October 5, 2004
JOHN EDWARDS LICKS HIS CHOPS:
Rocket Takes 1st Prize of a New Space Race: Rutan craft's successful return trip makes business and regulatory issues the new frontiers (Peter Pae, October 5, 2004, LA Times)
SpaceShipOne, a privately funded manned rocket, soared into space and back Monday for the second time in less than a week, claiming a $10-million prize and raising prospects for low-cost, reliable personal spaceflights.The flight's success brings to the fore a host of legal, regulatory and business questions that will determine whether the dream of commercial manned spaceflight can become a reality. [...]
To begin with, there is no precedent for establishing safety standards for manned commercial spaceflight.
Although the FAA has regulatory oversight over airplanes and commercial unmanned rockets to launch satellites, there is no process to license piloted suborbital vehicles such as SpaceShipOne. The FAA can license a location — the Mojave Airport, for instance — to launch rockets.
Congress is considering a bill that would set FAA licensing regulations for suborbital flights, including provisions that would require operators to disclose the safety record of their spaceships. In return, the FAA would allow companies to require passengers on the spaceflights to sign a waiver of legal liability.
The provision is considered crucial for the growth of the nascent industry. Without the waiver requirement, investors are not likely to fund such a business out of fear of multimillion-dollar claims after an accident.
The FAA is facing other daunting questions, including how to write regulations for a developing industry. Many of the technologies are so new that there is no certification process to determine if they are airworthy and safe.
"We don't want to overregulate before the industry gets started," said Patricia Grace Smith, the FAA's associate administrator for commercial space transportation.
Even the business situation is not all that clear. Marketing research firm Futron Corp. estimated that by 2021, more than 15,000 passengers a year could be making suborbital flights for about $50,000 each. That would make it a $1-billion industry.
But Greg Autry, a lecturer at UC Irvine's Graduate School of Management who is studying the prospects for a space-launch industry, said that unless the venture attracts mainstream financial backers and the liability issues are resolved, it might not become a reality.
In law school we were taught that one area where res ipsa loquitor applies is plane crashes--it's just always the airlines fault. Hard to believe they'll be able to make it so that what's basically just a different form of flight is the exact opposite and the airlines will, in effect, have no liability. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2004 6:57 AM
Why wouldn't the liability waivers hold up ?
They do in other risky endeavors, such as skydiving, bungee jumping, and appearing on television reality shows.
Also, Richard Branson's planned "Virgin Galactic" will require a week of pre-flight training, in what I cannot imagine; ten minutes should be enough to learn how to vomit into a bag, and ten weeks wouldn't be long enough to teach a novice how to fly a spacecraft.
In any case, with a week of training required, riding into space is obviously not something the average person off the street can do at the spur of the moment. (Which unfortunately makes Heinlein's "Requiem" backround scenario unlikely).
Wouldn't that make one a "crew member", rather than a "passenger" ?
Now that the technology's been proven, if the US can't, or won't, find a way for space tourism to exist, it'll happen in China or Russia.
Russia already sells seats to civilians on flights to the space station.
No one would buy a Russian car but you think they'll climb on their rockets in any meaningful numbers?
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2004 8:36 AMWhat if the accident happens in a place (i.e., space) where there is not necessarily any
legal jurisdiction?
J.H.;
Ah, that's the fun part!
Mr. Judd;
It wouldn't be Russian rockets, but rockets launched in Russia. But I suspect that it would be set up in some island nation instead.
Mr. Rogers;
Training is required now, but wait 10 or 20 years. Even now, I suspect that the training is more for vermissimiltude than anything else. Remember, at this phase they are selling an experience, not travel.
It's also the reason why I can't see anyplace but eastern Florida or the Gulf Coast of Texas being chosen as the site of the proposed Spaceport complex. Anywhere else would require launches and landings over hundreds or thousands of miles of land, and even if its relatively unpopulated like the desert Southwest, the lawyers would be licking their chops awaiting the first debris field to fall over someone's proprty or into someone's home.
Posted by: John at October 5, 2004 1:10 PMRussian rockets are the only spacecraft currently capable of reaching the space station. The US are currently incapable of doing so.
Does that mean that nobody should purchase an American automobile ?
The Russian Soyuz rockets are the best designed rockets ever built, better than the US' Saturn booster.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 5, 2004 2:34 PMRussian rockets are the only spacecraft currently capable of reaching the space station. The US are currently incapable of doing so.
Does that mean that nobody should purchase an American automobile ?
The Russian Soyuz rockets are the best designed rockets ever built, better than the US' Saturn booster.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 5, 2004 2:35 PMMichael:
We're not sending them because they're dangerous, the Russians sending them though they're dangerous--which is the point.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2004 4:36 PMYeah, the Space Shuttle is a safety paragon.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 5, 2004 6:06 PMJohn;
That's why the northern tip of Australia is often discussed as a launch site.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 5, 2004 11:28 PM