FAA-AST has (as expected for the past few months) issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on public space passenger travel. This is the next step in the process by which the useful enabling legislation passed by Congress a year ago gets translated into actual regulations. The public has sixty days to provide input to it, and as a potential spaceline operator, I'll have to sit down and read the 123-page document when I get a chance and comment on it, to both them and my readers.

Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen in the next week or so. Jesse Londin, over at Space Law Probe, has similar immediate constraints, but I expect some useful commentary from that quarter over the next few weeks, and will link to it when it happens.

[Update at 11 AM Central]

Jeff Foust (who has some other interesting space policy items) points out an AP article on it. While I obviously have to read the NPRM itself, just glancing through the article and looking at the reporter's summary of it, all the rules seem reasonable to me, and consonant with the intent of the legislation (though I remain concerned now, as I did then, that the time period before FAA can regulate safety more stringently remains too short). But in any event, the devil, as always, dwells in the details.

[Another update at noon Central]

Liz at Regolith has a summary of the proposed regs.

A comment at space.com reports that these new rule include this provision:

Space Tourists may be subjected to TSA screenings and checked against the 'no-fly' list.

While that's a stupid annoyance, in the context of all the other requirements (unlike air travel) it will be a minor one.

Personally, I am amused. Imagine an overweight polyester clad civil servant waving one of those metal detector wands.

"Excuse me, Mr. Rutan, please remove your shoes."

But big picture? I agree. Its no big deal.

Any flight preparedness training needed for the flights according to the proposed FAA regulations would probably already have been part of the flgiht package itself as adventure is the overall product being sold. From what I can see, I agree, this looks reasonable and should not hamper the industry.

What's the take on third party liability? Do these rules cover that?

Third-party liability is already covered under existing launch licensing procedures, and has been for many years. It's first- and second-party issues that the new legislation (and rules) address.

Thanks, Rand for clearing that up!