A bill has been introduced into the House to encourage private manned spaceflight, by clarifying the regulatory situation, and making more explicit government support for it. It's numbered H.R. 3245. The text of the bill can be found here.

What it seems to do is the following:

1) It authorizes funding of about eleven million dollars per year to the Department of Transportation to support its regulatory activities, but more importantly, if I'm reading it correctly, it seems to reestablish the old Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which implies to me that it will be pulled out of the FAA (undoing one of the many dumb things that the Clinton administration did in this area) and having it once again report directly to the SecDOT. FAA-AST will be no more, and it will revert to OCST.

I infer that this is the purpose because they direct the SecDOT to "clearly distinguish the Department's regulation of air commerce from its regulation of commercial human spaceflight, and focus the Department's regulation of commercial human spaceflight activities on protecting the safety of the general public, while allowing spaceflight participants who have been trained and meet license-specific standards to assume an informed level of risk." That implies to me that it will no longer be within the FAA.

This would presumably give the office more horsepower in its turf battles with FAA-AVR. Whether or not Patti Grace Smith will remain in charge of the office remains to be seen. She's a Clinton administration holdover, and the Bush administration never replaced her, probably because it didn't pay much attention to the office at the time, having other priorities. With the establishment of OCST, it may be an opportunity to force the issue of whether or not to put in someone actually vetted by this White House.

2) It rewords Section 70101 of Title 49 (Findings and Purposes of the DOT space activities) as follows:

It changes paragraph (3) from

new and innovative equipment and services are being sought, produced, and offered by entrepreneurs in telecommunications, information services, microgravity research, and remote sensing technologies;

to

"new and innovative equipment and services are being sought, produced, and offered by entrepreneurs in telecommunications, information services, microgravity research, human spaceflight, and remote sensing technologies;

and it changes paragraph (4) from

the private sector in the United States has the capability of developing and providing private satellite launching, reentry, and associated services that would complement the launching, reentry, and associated services now available from the United States Government;

to

the private sector in the United States has the capability of developing and providing private satellite space launching, reentry, and associated services that would complement the launching, reentry, and associated services now available from capabilities of the United States Government;

The effects are to make clear that human spaceflight is now to be considered as an area for private development, and that the government shouldn't necessarily be making available (i.e., competing) its services.

3) They amend the Definitions per the following:

They add one: "crew" means an individual or individuals carried within a launch or reentry vehicle who performs a function necessary for the protection of public safety.

And they modify a few others. The paragraph that currently reads:

''payload'' means an object that a person undertakes to place in outer space by means of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, including components of the vehicle specifically designed or adapted for that object.

would now read:

''payload'' means an individual or an object that a person undertakes to place in or return from outer space by means of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, including components of the vehicle specifically designed or adapted for that individual or object.

After the paragraph:

''reentry vehicle'' means a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable launch vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, substantially intact.

They would insert a new paragraph:

"spaceflight participant" means an individual who is not crew carried within a launch or reentry vehicle during a launch or reentry.

In other words, a passenger (and, perhaps, a flight attendant, since their function is to provide for the safety (and comfort) of the passengers, not the public).

After the paragraph:

''reentry vehicle'' means a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable launch vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, substantially intact.

they would add the following definitions:

"suborbital rocket" means a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight.

"suborbital trajectory" means the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the Earth.

These are the definitions described earlier this year by FAA-AST representatives at the Space Access conference in Scottsdale.

They amend the definition of third parties:

''third party'' means a person except -

(A) the United States Government or the Government's contractors or subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services;

(B) a licensee or transferee under this chapter;

(C) a licensee's or transferee's contractors, subcontractors, or customers involved in launch services or reentry services; or

(D) the customer's contractors or subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services.

to the following:

''third party'' means a person except -

(A) the United States Government or the Government's contractors or subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services;

(B) a licensee or transferee under this chapter;

(C) a licensee's or transferee's contractors, subcontractors, or customers involved in launch services or reentry services; or

(D) the customer's contractors or subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services; and

(E) crew or spaceflight participants.

The effect of all of this is to formally recognize passengers in the law, something that was not contemplated under the original Commercial Space Launch Act passed in the mid 80s.

Now comes a more controversial, and potentially problematic change. In Section 70104, which describes licensing requirements, they add the following:

COMPLIANCE WITH SPACEFLIGHT PARTICIPANT REQUIREMENTS- The holder of a license under this chapter may launch or reenter a spaceflight participant only if--

(1) the spaceflight participant has received training and met medical or other standards specified in the license;

(2) the spaceflight participant is informed of the safety record of the launch or reentry vehicle type; and

(3) the launch or reentry vehicle is marked in a manner specified by the Secretary of Transportation which identifies it as a launch or reentry vehicle rather than an aircraft.

I understand the intention of this, and it's a good one. They're apparently trying to codify into law Patrick Collins' and Peter Diamandis' concept of "accredited space passenger." This could potentially provide a work around for liability issues, using the analogue of a "qualified investor" by the SEC's definition, to allow people to fly without placing too large a regulatory burden on fledgling spacelines.

The idea is that certain people could be accredited to accept what would certainly be a higher-risk ride than on an airline, and remove the need for the spacelines to come up with an unrealistically high reliability and certification (which, if it ever comes to pass, would be the equivalent of an IPO, in which anyone can buy stock, rather than just qualified investors).

The problem is that the language isn't very specific, and seems to leave it up to DoT discretion as to what the training and medical standards will be, which means that what actually comes out of the process could be pretty onerous (particularly when Boeing and Lockmart's lobbyists get done with it).

I haven't had time to think about it enough to comment, but over at sci.space.policy, Gary Hudson has already expressed concern with this provision, and David Gump has the following thoughts:

"Regulation expands to fill the space available" is a physical law of government.

Regulators given a task will keep at it, until they hit a limit. If they're regulating an existing industry, either the corporations or their customers will eventually push back when the regulations reach a tipping point. For our almost nonexistent industry, we have no substantive mass to push back with, so any regulatory train set in motion will likely continue going well beyond what we'd consider to be logical limits. So we have to be *very* careful what paths we start the regulators down.

The only safe task to set before FAA is disclosure (ala food labeling, or campaign contributions) so that anyone buying a flight is fully informed of the risk.

What's not safe: enforceable medical standards and any "other" standard that might appear to be a good idea to the fine professionals at the FAA, whom I admire.

Why not medical standards: The medical conditions of the 500 or so previous space travelers are secret. NASA is obsessive about protecting all astronauts' medical privacy. Yet, the only logical course for the FAA is to attempt to gain access to these very sensitive records, and then make its own judgments about what they mean. Rocket companies will *not* get to see them in detail and thus will *not* have any way to influence their interpretation.

So what standards will the FAA adopt? Only conditions that have failed to disqualify astronauts will fail to disqualify private passengers? What about a condition that's OK for an astronaut who was 30, but the proposed private passenger is 60? Still OK? We all know that many of the private firms' initial passengers will be older because they've accumulated the most money, and their grown children aren't responsibilities anymore... yet older people take more pills and have more medical conditions. Do you want to be arguing with FAA doctors about the medical status of most of your passengers, based on a medical database you can't examine yourself... while trying to equate the strains of a Shuttle or Apollo flight with whatever stresses you believe exist for your perhaps quite different vehicle?

Yikes!

So consider the above for the straight-forward issue of Medical Standards. Now consider what can happen if any "other" standard can be thrown into the vetting of passengers.

Full Disclosure for Informed Consent -- that's how it is done when testing risky new drugs, and it's the only sane way to approach the issue of the government's role in passenger space flight.

Yes. This will probably be the main area of contention of this legislation in the space community. I'm not sure how it will play out, but other than that, I'm fairly happy with the legislation as proposed. If nothing else, it will help to ease some of the regulatory uncertainty that has been holding back investment.

[Update on Sunday night]

As a result of talking to several people at this weekend's Space Frontier Society conference, including Jim Muncy (former staffer for Congressman Rohrabacher, who was the principal sponsor of the bill, and who played a key role in drafting the legislation) most of my initial analysis has been borne out.

However, I was mistaken on one front. It was not the intent of the legislation to create "accredited passengers," as I wrote above. Also, it's clear to me now that the intent is not to privide the Department of Transportation with discretion to set or control the standards for either medical condition or training of passengers or crew--that is to be left up to the individual licensee. In support of this, it's important to emphasize the wording of the change to the definition of "third parties" as described above.

The explicit exclusion of "spaceflight participants and crew" to the definition of third parties is much more significant than I had previously implied.

Under the original Commercial Space Launch Act (as perceived to be required by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1972 Liability Convention) the Department of Transportation has no responsibility to ensure safety of payloads, or authority to deny a license on the basis that the launch may endanger them. It only has responsibility to protect uninvolved third parties on the ground.

By explicitly excluding passengers and crew from the category of third parties, the department is explicitly detached from responsibility for their safety. In so doing, it removes the danger that the clause about setting medical and training standards can be morphed into one establishing uniform standards in these areas, obviating previous concerns expressed above. The standards will be set by the individual licensee, and the only requirement for a license will be that those standards are adhered to by that licensee.

This interpretation was verified by Jay Garvin in Friday afternoon's regulatory panel, in which he reiterated that FAA-AST has responsibility for only third-party safety, and does not have statutory authority to regulate the safety of passengers.

This language will thus provide flexibility to have different training and medical standards for different types of space transports. For example, a company that has a system with a 9-G entry will obviously have different medical standards than one with only a 3-G entry. Similarly, a company with a vertical takeoff/landing vehicle will have different crew training standards (e.g., helicopter experience) than one that employs horizontal takeoff/landing.

Some may be concerned by the fact that the government is not going to regulate the safety of passengers in this new industry, but it must be understood that if they were to attempt to provide the level of safety through regulation that the airline industry currently provides, the industry will be stillborn.

People die climbing Everest, people die rock climbing, people die sky diving, and people die scuba diving. This industry is simply too immature to impose unreasonable safety requirements on it--the providers don't yet know exactly how to do it, and the regulators don't either, and attempting to do so would raise costs so high that it won't be possible for anyone, even those willing to take the risk, to afford it. This is truly the best solution at this time.

In addition, there's a benefit to the providers, in that they will be able to turn away potentially risky passengers, on the grounds that they don't meet their licensed standards as required by the DoT. This will minimize the danger of some potential lawsuits (e.g., oversize people who demand single-seat pricing on airlines, even though they may take up two seats).

To summarize, the bill does the following:

• It establishes and defines the categories of suborbital vehicles and suborbital flight.
• It establishes the category of "spaceflight participant" (read "passenger") as a legitimate and legal payload of private space transports, and encourages the notion that they can be such cargo.
• It categorizes them as non-third parties (they're actually second parties), rendering them beyond the statutory reach of the DoT for now, for the purposes of ensuring safety (and thus keeping the department's hands off of vehicle regulation for this purpose).
• It requires the Department of Transportation to clearly separate the regulation of space transports from air transports, which can reasonably be interpreted as releasing the FAA from any responsibility for doing so and moving it to a different office or agency within the department.
• It requires licensees to stipulate medical and training standards for passengers and crew, allowing them to statutorily enforce such standards, while not laying down generic federal requirements.

Overall, while the language could perhaps be tweaked to make things a little more explicit, I think that this proposed legislation is a major step forward in clarifying the regulatory situation, and I would encourage all who want to further enable our nation's and species' future in space to lobby their congressional representatives to sponsor and support it.

>>The problem is that the language isn't very specific, and seems to leave it up to DoT discretion as to what the training and medical standards will be, which means that what actually comes out of the process could be pretty onerous (particularly when Boeing and Lockmart's lobbyists get done with it).

some people need to read "Requiem"

The potential problems with the 'licensed passengers only' bits aside, that looks vastly better than the murky mess things are right now.

And it's already made it's way back up to the full committee from the appropriate sub-committees, which is good.

Anyone know if it's being picked up by the Senate CS&T committee yet?

Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his feet. And also, you're drunk.

While "Requiem" is just about my favorite story, it is a work of fiction. The plot device is just that, a device, and not real. In the real world H.R 3245 is good for this new industry.

"Accredited Investors" are self-declared; there's no licensing procedure or pre-investment certification by the SEC that these folks actually have the required net worth. In this sense, an "accredited space passenger" would be one who self-declares that he or she has studied the risks involved, and waives any right to sue the service provider.

Also, an "accredited investor" only has to have a net worth of $1 million; the presence or absence of $1 million is pretty straightforward. There's no similar "bright line" standard for a person's health that I know of. Because comparing a person's health to the rigors of a particular launch vehicle will be a judgment call, it should be done by the prospective traveler and not the government. The government should enforce disclosure, and protect launch providers from being sued by any passenger's relatives when there's an accident not caused by gross negligence.

"Because comparing a person's health to the rigors of a particular launch vehicle will be a judgment call, it should be done by the prospective traveler and not the government."

I strongly disagree. Airlines are not forced to carry arbitrarily sick passengers, and launch vehicle operators should not either. The way that AST is interpreting this is to have the operator set the standards as appropriate to his vehicle (they are not all the same). AST is laying the judgement onto the operator, not either the traveler or the government. This is good.

The good people who back the new legislation believe that making passengers "not third parties" removes them from AST oversight. I certainly hope this is the way it gets interpreted through various regime changes in Washington.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to make this clear in the section that now says:

(1) the spaceflight participant has received training and met medical or other standards specified in the license;

...making it instead say:

(1) the spaceflight participant has received training and met medical or other standards that are deemed necessary by the licensee;

The passive tense of the current (first) version doesn't specifically say who gets to set the license terms. I certainly hope that the "non third party" references in other places always will be construed to mean what the bill's backers believe they mean... but for most of a launch license, AST has broad discretion to review the proposed activities and say sorry, it's not good enough (on the safety organization plan, or the communications plan, or the operations plan... etc.)

Obviously, this bill would be a step forward in its definition of passengers as "non third party." If it is possible to be more explicit in this one section about who sets the medical/training standards, it would be even better.