4 ms·

Blue Origin's comments seem mostly to be concerned that the language of the proposal often doesn't meet the intent of the proposal, and that some things are und

Blue Origin's comments seem mostly to be concerned that the language of the proposal often doesn't meet the intent of the proposal, and that some things are undefined. Virgin Orbit also thinks that it remains too prescriptive. ULA is generally supportive save for some definitional nitpicking. Commercial Spaceflight Federation has same concerns as Blue. Rocket Lab supports generally, with some technical objections. SpaceX simply asks for more time. Almost everyone thinks it's a bit rushed and feel like they have not had proper chance for input (except for ULA who urges more speed.) While one might see "very serious concerns", they seem to be more with the implementation than the intent; transition to performance-based rather than prescriptive rules seems to be widely supported. If there's any flaw here, it's that the industry seems to be rather taken aback by the speed at which this has been done. And, yes, the rocket side of the FAA is completely different; it was once a separate department under the Secretary of Transportation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Tra...

Rebelgecko 7y ago
I haven't read the comments, but a lot of the organizations you mentioned have made much more pointed statements elsewhere. The CEO of Blue Origin said that the "FAA’s proposed regulations will stifle the innovation that will lead to safer designs and operations". The head of the CSF testified that "Most current or prospective FAA space licensees have determined that the NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking], in some ways, are worse than today’s obsolete rules." Part of the problem is that the new rules are ~600 pages, and some of the details of the rules are contained in the 1,000 pages of supporting documents. A larger company like ULA may have an army of lawyers on staff to quickly figure out the changes and start figuring out how they need to adapt, while it would be more onerous and slower for some of the smaller companies.

Rebelgecko 7y ago

I haven't read the comments, but a lot of the organizations you mentioned have made much more pointed statements elsewhere. The CEO of Blue Origin said that the "FAA’s proposed regulations will stifle the innovation that will lead to safer designs and operations". The head of the CSF testified that "Most current or prospective FAA space licensees have determined that the NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking], in some ways, are worse than today’s obsolete rules." Part of the problem is that the new rules are ~600 pages, and some of the details of the rules are contained in the 1,000 pages of supporting documents. A larger company like ULA may have an army of lawyers on staff to quickly figure out the changes and start figuring out how they need to adapt, while it would be more onerous and slower for some of the smaller companies.