Slashdot Mirror


Regulations Could Delay or Prevent Space Tourism

schwit1 writes "This report explains how Virgin Galactic space tourists could be grounded by federal regulations. From the article: 'Virgin Galactic submitted an application to the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation in late August 2013, says Attenborough. The office, which goes by the acronym AST, has six months to review the application, meaning an approval may come as early as February. Industry experts, however, say that may be an overly optimistic projection. "An application will inevitably be approved, but it definitely remains uncertain exactly when it will happen," says Dirk Gibson, an associate professor of communication at the University of New Mexico and author of multiple books on space tourism. "This is extremely dangerous and unchartered territory. It's space travel. AST has to be very prudent," he says. "They don't want to endanger the space-farers or the public, and they can't let the industry get started and then have a Titanic-like scenario that puts an end to it all in the eyes of the public.""

38 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Titanic by Spaham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, like the Titanic stopped boat traveling, right ?

    1. Re:Titanic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hindenburg would have been a better example.

    2. Re:Titanic by Teancum · · Score: 2

      The loss of the Hindenberg did not stop airship travel. It was the technology itself that basically sucked wind and was far too costly to continue any further investment. While for a time there was some huge concern about the use of hydrogen as a lifting gas, even that I find as a side argument to the much larger problems that come from any lighter than air vehicles.

      The U.S. Navy had several air ships as commissioned ships and made some serious attempts to make them useful including an attempt to turn them into aircraft carriers in the sky or to use them for lifting large numbers of bombs over a target. Unfortunately they are extremely slow, hard to handle on the ground when they land, and are just plain costly to operate needing hundreds of people just to load & unload the vehicle. Far more people than are needed even today for a container ship and certainly more than are needed to unload a 747 or A380 today.

      It was the large aircraft that was the final nail in the coffin of airships, in terms of widespread usage. They still have a niche role for wealthy tourists who want to do something different, for television aerial shots (especially at sports arenas), and for some advertising applications. Airships definitely can't compete against other forms of transportation for general distribution of bulk goods or even passenger travel that is anything more than an exotic alternative which is the draw all by itself.

    3. Re:Titanic by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      Like the Hindenburg stopped Goodyear :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Titanic by Teancum · · Score: 2

      It WAS ecconomicaly feasible...as long as they could use hydrogen to give buoyancy. Once they woke up to the fact that hydrogen was a bit too flamable, the much rarer (and more expensive) helium alternative made airships impractical. Oh the humanity!

      Hydrogen as a lifting gas is not that dangerous, and the safety of Helium is far too overrated as well. Gasoline in an automobile is far more dangerous than Hydrogen, noting also that one of the problems with the Hindenberg is that its skin was essentially made out of a type of rocket propellant and as much of the cause of the disaster (IMHO more likely) than the hydrogen gas itself. The engineers of the dirigibles knew very well how flammable Hydrogen was, and it should be pointed out that the whole accident with the Hindenberg happened not at 10k feet over the Atlantic but just as it was coming in for a landing and debarkation.

      What makes Hydrogen so dangerous is when you mix it with Oxygen. Doing that is what constitutes a bomb, but that is not what happened with the Hindenberg where all that really happened is that the Hydrogen simply vented into the atmosphere.... and then caught fire after it had already left the ship. Hydrogen inside of a sealed container is inert and non-flammable, and will certainly not self-combust.

      Even assuming that the lifting gasses for these airships were completely free, the economics of airship transportation on a widespread basis simply aren't justified.

  2. Bullet meet foot by horm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like a good way to drive privatized space travel to another country.

    1. Re:Bullet meet foot by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a good way to drive privatized space travel to another country.

      Maybe that's a good thing. It could be a national embarrassment if something goes wrong. We already push our pollution, risk, and child slave labor to 3rd world countries, why not add embarrassment to the list?

    2. Re:Bullet meet foot by icebike · · Score: 2

      Won't happen, because these government grandstanders aren't going to get in the way.
      Its official US policy to privitize space launch businesses and make them economically feasible.
      Virgin has the only plan that gets private money into the game today. Everyone else is launching government payloads at public expense.

      The current Virgin ship isn't going to be launching any serious payloads, but it will fund continuing development.
      Nobody is going to stand in the way of any vehicle until there is a disaster. Noboby is in a position to certify this vehicle is safe, or declare it unsafe. There are no such published standards.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Bullet meet foot by hey! · · Score: 2

      Maybe that's a good thing. It could be a national embarrassment if something goes wrong.

      I shouldn't think so. What the company is offering is pretty much the equivalent of bungee jumping, only three orders of magnitude more expensive. A lot of the appeal is the perceived danger. And it's a private company headlined by a *British* rock star style CEO.

      The "informed consent" standard which the FAA is reportedly using is an entirely reasonable one, especially for the early flights. After a thousand or so people have done it without incident, then the perception of risk will go down considerably. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market for suborbital flights then; regulating it may become a moot point. Or it may become especially important if the company starts to cut corners in order to drop the price.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Bullet meet foot by halltk1983 · · Score: 2

      http://www.spacex.com/missions shows ORBCOMM sending up with spacex in a bit. That's private money. Loral is another one of their customers. Iridium has quite a few flights over the next few years. So, while a lot of their payloads are governmental now, not all are. And as they get their processes down, and their costs come with it, even more private companies will be launching with them. They're getting to a point where they plan to do weekly launches, and that's an economy of scale that will make it truly affordable.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  3. Re:launch in a 3rd world country by Strider- · · Score: 2

    Ahh, in true AC style, you get pretty much everything wrong...

    ESA launches their satellites from Kourou, in French Guiana, South America.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  4. So, launch from off shore by bobjr94 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just like cruise ships are registered all over the world, typically in countries with fewer regulations, whats to stop these space tourism companies from doing the same thing. If you can pay $100,000 or whatever for a quick trip into space, kicking in another $700 for airfare shouldn't be a deal breaker.

    1. Re:So, launch from off shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure Hugo ChÃvez would get right on that whole asking for permissions thing, if they chose to put a launch site in Venezuela. After all, he really, really likes the U.S., right?

      Yeah, it would be a real miracle if Chavez asked a permission to do anything from USA nowadays.

      A real real miracle.

    2. Re:So, launch from off shore by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Just like cruise ships are registered all over the world, typically in countries with fewer regulations

      Which sounds impressive until you know the rest of the story... which is that, despite the regulations of the nation-of-registry they're still subject to certain health and safety regulations of the nations whose ports they enter. They still need insurance, and no reputable insurance company will touch them unless the ship has been certified by a known Classification Society. Etc... etc...
       
      Flags of convenience aren't what they used to be, and even so cruise ships have a vested interested in not being thought of as shithole rustbuckets.

    3. Re:So, launch from off shore by Teancum · · Score: 2

      White Knight can't take off from a ship.

      Doesn't stop it taking off from Columbia or Nicaragua etc

      One word:

      ITAR

  5. Re:That's stupid by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Hey guys! I just went to Paris! I stayed in the plane the whole time and flew over it and came back!

    People take balloon and helicopter rides, cruises, etc, just to sight-see. There are routine 747 flights over Antarctica which never land there, sight-seeing only through little airliner windows.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  6. Re:extremely dangerous and unchartered territory by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is pretty funny.

    "They don't want to endanger the space-farers or the public, and they can't let the industry get started and then have a Titanic-like scenario that puts an end to it all in the eyes of the public."

    ??? WTF ??? What business of theirs is it AT ALL, except to make sure that rockets don't crash into airplanes? It's private business, the government isn't doing shit to "ensure" the safety of passengers or anybody else... THEY aren't to blame if a "Titanic" event were to happen... and even if it did, people would probably take it in stride just like they did the goddamned Challenger Disaster, which WAS government's fault.

    Who the hell do they think they are? And what world are they living in?

  7. Re:Certainly the government can make sure it's saf by TheLink · · Score: 2

    Yeah the day I consider it safe is the day people stop clapping their hands just because the spacecraft takes off without blowing up on the launchpad.

    After that it becomes a mature tech when commercial passengers start complaining about the in-flight options and other petty stuff. ;)

    --
  8. Re:extremely dangerous and unchartered territory by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They live in the nanny state where it's the job of the government to make sure you don't miss a step and get a boo-boo.

  9. Insurance? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does Obamacare cover craterification?

  10. The Largest Gallery by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An empty deadly vacuum is not that much of a destination, you know?

    It is when it's a gallery that holds one singularly fine blue object on full display.

    Plus, weightlessness.

    Frankly I don't agree with anything you are saying.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Largest Gallery by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$-500.00 charge

      FTFY

  11. Re:extremely dangerous and unchartered territory by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

    (Qualifier: Yes, we know that Morton Thiokol designed the system and made the O-rings, but NASA administrators were familiar with the situation and approved the launch anyway.)

  12. Re:That's stupid by icebike · · Score: 2

    Russia, China, and a dozen other countries have air forces and ex air force officers who have flown MIGs .
    Did you have an actual point?
    Staying in the plane is kind of expected in space. But when that thrill dies out, and Virgin's next model can reach something approximating an orbit they can sell space walks. You'll no doubt be around to say it doesn't count if you wear a space suit.

    Tell you what, you just go ahead and move the goal posts any where you want. We'll all know tow to your wisdom.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  13. Hindenburg by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, many similarities: airships float in a sea of air, using buoyancy just as a ship does. Perhaps more like a submarine, but those are boats too. :)

    And the loss of the Hindenburg certainly put a crimp in airship travel!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Hindenburg by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      So, Airplanes are just jet skis in the sky.

      I get what you're saying, that there are similarities, but such over broad definitions are utterly pointless. A submarine takes on fluid to dive, and is more buoyant than the fluid it traverses. Airships have ballasts too, however, a submarine doesn't have nacelles (sacks, bladders) of air within its frame to provide the buoyancy and the pressures it must operate in are at MOST 1 to 0 atmospheres, whereas a submarine must withstand hundreds of times this. The atmosphere is far more unstable than the seas -- wind moves MUCH faster than water currents. So we have two vastly different problems, light weight frame capable of floating in air AND navigating despite very strong air currents, versus a dense vessel with a single "bladder" (the breathable air) with heavyweight construction for withstanding huge pressures which suffering a rupture is a far more serious affair, requiring immediate attention -- unlike the air boat, which will just drift back to the ground if you pop one of its many nacelles and don't do a damn thing about it.

      Now let's consider a hovercraft. It's a boat too eh? It traverses water, has all the trappings of a sea-faring vessel including propellers. Ah, but a sail boat doesn't use a fluid-screw to drive its motion, and it's a boat. So, what else has internal air and buoyancy and travels fluids, why people do! People are boats. They're submarines! So are whales, and dolphins, and bears, and lions, and -- and -- You've made the word fucking useless. That's why an airplane is not a jet ski. That's why an airship is not a boat.

  14. Space is dangerous by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please raise your hand if you are planning on using a large controlled explosion to propel yourself into the oxygenless, -270 Celsius medium of space, return by crashing back down hundreds of miles, and your plan to do so is rooted in the belief that this is all fantastically safe and unlikely to result in your death.

    I think the government space program has had an overall fatality rate of something not quite 10%. It's reasonable considering just what they've been doing, but even if commercial space flight is 10 X more safe than the program NASA developed, that's still going to be some guaranteed casualties for any widely implemented program. It's certainly nothing you would tolerate coming from an air liner. Anyone going up is going to have to be acknowledging the not-utterly-unlikely possibility of their death

    That said, some oversight isn't bad -- as long it's reasonable and not based on the stupid and unquantifiable "We have the prevent the next Titanic" metric -- but what the government should *really* be offering is direct assistance. The program is still small enough that it's entirely reasonable to help out all the viable startups, and nothing is going to promote success and safety so much as direct cooperation with experienced persons at NASA.

    1. Re:Space is dangerous by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the government space program has had an overall fatality rate of something not quite 10%. It's reasonable considering just what they've been doing, but even if commercial space flight is 10 X more safe than the program NASA developed, that's still going to be some guaranteed casualties for any widely implemented program. It's certainly nothing you would tolerate coming from an air liner. Anyone going up is going to have to be acknowledging the not-utterly-unlikely possibility of their death

      The actual number of people who have died as a direct result of being in a spacecraft which malfunctioned or somehow caused the death of the occupant is a fair bit lower than you are suggesting. See also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

      Of the total number just more than 500 people who have been in space, 22 people have died. While certainly worse than what you would expect for air transportation, it is not a figure to simply pull out of your behind. It is important to note that these are also pioneers with this form of transportation, where at least for the early travellers they literally had no idea what to expect when they even got into space and the designers of these vehicles really didn't know what to anticipate either.

      When compared to the deaths of early aviators and even the deaths of passengers in aviation for the first 50 years of air travel, this is dong pretty damn well and has a surprisingly low casualty rate all things considered.

  15. Invisible Dragons Could Delay Space Tourism by radarskiy · · Score: 2

    If we're going to make an exhaustive list of theoretical obstacles, we're going to need a bigger internet.

  16. Re:That's stupid by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "jaded rich white people"? Do you think non-white people might be interested in traveling into space? Are only rich white people jaded? Can a brown person be rich and jaded? Or just jaded?

  17. Re:extremely dangerous and unchartered territory by artor3 · · Score: 2

    You could use your same "logic" to argue against the FDA. It's a private business selling the food and the medicine, and the government isn't to blame if its poisonous.

    But we're much better off when we come together as a country and put some safety measures in place. That's what government is for. Doing things that would be impossible for loosely organized individuals, but which are beneficial to the public.

  18. Re:launch in a 3rd world country by Teancum · · Score: 2

    Ahh, in true AC style, you get pretty much everything wrong...

    ESA launches their satellites from Kourou, in French Guiana, South America.

    Which is also politically and culturally a part of France itself. People in French Guiana vote in all national elections. Essentially think of it more like the relationship that Hawaii has with America and you get a pretty good idea what the relationship is between French Guiana and the rest of France. It is even considered a part of the European Union.

    Yeah, that is some backward 3rd world nation, unless you think France is that backward nation itself.

  19. Re:Worth the risk by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

    Rich people (and their families) also tend to have expensive law firms on retainer. In the event of a mishap leading to injury or death, they might try to sue VG anyway, despite whatever sort of "waiver" they make you sign. Large estates sometimes get tied up in courts for years by heirs and creditors. It's not hard to imagine a scenario where VG could get caught up in such a dispute.

    OTOH, Richard Branson also has expensive law firms on retainer, and I'm sure they've evaluated the risks and prepared as well as possible.

    Anyway, I agree with you. If I had that much "disposable" cash, I'd definitely take that ride.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  20. Re:Certainly the government can make sure it's saf by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the day people stop clapping their hands just because the spacecraft takes off without blowing up on the launchpad.

    People clap because its fucking awesome.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  21. Re:That's stupid by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    but to link cities between Australia and South America or Africa.

    Oh for...

    http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ Tourist flights. Flies out of an Australian city every two weeks, returns to that same city 12-14 hours later. Doesn't land anywhere else. Has Antarctic experts on board to explain what the tourists are seeing. Has nothing to do with Sth America or Africa.

    If you don't know what you are talking about, okay fine, but don't just make shit up.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  22. Re:Because the Titanic really wrecked ocean travel by dbIII · · Score: 2

    I think what's holding up space travel is the ability to stay up there

    No it's the will to put the resources to use to do it. Kennedy had it. Nixon didn't (although he had an expensive war dumped on him as a pretty good excuse). Nobody since has had the will to do much. Private enterprise can (and did) build the stuff but funding it is a different story - something without an obvious financial return is not the role of private enterprise.

    Also - why doesn't ISS, Mir, Skylab etc count? There have been some people up there for very long periods of time. The sort of time spans that compare to polar expeditions.

  23. Re: Certainly the government can make sure it's sa by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, sort of like how all those private job creators got to the Moon in 1969! Yeah! Fuck that Fox News chicken you retard!

    "Those private jobs creators" *were* the ones who got us to the moon. It certainly wasn't NASA bean-counters and administrative wonks. I know, I was there and worked for some of those companies. Don't try to rewrite history.

    NASA would put out a contract for a launch system/rocket engine/capsule/etc to accomplish "X" goals with certain requirements, private companies and their engineers and scientists went to work to research, design, test, and build it. Engineers and scientists who likely would have gone to school for something else if there was little demand for private sector science and engineering jobs.

    Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and made more people self-sufficient than any other system ever devised, as well as spurred and funded the greatest and most rapid advances in science and technology the human race has ever known.

    It's not perfect. It's messy. Individual freedom and the individual responsibilities that come with it are likewise messy. People will disagree and argue. But capitalism and the individual freedom & self-sufficiency it empowers has through history, and still does, the most good for the largest number of the poorest people compared to anything else ever tried on a national or global scale, by orders of magnitude.

    There's simply no other system that's even in the same league when it comes to empowering the poor and raising their standard of living.

    Socialism, fascism, communism, and nearly all other ideologies/political systems put the individual secondary to a sovereign State/Collective. The US Constitution is unique in being the first time a nation was built on the basis of the State being secondary to the citizen.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  24. Re:Certainly the government by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    That is an incredibly ill-informed post. Robots are nowhere near ready to do any mining, ad hoc exploration, construction or any other damned thing past rolling around and pointing instruments a few inches away.

    "How about private funding?" It's being done. That's what the article is *about*.

    Actually, anyone referring to humans as waterbags is probably not to be taken as a harbinger of humanity's advancement.