Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > no regulations

no regulations

Posted by: Guest - Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:53 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 45 posts ] 
no regulations 
Author Message
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:57 pm
Posts: 2
Post US Provincialism   Posted on: Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:04 pm
I think the anon poster is making a big assumption ... That NASA or the EU space agencies will regulate all launches.

The only thing NASA, BATFE, and NOAA are insuring with their regs is that folks will launch off-shore and outside the US. I guarantee that when the solar system gets colonized, the people in charge will NOT be speaking American Dialect English, courtesy of NASA's "not invented here" insanity.

I'm sure Liberia will be more than happy to flag anyone's sea-launched space ship for a few dollars.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 242
Post Not entirely correct   Posted on: Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:45 pm
kbarrett wrote:
The only thing NASA, BATFE, and NOAA are insuring with their regs is that folks will launch off-shore and outside the US.


NASA doesn't regulate commercial launches of commercial payloads. That's the FAA's job. NASA has nothing to do with it.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161
Location: DFW, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:06 am
Although NASA, does not regulate commercial launches, (the FAA does), NASA culture in addition to being anti-safety, is anti-commercial.

1. :cry: NASA was a major roadblock to the former Soviet Russians taking up the first space tourist, Dennis Tito. It is assured that NASA will not take a paying Space tourist into space until after Burt Rutan or some-other XPRIZER or maybe even the still-communist Chinese!
2. :cry: NASA insisted that the Russians crash Mir, especially after the private company, Mircorp began the effort to privatize and restore Mir with the latest technology. For more on the death of Mir see http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-01.html

It is time to privatize NASA! For more on how to do it see Space: The Free-Market Frontier :D with essays by Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin, private space tourist Dennis Tito, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, among others. http://www.cato.org/new/01-03/01-21-03r.html

Looking for a great Christmas for your favorite private space enthusiast? Space: The Free-Market Frontier http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=P ... id=1441130

The culture of the FAA is not any better. Having spent 25 years certifying aircraft and component designs thru the FAA, I increasingly spend more time teaching the FAA to get them up to speed, than the time actually spent on design. Before you think I am too critical of FAA engineers, it is definitely not the engineer's fault, most of the time. It is the FAA's turn-over rate which causes inexperienced engineers to mask their lack of knowledge by reverting to bureaucratic, cookbook regulations which have nothing to do with real safety.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195
Location: Lincoln, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:36 am
That's just scary dude. I guess it's like the motorcar. Standard regulatory stopping distances bare no resemblance to the actual performance of the modern car. If the FAA can't keep up with the industry it's supposed to regulate, then we're all in trouble.
:roll:

_________________
Sean Girling

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161
Location: DFW, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:07 pm
Sean Girling wrote:
That's just scary dude. I guess it's like the motorcar. Standard regulatory stopping distances bare no resemblance to the actual performance of the modern car. If the FAA can't keep up with the industry it's supposed to regulate, then we're all in trouble.
:roll:


FAA regulation does not equal safety. In fact there are many cases where new technology, which does not fit old, obsolete regulations, is halted. These regulations are actually preventing safety improvements which save lives from being implemented. Heavy-handed regulations have in effect killed people, whether it be in aerospace, automobiles, or medicine, by delaying life-saving improvements. For example, the US Food & Drug Administration has halted many drugs which have been used in Europe for years, from the US market.

The good news is that the XPRIZE has produced 26+ teams and counting, which are designing private space vehicles in spite this regulation.


Back to top
Profile
avatar
Post Re: Not entirely correct   Posted on: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:13 pm
The Legionnaire wrote:
kbarrett wrote:
The only thing NASA, BATFE, and NOAA are insuring with their regs is that folks will launch off-shore and outside the US.


NASA doesn't regulate commercial launches of commercial payloads. That's the FAA's job. NASA has nothing to do with it.


It's a bit more complicated than that....

FAA regulates all manned flight in the national airspace ... from outside of ground effect, up to 200,000 ft.

NOAA regulates everything going through the upper atmospher.

BATFE regulates all unmanned rockets over 1/2 inch in diameter ( they choose not to regulate cardboard tube model rockets, but could if they wished to and added it to the federal register ).

All of these agencies would talk to NASA, and would be more than happy to foot-drag at their request.


Back to top
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:57 pm
Posts: 2
Post Oops   Posted on: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:19 pm
That last "Guest" post was mine ... forgot to log in.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 242
Post I respectfully disagree   Posted on: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:03 pm
Hi Traveler,

Before I respond, I would just like to say that I agree with your basic idea that NASA is not on the path to progress and that the X Prize holds the future. I would just like to discuss your charges against NASA.

traveler wrote:
1. NASA was a major roadblock to the former Soviet Russians taking up the first space tourist, Dennis Tito.


That was certainly true. However, that was two years ago. The next space tourist, Mark Shuttleworth, encountered absolutely no opposition from NASA. The latest two tourists, announced a few days ago, will probably encounter no opposition also.

traveler wrote:
2. NASA insisted that the Russians crash Mir, especially after the private company, Mircorp began the effort to privatize and restore Mir with the latest technology.


This is true also, but the reason was certainly legitimate. Russia was behind on ISS deliveries because it was using some resources on Mir. If I were NASA administrator, I probably would have done the same.

Quote:
NASA culture in addition to being anti-safety, is anti-commercial.


This is a vast overstatement. The same NASA that failed to save Columbia grounded the shuttles for months at the slightest sign of fuel feed line cracks in 2002. And as for anti-commercial, I would point out that both of your examples are two years old. With the cancellation of the Space Launch Initiative, I really think that NASA now uses a policy of "benign neglect" toward the private sector, which is all that anyone can ask.

Don't get me wrong, traveler, I fully support the X PRIZE and all of the "alt.space" firms. I just don't like to see public servants (bureaucrats) getting harrassed for no good reason.

Sincerely,
The Legionnaire


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161
Location: DFW, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:51 am
Hi The Legionnaire,

I respect your opinion, you just have more faith in government than I. And as I said earlier, I will just "shut up and get back to work" with my friends at the FAA.

Keep smiling :)
traveler


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:25 am
Posts: 161
Location: DFW, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:45 pm
Space Frontier Foundation - Press Release
Media Contacts: Rick Tumlinson (818) 985-7367 or John Hanks (702) 898-2204 or (702) 232-1045 or press@space-frontier.org

Foundation Congratulates Scaled Composites for Breaking Sound Barrier, Calls for Washington to Support New Spaceships by Breaking Regulatory Barriers

Los Angeles, December 17, 2003 – The Space Frontier Foundation congratulated Scaled Composites Inc. on breaking the sound barrier with their new space vehicle SpaceShipOne. The Foundation points to this event as yet another indicator that a new commercial space industry is developing in the U.S. that will revolutionize access to space.

"Of all the celebrations and events being held across the nation to commemorate the first flight of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, this flight is the most important, the most appropriate and the most relevant," stated Foundation Founder Rick Tumlinson. "Like the Wright Brothers, Scaled Composites is opening the next level of flight to the general public, and doing it without government money."

SpaceShipOne is a prototype for vehicles which will carry paying passengers and payloads to the edge of space on sub-orbital flights. The Foundation has long supported the rise of what it calls the Alternative Space (Alt.Space) firms and activities such as those being carried out by Scaled Composites. The group sees the flight of the vehicle as a breakthrough, and an indicator that the first sub-orbital flights are not far behind.

"Burt Rutan has once again led the way into a new arena of flight, and right behind him are several other firms such as XCOR Aerospace, also in Mojave (and which is also conducting flight tests) TGV Rockets of Maryland, Armadillo Aerospace in Dallas and several others," said Tumlinson. "This next year is going to be the year space begins to open to the people."

The Foundation is calling on Congress and administration officials to support this new potential industry by passing legislation that would streamline the regulatory process and allow these experimental spaceships to transition to commercial operations. In question is the fate of the Commercial Space Act of 2003, HR 3245, which is now under discussion on the Hill, and which they believe will do just that.

"As Burt Rutan and the folks at Scaled Composites are showing, the technical challenges can be overcome. But we must act quickly to cut the red tape or these space ships will end up tied to the ground," Tumlinson continued. "If the Wright Brothers had been forced to jump through the same bureaucratic hoops that face the commercial spaceship industry, they would still be building bicycles. These firms need help now."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Space Frontier Foundation is a media and policy organization dedicated to the human settlement of space in our lifetime. Our goals include protecting the Earth's fragile biosphere and creating a freer and more prosperous life for each generation by using the unlimited energy and material resources of space. Our purpose is to unleash the power of free enterprise and lead a united humanity permanently into the Solar System. We are transforming space from a government-owned program into a dynamic and inclusive frontier open to all people.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:26 am
Posts: 23
Location: Alba
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:51 am
To the person comparing it to cars and bikes.... you cant compare it to cars and bikes..

The danger of a plane / space ship , crashing into and wiping out a row of houses is slightly higher than a car wiping out the same row ;)

That is unless, this car was.. REALLY explosive.. and going really fast.. and the houses were cheap...


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
User avatar
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:58 am
Posts: 2
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:15 am
I say that the government should hardly control the people (I'm for small government) and so I believe that the government should have few regulations on space travel.

_________________
Space...The Final Frontier...
These are the Voyages of the Dreamers...Their continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations--to BOLDLY GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:26 am
Posts: 23
Location: Alba
Post    Posted on: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:33 am
Dont forget, you dont HAVE To launch from the USA.. you could launch from somewhere else, falling under their regulations.

Or from international waters, falling under nobodys regulations.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:48 pm
No rules no longer, the rules are starting to appear.

Here is an article giving the first draft of some of the rules that will be required for flying sub-orbital craft. As could be predicted the rules are already in excess of what is required for passengers, insisting on medicals for passengers and crew flying on craft which attain 3Gs or more. This is only the first shot across the bow, its only going to get tougher. It will be interesting to see if these are applied to the shuttle as well.


http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri ... CEREG02145

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:13 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
It will be interesting to see if these are applied to the shuttle as well.


Who are you kidding? The shuttle can't pass FAA standards; it never could.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use