
FAA Poised to Take on Role as Traffic Cop for Space - jackgavigan
http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-poised-to-take-on-role-as-traffic-cop-for-space-1474239138
======
pdabbadabba
Seems a little funny that the FCC isn't being discussed more seriously.
Although it's not a totally intuitive fit on the surface, it makes a little
more sense once you consider that U.S. satellite launches already require FCC
licenses, and one of the things you have to include in the application is your
plan to mitigate the threat of orbital debris.

------
M_Grey
Wouldn't NASA be the natural choice for this, especially given their history
of working with the military?

~~~
ceejayoz
The FAA is a well-established regulatory agency that already manages
significant portions of spaceflight
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Tra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Commercial_Space_Transportation))
and also has a long history working with the military.

NASA should be in the exploration business, not the regulatory one.

~~~
idlewords
The line isn't that clearly drawn. NASA runs the Aviation Safety Reporting
System, for example
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_Syst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_System)].

~~~
Normal_gaussian
Though it does make more sense for NASA to build the systems and then hand
them off to regulators to operate and iterate

~~~
neurotech1
ASRS is NASA ran for a specific reason: To keep a clear line between safety
and enforcement. For ASRS to function effectively, pilots have to be able to
report incidents without fear of FAA enforcement. In fact, by regulation, a
pilot can use the "immunity" rule once every 5 years to avoid a FAA violation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_Syst...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_System#Immunity_policy)

------
nxzero
Why exactly is the FAA taking this over?

It's clearly stated that the US military is still going to be the primary
source for the data.

Why not have an open RFP that anyone is able to provide a proposal and if the
a existing agency doesn't win, make it independently run?

~~~
idlewords
The article explains that the DoD doesn't want the job, and that having
tracking run by the military makes multinational cooperation more difficult.

How would an RFP work? How are agencies like FAA or NASA or the US Forest
Service supposed to bid on this if they don't know they'll have the budget for
it?

~~~
nxzero
Military would be required to provide a scope of work, privately state what
their budget is, and it would be open to anyone that meets the stated
requirement.

Congress would review the proposals and select the winner and provide the
budget needed.

Honestly at this point, strongly feel there needs to be a agency explicitly
responsible for commercializing space - and neither FAA or NASA have a track
record of doing this.

------
thr0waway1239
I was just as confused by the title of the article as some others on this
comment thread, so here is a TLDR explaining the intent:

Commercial satellites (i.e. their operators) need warnings to move out of the
way when space debris approach them. This service used to be provided by the
Pentagon, who have now handed it over to the FAA for multiple reasons,
including for this very relevant reason quoted from the article:

 _“It will be a lot easier for the United States to have conversations about
safety with the rest of the world,” according to Mr. Nield, without having the
Department of Defense in the middle of those discussions._

------
creade
Anyone interested in this should check out the International Institute of
Space Law's Moot Court
[http://www.iislweb.org/lachsmoot/index.html](http://www.iislweb.org/lachsmoot/index.html)

------
transfire
The same FAA that has been unable to modernize the air traffic control system
since, what, the 70s?

~~~
ceejayoz
That same FAA has dramatically reduced airline crash fatalities since the
1970s, despite massive increases in number of passenger-miles flown.

~~~
neurotech1
Mid-air collisions involving airliners are extremely rare. As I recall, its
been decades since an airliner had a mid-air within the US.

This is largely due to the improvements in Secondary Radar [0],
Transponders[1] and TCAS[2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_\(aviation\))

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system)

~~~
bdamm
Mid-air collisions involving airliners are rare because of the FAA and ATC.
Also, mid-air collisions are not and have never been the greatest contributor
to airline passenger deaths (or aviations deaths in general.) And on that
count, the FAA has also been a major contributor to safety, since the
regulations regarding pilot and aircraft certification, as well as operational
regulations (and enforcement) are really what makes airline travel safe.

Incidentally, the biggest aviation accident in history (Tenerife) still can be
felt today in how the FAA trains ATC personnel and how they choose the
language that is authorized for use by ATC.

~~~
neurotech1
Air Traffic Controllers are highly skilled professionals, although at least 3
mid-air collisions [0][1][2] involving airliners have been a direct result of
limitations in the radar technology. Newer technology like SSR gives the
controllers better tools to use their skills.

Practically every pilot has heard of the Tenerife disaster, and is commonly
discussed in flight schools. A lot of safety changes in aviation can be tied
back to previous mishaps. In Naval Aviation, the flight standards program is
known as NATOPS [3] (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures
Standardization), and the phrase "The NATOPS has been written in blood" is
largely because it dramatically reduced the mishap rate, and changes are often
as a direct result of previous mishaps.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Airwest_Flight_706)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Charkhi_Dadri_mid-
air_col...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Charkhi_Dadri_mid-
air_collision)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-
air_collisio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-
air_collision)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATOPS#History.2Fraison_d.27.C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATOPS#History.2Fraison_d.27.C3.AAtre)

------
mrfusion
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume the US can regulate the worlds space
access? Did anyone ask the 200 other countries?

Edit sorry didn't read the article. It doesn't sound like they'll have the
power to block access to space?

~~~
DKnoll
They're not regulating the world's space access... they're monitoring to
prevent commercial satellites from colliding with debris and other items in
orbit. This is a public service.

The US at large does have the power to block access to space, given that they
posess the most technologically advanced military on the planet, but I doubt
the FAA will be intervening militarily against your bottle rocket any time
soon.

~~~
throw2016
The article is not clear but this seems to be limited to US commercial space
operaters and country to country colloboration happen on a different level.

The most technologically advanced is a matter of opinion. How would they block
Russia or Chinese lauches? Even India has frequent launches. This is far
fetched as either could then do likewise.

It would be odd if China or Russia decided to unilaterally announce they are
going to take on role as traffic cop as a 'public service'. This is a matter
for global agreement and discussion and will require an international agency.

~~~
DKnoll
It would require an international agency for enforcement, you don't need an
international agency for notification.

> The most technologically advanced is a matter of opinion. How would they
> block Russia or Chinese lauches? Even India has frequent launches. This is
> far fetched as either could then do likewise.

Well, Russia, China and the US all have demonstrated ASAT capabilities, used
to take down their own satellites. Using this capability against satellites
owned by another state however would violate the Outer Space Treaty and likely
be interpreted as an act of war.

To interrupt a launch? All 3 likely could as well. Cyber or physical sabotage
would be a great way, even fighter aircraft could potentially be used against
a spacecraft at the time of launch, as they have been demonstrated to be
effective against ballistic missiles if they are nearby the launch site.

Space is an arena where most nations try not to make threats or militarise in
the interests of international collaboration, but I'm willing to bet there are
some secret contingency plans held by the 3 superpowers you mentioned. India,
probably not.

