Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Private Spaceflight Law Revived 87

Posted by CmdrTaco from the up-up-and-away dept.
Lord Byron II writes "In an update to this earlier Slashdot story, after the defeat of HR3752, California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. MSNBC has more information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff and from Google News."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Private Spaceflight Law Revived More

Private Spaceflight Law Revived

Comments Filter:

  • Space Law!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by spankey51 ( 804888 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:14AM (#10880486)
    "Officer... I'm sorry. Please don't write this ticket... Look man it was only Mach 7.4! hey you're really starting to piss me off! Damnit! I'm going to be late for lunar yoga! Thanks for the negative energy man!"

    First post?

    • I want to see how they put down lane markers.

    • Re:Space Law!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:25AM (#10880520)
      Not gonna happen, there will be no police presence unless some fool builds a chain of flying and orbiting donught stores.

    • More Info (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @12:38PM (#10881457) Journal
      Background [slightly dated, but still useful]

      HR 3752, which provided important regulatory support for a new commercial space flight industry, has widely been reported dead in the last day or two, and it almost was. It has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives as HR 5382, it was debated today, and it should be up for a vote by the full House sometime in tonight's extended session - possibly as early as 8 pm EST, possibly well into the small hours of tomorrow morning.

      For more info on the history and content of HR 3752, see http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau105.htm. HR 5382 is the latest hard-fought compromise version of HR 3752 that everyone interested had finally agreed on. The current problem is largely a matter of a few who hadn't been following the issue closely not understanding why certain features of the bill are necessary for the healthy birth of the new industry. A letter from the head of the House Science Committee summarizing the issues follows:

      Dear Colleague:

      A few minutes ago you received a letter from congressman Oberstar about H.R. 5382 which will be before the house shortly. Mr. Oberstar's objection to the bill is well intentioned but reflects fundamental misunderstandings about the bill. Here are some facts:

      The house passed earlier this year by a vote of 402 to 1 and earlier version of this bill (HR 3752) that gave the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) less regulatory authority over commercial human space flights than does the bill before us today.

      The Science Committee which has primary jurisdiction over this bill which was given the sole initial referral had several hearings on the bill and has talked about it frequently with the press, engendering more public discussion.

      This bill concerns the commercial space flight industry, an industry that is now of interest only to entrepreneurs and daredevils and should not be regulated as if it were a commercial airline acting as common carrier, which is basically what Mr. Oberstar is advocating.

      The bill does give FAA unlimited authority to regulate these new rockets to ensure that they do not harm anyone on the ground and to ensure that the industry is learning from any failures. The bill also gives FAA additional authority after 8 years by which time the industry should be less experimental.

      The Oberstar approach would be the equivalent of not letting the Wright Brothers test their ideas without first convincing federal officials that nothing could go wrong.

      Without this Bill the FAA will continue to license private space flights without adequate authority to protect either the safety of the public or the finances of the government.

      Please support HR 5382, just as you voted for the initial version in March. Today's bill is an equivalent of a conference report as it reflects bipartisan negotiations with the Senate.

      Sincerely,

      SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

      Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. You may reproduce sections of this Update beyond obvious "fair use" quotes if you credit the source and include a pointer to our website.

      Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org - space.access@space-access.org

      • Seems to prohibit making money off experiments. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:42PM (#10882456) Journal
        The text of HR 5382 isn't up on the congressional web site yet. But the text of HR 3752 is. And it seems to split the life of a vehicle design into a permitted experimental phase and a type-approved commercial phase.

        The kicker is that the experimental phase doesn't allow carrying a payload for a fee, while the experimental permit dies upon the granting of the license for type-approved commercial operation.

        Net result is that the entire development period MUST be financed off capital investment - including the jumping through ALL regulatory hoops to get the final approval for commercial use of a production design. You have to get to airline-level regulated convince-the-bureaucrats safety and red-tape levels before you collect your first cent (except for prize money, of course).

        IMHO this is NOT a bill to encourage general private space development by entrepreneurs.

        Instead it's a bill to give the current aircraft manufacturers a lock on spacecraft design and production, protecting them from competition by upstarts.

  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:20AM (#10880504) Homepage
    And how do you propose that foreign law is useful in space? You can't really work with airspace zones since orbiting craft will cross them in a few minutes, and to be honest you're not going to scramble jets up to those violating the law are you?
    • They can't be infinite, so where would they end?
    • I believe there are already regulations in place to police anything that is in orbit. Its not that big a deal for the current generation of space tourism craft, as they don't get into orbit anyway, and takoff and land in the same country.

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:46AM (#10880588)
      There is already an international treaty in place that basicly says that things that are launched into "space" are the responsibility of the country where the launching party is based (i.e. if an american organization launches from australia, its still an american launch)

      I assume that this treaty (or some other treaty) would apply in this case and give the americans juristiction over any spacecraft launched by american organizations.

  • Uh, wouldn't no laws at all be better? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vudufixit ( 581911 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:25AM (#10880521)
    Wouldn't a lack of regulation really allow private spaceflight to "take off?" Say what you want about Ronald Reagan's presidency, he was spot-on with what he said regarding the government's treatment of new (and for that matter, existing) industries: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "

    • Re:Uh, wouldn't no laws at all be better? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Meredeth ( 821492 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:37AM (#10880556)
      Absolutely not. I might be persuaded to trust Burt Rutan. But would I trust the company that will run /lease/buy his spaceplane? And what about the other startup companies? There needs to be regulation of this so that we can be confident that there is some accountability for things if they go wrong.
    • Wouldn't a lack of regulation really allow private spaceflight to "take off?"

      As long as it doesn't "take off" into the flight path of a 747. There needs to be a designated unpopulated region where these people can go play space cadet.

      • As long as it doesn't "take off" into the flight path of a 747. There needs to be a designated unpopulated region where these people can go play space cadet.

        There is no reason for that designation to come from governement. Private industy can set up guidelines like that as well. The hardware in your computer and the internet are two great examples of industries setting standards and rules without the need for governemnt regulation.

        A private industry agreement also means changing the designation later on

    • But as we saw with the FCC decision to take on extra duties recently, it is probably wise to tell the FAA to keep their hands off most of the program. I would have also liked to see them ban any lawsuits arising out of injuries or deaths of people involved. This is a risky experimental program. Anyone signing up for it, knows that.
    • With the exception of the last few years, I think the FCC has traditionally shown a reasonable regulatory model: Create a structure that industry can work within and stay out of the way! The FAA is more intrusive, and has some serious mission conflicts, but at least it's safe to fly.

      Recent forays into totally unregulated services include the cell phone industry, where the Government left it up to industry to determine the underlying technology and phones have to support at least 6 different standards to

      • I would strongly suggest that you visit the FAA website for commercial spaceflight [faa.gov] before you go too far with the critcisms.

        The FAA has "matured" due to issues dealing with aviation hucksters and con artists who try to come up with all kinds of new ways to build airplanes, as well as "fly-by-night" aviation schools that teach you how to fly with poor techniques and really are just there to scam you out of some more money. With FAA regulations you have an independent testing authority for pilot certificati

  • Go right ahead. Just don't crash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Meredeth ( 821492 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:26AM (#10880524)
    I thought it was a fair compromise for the FAA to only consider crew and passenger safety if it "Has already been shown in real flight to cause problems" It may be hard even with that clause and legal waivers for passengers, to avoid law suits should someone die. It is in the companies best interests for any craft they build to be safe. Any accident in space would likely be fatal and destroy the craft, so no company would allow a safety issue to exist. Can an expert on aviation law say what this proposed limitation of FAA regulation will mean?

  • Before you blame me... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lord Byron II ( 671689 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:36AM (#10880552)
    Before you blame me for the obvious grammatical mistake in the post, I didn't do it! The /. editors strike again! The original post:

    In an update to this earlier Slashdot story [slashdot.org], after the defeat of HR3752 [loc.gov], California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382 [loc.gov]. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. More information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff is available from this MSNBC article [msn.com] and from Google News [google.com].

  • Where's the launchsite? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 21, 2004 @09:54AM (#10880613)
    "MSNBC has more information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff and from Google News."

    Anyone else think Google News is an odd place to build a spaceport?
  • He's a cool representative. Hopefully this addresses the issue that the Senator had with the previous bill.
    • Agreed -- Dana doesn't get a lot of credit for it, but he may be the most libertarian lawmaker in Congress.

      (Note the lowercase "l" -- he's in the GOP rather than the Libertarian Party, but much of the stuff he supports puts a high priority on small govnerment and maximizing individual freedom.)

    • Yes, he is. Is Tim Kyger still working for him? Tim is also quite cool.

  • Just Asking Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Maljin Jolt ( 746064 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @10:26AM (#10880754) Journal
    If private space flight is not currently legal, are UFO abductees actually criminals?
  • We could have a wonderful regulatory industry in place, ensuring the safety of private space flight, for a measely few million dollars, well before there is any private space flight.

  • "literally"? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't think the space flight industry will *literally* take off.

    Not like the hair dressing and telephone sanitising industry anyway.

    No, it is figuratively only. The actually space craft may take off literally.

  • Go Dana! (Score:5, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @11:48AM (#10881186) Journal
    My God! Someone I voted for is doing something I like!

    • Re:Go Dana! (Score:3, Informative)

      by FleaPlus ( 6935 )
      Well, be sure to call him up [house.gov] and tell him so!

      Also, while skimming through his web site I was quite intrigued by the following [house.gov]:

      Congressman Rohrabacher Introduces Legislation Creating National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics

      Washington, Aug 27 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
      CONTACT: 202-225-2415
      27 August 2004

      (Washington, D.C.) Rep. Rohrabacher introduced legislation that will establish a National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics, in order to boost the private development of suborbital space flight.

      With a c
      • Actually, I sent an email earlier voicing support for this and a couple other space things. I like to think maybe I contributed to this in some tiny way. :)
        • Awesome. If you have time though, you should really call them up or send a letter -- emails are often lost in the shuffle.

  • Finally, a bill that doesn't take away rights. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @12:30PM (#10881409)
    It's good (but exceedingly rare) to hear about legislation that doesn't take away rights. Perhaps it's even more sad that we need the legislation, rather than being free to travel in space by default. But I think it's progress, and it's coming from my representative in Congress to boot!
  • Just what the hay is a lame-duck session? And since when winged creatures are allowed in the Congress?

    • Re:Lame duck? (Score:3, Informative)

      by InfiniteWisdom ( 530090 )
      The session of congress after the election but before the new members are sworn in. I believe there are some restrictions (although I'm not sure whether they are in the law or merely unwritten rules) on the actions that elected officials who have lost an election may take.

  • Interesting quotes from the House transcript (Score:5, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @01:57PM (#10881870) Journal
    This page [loc.gov] has a transcript of the House debate on the bill. Some interesting parts (bolding is mine):

    [Boehlert, R-NY]This bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the need to give
    a new industry a chance to develop brand-new technology and the desire
    to provide enough regulation to protect the industry's customers.
    We think we have struck that balance and here is why. First, the bill
    gives the Federal Aviation Administration clear authority for the first
    time to regulate the commercial human space flight industry.
    Second, the bill gives the FAA unlimited authority to regulate the
    industry and its rockets to make sure they do no harm to third parties,
    that is, people on the ground or in the air who are in no way involved
    with the flight.
    Third, the bill sets a clear timetable for when FAA will have
    unlimited authority to regulate the industry and its rockets to make
    sure they do no harm to the people on board.
    But here is what the bill does not do. It does not allow the FAA
    right now to guess whether some new untested rocket technology will do
    harm to the people onboard. Why? Because this industry is at the stage
    when it is the preserve of visionaries and daredevils and adventurers.
    These are people who will fly at their own risk to try out new
    technologies. These are people who do not expect and should not expect
    to be protected by the government. Such protection would only stifle
    innovation.
    So instead of allowing FAA guesswork for the next several years, the
    bill requires that anyone participating in launch, whether it is crew
    or passenger, must be notified of all risk of flight and must be told
    explicitly that the government has not certified the vehicle as safe
    for crew or passengers. And the FAA can come in and prohibit rocket
    designs and operational procedures that have already been shown to
    fail.
    Now, obviously, this Wild West or barnstorming or infant industry
    state of affairs cannot obtain forever, if the commercial space flight
    industry is to become more than an expensive and risky novelty. Safety
    must increase, and gradually the industry will start to look more like
    a common carrier. And that is why the bill allows FAA after 8 years to
    regulate commercial space flight in pretty much the same way it
    regulates the airline industry. But it seems to me kind of silly to
    regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle, which has flown three times, as if it
    was a Boeing 747. If we regulate it that way, then his craft will never
    evolve into the equivalent of a 747.     ...

    [DeFazio, D-OR] We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently
    seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do
    want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this
    legislation.
    I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to
    paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the
    serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here
    in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the
    industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems
    to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days
    the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the
    industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and
    through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the
    industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted
    it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident
    that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be
    paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and
    safety.
    But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone
    mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing
    to say, here is someone who invente

  • Tally of the House votes (Score:4, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:03PM (#10881912) Journal
    Here's a tally of the House votes [house.gov]. If you're a US citizen, be sure to check how your congressman voted and give them a happy or angry phone call on Monday. I'm certainly planning on doing so.

    Even though the legislation was bipartisan (and the earlier version passed the house with only one vote against), this voted ended up being mostly along party lines. Overall, 206 Republicans voted for it and 2 against. 63 Democrats voted for it, with 117 against.
  • Now I won't be able to launch a rocket into space without additional hassle.

    Oh... wait...

  • Except, we are getting ready to cycle to the next congress. As I understand it, when we go to the next congress (a two-year period of time), all bills of the previous congress are dropped and must be reintroduced anew. So, if she just now started the process, and they adjurn this congress, it's a moot issue. This has to get through both houses and through the President in less than a month.
    • Dana Rohrbacher is a man.
    • Still, one reason to keep pushing along here is that you already know the opinions of several key congressmen and senators regarding a given bill, and there has already been considerable compromise regarding the wording etc. Generally if a bill was already debated in a previous session of congress, the reintroduced bill will fly through committee, unless it is a very hot topic like partial birth abortions or gay rights legislation. In the case of this space regulation bill it is merely considered a low pr

  • I wonder if someone gave Dana Rohrabacher a copy of X2: The Threat [egosoft.com] or Vega Strike [sourceforge.net] for his birthday?

    After playing those for a few hours I always go outside and gaze up at the sky wistfully.

    I hope Elite 4 [frontier.co.uk] is released soon.

    We should give these games to more politicians around the world - with god mode pre-enabled - and say (lie outright),

    `This could be you. Just forget the military and help us get into space.'

    A boy's got to have his dreams.

  • There are going to be a lot of places other than the U.S. blasting people off to the moon. I think it's funny that the stupid U.S. Administration think they are going to write legislation over space travel
  • slashdotted congress?

  • i'm sure we're not too far from putting the u.n. in charge of space and having some interplanetary court...

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close