[SUBMITTED] Commercial Spaceflight Safety

[Excidium Planetis]

"I uh, I suppose that it's too late now, but I would, um... Like to point out, that as it stands, the first two active clauses are, to be frank... nonsense." Adelia remarks. "You, um, define commercial space flight as taking place outside of national borders but then say that n-n-nations are free to regulate, er, commercial space flight inside their borders. How can you have commercial space flight inside your borders if it is defined solely as activity outside your borders?

"F-furthermore, given that this, um, esteemed Assembly, has, I believe, recognized the rights of nomadic peoples within member nations, I th-think it's, um, exclusive to not apply um, basically any of this proposal to member nations which, due to their nomadic nature, lack borders, in the usual sense. Like my own nation."

[Kaschovia]

"I uh, I suppose that it's too late now, but I would, um... Like to point out, that as it stands, the first two active clauses are, to be frank... nonsense." Adelia remarks. "You, um, define commercial space flight as taking place outside of national borders but then say that n-n-nations are free to regulate, er, commercial space flight inside their borders. How can you have commercial space flight inside your borders if it is defined solely as activity outside your borders?

"F-furthermore, given that this, um, esteemed Assembly, has, I believe, recognized the rights of nomadic peoples within member nations, I th-think it's, um, exclusive to not apply um, basically any of this proposal to member nations which, due to their nomadic nature, lack borders, in the usual sense. Like my own nation."

I have made the following amendments to the first two clauses. Let me know if this works a little bit better:

1. Defines commercial spaceflight activity as any action taken by a private individual or company registered within their member nation to conduct space travel;

2. Confirms the right of member nations to regulate commercial spaceflight activity more stringently than this resolution or prohibit commercial spaceflight activity completely;

[Kaschovia]

Any further comments or suggestions? I've made some edits as per Excidium Planetis, but any other feedback would also be appreciated.

[Simone Republic]

I am not 100% sure that I strongly like the resolution - it really doesn't affect other WA member states (and IASA already coordinates space traffic, at least in theory under GA#451), it feels more like a domestic resolution than a WA one. I am not particularly pro-Natsov but I feel that the pro Natsov nations would not be keen.

[Kaschovia]

I am not 100% sure that I strongly like the resolution - it really doesn't affect other WA member states (and IASA already coordinates space traffic, at least in theory under GA#451), it feels more like a domestic resolution than a WA one. I am not particularly pro-Natsov but I feel that the pro Natsov nations would not be keen.

I don't see how national sovereignty applies to commercial spaceflights in which passengers are citizens of WA member nations and enter international territory by traveling into space. State-funded and operated space programs seem to be the focus of GAR #451, so I also don't see how privately-funded and operated spaceflights fall under that remit, which is why I believe separate regulation is required. It is an issue of basic safety regulation. If a member-state has a growing private aerospace industry, especially one that receives more funding or is simply more advanced than its own national space program, then those private entities, in my view, ought to be effectively regulated so that their spaceflight activities are as safe as possible for the citizens of the member nations the World Assembly is to look out for.

[Tinhampton]

Opposed.

Dan Smith is the owner of Smith's Travel Agents, which sells people package holidays to Tinhampton's colonies in outer space. In selling these holidays to unsuspecting Tinhamptonians, Smith's Travel Agents is performing an action to conduct space travel, which constitutes commercial spaceflight activity, for which a license is required. Yet STA does not own any spacecraft. It does not have any launching pads for those (non-existent) spacecraft. And it cannot communicate "with their spacecraft in the event of an emergency" for the same reason Hays' Travel, TUI, and (arguably) Jet2holidays cannot communicate with the planes that their passengers have boarded. All of this makes STA ineligible to obtain a license, meaning that STA cannot sell package holidays and Mr Smith is out of business.

The World Assembly does not require companies conducting international flights that do not breach the atmosphere to obtain a license. There is no good reason whatsoever why it should require companies conducting flights that do to obtain one. (This is pretty much the same quabble I had with Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste.)

[Kaschovia]

Opposed.

Dan Smith is the owner of Smith's Travel Agents, which sells people package holidays to Tinhampton's colonies in outer space. In selling these holidays to unsuspecting Tinhamptonians, Smith's Travel Agents is performing an action to conduct space travel, which constitutes commercial spaceflight activity, for which a license is required. Yet STA does not own any spacecraft. It does not have any launching pads for those (non-existent) spacecraft. And it cannot communicate "with their spacecraft in the event of an emergency" for the same reason Hays' Travel, TUI, and (arguably) Jet2holidays cannot communicate with the planes that their passengers have boarded. All of this makes STA ineligible to obtain a license, meaning that STA cannot sell package holidays and Mr Smith is out of business.

The World Assembly does not require companies conducting international flights that do not breach the atmosphere to obtain a license. There is no good reason whatsoever why it should require companies conducting flights that do to obtain one. (This is pretty much the same quabble I had with Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste.)

I appreciate you taking your time to share your thoughts on this, even if we might not yet agree, so I do hope I can clear your concerns.

I think you're misinterpreting the definition of commercial spaceflight activity and its practical application in regard to awarding of the spaceflight license. The definition states that commercial spaceflight activity is any action taken by a private individual or company within their member nation to conduct space travel, not sell or plan for it, even if it is through a travel agent. The license would ensure whichever company actually conducts the space travel he is selling, would have to verify that they would meet the requirements of the license before commercial spaceflights are actually conducted. The resolution would not prevent him from planning, or selling, the package holidays, but would require the company which would eventually conduct the space travel to ensure safety to a degree that would satisfy the requirements set out by the license before the engines are started and unsuspecting passengers are sent into space. He can sell as many package holidays as he wants, but if the company that is actually responsible for carrying out the space travel he is selling does not meet the minimum safety requirements of the license, then he would be putting unsuspecting Tinhamptonians in unnecessary peril, which isn't great for his business anyway. I think ensuring the safety of passengers, especially being taken into space, is a reason for a license to exist so aerospace travel companies don't put people at risk.

[Tinhampton]

To conduct something is to carry out - to do - something. If people who act to conduct space travel must be licensed, then an action which leads to space travel happening must be licensable. I am extremely iffy about the idea of licensing in the first place and would have rather the 3b requirements just have been expected of spaceflight organisers - but whatever.

[Kaschovia]

To conduct something is to carry out - to do - something. If people who act to conduct space travel must be licensed, then an action which leads to space travel happening must be licensable. I am extremely iffy about the idea of licensing in the first place and would have rather the 3b requirements just have been expected of spaceflight organisers - but whatever.

I believe it would be a significant underestimation of the lengths to which private individuals or companies will go for increased profit margins if we were to forego basic safety licensing in ensuring the safety of passengers. I think it is a completely reasonable area in which to require a regulated license, especially with inadequately prepared spaceflight so prone to catastrophic disasters and loss of life. I would agree it is fair to be skeptical of licensing when applied to commercial activities in which the immediate risks are more minimal, but in this case, I really do beg to differ.

[Tinhampton]

The World Assembly does not require licenses for operators of flights that DO NOT enter space. In fact, it does not even offer member states that choose to implement a licensing regime any guidance whatsoever in determining what conditions such operators must meet. (And in the real world, people who take non-space flights are both far more numerous in number and more diverse in every aspect than people who take space flights.) Yet powered aircraft suddenly becomes that much more dangerous once they enter space that their operators should be licensed? Not buying it.

To add: GA#342 already reserves to member states "all authority regarding regulations pertaining to equipment or training in regards to the operation of civilian aircraft." If you need certification to prove you can operate an aircraft, that's a regulation pertaining to training. If you need to install a comms system on your plane in case it breaks down, that's a regulation pertaining to equipment.

[Kaschovia]

The World Assembly does not require licenses for operators of flights that DO NOT enter space. In fact, it does not even offer member states that choose to implement a licensing regime any guidance whatsoever in determining what conditions such operators must meet. (And in the real world, people who take non-space flights are both far more numerous in number and more diverse in every aspect than people who take space flights.) Yet powered aircraft suddenly becomes that much more dangerous once they enter space that their operators should be licensed? Not buying it.

To add: GA#342 already reserves to member states "all authority regarding regulations pertaining to equipment or training in regards to the operation of civilian aircraft." If you need certification to prove you can operate an aircraft, that's a regulation pertaining to training. If you need to install a comms system on your plane in case it breaks down, that's a regulation pertaining to equipment.

It does become so much more dangerous going into space, though, as it is a more uncharted frontier for a larger number of member nations than standard air travel. They require completely different approaches not accounted for by existing legislation. You're using currently existing precedent for aircraft designed to travel through a completely different medium as opposed to space, and the relation operators have to that, as a counterargument to the intention of the proposal when the two modes of travel differ so extremely in both their training and equipment requirements. You're essentially equating currently existing aircraft in an already well-regulated arena (atmospheric flights) to a mode of transport that would be used in a completely different arena (in space), which brings its own different risk factors and safety measures, not to mention the irreconcilable differences in spacecraft safety design. Operating extremely commonplace and well-regulated civilian aircraft in even more heavily regulated international airspace and transporting passengers into uncharted space using private aerospace vessels require completely different approaches and equating the two detracts from the actual application and purpose of the proposal.

In regard to GAR #342, its preamble omits space travel specifically from its scope by acknowledging 'the transportation of civilians via air travel...' Once again, air travel and space travel are two separate areas. Are member nations to infer from GAR #342 that space travel falls under its remit when that specific area of transport is not mentioned at all, or wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide more specific space travel legislation? The differences in safety regulations between them are clear as day, and so is my proposal in its aims and applications.

[Tinhampton]

On further investigation, the WA doesn't require the operators of anything - including activities which are more dangerous than space flight - to be licensed. (No, GA#532's provisions in these regards are non-binding.)

Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Could you mark this as [SUBMITTED]? I keep reading the thread title and thinking it got withdrawn

[Kaschovia]

On further investigation, the WA doesn't require the operators of anything - including activities which are more dangerous than space flight - to be licensed. (No, GA#532's provisions in these regards are non-binding.)

Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.

I know what you are saying, but once again equating the two ignores the practical applications of my proposal, specifically to make it safer for passengers of private space ventures. The procedures of standard civilian aircraft completely pale in comparison to the technicalities, risks, and variables of launching and conducting spaceflights. It's like requiring the same safety measures for a holiday cruise ship as a deep-sea submarine; they present completely different challenges and risks, so to apply the same blanket safety protocols would be disastrously dangerous for the passengers.

[Tinhampton]

On further investigation, the WA doesn't require the operators of anything - including activities which are more dangerous than space flight - to be licensed. (No, GA#532's provisions in these regards are non-binding.)

Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.

I know what you are saying, but once again equating the two ignores the practical applications of my proposal, specifically to make it safer for passengers of private space ventures. The procedures of standard civilian aircraft completely pale in comparison to the technicalities, risks, and variables of launching and conducting spaceflights. It's like requiring the same safety measures for a holiday cruise ship as a deep-sea submarine; they present completely different challenges and risks, so to apply the same blanket safety protocols would be disastrously dangerous for the passengers.

I am NOT saying that the World Assembly should enforce "the same blanket safety protocols" on all flights, no matter how high they fly. I am saying:

1. it is ridiculous for the WA to require that licenses be handed out for commercial space flights based on particular criteria, when
2. the WA could instead permit member states to automatically authorise all CSFs that meet all of those criteria instead, while requiring them to forbid all CSFs that do not meet any of those criteria.

Why is licensing a better solution than the automatic authorisation regime I describe in bullet point B, particularly when everybody who wants to run a CSF will have to comply with the same checks in both cases anyway? What objective benefits to CSF safety are conferred by licensing that are not conferred by B-style automatic authorisation?

(I would also note that these regulations do not apply to space flights organised by governments, regardless of their purpose.)

[Kaschovia]

I know what you are saying, but once again equating the two ignores the practical applications of my proposal, specifically to make it safer for passengers of private space ventures. The procedures of standard civilian aircraft completely pale in comparison to the technicalities, risks, and variables of launching and conducting spaceflights. It's like requiring the same safety measures for a holiday cruise ship as a deep-sea submarine; they present completely different challenges and risks, so to apply the same blanket safety protocols would be disastrously dangerous for the passengers.

I am NOT saying that the World Assembly should enforce "the same blanket safety protocols" on all flights, no matter how high they fly. I am saying:

1. it is ridiculous for the WA to require that licenses be handed out for commercial space flights based on particular criteria, when
2. the WA could instead permit member states to automatically authorise all CSFs that meet all of those criteria instead, while requiring them to forbid all CSFs that do not meet any of those criteria.

Why is licensing a better solution than the automatic authorisation regime I describe in bullet point B, particularly when everybody who wants to run a CSF will have to comply with the same checks in both cases anyway? What objective benefits to CSF safety are conferred by licensing that are not conferred by B-style automatic authorisation?

(I would also note that these regulations do not apply to space flights organised by governments, regardless of their purpose.)

Just because it could be done in a different way does not mean that requiring a license is ridiculous or a worse idea. In fact, establishing a commonplace and licensed measurement of safety adeptness across the board also allows individuals traveling between member nations to quickly discern safer commercial spaceflight providers over a more broad authorization regime. This resolution simply aims to make it more difficult for unchecked commercial spaceflights to be conducted without the necessary safety measures in place.

[Tinhampton]

I am NOT saying that the World Assembly should enforce "the same blanket safety protocols" on all flights, no matter how high they fly. I am saying:

1. it is ridiculous for the WA to require that licenses be handed out for commercial space flights based on particular criteria, when
2. the WA could instead permit member states to automatically authorise all CSFs that meet all of those criteria instead, while requiring them to forbid all CSFs that do not meet any of those criteria.

Why is licensing a better solution than the automatic authorisation regime I describe in bullet point B, particularly when everybody who wants to run a CSF will have to comply with the same checks in both cases anyway? What objective benefits to CSF safety are conferred by licensing that are not conferred by B-style automatic authorisation?

(I would also note that these regulations do not apply to space flights organised by governments, regardless of their purpose.)

Just because it could be done in a different way does not mean that requiring a license is ridiculous or a worse idea. In fact, establishing a commonplace and licensed measurement of safety adeptness across the board also allows individuals traveling between member nations to quickly discern safer commercial spaceflight providers over a more broad authorization regime. This resolution simply aims to make it more difficult for unchecked commercial spaceflights to be conducted without the necessary safety measures in place.

CSS contains no requirement that the "safe record of all license holders" which must be compiled by member states pursuant to Article 3d be made public in any respects - which could well make it impossible to "discern safer commercial spaceflight providers" at any speed. "Trust me, bro" is just about the worst possible way to go about making CSF operators feel accountable for the safety of their space flights.

[Excidium Planetis]

Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.

"Oh, there's, uh, nothing magical about it, really." Adelia objects. "It's just um, simple physics. If, if you construct the craft in space, and launch it in space, it never has to go near any nasty planets."