An article in this week’s issue of Flight International magazine has a provocative headline: “US claims right to set new space tourism regulations globally after treaty examination”. As the opening paragraph summarizes:
US persons or organisations operating suborbital test flights outside the USA will still have to obtain a Federal Aviation Administration permit, according to newly proposed rules. This is because, under existing international treaties, governments are responsible for launches made by their citizens or legal entities beyond their own borders.
Another case of imperialist American hegemony? Hardly. While the Flight International article treats this as something of a revelation, this appears to be simply a continuation of existing policy that requires US operators to obtain launch licenses from the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) even if those launches take place outside the US. For example, the HyShot 1 and 2 suborbital launches of an Australian hypersonics experiment required AST licenses even though they took place from Woomera, Australia, because they used a commercially-supplied US rocket, the Terrier-Orion. In addition, the multinational Sea Launch venture, led by a US company, Boeing, performs launches under an AST license even through they use a Ukrainian rocket with a Russian upper stage, launching from a Norwegian-built floating launch platform in international waters. So it’s only natural, under the existing regulatory regime, to extend that policy to cover suborbital space tourism flights.
[Disclosure: my employer performs work for AST, but is not involved in the licensing or rulemaking process. A slightly longer version of this post appears on the Personal Spaceflight blog.]
The headline would have been more correct to read “US and all other nations claim rights to set new space tourism regulations globally.”
Arguably, the French would have the same right to require licensing of any suborbital vehicles built with french engine technology, as would the russians, etc.
Eventually, this will have to get sorted out, if suborbital ever becomes a truly vibrant market. I would suspect an organisation like the ICAO would be established, and regional/national CAAs/FAAs. This has never been needed in the traditional launch market because there just aren’t enough launches to matter.
Imagine if any airline flying any airplane made by Boeing – anywhere in the world – were required to follow FAA rules. That wouldn’t fly (pun most definitely intended).
America is a fascist dictatorship.
What else did you expect?
Boeing can’t deliver any planes unless the FAA signs off on them first.
I would agree with Ali on this one. This looks like a legalese artifact from the first crude attempts at space law. I’m sure it’ll be nothing more than a irritating formality that will disappear as soon as the suborbital launch companies get enough lawyers and lobbyists.
Of course, I could imagine some horrible conspiracy laden future where these arcane rules could be put to use by unscrupulous entities to destroy competition.