Clark Lindsey is taking notes.
They are looking at different certification regime options.
– One option is to develop certification that works in parallel with the SAAs.
…
– Safety requirements have been posted (are “on the street”).
– So any participant will know what requirements they need to meet.
– Safety goals: What would firms do to feel comfortable flying their own people on the vehicles?
We need to have a metadiscussion about appropriate levels of safety. We can’t allow NASA’s irrational approach to contaminate the entire industry, or allow their “certification” to become a standard. Different people are going to have different risk/reward thresholds. I’m working on an Issue Analysis on this topic for CEI right now.
[BTW, the entire February space issue of Reason, from which that linked Zubrin piece on NASA’s irrational approach to safety comes, is now on line.]
We can’t allow NASA’s irrational approach to contaminate the entire industry, or allow their “certification” to become a standard.
I don’t think their approach to risk is a significant problem. Their conflict of interests is.
That is the problem when you want the king’s dollar to subsidize your business, you get the king’s rules as well.
Did you honestly think NASA would just give away hundreds of millions of dollars to the CCDev firm and not develop its own safety requirements? Requirements which will likely become the industry standard when the space insurance firms decide to mandate them for their policies. And yes, insurance firms will mandate them because the very basis of the business model of insurance is to minimize the possibility of paying by maximizing the restrictions on receiving reimbursement for lost?.
Forget the FAA AST, the big gorillas in this fight will be NASA and the space insurance industry.
Not the king’s dollar, the taxpayers’ dollar, though your average academic may have too much of a conflict of interests to admit it.
MPM,
So then its the tax payers setting the rules 🙂
Yes, Tom, and that’s just as true of Constellation or Shuttle-C or whatever the flavor is this week. And just as true of the International Lunar Development Corporation or whatever other agency you set up to replace NASA.
If you truly believe what you’re saying, the best approach would be to cancel the Federal space program entirely (or at least not let it die of attrition) while private enterprise clawed its way up from the bottom (suborbital).
The time to advocate that was after the Columbia accident and before the Bush Vision of Space Exploration. No politician would consider something so radical except in time of extreme crisis (and I’m not sure it would have been possible even then).
Edward,
So your in tight with the SFF. Why didn’t they advocate getting rid of NASA after Columbia instead of advocating for replacing the Shuttle with this COTS mess.
I’m in tight with the SFF???
I was the guy who got flayed alive because I made the outrageous suggestion that they spend a few days checking Mike Griffin’s bona fides before declaring him “a Good Captain for NASA.”
The SFF couldn’t advocate anything like that because they’re a “big tent” space organization. So anything they propose has to include a big bone for the Von Braunians.
Given that human expansion into space is a good thing for both preservation of the species and for the future of freedom, what federal policies would best accelerate that outcome in a market-oriented fashion and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?
The federal government should make it clear that they will be supportive of reasonable individual claims and note that the OST doesn’t apply to individuals, just government sovereignty claims.
Ken,
Except that the Treaty also holds nations responsible for the acts of their nationals which is why it does apply to individuals, if you are a citizen of a nation that signed it.
What happens on mars… stays on mars. Bugsy will have his casinos set up in no time.
Yeah, just withdraw from the OST.
With Obama’s example we don’t need to withdraw. Just ignore it.
Speaking of withdraw, do you ever see Australia withdrawing from the Moon Treaty? Their membership in it will really makes Australian firms outcasts when it comes to lunar mining. I know that is already a potential problem in terms of the ILRP.