What about positive regulations via incentives?

Regulation is viewed as governmental and public intervention via laws and rules applied by agencies like the FAA which is quite correct. It's felt as something negative and painfull - Burt Rutan witnessed that.

The explicit intentions behind the regulation are positive ones in principle - keeping safety of third parties against damages, death and the like.

So what about replacing the - negative - regulations by incentives designed to "make" innovators to keep or improve safety of their own?

Such incentives might mean that the FAA would assist innovators merely than prevent or regulate them. The FAA wouldn't have to check if a new space vehicle causes dangers etc. but they would check if the design reduces or removes dangers in comparison to other already existing vehicles. The FAA would check if the idea behind the vehicle involves the intention to reduce and/or handle dangers and problems better or more properly.

The incentives could be reduced barriers to get licences by the FAA but they also could be reduced taxes and charges reflecting reductions of otherwise required public expenditure for safety of third parties.

What about it?



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

Burt Rutan is on record as saying that he wants the FAA to regulate passenger safety. This has put him at odds with much of the rest of the suborbital space tourism community, but I suspect he is right. If there is a crash, the responsible company can shield itself from legal action by showing that they complied with all government safety regulations and inspections.
http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/s ... /Rutan.pdf

I'd love to see some suggested areas for this.

I help write the USAF space safety regulations and we work with the FAA and NASA on standardization.

However, since the USAF doesn't have any manned missions, we don't deal with that area except to say, "don't hit manned objects" when you launch your rocket or move your satellite.

- Alistair