There was a hearing to discuss the new launch regulations yesterday on the Hill. Clark Lindsey attended, and I know just how he feels:

As someone who has for many years followed space development and its impact, or lack thereof, on society, I found yesterday's House Transportation Committee hearing on Commercial Space Transportation to be quite amazing. Even just a couple of years ago, a scenario with a congressman expressing passionate views on the best approach to regulating suborbital space travel to a witness from a company named Virgin Galactic would have seemed like a wild fantasy.

And I find it a bit astonishing to hear the head of the FAA giving well-informed responses to questions about suborbital space transport. Maybe we are making progress...

Rep. Oberstar is up to his old tricks, continuing to whine about a "tombstone mentality." As Clark (and Jeff Foust) discuss, he's introduced a bill to overregulate the suborbital passenger industry (that's my characterization, surely not his). I think that it's unlikely to go anywhere, given his minority status, and the fate of his attempts at amending the current legislation a couple months ago. Nothing has changed in the interim that I'm aware of that would make the committee more receptive to his point of view. That's my hope, anyway.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I think this assessment by Mark Whittington far too harsh:

James Oberstar seems not to have given up his drive to crush the embryonic suborbital space flight industry, using safety as a weapon.

I really don't think that the congressman's goal is to "crush the embryonic suborbital space flight industry." I think that he's sincerely concerned about safety, but extremely misguided.

From Jeff Foust's account:

Oberstar had a contentious exchange with FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, who defended the limited regulatory powers her agency has for passenger safety on commercial spacecraft. Oberstar, though, wasn't convinced by Blakey, who said that the FAA already has the power to regulate safety for the uninvolved public (which carries over to the safety of crew and passengers, she noted), and that commercial spaceflights today aren't really transportation per se, but instead an adventure people are willing to embrace despite the risks. "Experimentation with human lives, we don't allow that in the laboratories of the Food and Drug Administration or the National Cancer Institute," he said, "why should we allow it on space travel?"

Leaving aside the interesting and perhaps valid argument that the FDA in its hypercaution perhaps kills more people than it saves, and that the National Cancer Institute does in fact do experimentation with human lives (as does the FDA), he's making a category error or two here. The issue is expectation--people have come to expect (rightly or wrongly--often wrongly) that, because of agencies like the FDA, food and drugs are safe. Moreover, they demand such safety because everyone has to eat, and those who get sick need medical treatment--neither are elective activities.

No one (as far as I know) has such an expectation for suborbital spaceflight, or adventure travel in general, and no one is going to be compelled to participate in it (again, under current legislation...). For many, in fact, the risk is part of the experience. Carried to its logical conclusion, Rep. Oberstar's philosophy would ban, or at least insist that the government heavily regulate mountain climbing, rock climbing, bungee jumping, skydiving, contact sports, extreme skiing, etc.

But perhaps those things are next on his agenda.

We live in a country where given enough spending cash you can join an organization that will allow you to pilot a vehicle that pulls several G’s, and in most instances over the life span of the vehicle, will almost inevitably have a catastrophic failure. Top fuel racing has instituted numerous safety measures and continue to improve those measures. However the organization recognizes that the sport is inherently dangerous. While constantly working to improve safety for the drivers and crew as well as the fans it is accepted that accidents will happen. I don’t see any reason we cannot model spaceflight activities after this venerable organization. One of the greatest stumbling blocks will be dealing with the issue of failures downrange. The first downrange failure will do more damage to the fledgling industry that it can absorb. The NIMBY backlash will be its death knell.

Rand-

What's the best method for alerting you of IE faux pas'? On here, or via e-mail? The Clark Lindsey "attended" link is missing a trailing quote again, and IE didn't like it...

I don't mean to be a pest...

Here is fine, John--I get email notification of all comments (a necessity with the plague of comment spam going around now). Link is fixed now.

I agree that self-regulation would be very effective. Between natural safety concerns and the heavy price the companies would pay in life and future business for any failure, launch companies are going to put a high value on safety.
However, I don't think the downrange issue will be as big as the regulation demands after the first one or two failures. I think people touting space flight and tourism benefits will outweight the NIMBYs.

> The first downrange failure will do more damage to the fledgling
> industry that it can absorb.

Highly unlikely. Otherwise, the company couldn't meet the expected casualty requirement to get a launch license.