Category Archives: Space

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Brian Williams’ Disappointment

19 Comments

What did he mean by this?

I love this country. I love the American idea. I have profound disappointments in my country. I feel we ought to be in space … because it meant so much to us … technologically. It moved us along.”

We are “in space.” We have a space station, we have at least two, maybe three manned spacecraft in development, to fly in two or three years (not even counting NASA’s wasteful efforts that won’t fly with humans until the end of the decade at best), we just got an announcement of a serious plan to send two people to Mars within five years. What more does he want?

[Update a few minutes later]

Well, Brian Williams has 160,000 followers, but he’s never issued a single tweet.

Political Commentary, Space

Regulating Inspiration Mars

25 Comments

Jeff Foust has a pretty comprehensive story on last week’s announcement, but Michael Listner and I are discussing the regulatory aspects in comments:

Under the Commercial Launch Act, a commercial or private operator must obtain an launch license and reentry license from the FAA. If the FAA decides not to grant either license this mission is going nowhere. Even though this is a non-commercial activity, the wording of the Act will still require a license.

Rand Simberg · 28 minutes ago
Yes, but what would be the basis of denying one?

@ponder68 · 10 minutes ago
During the review process, if the FAA reviews whether that the mission could be adverse to the United States’ national security or international interests. Also, the issue of safety could be an issue as well as environmental considerations is part of the review. An adverse finding any of these or a combination could result in denial of a license.

Rand Simberg · 4 minutes ago
Oh, I understand that. I meant on what rational basis? I can’t see the Pentagon objecting, and the notion that it would be an environmental issue is ludicrous. The only possible safety issue that I could see would be the entry. If there was an objection, I can imagine that the (Obama) State Department might say that it was hurting the feelings of other countries who weren’t as audacious as we are (note that this mission is actually within the budgets of many nations). But I’m not sure how the American people would react to such a position.

I’m going to add something to the book about this. Under current law, the only authority that the federal government would have over such a flight would be the ascent to orbit, where they would issue a launch license for the launch to deliver the hardware and crew to space. They have no jurisdiction over orbital activities, or beyond-LEO activities, other than their responsibilities under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. This will in fact put the limits of Article VI to the test of just how much supervision by a States Party is required for private actors. The FAA has no statutory authority to regulate the safety of the crew themselves (again, under current law). The only safety issue in which they will be involved is for the launch, and for the potential of damage to uninvolved third parties from the very hot entry.

Which raises a question for the mission planners — how do they plan to dispose of the non-capsule (that is, the expandable) portion of the mission? Do they separate shortly before entry, and let it burn? How much of it will make it to the ground? They can probably do a correction burn after (or perhaps during) the Mars flyby to tweak the final earth entry time and location, but I don’t know by how much.

Business, Political Commentary, Space

Regulating Commercial Spaceflight

13 Comments

Should the industry take a page from the book of maritime law, and self regulate?

Classification Societies originated in the 18th and 19th centuries at the initiative of English ship insurers. Their purpose is to serve the public interest and the needs of their clients by promoting the security of life, property and the natural environment.1 They are impartial organizations consisting of technical experts that have established a system of public safety based on private law contracts. They are often described as the unofficial “policemen” in the marine world. Classification Societies enter into contracts primarily with ship owners and shipyards, which enable them to determine and control whether a ship conforms to their rules. Although Classification Societies do have economic interests, these interests are not the primary reason for their existence. Because of this, they often take the form of non-profit corporations.2

Classification Societies set the standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of maritime vessels. They accomplish this through rules and standards formulated through a committee process. In developing these rules, a Classification Society’s staff relies upon prudent marine engineering principles, theoretical research, and experience.

This is something that the Commercial Spaceflight Federation should be considering.

Health, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Space, Technology and Society

How Delaying Commercial Crew Is Deadly

24 Comments

Jon Goff says that it could cost thousands of lives:

Just shaving 36 hours off of the availability date of commercial crew could potentially save more lives than would be lost in the worst case Commercial Crew crash. Even if expediting the process, dropping many of the NASA Human Rating requirements, dropping some of the abort tests, and sticking with Space Act Agreements instead of FAR Contracts really meant a massive decrease in actual safety (I don’t think it would) to say a 5% chance of losing a crew on a given flight, over the course of the ISS’s life you would have saved hundreds of times more US lives by taking that course than you would potentially risk in astronaut lives.

I’ll have to incorporate this thought into the book. I made the point, but not quantitatively, just that our approach is an indicator of how unimportant ISS research is, despite NASA lip service.

This is the problem that Bastiat described. Loss of crew is very publicly visible, while the people who die are anonymous and unknown to all except those closest to them, and their deaths aren’t understood to be a result of flawed government policy. This is the same problem that the FDA has, so it ends up inhibiting innovation, destroying jobs and killing people lest it be blamed for letting people die through underregulation.