Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States

Private Spaceflight Law Passes Senate 227

Posted by samzenpus from the major-tom dept.
Neil Halelamien writes "HR 5382, the commercial spaceflight bill which has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, has been passed by Congress at the last minute (almost literally). The bill had previously been stalled several times due to disagreements about how much the FAA should regulate crew and passenger safety. It's now headed to the White House to be signed into law. Under this legislation, the FAA's role until 2012 will be to protect the uninvolved public on the ground, and allow passengers to ride as long as they've been properly informed of the related dangers. Also, the FAA will be able to regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if they prove to be dangerous."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Private Spaceflight Law Passes Senate More

Private Spaceflight Law Passes Senate

Comments Filter:

  • Wel... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tarunthegreat2 ( 761545 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:04AM (#11040662)
    I, for one, welcome our legislation-passing White House overlords...oh...wait.

  • Space Traffic Control (Score:4, Funny)

    by frugle ( 769095 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:18AM (#11040702) Homepage
    Has anyone yet decided who is to oversee "air traffic control" once you pass out of the air and into space? Will each country be responsible for their own spacespace - and will a strike by the space trafic controllers of one particular country cause you to orbit in a holding pattern for 3 days?
    • Space is international, so I suppose it'd have to be a nonnationally oriented body... At the moment, the only thing which comes close is the ESA (europe isn't a country FYI america). Ladies and gentlemen, due to STC strike action our landing will be temporarily delayed. Please step into the Cryogenic chamber, and hot towels with lemon will be served in several millenia.
      • Woo hoo :( Roll on the summer holiday madness, when baggage handlers go on strike at Heathrow and the Spanish/French/German/Brit air traffic controller's strike, causing re-routing chaos? :)

        The appropriate (original radio show) Hitchhiker's Guide quotes are along the lines of "We are currently awaiting delivery of our supply of lemon soaked paper napkins. Until then there will be a short delay. Please return to your seats."

    • Not too sure but you can guarantee that the French space traffic controllers will be the first to go on strike.
    • Space is still uncontrolled without authorities now is your opportunity to fast build (preferably black) space pirateship and the raid the tourist ships :)
    • This would be governed by the Outer Space Treaty [state.gov], I'd think.

      • I agree ... (Score:2, Informative)

        by magicianuk ( 446906 )
        ... I believe Article VI is the most appropriate reference ... which includes the words

        "The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."

        So for US based companies, the US would be required to supervise (though they could do this by joining an international space flight control organisation).

        There is wording in Article VI to cover international orga
        • Some people have been viewing that exact article as hindering private space travel development. Some people have suggested building enormous floating platforms in international waters and launching spacecraft from there to circumvent government interference.

          Look up the Millenium (sp?) Project for one such group.
      • The thing I love about the Outer Space Treaty is this clause:

        Article XVI
        Any State Party to the Treaty may give notice of its withdrawal from the Treaty one year after its entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification.

        Basically, if there were a legitimate reason for the USA to ignore the treaty, we can ignore any and all provisions of it, including the national soverignty issues over contro
    • Has anyone yet decided who is to oversee "air traffic control" once you pass out of the air and into space?

      Well, I can't imagine the USA allowing just anybody to fly in space above their country. The onyl reason they tend to tolerate foreign spy satelites is that shooting one down would be an act of agression

      It is actually normal for Air Traffic Controllers to think in terms of handing an aircraft off to a controller for a different flight level. Establishing control of vehicles between say 10 and 100 km

      • Re:Space Traffic Control (Score:5, Informative)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:29AM (#11040934) Journal
        Well, we only control the airspace up to FL60 (a.k.a. 60,000 feet). To get there, you'd either need to launch with FAA control (you have to be under instrument flight rules in Class A airspace (18-60k ft)), or from some other country, and never be under 60001 ft.

        I don't know about international treaties regarding the area about FL60. I know that NORAD track all the space junk (as well as watching out for incoming missiles).

        For the person (way above) who complained that this is just guberment stomping on individuals rights to do what they want on their property...1.) You don't own the airspace above your land. 2.) Wouldn't it be fun to own the land at the end of a runway, and launch missiles straight up without any coordination with ATC (air traffic control)???...but hey when you kill several hundred jumbo jet passengers, you can say they were flying over your airspace...DOH!
        • Well, we only control the airspace up to FL60

          Only because no civil aviation flies above that level at the moment. As soon as they do, new sectors will be created above FL60; though for the time being one sector across each FIR, between FL60 and 100km (sorry about mixing units of measurement) would be enough.

          Radar isn't going to help ATC at that level, but is is on the way out in favor of mode S transponder based systems anyway

          I don't know about international treaties regarding the area about FL60

          Neither

          • If ATC radar wont help at that level, mode S wont do a thing either. Mode S works like a normal mode C transponder, except that it can recieve a datalink from an ATC radar site. That datalink is used to transmit traffic data to give a TCAS like interface traffic avoidance.

            Take away the ATC radar, and you lose TIS (the mode S datalink) and you are left with the equivelent of a mode C transponder.

            Other aircraft equipped with TCAS can see you either way, but you will not see them unless you are in a mode S
        • "You don't own the airspace above your land."

          Actually, in realestate class they said we do. It all depends. I can certainly buy a chunk of land and build a 5000ft building on it as long as I get the zoning approved by the local government. The FAA can't do much about it. Now if I try that at the end of a runway, they'll get involved and probably be able to stop me. That's not because the FAA controls all airspace, but because they control it around airports. I'm not sure if they claim to control everything

        • The airspace above FL600 is controlled class E airspace.

  • FAA's contribution to spaceflight... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lottameez ( 816335 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:24AM (#11040720)
    Please put the tab into the buckle, and pull snug across your waist. Your seat may be used as a flotation device. No smoking in the lavatory.

    • Re:FAA's contribution to spaceflight... (Score:4, Funny)

      by TehHustler ( 709893 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:40AM (#11040975) Homepage
      "Excuse me, yes, you, over here please. Did you say place the small metal flap into the buckle... or, place the buckle over and around the small metal flap?" (c) George Carlin.
    • "In the event of a water landing seat cushions are property of Scaled Composites and must not be removed from the craft." (Plagiarised from The Tick)

      or

      "In the event of craft failure you will all die near instantaneously, except for the unlucky few who may live long enough to burn up, asphyxiate or splatter. This message has been brought to you by the FAA and the 'We-are-so-glad-no-ones-ever-listened-to-this-or- a ny-other-take-off-message-ever-spaceways-corporati on'".

      I'd still really like to see the "E

    • Please put the tab into the buckle, and pull snug across your waist. Your seat may be used as a flotation device. No smoking in the lavatory.

      Well, they also do useful things like governing all of the mandatory safety features and practices. Air travel is far safer because of the work they do.

      Oh, and for the record, I don't believe that whole floating seat cushion has ever been effective except for providing a convenient debris field to start looking at. Don't believe them. :-P

      • Note the phrase, "In the event of a water LANDING". I don't know too many passengers jets who've landed on water, and I'm not sure a 747's stall speed is slow enough to make it happen without shredding on the air/water interface except in a really fast headwind. But that brings it's own issues with turbulence and wave action... A 747 isn't a ship, I'm not sure it could survive 6-10m swells.
  • ...ofcourse, this also opens up a way for terrorists to form a covert spacebase on the moon and launch attacks from there.
    Will we see a short-term invasion of the US on Mare Crisium ?

    • Re:Offworld action ... ? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Will we see a short-term invasion of the US on Mare Crisium ?

      I really hope so. It would be so cool to watch a small scale nuclear war on the moon from your own back yard. Plus, afterwards, the US could name all the new craters after US presidents and generals.
        • nuclear war on the moon
        Hehe. More likely is the scenario in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which the colonist use a railgun to drop big rocks onto the Earth. Scurry, you little earth-dwelling bugs! Oh, that's me.

        Just remember the phrase "gravity well", and you'll do fine.

        • No rail gun needed, just a few small strap on rockets to place it into the Earth-Moon orbit with the right perigee. Gravity does the rest. Of course that way the rock takes a while to get to Earth so there could be time to negoiate a "settlement". We'll drop a rock on Washington unless we get the rights to Tycho Crater!!
          • The rail gun is a nice way of getting around a lack of readily usable fuel on the moon. With a negligable atmosphere a rail gun COULD deliver a rock to orbit. Between this and surface gravity that is 1/6th of the Earth's, the moon is an ideal place to do heavy construction for spacecraft.
      • > Plus, afterward, the US could name all the new
        > craters after US presidents and generals.

        Well, apart from the fact that it'd be far easier for the Lunarians to hit us (lower delta-V, no significant atmosphere), you wouldn't want to be looking at it if the moon was nuked.
    • Somehow i doubt building a spacebase on the moon would go by unnoticed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wrong paradigm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:33AM (#11040748) Homepage Journal
    Space is much more analogous to our experience with ocean travel than air travel. You can stay in space until your supplies run out, not just while your fuel does. That means a lot more interaction between people, and more need for regulation of that interaction.

    It always strikes me as a bit luddite when the surface-dwellers arrogate for themselves the right to govern those outside the atmosphere, or on another planet.

    I expect one of the first court cases to result in the principle that a space Captain has all the rights of a maritime Captain.

    I wonder when we'll see the first marriage performed by a Captain in space?

    And I wonder how long before the first space battle over control of a "celestial object", or over something else?

    Whatever happens, we'll probably have seen it before.

    • Re:Wrong paradigm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eric Giguere ( 42863 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:49AM (#11040807) Homepage Journal

      This, of course, is why most SF stories in space use a naval system when discussing the military. Star Trek does it that way, for example. And in most cases, when the ship is out of communication range then what the captain generally says is the law. Particularly in stories like Midshipman's Hope [twbookmark.com] and its sequels.

      Eric
      Why Vioxx is the new Prozac for lawyers [ericgiguere.com]
      • Actually, if you listen to the director's commentary on Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn, this wasn't always the case.

        The director of Star Trek II specifically introduced naval terminology and traditions into the series from that film. It seemed to have taken and stuck.

        • Re:Wrong paradigm (Score:5, Informative)

          by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:38AM (#11040962) Homepage Journal
          • director of Star Trek II specifically introduced naval terminology and traditions

          The rank structure, beginning in the original series, was always that of a navy or marine corps rather than an army or air force.

          Captain Kirk was always treated as sovereign, within regulations. He regularly waxed poetic about life on the high seas.

          • Indeed. The naval analogies were specificly desigined to allow the unbathed masses relate to a sci fi show.

        • Re:Wrong paradigm (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bearpaw ( 13080 )
          Actually, if you listen to the director's commentary on Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn, this wasn't always the case. The director of Star Trek II specifically introduced naval terminology and traditions into the series from that film. It seemed to have taken and stuck.

          While Nicholas Meyer may have come up with that independantly, the naval paradigm for spacecraft in SF pre-dates Wrath of Khan by at least decades. For instance, Robert Heinlein used it quite a bit, which is not surprising given his naval b

        • Here's a hint: don't believe everything you hear on a director's commentary, particularly if it's something that makes the director look good.
      • Interestingly, Roddenbury served in the US Army Air Corp during WWII, not the Navy.

    • Re:Wrong paradigm (Score:5, Funny)

      by fenix down ( 206580 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:36AM (#11040957)
      The first marriage will be a gay marriage. Then the Republicans on board will stage a mutiny, lock everybody else in the laundry room and then run the ship aground on a Direct TV satellite. Then we'll have legends about the Gay Republican Ghostship that hovers over Guatemala and swoops down to kidnap small children who don't do what their mothers tell them.

      Well, we will.

    • Battle over control of "celestial object" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:53AM (#11041354) Homepage Journal
      Even funnier will be the idea of a battle over an orbital position. ie: nothing at all. This isn't quite as funny as it sounds, when you consider Lagrange points. The Lagrange points are mathematical fictions, but can be nifty places indeed for many purposes, possibly worth fighting over.

      For the obligatory science fiction reference, read Poul Anderson's "Tales of the Flying Mountains," a series of short stories framed in the setting of the first interstellar flight. The officers are trying to build their history to help educate their young and prevent the culture loss that seems to plague just about every "generation ship" in fiction. One story is about some orbital shenanigans around the Trojan asteroids. To say any more would be a spoiler.

  • passed at the last minute (Score:4, Funny)

    by hool5400 ( 257022 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:33AM (#11040749)
    passed by Congress at the last minute (almost literally).

    Passing a bill literally? Sounds painful.
    • Well...you know. Fibre. Creates blockage.

      If Congress hadn't eaten all those burritos last night, it wouldn't have passed at all.

      While PACs do generate some pressure to help pass bills, the thing that really gets them though is Pepto-Bismol.

  • Outside Air Space (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:51AM (#11040813) Homepage
    So if you've got a plane in orbit does that mean it would only fall under FAA control when its over the US or would it be from which country the plane originates?

    Rus

  • Let the market decide (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nine Tenths of The W ( 829559 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @06:56AM (#11040829)
    Government regulation is un-American and inefficient. Let the market decide. Those companies whose flights don't end in smoking craters will get more business.

    Er, on a serious note, isn't pollution of space a fairly important issue as well? Left alone, companies will just dump their crap up there, and in 20 years time every launch will run the risk of being hit by orbiting junk
    • <sacrasm> Sure we can always trust the big business man to think about the welfare of his customers, other people in the area on land. If a booster rocket accidentally landed on an R&D center of one of his competitors that was just a freak occurrence </sacrasm>

      You would think that would be the case but the general population is not concerned about safety until something happens to them or their loved ones. Most people are not going to calculate how much more safe one company vs the next.
      • Why is it our responsibility to protect them? Of course, the bill specifically doesn't protect the involved parties, and that's great. Why should we have to go beyond that? If some idiot wants to buy a ticket that has a 50% chance of blowing himself up, or if he wants to drink and smoke himself to an early grave and doesn't hurt any other people in the process, why should we prevent him?
      • I think the tobacco and liquor comparison has a few flaws.

        I think Drunk Driving laws are a better frame of reference. These ships are flying over your land and mine, over cities, parks and everything else, or they will be in the near future.

        It sound like the government has taken a very reasonable approach in the matter. They're going to let people risk their lives in these things after full disclosure, and if the ships prove dangerous to the people on the ground, they'll step in and start regulating.

        It
    • I guess you wont have to worry about noise, extremely toxic rocket fuels, and things falling onto your house and children.
    • "Government regulation is un-American and inefficient. Let the market decide. Those companies whose flights don't end in smoking craters will get more business."

      That is crazy talk!! In your world everyone would be flying Quantas. And heck if they ever make me fly upside down!

    • Government regulation is un-American and inefficient. Let the market decide. Those companies whose flights don't end in smoking craters will get more business.

      Personally as a libertarian I don't think that people should be protected from their own stupidity/sense of adventure. However I don't want someone's idiotic spacecraft to fly into my house. I don't have problems with relatively unregulated spaceflight putting the passengers in danger, but I do not think that innocent bystanders should be in eas

  • Now I can start offering moon flights aboard this giant cannon I've built in the back yard...
  • What riders were attached to it? When was the last time we heard about any good legislation being passed that wasnt tied into some kind of stinking crap?
    "OK, you crazy bastards wanna blow your own selves up, fine, just dont fall on us."
    Comon, do you actually expect me to believe this is how this will work in the end?

    • Re:This sounds too sensible. (Score:4, Informative)

      by scottennis ( 225462 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:08AM (#11042073) Homepage
      There were no"riders" attached to the bill.

      This bill actually just ammended or altered Section 70101 of title 49, United States Code.

      That section, I believe, came from the Commercial Space Act of 1998.

      It's pretty straightforward stuff. No money is attached to it as far as I can tell, but I recall seeing something in it which requires the FAA to partner with a private industry organization to study feasibility or somesuch thing.

      But they probably won't go to Scaled Composites. They'll probably engage a consulting firm like Mitre or something.

  • This is what happens when... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CodeWanker ( 534624 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:43AM (#11040986) Journal
    Our pile of bureaucrats are afraid of losing a shiny toy to some other country's bureaucrats. Governments that have to compete for something can - SURPRISE - do a much better job of not mucking it up too much. If Scaled Composite's design involved specialized launch facilities instead of a flat piece of concrete, you can bet this bill would've been really restrictive... Because the control freaks in congress would've had a better opportunity to control it.

  • an ounce of prevention... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fross ( 83754 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @07:43AM (#11040990)
    Also, the FAA will be able to regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if they prove to be dangerous.

    uh, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests if this could be regulated *before* it's "proven" to be dangerous, ie an accident's occured?

    • Yes. And it should be illegal to build or drive an automobile that's capable of travelling at more than 5 MPH.

    • Re:an ounce of prevention... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chiph ( 523845 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:03AM (#11042030)
      I think what the intent of the law is:

      1. Thou shalt not kill the general public by allowing your mission (or pieces & parts thereof) to land on them
      2. Thou shalt not kill your paying passengers

      The only question is how zealous will the FAA be in enforcing rule #2. Will they require inflatible slides for the doors (not that reasonable) or require fire-retardant cabin hardware (very reasonable), or maybe require a preflight speech by the pilot: "Insert the metal tab into the buckle" (stupid, but a legal necessity).

      Chip H.

      • Re:an ounce of prevention... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @12:31PM (#11043568) Homepage Journal
        (crackle) in case of rapid cabin depressurization a mask will drop down from the ceiling. Of course, you have about 10 seconds of conciousness before you pass out with which to put it on. And did I mention that your mouth will swell to about twice it's normal volume, and be flash frozen by the rush of air and water vapor from your lungs. And should you actually get the mask on, and somehow manage to breathe from it, the nitrogen dissolved in your blood will form bubbles making your last minutes of life excrutiatingly painful.

        Oh, and don't hold your breath. You will only suffer a burst lung, or at the very least embolisms...

        Linq [sff.net]

    • uh, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests if this could be regulated *before* it's "proven" to be dangerous, ie an accident's occured?

      No, it would be in everyone's best interest if the FAA stayed out.

  • had to happen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scharkalvin ( 72228 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:03AM (#11041061) Homepage
    What hath Rutan brought?

  • What is the EAA'as position on this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spidergoat2 ( 715962 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @08:20AM (#11041153) Journal
    Should spacecraft have to go under the spame standard as any other experimental aircraft? Should the standard be higher or lower. And should there be any regulation at all? If I were a spacecraft designer/manufacturer, and the US gov gave me too much of a headache, why wouldn't I pack my bags and go somewhere else? I'm sure there are plenty of third world countries that would love to become the capitol of intergalactic travel. Spaceport Nigeria, anyone? (Wait, I already got an email about the new spaceport in Nigeria, and if I send .........)
  • This is on a related topic. I wrote to Time Magazine suggesting that the space scientist be Man of the Year. This is due to the impressive success of the Mars and Saturn probes, and the first private astronauts.

  • Not Bad for a Change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trongey ( 21550 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @09:51AM (#11041914) Homepage
    If this law works out the way it looks then Congress might have gotten it just about right. Protect the public from the nutballs, but let people make their own choices about risk/reward. That's how exploration should work.
  • When I told my father about Burt Rutan's team winning the Xprize and how this was a revolutionary step forward toward private space flight, he just grunted and said, "they'll put a stop to that".

    I laughed and blew off what he said, but lo and behold, here comes the government just like dad predicted.

    Sad.

    • all they did was take a look and see what the risks are to:
      1) People not involved
      2) People who are involved.

      I do nt want a few tons of rocket crashing through my house.
      and I think telling passengers the risk, and that they are not governed by the same stringent guidline the FAA uses for other craft is a good thing.

      in short, People who want to do this, still can.

      The 'Government' struck a good balance on this one.

      Do you think the governemt should not look out for peoples safety?
      do you think any yahoo shou

  • Limit the Body of Law to One Document (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:16AM (#11042731) Homepage Journal
    The attitude reflected by the Senate when they were going to try to prevent people from taking risks with their lives is indicative of the need to impose an unambiguous limit on legislative bodies that can't be avoided.

    One thing we can all agree on is the need to require adult citizens abide by the laws claiming jurisdiction over them. Fine. So how much "law" can every citizen be expected to learn by the time they are 18 years of age?

    That should set the limit on the amount of "law" permitted at any given time. You want to pass a new law? Get rid of an old one.

    It's called refactoring.

    PS: Who knows, if it catches on even Microsoft might start doing it.

    • Note, this law is not designed to protect those who travel to space. They are designed to protect the rest of us from the debris field that results when they fail.

      While I'm all for re-factoring as a practice, this is a pretty cut and dry case where the legislature is breaking new ground.

  • Been there.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheHawke ( 237817 ) <rchapin@NOSPam.stx.rr.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:34AM (#11042919)
    Done that, seen the paperwork..
    Back in the 70's when Ultralight aircraft first hit the scene with powered hang gliders, the FAA pretty much did the same thing.
    Those laws were fair and just for the classification of that type of aircraft. And look where those planes went! We got paraplanes, ultralights that look like real homebuilt planes, we got law enforcement ultralights, even cropdusters built on the cheap!

    This is just a paper tiger that congress grinds out whenever a new invention really shows its potential.

    I got my two tickets to The Ride, wanna come?

  • This bill is a good thing. Sort of. (Score:5, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @02:00PM (#11044620) Journal
    Hey, I'm the guy who submitted the story. I should've made this more explicit in my submission, but this bill is mostly a good thing, as it was required to open the door to launching paying passengers.

    That said, I'm somewhat uncertain about the provisions for unrestrained FAA regulation after 8 years, and the regulation of certain aspects after they prove to be dangerous. That could potentially be misused to unfairly restrict the budding industry, but so far the FAA has been quite supportive of private spaceflight.

    Anyways, I'd like to give kudos to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif) [house.gov] for proposing this bill (which was originally much less restrictive on private spaceflight) and keeping pressure on it. Frownie faces go to Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn) [house.gov] and a few other House Democrats for trying to kill off the bill, referring to it as having a "tombstone mentality" because it didn't have enough provisions for regulation, and being largely responsible for the 8-year compromise and the provision for regulation after an accident has occurred.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus

Close