Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

FAA Space Tourism Guidelines Draft Published 115

Posted by CowboyNeal from the bad-inflight-movies dept.
An anonymous reader writes "...All 123 pages of it. Public comment period runs thorough February 27th, so if you're thinking of joining the latest class of jet-setters, better get your opinions in now. The FAA mentions the possibility of incorporating the "no-fly" list of the TSA into security requirements for space travel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FAA Space Tourism Guidelines Draft Published More

FAA Space Tourism Guidelines Draft Published

Comments Filter:

  • My one requirement (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fr05t ( 69968 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @07:58AM (#14363992)
    I must be allowed to bring my ant farm with me on all space trips.

    • Re:My one requirement (Score:4, Funny)

      by Elvis Parsley ( 939954 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:26AM (#14364095)
      I for one welcome our...oh, you know the rest.
      • I, for one, wish people wouldnt use this "joke" with every story on Slashdot.

        • Re:My one requirement (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2005 @10:02AM (#14364572)
          You don't think that "joke" is funny because you don't understand the context. For once, that joke is especially relevant to the topic. Here is the original line from the Simpsons episode, "Homer in space". It happens after Homer releases a colony of ants into the spaceship.

          Kent: Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but,
                              uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft
                              has been taken over -- "conquered", if you will -- by a master
                              race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this
                              vantage point whether they will consume the captive earth men
                              or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain, there is no
                              stopping them; the ants will soon be here.
                              And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to
                              remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful
                              in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar
                              caves.
    • I just hope they ban Ishtar from ever being played as the in-flight movie.

  • No-fly list? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <tord.stromdal@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2005 @07:58AM (#14363993)
    "The FAA mentions the possibility of incorporating the "no-fly" list of the TSA into security requirements for space travel."

    Good thing too, we don't want Usama going into orbit, now, do we?

    *coughoverkillcough*

    • Good thing too, we don't want Usama going into orbit, now, do we?

      Or, apparently, Ted Kennedy [washingtonpost.com].



    • Re:No-fly list? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:05AM (#14364011)
      *coughoverkillcough*
      Is it really overkill? A huge part of terrorism, is media coverage. Kill three people at the neighborhood Quikie Mart and you get local coverage. Kill three people in a suborbital or orbital flight, and instant worldwide coverage. We can question whether the no fly list works or not, but looking at ways to keep terrorists off of spacecraft is not unreasonable.
      • Whatever you do, beware the

        ==TERRORISTS IN SPACE!==

        Presented in H Y P N O V I S I O N

        A nurse will be available in the theater for those who may suffer a heart attack from the HORROR

        -Eric

      • Is it really overkill? ... We can question whether the no fly list works or not, but looking at ways to keep terrorists off of spacecraft is not unreasonable.

        yer kidding right?
        The whole point isn't that we should blow up planes in the absence of the terrorists doing it for us ... of f*ing course we all want to live in safety ... the point is that the list is useless.
        It's a good thing the terrorists aren't clever enough to fly using a fake f*ing name!
        It's a good thing that the name on your birth certif

        • Agreed, Right now its overkill, I think its going to be a fair number of years before terrorists can go to florida and get flying lessons for one of these craft, I would like to think that any terrorist would be ratted out long before they got anywhere near a space craft, as it takes 2 weeks to prepare for flight. I think the list is useless but maybe in 50 years time when everyones flying into space it might warrant some effort.
        • Sigh... I guess suborbital flights are going to be as much fun as flying to the US for those of us with common names. I remember when that US senator found out his name was on the no fly list and went ballistic. The rest of us get to suffer meekly. Yes sir, here's my passport sir. Of course I'll come along to the special room sir.
      • While I agree that this would make the news everywhere, this sort of attack wouldn't do quite as good a job of spreading terror as many others. Attacking people at work or on their way to work I think is much more effective than attacking a group of rich tourists. While it would certainly cause a stir, the average person wouldn't be as worried about this as they would an attack on their daily commute.
      • Kill three people at the neighborhood Quikie Mart and you get local coverage. Kill three people in a suborbital or orbital flight, and instant worldwide coverage.

        Kill three people at the neighborhood Quikie Mart and leave behind a note proclaiming yourself a terrorist, and you'll get instant worldwide coverage. Better yet, from the terrorists' point of view, you'll be terrifying everyone who goes to convenience stores, not just everyone rich enough to afford a suborbital rocket flight.
      • "looking at ways to keep terrorists off of spacecraft is not unreasonable."

        not to mention people "worse" than terrorists, like
        peaceful souls who can make people think.

        imagine that same media soapbox handed over
        (albeit temporarily until the microphone is cut off!)
        to the rather truer subversive planetary heroes.

    • Re:No-fly list? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )
      One thing to remember is that spacecraft do not have to land at the same spaceport they took off from.
      The use of suborbital flights (like what SpaceShipOne was able to do and what Virgin Galactic plans to do) as a way to get from A to B much faster than a normal airplane is something that boffins and scientists and space gurus are already talking about and drawing up plans for.
      In that circumstance, all the rules that apply to a normal airplane flight (such as passport requirements, no-fly lists etc) will ne

      • Re:No-fly list? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jmp_nyc ( 895404 ) * on Friday December 30, 2005 @11:01AM (#14364951)
        Even Apollo 11 had to fill out a customs declaration. [columbia.edu] I'm sure the same rules would apply to commercial space travel that involves a stop somewhere outside of the US. (Say, on a privately run space station, which is likely to happen in the long run if commercial spaceflight is a success.)
        -JMP
        • Customs Agent: Sir, did you pack your own bags.
          Astronaut: Yes.
          *Alert Sounds*
          Customs Agent: We found "moon dust" in your bag. Care to explain?
        • Question of the day would be if that was done for fun, or not? There are a number of times when government forms are submitted for shits and giggles. During the Christmas Season 2001, the EAA filed for a waiver for Santa, which was granted.
        • "Even Apollo 11 had to fill out a customs declaration."

          How high do I have to jump to be outside US?
          • Hey, this is a good question.

            From a few minutes on Google, it looks like:

            1) The laws of a given country affect its air space
            2) The airspace of a given country ends where outer space begins

            Outer space might begin at 50 miles, per the US limit for the title of 'Astronaut'. Or, it might begin at the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100 km (62 miles). Or, it might be at the lowest possible stable orbit (200km).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space [wikipedia.org]

            Fun.
            • Not to mention they can't enforce it cuz they're not monitoring it.

              So, in a way, you could leave a country undetected and land wherever you wish undetected.
              If you had several billion spaceship that is.

              But I always wondered how illegal traffickers don't use secretly built underground tunnels. That seems cheaper, don't ee [sic]?
      • It's pretty tricky to reroute a ballistic suborbital flight (ie hijacking) to a destination of your choosing though.
    • To get on the no-fly list, all you really have to do is criticize the government, be a politial opponent of the government, have a name similar to the previous, say Bush is a wanker in public, show up at anti-Bush rallies, read the wrong books in college... pretty simple. Watch what you say, watch what you do, or you don't get to leave the planet.

      There are no terrorists on that list. Otherwise they'd never be allowed on the planes.
      • From TFA:

        A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.

        Bwahahaha!
        Next time I go to a terrorist^w anti-war rally, I'm gonna tell everybody my name is George Bush.

        "I'm sorry Mr. President, but they won't let us off the tarmac until we verify that you didn't speak at an anti-war rally at Hoboken Illinois.

    • "The FAA mentions the possibility of incorporating the "no-fly" list of the TSA into security requirements for space travel."


      So then, would people in the U.S. who are on the no fly list who really want to be space tourists be able to get around this restriction by simply going to Canada and booking a flight on a ship from there instead? (That is, if any Canadian companies get into this biz.)

  • PDF Warning (Score:3, Informative)

    by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <tord.stromdal@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:02AM (#14364004)
    "All 123 pages of it"

    For those of you who haven't already tried clicking on that huge, bloated (4.4 MB) PDF, consider yourselves forewarned.

  • Liberia anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Guess the TSA regs just means the Space Industry will have non-US based locations - like the cruise ship industry has registry in Norway, Liberia, etc, and others to escape the restrictive US regs ...
    • While I agree that the no-fly list is retarded, it hasn't caused US airlines' headquarters to move. I don't see how it would have any effect on a space-tourism industry. Cruise lines try to get around US regulations not because they're restrictive per se, but because compliance is expensive.

      • Re:Liberia anyone? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        it hasn't caused US airlines' headquarters to move.

        Kinda tough to service Chicago to Dallas via Norway.

    • Re:Liberia anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:34AM (#14364111) Journal
      Guess the TSA regs just means the Space Industry will have non-US based locations

      Let's see...

      Dennis Tito: Soyuz capsule launched from Khazakstan.
      Mark Shuttleworth: Soyuz capsule launched from Khazakstan.
      Gregory Olsen: Soyuz capsule launched from Khazakstan.

      Notice a pattern there?

      The US may have "won" the race to the moon, but we've already lost the commercialization of space to the Russians (although Richard Branson - A Brit - may beat them to making such travel commonplace via Virgin Galactic).


      The TSA can make whatever rules it wants to. As can I... In fact, I hereby decree that all space tourists must pass a rigorous 57 point inspection at the nearest Jiffy-Lube. Of course, I expect my rules to have as much relevance as the TSA's on this matter.

      • He may be a brit, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @10:39AM (#14364785)
        He chose New Mexico to build a billion-dollar spaceport because the "restrictive" government there wants to foot half the bill.
      • The Russian space tourism program is not commercial at all.

        If anything, it's a system of legal bribery: an individual gives money to a government to receive special treatment that is not offered to ordinary citizens.

        And as another poster said, Virgin Galactic, which is an actual commercial venture, will be launching from New Mexico, USA [virgingalactic.com]. Which would put it squarely within the jurisdiction of the FAA.
      • The US may have "won" the race to the moon, but we've already lost the commercialization of space to the Russians (although Richard Branson - A Brit - may beat them to making such travel commonplace via Virgin Galactic).

        You define "winning" the commercialization of space based on how many space tourists countries have put in orbit? That is a little odd, particularly when you consider that Russia puts tourists in orbit to make money, whereas the US has the capability to do so but chooses not to as a matte

  • No space plane for you, junior. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phariom ( 941580 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:09AM (#14364026)
    "The FAA mentions the possibility of incorporating the 'no-fly' list of the TSA into security requirements for space travel."

    That includes this [com.com] individual.
    • if we're really safer with these kinds of procedures and people "protecting" us (See parent's link). If an obvious error of someone who is harmless cannot be fixed, what would happen if there's someone who is a threat and the TSA cannot get their name ON the list do to their own internal policies and procedures? Or is it that all you have to do is have a similar name to someone who is a possible, maybe not a probable, threat and you're fucked?

      If I have to make a choice between my liberties being taken away

      • Re:You have to ask yourself.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:51AM (#14364171) Homepage Journal
        The funny thing is people get more worked up about terrorism which kills relatively few people worldwide then they do about barelling down the highway at 100 mph while drunk and not wearing a seatbelt. Last year car accidents killed about 40,000 Americans, about 13 times the number that died on September 11th, but I don't see the government rushing to make cars safer(hell, they are doing the opposite with lax fuel economy standards that don't punish the mammoths that cause a lot of these fatalities)
        However, that number is rarely mentioned in the news, but if Zarqawi sneezes the media is all over it. The media has seriously distorted people's sense of reality...
        • Lets see, just during my lifetime:
          Seatbelts became mandatory in cars (early 70s).
          Antilock brakes became widely available (80s).
          Airbags became available (80s).
          Passive restraint systems became mandatory (airbag or auto seatbealts) (80s).
          Traction control systems became available (80s).
          Side impact standards were greatly raised (90s).
          Stability control systems became available (90s).

          So we went from "most cars will have a safety system (seatbelts)" to "all cars will have a passive safety system active at all times
          • All these safety systems, by the way, has added a lot to the cost of cars and reduce the mileage they get by adding weight. Worst mileage compared to what?? The vehicles of your yore. I hope not because their idea of safety was to encase the vehicle in as much steel as they could because that made the vehicles heavier and really didn't change the safety.
            • Also, you'd be surprised, the cars you speak of just weren't that heavy.

              1964 Mustang curb weight: 2850lbs.
              2005 Mustang curb weight: 3450lbs.

              The new Mustang does get better mpg than the 1964, but only on the highway. If the 1964 had a 5 or 6 speed tranny like the 2005 does, it would probably get the same mpg.

              The airbags in most cars will never deploy before the car is scrapped. All they do during that time is add weight. Given this, are they really adding as much safety as better brakes or stability control,

              • Anyway, there are no two ways about it. These modern safety systems add weight. And adding weight increase friction, which raises fuel consumption. Additionally, unless you have 100% effective regenerative braking, you also lose noticable energy (from the fuel) into the brakes each time you slow down.

                Meh... The government did the calculations for vehicles created in 2001. 4% of weight and cost of the car is the governments fault. They were also more thorough than seatbelts and airbags (ie side impact prot

                • As I said, part of it isn't mandated, but is due to companies wanting to look better in the IIHS tests. That's how the hundreds of pounds added to the Ford F150 came about.

                  The F150 got about 500lbs heavier largely due to the additon of metal for the crash protection. It weighed perhaps 3,000lbs before. That's 16%, not 0.4%.

                  And as to 0.4% cost, I just can't imagine. It costs several hundreds of dollars to replace the airbags after 8 years. You're either paying for that or it comes out of your depreciation. M
          • I think you have a point, but it's not that cars aren't being made safer. People get scared, billions are spent and our freedom is sacrificed to protect us from THE TERRORISTS when very small changes could make us and everyone else quite a bit safer.

            The same people who scream about terrorists tend to be the ones who believe in their right to drive along as drunk as they please with a smoke in one hand, cell phone in the other and a bowl of cereal on their lap.

            When you get into your car and drive you're at

      • Re:You have to ask yourself.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bit01 ( 644603 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @10:45AM (#14364826)
        Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

        -- Mary Shafer, Risks researcher, NASA Dryden

        From here. [yarchive.net]

      • I'm wondering what would stop the "terrorists" from using big industry CEO's, Congressional leaders, etc. names as an alias when traveling just to get these names on the list and cause disruption.
  • The FAA has also started drafting rules to guide travel to and from Mars. TSA said to be advertising on Martian surface for inspectors.

    Gotta love our Government...getting their hands into EVERYTHING!

  • No Fly List in Space (Score:3, Funny)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:18AM (#14364066) Journal
    Could we possibly keep retardedness out of space? Perhaps if someone can point me to one single example of the no-fly list stopping a terrorist attack I would think differently. As it happens, 1000's of suspected terrorists (eg Rep. Don Young) are actually allowed to leave an airport without being arrested, when they CLEARLY tried to get on a plane! I mean how fucking more obvious can you get than going up to the counter and presenting your ticket! These people are suspected terrorists, the incentive is as clear as day and yet they are simply told "no you cant blow up this plane you're on the no fly list, why dont you try blowing up a bus on the way home instead?"

    Am I missing something here?
    • Could we possibly keep retardedness out of space?

      It's too late for that [bbc.co.uk].

    • I was going to reply, and say how I thought you were being a little over the top, but then I realized how futile it would be to reply to someone who has clearly already been carted off by homeland security for hating freedom and pissing on the proud, patriotic work that the goverenment has to do to keep it safe from all the people who are trying to destroy it by thinking freely.

      seriously tho, I'm reminded of a george carlin rant about airport security. we can make planes as safe as we want, and then the te
      • Well he does have a point, but that's not the point im trying to make. Obviously terrorists moving to other targets is no reason to lax airport security, but this has nothing to do with airport security, if it did then no-flyers would be arrested on sight, fact. There's no due process involved in these lists, you have no opportunity to present a case to be taken off, it sets a dangerous precedent that you can be punished for something but no court will open its doors to hear your appeal.
        • I agree wholeheartedly. I was just being sarcastic. the entire system is being shaped by the Bush administration to cut out due process, because due process protects not just the people involved, but the sanctity of Just Means. For the bush administration, the ends justify the means, ergo unJust Means are permissible in the pursuit of Just Ends, and thats bs

  • Thank Goodness For Government Regulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gadlaw ( 562280 ) <gilbert@@@gadlaw...com> on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:22AM (#14364083) Homepage Journal
    Leave it to the government to put their tentacles into something that was only able to grow out of nothing because of the lack of government regulations in the first place. New regulations on space tourism and privately built spacecraft will likely mean no spacecraft can be built without wheelchair access, without headlights and taillights, without flush toilets with the government regulated amount of power and flush, without seperate and secured pilot cabins, without air marshalls, without a whole system of spacecraft licencing and regulation paperwork to be filled out/ security background checks for pilots/passengers/investors and without government approval for every time they run a test all the way to blasting off. Yes indeed, thank goodness for government. At least those pioneers and inventors have been able to get this far because the eye of Sauron was elsewhere. Thank goodness the Wright Brothers didn't have this government on their asses or there wouldn't even be airplanes now. Geez.
    • This Act specifies the requirements for doorways and other design specs: http://www.fta.dot.gov/14534_5608_ENG_HTML.htm [dot.gov]

      The regulations that help those with disabilities, I am afraid, can and most likely will in the US, take away the chances of this market ever taking off. As the parent of this comment has stated about the Wright Bros., the government could have shut the whole industry down before it even started. Obviously, the laws that are designed to protect people from themselves can stifle innovatio

    • Leave it to the government to put their tentacles into something that was only able to grow out of nothing because of the lack of government regulations in the first place.

      'Grow out of nothing'? The space tourism industry currently is nothing beyond a few stunt flights.

      New regulations on space tourism and privately built spacecraft will likely mean no spacecraft can be built...

      [long pointless rant snipped about what regulations will require or prevent]

      Um, no. Have you actually read the draft? Have yo

  • Ok.. The FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, not the Federal Astronautics Administration. The authority of the FAA extends only as far as the stratosphere...right?
  • Well, we all know terrorists caused the Columbia disaster, so it only makes sense.

  • Earth to Ground Control.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:51AM (#14364173) Homepage

    Given that a major purpose of the FAA is controlling airspace over the US, and given that the FAA has impressively failed over the last 15-20 years to build an integrated Air Traffic Control system (its not that hard as even the European's have one at Mastrict for upper airways, and are proposing a new single system in the next 20 years) and have allowed systems that crash at places like LAX, are they really the people to start defining rules for Space Tourism, sure Branson says he is kicking off from the US, but if it hits revenue why not drop south into Mexico or just go to Russia/China/some nice Island in the Pacific ?

    Nice attempt by the FAA to expand its remit into space, but they'd have more respect if they could build a decent ATC system first.

    • Re:Earth to Ground Control.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PPGMD ( 679725 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @11:34AM (#14365181) Journal
      As a regulation body, the FAA does a very good job, in fact I think it's one of the few government organization that actually listens to the public, very few rash rulings, public comment on almost all changes to regulations, and new regs well before they are implemented. Their education branch is very good also, my local FSDO is always running interesting, and informative sessions on safety of flight, and changes in regulations, along with partnering with the AOPA ASF. Enforcement is a little hit or miss, but is overall good.

      Where the FAA has failed has been facility mx. Because of safety of flight it takes years for systems to get vetted and out into the field, by then they are obsolete, or the idea is so far out, it never makes it off the drawing board. I think thats why you are seeing NASA more and more involved in the far out ideas, and the FAA coming back to it's more traditional role.

      I think that the FAA should stick with regulation, enforcement, and short term advocacy of flight, it should off load the long term ideas to NASA, and there should be a separate agency that manages ATC, with it's own budget. The FAA would still have regulation and enforcement over that ATC agency, but wouldn't be funding them.

      • the ATC is much of the FAA. To be be specific the ATO, air tracfic organization is like 80% of the FAA. The are other Groups AVN (Aviation Systems and Standards) who actully create flight procedures, there about 14,000 flight procedures that tell pilots how to land and take off from every airport in the US, as well as layout the air routes. This is very very complex. Where do Old ATC go ???? they leave the ATO and move to AVN and work on flight procedures. Also the FAA maintains a small fleet of aircra
        • I see the issue in being the old Army vs Army Air Forces budget issue. When the Air Force was part of the Army cost overruns by the Army projects would effect Air Force projects. I think that my separating the ATO from the FAA, and give it their own budget, at least they can't blame a lack of budget when facility MX falls below expected levels.

          Most everything else except long term development could stay within the FAA, because it goes along with their regulatory role.

  • there actually IS a point to this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quadraginta ( 902985 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:51AM (#14364177)
    Before y'all freak, realize that these regs are doing a favor for the industry. If the Feds don't issue rules, it's not like the industry won't be unsupervised. Oh no! What'll happen instead is that it will get "supervised" by the motley crew of lawyers who sue it, and the decisions of the judges and juries who decide the resulting cases. The net result, that is, would be that a random patchwork of State and Federal Courts would exercise some kind of random and mostly unpredictable supervision of the industry.

    Now, think of the McDonald's "Yes The Hot Coffee Is Actually Hot" case, or the Texas Vioxx case, or John Edwards' channeling unborn babies in the Courtroom, or any number of bizarre legal circuses, and you can see why the industry would rather drink liquid oxygen than let that lawyer's Wild West scenario happen.

    So what they're getting from the Feds here is a set of clear and comprehensive rules which put an "official" stamp on certain best practises. That way, when -- notice I don't say "if" -- somebody gets sued, then as long as they've followed those regulations they're pretty safe. In Court they just point to the regulations, produce the signed inspection reports, and say they followed the rules, the passenger signed the waiver -- end of story, sorry Charlie. The bad operators will get toasted of course, but they should. The good operators won't win all their cases (Handicapped Single Minority Mother Of Five Rhodes Scholars Crawled Over Broken Glass To Sell Pencils For Nine Years To Pay For Son's Graduation Trip To Space: Court To Decide Evil Capitalist Spaceship Owner's Liability For Tragic Accident Today). But they'll win most of them.

    Furthermore, these regulations give the industry a consistent national policy. No random variations from county to county, depending on which fool is sitting in the judge's chair this month. That's worth a lot, since these are going to be national-scale ventures, and it sucks up a lot of company resources to make sure you're complying with 50 sets of state regulations, not to mention a few hundred local rulebooks. Much better to have one set of Federal rules trump them all. (And a mere 120 pages is nothing compared to the tens of thousands of state and local regs that could have come into play.)

    Not to mention that unpredictable liability rules mean high interest rates when you borrow money, because investors don't like unmeasurable random risks.

    So maybe just take a deep breath and all. There do have to be some rules, after all. As long as they're sensible, this is a good thing. I believe also these rules are issued in lieu of any FAA meddling, too -- as I recall, the FAA is forbidden by Executive order from issuing any regulations beyond this set here for 8 years, or until an avoidable fatal accident happens, whichever comes first. Sounds sensible to me.

    • the FAA is forbidden by Executive order from issuing any regulations beyond this set here for 8 years, or until an avoidable fatal accident happens, whichever comes first. Sounds sensible to me.

      There is no unavoidable accidents. If a system fails, it could have been avoided by examining this particular system more thoroughly. If the ship gets hit by a meteor, the resulting damage could have been prevented by making the walls thicker. And so on and so on. No matter what kind of accident happens, you can

      • I think the Executive order in question says something like the FAA can only issue regulations before the 8 years are up if there is a serious accident which it can be shown a specific policy or design feature would have prevented.

        I don't think you should interpret the effect as cynically as you do. The thing to bear in mind is that this order changes the motivation of the FAA regulators: let's assume arguendo that they are ordinarily honest, but also ordinarily concerned with their own skins. Now, under

  • Much of the proposal sounds well thought out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eagl ( 86459 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @08:57AM (#14364207) Journal
    As a USAF pilot and mild space enthusiast, much of the proposal sounds very well thought out. The discussion points about topics such as licensing and qualification requirements and medical standards show that they have considered numerous alternatives and are interested in creating regulations that enhance safety and protect the public, without placing unnecessary burdens on companies, crews, and passengers wishing to participate in spaceflight.

    Plus they're actively asking for input, and discuss input they've already received.

    It really looks like a good faith effort to allow reasonable spaceflight efforts, with an eye on public safety.

    I thought it telling that right away, they list "citizen explorers" as a category of people who will be conducting spaceflights under these regulations. They're specifically addressing the understanding that this will be a risky business that should still be allowed and encouraged.

    Lots of blah blah comments so far including one tard griping about the pdf document format (get a life dude), but very few have bothered to read any of the proposal. I recommend taking the time to at least browse through it... I think it will be educational.

    • ...but very few have bothered to read any of the proposal

      There are things /. readers as a collective body are good at. For everything else, there are other forums.

      Actual spaceflight companies are reading it in detail, and using other forums. With a couple of exceptions, and I'm one of them, people from those companies don't even come here due to the levels of FUD the /.ers bring.

      What has come up so far in those other forums is people who are using VTVL vehicles scratching their heads about the pilot

      • The discussion about requiring a pilots license with instrument rating is pretty detailed in the proposal, and you're right that it's going to be a hot issue. The proposal goes back and forth about the merits of requiring a pilots license and instrument rating vs. requiring that the space pilot applicant demonstrate competence in some other fashion, and I think that for the purposes of this initial and temporary set of regulations, requiring a pilots license and instrument rating is probably the best/cheap
  • Let's at least have the proper terminology here.
  • Seriously - do you all really think that 30 - 40 years from now, space tourism won't be common place? Yes, it may still be for the more affluent of folks, but thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people will be traveling into space every year. With that many people, do you all really think that there won't be space stations in the US, and everyone will travel half way around the world to Russia for launch? Surely you all don't believe thousands of people will take a 14 hour flight, just to board an
  • Forget the no-fly list, where's the cavity search?!

  • FAA? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2005 @09:50AM (#14364480) Homepage Journal
    I've said this before and I'll say it again: the FAA will be useless based on their desire to want to regulate space tourism.

    The country that offers the LEAST regulation in regards to launching orbitals will be the country that takes in the most tourists in this incredibly expensive (but always getting cheaper) business. The initial costs to build the base of launch pads and terminals is very high -- once built, I can't imagine them being moved around.

    If the FAA over-regulates this business, businessmen will go elsewhere. The next few years will set a financial precedent to where the space companies will go. My guess? Australia, South America or even islands off of Africa. Remember, if a trip costs $100,000 and 2 weeks of planning, the extra few hours of flying to some remote location is no big deal.

    • The country that offers the LEAST regulation in regards to launching orbitals will be the country that takes in the most tourists in this incredibly expensive (but always getting cheaper) business.

      The country that offers the BEST regulation in regards to launching orbitals will be the country that gets to KEEP the business.
      We've already seen a couple of shuttles go Kaboom! Judging by some of the foreign airlines accident rate, I wouldn't trust my life in orbit on a Aeroperu or a Cubana [airdisaster.com] orbiter...

      • Judging by some of the foreign airlines accident rate, I wouldn't trust my life in orbit on a Aeroperu or a Cubana orbiter...
        I agree -- if given a choice, I'd go Russian, too.

        But if I paid myself -- I'd take a few extra percent's risk.

    • I've said this before and I'll say it again: the FAA will be useless based on their desire to want to regulate space tourism.

      The FAA AST [faa.gov], the particular part of the agency with responsibility over spaceflight, is a very different group from "The FAA" as a nebulous whole, or "The FAA" referring to the aviation side of things more specifically.

      International treaties make governments responsible for all spaceflight activity from their territory. Governments regulate things which they are responsible fo

  • The "123 pages" link produces this message:

    We're sorry this page is not available.

    With a link back to the referrer. Anyone know of an alternate location for that document?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Act of Terrorism? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sebilrazen ( 870600 ) <blahsebilrazen@blah.com> on Friday December 30, 2005 @12:04PM (#14365383)
    Is slashdotting a .gov website an act of terrorism?
  • That link doesn't seem to be working. Here's the link to it in the Federal Register:

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051 800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-24555.pdf [akamaitech.net]

  • DOT Docket Search Page (Score:3, Informative)

    by adenied ( 120700 ) on Friday December 30, 2005 @03:40PM (#14366808)
    Also, if you want to see the DOT docket for this, go here:

    http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm [dot.gov]

    The docket number is FAA-2005-23449 but all you should enter in the search field is 23449. Right now there's only one comment. I don't know if the DOT has electronic commenting enabled like the FCC does.
  • With any luck they will regulate it right off of US soil.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all...." -- Thomas J. Kopp

Close