Comments on: The red tape of the space bureaucracy https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/ Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:45:53 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Henry Vanderbilt https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/#comment-98193 Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:45:53 +0000 http://behindtheblack.com/?p=23626#comment-98193 Good piece, and hard to argue with your point that zero regulation would make life easier for the industry in these (surprisingly protracted) days of initial development. Somewhat easier in my view however, not decisively so.

At the time, though, the choice wasn’t between zero regulation and the current time-limited “informed consent”/limit-max-probable-loss-to-bystanders regime. You allude to Oberstar, yes – the fight at the time was to avoid him and others of like mind imposing premature and far more restrictive detailed prescriptive certification rules. What we’ve got now is, from where I stand, about the best we were likely to get. Given that all the politically likely alternatives are worse, extending the current setup for as long as possble makes sense to me.

As for how much longer it’s taking than expected, without going into details I would say that technical and financial learning-curve issues have been far bigger factors in various delays than the current regulatory setup.

I agree wholeheartedly that it would be a bad thing to allow any one contender to pull up the ladder behind them by influencing the content of new regulations to favor their technical approach. That’s yet another reason to extend the current regime for as long as possible – until the rules are being rewritten, influencing the details behind the scenes is moot.

]]> By: Michael J. Listner https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/#comment-98091 Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:49:10 +0000 http://behindtheblack.com/?p=23626#comment-98091 A lot of lamenting about excessive regulation when in fact regulation is minimal compared to what it could be. There cannot be zero regulation or oversight of the commercial space industry because of international obligations the United States has.

]]> By: Scott https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/#comment-97922 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:02:32 +0000 http://behindtheblack.com/?p=23626#comment-97922 It took over 10 years for NYC to place a building in the crater of the 911 attack. Much of that delay was political in nature. I expect the same here.

]]> By: Edward https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/#comment-97917 Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:19:59 +0000 http://behindtheblack.com/?p=23626#comment-97917 At this point, we should not be stifling attempts at space traffic with overregulation. Safety should not be ignored, but there are only about 510 spaceflights under our belts to have learned from. Does the “red tape” even know how to keep a crew safe, or is it just guessing (as in Gene Kranz in “Apollo 13”)?

Bill Whittle addressed the safety issue by comparing the emerging commercial space industry with the commercial airline industry. It took a century and many, many deadly accidents for the US to learn enough about flying to have a decade without a single deadly accident of a major airline. But will we have the same tolerance of deadly accidents in commercial space?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXbdJ3kyVyU (7 minutes)

It is still difficult and dangerous to get into space. The only spacecraft, so far, that have not killed a crew made fewer than 17 manned flights. How will commercial space companies fare; can they do better than the government programs have?

Spacecraft with no fatalities (# of manned flights) [further notes]:
Gemini (12)
Mercury (6)
Shenzhou (4, soon to be 5) [still operational]
SpaceShipOne (3 into space, 13 manned test flights not into space)
Voskhod (2)
Vostok (6)

Spacecraft with fatalities (# of manned flights) [further notes]:
Apollo (11) [1 crew killed in ground test, none in flight]
Soyuz (118) [2 crews killed in flight]
STS/Space Shuttle (135) [2 crews killed in flight]
X-15 (2 into space – 100 km, 197 flights not into space) [1 crew killed in flight]

]]> By: Trent Waddington https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-red-tape-of-the-space-bureaucracy/#comment-97913 Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:27:10 +0000 http://behindtheblack.com/?p=23626#comment-97913 Your comments back in 2004 made a lot of sense in the context in which they were made: we all thought Mojave Aerospace Ventures was going to fly 40+ people to demonstrate the commercial potential of SpaceShipOne and Virgin Galactic was going to be flying shortly after in vehicles that were much the same. That didn’t happen, mostly because Paul Allen was offered a sweet tax write off by the National Air and Space Museum and Richard Branson was already convinced.

I think you’ll find that the new legislation, when it comes, will be pushed by none other than Virgin Galactic. Unbelievably after almost 10 years of development, they still have the lead in suborbital space tourism, and soon they’re going to have to start solidifying that lead with burdensome legislation to block the other entrants who will be attracted to the market by the profits they hope to be making.

]]>