Jeff Foust has a pretty comprehensive story on last week’s announcement, but Michael Listner and I are discussing the regulatory aspects in comments:
Under the Commercial Launch Act, a commercial or private operator must obtain an launch license and reentry license from the FAA. If the FAA decides not to grant either license this mission is going nowhere. Even though this is a non-commercial activity, the wording of the Act will still require a license.
Rand Simberg · 28 minutes ago
Yes, but what would be the basis of denying one?@ponder68 · 10 minutes ago
During the review process, if the FAA reviews whether that the mission could be adverse to the United States’ national security or international interests. Also, the issue of safety could be an issue as well as environmental considerations is part of the review. An adverse finding any of these or a combination could result in denial of a license.Rand Simberg · 4 minutes ago
Oh, I understand that. I meant on what rational basis? I can’t see the Pentagon objecting, and the notion that it would be an environmental issue is ludicrous. The only possible safety issue that I could see would be the entry. If there was an objection, I can imagine that the (Obama) State Department might say that it was hurting the feelings of other countries who weren’t as audacious as we are (note that this mission is actually within the budgets of many nations). But I’m not sure how the American people would react to such a position.
I’m going to add something to the book about this. Under current law, the only authority that the federal government would have over such a flight would be the ascent to orbit, where they would issue a launch license for the launch to deliver the hardware and crew to space. They have no jurisdiction over orbital activities, or beyond-LEO activities, other than their responsibilities under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. This will in fact put the limits of Article VI to the test of just how much supervision by a States Party is required for private actors. The FAA has no statutory authority to regulate the safety of the crew themselves (again, under current law). The only safety issue in which they will be involved is for the launch, and for the potential of damage to uninvolved third parties from the very hot entry.
Which raises a question for the mission planners — how do they plan to dispose of the non-capsule (that is, the expandable) portion of the mission? Do they separate shortly before entry, and let it burn? How much of it will make it to the ground? They can probably do a correction burn after (or perhaps during) the Mars flyby to tweak the final earth entry time and location, but I don’t know by how much.
If the Feds are interested enough, they could make life so miserable and difficult the company/mission control on the ground that they would have defacto regulatory control of the mission all the way to Mars.
What “mission control” on the ground? Once they’ve done TMI, no one will have any control except the crew on board.
There’s going to be some kinda organization on the ground to handle communications, PR, finances, the recovery facilities, launch facilities… If the Feds wanted to have regulatory control of the actual flight and were stubbed, the company could easily find it has serious IRS, OSHA, NLRB, etc problems in the parts that are located in the US. Least until they agree to play ball w. the Feds. re the flight.
That is if the Feds care enough.
The only statutory control the feds will have over the flight is the launch licensing process, under current law. That is where the issues will be resolved, or it won’t fly. As I said, no one will have any control once it hits earth escape velocity except those aboard.
Kevin,
You are not thinking of like a bureaucrat.
All the FAA AST will need to do is point to the existing law and say that under it they have no authority to license missions beyond LEO – period.
Yes, Mr. Tito you do need a launch and re-entry licenses, but we wouldn’t be able to issue one until Congress gives us the authority to issue them for missions like yours beyond Earth Orbit. Sorry, but call your Congressional representative about it.
You’re right. I was thinking more like a Chicago politician. ;^)
Actually this points up a gap in federal regulations on licensing, that currently the FAA AST has no authority to license missions beyond launch and re-entry. Given the number of new space ventures focusing beyond LEO it is probably time for Congress to grant them the authority to do so by passing a new Commercial Space Act.
As for Dennis Tito, this is just another reason why I see him taking it to Russia where all he will need to deal with is ITAR.
it is probably time for Congress to grant them the authority to do so by passing a new Commercial Space Act.
Why? Space is clearly not in the FAA’s purview. Since there are flying cars, we might as well give the FAA the authority to regulate ground traffic, right?
Now, if we were to fill this alleged regulatory hole, it probably would be best to do so with an new organization which had that as its sole purpose (say like Rand’s Space Guard). But there’s no point to doing so now since we both have no actual private activity beyond Earth orbit and we don’t have a clue what problems would crop up that regulation would help. Creating a regulatory agency with its first task being to find a purpose for itself is just asking for a lot of trouble.
I’m not suggesting they should, but why do you claim the FAA refusing to issue a permit for environmental safety would be ludicrous? Is this premised on the specifics of Tito’s efforts or do you mean hypothetically for any such commercial flight? If the latter, I disagree that such arguments would out of hand be ludicrous. I’m learning to cherish limited government in a way you do, Rand, but in terms of handling launch and re-entry of spacecraft over US territory; I think there is a role for the federal government in this, and that role is in the interest of the safety of those left on the ground.
It is premised on the specifics of this mission, not on their general authority and responsibility to see that NEPA is followed.
There is a rather significant portion of our friends on the left that think space flight represents serious harm to our environment. Pressure from environmentalists on like minded regulators is a very real threat especially if the people undertaking any space activity are viewed as holding the wrong type of politics.
I’m not thinking general environmental harm, but that a spacecraft, like an aircraft, has the ability to harm people on the ground when it crashes. It’s not just entry either, but launches that go astray.
I was just asking for clarity.
But yes, a blanket disapproval, such as was attempted for Cassini, would be ludicrous.
Yeah. Thank goodness SpaceX is run by Elon Musk instead of the Koch Brothers or some other knee-jerk liberal target!
Leland,
Given the speed of re-entry I don’t expect it will be over U.S. territory but over the Pacific Ocean somewhere. But since it launched from the U.S. it will still be subject to a requirement for a license.
…in terms of handling launch and re-entry of spacecraft over US territory; I think there is a role for the federal government in this.
The courts can deal with a bad launch if need be. For entry, that’s an immigration issue.
Otherwise, it’s pure tyranny. You’re scenarios reek of it.
If they run into regulatory headaches, Inspiration Mars could give the finger to the FAA via setting up to launch from another site. The ESA launch site in South America? I’m sure the ESA would be delighted to make this a European, instead of an American, mission, if it didn’t cost them anything. Kwajilian? Another option. Or China, or Russia. I think the Chinese especially might be thrilled to help make this a Chinese mission to Mars.
Using a different launch site would tie them pretty much to using launch vehicles those sites currently launch, but it’s a possibility. At the very least, this being possible gives Inspiration Mars some leverage to tell the FAA; be reasonable, or you’re the ones responsible for this no longer being an American mission – and we’ll soon have the biggest bullhorn on earth to remind people of this, loudly and often.
I can see the FAA being involved for launch and landing *IF* one or both are in US territory. Beyond that (for example, a Pacific splashdown) they should be forced need to keep their noses out. Space is like anything else – too much government regulation will kill it, or send the business elsewhere.
The DOT does not need additional specific authority to license the launch just because it goes beyond Earth orbit. The way launch is defined its authority to license a launch covers anywhere off Earth it might go to up to the point it begins re-entry, at which points its re-entry authority covers it. It has scope to review all aspects of the flight for compliance with its areas of concern (3rd-party safety, treaty obligations, NEPA compliance, defense impacts, etc.) There’s no generally accepted test as to what degree of control the OST requires a launching state to have, so the DOT launch license as it exists is presumed to be adequate, and it would take a contrary ruling at the Hague to even begin to argue otherwise. There is a standard for what degree of risk from re-entering objects is acceptable and it’s a fairly straightforward analytical exercise to calculate whether the 3rd-party risk from objects other than the capsule fall within that risk. There are no big regulatory issues from Inspiration Mars under the standard interpretations of the law and regulations.
One thing that concerns me is that if they don’t get their license before the moratorium expires in 2015, FAA may attempt to regulate the safety of the BEO mission itself, even though it’s not clear whether or not they have that authority (many in the office thought they did for suborbital and LEO missions even before passage of the CSLAA).
Jim,
FYI
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/14cfr-401-417.pdf
[[The FAA Defines end of Launch as the point when the payload separates from the launch vehicle, when the last action occurs when the licensee has direct or indirect control over the launch vehicle. ]]]
The FAA notes that it uses this definition to minimize risk to other spacecraft from the launch. So basically a launch ends when it is safely in its proper orbit. So it will be interesting to see what the FAA AST does with Inspiration Mars, given that there is the possibility of third party liability when it reach Mars given the spacecraft in orbit there. And the risks to those on board it.
As I noted in a comment to the previous post, the world, including America, is moving very much more in the direction of what I like to call the “Hall Pass Model” of social organization, in which the default is to need to get bureaucratic permission for every non-trivial act in one’s life before doing it. The “Hall Monitors” and would-be hall monitors whose mission in life is to control others we will always have with us. Pretty much the entire cadre of the current administration and the political party behind it fall into this category. The alleged opposition party also has a sizable “Hall Pass Caucus” among its career politician ranks.
All this being true, the main question that will determine the degree, if any, of government/bureaucratic roadblockage to the Inspiration Mars mission is whether screwing with said mission winds up being a higher-priority agenda item for the Hall Monitors of the nation than screwing with any of myriad other aspects of life in these United States. Personally, I’m of the opinion that Inspriation Mars will likely be the beneficiary of what I think we should designate a Simbergian Oversight. Space, in general, as Rand reminds us, is most likely to be seen as unimportant by career buttinskies who have more important targets for their officiousness and pettifoggery over the coming five years.
Which is why getting the precedent of private claims by possession is established now (within the next decade) before the U.N. gets their meat hooks into it. Enough people getting on board and agreeing to terms gives it the force of law.
To add to your “hall pass” model, let’s not forget:
1. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
2. There are over a million lawyers in the US (about 1 out of every 300 people).
3. There are tens of thousands of laws.
Therefore, you should consult with lawyers before making any decision no matter how trivial. It’s the “Lawyer Full Employment Principle”.
over a million lawyers in the US
I can’t help but think that it takes a Reagan (or Breitbart) to deal with them.
‘Hall Pass Model’ seems a significantly deep insight to me.
Federal regulators have repeatedly demonstrated that overreach is central to the process. EPA’s 2002 definition of “navigable waters” – all waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides; prairie potholes; mudflats; impoundments of waters; and waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the CWA, etc.
it seems to me that SpaceX and other launch vehicles get the go ahead to launch to the ISS, so likely this will not be the big stumbling blockage been expressed here