Schneier on Security

Christoph Zurnieden • January 10, 2006 10:48 AM

Yes, we all know that “The moon is a harsh mistress” and may throw with stones,
but let me tell you: not much of the several hundred metric tons of the ISS
would reach ground concentrated enough to slay a man let alone a city and only a
city is sufficiently large to be hit by a thrown ISS.
What else can you do with a rocket? Let it explode? You will get the biggest
effect with a fully fueled rocket of course, but most of the starting areas are
placed right at the middle of nowhere. You have to fly a bit to reach a
worthwile target while consuming a lot of your blasting agent up to the point of
becoming the equivalent of a thrown rock.
And of course: the pricetag of the tickets for a little spacetrip will outnumber
any other way for a TV-compatible terror attack for a long time and a thing like
a hardened door will be cheaper than the whole bureaucracy needed to make the
rules and to force them an even longer time.

CZ

Christoph Zurnieden • January 11, 2006 10:39 AM

Let me first apologize for my first post. I pasted the draft instead of the
final. I do not speak english nativly but that is no excuse for that mess,
sorry.

And are those draft regulations hooting mad? Umm, lets see, they recommend that
space tourists be fully informed of the considerable risks of spaceflight;
participate in emergency training; and they should be advised but not required
to get a medical checkup. Almost as a footnote, it is suggested they should
pass the same security check as any other airline passenger.

None of that is obviously worthy of ridicule.

Yes, it is not obvious, that is right, so let me walk thru your interjections.

• be fully informed of the considerable risks of spaceflight
  There are a lot of different conditions leading to your personal death-in some
  parts quite surreal but nevertheless lethal conditions. All of these may happen
  within a very high probability at a spaceflight. I guess the FAA took that rule
  straight out of the fine print of a life insurance contract.
• participate in emergency training
  That is a good idea and I think the FAA is competent to work out all the details
  when the relevant hardware had been build. You might call me a nitpicker but I
  think it is a bit too early today.
• should be advised but not required to get a medical checkup
  Sounds familiar to me … uh, I see: the fine print of the life insurance
  contract from above.
• Almost as a footnote, it is suggested they should pass the same security
  check as any other airline passenger.
  So: the only part handling “security” has been placed footnote like? By the FAA?
  The FAA takes more care for emergency training, a sufficient number of emergency
  doors and even insurance contracts than for gasp terrorists?

I just had to concur with Iuvenalis:”difficile est saturam non scribere”
(I,1,30) and because I remembered R. A. Heinleins novel too I wrote my first
post. I thought it would put the difference of real security (FAA) and
“security” (TSA) more straight.

CZ

Christoph Zurnieden • January 12, 2006 6:03 PM

That doesn’t mean that there are no threats at all, though.

Yes, there are threats of course and more than just half a dozen, but I could
not imagine one scenario especially for a spacecraft except of that thrown stone
thing. The rest is more or less related to air flight, so it is understandable
that the same rules should fit. More or less. The FAA saw that and acted
accordingly as far as I understood their papers. But I think the addition of
some of the passenger related security checks, especially the check against a
“global no-flight list” (compilated how?) might have had political reasons.

It is better to cover the general case and not “permit anyone
to endanger the safety of the flight”.

The security measures pre 9/11 were sufficient except of the one
rule:”Do what the hijackers want.”. And a hardened cockpit door for only US$20
more perhaps.

Are you saying that you don’t believe that informed consent is sufficient?

No, I don’t think so. I think it is not necessary at all, it should be
taken as common knowledge that the risks to die are very high if you fly some
hundred miles above the ground. (alliterations were not intentional)
There is no need to issue warnings like “Don’t dry your poodle in the microwave
oven, it may die!”.

Note, incidentally, that you pretty well can’t get insurance for any aspect
of space operations

Oh yes, you still can, but the fee is so high (about half of the amount insured
and more) it won’t pay anymore.

The government is basically saying that if they do that, the
passengers must fully understand just how much risk they are accepting.

These are the things you will find in the fine print of an insurance contract.
And it depends on the jurisdiction to, e.g. you can’t waive all of your rights
in Germany.

Much of the hardware has been built,

For commercial passenger transport in space? Within the numbers of the civil
aviation, hundreds of millions a year? I don’t think so.

But …

and — at the rate government bodies
work — there isn’t much time remaining before the rest is finished.

… that is also true, unfortunatly.

Also, some sorts of hardware can’t be built until the testing requirements are
specified by the regulations.

And some regulations can not be specified until the hardware had been build and
I fear the intersection is not empty: there will be some trial&error involved.
You have to be able to evacuate all passengers of a plane in not more than 90
seconds (AFAIK) for example. Is that sufficient for a spacecraft too? You can’t
know before trying.
It is to early for exact rules, but it isn’t to early for the FAA to stake out
their claim as far as I know bureaucracy.

Same comment as above. I take it that you want compulsory medical checkups
instead? Fine.

I do not, but the insurance companies might want that. E.g. some aviation companies
do not transport highly pregnant women (different limits) without a medical
report.

So: the only part handling “security” has been placed footnote like? By the FAA?
The FAA takes more care for emergency training, a sufficient number of emergency
doors and even insurance contracts than for gasp terrorists?

Umm. What is your point here? You seem to be saying that you agree with it, but
in the most negative way possible.

As I said above, I think the additions had political reasons, that makes me
sarcastic sometimes.
Or:
Some people say I became a bit bitter since my 40th birthday three weeks ago,
they might be right?

I just had to concur with Iuvenalis:”difficile est saturam non scribere” […]

Uh, huh, but someone also said “sarcasm is the wit of fools”.

So be it; I wear my motley with pride 😉

CZ

PS: thanks a lot for helping me with my english!