Rudders Detachment from Vehicle X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

Mechanical/Electrical/Pneumatic

Malfunction (Failure to perform

proper operation)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of a control surface could lead to loss of vehicle control.

bDetached control surface becomes debris.

40
18 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material18

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Flight Controls (Mechanical)

Spoilers Detachment from Vehicle X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

Mechanical/Electrical/Pneumatic

Malfunction (Failure to perform

proper operation)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of a control surface could lead to loss of vehicle control.

bDetached control surface becomes debris.

Flaps Detachment from Vehicle X

(secondary

condition)

X

a Xb X

(secondary

condition)

Mechanical/Electrical/Pneumatic

Malfunction (Failure to perform

proper operation)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of a control surface could lead to loss of vehicle control.

bDetached control surface becomes debris.

Brakes Mechanical Malfunction (Failure

to stop vehicle)

X

a

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aFailure of the brakes at landing could cause the vehicle to leave the runway, possibly endangering the uninvolved public.

41
19 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material19

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Flight Controls (Mechanical)

Drag Devices Failure to deploy X

a X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

(secondary

condition)

X

b

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant release system, one component of which is possibly an ordnance or manual back-up

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Vehicle breakup could be caused by high aerodynamic an/or g loads on a vehicle resulting from the failure of a drag device to deploy.

b

During the Soyuz 1 reentry, the main parachute failed to deploy. The reserve parachute tangled with the drogue chute and the capsule crashed. A similar

failure of a parawing could lead to an impact outside the landing zone.

FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)

Antenna Failure to receive/transmit

correct data

X

a Xb

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aThe identified failure mode could result in a loss of, and/or corrupt, guidance and control data which could lead to a loss of control, especially in autonomous

systems.

b

Loss of, and/or corrupt, vehicle position data could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site.

Data Receiver/

Transmitter

Failure to receive/transmit

correct data

X

a Xb

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aThe identified failure mode could result in a loss of, and/or corrupt, guidance and control data which could lead to a loss of control, especially in autonomous

systems.

b

Loss of, and/or corrupt, vehicle position data could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site.

42
21 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material20

Prohibits Safe

Landing

FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)

GPS Hardware Failure to provide correct

positioninformation

X

a Xb

Loss of Signal X

a Xb

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aGPS malfunction (such as faulty or no signal) could lead to loss of vehicle control if the GPS input is required for vehicle guidance and control functions

b

Loss of, and/or corrupt, position data could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site.

Computer Mechanical malfunction X

a Xa

Notes:

 Computer malfunction could lead to an inability to accurately process vehicle performance data

 Computer malfunction could lead to an inability to accurately monitor vehicle health

 Computer malfunction could lead to an inability to accurately process telemetry data to determine correct vehicle position and orientation

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant distributed signal for command processing

 Ensure that configuration is multiple-fault tolerant (can sustain any two failures)

 Incorporate autonomous auto-land or attitude hold sequence

 Incorporate user error correction protocols

 Ensure ground uplink backup

 Require positional backup with redundant feedback

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aDuring an Armadillo Aerospace test flight, vehicle vibration caused an electronics connector to be pulled from the power bus; the vehicle immediately went out

of control and crashed.

Voice

Communications

Failure to receive/transmit

adequate verbal communication

X

a

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Loss of voice communications during descent and landing could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site. Proper and adequate

pilot training and experience could significantly reduce the risk of this hazard condition.

43
20 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material21

Prohibits Safe

Landing

FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)

Active Sensors and

Vehicle Position

Transducers

Loss of performance data or

control signals

X

a Xb

Notes:

 Active Sensors and Transducers (i.e. pressure gages, position transducers, Linear Variable Differential Transformers, etc.) are those whose output directly

affects the guidance and control of the vehicle.

 Sensor/Transducer malfunctions could result in faulty data being passed to on-board systems including the pilot and guidance and control systems

Specific RRMs:

 Incorporate redundant sensors/transducers for critical measurements that affect the control and guidance of the vehicle

 Employ “AND Gate” with majority logic voting software for the monitored sensor output signals and events

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aThe identified failure mode could result in a loss of, and/or corrupt, guidance and control data which could lead to a loss of control, especially in autonomous

systems.

b

Loss of, and/or corrupt, vehicle position data could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site.

Displays Faulty or no display of data on

monitors

X

a Xb

Specific RRMs:

 Employ redundant display screens and associated circuit networks

 Employ “distributed” processing platform for on-board computation

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aThe identified failure mode could result in a loss of, and/or corrupt, guidance and control data which could lead to a loss of control, especially in autonomous

systems.

b

Loss of, and/or corrupt, vehicle position data could prevent a vehicle from safely reaching its landing and/or abort site.

44
22 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material22

Prohibits Safe

Landing

FlightControls (Electrical/Electronic)

Wiring/Connectors “Open” or “Shorted” Circuitry X

a X

(secondary

condition)

Faulty installation of wiring or

connectors

X

a X

(secondary

condition)

Notes:

 Short circuit or faulty wiring could lead to fire hazard

Specific RRMs:

 Locking type connectors should be used as bent pins can cause mishaps.

 Redundant paths should not go through the same connector

 Wiring should be installed to avoid chafing and/or splicing.

 Insulation resistance should be adequate to withstand any environmental conditions

 Incorporate redundant wiring circuits for critical measurements that affect the control and guidance of the vehicle

 Avoid redundant path wiring in a single wire bundle.

 Complete “end-to-end” continuity and functional checkout tests as part of vehicle final processing operations

 Install circuit breakers and fault interrupters

 Install fiber optics or laser-guided communication systems, where appropriate

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aFailure of circuitry associated with any guidance and/or navigation function (i.e., flight computer, GPS) could lead to vehicle loss of control.

45
23 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material23

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

Cabin Materials Loss of Fire Resistance X

a Xa

Specific RRMs:

 Design cabin materials to:

 preclude ignition in an atmosphere of 30% or less O2

 contain ignition in an atmosphere of 30% or less O2

 control ignition in an atmosphere of 30% or less O2

 Test cabin materials for ability to self-extinguish in atmosphere of 30% or less Oxygen

 Conduct Aging Program to determine degradation of materials used for fire resistance

 Caution and Warning (C&W) to pilot and ground

 Install smoke detectors

 Install fire extinguishers

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA cabin fire could incapacitate a pilot and/or other control mechanisms, leading to vehicle loss of control and, possibly, inability to safely reach the landing

and/or abort site.

CabinAtmosphere

Regulation

Hardware

Excessive oxygen (in the

Cabin)

X

a Xa

Notes:

 Malfunction could lead to excessive oxygen concentration which could increase fire risk

Specific RRMs:

 Safety factor of 4.0 for O2 lines

 Safety Factor of >2.0 for O2/N2 tanks

 C&W connected to pilot/crew suits and visible to pilot and ground crews

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA change in cabin atmosphere could incapacitate an onboard pilot. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

46
24 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material24

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

PressurizedCabin Loss of pressure (in the Cabin) X

a Xa

Notes:

 Pressure loss could be caused by O2 system malfunction, cabin leak, debris impact, etc.

Specific RRMs:

 Safety factor of 4.0 for O2 lines

 Safety Factor of >2.0 for O2/N2 tanks

 1.5 safety factor of cabin pressure vessel

 C&W available to pilot and ground crews

 Redundant sources of cabin pressure

 >2.0 safety factor of windows and windshield

 Planned bird dispersal and/or avoidance techniques

 Alternate sources of O2 for the pilot suit pressure (redundancy)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA rapid change in cabin pressure could incapacitate an onboard pilot if not wearing a pressure suit. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

CabinPressurization

System

Overpressure condition (in the

cabin)

X

a Xb Xa

Specific RRMs:

 1.5 safety factor of cabin pressure vessel

 C&W available to pilot and ground crews

 >2.0 safety factor of windows and windshield

 Alternate sources of O2 for the pilot suit pressure (redundancy)

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA rapid change in cabin pressure could incapacitate an onboard pilot. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

bOverpressurization of the cabin could cause the pressure vessel to burst, causing debris .

47
25 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material25

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

CabinAtmosphere

Controls

Contaminated air in the cabin X

a Xa

Notes:

 Mechanical malfunction could lead to contamination or loss of breathable atmosphere (due to O2 system malfunction, cabin leak, toxic fumes, excessive

CO2 concentrations, and/or improper control of pressure system, etc.)

 Atmosphere contamination could lead to incapacitation of pilot and/or controller

Specific RRMs:

 Safety factor of 4.0 for O2 lines

 Safety Factor of >2.0 for O2/N2 tanks

 1.5 safety factor of cabin pressure vessel

 C&W available to pilot and ground crews

 Operator training in regulator systems

 Air quality monitoring by ground crew

 CO2 monitoring

 LiOH/Charcoal canisters to filter cabin

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA change in cabin atmosphere could incapacitate an onboard pilot. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control. 48
26 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material26

Prohibits Safe

Landing

Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS)

CabinTemperature

ControlSystem

Loss of Cabin Cooling/Heating

Control

X

a Xa

Notes:

 Mechanical malfunction could lead to excessive cabin temperatures due to a system failure (coolant line contamination or clogging, coolant line leak,

coolant tank leak and/or rupture, pump and/or regulator malfunctions, etc.)

 Excessive cabin temperatures could incapacitate the pilot and/or controller

Specific RRMs:

 Inspection and checkout of coolant system (regulator, reservoir, and lines) prior to launch

 Multiple fault tolerances on thermal control components

 C&W available to pilot and ground

 Alternate sources of coolant for the pilot suit pressure (redundancy)

 Safety factor of 2.0 for coolant lines

 Operator training in regulator systems operations

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aA change in cabin atmosphere could incapacitate an onboard pilot. OMCO if the pilot is the only means of vehicle control.

RecoveryHardware

Parachutes Failure to deploy or open

properly

X

a Xb

Specific RRMs:

 Increase design margin on parachutes

 Designate and control a safety zone outside the intended landing zone.

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

Vehicle breakup could be caused by high aerodynamic an/or g loads on a vehicle resulting from the failure of a drag device to deploy.

b

During the Soyuz 1 reentry, the main parachute failed to deploy. The reserve parachute tangled with the drogue chute and the capsule crashed. A similar

failure of a parawing could lead to an impact outside the landing zone.

49
27 See Hazardous Materials Table, 49 CFR 172.101

Item Failure Mode Hazard Condition/Suggested Risk Reduction Measures (RRMs)

Vehicle Breakup Vehicle Loss of

Control

Uncontrolled

Release of Debris

Uncontrolled

Release of

Hazardous

Material27

Prohibits Safe

Landing

RecoveryHardware

Airbags Prematuredeployment X

a

Failure to deploy X

b

Specific RRMs:

 Design Safe and Arm system with multiple “AND” logic arming paths

Hazard Condition Explanation:

a

The unintentional deployment of an airbag at high altitude and/or velocity could cause non-nominal aerodynamic and/or g loads on a vehicle which could

result in loss of control of the vehicle.

b

Failure of the airbag to properly deploy on descent could result in a hard landing, possibly outside of the target zone.

Landing Gear Failure to deploy or extend

properly

X

a

Unintentional Deployment X

(secondary

condition)

X

b X

(secondary

condition)

Specific RRMs:

 Design gear deployment interlock to prevent high-speed deployment, include manual override

 Incorporate multiple “non-identical” landing gear extension schemes

 For example, the Space Shuttle uses a) gravity; b) hydraulics; and c) Ordnance, if needed

Hazard Condition Explanation:

aOMCO

bOn X-15 flight 2-36-63, the main landing gear extended during flight at Mach 4+. Resultant asymmetric drag made control difficult.

50

51

Annex A X-33 Preliminary Casualty Expectation Analysis

Below is a list of parameters used in modeling the X-33 Expected Casualty. This list may be compared 

with the parameters used in the examples in section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.

Parameters used in the modeling the X-33 Expected Casualty include:

 Trajectory Modeling

- Potential trajectories from Space Port 2000 and Haystack Butte to potential landing sites

- Vehicle position and velocity (speed) updated every 10 seconds of powered flight

- Trajectories “moved” earth-relative in order to evaluate debris risks from other candidate launch 

sites on Edwards

 Atmospheric Modeling

- Mean (average) annual winds at Edwards

- Edwards Air Force Base winds aloft

- Range Commanders Council Range Reference Atmosphere

- Population Modeling:

- Population numbers,

- Facility shelter types and coverage areas throughout the base and local communities

- database for downrange cities, towns, and rural population to cover all areas potentially at risk

 Vehicle Reliability Modeling

- Assumed failure probability 1/250, derived from 220 seconds of powered flight from comparable 

expendable launch vehicles (Atlas, Delta, and Titan II) and Space Shuttle LH2 and LOX

main engines used for launch through Main Engine Cut Off

- Assumed engineering reliability factors based on component data, degree of redundancy, and

comparable components used to establish a failure probability of 1/6823 for MECO to landing

 Failure Characteristics Modeling

- Failure scenario includes both uncontained engine failure and loss of thrust/control failure modes

- Both failure modes assumed to result in vehicle breakup and explosion

The parameters used for Vehicle Reliability Modeling are worth noting in particular. Note that the 

assumed vehicle failure probabilities are assumed based upon analogous historical launch activities. The 

preliminary nature of this analysis made those assumptions acceptable.

However, before the AF were to grant flight approval, vehicle-specific failure probabilities would need to

be developed, approved, and applied in the analysis. It is the development of those values that would 

largely drive deeper systems analysis to identify safety-critical systems as outlined in this document.

In order to perform hazard modeling and risk projections, and “X-33 debris library” was estimated. The 

evaluation identified X-33 intact debris pieces likely to result from worst-case vehicle breakup (1 ton 

trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent) in-flight explosion.

To create the debris library, engineers consulted with subcontractors and vendors for estimation of

subsystem breakup mechanisms for propellant tanks, main propulsion system;, avionics, landing gear,
52

thermal protection system, ruddervators, rudders, thrust and intertank structure, turboalternators, main

engines and engine ramps, etc. From the breakup analysis, 1269 components or intact debris pieces

were identified. These pieces accounted for 18,900 kg (41,700 lb.) of 26,600 kg (58,700 lb.) of X-33 dry

mass. Basic vehicle composition was expected to be: 30% composites (graphite/epoxy); 21% inconel/MA754/ 19% aluminum; 16% steel; 10% titanium; and 4% ORCC.

For each identified piece of debris the following parameters were determined:

 unit weight

 quantity

 dimensions

 approximate shape for ballistic coefficients

 material composition

Figure 7 is a sample of the X-33 debris library created for this preliminary analysis.

With a debris library in place, the next task was to determine the impact point for each piece of debris.

This impact point must take into account atmospheric perturbations, winds, the impulse delivered to each

piece of debris by a vehicle explosion, the aerodynamic characteristics of each piece of debris and other

parameters.

Since the impact point moves with time as the flight progresses, debris impact points must be computed

at several time stations along each trajectory under the assumption that a failure may occur at any time in

the flight.

Figure 8 is a map of debris impact ellipses for an X-33 flight from Edwards AFB (Haystack Butte) to

Malmstrom AFB in Montana. It should be noted that Malmstrom was only one of several candidate

landing sites for the X-33 and that this analysis was undertaken for each site.

Finally, with the debris impact points mapped, the population models in place, and the vehicle reliabilities

determined to first order, it was possible to derive a preliminary Expected Casualty value for an X-33 flight

via a probabilistic combining of these probabilistic models. The X-33 program estimated in this preliminary

analysis that their Expected Casualty for this flight was 4.5 x 10-6.
53

Figure 7 – Sample of the X-33 Debris Library
54

Legend

(time in seconds) 

 60

 95

 115

 135

 155

 175 

 195

45

Downrange Debris 

Haystack to Malmstrom 

On-Trajectory Explosion Failures 

60-195 Seconds 

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

- Population Centers 

(not to scale) 

Figure 8 – X-33 Debris Impact Ellipses Haystack Butte to Malmstrom AFB