Reda Anderson is talking about her turn-ons and turn-offs to be a space passenger. She wants an astronaut as a pilot, not an airline pilot. She doesn’t want to wear a space suit. She doesn’t want to be released from the seat–she’s not that into weightlessness or floating around. In fact she doesn’t want to wear anything that she perceives as increasing her risk. She’ll be training with the Civil Aerospace Mediacal Institute in Oklahoma. She reduces her risk by finding out as much as she can, by attending conferences and visiting Rocketplane, for whom she’s the number one customer. She doesn’t want a round-trip ticket. She wants to go up in one place and come down in another (e.g., Oklahoma to Mojave). She’s a repeat customer. Thanking us for our life-long interest in space so that she as an interloper can come along and enjoy the experience.

Ken Gosier is a member of the Suborbital Spaceflight Club, which is a high-end club (thousand dollars a year) that allows you to stay in touch with what’s going on (recently had a dinner at Dennis Tito’s house). Has suggestions about what to do to make people feel safe (in addition to actually being safe). Be open about testing and engineering process. Show failures as well as successes. Uses example of Masten blog as an example of openness while not scaring away investors (investor page describes only successes).

Randall Clague, government liaison and safety officer for XCOR.

It’s not “welcome to the revolution.” For safety, it’s “welcome to the evolution.” Pointing out that George Nield said things yesterday that made sense to libertarians, which is a revolution itself, that a government employee would do that. They don’t know how to regulate safety, other than to bring it up to Shuttle standards (which kills people, and XCOR doesn’t want to do that). Makes the familiar (at least to regular readers of this blog) point that reusable vehicles have to be safe, regardless of the payload, or they’re not economically viable. We should appreciate just how revolutionary the Congress and FAA approach is, that they’re willing to be hands off on passenger safety. XCOR plans incremental approach, with many flight tests prior to revenue service. They don’t like EZ-Rocket because it has operability issues. Their next vehicle will apply lessons learned, and be more reliable and safe.

They won’t be flying “passengers” (they won’t be taking passage from point A to point B). They use the term participant. Passenger has too many liability implications. Informed consent is the key to safety for spaceflight participants. He’s happy to hear a customer like Reda who is focused on safety, because he is as well. Talking about the D. D. Harriman story, when his board of directors got an injunction against him going to the moon. He violated it, went to the moon and died there. This was informed consent, but it presents an ethical problem: should XCOR fly someone who has a good chance of dying? His initial take was no, but Jeff Greason convinced him that informed consent is informed consent. The customer is always right. Different companies have different approaches to the experience. Reda doesn’t want to unstrap, but Virgin will allow this (though they are rethinking whether or not to let them float). XCOR and Xerus will stay in a pressure suit in their seat. There are different providers for different markets. Allowing someone to get out of seats requires a steward, which is one less seat for passengers. They will require a suit because they want redundancy in life support. There will be a number of different providers, with more experiences and more choices for the customer. This is fantastic [simberg aside, it’s also good because it will allow us to learn a lot more lessons a lot sooner]. Their saying is “boring is beautiful.” They want to make it boring, at least for the pilot.

Reda says “If anything happens to me, don’t stop. This industry must go on.” This is a new venture, and if you can’t accept risk, don’t fly. She agrees that she doesn’t like terms tourist or passenger–she likes being a participant. She is not a payload. She wants to come back equal or better than when she came up there, and to keep her in mind with all of the design activities. She notes that she’s gone to see the Titanic, and the crushing pressures outside were far worse than the space environment.

A panel discussion with half a dozen people, introduced by Rick Tumlinson. Rick pointing out that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bob Bigelow are a legacy of Apollo, but they were also inspired by Star Trek, and he thinks it takes both.

First speaker and moderator David Beaver (Chairman of MindSpace Media). Says that how the media reports stories is critical to how investors, politicians and public understand industry. Surprising that the media is paying so little attention to a movement that promises to get them into space. Part is due to ups and downs of NASA, but part is due to the changing nature of the media itself, in its transition to new media. Thinks that role of special-effects movies and television is going to be unexpectedly powerful. He’s a virtual reality technologist. Creates 3D world on a live stage and immerses people in it interactively. Calls it the magic theatre project to tell unusual stories and new information. Says to check out World Space Center. “Paradigms don’t just rigidify thnking, they rigidify perception itself.” We in the space movement have different perceptions of space because we are immersed in it. We need to imprint enough information in the minds of the public so that they view space the way that we do. The brain fills in much of the information that we take in through our senses. Few people have been in space, and those who have have difficulty in describing it, and pictures don’t do it. have to break down the cognitive barriers that prevent people from fully understanding the experience of space travelers–have to somehow give others an “Overview Effect” a la Frank White. Have to move beyond verbal, written and pictorial descriptions and use new media to convey it.

First speaker is Dan Curry, in charge of special effects for Star Trek shows and movies, and many other films and shows. Star Trek is space fantasy (warp drive unlikely) but distances had to be compressed for story telling. Tried to create a dream of space and future in which we’ve gotten our act together on our own planet in terms of disease and freedom from want. Showing beginning of Star Trek Voyager, with overture and cool images while credits roll. Talking about “Voyage To The Moon” as the “Star Wars” of its day. Also talking about Chesley Bonestell and his developments in movies and astronomy, and his realistic space paintings, which influenced many movies. Other critical films Forbidden Planet, Conquest of Space, From Earth To Moon, Earth Versus Flying Saucers, etc., until Roddenberry came up with “Wagon Train in space,” which became Star Trek. As time went on, the more we learned about the reality of space, the easier it became to make the movies more realistic.

Next is David Livingston, of The Space Show, who has interviewed more than 500 movers and shakers of the space. Hard act to follow Star Trek. Star Trek is in The Space Show, because if it weren’t for Star Trek, and Forbidden Planet, and Apollo, there wouldn’t be a space show [applause]. Working on a book on popularizing space, and has come to unique point of view of why there’s a disconnect between meetings like this and AIAA meetings, and the general public. The general public thinks it’s ask not what you can do for space, but ask what space can do for me, and be specific. To say that space is about settlement doesn’t connect a single dot, and velcro and medical tools or the Internet or financial transactions have to do with space doesn’t matter, because they already have those things. It’s not enough to talk to the general public in the way we talk among ourselves. They see space from their perspective, not ours. They can be made to space as a valuable part of their life, but it requires an investment. Have to bring it down to the lowest level so they can identify with it. Key is to listen to what they’re telling us, and find out what they want from space. If their priority is curing cancer, then we have to figure out how to sell it on that basis (if there’s a case to be made for it). Gives examples of how to hook people into talking about space as it could impact their lives and careers. Being on the radio has taught him how to listen (though his girlfriend doesn’t agree). Coolness counts, but the public wants personal, not screensavers. It’s easier to connect space to personal than to get people to give up personal. We have a space consciousness. To develop one with the rest of the public, we have to talk to them and listen, and learn from when we fail.

Misuzu Onuki, creator of the first space fashion show (also director of Asian business development for Rocketplane Kistler). Showing a video of the space fashion contest in 2005. Concept seems to have caught on with the general public, more than she expected. Science and technology can become more understandable to many through art. There’s been no fashion in space to date: astronauts wear flights suits or shorts in orbit. Have to develop fashions once everyday people are going. For instance, some will want to get married in space. They will want to wear wedding clothes, not flight suits. Weightlessness causes clothes to appear differently (like hair). A wedding dress with frills that lie down flat in one gee can float out in weightlessness. Also describing space themes on cell phones (I think). She sees two types of people who want to go to space: passengers and those who want to do a business in space by finding sponsors and missions. (Note: she had technical problems with her presentation, and plowed through)

Howard Bloom: scientist/engineer and media agent, author of several books on the evolution of earth to present. He was turned on to space by Chesley Bonestell’s illustrations, and when Star Trek came out in the sixties, it seemed so bad compared to that that he never watched it, but then when he happened to see the new shows in the directions, he was amazed because it had not only caught up with Bonestell, but moved beyond it (tribute to Dan Curry). Preaches imagination “Dream your ass off.” Got to get kids to identify with Burt Rutan’s machines, XCOR’s machines, and others. Raw imagination, the unexpected that will take us places. Pictures are important. This is his second space conference, and he doesn’t know what XCOR is, because he hasn’t seen pictures. Used to think that Lucas failed, because he had this great first movie, but then the theme fell apart, but his son went out and rented all six and watched them in the order that Lucas intended, and it seemed to take on a new life. Surprise is key to “grab the public by the gonads.” Need to get people interested in private space as well as NASA space. One example is “Stars, Stories and Scores.” Have to focus on stars (relates story of how he created Shaka Kahn). Should make a fictional story featuring Burt Rutan. Dow Jones average comes out every day, and creates publicity by doing that every single day. We need to come up with metrics for the space industry that come out regularly (e.g., number of dollars invested into private space efforts, published weekly). Tells the story of a department store that decided to have a parade as a publicity event. Parades weren’t new, but the idea was to hook the parade to a yearly holiday as an excuse to repeat it. Holiday was Thanksgiving. Macy’s remains a household name today even though department store industry is dying. Get kids involved with concepts and ideas with contests. He also likes idea of space olympics.

Richard Godwin, president of Apogee Books. How do we make weather so interesting, and space so mundane? Reality of Shuttle launch not captures in any way by watching on television. Took his son, who he’d been trying to get interested in space, to a launch. “Dad, that was awesome.” Have to engage the women. Explain to them that women make better astronauts than guys. (e.g., they have the same brain power for less body mass, and use less consumables). “If you really want to populate space, send the women and let the guys follow them.” We preach to the choir too much. Test: If I can change my mother-in-law’s mind about space, I can convince anyone (she thinks that the Shuttle changes the weather in Chicago). People are interested in survival and money, and we have to make those connections. Have to reinforce the connection between science fiction and science fact. Make people see that it’s not just fantasy, but that it’s important. Show them that there are things to do in space and advance our species is important, but difficult. Have one line that’s outrageous to bring in the interest. Ultimately have to get the kids involved, and get the message to them in a way that piques their interest.

Wrapup by moderator: Just building the ships will not put butts in seats. We will really have to keep selling if we want to have emigration to space. Asks question: why doesn’t this story have legs? Howard Bloom thinks that it’s because in order to do good publicity, you have to be three times as good as the best journalist you know. Take it for granted that they will screw up a lot of things, but if you have a good publicist who’s developing the story day after day you can develop habits in the press to come to you for the story. Question: is it premature to publicize this stuff? Howard thinks that if you love the audience and give it to them on a regular basis, you’ll serve it well. You have to get to the psyche of the audience. Repeats, Stars, Scores, Stories.

Need a world space fair every couple years, to show the public how space is important in their daily life, because they don’t have a clue, other than that it is difficult. David: outreach is fine, but you have to listen too, because lecturing doesn’t work.

[Update]

See also Clark’s briefer, but perhaps more useful notes.

That’s pretty much the end of the day’s sessions. Probably more in the morning, including S3x In Space! (how’s that for a teaser…?)

Is Mike Griffin just asking for help in getting humans to Mars (and note that he’s asking for help from foreign governments, not the American private sector) or is he laying the groundwork for abandoning ISS?

NASA chief Michael Griffin appealed on Wednesday to the leaders of the world’s leading space agencies to join NASA in its bid to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars.

Unless they do, he said, there will be little point in completing the International Space Station. The ISS will make a perfect staging post for such missions, he believes.

Well, I guess. For certain values of the word “perfect” (e.g., horrible)…

Here’s a story from the Dayton paper on this week’s RASTE workshop that Jess Sponable talked about in this morning’s session.

Mike Beavin describing the resurrection of this office, which has languished throughout much of the Bush administration. Office is at the Department of Commerce, next to the White House. Beavin worked on the Hill in the House Aeronautics Subcommittee, sat next to Jim Muncy (still deaf in one ear from that). Then went to AIAA and Satellite Industry Association.

Office is the principal unit for coordination of space activities within the Department of Commerce. Originally “Office of Space Commerce,” which he prefered–wants to nurture actual commerce in space. Originally supported National Space Council (which no longer exists–Clinton dismantled it). Office ended up in Technology Division in 1996, but funding was moved to NOAA in 2004, and didn’t get presidential appointee director until this year (Ed Morris, from Orbital Sciences Corporation). Charter is policy development, market analysis, and outreach and education. (Lot of discussion about GPS and space-based positioning, which is one of the things that the office was given responsibility for in 2005.) Listing some recent accomplishments, few of which have any relationship to getting humans into space. Supporting development of new national space policy document.

Ed Morris only there since January, and he’s only been there a month and a half, so still in the process of resurrecting the office. Has Aerospace Corporation on contract to help with outreach to stakeholders to see what they should be doing. Just testified to Congress on economic impacts of space–discussed GPS and remote sensing/NOAA. There may be hearings this fall on COTS, and if so, they hope to play an advocacy role for that. They recognize that they haven’t done much for the entrepreneurs lately, but they had a workshop in 2001 on space commerce, and hope to do something similar to make a new roadmap of market oppotunities in space. Want to hear ideas hear. One issue they do want to deal with is ITAR. There needs to be a voice for the commercial side in the government ITAR debates, and they want to serve that role.

Question from Joe Carrol: If Centennial Challenges is successful, do you think that Commerce could get involved in their own prizes? Answer: they’re interested in that, if there are departmental precedents.

Break for lunch.

Stu Witt, Mojave Airport Manager is coming up. Starting with a five-minute video promo of Mojave. “Mojave is a place where dreams are nurtured.” Vignette with Jeff Greason at XCOR extolling the “Mojave is a perfect place”–Burt Rutan.

Witt: FAA is responsible for the uninvolved public–we are responsible for the involved public, the people who fly the vehicles and fly in the vehicles. Describing the joint-use operational restricted airspace over Mojave–the largest testing site in the continent. When established by Congress, it was established for both commercial and military use for flight test. Military has been very supportive of civilian flight tests.

They’re open 24/7 with a crash fire/rescue division, and support the Air Force at Edwards and Navy at China Lake when it’s after hours for them. They’re expanding their runways and will have longest commercial runway in Kern County (other than the Edwards lakebed). Has gone from forty percent occupancy to a hundred-plus percent occupancy since the first SS1 engine firing in 2003. A “Silicon Valley”-like atmosphere for cutting-edge space companies. Lots of things going on you never hear about every day. Eight rocket test stands at the airport for thrust up to eighty-thousand pounds, with provisions up to 120,000. Doesn’t worry about competition–wants to see spaceports all over the globe. Describing all the companies there: XCOR, AirLaunch, BAE, National Test Pilot School, etc. They also do a lot of filming of movies and commercials, and it’s an intermodal freight transport hub. The new 12,500 foot runway can handle any airplane in the world (e.g., fully-loaded 747F from Mojave to Shanghai). Describing all the celebrities who come through (picture of Burt talking to Clint Eastwood about the back nine at Pebble Beach).

Lessons learned: prepare for growth–they had no idea they’d ever have the crowd control issues. There are plans for four thousand houses in Mojave now, which is more than the current population, Get plenty of runway–you can’t have enough. If you don’t have a lakebed nearby, build one–you’ll need it. Only sees three viable spaceport sites in the near term: Utah, New Mexico and California. “Keep your AST sponsor informed.” “Keep your local officials informed.” On risk: risk and gain must be balanced.

Next talk from Australia’s Mark Sonter, discussing a spaceport proposal at Manus Island. Glad to speak at a conference where the focus is getting hmans into space. Manus Island is the northernmost island of Papua New Guinea (staging area for MacArthur’s invasion fleet of the Phillipines). It has an airstrip that’s an emergency site for Australia-Japan traffic. There was a proposal in the early nineties for launching Protons or Zenits from it, so there’s history (locals had exhibited enthusiasm for it, but viewed as “too adventurous” by internaional banking community). Good equatorial site (some interest in LEO comsats for equatorial coverage. Can double GEO payload compared to Khazahkstan. Maximizes performance to orbit, and would be a good launch site for an equatorial LEO infrastructure. Sees SSPS as the big market. If it can compete economically, will pay for colonization of space. Showing picture of Mankins’ power tower. Discusses other possible equatorial sites. Not very many good ones, Kourou the only one that’s active. Alcontera a possibility, but most other than Kourou are done by sea launches. Proposing a small basic launch facility, and then seeing if it can grow.

Chuck Lauer sitting in for Bill Curry, head of Oklahoma Spaceport (who has come down with pneumonia). Rocketplane was going for “O-Prize” (a tax incentive from the State of Oklahoma) rather than the X-Prize, and got it. Oklahoma spaceport started out as a potential X-33 port (when people were naive enough to believe the Lockmart scam). Oklahoma remembers the potential, even if it didn’t pan out. There’s a B-52 SAC base that was closed down in the 1970s, and they’ve been trying to figure out what to do with it since. Established Oklahoma Spaceport Authority, modeled on the Disney deal in Orlando. When X-33 died, Oklahoma was “all dressed up, with nobody to go to the dance with.” Rocketplane provided a letter of intent on letterhead in 2000 which enabled the Space Authority to get up and running. They want jobs and economic development. Provided a modified tax credit targeted at entrepreneurs (transferable fifty-percent R&D tax credit spread over five years, which they sold to a bank to raise money). Now reshowing slides from previous day’s talks on Rocketplane progress. Site got its license from FAA on June 16th. Seven miles off I-40, so potential for tourist traffic, and hoping for growth as the space plane starts to fly. Lots of room for other people–Armadillo is testing now.

A brief talk about “Spaceport New Jersey.” “Sounds like a ridiculous idea, and may end up being that.” New Jersey Spaceport could take advantage of proximity to large cities, NJ has a lot of infrastructure, with Atlantic City Coast Guard facilities and FAA facilities. Thinks that spaceports may evolve differently than airports. For tourism, takeoffs and landings may be different locations. Building a team at Rutgers with necessary backgrounds, and pursuing the idea.

Describing thirteen years ago, when there was a monsoon rainstorm and his hangar flooded around the DC-X. Cleaned it up, talked to Pete Conrad, who said facilities are a mess, but the vehicle’s in great shape. Old space wouldn’t have flown, but they did. Not high, not far, but it went up, translated, and came down on the pad. It was a transition point in his career. Had big plans for multi-billion-dollar single-stage experimental rockets, but politics and bureaucracy prevented it. And it still would have been old space.

Perhaps that was a good thing, because new things are happening now that only cost hundreds of millions, or just millions, and in some case hundreds of thousands.

Describing his work at the Air Force Research Lab in Dayton.

Starting with absurd predictions about the future (“Man will not fly for fifty years” — Wilbur Wright, in 1901). Don’t count on the opinions of the “experts.” Citing Macchiavelli, about the difficulty of managing the creation of a new system. Discovered after AF retirement and attempt at entrepreneuring how difficult it was to raise money, and is happy to be back in government, where he has an opportunity to help nurture these new ideas.

Describing technologies, including new TPS that can be removed and installed five hundred times faster than Shuttle tiles, with order-of-magnitude improvement in strength and durability. Also discussing lox/methane and integration techniques, avionics, GN&C, health monitoring, aerothermal tools. Goal is delivering aircraft-like operations for space vehicles.

Describing FALCON program, and hybrid launch vehicle that goes to Mach seven or so, hopes to grow it into a platform for a hybrid reusable/expendable orbital launcher, that can evolve to fully reusable two stage. FALCON down to SpaceX and Airlaunch. First flight of SpaceX failed, expect another attempt in November. Airlaunch is lox/propane rocket dropped from back of C-17. Going to Critical Design Review this fall. Flight test planned next week with actual fully-fueled (but inert) rocket from C-17. ARES “hybrid launch vehicle” requires minimal new technology, But technology can carry on to next step, which is reusable upper stage. Will be lox/hydrocarbon, could be horizontal or vertical landing, will be tested from ground initially, with incremental flight test. Hope that technology can be spun off to New Space industry. Looking for “takeoff point” where industry “grows like mad.”

Describing relationship between conventional aerospace, DoD, and the emerging private-sector industry. Discussing parallel between current space industry and dawn of aviation, with smart government investment spurring growth. Also wants to ensure that thriving industry is supportive of emerging defense needs for Operationally Responsive Spacelift. Sees emerging industry consensus on ways for government and industry can cooperate, leveraging relationships. Had a conference this week in Dayton where there were presentations of technologies being developed by the government to the industry. Hoped to link up commercial sector and defense vendors with technologists. Wants to know where to go with this in the future, to continue the development of relationships. Thinks that there’s an overlap of interests, and wants to figure out how to continue to build on it.

Charles Miller giving a history of aviation, pointing out that we lost the lead in aviation early in the century, having to use European designs in WW I, due to patent fights between Wright and Curtiss, and poor coordination of the industry. NACA gradually helped fix this, and we need a new version of NACA for space.

Jim Muncy describing new types of “prizes” where the government paid for results, rather than effort. Sounds like a good thing, except that when you do that, Congressmen don’t know which district the money will go to, Also, since we don’t know when money will be awarded, and the money has to be set aside. Congress also doesn’t understand why it can’t spend money this year if the prize isn’t going to be won, and is reluctant to set aside money unspent. Bureaucracy doesn’t like it, either, because they lose control (Can’t “help” the contractors, don’t know how the job is going to be done, etc.). Not normal procurement and contracting, and doesn’t work in Washington–only in the real world. But there’s hope because there’s some legislation working to give the Air Force some prize authority. NASA already does, but some in the Congress don’t believe that they should actually get money to give out. He also notes that prizes are useful but not a panacea for all ills. Can’t be too easy, or too hard. Good for incremental achievement. Were instrumental for huge breakthroughs in aviation when properly designed.

Comment from the audience that prizes are just a part of the solution, because there’s a consensus that the general procurement process for the government is badly broken. Citing development cycles in private versus government, with dramatic differences in time to market. Jess response: agrees except no comment as to whether or not the current process is broken. Jim Muncy asking for formal written comments from small companies to Jess on the RASTE conference this week on this subject. We need to come up with a way for the entrepreneurial firms to do business with the government without becoming “little Boeings.” Need to avoid buildup of infrastructure and bureaucracy in the company, and that needs to be written down and submitted to the Air Force.

Another audience comment: if having to build DeHavilland airplanes during the war was embarrasing, how embarassing is it that so many companies in this country have to use Russian launch vehicles? Jess comments that he agrees, but that fixing it (particularly ITAR) is above his pay grade.

Ed Wright suggests having future RASTE conferences in Mojave or at the X-Prize Cup so that industry participants can actually see things fly. Jess thinks it’s a good idea, but they’re currently funding limited.

Next talk in a few minutes–space ports.

He’s the first talk of Saturday morning.

Three questions that always seem to come up: how soon, how safe and how much? People are asking if anything is happening, because there hasn’t been a lot of visible activity lately. Cites Stephen Stills: “somethin’ happenin’ here, what it is ain’t completely clear.”

A great deal is happening–lull is only on the surface. Momentum hasn’t stalled. We’re following a typical time line with other transportation systems. Very little visible activity for a couple years after December 3rd, 1903. Dumont, Wrights, Bleriot, Curtiss were doing a lot, but it wasn’t going on in the sky. Shopwork, experiments, bench testing, craftsmanship. Things that needed to be done, but not things that got one into the papers. It was a consolidation of understanding a new technology. We’re in a similar period right now.

AST involved with a dozen entrepreneurs at various stages of developing new launch vehicles. Not glamorous work, but essential. Headlines are just prelude to longer-term important developments. Citing Golden Spike, and Lindbergh, after which transportation systems gradually grew and then exploded.

Industry is in the ready room, but not quite ready for the camera. But will be very soon, by the end of the decade. Answer: no launch delays due to paperwork, though there have been struggles to achieve that. We need to recognize that this is new activity, and, keep communications lines open. Learned lessons from SpaceShipOne and will continue to learn as we go.

For safety, we have a good record, but we will not be perfect and everyone needs to understand that. Citing the hundreds and thousands of people who die in other forms of transportation (aircraft, boating, autos). Safety will be at the top and middle and bottom of every checklist, but risk will always be present. Rules will require informed consent of passengers. Flights will be safe as possible, but perfection is not humanly probable. These flights will be spectacular–sensations, sounds, sights…and risk.

Initial market in good shape (fifteen millions sales for Virgin Galactic two years before flight). Question is if it is a large enough market to sustain. He sees promise.

Using example of three-body problem back in the sixties. A similar three-body problem has held us back in human spaceflight–technology, capital and market. A critical mass of private investment is becoming available, the technology seems adequate, and the market is willing (though only a small fraction is able to pay current prices).

Early train travel was expensive, but technological improvements brought it to the masses.

What is FAA doing?

First, what is FAA not doing. Regulating to ensure safety to the uninvolved public, but staying out of the way of critical technological developments.

What they are doing: finishing up rules on experimental permits, and in process of issuing to seven different developers, just granted OK Spaceport license, ahd working with X-Prize Cup. Also continuing to work with ELVs, and now have 178 consecutive launches with no damage or injury to general public.

Question about lunar landing challenge and if we’re ready: still feeling way through the experimental permit process–recognizes that time is short, but will see what they have when the time comes.

Question about whether FAA is working develop standards for passenger safety: No, working on informed consent basis for now, though no compromise or change for safety to uninvolved. Need to get experience before we can establish standards for passenger safety, so we don’t strangle industry, per Congressional maddate. Not like stepping on an airline.

Stu Witt (Mojave airport manager) asking: have we missed any RLV launches due to regulation?

Are any states of spaceports applying their own passenger safety standards? Not to his knowledge. Wouldn’t be a good idea for individual states or communities to come up with their own standards, because it would complicate life.

Do you have enough budgets and people: Things are tight, but attitude is that the next year or so will tell whether or not we’ll be able to continue at this level. Expect workload to skyrocket as industry develops. May have to request more resources in future to prevent delays, but this year will give a good indicator.

Will orbital have an extension of the same treatment that suborbital got, and what kind of timeframe does he see? Answer: current law requires separate licenses for launch and entry, but there is no regulatory regime for on-orbit activities (not necessarily a problem, because there is no danger to on-ground public from this). No opportunity yet to license a reusable orbital vehicle, but thinks that regulatory infrastructure is in place to handle it, a few years downstream.

Rocketplane’s number one passenger asks if there are any government agencies asking passengers what they think is safe and what they’d like to see? Answer: FAA is interested in input, and potential passengers have same process in the NPRM comments process as everyone else.