Slashdot Mirror
FAA Wants Your Opinion On Commercial Space Rules
coondoggie writes "If you have an opinion about how you think the commercial space flight world should be regulated, the FAA wants to hear from you. On Thursday, May 26, 2011 at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Cocoa Beach Oceanfront in Florida it will hold a public hearing where the FAA says it wants to gather information about how to define what it calls a regulatory framework for orbital human spaceflight."
No exploding
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
They want YOUR input on how you can best be molested!
Also, no more backscatter x-rays, they'll just line your chair with carbon paper and conveniently leave off that radiation shielding on the outer hull!
How about they don't regulate it to death. Spaceflight will be a dangerous undertaking for quite some time. If they try to regulate away all the danger they will make it impossible for any advancement to take place.
(car analogy)If the first cars buit were required to have all the safety features we find on modern cars, we would all still be riding horses.(/car analogy)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
At the moment, no one has jurisdiction. It's a wild-ass frontier up there. However, it is reasonable to assume that the USA's FAA should have some authority over space vehicles taking off and landing in American lands. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to suppose that the FAA will be likely to have some input or influence on what rules are put into place, when the requisite international body is formed for managing orbital and interstellar flights, as I would also expect other flight safety agencies from around the world to have.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Disagree. I'm happy with "No exploding unless you've got enough insurance to clean up whatever the exploded bits land on", and would have no problem compromising on "No exploding over populated areas."
But as for the appropriate level of safety the FAA should target with its regulations, all I want as a prospective passenger is the same level of safety you get when you do your first tandem skydive. Everyone signs a waiver that says they realize they might not come back alive, but the company has a pretty strong incentive to make sure everybody comes back safely, and the experienced jumper, to whom the n00bs are strapped, has a very strong incentive to bring both of you back safely.
If the spacecraft's pilot thinks it's safe enough to fly, then I'll fly with him.
So long as we don't damage anything or anyone in their path, it's nobody's business but ours whether we come back high-fiving each other saying "that was awesome!", or as the first snowflake of the season.
so how many people will have to die before for some safety rules are in place?
3007.
Back in the real world, pushing rules that expect 99.99999% safety would simply kill the industry in America and hand space travel over to the Chinese or some other country which is happy for people to make their own decision about whether they think a flight is safe. All that's really required is some basic standard that companies have to meet to avoid punitive lawsuits when someone does die.
The hell they don't, the mandate of the FAA is to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. Aviation includes everything from zero to 50 miles up for the US regulators.
but they have jurisdiction of airspace from 1000 to 50,000 feet. It's kind of hard to get to space without that "first mile". Well I guess you can get there... it's when you get back that you get in trouble.
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country to start a business in.
The US FAA has no jurisdiction over space.
They have jurisdiction over commercial flights to space that originate in the US, or fly over US airspace (up to an altitude of 50-80k feet I'd guess).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Killing business before it even starts. The US is probably the most unfriendly country in the world to start a business in. Then you wonder why there's no growth.
Blatant falsehood. We're the third best country to start a business in.
Facts don't matter to trolls! Just sunlight and bridges.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Sad, You seem to think that lack of regulation will equal growth. (read the article on Chinese suicides in the iPhone iPad plant) and certainly the over regulation of derivatives did make the financial markets safe for everyone. That is one of the primary, and necesarry roles of government, to set down the ground rule so things don't go boom in the night, like the markets or oil wells or rockets in space.
to see how they manage to regulate other countries, should they send up space-tourism vehicles. How exactly do you restrict, uh, spacespace? when orbital mechanics dictate that the vehicle can't avoid orbiting over the US?
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
But an unelected US government bureaucracy doesn't have jurisdiction outside the planet. Sorry.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Keep the TSA the hell away from it.
No keeping us sitting on the launch pad for five hours for no good reason. Take off or let us off till you're ready. Of course they can't even manage that now with planes.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
All that's really required is some basic standard that companies have to meet to avoid punitive lawsuits when someone does die.
Yeah. Something like regulations. Or maybe rules. Or a framework. By a governmental agency with appropriate jurisdiction.
Great idea!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
That's a very noble slogan - but utterly disconnected from reality. These rules are designed to regulate the craft that will fly over existing populated areas, in the atmosphere - *not* in space. I.E. they represent a danger to bystanders in the same way aircraft do.
Historically speaking? It works pretty damm well. Far more colonies were peacefully let go or pulled from the sphere of one country to that of another by violence or it's threat than freed themselves with out without the aid of others. And when we're talking about 'colonies' that for the foreseeable future will be utterly and completely dependent on those imposing the rules...
Your post is self-contradictory, FYI.
"they want us to do the work for them" ... "It's not like the Government listens to the average person"
Seriously, this knee-jerk anti-government sentiment is getting pretty bad.
You sank my battleship!
~X~