FAA will not regulate the commercial spaceflight industry until October 1st 2015

[yg1968]

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Welcomes Passage of Legislation to Provide Regulatory Stability to Growing Industry:

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/pressreleases/CSF%20Press%20Release%20-%20Key%20FAA%20Provision%20Passes%20Congress.pdf

The waiver was set to expire on December 23, 2012 prior to this extension.

SEC. 827. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS.

Section 50905(c)(3) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by striking `Beginning 8 years after the date of enactment of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004,' and inserting `Beginning on October 1, 2015,'.

See page 128:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf

[dcporter]

Nice. Wish it wasn't needed, but it is, and it's good that we got it.

They should set benchmarks instead of dates. No regulations until 18 months after the first paying customer crosses 100 km. Just a thought

[A_M_Swallow]

The FAA could base its initial rules on Shuttle flights.  For instance flights containing paying customers could need a LON (Launch On Need) launch vehicle and capsule waiting in the hanger.

[yg1968]

The FAA could base its initial rules on Shuttle flights.  For instance flights containing paying customers could need a LON (Launch On Need) launch vehicle and capsule waiting in the hanger.

I think that the FAA's intention was to have regulations for orbital flights that are almost identical to the ones that NASA has for certification. The rules for suborbital flights would be different from the ones for orbital flights. 

[jongoff]

Nice. Wish it wasn't needed, but it is, and it's good that we got it.

They should set benchmarks instead of dates. No regulations until 18 months after the first paying customer crosses 100 km. Just a thought

IIRC that was one of the options that was proposed (except it was 5yrs IIRC), but shot down. The concern has always been that doing something like certification now would be like doing airplane certification in 1905.  Sure, we'd know that any airplane that aeronauts flew on had the right spec of certified balsa wood, and the correct degree of wing-warping, but it wouldn't actually have allowed for a really safe or affordable air industry to grow up.

~Jon

[Jim]

The FAA could base its initial rules on Shuttle flights.  For instance flights containing paying customers could need a LON (Launch On Need) launch vehicle and capsule waiting in the hanger.

Another ridiculous post.  That is exactly what they don't want.  Also, the LON idea is even more ridiculous

[Proponent]

Nice. Wish it wasn't needed, but it is, and it's good that we got it.

They should set benchmarks instead of dates. No regulations until 18 months after the first paying customer crosses 100 km. Just a thought

IIRC that was one of the options that was proposed (except it was 5yrs IIRC), but shot down. The concern has always been that doing something like certification now would be like doing airplane certification in 1905.  Sure, we'd know that any airplane that aeronauts flew on had the right spec of certified balsa wood, and the correct degree of wing-warping, but it wouldn't actually have allowed for a really safe or affordable air industry to grow up.

~Jon

So maybe the ideal way to go would be something like "no regs until [2] years after the [100]th passenger-carrying flight beyond 100 km."

[QuantumG]

How 'bout just: don't tread on me.

Kudos for getting the federal government to give you time to get started before standing on your throat, but if you're going to push your luck, why not go for broke?

[JohnFornaro]

They should set benchmarks instead of dates. ...

I prefer dates for this sort of thing; otherwise, it seems like compliance would always be 18 months away.  Just sayin'.

[dcporter]

How 'bout just: don't tread on me.

Kudos for getting the federal government to give you time to get started before standing on your throat, but if you're going to push your luck, why not go for broke?

Are you suggesting that the industry not be regulated until well in the future when it's more like the airline industry, or are you suggesting that even established industries not be regulated, again e.g. the airline industry?

[QuantumG]

Hopefully space tourism will never be regulated like the airline industry.. we actually want it to turn a profit.

[dcporter]

Hopefully space tourism will never be regulated like the airline industry.. we actually want it to turn a profit.

By way of supporting your thesis on spaceflight nonregulation, could you cite some regulations under which you would rather airlines not have to operate?

[QuantumG]

By way of supporting your thesis on spaceflight nonregulation, could you cite some regulations under which you would rather airlines not have to operate?

All the safety regulations that the '78 deregulation act failed to eliminate and have been growing insanely ever since. When passenger safety is so regulated that your government decides it needs a new agency dedicated to the task, it's perhaps obvious that those regulations are becoming a tad burdensome. When people talk about flying being safer than driving, that's not a good thing. It proves people are willing to take more risk but are being prohibited from doing so.

[Jim]

All the safety regulations that the '78 deregulation act failed to eliminate and have been growing insanely ever since. When passenger safety is so regulated that your government decides it needs a new agency dedicated to the task, it's perhaps obvious that those regulations are becoming a tad burdensome. When people talk about flying being safer than driving, that's not a good thing. It proves people are willing to take more risk but are being prohibited from doing so.

What new agency?  Also, as far as flying being safer than driving, it is a statistic and not policy.

And no, it does not prove that people are willing to take more risk. 

[deltaV]

For both airlines and private space flight one simple regulatory regime would be to impose an $8 million fine per death and otherwise get out of the way.

[spectre9]

There needs to be some regulation.

Before 1 person can fly on Commercial Crew it needs to be understood where the liability is.

This has always been one of those elephants in the room.

How much governement indemnity to loss of life will commercial space get and if they should be getting it why not just have NASA doing all HSF for the government?

There needs to be good answers to this question and soon.

[dcporter]

All the safety regulations that the '78 deregulation act failed to eliminate and have been growing insanely ever since.

So you're talking about safety regulations which, according to your follow-on (NTM the statistics), have been effective at making air travel safer than it would be otherwise.

When passenger safety is so regulated that your government decides it needs a new agency dedicated to the task, it's perhaps obvious that those regulations are becoming a tad burdensome.

A straw man which presumes that regulation is bad. I like that there's an entire agency dedicated to regulating my air and drinking water quality, as one example.

When people talk about flying being safer than driving, that's not a good thing. It proves people are willing to take more risk but are being prohibited from doing so.

This is unfortunately a non-sequitur. People are willing to assume more risk when driving because they're convinced that since they're behind the wheel, they can personally mediate the risk. (See for example the standard psych 101 stat that 93% of drivers believe that they're above average at driving.) You most often hear the car/plane safety bit quoted to help reluctant fliers, suggesting the opposite of your conclusion.

I suspect that spaceflight will be even worse in the psychological regard. Certainly the first dozen or hundred or thousand people should be regulated as fully-informed thrill seekers (i.e. not regulated at all), but spaceflight a scary, dangerous thing to do, and if it's going to become routine it's going to have to be dramatically safer than driving, and that takes regulation.

[QuantumG]

Tell me, what exactly would convince you that something is overregulated? I mean, if the airline industry isn't your idea of overregulation, what would be?

Can anything be overregulated?

[dcporter]

Tell me, what exactly would convince you that something is overregulated? I mean, if the airline industry isn't your idea of overregulation, what would be?

Can anything be overregulated?

My parents make cheese for a living. The health inspector has a nearly infinite library of arcane, overspecific, and often mutually contradictory regulations to call upon, and he calls upon them inconsistently on subsequent visits. It's bad. I wish the cheese industry was regulated in a consistent, goal-oriented way, instead of with the maze of whack-a-mole regs that are in place.

My firsthand experience with bad regulating is why I asked you for examples. I hadn't heard previously that safety regulations were strangling the airlines, and I was eager to learn. You haven't provided examples, and your rhetoric has done nothing but confirm a broad anti-regulation position, so I'm back to eagerly awaiting the day that spaceflight is so routine that it merits regulations like those that helped make air travel as wonderfully safe as it is.

[Proponent]

Airlines have also been subsidized in many ways over the years.  It's not obvious to me that on the whole government makes them less profitable or more profitable.

[A_M_Swallow]

Can anything be overregulated?

Easily.  In plenty of countries the purpose of regulations is to extort bribes.

Rules that affect airlines are that the national carrier shall transport El Presidenties mistress first class for free and it shall employ lots of his brother-in-law's family.

[yg1968]

On the issue of FAA regulation of commercial crew past 2015, here is what the Commercial Crew Office had to say:

[Question] 50. Optional Period Goals: FAA certification could pose a schedule risk. The FAA is currently under a moratorium regarding regulation of orbital spaceflight, which extends through October 1, 2015. If the moratorium expires before the final crewed demonstration flight is completed, the FAA could impose regulations that would negatively impact the demonstration schedule. It is difficult to assess the potential impact, since it is possible that new regulations that are not known at this time could be created.

Will the final optional period goal (a crewed orbital demonstration flight) require additional Federal Aviation Administration certification should the moratorium expire prior to the flight, or will it only have to meet the industry certification proposed for CCiCap?
 
Answer: Participants will be required to comply with any FAA regulations applicable at the time a crewed orbital flight demonstration is to take place. As a general matter, the FAA does not certify spacecraft; it licenses spacecraft operations. Current FAA licensing applies to the launch and reentry phases of flight, but does not address on-orbit operations as it is outside the current FAA statutory authority. The moratorium (51 USC Sec. 50905 (c) (3)) applies to the development of future human spaceflight regulations, but not with specific regard to the orbital phase of the mission. The FAA is working very closely with NASA and the Commercial Crew Program towards an inter-agency partnership for commercial human spaceflight. The primary objective of the partnership is to ensure consistency of NASA requirements and FAA regulations to preclude unnecessary overlap, duplication, or areas of conflict whereby promoting consistency for the industry at large.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-003-001.pdf