Commercial human spaceflight regulation

[deltaV]

This thread is for discussion of the regulation of the commercial human spaceflight industry. For example https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4613/1 includes:

Since the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the commercial human spaceflight industry has been in a so-called “learning period” that restricts the FAA’s ability to regulate the safety of spaceflight participants on those vehicles. That period, originally scheduled to run for eight years but extended several times, allows the FAA to regulate spaceflight participant safety only in the event of an accident that kills or seriously injures people on a flight, or for incidents where there was a strong chance of injuries or fatalities.

That learning period is now scheduled to expire at the end of September, and many in industry are lobbying for another extension.

My two cents: require commercial space companies to buy a certain amount of life insurance for anyone hurt during space-related activities (regardless of negligence or fault), covering everyone including customers, employees, and the uninvolved public. The life insurance should cover long-term injuries too. Maybe also require those companies to disclose what they pay for that insurance, which customers could use sort of like EPA gas mileage to choose safer providers. Make no other safety regulations except for the existing launch permitting regulations protecting the uninvolved public. This would leave setting of technical standards and vetoing of dangerous operations to the insurers, who are likely to do a better job than the FAA due to their better incentives. Maybe also give the NTSB authority to investigate accidents.

[Robotbeat]

Have the insurance also pay out for rescue operations.

[Jeff Lerner]

Have the insurance also pay out for rescue operations.

It cost at least $2.4 million to deploy a single Canadian aircraft to search for the Titanic submersible that went missing last month. Costs are paid by Canadian taxpayers.

So ya….

[Zed_Noir]

Have the insurance also pay out for rescue operations.

It cost at least $2.4 million to deploy a single Canadian aircraft to search for the Titanic submersible that went missing last month. Costs are paid by Canadian taxpayers.

So ya….

But most of that $2.4M amount is likely already budgeted for aircraft maintenance, spare parts, personnel and consumables. Regardless if that aircraft is deployed for the Titanic rescue search or not. The aircraft crew and ground personnel need to have a certain minimum annual operating time to be deem proficient and operational. 

[Asteroza]

Isn't this all contingent on having a "Spaceguard" that can deploy rescue assets on-demand like a rescue lifeboat?


Oh hey, a responsive space launch justification!

[Jim]

Isn't this all contingent on having a "Spaceguard" that can deploy rescue assets on-demand like a rescue lifeboat?

not needed at this point.

[edzieba]

Have the insurance also pay out for rescue operations.

It cost at least $2.4 million to deploy a single Canadian aircraft to search for the Titanic submersible that went missing last month. Costs are paid by Canadian taxpayers.

So ya….

But most of that $2.4M amount is likely already budgeted for aircraft maintenance, spare parts, personnel and consumables. Regardless if that aircraft is deployed for the Titanic rescue search or not. The aircraft crew and ground personnel need to have a certain minimum annual operating time to be deem proficient and operational. 

On that subject, an more formalised international framework for collaboration on crew recovery in the event of abort or emergency entry may be a good idea. e.g. hotlines for communicating between relevant teams along a possible line of splashdown locations that may pass multiple territories, common communication standards to avoid ambiguity, the possibility for cross-training (e.g. everyone gets some hands-on time swimming up to and climbing onto a Dragon 2 and opening the hatch), standardisation for vehicle markings (e.g. Hypergol warning labels, blowoff panel markings, iconography for emergency ingress, etc). Currently, rescue ops are either directly operated by the launching nation with international basing and some collaboration, or handled by the launch provider via relationships generated by the former activities. This is in contrast to aviation, where airline operators are not individually negotiating with the coast guards of individual nations a given flight may fly over or divert over.

For example, a hypothetical all-Japanese commercial crew flight on an American 'flagged' capsule performs an emergency splashdown off the cost of India: is there already a well practiced mechanism for getting coast-guard-or-equivalent assets to them rapidly and able to handle any specifically medical needs and capsule handling needs (e.g. equipment and training for Hypergol exposure risk), and who has overall responsibility for coordinating things between multiple entities in multiple countries?

[Phil Stooke]

The ITAR lawyers will be reading this with interest.

[Asteroza]

For example, a hypothetical all-Japanese commercial crew flight on an American 'flagged' capsule performs an emergency splashdown off the cost of India: is there already a well practiced mechanism for getting coast-guard-or-equivalent assets to them rapidly and able to handle any specifically medical needs and capsule handling needs (e.g. equipment and training for Hypergol exposure risk), and who has overall responsibility for coordinating things between multiple entities in multiple countries?

Terrestrial rescue seems like it would fall under COSPAR and similar agreements? Though the hypergol issue is problematic.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://spacenews.com/industry-offers-wish-list-for-commercial-space-legislation/

Industry offers wish list for commercial space legislation
Jeff Foust
July 15, 2023

WASHINGTON — As the House Science Committee considers a commercial space bill, industry officials advocated for key topics they believe should be included in that legislation.

A July 13 hearing by the committee offered the industry an opportunity to weigh in on topics they believe should be included in a commercial space package that the committee is developing, from commercial human spaceflight safety to oversight of emerging space activities.

[yg1968]

https://spacenews.com/industry-offers-wish-list-for-commercial-space-legislation/

Industry offers wish list for commercial space legislation
Jeff Foust
July 15, 2023

WASHINGTON — As the House Science Committee considers a commercial space bill, industry officials advocated for key topics they believe should be included in that legislation.

A July 13 hearing by the committee offered the industry an opportunity to weigh in on topics they believe should be included in a commercial space package that the committee is developing, from commercial human spaceflight safety to oversight of emerging space activities.

Here is the archived video of this July 13th House hearing:

[deltaV]

https://science.house.gov/2023/7/full-committee-hearing-continuing-u-s-leadership-in-commercial-space-at-home-and-abroad has various written materials for that hearing including witness statements and the hearing charter.

[Vahe231991]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

[Robotbeat]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Or Dragon and Falcon 9.

The bad parts of the FAA (not the commercial space office) would surely like to declare all of the heavens as their turf.

[Asteroza]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Or Dragon and Falcon 9.

The bad parts of the FAA (not the commercial space office) would surely like to declare all of the heavens as their turf.

NTSB getting involved will be interesting too. Reentry rated data recorders becoming a thing?

[Vahe231991]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Or Dragon and Falcon 9.

The bad parts of the FAA (not the commercial space office) would surely like to declare all of the heavens as their turf.

I highly doubt that commercial human spaceflight regulations would impair manned flights of the Dragon 2 because no crewmembers for each flight aboard the ISS would lose contact with NASA ground controllers.

[Robotbeat]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Or Dragon and Falcon 9.

The bad parts of the FAA (not the commercial space office) would surely like to declare all of the heavens as their turf.

NTSB getting involved will be interesting too. Reentry rated data recorders becoming a thing?

Not needed because it might just kill private spaceflight, so you won't need to worry about such things.

[Jim]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed ......

This is a key

super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, ....

Irrelevant

......I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Not for you to debate nor does your argument have any merit.   If it launches from US soil or by a US company, they apply.   
The FAA still regulates airliners that do international flights.

[Jim]

Since the Starship is a commercially developed super-heavy lift SLV for flights to the Moon and Mars, I'm debating whether commercial human spaceflight regulations could apply to manned flights of Starship to the Moon and Mars.

Or Dragon and Falcon 9.

The bad parts of the FAA (not the commercial space office) would surely like to declare all of the heavens as their turf.

not true

[Robotbeat]

Dragon and Falcon 9 were commercially developed as much as Starship is being commercially developed.