The FAA's vision for spaceflight

steve smyth — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:37:37 GMT

"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!

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Chesh, San Diego — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:48:35 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Dave BC WA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:05:25 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Robert Horning, Logan, Utah — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:45:40 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

robbie withey new bern,nc — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:04:14 GMT

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 FAA's vision for spaceflight

Doug Jones, Mojave, CA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:12:23 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:59:53 GMT

Way Kewl as usual Alan. Thankx

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

John Doe, Seattle, WA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:07:13 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Loren, SF Bay Area, CA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:17 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Andrew, Minneapolis MN — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:56:15 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

steve smyth — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:26:00 GMT

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!!!

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Alan Boyle — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:59:25 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

charles , new your , new york — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:23:39 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Tom Ligon — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:59:12 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

michelle, Tahlequah, ok — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:34:02 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Doug Jones, Mojave, CA — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:12:01 GMT

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.

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

steve smyth — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:39:00 GMT

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?

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:02:52 GMT

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...

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Randall Clague, Mojave, CA — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:04:49 GMT

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

The FAA's vision for spaceflight

Alan Boyle — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:25:32 GMT

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.