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."

18 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 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
  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. 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 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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. 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?
  11. 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...

  12. 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
  13. "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 ----
  14. 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.