Too much or too little? Clark Lindsey has a post linking to the two extremes. I’d say that Carolynne Campbell-Knight’s piece isn’t just overwraught, but hysterical:
Make no mistake, if a few very wealthy people get killed, the waivers they signed won’t mean a thing if they didn’t know the risks. It may make no difference whether they knew the risks or not. There will be a massive outcry, huge negative publicity and a demand for regulation and accountability. That would be the end of passenger space travel for decades and the damage to the industry would be immense. A wise industry would regulate itself, set published standards, and be open about the risks involved. It would do this before the disaster happens.
When the West was wild, it was a different era. A Wild West in space won’t be acceptable in the day of 24 hour news and the litigious society.
Right now, the risks are not being properly declared. The impression is being given that riding rockets can be as safe as a ride in a light aircraft. That simply isn’t true. Rockets are dangerous and even the most careful engineering can only make them ‘as safe as possible’. They can’t make them ‘safe’.
I’m unaware of anyone “giving the impression” that these vehicles will be as safe as light aircraft. I think that she’s just unjustifiably inferring that. Here’s what I wrote in the book:
Some will argue that part of promoting the industry is to ensure that it doesn’t kill its customers, but the industry already has ample incentive to not do that, and the FAA isn’t any smarter on that subject than the individual companies within it — everyone is still learning.
There is a popular view in the space community that the first time someone dies in private spaceflight it will somehow doom the industry. Bluntly, I believe that is nonsense, because it is based on absolutely no evidence. In fact, there is an abundance of counterevidence with examples being the early aviation industry, various extreme sports including free diving and mountaineering, and even the recent cruise-ship disaster of the Costa Concordia, in which at least thirty passengers died.
In fact, it may take just such a death, a sanguineous christening, to normalize this business, and end the mystical thinking about it.
She herself isn’t consistent on the issue:
While there are some treaties covering satellites and debris, there are no laws. There is no regulator. It’s the wild west in space. Who is going to license and oversee the new commercial ventures? Those involved in this commerce think regulation is a bad thing and that it will preclude innovation. That’s what the early railroads thought. But then the bodies started piling up. When is an aircraft a spaceship? What’s the difference? Regulators such as the FAA have no experience in spacecraft. Once you’re above the atmosphere there are no rules, certainly no laws. If the history of transportation teaches us anything, it teaches us that there will be a dangerous mess until a regulatory regime is established.
If FAA has no experience in spacecraft (actually, they do have some), then how can they, or anyone else, be expected to establish a regulatory regime, until we get some experience actually flying? Not to mention that we do in fact have definitions for aircraft and spaceships, in the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act.
And as Clark notes:
The same regulations that help keep a vehicle from crashing onto third parties also help protect the second parties in the vehicle. The companies are highly motivated to provide safe space travel. While the industry will go on from an accident, it will be very difficult for the company involved to do so. There will be a long grounding and many customers will no doubt demand refunds. Some states have now limited liability exposure for space tourism operators and manufacturers, but there is no limit when gross negligence is found. An accident will also mean the end of the “learning period” in which the FAA is restricted from applying new regulations on personal spaceflight.
I’ve really got to get the book out.
Who is this person and why should we care?
She’s a drag racer who’s built a rocket-powered car, which makes her an expert on spaceflight. Kind of like driving a golf cart makes you an expert on electric power stations.
She’s also British, so she probably knows nothing about the American West except what she’s gleaned from reruns of Gunsmoke. “Wild West” is just something British say when they’re ranting on about, you know, that crazy American stuff.
The fact that she thinks there are no laws concerning satellites or debris and doesn’t know who licenses launch companies is hilarious. Couldn’t she do a little research before she started writing?
Hey, now there’s an idea..
I pre-ordered the book, and recently got a notice from
Amazon that it was having trouble finding it and that I should confirm that I still wanted it. I do, so I did.
Laura, my apologies. I should just take that book off the market, because I can’t afford to sell it at the price at Amazon, with their cut. I’m going to reissue as a softcover, which will be both more affordable for me, and the book buyers.
No worries. Just thought you might want to know what Amazon is up to.
If you looked at aircraft crash statistics since the Wright Brothers, it’s obvious that they fall out of the sky like rain, crashing into schools, houses, mountains, deserts, highways, golf courses, and sky scrapers. One might assume that only the most foolhardy would ever try such a dangerous and unnatural form of travel, but the real problem is the mind-boggling length of the check-in line at the airport ticket counter.
In the absence of regulation there’s still liability. And the pockets are deep enough that there will be -someone- shaken down. So … there’s no reason for regulation. In large part regulation is about trying to make sure there are minimal numbers of “the uninsured” and anyone else for whom they have very little skin in the game – houses mostly being exempt. (And thus are effectively immune to liability.)
You’re dangerously close to enlightenment here. If “legislation” doesn’t include what some call “common law” and others call “case law” then what does it include?
Laws made by politicians that have been tested in no court.
Why would anyone think politicians can come up with better laws than courts dealing with real cases? What motivation do politicians have to create these laws in the first place?
This is why I suggest the first “safety legislation” imposed on the suborbital space tourism industry will come at the request of the established players in the suborbital space tourism industry.
In the absence of regulation there’s still liability.
This isn’t dangerously close Trent. This is splitting the arrow already sitting on the target.
It’s the laws themselves that are dangerous, only existing as make work. Adding misery to other lives is of no consequence.
To suggest removing laws is more beneficial than adding them just makes ya a weirdo.
The idea that there is no law outside the atmosphere is absurd. And there is a regulatory regime being set up by the FAA. With at least one former NASA pilot astronaut involved.
The FAA, the FCC and NOAA all address debris in their regulations. The FAA has some actual behavioral requirements for upper stages. The other two regulators couch theirs as information requirements.
I’m unaware of anyone “giving the impression” that these vehicles will be as safe as light aircraft.
Not light aircraft, but the Space Frontier Foundation did say RLVs would be “as safe as commercial airliners.”
After months of badgering, they finally removed that statement from their website but refused to issue a retraction. Executive director Jon Card told me that simply raising the issue would be bad for his career.
That web page was written by SFF’s “education director,” so it is likely they taught the same thing to dozens of teachers, who have taught it to hundreds of students.
Never underestimate fools.
@ Rand Simberg;
Just a thought, but IMHO when you’re mentioning your book, it might be a good idea to hotlink the mention to your sales page at Amazon (or anywhere else it’s for sale). Instapundit does this for his Army of Davids, and I think it’s a good idea.
Just my two cent’s worth.
Oh, and in case anyone (such as an occasional visitor) is wondering which book by Rand I’m referring to, it’s this one.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Rand%20Simberg&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3ARand%20Simberg
🙂
Unfortunately as space tourism flights start you will see more of these uninformed folks writing as if they “know” something even if they don’t.
With apologies to Jeff Greason (a great speaker and visionary) space tourism is modern barnstorming without the visibility (which kind of defeats the purpose.)
Until colonies are founded, everything else is a footnote.
I just love the wannabes who proclaim nothing less than an immediate trip to the Alpha Quadrant is worth doing.
Of course, none of them have ever been above the stratosphere — and it’s unlikely they ever will be. But they’re oh, so jaded!
Like listening to a homeless man proclaim that he would never want to live in *that* mansion. 🙂
I can see the mars mansions from my house!
I believe the right pace is to pace. Suborbital may be all some can afford but others have already shown they could step farther. OTOH, even most places in our own solar system, let alone another star, are a step too far.
You can argue for the moon, but mars is now within that pace. Everything else is too far until we have more infrastructure in space, meaning more than just one or two fuel depots.
Suborbital may be all some can afford but others have already shown they could step farther.
Bull manure. Everyone who can afford a trip to Mars and is interested has already gone. At last count, that number’s zero. Space Adventures can’t even sell a circumlunar flight at today’s prices.
If you believe otherwise, your helmet’s on too tight.
You’re the kind of guy who would have stood around at Kitty Hawk saying the Wright Brothers should forget about fabric biplanes and build a nuclear-powered supersonic transport.
Hey, I’ve been to the alpha quadrant and a doctor had to surgically remove an alien puffer-fish looking thing from my urethra, which wasn’t pleasant. The only things in deep space are death and pain, and death is the preferred option. Your mileage may vary.
Ken,
Actually a one passenger craft like the Lynx isn’t really optimized for space tourism. Its basically a Mig-25 thrill ride with a higher altitude. What Lynx really works best for is the much larger Research, Technology and Education sub-orbital markets and I suspect those are what Jeff Gleason sees at the bread and butter markets for XCOR.
So for Lynx I Space tourists will just be a side show since there is that one seat. But joy rides in space are always far better for getting the attention of the press rather than some boring astronomical observations, even though the later will pay far better.
Those participating in equestrian sports have been signing waivers that protect all entities from promoters all the way down to barn owners for many, many years. There are injuries and deaths every year and yet the industry thrives. There are participant in virtually every country and many compete in several different countries every year. Gross negligence notwithstanding, these waivers are unambiguous. A similar waiver is all that would be needed to protect most parties.
That’s not the full story. There are equine activity laws that limit liability. In most states, all the owner needs to do is post a sign — waivers are not strictly necessary.
Even in the states that don’t have equine activity statutes, I suspect there’s a significant body of case law. That doesn’t exist for spacecraft.
And piloted commercial crew vehicles are different from discarded and abandoned, derelict, unpiloted upper stages and space debris how again?