The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) current informed consent framework under 14 CFR §460.45 falls dangerously short of adequately warning space flight participants (SFP) about the true risks they face, particularly long-term health consequences that may not manifest until months or years after their journey.
This regulatory gap threatens both SFP safety and industry credibility as space tourism becomes mainstream.
Three fatal flaws
Today's regulations require operators to inform SFPs about the risks of space flight. This includes detailing each known hazard and risk related to launch and re-entry. However, the FAA only requires disclosure at a "general system level" with additional information beyond this being left to the operator's discretion. As such, this narrow focus creates fundamental problems that leave SFPs misunderstanding.
The known risk limitation:
First, the qualification of "known" limits the scope of required disclosure. Aerospace medicine experts recognize strong indicators of likely health consequences based on existing research and physiological understanding, yet regulations require only disclosure of risks with complete scientific validation. For example, space flight is associated with neuro-ocular syndrome that affects vision and has been identified as a concern by aerospace medical professionals, but its actual long-term effects, while worrisome, remain still uncertain. Likewise, immune system alterations may leave SFPs increasingly vulnerable to life threatening infections or autoimmune disorders.
The FAA reduces disclosure of unknown risks to a single, generic phrase: 'there are hazards that are not known' — as if six words can adequately warn SFPs about the experimental nature of human spaceflight. Further, SFPs are not required to undergo the scrutiny in medical testing government astronauts undergo, potentially increasing the susceptibility to life altering impacts. This minimalist approach fails to convey the experimental nature of what SFPs are undertaking, putting excited tourists at greater danger than they realize.
The fact is that the current regulations fail to address risks that medical professionals consider highly probable based on current understanding of space physiology, simply because definitive long-term studies don't yet exist.
The artificial time constraints problem
Second, the regulations treat space flight health risks as if they operate on the same timeline as a car accident or airplane crash — immediate cause, immediate effect. But space-related health impacts follow completely different patterns. Regulations focus almost exclusively on immediate risks during launch and re-entry, treating space flight as if health risks disappear once participants return to Earth. "Serious injury" is defined only for the flight period, and "fatal injury" covers only deaths within 30 days of an accident.
These arbitrary timelines ignore reality: space-related health impacts from radiation exposure and prolonged microgravity can remain latent for years before manifesting as serious medical conditions. A SFP developing radiation-induced cancer three years post-flight or suffering fractures from space-induced bone loss two years later wouldn't count as space flight injury under current 30-day definitions.
Inadequate disclosure standards create inconsistency
Third, inadequate disclosure standards create inconsistency. Without clear materiality standards defining what risks would influence a reasonable person's decision to participate, operators guess about disclosure requirements while SFPs remain uncertain about receiving complete information. Required disclosure operates at only a "general system level," leaving critical details to each operator's discretion. Further, while the FAA's guidance suggests turbo pump hazards can be described generically as "catastrophic", this obscures rather than illuminates actual risks.
Unlike medical informed consent, which has established materiality standards for what risks must be disclosed, space flight regulations provide no consistent criteria for determining which risks are significant enough to influence participation decisions. This creates an 'information lottery' where SFPs' risk awareness depends entirely on how individual operators interpret vague regulatory guidance where some companies may thoroughly explain radiation exposure probabilities while others dismiss them as just possible complications, leaving SFPs with dramatically different understandings of identical risks across the industry.
The good news: fixing these dangerous gaps requires neither congressional action nor industry-crushing safety mandates — just clearer disclosure standards the FAA already has authority to implement.
Learning from adventure tourism
Commercial spaceflight can learn from established adventure tourism industries that successfully balance innovation with participant protection. Mountain climbing, extreme skiing and other high-risk activities have developed robust informed consent practices acknowledging both known dangers and fundamental uncertainties.
In the creation of the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, Congress intentionally compared commercial spaceflight to adventure travel rather than airline transportation, characterizing participants as "daredevils, visionaries and adventurers" who accept inherent risks. However, this characterization only works if participants truly understand what they're accepting, including the experimental nature and potential for unforeseen long-term consequences.
Three essential reforms
The FAA possesses authority to implement stronger informed consent requirements without imposing new safety regulations. Three specific reforms would dramatically improve participant protection while maintaining industry innovation.
First, require explicit acknowledgment of commercial spaceflight's experimental nature. Participants must understand they're not riding on a mature transportation service but participating in an evolving experiment where they serve as test subjects for an industry still developing safety standards.
This disclosure should emphasize that participant safety receives less regulatory oversight than traditional transportation, that federal safety certification doesn't exist for civilian space vehicles and that they're accepting experimental risks as pioneers in humanity's expansion beyond Earth.
Second, expand disclosure beyond immediate launch and re-entry risks to encompass potential long-term health effects. SFPs need explicit warnings that adverse health consequences may emerge months or years after their flight, even if medical experts don't fully understand those consequences. This should specifically address radiation exposure, bone density changes, cardiovascular impacts, immune system alterations and neurological effects.
Participants must understand that health risks don't end when the flight ends, and that current medical knowledge cannot predict all potential consequences of their participation and that while some consequences are not yet fully empirically proven, remain quite likely.
Third, establish clear materiality standards for risk disclosure. The FAA should define what constitutes material risk in the space context, ensuring consistent disclosure across operators. This framework should encompass both immediate flight risks and potential long-term health consequences, giving SFPs complete information about what they're accepting.
The stakes and time for action
Enhanced informed consent serves everyone's interests. SFPs gain information they need to make genuinely informed decisions about their personal safety. Operators receive better protection through comprehensive disclosure. The industry builds public trust through transparency rather than facing backlash from inadequately warned participants experiencing unexpected consequences.
The legislative moratorium preventing FAA regulation of spaceflight participant safety has been extended again through January 1, 2028. Nonetheless, reform inquiries should be proactive. Acting now demonstrates industry leadership, while waiting for problems to occur forces reactive responses that often prove more restrictive.
The choice is clear: The FAA must strengthen informed consent requirements now through thoughtful reforms, or else the industry will wait for preventable tragedies to force more restrictive obligations. The FAA must define material risks, expand disclosure timelines beyond immediate flight phases and require explicit acknowledgment of the industry's experimental nature.
These reforms don't aim to ground space tourism — they aim to launch it with participants' eyes wide open. The goal isn't to keep adventurers earthbound, but to ensure they understand exactly what adventure they're choosing.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
