US Govt Considers Changing Requirements for Rocket Launches. Commercial Space Group Objects (theverge.com) 14
Long-time Slashdot reader apoc.famine writes:
In a proposed change to the licensing of spaceflight operations, the FAA writes:
"This action would fundamentally change how the FAA licenses launches and reentries...by proposing a regulatory approach that relies on performance-based regulations rather than prescriptive regulations.....This action would also enable flexible timeframes, remove unnecessary ground safety regulations, redefine when launch begins to allow specified pre-flight operations prior to license approval, and allow applicants to seek a license to launch from multiple sites. This proposal would significantly streamline and simplify licensing of launch and reentry operations, would enable novel operations, and would result in net cost savings."
The Verge reports that the government's proposed update "is pissing off the commercial space industry," citing comments from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF), a nonprofit that represents various companies within the private space industry: CSF representatives note the irony of the situation since the organization and its companies were the ones to ask for changes in the first place. Its members even made recommendations for how to update the rules. "The FAA took them, and they went and started formulating," Eric Stallmer, president of CSF, tells The Verge. "And it came back, and we read it, and we tried to digest it. And then we walked away saying, 'This is no better than what we had.' In fact, I think it's worse. It doesn't answer the mail at all...."
CSF represents the newer players in the field, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Relativity, and more. The organization argues that the new rules will have a heavier burden on these younger companies, which have been launching commercial missions much more frequently.
"This action would fundamentally change how the FAA licenses launches and reentries...by proposing a regulatory approach that relies on performance-based regulations rather than prescriptive regulations.....This action would also enable flexible timeframes, remove unnecessary ground safety regulations, redefine when launch begins to allow specified pre-flight operations prior to license approval, and allow applicants to seek a license to launch from multiple sites. This proposal would significantly streamline and simplify licensing of launch and reentry operations, would enable novel operations, and would result in net cost savings."
The Verge reports that the government's proposed update "is pissing off the commercial space industry," citing comments from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF), a nonprofit that represents various companies within the private space industry: CSF representatives note the irony of the situation since the organization and its companies were the ones to ask for changes in the first place. Its members even made recommendations for how to update the rules. "The FAA took them, and they went and started formulating," Eric Stallmer, president of CSF, tells The Verge. "And it came back, and we read it, and we tried to digest it. And then we walked away saying, 'This is no better than what we had.' In fact, I think it's worse. It doesn't answer the mail at all...."
CSF represents the newer players in the field, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, Virgin Orbit, Relativity, and more. The organization argues that the new rules will have a heavier burden on these younger companies, which have been launching commercial missions much more frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
If you knew any history, you'd remember that the Apollo program was run by somer of the biggest egomanical tech bros of their day.
Re: (Score:1)
And we've hopefully gotten past that. Except the bros will always want to muscle in.
Re: Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. Apollo 1 was the BEGINNING of human spaceflight
The danger of a pure-oxy atmosphere was fully known to NASA at the time. They just didn't care, and chose to BBQ three astronauts.
* The contractor that built the capsule said: that test is crazy, it's not the spec we designed to, you're doing it over our objections
* The version of the capsule with all the potential ignition sources from wiring was ready, but NASA didn't use it
* The test was meaningless, as it was never intended in flight that the capsule be pure oxy and overpressure.
Apollo 1 was straight-up negligent homicide. The historical record is very clear about this.
SpaceX is just another rocket company shooting crap into Earth orbit with another egomaniac tech bro. Something that has been done for 60 years.
Yeah, the only thing new is the re-usable rockets, and the much lower price. But yeah, it's exactly like NASA 60 years ago, just like your phone is the same as the computers from 60 years ago. It's just faster, lighter, and cheaper, right, totally the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
* The version of the capsule with all the potential ignition sources from wiring fixed was ready
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX doesn't like it because their processes would be subject to proper QA and oversight
What is really going on is that Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and the government bureaucracy are used to NASA being part of the MIC [thehttps], with padded contracts, and cushy revolving-door jobs for retiring bureaucrats. They don't want to give that up.
They know that SpaceX is a major threat to their gravy train. So when Trump told them to streamline the process, they used it as excuse to throw up even more impediments. This is the Deep State pushing back. Instead of telling them to "go back and try again", the soluti
Confusing summary (Score:3)
TFS seems to contradict itself. This is Slashdot -- I shouldn't have to RTFA to get the drift.
Re:Confusing summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The spaceflight forums have been discussing this for a few weeks.
Short, short version. ULA, the military-industrial complex launch companies, who are getting their pants beat by newer launch companies, saw an opportunity in this request for revised rulemaking to use their regulatory-captured functionaries at the FAA to make the rules appear at the surface level like they're helping the new companies, but, in fact, are increasing their costs to make them less competitive against ULA. The revolving door spins fast there.
Re: Confusing summary (Score:2)
Thank you, sir.
Re:Confusing summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, they merged half my submission from a week ago with the Verge. Poorly.
About a week ago I submitted just the FAA request for comment, because nothing else was out yet, that I saw. Apparently they found a related story and rather than really editing just slapped it together like a shit sandwich and posted it on a slow news day.
It would have been helpful to have had mine out for a day or two and then a follow-up related to what bill_mcgonigle was talking about, so everyone had some idea what was going on. As it is, I didn't understand this post, and I needed his comment to have any idea what was going on. When you don't understand what happened to your own submission, I think that's called anti-editing.
Hopefully they learned (Score:3, Interesting)
Small business has known for over a century, don't let the government write your regulations and definitely don't ask them to regulate.
Facebook is also asking the government to regulate their platform because they know the blowback from certain groups they'll receive if they regulate themselves but in the end you'll be worse off.