FAA Wants Your Opinion On Commercial Space Rules 160
coondoggie writes "If you have an opinion about how you think the commercial space flight world should be regulated, the FAA wants to hear from you. On Thursday, May 26, 2011 at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Cocoa Beach Oceanfront in Florida it will hold a public hearing where the FAA says it wants to gather information about how to define what it calls a regulatory framework for orbital human spaceflight."
Rule #1 (Score:5, Insightful)
No exploding
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good rule, I second that. Also, go easy on the medical requirement for participants... if I ever make it into space, I'll probably be old and broken.
And how do you think that body will react to 3-4G?
Nature rule, Daniel san.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it makes little sense to talk about "space tourism" (more like suborbital hops for the idle rich) before we even know how our body works. Anti-aging and life extension are required if we think we have anything to do in the Universe's larger affairs. It's billions of years old, and will last billions more. We barely last two decades between youth and middle-aged decay. There's nothing magical or inevitable about aging, it's a biological system like any other.
Even with today's technology choices as a base, low Earth orbit is roughly 10-15 minutes away the Moon is roughly three days away, and Mars six months. Venus is only a few months away too. There are a number of asteroids within a few months as well. We don't need life extension to get to those.
Further, while the human lifespan averages roughly 70-80 years (once past infant mortality issues), human cultures tend to last longer. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, has been around for over 1500 years an
Re:Rule #1: No exploding (Score:3, Insightful)
Disagree. I'm happy with "No exploding unless you've got enough insurance to clean up whatever the exploded bits land on", and would have no problem compromising on "No exploding over populated areas."
But as for the appropriate level of safety the FAA should target with its regulations, all I want as a prospective passenger is the same level of safety you get when you do your first tandem skydive. Everyone signs a waiver that says they realize they might not come back alive, but the compa
Re: (Score:2)
If the spacecraft's pilot thinks it's safe enough to fly, then I'll fly with him.
Doubtless the passengers on Continental Connection Flight 3407 [wsj.com] thought the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Doubtless the passengers on Continental Connection Flight 3407 [wsj.com] thought the same thing.
To be fair, I suspect it will be some time before spaceships are being flown by a pilot who doesn't know how to recover from a stall.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. The pool of unemployed astronauts will probably dry up pretty quick. The competition to provide cheap space flights will put inexorable pressure on firms to reduce costs, and you will see (eventually) poorly maintained rockets/shuttles, and poorly trained pilots flying on little or no sleep.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of risk taking really isn't necessary any more with spaceflight, or almost any new mode of transport. In the early days of flying we didn't know much about things like metal fatigue and the kinds of human errors pilots are prone to. Now we do air travel is extremely safe and new aircraft can be designed and tested to the point where there is no need for all passengers to sign waivers.
Space is a harsher environment but if you look at modern human spaceflight it has a good safety record. The Shuttle
Re: (Score:2)
No exploding
Doesn't this rule out nuclear pulse propulsion?
Actually, come to think of it, technically I think it may rule out liquid AND solid rocket boosters, since they're basically just a controlled and directed explosion. Gonna have to get a waiver for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No exploding
Doesn't this rule out nuclear pulse propulsion?
Actually, come to think of it, technically I think it may rule out liquid AND solid rocket boosters, since they're basically just a controlled and directed explosion. Gonna have to get a waiver for that.
Electromagnetic propulsion is the only way, considering all the magnetic fields out there. Surfs Up!
Re: (Score:2)
I think it should actually be closer to Rule #5. Rules against exploding are overrated, both from a risk and a cost to enforce standpoint. Infringement of personal rights and liberties happens much more frequently than explosions, and I'd rather see their protection protection occupying rules 1-4.
It's strange that we accept some level of death in ground transportation and recognize that the bigger problems are traffic jams, since a 1 hour delay can easily equate to several man years of lost time, but 1 de
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are existing regulations at NASA such that any rocket that veers off course will self-destruct, because rocket fuel is nasty, powerful, volatile stuff that you don't want near populated areas. So believe it or not, there are mandatory explosives involved in space flight.
Re: (Score:2)
No exploding
That's fine for civilian-crewed/passengered space flights.
I propose a second "Rule #1" for politicians and government bureaucrats:
Rule #1 For Politicians/Bureaucrats On Board Commercial/Civilian Space Flights: "All flights must be computer-piloted, and must attain maximum possible velocity just before impacting Washington, DC."
Win-win.
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The no exploding rule is more important than you think. The damage or destruction of satellites, space stations and spacecraft from collision with debris in Earth's and orbit will become a major problem. Just one tiny bolt from a junk heap w/ a high velocity orbiting around the earth colliding with a space ship carrying passengers to the moon/iss/etc is enough to kill everyone on board. Even bigger space-junk will cause a bigger problem.
Think of the mars-children!
Re: (Score:2)
I propose a second "Rule #1" for politicians and government bureaucrats:
Rule #1 For Politicians/Bureaucrats On Board Commercial/Civilian Space Flights: "All flights must be computer-piloted, and must attain maximum possible velocity just before impacting Washington, DC."
Win-win.
The no exploding rule is more important than you think. The damage or destruction of satellites, space stations and spacecraft from collision with debris in Earth's and orbit will become a major problem.
Well, I agree to the extent that a ship-full of politicians & bureaucrats should not explode until it reaches maximum-effect air-burst height over D.C.
It should not go wandering around above sub-orbital altitudes, exploding where it'll create garbage. The whole idea was to reduce garbage to start with.
Think of the mars-children!
I think that's illegal in "red" states, isn't it? :P
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Rule #1 For Politicians/Bureaucrats On Board Commercial/Civilian Space Flights: "All flights must be computer-piloted, and must attain maximum possible velocity just before impacting Washington, DC."
Win-win.
Win-win? More like a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
No, rule #1 is we don't talk about explosions.
Re: (Score:1)
"Funny" doesn't give karma. In fact, getting "funny" mods can indirectly hurt your karma, since people who didn't find your post funny might decide to mod it down on the grounds that it doesn't deserve such a high score.
That's why if I have mod points and see a great joke post, I stick to Interesting/Insightful/Informative, to avoid inadvertently punishing the poster.
Don't do that. Please. Posters who are pushing 'funny' stuff want to be modded funny. We understand the risks. We're brave boys and girls and can handle it.
But it just looks bad when some humorous bit of nonsense is modded +5 Insightful. What happens if somebody just drops in from another board? They're gonna think we're complete idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't do that. Please. Posters who are pushing 'funny' stuff want to be modded funny. We understand the risks. We're brave boys and girls and can handle it. But it just looks bad when some humorous bit of nonsense is modded +5 Insightful. What happens if somebody just drops in from another board? They're gonna think we're complete idiots.
Or, accept the fact that there is truth in humor, and sometimes truth is insightful.
They need to name the final rule (Score:2)
The Space Precautionary Act.
And they need to delay the damn hearing 4 weeks, until there will be, I dunno, *one million plus* people on that coast, for the last Shuttle launch?
Eeediots.
No "Space Precautionary Act" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic that your post immediately followed mine, isn't it? :-)
Safety Nazis (Score:4, Interesting)
(car analogy)If the first cars buit were required to have all the safety features we find on modern cars, we would all still be riding horses.(/car analogy)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure people are free to take whatever risks they want with their own lives. Regulations are there to stop people taking risks with other people's lives, who don't wish to accept that level of risk.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure people are free to take whatever risks they want with their own lives. Regulations are there to stop people taking risks with other people's lives, who don't wish to accept that level of risk.
They're also there to keep desperate and/or ignorant people from being taken advantage of.
Re: (Score:2)
To some safety is more important than fame and notoriety. That's why we need regulations, to keep the people safe who want to be safe, and let the people who want to get famous or die trying have a go at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you have that little faith in your government, you're already pretty screwed, so there's really nothing I can do for you. Sorry. :(
Re:so how many people will have to die before safe (Score:5, Insightful)
so how many people will have to die before for some safety rules are in place?
3007.
Back in the real world, pushing rules that expect 99.99999% safety would simply kill the industry in America and hand space travel over to the Chinese or some other country which is happy for people to make their own decision about whether they think a flight is safe. All that's really required is some basic standard that companies have to meet to avoid punitive lawsuits when someone does die.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, E-7 is fairly reasonable. E-9 would kill it. My preference is E-6 for anything under 10 passengers, and E-7 for anything over until it becomes as routine and cheap as airline travel became in the 80's.
Re: (Score:3)
You sank my battleship!
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison, there are something like a hundred thousand commercial airline flights per day resulting in more than 30 mil
Re:so how many people will have to die before safe (Score:4, Interesting)
All that's really required is some basic standard that companies have to meet to avoid punitive lawsuits when someone does die.
Yeah. Something like regulations. Or maybe rules. Or a framework. By a governmental agency with appropriate jurisdiction.
Great idea!
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the basic difference between the way America and Russia developed space technology. America did things methodically with lots theory, design and testing on the ground so that by the time a rocket went up there was hopefully a good chance of it working right. The Russians were more hands on and did much of their testing with test flights. Sure, a lot more rockets blew up and more vehicles failed in orbit, but they also learnt a lot and were able to rapidly improve with much less money and
Re: (Score:1)
As many as there are that are willing to take the risk to do so...
Re: (Score:1)
People die every day in bathtubs, in cars, on bicycles, and a wide variety of other ways considered "safe". Hell, a number of people just drop dead every day across the globe for no apparent reason.
As long as the individual can gauge their risk and their activity has a low probability of killing someone has not chosen to participate, who cares?
Let those who do it decide (Score:2, Interesting)
Never honk off the people at the top of the gravity well
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what they are talking about. By commercial space they probably mean commercial launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now there's no place to STAY up there. So the colonies don't have anything to worry about...
I propose several rules for space:
No manufacturing Giant Robots from Super-Space Alloy
No dropping things down the gravity well
Humanoid replicants are not allowed (back) on the planet.
No searching for xeno-forms after they destroy more than 1 spaceship full of people.
No Tribbles
No Bugs
Yes to latex-painted space suits and anti-gravity boobies.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanoid replicants are not allowed (back) on the planet.
Yes to latex-painted space suits and anti-gravity boobies.
I think this was was the law; hence the blade runners
we need a subset laws limiting who can wear latex-painted space suits...please.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a very noble slogan - but utterly disconnected from reality. These rules are designed to regulate the craft that will fly over existing populated areas, in the atmosphere - *not* in space. I.E. they represent a danger to bystanders in the same way aircraft do.
Histo
Re: (Score:2)
Same as commercial or civil aviation (Score:1)
The same rules for civilian and commercial aviation should apply to spaceflight, everything is going to have to be IFR of course, but thats the framework they should work from.
Liability Regulation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to take down that Ayn Rand poster from your bedroom wall.
Colonization Rule (Score:2)
If you can keep a permanent residence on a celestial body you own a 10km radius around the pressurized areas.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Score:2)
NASA should get out of human spaceflight and become the FAA of commercial manned spaceflight.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well NASA DID send up some Chimps in some of the Gemini tests before they sent up people...
I suggest (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And your luggage should end up on the moon.
Isn't that kind of the goal?
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you're going to Mars
Rule #1 (Score:1)
No Damage to the Ground or other aircraft or ships (Score:1)
Others have said "no exploding" - I disagree. You should be allowed to explode, provided you do it over your own land or water or don't harm anyone else's property without their consent. Exploding is cool.
Liability for anything that hits the earth or another space ship or aircraft or ocean-going vessel. You hit it, you bought it + damages. I wouldn't hit a oil tanker. 20 yrs later, when parts come back to earth, there needs to be a liability fund ready to pay out regardless of where the junk hits - Outbac
UN regulated. (Score:1)
Besides, until the nations of the world can defend themselves against, say, asteroids that may have their trajectories altered or falling space stations, it is also not at all clever to allow any particularly large or particularly maneuverable commercial venues out there.
Re: (Score:1)
Its the United Nations, not the United Solar System.
Space Stations have already fallen, two militaries (US and China) have shown the capability to shoot down satellites and by extension, shoot and hit a space station. I can think of three other nations (Israel, Japan and the Russian Federation) who likely have the same capabilities, but just haven't tried it.
Re: (Score:2)
And the only large-ish space station that I know of that even fell even just partially uncontrolled actually hit the ground far from where it was supposed to go (Skylab). The bigger MIR was very carefully de-orbited - still debris
I'll be interested. . (Score:3)
to see how they manage to regulate other countries, should they send up space-tourism vehicles. How exactly do you restrict, uh, spacespace? when orbital mechanics dictate that the vehicle can't avoid orbiting over the US?
Lasseiz-Faire (Score:2)
Keep yer bumbling, ineffective, red-tape hands out of our spacelanes. Thanks.
"You can't take the sky from me...."
Re: (Score:2)
But NASA has done such a great job of realizing the spaceflight dreams of 40 years ago!
Elon Musk has decided he's going to retire on Mars. So far, he's on track.
They can ask opinions all they want (Score:3)
But an unelected US government bureaucracy doesn't have jurisdiction outside the planet. Sorry.
EPA and spaceflight (Score:1)
I refer to "Destination Moon" a 1950s movie about the first moon launch. The launch is called off because the equivalent to the EPA at the time says that their rocket can't be allowed to launch because it uses dangerous chemicals and poses a hazard. Of course with a rousing entrepreneurial spirit, the launch is done anyway in spite of the regulators that show up to shut them down.
As far as I know, the EPA does in fact have to license launches because of the hazardous materials involved. This can certainl
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually looked at what the FAA is wanting to do for commercial space operations? Have you ever talked to the people doing it to figure out their goals? The FAA-AST folks and the NewSpace folks in fact get a long quite well, they're even Facebook friends.
Pre-emptive regulation where the industry has a main seat at the table is the best weapon right now against over-regulation later. With the current path, the legal regime under which the companies will operate will be well-known and designed
Lazy Management Techniques 101 (Score:2)
Is it me, or does there seem to be a rash of government agencies seeking the help of "people online" to do their job?
It's clear that they want us to do the work for them and then get no credit or money for it. Well, I'm not some focus group member and they can figure this out themselves. It's not like the Government listens to the average person any more, as it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is self-contradictory, FYI.
"they want us to do the work for them" ... "It's not like the Government listens to the average person"
Seriously, this knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is getting pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is getting pretty bad.
getting? You mean it is something new. Hell my Great Grandfather had the same anti-government sentiment.
Yeah, I have a suggestion: (Score:4, Insightful)
Security? Jesus.... (Score:1)
On site endoscopy?
Jesus does security work? (Score:2)
Security? Jesus....Considering what it takes to get on a plane bound for, well, Earth, i can only imagine...
On site endoscopy?
Whether you're a believer or believe it's fiction I'm not familiar with a tradition in which Jesus does those, or any security work for that matter. If you want a high profile security officer, try an ex-wrestler or ex-footballer.
Cheaper than residential! (Score:1)
What a great idea (Score:1)
Maybe the SEC and the USPTO could take a hint from from the FAA and have public hearings about how we'd like the patent system to work and how we'd like trading things like credit default swaps to be regulated.
There might be a few other administrations, departments, and bureaus that could do the same.
kw: majornelson (Score:1)
casagenie
Emissions (Score:2)
Even my local corrupt-as-all-heck government has announced we have a crapload of rocket fuel in our drinking water.
Even if it didn't come from spaceflight (?) it raises the point.
It shouldnt regulate it at all (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:2)
The US EPA is asking coal power plant operators for their opinions on how they should be regulated, and the US Elite Cyber Commando Troopers are placing posts on black hat forums asking for their opinions on new laws concerning identity theft and money laundering.
How about: NOT AT ALL!!! (Score:2)
WHY WHY WHY can't you stop regulating things to death???? I know this is a backdoor method to cut the legs out from under an industry just being born.
On a related note, I just found out that it would cost me $90,000 to get a helicopter rating. That makes me sad.
Re: (Score:3)
They want YOUR input on how you can best be molested!
Also, no more backscatter x-rays, they'll just line your chair with carbon paper and conveniently leave off that radiation shielding on the outer hull!
Re:No jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
At the moment, no one has jurisdiction. It's a wild-ass frontier up there. However, it is reasonable to assume that the USA's FAA should have some authority over space vehicles taking off and landing in American lands. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to suppose that the FAA will be likely to have some input or influence on what rules are put into place, when the requisite international body is formed for managing orbital and interstellar flights, as I would also expect other flight safety agencies from around the world to have.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related side note. I remember flying over Kansas one time in the past and the flight service had to stop serving alcholic beverages because Kansas (I'm sure it was Kansas) had passed a law that said no drinking (or maybe just hard liquor that was not sold in a state licensed store). So maybe the FAA will not have juristiction but for sanity there should be some international agreements standards and regulations. Just like you as a land owner has mineral right below, the FAA has juristiction above, cert
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the US government has authority and the obligation to regulate any launches that not only occur on US lands, but also launches that occur on non US lands that is operated by a US entity. This is part of the Outer Space Treaty. Now which agency regulates the actual launch, that is a battle that would have to be fought by the different departments within the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that it would be the responsibility of USAF.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The hell they don't, the mandate of the FAA is to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. Aviation includes everything from zero to 50 miles up for the US regulators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but they have jurisdiction of airspace from 1000 to 50,000 feet. It's kind of hard to get to space without that "first mile". Well I guess you can get there... it's when you get back that you get in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
They know this. The FAA is regulating the legs of the trip through US air space where they have jurisdiction. Launch and re-entry are the main areas of concern.
Also, the FAA folks involved in this, AST (Office of Space Transportation I believe), are trying very hard to facilitate new developments, not regulate it to death. Having well-defined regulations in place now helps prevent ill-concieved and onerous regulations coming in later when congress gets involved. The ones I have met are thoughtful people
Re: (Score:3)
The US FAA has no jurisdiction over space.
They have jurisdiction over commercial flights to space that originate in the US, or fly over US airspace (up to an altitude of 50-80k feet I'd guess).
Re: (Score:1)
The US FAA has no jurisdiction over space.
But they have jurisdiction over US aviators going into space. As long as your craft is of US origin, they have some jurisdiction surrounding your plane no matter where it travels outside US airspace
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country [cnn.com] to start a business in.
Re:America (Score:5, Funny)
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country [cnn.com] to start a business in.
Facts don't matter to trolls! Just sunlight and bridges.
What makes Bin Laden to death? AxisApexis? (Score:1)
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country [cnn.com] to start a business in.
Facts don't matter to trolls! Just sunlight and bridges.
Obama declared that Bin Laden is dead, DNA is verified, I think this is not a trifling matter.What makes Bin Laden's house exposed,who named the God of flee, what's more,the hidding so concealed? Bush caught him by all means failed to catch him for nearly a decade, however,Obama's army discovered him this year, and quickly kill him.Is it the U.S. satellite positioning system technology to improve this high level? Of course, this is one possiblility.The another reason maybe is betrayal of the Pakistani milit
Re: (Score:1)
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country [cnn.com] to start a business in.
Facts don't matter to trolls! Just sunlight and bridges.
Best. Reply. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen the rules in a lot of the EU? Actually I hear that many places in Africa are worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Egypt was a terrible, terrible place to try and start or expand a business.
Unless of course you were a crony of the Mubaraks, then it was easy.
Re: (Score:3)
Sad, You seem to think that lack of regulation will equal growth. (read the article on Chinese suicides in the iPhone iPad plant) and certainly the over regulation of derivatives did make the financial markets safe for everyone. That is one of the primary, and necesarry roles of government, to set down the ground rule so things don't go boom in the night, like the markets or oil wells or rockets in space.
Re: (Score:1)
yea, if I could find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)