More ignorant nonsense.

“Why do you think tankers nd rigs are registered in other nations like Liberia”

It would help if you understood global commerce, because you are making the wrong conclusions.

“If commercial wanted to fly- really fly people– they’d do it. But they won’t -because the risk of failure outweighs the value of success- still.”

You can claim anything you want, but the facts belie your claims. Not only are three companies risking their own money in pursuit of being a crew transportation provider to LEO, but:

1. NASA is already planning to increase the ISS staffing from six to seven in late 2016 in anticipation of Commercial Crew being available.

2. Bigelow Aerospace is already quoting prices for rides to it’s Alpha Station aboard SpaceX and Boeing spacecraft.

So between the Commercial Crew participants risking their own money, and their potential customers already making advanced plans to use Commercial Crew transportation services, that destroys your so-called “theory”.

How do you figure that? Blue Origin, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, and Boeing are all working on flying people. Do you think they are all involved in some sort of a scam?

Sorry for the late reply, I have been working on an SMS (safety management system for a customer, in this case a nuclear power plant) as a note it is the first one that I have done where the people (the customer, me, the regulatory approval person) meet completely electronically for the approval. Nice

There are four reasons that this does not make sense.

The first is that Rand nor anyone else has demonstrated a reason to do so OTHER then the canard of “not promoting” commercials space. This is really code word for “we dont want regulations”…and to do that they need the agency outside of the FAA which is lobbying exactly in the opposite direction BECAUSE it knows that there is a plus side to regulation…appropriate regulation which the FAA is deft at.

Second is that without regulation and or appropriate liability the commercial launch industry for people will not survive long. There are many reasons for this; not the least of which is that the people who are going to buy rides (or ride) have their own insurance policies which require some measure of safety for these people to perform such task, or require the ability for liability recovery if these people “lose value”.

What the people like Simberg want is “informed consent” to be the standard of liability and regulation. Thats nonsense. Basically how it is used informed consent means “you know its dangerous” and hence if anything happens “you knew it was dangerous”. In the ValueJet case 592 Sabre Tech tried to argue that the standard of liability was “informed consent” and as the lawsuits begin to pile up in the Challenger incident (from the heirs of the CM in particular but Ron Jarvis and a few other folks were headed for the Court House)…what the notion piled down to was “the shuttle passengers were told it was dangerous” and then seeing that hole would collapse the US government settled very nicely with all the heirs.

Right now all the commercial launch providers will be pretty careful, but eventually there will come a time when they get sloppy and cutting corners or run out of money (the BP exceuse) and then the accidents will start from either bad planning or neglect…what regulations stop is that…and with the liability shield that most of the people want, they will be needed.

Third outside of the FAA an agency will not have the FAA’s legacy and demands of “safety”. Safety is not about technical knowledge; you buy technical knowledge (I dont know much more then what I learned in the Navy about reactors but to write the safety program I bought an expert!)…what makes on safe is management legacy and the FAA has it and enforces it on all its sub organization. Outside the FAA the agency will be prey for people like BP who routinely stack their regulatory agencies with “friends”…and you will see htat quickly. The FAA has hard and fast rules about who can be involved with what both on the inside and outside…and changing that is a goal of the no regulation people.

finally (at least for this missive)..there is no evidence that the FAA has stifled anything (I know this sounds like 1 but its different just the reverse)..the history of regulatory agencies (or control agencies) outside the FAA is not good…if Rand or anyone else could site a single example of how things have changed because of the FAA then they would have a case…

they dont

what they are trying to do is to stop any future regulation and impose a liability shield…that will kill commercial space.

RGO

No.

So it’s anti- regulation. The core of hard-right poltics. You can always set up launch services some place else w/less regulation. Why do you think tankers nd rigs are registered in other nations like Liberia– but then w/less regs you run the risk of a catastrophe- like BP experienced. If commercial wanted to fly- really fly people– they’d do it. But they won’t -because the risk of failure outweighs the value of success- still.