Jun 10, 2022 04:57 AM
(This post was last modified: Jun 10, 2022 05:00 AM by C C.)
President Biden's National Space Council should move the Office of Commercial Space Transportatio out from under the FAA
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-faa-overregu...ial-space/
EXCERPTS: We have reached the tipping point in commercial space traffic, and regulatory thinking is reacting in potentially negative ways. The cadence of commercially provided launches eclipsed governmental rocket launches years ago, and we now see that phenomenon extending to human spaceflight. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is issuing licenses and permits faster than ever...
[...] Let me be clear: FAA is doing an amazing job keeping a mature transportation system incredibly safe. However, partially because of FAA’s prescriptive regulations, nothing much changes in that industry. Aircraft designs are so similar that most passengers probably don’t know the make or model of the aircraft they are flying. FAA moves cautiously and slowly. New systems, like Nextgen air traffic management, take decades to deploy.
However, this culture of prescriptive rules and obsession with passenger safety at all costs is antithetical to AST’s congressionally mandated role of encouraging, facilitating, and supporting a nascent U.S. commercial spaceflight industry. This is an industry testing disruptive technologies and new business models.
There is no “dominant design” to lock in and define with detailed prescriptive rules. Doing that would cripple innovation and be more dangerous in the long run than allowing the current level of experimentation. Imagine if FAA looked at the planes from Wright and Curtiss and set up prescriptive regulations in 1912; we’d have rules about the quality of wood and cloth that should be used in aircraft construction. Passengers might be assigned very specifically defined goggles, scarfs and helmets while FAA “continues to research” the safety hazards of closed cabins.
In a nascent industry, constant experimentation and embracing failure are critical to developing reliable systems. You can’t regulate safety into an immature system; you need to develop it from lessons learned. No number of reviews, hearings or committees could make the space shuttle a truly safe vehicle. Moving slower and flying it less reduced learning. Flight cadence is critical to finding better designs and best practices.
[...] During the last administration, I and others pushed for an executive order to undo these moves. I strongly encourage the Biden National Space Council to move toward promptly restoring AST and OSC to positions appropriate to the growing significance of the commercial space industry... (MORE - missing details)
https://spacenews.com/op-ed-faa-overregu...ial-space/
EXCERPTS: We have reached the tipping point in commercial space traffic, and regulatory thinking is reacting in potentially negative ways. The cadence of commercially provided launches eclipsed governmental rocket launches years ago, and we now see that phenomenon extending to human spaceflight. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is issuing licenses and permits faster than ever...
[...] Let me be clear: FAA is doing an amazing job keeping a mature transportation system incredibly safe. However, partially because of FAA’s prescriptive regulations, nothing much changes in that industry. Aircraft designs are so similar that most passengers probably don’t know the make or model of the aircraft they are flying. FAA moves cautiously and slowly. New systems, like Nextgen air traffic management, take decades to deploy.
However, this culture of prescriptive rules and obsession with passenger safety at all costs is antithetical to AST’s congressionally mandated role of encouraging, facilitating, and supporting a nascent U.S. commercial spaceflight industry. This is an industry testing disruptive technologies and new business models.
There is no “dominant design” to lock in and define with detailed prescriptive rules. Doing that would cripple innovation and be more dangerous in the long run than allowing the current level of experimentation. Imagine if FAA looked at the planes from Wright and Curtiss and set up prescriptive regulations in 1912; we’d have rules about the quality of wood and cloth that should be used in aircraft construction. Passengers might be assigned very specifically defined goggles, scarfs and helmets while FAA “continues to research” the safety hazards of closed cabins.
In a nascent industry, constant experimentation and embracing failure are critical to developing reliable systems. You can’t regulate safety into an immature system; you need to develop it from lessons learned. No number of reviews, hearings or committees could make the space shuttle a truly safe vehicle. Moving slower and flying it less reduced learning. Flight cadence is critical to finding better designs and best practices.
[...] During the last administration, I and others pushed for an executive order to undo these moves. I strongly encourage the Biden National Space Council to move toward promptly restoring AST and OSC to positions appropriate to the growing significance of the commercial space industry... (MORE - missing details)