ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:52 PM by Alan Boyle


FAA
George Nield, the Federal Aviation Administration's associate
administrator for commercial space transportation, pays a visit to the
SpaceShipOne rocket plane at the National Air and Space Museum.

The Federal Aviation Administration celebrates its 50th birthday this week, but don't expect George Nield to be counting the candles on the cake. As the agency's associate administrator for commercial space transportation, Nield prefers to look forward rather than backward. One of his favorite topics is what he calls a new era in spaceflight - an era that includes a bigger role for America's "other" space agency.

The space transportation office is the FAA's lesser-known side, often eclipsed by the bigger section of the agency that focuses on commercial and civil aviation. But over the past five years or so, Nield's office has taken a higher profile, thanks to the rise of private-sector space ventures. When the SpaceShipOne rocket plane passed the boundary into outer space four years ago, the FAA got its first opportunity to hand out astronaut wings.

Many more opportunies are on the way, if Nield has anything to do with it.

Nield is a would-be astronaut himself, with more than 30 years of aerospace experience in the U.S. Air Force, NASA and private industry. Early this year, he moved up from the deputy position in the space transportation office to the top post - and thus became the FAA's go-to guy on spaceflight. In an exclusive Q&A, Nield laid out his vision for the next 50 years in commercial spaceflight. Here's an edited transcript:

Cosmic Log: The big question is how the next 50 years will shape up, particularly with the transition to commercial space transportation. How do you see the balance between airplanes and spaceships working out for the FAA in the next 50 years?

Nield: Well, this month is the FAA's 50th anniversary. And I think anniversaries are neat because they present a nice opportunity to reflect on where we’ve been, what our progress has been, and also to look ahead and ponder the prospects for the future. I particularly enjoy comparing how space transportation is developing as compared to aviation. If you think about commercial space transportation, and particularly human spaceflight, we’ve been doing this now since 1961, when Yuri Gagarin had his first flight. So it’s been 47 years now.

If you think about the first 47 years of aviation - how did that go, after the Wright brothers first flew in 1903? We had quite a transition from fabric-covered biplanes up to very sophisticated aviation systems by 1950. The sound barrier had already been broken by that time, by Chuck Yeager. We had already seen many years of flight by the DC-3 and similar aircraft, carrying both people and cargo. The U.S. military was cranking up the B-47 Stratojet for our strategic bombing.

But more significantly than any of those things, aviation had really become part of the fabric of American life and transportation. For example, by 1950 we had more than 6,000 airports in operation. We had more than 92,000 civil aircraft registered. There were more than half a million licensed pilots. And each year, by that point, over 16 million passengers were being carried on scheduled revenue flights. So there was quite a level of activity.

Now, how ‘bout on the space side? Well, certainly there have been many impressive accomplishments: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the moon landings. We had Skylab, the development of the space shuttle, and now the construction and operation of the international space station. All very impressive. But in terms of the impact and the involvement of our citizens, maybe a little more limited. There have only been just over 250 spaceflights to date in the whole world, and fewer than 500 people have ever had the opportunity to look down on the earth from space. What a difference!

Why is that? I’ve pondered that myself quite a bit. It’s not clear exactly what the reason for that is. You can certainly say, well, it takes a lot more energy to get to space. It’s more technically difficult, it’s a harsher environment, it’s riskier, it’s a lot more expensive. But maybe the most interesting contrast is the fact that to date, spaceflight has been almost exclusively a federal government operation – whereas on the aviation side, although there have been major contributions in terms of funding research and various programs, it’s been up to the private sector to take it and run. And we’ve seen remarkable things. It’s an interesting contrast.

I believe that we’re about to see that situation change very significantly in the next few years, and the reason for that is that we are now on the threshold of what you might call a new era in commercial space transportation. That is the beginning of commercial human spaceflight, and specifically the start of suborbital space tourism.

I think within the next three to five years we are going to see multiple companies carrying ticket-buying passengers up to the edge of space, so they can experience the blackness of the sky and see the curvature of the earth and experience the thrill of weightlessness. That’s going to mean hundreds of launches and thousands of people every year who are now going to be able to have that experience of going to space. That’s really going to change how we think about space.

At the same time, coincidentally, NASA is in the process of retiring the space shuttle. Over the next two years they’ve got just 10 launches left, and after that, NASA is going to be relying on private industry to service the international space station – first by providing cargo and supplies, and then later on actually carrying people to and from the station.

What that’s going to mean is, after the shuttle retires in 2010, and until we start seeing the human flights of Ares 1 and Orion in 2015 or so, the U.S. government is not going to have any vehicles that they own or operate that carry people into space. But it’s likely to be a very busy time for commercial human spaceflight, both suborbital and orbital. And that means it’s going to be a busy time for the FAA, because those flights are going to be licensed by our office. So we’re going to be right in the thick of that.

In the same time frame that we see commercial flights to orbit – both to the international space station and perhaps for standalone missions – we’re likely to see the beginning of commercial space stations such as Bigelow Aerospace’s inflatable space habitat. They could be operated as space hotels, or space laboratories, or for some other purpose.

After that, I think it won’t be long before we see a whole new set of spaceports being developed, both in this country and around the world. And that, in turn, will lead to point-to-point transportation through space. That will make a big difference. Federal Express, of course, is very interested in getting things from A to B rapidly, and there may be other markets in terms of high-value products, or organ transplants, or just adventurers who want to be on the cutting edge of transportation.

That will probably take us out to the next 15 years, but what about after that? It’s harder to predict the far-out ideas, but we could see things like commercial operations of on-orbit fuel depots, or solar power satellite systems. Twenty-five years from now, we could even see commercial flights to the moon, and significant commercial participation in the development of lunar settlements or mining operations. By the time you get out that far, if commercial ventures have been somewhat successful, you’re likely to see significant partnerships between industry and our government as well as other governments, for exploiting outer space and what it has to offer.

Q: When you’re talking about commercial flights to the moon … has anyone even thought about how to regulate such flights? Is that likely to fall under the FAA’s authority?

A:  We’ve talked about that around the table, but I don’t have any specific answers. Right now, we have the authority to regulate launches and re-entries. The primary purpose is to protect the safety of uninvolved public on the ground. So what that leaves today is [commercial] on-orbit operations, which are not currently under any government agency in terms of regulatory authority. As we start seeing things like space hotels, that may be something that the Congress would decide needs to be updated. Taking it beyond earth orbit, that would also need to be looked at, but I’m not sure people are ready to deal with that until it becomes more real.

Q: But if you think about it, there may be some people involved in the Google Lunar X Prize who are already contemplating private lunar missions, at least to send an unmanned lander to the moon. Have any of the X Prize teams been exploring that, or is it just too early?

A: There have been discussions along those lines. We did have a team from the X Prize Foundation come in and brief us on that. They mentioned that they were in the initial phases of laying out the rules, and thinking about whether there should be constraints on, for example, how close these robots should be allowed to go to the Apollo landing sites. What things should not be disturbed? Is it OK to drive over an astronaut’s footprints? There are a lot of interesting philosophical, legal and political questions that need to be grappled with before the competition gets under way.

Q: So the FAA is involved in that. Would you say that the FAA and NASA will be having to work some of these issues more closely together? Is there a dividing line between what the FAA does and what NASA does when it comes to commercial space?

A: I think we’ll all be participants in the discussion, but NASA has a different role. We regulate. NASA is not a regulator. They’re primarily a research and development agency.

Interestingly, they’re changing their focus right now, too, with respect to commercial. They’re trying to concentrate more on exploration, getting back to the moon and going on to Mars and so forth. I think they’re showing a willingness today, through efforts like the COTS program – the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program – to rely more on industry for things that are being done in low Earth orbit. Industry clearly has the capability to operate there, so NASA should be at the edge in terms of doing new things, in exploration and the highest-technology activities. I think that’s a good approach to divvying things up.

Q: You mentioned the idea that people have said putting things into space will always be harder and riskier than aviation. Do you think there will ever come a time when flying a spaceship will be on the same level safety-wise as flying an airplane? Or is there something intrinsic about space travel that will always carry more of a risk?

A: It will probably always be more difficult, and therefore more risky. But I’m hopeful we can continue to show improvements in reliability. In fact, Congress has directed that we strive to continuously improve human spaceflight safety as we go forward. It’s interesting to compare this to other risks that people have accepted in daily life.

For example, consider the safety of passenger cars, in which we lose more than 40,000 people every year in accidents. Railway accidents have several hundred fatalities associated with that form of transportation. There are more than 700 marine accidents each year that have fatalities. Even in general aviation, we have on the order of 600 fatalities per year.

Even though this is the safest period in aviation history, we need to put it in context. We know there will be space transportation accidents in the future, and we need to be prepared for that. We want to minimize those. We want to do everything we can to have this be a safe mode of transportation. But transportation can be risky, and we need to recognize that.

Q: I'd like to get back to the idea that it's taken longer than some people might have thought to get to this new spaceflight era. Some people thought that we’d be seeing suborbital space tourism a couple of years after SpaceShipOne took off, but it always seems to remain a couple of years away. Are there any thoughts you have on why the transition has been more difficult?

A: It is hard to predict the future, but the good thing is that all the folks we are seeing in this game right now are focused on safety. These companies recognize how important safety is, and they see that a misstep here or there or a shortcut could mean an accident which could harm the whole industry. So they’re taking this very seriously, they’re doing it one step at a time, and they’re getting ready.

They're not just sitting around and making viewgraphs, or talking about it and shuffling papers. There is real work being done right now to get ready for this. I was just out at Mojave recently to see the rollout of White Knight Two. That’s a very impressive aircraft that is going to be part of this overall system that will allow space tourism to take place, and it’s done. They’re going to be starting flight tests this fall.

Other companies, XCOR Aerospace and Armadillo Aerospace, are flying vehicles right now. So although some people would have liked to see operations begin more quickly than they have, they’re coming along. It won’t be long before we see the first operations under way.

Q: So if we think about the image of the FAA 50 years from now, it does sound as if you see the profile of the agency’s spaceflight side on the rise. Is it possible that the agency will need a new name, like Federal Space and Aviation Administration? Will there have to be a systemic change in the agency to respond to the new era?

A: Once we see these things operating, and we see the larger level of activity in place, it may well be that Congress will decide “Federal Aerospace Administration” or some other set of words would be more appropriate. That’s really up to them. But certainly our workload is going to be increasing. The role of private industry in spaceflight is going to be considerably higher over this next decade. We’re going to be seeing a shift from having space travel almost exclusively under the purview of government to having private industry being a leading player in commercial space transportation. And we’ll be right there with them.

Q: I’m sure you’re often asked whether you’d like to go into space yourself. What do you think? Are you looking forward to having a spacesuit with your name on it?

A:  I’d love to go. I’m looking forward to that.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

"the authority to regulate launches and re-entries"...that sounds like pretty much total authority to me...what more could the FAA possibly need before acknowledging that they intend to control access to space?
Does this 'authority' cover Falling into Space via Gaia Two and re-entering with zero blazing tin can effect?
It's not really a typical launch/re-entry sequence...current safety concerns would be moot...so, according to Nield, all should be well, eh?
Excelsior!
What exactly does the FAA think it's going to regulate?  Private organizations will be the ones to pioneer reasonable spaceflight, at which point government will left behind and dropped as nothing more than the destructive ballast they are.
And isn't the FAA a U.S. institution?  What's going to stop people from launching their vehicles from a ship in international waters and reentering over the same?  

I just find it laughable that the FAA actually thinks it has a relevant place in the future of spaceflight.  Once people have the means to put themselves into orbit on their own, they're going to do it when and how they want.  

And what's our government going to do about it?  If the U.S. wanted to regulate space travel, this country would have to be maintaining a cutting edge space program of its own.  As it is, the best the U.S. is capable of is putting Tonka trucks on Mars.
If the FAA just worries about airplanes and lets the rest of the world compete about who is going to get back to the moon first, maybe, just maybe, someone will actually do it before I die of old age.
What the FAA is admitting to here is that once you get somebody into space... however that can happen... the FAA nor any other agency of the U.S. government has any authority over what happens from there.  Or at least it is a crazy patchwork of overlapping authorities over all kinds of stupid things like how NOAA is asserting licensing authority over American citizens photographing the Earth and other celestial bodies from space.

I'm not entirely sure that there is a huge need for creating licensing authority for what goes to the Moon, and for those companies who've been working on launching spacecraft are already complaining about the huge amount of paperwork necessary just for a commercial launch.  It is getting to the point that you need a dedicated engineer just to handle the paperwork but also having the knowledge of how it all gets put together as well.  That doesn't come cheap.
i believe that once suborbital/orbital spaceflight reaces a commercial level, it will mainly be for the rich & probably take decades for us "regular joes" to be able to afford such a venture. i'd love to have such an experience but i'd probably be too old! i agree though, many challenges still await to make it as safe as possible, but the risks are greater than conventional airflight. like captain kirk told capt. herriman, "risk is part of the game if you wanna sit in that chair." which would be any chair-captain or passenger. who knows? perhaps our kids or grandkids could be taking vacations or even living/working on the moon or beyond. what a way to live!!
The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA in the jargon) http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/PL108-492.pdf

establishes that the FAA-AST oversight is for protection of third parties, that is the uninvolved public, people who did NOT give consent to be placed in danger.  THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE.  I work for XCOR, I'll be flying aboard Lynx, taking risks with my eyes wide open- but Joe Sixpack in his living room should NOT have to worry about me crashing through his roof and killing us both.

On the other hand, the CSLAA also prevents the FAA from more intervention than that, and establishes that spaceflight participants (don't call them passengers, they will have much more training than people on airliners) may give informed consent to take the risk.

Launch and re-entry can endanger people on the ground, orbital operations can only endanger people already in orbit- who have already signed on for the risks.

I'm a small-l libertarian myself, and I see the FAA regulation as a necessary protection for innocent people from me exercising my freedom.  Don't sweat it, folks.
Way Kewl as usual Alan. Thankx
You still on about that Gaia Two hoax? I also find it laughable that you guys think the FAA can be circumvented. Of course they're going to regulate space, just like they regulate the airlines you fly on. Get over it geeks! And trust me...when someone figures out how to launch from the ocean or other non-US location, there will be an international agency to regulate that as well.
Somehow, I don't think that either the Russians or the Chinese are going to much care what the FAA has to say about where they can land and travel on the Moon.
Chesh, someone's got to regulate and control re-entries and launches.  A botched re-entry could potentialy take out a medium-sized city. That means safety regulations for pilots and ground personnel as well as launch sites, designated space lanes, etc.

Granted, the FAA may be stretching itself a bit if it claims authority over ALL spaceflight, but the launches and re-entries that originate and land in the US?  Certainly.  Considering the consequences should something go wrong, I don't expect space to remain open and unregulated for long.
What happens if someone gets out there and does not have proper re-entry forms?
Would it be a shoot-down scenario?
How would anyone know the good guys from the bad guys?
Imagine being the first civilian to reach outer space, in a personal spacecraft...just to get blasted out of the sky on your return by whatever Global Government doen't approve of your credentials.
We let this go way too far.
Now, not only are there weapons pointed back toward us from space, there are rules and regs RE who, what, where, and when we can go...can you say Welcome to the Innerverse?
Just when Humanity needs a sense of expansion the most, a buncha Bureaucrats are busy Administering Space, while contracting and mechanicalising our view of the Universe into something they can grasp...arrogant doesn't come close to describing their attitude.
"Hi, I Administer Space for a living...nice work if ya can get it, eh"
TRIPLE GEEZ!!!
Thanks, Doug, for writing in. Nield had a lot more to say on how the current approach to safety, and I felt I couldn't use all of it just because it would boost the item length up beyond the 3,000-word mark. But just because you've written in, I'll append a bigger section where Nield referred to informed consent. You may find some things of interest:

Cosmic Log (to Nield): You mentioned the idea that people have said putting things into space will always be harder and riskier than aviation. Do you think there will ever come a time when flying a spaceship will be on the same level safety-wise as flying an airplane? Or is there something intrinsic about space travel that will always carry more of a risk?

Nield: It will probably always be more difficult, and therefore more risky. But I’m hopeful we can continue to show improvements in reliability. In fact, Congress has directed that we strive to continuously improve human spaceflight safety as we go forward.

It’s interesting to compare this to other risks that people have accepted in daily life. For example, consider the safety of passenger cars, in which we lose more than 40,000 people every year in accidents. Railway accidents have several hundred fatalities associated with that form of transportation. There are more than 700 marine accidents each year that have fatalities. Even in general aviation, we have on the order of 600 fatalities per year.

Even though this is the safest period in aviation history, we need to put it in context. We know there will be space transportation accidents in the future, and we need to be prepared for that. We want to minimize those. We want to do everything we can to have this be a safe mode of transportation. But transportation can be risky, and we need to recognize that....

(HERE'S THE NEW STUFF)

There was a discussion back in 2004 when the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act was passed, in terms of what is the right balance for this type of activity. We want it to be safe, but we don’t want to stifle the industry before it has a chance to get started. So we were given instructions on how best to do that – and in particular how we should treat passenger safety, under an approach known as “informed consent.”

Instead of someone assuming that it’s just like hopping on an airliner, and having almost a guarantee of arriving safely at the other end, these spaceflight operators are going to be under instructions to thoroughly brief their prospective passengers on all the things that could go wrong: the fact that you could be seriously injured, or you could die. Do you still want to go? If yes, then fill out this form, sign on the bottom and have a good flight. That’s the initial instructions we were given.

Should there be some accidents in the early years, then Congress has indicated that we have the authority to step in and write additional regulations to cope with that. But the hope is that we can have a light hand at the beginning so we can allow the industry to gain experience.

Q: I believe that the timeline calls for the “informed consent” procedure to expire in 2012. As things turned out, passenger space vehicles have not been developed as quickly as some people thought they might have been. If the timetable goes out a little longer, you might have to determine what happens after 2012, when passenger space vehicles begin flying in 2011 or 2012. Has there been any discussion about how the environment might change if there’s not that much experience with commercial vehicles before the new regulatory regime has to be developed?

A: Yes, we’ve talked about that and thought about it internally. ... We’re not waiting until 2012 to address that issue. We’re already trying to envision what the right approach will be. What kind of regulations could be needed? Then we’ll continue to monitor the progress of the industry and decide on the right time to be engaging them and bringing something forward for comment and eventual improvement. I think it will be appropriate for Congress and the rest of the government to take a look at where we are in 2012, and then decide whether it makes sense to have an extension of that date or whether it can stay as is, depending on how quickly things get under way in the next few years.

Q: As you work with commercial spaceflight firms, what are the issues that you think will be key for those companies in the next five to 10 years?

A: I believe that these initial suborbital space tourism flights will likely not be accomplished by the big traditional aerospace companies. They have been very successful, but they have boards of directors, and stockholders, and quarterly reports. They need to pay attention to those things. This is pretty risky business, it’s pretty out there.

What we’re likely to see at the beginning are companies that are more entrepreneurial by their very nature. They have a vision for space, or they believe in this, or they are used to operating right on the edges of the state of the art. Once we see them being successful, then they will be joined by some of the larger companies.

All that’s an introduction to the comment that one of the things that the entrepreneurial companies will need to think about, as they develop their vehicles and start operations, is that we’re not talking about just a demonstration or a hobby shop or a garage operation. We’re talking about a vision that involves a very visible, public operation carrying paying spaceflight passengers. There’s a lot to think about if that’s the business you’re in, in terms of liability, in terms of protecting people who are not directly associated with your vehicle or its operation. Those are not things that your typical inventor or research and development company necessarily thinks about.

That will be a transition for them. Some of them may choose to just stay in R&D, and they’ll crank out vehicles and test them and turn them over to an airline/spaceline operator that will have more experience in running an ongoing operation – like Virgin, for example. Someone like Scaled Composites may just concentrate on doing the building and testing, and let someone else run the spaceline.
I believe there should be very strict space exploration guidelines as there is to many narcissistic scientists and billionaries who can't wait to conduct research in space that would be both unethical and illegal on earth. I'm not saying we should not explore space. I'm just saying allowing billionaries , scientists and corporations to make their own laws is very bad idea indeed. When you do that you might get people doing cybernetic enchancement or genetic supermen ...etc. Plenty of people in this world thinks the rules don't apply to them because their rich or powerful. I want a star trek future WITHOUT the borg.
I was invited to attend a commercial space development conference by the FAA back in February.  I was delighted to learn that they're bending over backwards to promote this.  Compared to airline regulation, they're quite prepared to let little start-ups assume a lot of risk, providing their passengers are aware of the danger and the general public is protected.  I was especially impressed by their medical guy, who seems intent on making it easy for Joe Public to fly.

Their present mindset is better than I'd dreamed of when I wrote "Amateurs" and "Prospectus" for Analog many years ago.
I hope I'm not too old when all this finally goes down because I intend to be on one of these commercial flights to space.  Even if there is a catastrophe, to me, it will be worth it to get a glimpse of space.
Steve Smyth, stop putting up strawman arguments.  FAA's enforcement authority is like that of any other non-military portion of the executive branch - if you violate a regulation, you get a stiffly worded summons to an administrative hearing.  If you fail to appear at the hearing, your launch license will probably be revoked by default, and the Justice Department may bring criminal charges.  If you then make _another_ flight, unlicensed, you'll be greeted on landing by sheriff's deputies or federal marshals, who WILL take you into custody for violation of 49 USC 70101.

Really, these concepts aren't difficult.  The real world isn't a space opera.
Doug...are you granting permission on penalty of a stiffly worded summons?
When I make the second flight, something tells me there will be more than Sheriff's Deputies and US Marshalls onhand.
You are right...these are very simple concepts...great news!
Thank you!
What's a strawman argument?
Is that like Mothman, or one of those guys?
Charles, please. It you're truly afraid of billionares, unethical scientists etc., don't you think they could find some secret place ON EARTH to do all this mayhem, rather than have the added expense (no matter how cheap spaceflight becomes) of trying to do it in Earth orbit (or farther and more expensive) where every launch to orbit will not possibly avoid detection?

There are plenty of private islands, patches of desert (Area 51, anyone?) and so on, that could be used with MUCH less attention...
Alan, a correction: there is no provision in CSLAA for the expiration of the requirement to obtain informed consent.  What expires in 2012 is the moratorium on FAA writing proactive regulations.  Even if FAA writes new regulations, unless Congress writes new legislation that specifically sunsets informed consent, operators will have to provide vehicle safety records, and obtain informed consent from spaceflight participants, indefinitely.

That's is a good thing.  A personal spaceflight is not in the same risk category as a buggy ride around the park or a commuter flight to Peoria.

-R
Thanks, Randall, I see what you're saying: It's not as if the informed-consent provision goes away in 2012. I have a feeling Nield corrected me already in his response, but what you say makes clear that there's no "sunset clause" on the informed-consent provision ... and it's possible the FAA and Congress could simply let the current situation continue for a while after 2012.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1278694

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google