The largest quantified cost savings for industry would result from eliminating or relaxingrequirements for a flight safety system on some launches (about $11 million in present valuesavings over 5 years at a discount rate of 7% or about $12 million at a discount rate of 3%) andfrom reducing the number of personnel that would have to be evacuated from neighboring launchsites (about $8 million in present value savings over 5 years at a discount rate of 7% or about $9million at a discount rate of 3%). These cost savings are described in more detail below.The FAA proposes to move from prescriptive flight safety system requirements toperformance-based requirements. As a result, the proposed rule would not require all launchvehicles to have a full flight safety system. Launch vehicles that have a very low probability ofmultiple casualties even if vehicle control fails would not be required to have a flight safetysystem. In addition, vehicles that have moderately low probability of casualties even if vehiclecontrol fails would not be required to have robust flight safety systems. These performance-based requirements would reduce costs for some vehicle operators, especially for small vehiclesor those operating in remote locations.
The FAA has limited data on the number of neighboring operations personnel that havebeen evacuated during launches in the past. From the data, it is evident that the estimated gainsfrom the definitional and risk requirement changes will be highly sensitive to the number ofreturn to launch-site events (RTLS) in the future. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy demonstrationcaused the evacuation of 1,550 employees (194 from the launch and 1,356 from reentry) thatwould be able to stay on site under the provisions of this proposed rule.
Comment from Michael Lopez-AlegriaAs industry co-chair of the Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee, I would like to draw your attention to some text in the NPRM - the final paragraph of Section II.D, regarding the ARC:"During the course of the ARC, volunteer industry members formed a Task Group to provide draft regulatory text reflecting proposed revisions to the commercial space transportation regulations. The volunteer industry members of the Task Group were Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space Florida, and SpaceX. The majority of the ARC opposed the formation of this Task Group and disagreed with including the proposed regulatory text into the ARCs recommendation report. The FAA will not specifically address the proposed regulatory text in this document because it did not receive broad consensus within the ARC."To be rather blunt, the third sentence in the paragraph is factually incorrect. In fact, the MAJORITY of the ARC members supported the formation of the Task Group, and a majority of them voted in support of the draft regulatory text that the Task Group submitted. I can provide recorded voting data to support these statements. While it may be true that a handful of members were opposed to the formation of the Task Group, those members DID NOT reflect the majority opinion, as asserted in the text. That the FAA chose to ignore the regulatory text proposed by the Task Group is a matter that should indeed have been addressed in the NPRM. But said disregard should NOT have been ascribed to a lack of consensus among the ARC members in support of the proposed revisions; that assertion is patently erroneous.
ULA and its launch industry competitors in pitched fight over regulationsby Sandra Erwin — August 3, 2019United Launch Alliance on July 19 posted on the Federal Aviation Administration’s website a detailed comment in support of the agency’s proposed revisions of commercial launch and re-entry rules.[...]Commercial space launch players, meanwhile, continue to challenge the agency to make further changes, arguing that what the FAA has proposed amounts to a crushing blow to entrepreneurial companies that are trying to build cost-effective space transportation infrastructure.
FAA’s Draft Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Rules are not Streamlined or Performance-based and will Impede U.S. Space Safety, Growth, and Leadership. The FAA should issue a Supplemental NPRM.
Broadly speaking, we are supportive of AST’s efforts and the content of the NPRM. We do not support an indefinite rulemaking process, but would like AST to bring it to conclusion as soon as possible. It is our belief that any further improvements can be made to the current NPRM. We need to minimize regulatory uncertainty associated with an indefinite rulemaking process.
Is that low level infighting or something that portends something ominous? That seems like a very provocative thing to say, at least potentially.This change seems beneficial and I'm not just saying that because I always favor less regulation. So do these remarks suggest that it won't be adopted?(that said, the savings seem quite small, if they are yearly, but really large, if they are per launch)PS I assume this is the same personhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L%C3%B3pez-Alegr%C3%ADa
Quote from: Lar on 05/08/2019 04:00 amIs that low level infighting or something that portends something ominous? That seems like a very provocative thing to say, at least potentially.This change seems beneficial and I'm not just saying that because I always favor less regulation. So do these remarks suggest that it won't be adopted?(that said, the savings seem quite small, if they are yearly, but really large, if they are per launch)PS I assume this is the same personhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L%C3%B3pez-Alegr%C3%ADaWhat you favour less regulation even in circumstances where it impacts people’s health & safety for example?The safety of people should always be paramount. You can always build another piece of hardware you can re-build a person.After all it’s not as if the industry is anywhere near the levels of safety in the modern airline industry, in fact it is probably decades away from that.
Quote from: Star One on 08/04/2019 11:35 amQuote from: Lar on 05/08/2019 04:00 amIs that low level infighting or something that portends something ominous? That seems like a very provocative thing to say, at least potentially.This change seems beneficial and I'm not just saying that because I always favor less regulation. So do these remarks suggest that it won't be adopted?(that said, the savings seem quite small, if they are yearly, but really large, if they are per launch)PS I assume this is the same personhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L%C3%B3pez-Alegr%C3%ADaWhat you favour less regulation even in circumstances where it impacts people’s health & safety for example?The safety of people should always be paramount. You can always build another piece of hardware you can re-build a person.After all it’s not as if the industry is anywhere near the levels of safety in the modern airline industry, in fact it is probably decades away from that.It sounds as if that line "The safety of people should always be paramount." is being used to persuade the FAA to keep high cost flight safety systems (flight termination) even for rockets, small rockets and those in remote un-populated locations, in the hope that this expense will limit the growth of new entrants to the market.However those words which you quote so confidently are just an attempt to stop an analysis of the situation. In transport it is not true - or the car would be banned!, if we hold it as true for spaceflight then human spaceflight should be banned. If we hold it as true for housing, (some poorer) parts of US cities would have to be bulldozed and rebuilt. If for heavy industries... Etc. It is blatantly untrue and is just a trope to stop questions and make anyone that questions ULA's position seem morally bankrupt!Everything dangerous has a risk reward equation, and a compromise to be made to allow progress, whilst being sensibly careful.
Quote from: Lar on 05/08/2019 04:00 amIs that low level infighting or something that portends something ominous? That seems like a very provocative thing to say, at least potentially.This change seems beneficial and I'm not just saying that because I always favor less regulation. So do these remarks suggest that it won't be adopted?(that said, the savings seem quite small, if they are yearly, but really large, if they are per launch)PS I assume this is the same personhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_L%C3%B3pez-Alegr%C3%ADaWhat you favour less regulation even in circumstances where it impacts people’s health & safety for example?The safety of people should always be paramount. You can always build another piece of hardware you can re-build a person.After all it’s not as if the industry is anywhere near the levels of safety in the modern airline industry, in fact it is probably decades away from that.
These rules have me seriously worried. Any great sprint of innovation can be killed by the hand of government regulation. It has happened time and time again in the history of the US.
Quote from: mlindner on 08/05/2019 07:09 amThese rules have me seriously worried. Any great sprint of innovation can be killed by the hand of government regulation. It has happened time and time again in the history of the US.If there was much truth in your final sentence from a historical prospective America and it’s economy wouldn’t be where it is. Really can’t understand why people are getting so ‘hysterical’ about this as reading the article it sounds like the FAA are giving the new space companies more than enough opportunity to have their say.
Meanwhile, other countries have figured out this whole space snapshot business, too—and they don't fall under the same US regulations. “All you’ve really done is drive business to those foreign companies,” says James Vedda, a senior policy analyst at the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research and development center.
Quote from: Star One on 08/05/2019 09:31 amQuote from: mlindner on 08/05/2019 07:09 amThese rules have me seriously worried. Any great sprint of innovation can be killed by the hand of government regulation. It has happened time and time again in the history of the US.If there was much truth in your final sentence from a historical prospective America and it’s economy wouldn’t be where it is. Really can’t understand why people are getting so ‘hysterical’ about this as reading the article it sounds like the FAA are giving the new space companies more than enough opportunity to have their say.As for the "truth of the final sentence", the following is about earth imaging, not launch but is an example of regulation driving business abroad, and reducing US industry from what it could have been. https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/Quote from: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/Meanwhile, other countries have figured out this whole space snapshot business, too—and they don't fall under the same US regulations. “All you’ve really done is drive business to those foreign companies,” says James Vedda, a senior policy analyst at the Aerospace Corporation, a federally funded research and development center. Someone here must know the details and be able to quote them. I only heard about it when there was that concern with SpaceX's footage of Earth during the FH test flight. Bad judgements over regulation may well continue to impact US space businesses at the expense of those overseas and human progress.Being "Seriously worried" and the allegation "Hysterical" are two different things, which you have conflated to the detriment of your reasoned argument. The words you use do not make the tone of this thread calmer. Concern is a great word, as once these regulations are set, they will have consequences for all space companies. Anyone in or following the new space industry is rightly concerned, and it would be negligent not to be. DO you suggest a reduction in professionalism and diligence?It is not good enough for new space companies just to "have their say" (as if once they have had it we can all go back to the status quo) rather their arguments need to be fairly and openly evaluated, in light of the governments directions about opening access and reducing regulation. Open discussion and justification of the details is needed.
Been asked about the FAA NPRM: activity to simplify bureaucracy: single licences, simplified apps, fewer steps, faster approvals... NOT deleting sometimes challenging safety standards that were written in blood. FAA has done a good job balancing commercial ease with safety.
https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1159059078817017857QuoteBeen asked about the FAA NPRM: activity to simplify bureaucracy: single licences, simplified apps, fewer steps, faster approvals... NOT deleting sometimes challenging safety standards that were written in blood. FAA has done a good job balancing commercial ease with safety.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/07/2019 12:26 pmhttps://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1159059078817017857QuoteBeen asked about the FAA NPRM: activity to simplify bureaucracy: single licences, simplified apps, fewer steps, faster approvals... NOT deleting sometimes challenging safety standards that were written in blood. FAA has done a good job balancing commercial ease with safety.Tory is completely misrepresenting what these regulations are currently proposing. They are actually _increasing_ the amount of regulation, not _decreasing_ it. It also increases the bureaucracy. There is not even talk of deleting safety standards. He's becoming more and like Michael Gass all the time. Sad to see.
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/20/2019 10:00 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 08/20/2019 04:25 pmedit: quote removedYes, we're all anxious to see Starhopper hop. But before blaming FAA for foot-dragging, let's take a short trip down memory lane, to the SpaceShipTwo crash in 2015, which rained debris dangerously close to the general public.>Space News has a story about FAA AST reorganization and increasing workloadshttps://spacenews.com/faa/QuoteThe FAA office of commercial space transportation says its workforce has grown by 40% at the same time that its work load has grown 1,000%.Good find, and highly appropriate given today's discussion of FAA. I'm going to repeat one of the excerpts you quoted from the article and bold it, in case anyone misses it.QuoteSince 2012, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, or AST, has increased staffing by 40 percent, according to Wayne Monteith, the associate administrator of that office. Its workload, in contrast, has grown tenfold, he said. “While 40% seems really really good … when you’re looking at a 1,000% increase in the workload, something’s got to give,” Monteith told reporters during the Aug. 15 teleconference.Interesting too that administrator Wayne Monteith is the same Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith (USAF Retired) who ran the 45th Space Wing at Cape Canaveral until late last year. So he's the guy who was in charge of launching most of USAF's payloads and running the range at the Cape. No doubt he knows what he's doing.Maybe the people who are complaining about FAA foot-dragging could also complain to Congress about the FAA being woefully understaffed in this area.
Quote from: Kabloona on 08/20/2019 04:25 pmedit: quote removedYes, we're all anxious to see Starhopper hop. But before blaming FAA for foot-dragging, let's take a short trip down memory lane, to the SpaceShipTwo crash in 2015, which rained debris dangerously close to the general public.>Space News has a story about FAA AST reorganization and increasing workloadshttps://spacenews.com/faa/QuoteThe FAA office of commercial space transportation says its workforce has grown by 40% at the same time that its work load has grown 1,000%.
edit: quote removedYes, we're all anxious to see Starhopper hop. But before blaming FAA for foot-dragging, let's take a short trip down memory lane, to the SpaceShipTwo crash in 2015, which rained debris dangerously close to the general public.>
The FAA office of commercial space transportation says its workforce has grown by 40% at the same time that its work load has grown 1,000%.
Since 2012, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, or AST, has increased staffing by 40 percent, according to Wayne Monteith, the associate administrator of that office. Its workload, in contrast, has grown tenfold, he said. “While 40% seems really really good … when you’re looking at a 1,000% increase in the workload, something’s got to give,” Monteith told reporters during the Aug. 15 teleconference.
What you favour less regulation even in circumstances where it impacts people’s health & safety for example?
Been asked several times about the FAA revised launch rules. They have achieved a good balance between cutting red tape and protecting public safety. Simplifying licensing is good. Lowering the reliability and testing rqmnts for flight termination systems is not.
So do you think everyone is now happier with it overall?
Some parties continue to ask for technical and safety requirements to be eased.
Not sure that’s fair. Maybe they just don’t think exploding the rocket is the only way? It has its own risks. Current regs are biased towards rockets as munitions, not reusable vehicles. Imagine if passenger jets had to carry explosives to blow themselves up if divert is needed.
New rules do allow new approaches. A flight termination system is used when everything else has gone wrong & the rocket is heading for people or property. It must be VERY reliable & able to survive fire and break up. Some of the toughest design problems I’ve ever had to solve.
Such things are not required on passenger jets. And they’re way safer.
Passenger jets are usually a lot more controllable when they fail. They are capable of gliding even without engines, and they can dump fuel before impact. They also don't have pressurized fuel tanks like rockets.
