Has it broken?
I’d like to think so, but he’s too ideologically driven to have much hope.
Has it broken?
I’d like to think so, but he’s too ideologically driven to have much hope.
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.
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.
Roger Handberg says it’s time for space advocates to move beyond the old false paradigm.
It’s all about 2014:
For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.
To repeat what Rush Limbaugh said four years ago, I hope he fails.
To me, this is one of the most frightening things about the growth of Leviathan:
Statutory law in America has expanded to the point that government’s primary activity is no longer to protect, preserve and defend our lives, liberty and property, but rather to stalk and entrap normal American citizens doing everyday things.
After identifying three federal offenses in the U.S. Constitution — treason, piracy and counterfeiting — the federal government left most matters of law enforcement to the states. By the time President Obama took office in 2009, however, there were more than 4,500 federal criminal statutes on the books.
“Too many people in Washington seem to think that the more laws Congress enacts, the better the job performance of the policymakers,” Lynch notes. “That’s twisted.”
It is. It’s like the attitude at the State Department that their job is to get treaties ratified, good, bad or ugly.
We need quality laws, not quantities of terrible ones that criminalize us all.
When I was in college, disillusioned by the end of Apollo, these were the images, from Don Davis and others, that re-inspired me to get involved in space again.
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.
Charlie Martin, who is making good progress on his goal toward healthier lifestyle, notes that the focus on weight is misguided:
In the first 13 weeks I lost two inches on my neck and two inches around my waist. In the following four weeks, I’ve lost another 3 inches (a total of FIVE inches) around my waist.
Obviously, I like the Army’s numbers better, so let’s use them — according to the Army, I’ve lost 5 percentage points of my body fat over the last four weeks, with my weight remaining stable. (Other methods give me somwhere around 29 percent, which is the most common value from the Withing body impedance too.) My weight is around 273, and 5 percent of 273 is 14 pounds close enough.
To have lost that much body fat, and still gained roughly 2 pounds over that four weeks means I’ve exchanged some amount of body fat for muscle, while also being around 32,000 kcals in arrears for that whole four weeks.
I’d remind Charlie that a lot of linebackers weigh more than him. I don’t think they’re necessarily fat.
If there were any lingering doubts that the man is an irredeemable moron, they were put to rest this morning on ABC.