US draws up space tourism rules

[__Kratos__]

Space tourists must be screened to ensure they are not terrorists, according to proposed regulations from the US Federal Aviation Administration.

The draft report's suggestions aim to prevent a terrorist from destroying a spacecraft or using it as a weapon.

However, the report has no strict proposals on the health of any would-be space tourists.

The suggestions will affect Sir Richard Branson's enterprise which aims to launch people into space this decade.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is attempting to regulate the commercial space industry in a bid to ensure minimum safety standards.

It has recommended security checks similar to those for airline passengers.

The FAA also suggests space tourism companies check the global "no-fly" list, from the US Homeland Security Department, to exclude potential terrorists.

"New technologies carry new risks. Nonetheless, Congress recognises that private industry has begun to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of carrying human beings into space, and greater private investment in these efforts will stimulate the nation's commercial space transportation industry as a whole," said the report.

"The public interest is served by creating a clear legal, regulatory, and safety regime for commercial human spaceflight."

Companies should give passengers safety advice including the number of flights the spacecraft has been on and any problems they have experienced with the craft, according to further recommendations in the report.

Space tourists should also be given pre-flight training to handle emergency situations such as a loss of cabin pressure or fire.

However, the FAA has so far left any medical requirements in the hands of the tourist, who should decide themselves if they are fit to fly.

The draft regulations could come into force soon, as the first space tourists have already made it into low orbit around the Earth.

In 2004, Burt Rutan witnessed the successful launch of SpaceShipOne, as his team won the $10m prize for having the first private ship to fly 100km above Earth's surface.

By the end of this decade, Virgin Galactic aims to take people into space from a spaceport in New Mexico.

After consulting the public, the FAA should publish its final report before June 2006.

Source

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was only a matter of time.

[PadawanOsswe]

I cant blame them. can you imagine the damage a ground explosion of a modern rocket would do?

plus, The U.S. has not lost a single human bieng to space. lets not start now.

[__Kratos__]

I cant blame them. can you imagine the damage a ground explosion of a modern rocket would do?

plus, The U.S. has not lost a single human bieng to space. lets not start now.

That is also only a matter of time.

[PadawanOsswe]

yes, but that doesnt mean abandon all safety precautions. Besides, if terrorist's in space blow up some Aliens, it puts in a bad word for Humanity.

[AztecInca]

^lol!

However, the report has no strict proposals on the health of any would-be space tourists

Now that is something that muct be rectified as soon as possible. Although I`m sure individual companies will have their own health and fitness requiremnets for passengers.

[MID]

I cant blame them. can you imagine the damage a ground explosion of a modern rocket would do?

plus, The U.S. has not lost a single human bieng to space. lets not start now.

Well, we don't have to imagine.

The Soviets lost huge boosters on the ground, and the devastation they wrought was rather large. But then again, they were huge, Saturn V size rockets. Nothing anywhere near that size will be developed for commercial use in space "tourism" in the forseeable future.

Know why launch complex 39 at the Kennedy Space center is three miles distant from the Launch Control Center? It's because we know what an explosion can do...

And while the FAAs proposal might make sense...far into the future, space tourists who fly on a first generation orbital private spacecraft will not be terrorists...they will be known quantities, likely very rich and somewhat adventurous souls with lots of money to burn and a stomach that may well fail them once they get into orbit...or perhaps while they're in the process of getting there.

The idea that a terrorist could perhaps utilize a spacecraft as a terrorist weapon is somewhat silly, actually. The first private orbital spacecraft will have skilled civilian test / research pilots on board...anyone who is not such a person will have no chance of maneuvering a spacecraft sucessfully, and no commercially available training will be available for anyone so inclined as to comandeer an orbital spacecraft.

It took no particular skill to take the controls of an airplane and steer it into a building, despite the media reports post 9-11 that indicated that the people doing these things had "pilot training". I could teach anyone to do that in about a half an hour. It does not take a qualified pilot to do such a thing. But using a spacecraft in a similar fashion....the idea is preposterous.

I have no doubts that Branson and Rutan will in fact orbit a private spacecraft within the next decade. Rutan is probably the most gifted aerospace engineer on the planet and his record speaks for itself. But commercial tourism in earth orbit is a long way off, and pilot training for terrorists who wish to utilize spacecraft as weapons...never happen folks.

Oh and by the way, your statement regarding the U.S, never having lost a "single human being to space" is flat out wrong.

We've lost 14 people in spaceflight since January 28, 1986. Remember Challenger and Columbia?

Regards.

[PadawanOsswe]

Oh and by the way, your statement regarding the U.S, never having lost a "single human being to space" is flat out wrong.

We've lost 14 people in spaceflight since January 28, 1986. Remember Challenger and Columbia?

nope,The Challenger victoms were killed in the atmosphere. and The Columbia victoms were killed upon return to Earth (in the atmosphere).

when I say we have never lost a human bieng to space, I mean that there hasnt been a human killed IN space.

and BTW why do the terrorists have to know how to fly the spacecraft? they could board a spacecraft as a passenger.

[Thanato]

how is a terrorist going to aim a spacecraft going mach 15 in the atmospher?

~Thanato

[Dando Kast]

how is a terrorist going to aim a spacecraft going mach 15 in the atmospher?

~Thanato

They're not...

[PadawanOsswe]

terrorists would'nt necessarily have to hijack a spacecraft. they could do something as simple as blowing it up.

[MID]

nope,The Challenger victoms were killed in the atmosphere. and The Columbia victoms were killed upon return to Earth (in the atmosphere).

when I say we have never lost a human bieng to space, I mean that there hasnt been a human killed IN space.

and BTW why do the terrorists have to know how to fly the spacecraft? they could board a spacecraft as a passenger.

That's complete nitpicking...

And if you wish to be technical, Columbia's crew died well above the threshhold of space. The distinction of whether these 14 people were lost IN space is irrelevant. They were lost in flight on space missions, and besides, the Columbia crew was in fact lost IN space.

A terrorist would have to know how to fly a spacecraft in order to do anything with it at all.

Blowing up a spacecraft in orbit would not be the typical modus operandi of the terorist. They'd take out a spacecraft and a few people. One would think they'd want to use it to cause widespread destruction...like they have in the past.

Further, they'd have to get a bomb on board. What...you think perhaps every single ounce of material that goes on board a spacecraft isn't meticulously accounted for? It is, and I'm sure it will be long into the forseeable future.