no regulations

I think space exploration and developement of space craft should NOT be regulated in except the extreme case someone intends harm on any person or persons of Terran citizenship. Space, much like the frontiers of the united states' colonization eras. If we as a people ever seriously intend to be able to colonize or have the oppurtunity to explore the outer reaches of mankin'd imagination, then it would be ludicrous to have or place regulations on the design, construction, and use of spacecraft. Granted I know that the super-power countries of the world already have such regulations in place and regardless of their ignorant and self-empowering excuses for thses regulations of "soverign" space, there is no logical reason for restrictions on the growth of mankind as a civilization. Also, I am aware that there must be safety regulations for would-be launch sites as far as the local populace's safety is concerned, but those obvious and non-impeding circumstances.

I agree that a lot of the regulations need to go. I think the only thing the gov't really needs to do is insure that the vehicles minimize dangers to population centers due to errant flights. At the very least we need to get rid of the insane cost of certifying space vehicles for carrying passengers at least in the early stages of the industry. Let everyone who wants to fly on one be presented with the dangers and take the risk knowingly.

I think the building and use of spacecraft should adhere to, at the very least, the air industry regulations. They'll be operating from airport like centres, and will impact on people in the same way, i.e. noise etc. Once outside earth’s atmosphere, they should simply not affect anything belonging to anybody else.

Regulation and actually doing the right thing or sensible thing is not necessarily the same thing.

There are all kinds of ways that a spacecraft can harm population or the environment, and a reduction in regulations could cause an increase in these risks.

The Wright brothers didn't have the ability to kill hundreds of people with a mistake on the Kitty Hawk when they were first testing it out.

If the regulations are there for political reasons to protect existing space companies, then they need to go. But experimenters need to demonstrate that they've taken all the necessary precautions to protect people on the ground and the environment. And if they need to fill out phonebook-sized documents to demonstrate this, then so be it.

I disagree, filing out a phone book sized document does not help. What do you think goes on at USA and NASA, and inspite of that there have been 2 shuttle disasters.

Regulation is helpful and important upto a point. The problem with most space legislation/treaties is that they are geared towards what you cannot do. Technology and a sharp mind has a great way of making a monkey of most regulations.

What the US needs to do is to implement regulation that enable private entrepreneurs get into space. Otherwise in the long term, launches will move offshore.

If we are worrying about vehicles killing people, then lets ban motorcycles & cars. They kill more people, each year, then all other means of transportation combined.

Like I said, the air industry already has stringent regulations and guidlines that ensure safe aircraft, and operating practices. I'd say that these should be used where possible. A space craft afterall is just an aircraft that has to travel into a more hostile environment. Albeit a slightly more difficult environment to reach.

Let's make it as safe as is reasonable, and not over protective. Too much regulation at this stage might stunt the industries growth. Imagine if the first motor cars had to, by law, incorporate all of todays safety regulations. They'd have taken a great deal longer to become as common as you see today.

The lobbyists and politicians have overregulated us to the point where it seems really Republican to expect people to adhere to rules.

There's no need to ban cars and motorcycles- but without regulation, the safety levels on the road would decrease even further. It's a different world than the Henry Ford era. At least tragedy and violence are somewhat curbed by the watchdog that is regulation.

While the X teams should work as freely as possible, let's remember, they are trying to develop a viable new industry as well. Once that happens, let's face it, the freaks and weirdos have to be kept from polluting the beauty with ideas that have no basis (or worse, are designed to fail).

Sorry, guys, if I sound pedantic and earth-bound!

it is not a tricky balancing act if you let the free market do it - If someone injures another person thru spaceflight or automobile - then they are responsible for compensation/punishment. The space industry will look at the 'cost' of failure and unsafe practices and react accordingly. If you think you know the 'perfect' amount of regulation, I would bet you that in 1 year, your amount will be incorrect - the value of safety changes, technology changes, and people change... all regulation is by nature... harmful - to both the people it is trying to protect and the industry to be regulated...

geez, I hope we don't bring our love for the government into space - thats the one sort of 'space pollution' that can't be tossed into the sun...

michael

AMEN

I agree with no regulation. Beyond safety in the borders of the nation the launch occurs in and FAA regulations once it's a ship is in space, it's on it's own.

If regulations were truly about safety, then why do we continue with NASA's defective design of the Shuttle? Homer Hickam's op-ed "Not Culture but Perhaps a Cult" (Ref. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzd.html) is highly illuminating.

In the world's most heavily regulated design environment, NASA's design compromises created a fragile spaceplane on the back of the liquid fuel tank and between 2 solid fuel boosters. NOT SAFE AT ALL! If the shuttle had been placed on top of an expendable rocket launch vehicle, the result of similar Challenger and Columbia initial failures would have likely been a return glide to landing and a non-event, respectively. OH! And it would be cheaper to fly. OH! And 14 brilliant souls would still be exploring space.

If one's goal is safety first, rapid progress second, then do away with regulations and let engineers focus on safety and multiple paths to progress into space.

I ask you, who cares more about and focuses more on safety? Burt Rutan or any bureaucrat NASA shuttle manager.

Which is a more rapid path to progress in space? One NASA team periodically grounded or a couple a dozen engneering teams evaluating multiple designs. :roll:

Correct link to Homer Hickam's op-ed "Not Culture but Perhaps a Cult"

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzd.html