Slashdot Mirror
FAA Space Tourism Guidelines Draft Published
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."
I must be allowed to bring my ant farm with me on all space trips.
"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*
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
"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.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
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 ...
"The FAA mentions the possibility of incorporating the 'no-fly' list of the TSA into security requirements for space travel."
That includes this individual.
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!
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
.... *sigh* ....
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
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?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It's too late for that.
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.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
If I have to make a choice between my liberties being taken away or dealing with the terrorists, I'll take my chances with the terrorists. And before anyone says something to the effect of "It's better to be safe than sorry!" or "It has happened!" or some such nonsense, let me point out that we're already taking chances everyday with terror attacks from the wholes that exist. The only way to get rid of ALL possible threats is to put everyone under house arrest and have personal GPS planted on everyone. Of course, the non-persons will not have one and considering that the non-person is usually the type that is recruited by terrorist organizatons; well, again, we're fucked.
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.
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.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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.
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.
This Act specifies the requirements for doorways and other design specs: http://www.fta.dot.gov/14534_5608_ENG_HTML.htm
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 innovation and progress to the detriment of society.
Let's at least have the proper terminology here.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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 another flight. *queue the "Don't call me Sherly jokes" I don't see these regulations as being something for the present, rather for the long-term. And we need these regulations here in the US.. I mean isn't the US all about protecting us from ourselves - at least, that's the way it's becoming.
Do what I say, cuz I said it.
-Meatwad
Forget the no-fly list, where's the cavity search?!
This way to the egress...
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.
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".
And that's before you count the obsession (in the media) with the insurance company crash tests which led to voluntary improvements by companies (like the 700lbs of steel Ford added to the F150 make it get worse mpg than ever).
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.
Additonally, drunk driving standards dropped from about 0.14 in most states to 0.08 (which is too low, IMHO).
So people are very out of whack over lots of things, both terrorist-related and non.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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?
Thank you! :) I only wish I had the mod points for you, and the person that gave the correct reply to my comment.
http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Human_Space_Flight_NP RM.pdf
We live in a socialist country here in the U.S. The government has the right to say who will fly into space, how they will fly into space, and they can also ban it outright if they want to. People need to be told how to live by the socialist overlords in Washington D.C. for their own good. It's to keep you safe and to make sure you stay around to keep paying heavy taxes that go to worthless wars, worthless foreign countries like Israel, worthless lazy welfare losers, worthless subsidies, etc. You are here to serve the elite so just sit down, shut your mouth, and pay your dues.
...until Israel starts booking flights?
He chose New Mexico to build a billion-dollar spaceport because the "restrictive" government there wants to foot half the bill.
The whole point isn't that we should blow up planes in the absence of the terrorists doing it for us
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 certificate is guaranteed unique on this planet and can't be shared with anyone so there's no chance of false-positives.
Gimme a freakin' break: the no-fly list can't possibly work. It's as likely to stop terrorists as DRM is to stop music pirates. Just. Not. Gonna. Work.
And I'm pretty sure that's what he meant with overkill... not that we should do nothing, but do something that might actually have a snowballs-chance-in-hell of working.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19129
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 orbiter...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I hear people saying we don't need this no-fly list
I say protect us from space terrorists
What about our outpost at Lagrange Point 2 ?
It's security depends on both me and you
They say it ain't worth it when bureaucracy sets in
But before you whine 'bout freedom
Let me ask you this my friend
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see our spaceships under fire
And their guidance blown away?
Have you forgotten the hellish sound
When their slow ballistic arcs
Intersected with the ground?
I hear you say that this no-fly list is rotten
Have you forgotten?
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.
*Gratuitous Sig/Plug* Heres my website - firesuite
Is slashdotting a .gov website an act of terrorism?
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
You agreed with him yet completely ignored his entire point?
Which is to say that no-fly lists are useless because they are based on the assumption that criminals don't lie.
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. Which would put it squarely within the jurisdiction of the FAA.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Can he come??!?
"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.
I can't wait to join the 62 mile high club.
if you figure the 12 mile oceanic limit, the FAA only has jurisdiction upto about 63,000 ft
That link doesn't seem to be working. Here's the link to it in the Federal Register:
1 800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-24555.pdf
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan2005
Also, if you want to see the DOT docket for this, go here:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
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.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
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, both of which would be used a couple times a year?
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.
As to if it's worth it, that's a personal decision I guess. I think it's probably not worth it. Heck, I don't even think the loss of mpg due to carrying a spare tire is worth it for most people. I've been driving for 20 years now across 3 cars and never used a spare tire. I certainly would have saved up enough to pay for a tow by now and then some.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
...needs to go screw itself. They already make airline travel impractical and slow (with the help of the new, generally worthless DHS). Now they want to get their foot in the door with an industry that isn't even in its infancy. Isn't the federal government wonderful?
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
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 aircraft that flight inspect all of these flight procedures to make sure they are accurate. It would not be efficent to split these up.
IN fact the group that does flight inspections is also CONTINOUSLY upgrading thier aircraft to test out new avionics, They gut and rebuild all the time. Manufacturers don't put in the avionics till the FAA tests them out in thier flight inspection planes. In fact the FAA shop where they do this is one of the few places that can tear aircraft down to the airframe rebuild them and then have expertise to recertify the aircraft, most other shops, the Manufactuer must recertify the aircraft. To write off the FAA is stupidity.
O BTW for all this talk of the Great European ATO... The FAA creates the flight procedures and flight inspects them for half of Europe... And ARE PAID TO DO SO..... Also when the Space Shuttle lands, they use Flight procedures Created and inspected by the FAA as well.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
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.
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. My car has 6 (8?) airbags, surely it'll cost at least $2K to replace them. That's 5% of the cost of the car.
That's a very thorough report. But I find an increase in weight added to cars for safety equipment of 8X over 25 years a concern. It went from 18lbs to 125lbs.
And this stuff doesn't count the voluminous airbags added after 2001.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95