Slashdot Mirror


US Draw Up Rules for Space Tourism

AsiNisiMasa writes "The BBC reports that the United States Federal Aviation Administration has drafted a report proposing some regulations regarding space tourism. Among the rules is a set of guidelines to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the space ships in order to use them as weapons. Many of the other regulations are similar to those regarding regular commercial flights, including safety advice precluding the flights. From the article: 'Space tourists should also be given pre-flight training to handle emergency situations such as a loss of cabin pressure or fire. However, the FAA has so far left any medical requirements in the hands of the tourist, who should decide themselves if they are fit to fly.' The final report will affect enterprises such as Sir Richard Branson's SpaceShipOne."

37 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Easier to screen by dannytaggart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The good thing is that it's much easier to screen space travelers, since there will be so few. It's unlikely that terrorists would bother going through such scrutiny.

    --
    PimpMyMazda.com - Crazy mods to a 2002 Mazda Protege DX.
    1. Re:Easier to screen by NewKimAll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Terrorists wouldn't bother with hijacking a space plane to do another 9/11 job for the following reasons:

      1. Most of the mass of the space plane will be burned away just to reach its high altitude. And will most likely glide back to the Earth.
      2. The space plane will, most likely, take off from some remote desert area (for now). The only way to reach any major landmarks would be to?... Turn on the rocket engine or take over the mothership.
      3. I would expect that turning on the rocket engine at low altitutes means the space plane destroys itself from atmospheric friction (aka, burning up).
      4. Even if terrorists did take over the mothership designed to drop the space plane once it reaches the critical altitude, I would hope either crew could jettison it so it couldn't be taken to any major landmark.
      5. You could always install a remote control unit and have someone on the ground take over the flying in the event that someone should try to hijack the plane (until there are so many flights in one day that it becomes impossible).

      Nope, regular non-stop flights are still the way to go, that is, if you can. I would think that the new world order is now, "Oh, did you say this is a hijacking?.... Let's roll everybody!" And great justice is dispensed to said terrorists by all the people on board. New world order demands that you have to assume you are dead the moment you get hijacked.
      --
      I dare the terrorists to hijack this sig.

    2. Re:Easier to screen by eclectic4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has always been interesting to me to see how invasive the fear of "terrorists" have been installed into the minds of most. Terrorist, the current bogeyman. No more communists to be afraid of (really?), bring in terrorists. Next it will be asteroids, and then space aliens. Whatever it takes to breed consent via fear. It's worked wonders so far...

      A story about space tourism, and how easy it's going to be to screen people to make sure we're "safe" getting an instant 5 Insightful is hillarious to me, sorry.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    3. Re:Easier to screen by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      they have to blow up the earth

      So obviously they will be profiling Martians, and looking for Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulators!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  2. What to do in an emergency! by anti-human+1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    'Space tourists should also be given pre-flight training to handle emergency situations such as a loss of cabin pressure or fire.'

    ...Hold your breath?

    1. Re:What to do in an emergency! by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

      -ding-dong-
        Good evening passengers, please take a look at our charming colleague Betty who will demonstrate emergency procedures for you...

      ...In case of fire please break the window next to you. Without oxygen the fire will be over quickly, which brings us to loss of cabin pressure. In the case of loss of cabin pressure, please assume the bloated expression demonstrated by Betty, stay calm, and wait until all your bodily fluids boil off.
      In case of a crash, make sure you wear your swim-vest with integrated whistle, even though both are useless when we smash into the moon.
      Thank you fo listening and enjoy your flight

  3. Useless by d_strand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see the relevance of the US drawing up rules for this. It's not like the passengers care where they launch *from*, hopefully the important thing is where they end up (say, in space). Thus any space tourism entrepreneur who dont like the US rules can just launch from another country.

    1. Re:Useless by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Funny
      I fail to see the relevance of the US drawing up rules for this. It's not like the passengers care where they launch *from*,
      There is more to space tourism than passengers - there's also the space craft operators, the airframe manufacturers, the insurers, etc... etc... And a bunch of them are in the US and want a cleanly defined playing field rather than a chaotic mess of rules arising from varied state regulations and court cases.

      These rules from the FAA provide exactly that.

      Thus any space tourism entrepreneur who dont like the US rules can just launch from another country.
      Look around and note the up and coming providers for suborbital flight - there isn't but one serious contender outside of the US. The heavyweights are all in the US. The biggest single market is in the US.

      There's also big issues with technology transfer and export regulation, and non-profliferation... It's virtually a certainty that any sub orbital provider will develop in the US or the rest of the West. It's almost impossible for a US based company (or any company based in the West) to go to some third world nation for a launch.

  4. i wonder... by know1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    what the deal is with the law...like so many miles out is international waters for ships and you can have sex cruises and whatnot. How many miles up would you have to be before you can start doing that line of coke off the hookers ass

  5. Why should it affect Branson ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Richard Branson and his Virgin brand are English, why should he listen to US rules when they are only binding in USA ?, and since the US is now so broke that it has to depend on the Russians for the ISS how relevent are these rules when the future of space travel is probably with the Chinese or Russians or even Australia.

  6. Seriously... by danro · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Among the rules is a set of guidelines to prevent terrorists from gaining access to the space ships in order to use them as weapons.
    Do anyone else think this terrorist hysteria is getting a bit overboard?
    What kind of terrorist would this protect against? Dr Evil?

    Could the slashdot editors please refrain from mentioning teh terrorists in just about every piece of totally unrelated news. (I know, I know the BBC did it too, but I would much rather have news for nerds, or stuff that matters. Mentioning terrorism here is neither.)
    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Seriously... by DarthVeda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're looking ahead. You'd be surprised how fast you can get something going when it's re-entering the atmosphere.

    2. Re:Seriously... by RexRhino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Terrorism is revelant here... not because there is any likelyhood whatsoever about terrorists hijacking spacecraft and doing a lot of harm (at least not anywhere in the near future), but it is relevant because it is an politically acceptable excuse for doing things. People will accept any sort of government intervnetion into society, if it is to "stop terrorists". Terrorism, therefore, is worth mentioning in the context of civilian space flight - even if only as a political concept and not as a practicle concern.

  7. this one should be included in regular aviation by arabagast · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Companies should give passengers safety advice including the number of flights the spacecraft has been on and any problems they have experienced with the craft, according to further recommendations in the report."

    This could actually be more handy in a regular aviation situation. Being a tad scared of flying, I would love to know how big my chances are :)

    Stewardess: You have a 95% chance of surviving this flight with our current maintenance record, please take your seat and have a nice flight, sir.

    --
    Doolittle : ...What is your one purpose in life?
    Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
    1. Re:this one should be included in regular aviation by Jetekus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      95%?! That would be 1 in 20 flights biting the big one. In actual fact you're taking more of a risk every single morning by walking down the stairs.

  8. Re: You have to ask yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The funny thing is people get more worked up about terrorism which kills relatively few people worldwide then they do about barelling down the highway at 100 mph while drunk and not wearing a seatbelt. Last year car accidents killed about 40,000 Americans, about 13 times the number that died on September 11th, but I don't see the government rushing to make cars safer(hell, they are doing the opposite with lax fuel economy standards that don't punish the mammoths that cause a lot of these fatalities)
    However, that number is rarely mentioned in the news, but if Zarqawi sneezes the media is all over it. The media has seriously distorted people's sense of reality...

  9. Rule No 1 by sparkydevil · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't fart in your spacesuit.

    1. Re:Rule No 1 by mabba18 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No kidding, just ask John Young on Apollo 16:

      [In the following, John doesn't realize he still has a hot mike. Charlie is only faintly audible through John's mike and the following undoubtedly contains transcription errors.]

      128:50:37 Young: I have the farts, again. I got them again, Charlie. I don't know what the hell gives them to me. Certainly not...I think it's acid stomach. I really do.

      128:50:44 Duke: It probably is.

      128:50:45 Young: (Laughing) I mean, I haven't eaten this much citrus fruit in 20 years! And I'll tell you one thing, in another 12 fucking days, I ain't never eating any more. And if they offer to sup(plement) me potassium with my breakfast, I'm going to throw up! (Pause) I like an occasional orange. Really do. (Laughs) But I'll be durned if I'm going to be buried in oranges.

      From http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.debrief1. html

      --
      The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
  10. So, is it... by danro · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...time to declare a "War On Cars", yet?

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  11. Precluding the flights? by achurch · · Score: 2, Funny
    Many of the other regulations are similar to those regarding regular commercial flights, including safety advice precluding the flights.

    I knew space flight was dangerous, but . . . wow.

    (Somebody's gotta take the karma hit for this, might as well be me.)

  12. Thank Goodness For Government Regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Misleading by Sebilrazen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Branson's endeavour is Virgin Galactic and it will be using Spaceship Two. Spaceship One has been moth-balled, next to the Spirit of St. Louis.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  14. See I told you so. by /dev/trash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone was "NASA needs to get out of the way, private corps will do it for them." Yeah, if the Feds don't regulate it so much that it's more expensive than NASA.

    1. Re:See I told you so. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Everyone was "NASA needs to get out of the way, private corps will do it for them." Yeah, if the Feds don't regulate it so much that it's more expensive than NASA.
      Ah, yes - the Slashdot hivemind belief that if it's evil regulation it's the gubmint or some big corporation behind it. Sadly, in this instance that isn't so.

      These rules are the result of years of work between the FAA and nascent suborbital tourism industry to provide a level and defined playing field right out of the gate. None of them want to wait for public reaction from the first crash - which would kill the industry even before it gets going. This is a very minimal set of guidelines that protects the innocent bystander, provides some minimal protection for the passengers, and helps define the liability and responsibilities of all concerned in the flight.

      Sometimes regulation is a good thing.

  15. there actually IS a point to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  16. Just how far by denissmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just where does US jurisdiction end? I plan on traveling to the belt of Orion next summer, will US law apply there?

    --
    I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    1. Re:Just how far by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Just where does US jurisdiction end?"

      Well it doesn't end at the Antarctic for one...

  17. Re:Old News... by Azrael43 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This was reported a couple of weeks ago. Why are we reporitng on this again?

    You must be new here...

  18. Remarkably able terrorists by Flying+pig · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but exactly how is a terrorist going to hijack a spacecraft and crash it into even the approximate neighbourhood of Pennsylvania Avenue? It's not quite like 'oh there's the White House, change course', is it? You have to know where in the orbital path to fire the engines in order to land rather a lot further round the world, and once you are committed, major course changes are not exactly an option as burning up on re-entry doesn't achieve the objective. Given where a spacecraft is likely to be allowed to land, i.e. lots of water or desert, minor course changes won't achieve much. Well, they might hit the next lot of space tourists if they impact the departure lounge, but something tells me a commercial spaceport won't look much like O'Hare or Heathrow.

    Looks like some people in Government think that Futurama is a documentary. That, or they have to be seen to be "doing something" to protect us, since the things that might actually achieve that - fixing the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, peace in Iraq and Chechnya, and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - don't seem to be happening.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  19. Has a plane crashed after a maintenance schedule? by jftitan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those thoughts exactly.

      One thing comes to mind, has anyone ever heard of a plane crash, when it just got fixed for something? I see and hear of more planes crashing due to malfunction that was overlooked, or never worked on.

      Now I would be beside myself if the flight attendant informed me that flight 666, has had 400 successful flights, and only 5k in repairs due to misc issues. But just yesterday we got a new engine!

      The last flight I was on was grounded for an extra hour because one of the ground crews found that there was something wrong with a hydralic pressure thingy. took them an hour to fix it(I didn't mind the wait, my laptop w/ UT2k4 kept me entertained, along with the other two people sitting next to me. When it comes to my safety/life, they can take all their time).

    --
    "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
  20. "regulation to prevent terrorists" by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone else sick of hearing the excuse 'its beacuse of the terrorists' to regulate yet another ascpect of our life..

    They wanted to change the world and make us more like them.. welp, in may ways they did..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  21. Terrorists? by Farrside · · Score: 5, Funny

    What will they try to do, blow up the orbiter? Given how many airplanes terrorists have destroyed -vs- how many they haven't, even if they managed to double their efficiency for spacecraft I think their average will still be below NASA's.

  22. mod parent up by path_man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is exactly what the government is doing. By laying down some set of pointless bureaucratic rules to govern space travel, the government isn't hoping to mandate safe space travel, they are hoping to preempt other countries from making themselves "THE RULES BODY" for Commercial Space Travel.

    --
    The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
  23. Ah! I feel SO safe flying without nail-scissors... by Monty_Lovering · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every time I flew with my fiancé I found it most amusing she'd get on board with at least one 6" long hair spike keeping her ass-length hair in a bun, whilst people had nail clippers with unusable blades confiscated, LOL.

    One has to realize that all a lot of that bull is to make people FEEL BETTER... a trained man with a bone or wooden sharp point is more-or-less as lethal as one with a sharp metal edge, and a hell of a lot more effective than one with NAIL SCISSORS.
    Unless there's a form of Martial Art I don't know about... nail-scissor ninjas perchance?

    But everyone was scared and ineffective and costly 'safety' measures that make the ickle baa-lambs feel happy in cattle class (okay, sheep ain't cattle, but you know what I mean) are the order of the day.

    It's exactly the same psychology as puts a life jacket under seats... wanna know how many people have been saved by life-jackets under seats outside of sight of land, in all of commercial aviation history??? LOL. They're there to make you FEEL BETTER.

    So, people's biggest risk in orbit will be a hang-nail... wooo...

  24. *what* other country? by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    tourism entrepreneur who dont like the US rules can just launch from another country.

    What other country? I'm serious... Virgin is launching from the US. Anything else is speculation and rumor and patently false. This topic recently came up on a mailing list I was on which included several space tourism contendors, and everyone drew a blank. There do not exist any good options. The US is doing this, get over it.

  25. Re:Considering the terrorists are usually.. by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 9/11 attacks were carried out by middle-class people funded by an extremely rich man. The stereotype of terrorists being poor and desperate is not based on reality so much as people's inability to grasp the idea that an educated, well-off person might actually hate them enough to kill them.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  26. Next on Slashdot by MutantHamster · · Score: 2, Funny

    US Draw Up Rules for Subject/Verb Agreement

    --
    My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz