Regulations Could Delay or Prevent Space Tourism 186
schwit1 writes "This report explains how Virgin Galactic space tourists could be grounded by federal regulations. From the article: 'Virgin Galactic submitted an application to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation in late August 2013, says Attenborough. The office, which goes by the acronym AST, has six months to review the application, meaning an approval may come as early as February. Industry experts, however, say that may be an overly optimistic projection. "An application will inevitably be approved, but it definitely remains uncertain exactly when it will happen," says Dirk Gibson, an associate professor of communication at the University of New Mexico and author of multiple books on space tourism. "This is extremely dangerous and unchartered territory. It's space travel. AST has to be very prudent," he says. "They don't want to endanger the space-farers or the public, and they can't let the industry get started and then have a Titanic-like scenario that puts an end to it all in the eyes of the public.""
Titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, like the Titanic stopped boat traveling, right ?
Re:Titanic (Score:5, Insightful)
Hindenburg would have been a better example.
Re:Certainly the government can make sure it's saf (Score:2, Insightful)
They can't even get their own name right.
"FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation [...] which goes by the acronym AST"
Bullet meet foot (Score:5, Insightful)
So, launch from off shore (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hey guys! I just went to Paris! I stayed in the plane the whole time and flew over it and came back!
People take balloon and helicopter rides, cruises, etc, just to sight-see. There are routine 747 flights over Antarctica which never land there, sight-seeing only through little airliner windows.
Re:extremely dangerous and unchartered territory (Score:3, Insightful)
They live in the nanny state where it's the job of the government to make sure you don't miss a step and get a boo-boo.
The Largest Gallery (Score:5, Insightful)
An empty deadly vacuum is not that much of a destination, you know?
It is when it's a gallery that holds one singularly fine blue object on full display.
Plus, weightlessness.
Frankly I don't agree with anything you are saying.
Space is dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Please raise your hand if you are planning on using a large controlled explosion to propel yourself into the oxygenless, -270 Celsius medium of space, return by crashing back down hundreds of miles, and your plan to do so is rooted in the belief that this is all fantastically safe and unlikely to result in your death.
I think the government space program has had an overall fatality rate of something not quite 10%. It's reasonable considering just what they've been doing, but even if commercial space flight is 10 X more safe than the program NASA developed, that's still going to be some guaranteed casualties for any widely implemented program. It's certainly nothing you would tolerate coming from an air liner. Anyone going up is going to have to be acknowledging the not-utterly-unlikely possibility of their death
That said, some oversight isn't bad -- as long it's reasonable and not based on the stupid and unquantifiable "We have the prevent the next Titanic" metric -- but what the government should *really* be offering is direct assistance. The program is still small enough that it's entirely reasonable to help out all the viable startups, and nothing is going to promote success and safety so much as direct cooperation with experienced persons at NASA.
Re:That's stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Certainly the government can make sure it's saf (Score:5, Insightful)
the day people stop clapping their hands just because the spacecraft takes off without blowing up on the launchpad.
People clap because its fucking awesome.