Comments on: Industry, FAA at odds over extension of “learning period” for commercial spaceflight safety regulations

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:32:47 +0000

There are two replies to this.

1. We do not want your sort around here.
Note: People across a whole host of industries have tried for decades and spent a fortune on legal fees but the government does not go away.

2. Hello.
This is a map, it shows the farm track between my farm and the neighbors’ farms. The track is dangerous since people can slip in the mud. A proper paved road would be much better. Please fix.

The directors of companies have a choice. Choose wisely.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:30:15 +0000

George Nield was making the point that the time had arrived to extend the FAA authority to cover the entire flight. The way the U.S.A. works you can guarantee that this extension will occur, just not the start date.

Points 3 and 4 are about an interface. Interfaces need an independent person to oversee them so the side that does not comply can be determined and be given orders to correct the faults. The obvious alternative to the FAA is the courts.

Since the interfaces are used by machines from more than one country the correct standards body is likely to be the International Standards Organization (ISO) with enforcement performed by a United Nations (UN) body. Assuming that you can trust the honesty of the UN.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 00:56:12 +0000

Agree with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) opinion with the proviso that the FAA could probably draft some higher level reg’s based on the current state of commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft. These are orders of magnitude safer already than STS was. It’s time they stopped fluffing around and started down a consistent road based on what’s known today and then develop as the commercial company hopefully companies gain experience.

By: sftommy

sftommy — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 23:24:11 +0000

Until the commercial crowd has actually put up a crewed flight or two, FAA Regs would be an inhibitor. Ask Mr. Nield to come again and speak in 2017.

By: Someone

Someone — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 20:49:20 +0000

I would argue that FAA is much more likely to bend over backwards to accommodate commercial providers today when it also has the role to promote the US commercial space industry than it will be once we have a “learning period,” and FAA develops its regulations *after* it gets to see where providers screw up.

By: Jose

Jose — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 17:58:34 +0000

Shorter George Nield “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:51:34 +0000

“Nield responded. â€œThe US has over 50 years of experience in human spaceflight,â€ he argued, providing a large set of lessons learned for commercial spaceflight providers.”

I understand his point, but I disagree with his conclusion. I don’t think he understands that we don’t want a commercial transportation system that is built on the lessons of the most recent government-run human spaceflight system – the Shuttle.

Why? Because that showed that it was OK to fly a non-mature transportation system in a routine fashion, and that even after major accidents it was OK to ignore fundamental flaws in the vehicle design.

Whereas the government is able to get away with sending it’s citizens to their deaths and not having to suffer the consequences of it actions, Commercial Crew and the various sub-orbital companies won’t have that luxury.

While commercial companies will have their natural inherent desire NOT to kill their customers, and for the Commercial Crew program NASA is heavily involved in validating the designs and the companies involved, I’d say we are kind of back to square one, and that we are entering an entirely new learning period here.

I support extending the CSLAA.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:57:28 +0000

We aren’t at that level of steps. For example – FAA has no authority about on orbit activities (in fact, they are explicitly bared from having that authority). And I would argue that 3 and 4 don’t apply, and shouldn’t apply.

FAA only focuses on launch and re-entry

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:32:04 +0000

Time to introduce very basic regulations. Something like:

1. Thou shall not kill.

2. If you did kill someone investigate it, find a cure and implement the cure. Report to the FAA investigation.

3. Require use of an authorized docking interface when connecting to a different make of machine. FAA to start by authorizing say the Common Berthing Module (CBM), with grip points for the arm, and the NASA Docking System (NDS).

4. FAA to supervise testing of the docking system when connected to the new equipment.

5. Set up chapter headings for air quality, launch environment and space environments. Main text can be “TBD” although some of this data may be known. (Launch environment – Florida has has one problem with cold O Rings it may not want a cabin whose seals freeze for example.)

6. Review the regulations every few years and fill the missing chapters.