Slashdot Mirror
Congress Plans Space Tourism Regulation
ackthpt writes "No new venture seems to escape some regulation, as is the case with the budding space tourism industry.
As I piloted my personal groundcraft through pea-soup fog this morning
(observing about half the others driving with lights off) CNN News mentioned
impending regulation and legislation
is on the way to govern commercial space transportation. Among concerns are safety of uninvolved public (to ensure
boosters or other launch vehicle parts don't land on the unsuspecting public), assessing risk to passengers and level of fitness
necessary to withstand the forces and conditions of spaceflight. Addressing such concerns are the FAA's office of commercial space transportation and the Commerce Department's Office of Space Commercialization and of course the US Congress."
a wet blanket is thrown onto a gathering fire.
I wonder how Congress will misregulate this industry (at least until it becomes rich enough to hire lobbyists).
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
What jurisdiction does Congress have in Space? Any? I can see how regulating our airspace is their jurisdiction, but our space?
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Taxation!
with the plans to build a system to shootdown space traffic if need be. A previous article on /. talked all about this... So, are we trying to be THE FORCE? eeek
sig!wind down the juuice, let the tubes roar with the glow of alternative powers, not they that be." me, today...
So that you can't report the position of the MLB's mind control satellite!
Commercial ventures are rendering a government agency irrelevant. Bureaucrats exist only to propagate themselves and ensure their job security. Back them into a corner, and they fight like pissed cats.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I would hope public space tourism would use re-entrant vehicles that did not spew parts as they fly. Better for the environment, and it should be more economical as well.
Thank heavens we have a government that is taking rapid action to protect us from ourselves! So what if progress is impeded, or if this bolsters a poorly-run, short-sighted government space monopoly... At least we're SAFER this way. I mean, after all, someone needs to think of the children!
I think Franklin was right about the whole "liberty for security" tradeoff. Unfortunately, the US has become the land of Sheep.
Congress can regulate it if its commercial and it crosses state lines. How far "UP" this authority goes is probably limited by the boundary of space. No nation has yet asserted the authority to regulate what goes on beyond the border of "space." This is what lets US sattelites fly over Russia. So Fly straight up, don't cross the border into Utah, and you're MUCH Harder to regulate.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Once again the Government thinks (without any poling of the populice of whom they are supposed to represent) they need to step in and save us from ourselves.
I think a certain W recently put a cap in Stem Cell research (that may have helped thousands of people) as well.
This is really beginning to be a bad trend for the "Land of the Free".
s/Regulation/Tax/
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Actually, only about a third of the people on the roads in your area this morning had their lights on.
I'd say you were damn lucky this morning.
-Peter
How could this possibly affect commercial space flight in any way? There are other countries to launch from, and space is free for all (at least until the Borg are back).
Methinks they may try to put governors on our launch boosters. Too bad, I really wanted to rice out my first rocketship.
Make sure you have the laws passed BEFORE you start the venture, not the other way 'round.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
The regulation does need to happen, since the concerns are legitimate.
However, It is still quite early for such legislation to be written. The tech is still evolving. Just because SS1 took the X-Prize does not mean that their model will become the standard.
Once the differences in private space craft approach the level of similarity same as the differences in commercial air craft, then the regulation can be intelligently written.
Early legislation will probably focus on who has authority to sanction a flight plan, and what airports can double as space ports for various types of spacecraft.
END COMMUNICATION
...and like any living organism, the purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow, expand and reproduce.
The FAA has done more to limit general aviation advancement (as opposed to big commercial carriers) than anything real could ever do. I make the distinction as GA is aviation for the common man, and commercial carriers are another large bureaucracy. Their certification processes insure that people who know nothing enforce rules that may not apply, and guarantee that a plane will not fly until it is outweighed by the paperwork. Any new development will be mostly ignored, as the cost of certification will likely never be recaptured.
Now they want to limit a hand in space travel!?!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
On the other hand, you have to acknowledge that the private approach is typically to put profits first, last, and mostly in-between, and if that means cutting corners, well what's a few accidents? The problem, of course, is that the public ends up paying for those accidents. If a rocket causes environmental damage, people pay, court cases spring up, it's a mess. If the rocket folks cut corners in a way that somehow (I dunno how, I'm just saying) threatens public health, we, the public end up paying higher health insurance claims. There's an interconnectedness at work here.
This is /., so we are sick of government interference in our high-tech toys. And they do go too far a lot of the time. But it's good to remember how far the private sector can go if there is no regulation whatsoever. A nice balance of corporate efficiency coupled with sensible public safety regulations would suit me. Let the rocket folks excel, but don't let them cause problems for the rest of us just because they put profits above all.
The nice thing about space is that you can get there from anywhere on the planet. If the United States makes it more difficult to run a space tourism business in the country than out then launch site will just be moved elsewhere.
Yep, if those mongolians had regulated outriggers the way congress and the FAA regulate things there'd be no beautiful islands with naked polenesian women. US Gubmint wake up! We want to go into space. With you or without you we will. Some of us know how little it takes to get to space and we're tired of waiting for NASA to let us go.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
When did the US claim space as government property?
(to ensure boosters or other launch vehicle parts don't land on the unsuspecting public)
They would much rather have boosters land on the suspecting public...
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
I was afraid that this will happen. Sadly, now the US will no longer be the leader in the space race.
Wright brothers took off in 190-*mumble*, and for years there was innovation after innovation: rudders, flaps, airelons, better engines. Sadly, people died, but hey, thats the price of experimentation. Then the FAA came in, and sadly, development has stagnated to nothing. I mean, look at how long it's taken the private sector to go into sub-orbital launches.
Now that we've done it, the government steps in onc again for 'safety concerns' and thus ruins a fledgling new industry.
Seriously, I'm moving to Russia or something where the government doesn't care, or if it does, it can be bribed with a bottle of Vodka or something.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
We're talking about space flight here, people. My guess would be that if doing business in the USA becomes too expensive or annoying, Mexico are right there over the border, closer to the equator and with plenty of land for launch facilities.
Leave it to the bureaucrats to hold back the economic and technological progress of the nation, they do it every time. This time, though, it might be AWFULLY tough to recover if we fall too far behind.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Seems to me a simple distillery would be the best, with a solar concentrator to raise the water above boiling point. Why bother with the intermediate stage of electricity when a flask at the focal point of a concave mirror with a collection device on top of it would do just as well?
Alternatively- I seem to remember that Israel uses a system like this to get fresh water from the Dead Sea- theirs were long channels of shallow water drawn from the ocean, with a mirrored surface underneath and a half-cylinder on top to capture and recondense the steap, with half pipes down each side to collect the water.
BTW- I thought God only spoke to George W. Bush....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
sed s/are/is/
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
1) Don't launch from the USA
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
just make sure you use the new cover page on your TPS reports.
Nothing seems to be outlined on how to deal with Space Junk. Someone plops down 100k or whatever and the Virgin spaceplane hits a few debris and poof, they get sued by the surviving family members.
I have a lot of Libertarian views, but there are cases where government regulation is actually a Good Thing (or at least better than the alternative). Reason being, letting the market forces regulate corporate behavior just isn't good enough when planes (or rockets) fall out of the sky, food is contaminated, or drugs are defective, and people die as a result.
Corporations are soulless entities that will do anything and everything for profit. When human life and limb is at stake, safety guidelines must be established and enforced before an incident ever happens.
Loading...
1. But I would want an aero agency (FAA, NASA, whatever) to regulate them while they're at risk of flying into something else, either in the Earth's atmosphere or outside of it. Wouldn't you?
2. I'd also want regulations providing for insurance for third parties. If my house gets hit by a piece of RichGuysTourSpace LLC, I'd like it repaired please.
3. Law enforcement? Absolutely. Merely being a passenger in a space-bound vehicle should require at least as much security as is forced upon the airlines. ID, bomb detection, etc.
4. EPA? In the same sense that other vehicles (like airplanes and cruise ships) are monitored, yup. Don't go dumping excessive toxicities in the environment please.
5. IRS? Only in the sense that all businesses gotta pay their fair share of taxes.
It turns out that requiring (2) might force (1) and (3) a la the free market. After all, I'd expect a lower risk of loss if the flight plan was cross-checked, and if the passengers were safe. (4) and (5) wouldn't be treated any differently than other similar industries. Surely, it's the job of Congress to at least investigate the possible problems before the happen though...
Support a few technologists in Washington.
And if the new vehicles will be using free software?
No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our large scientific projects become open and shared? Space exploration is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
There is such a knee jerk reaction on slashdot when they hear the word Goverment. Goverment is not always a bad thing, in fact I contend that most of the time it is not. I am very glad the goverement is going to put some regulations on this. We're not talking about going out back and hitting a tether ball around, we're talking about launching a huge fucking missle into space.
Aside from the safety concerns above the craft, there are also major concerns for those around a launch site and for the enviorment in general. Rocket fuel is really nasty stuff. I remember the warnings after Columbia went bang sent out to people informing them that getting near peices of the reckage could be very hazerdous for their health. What happens when one of the crafts goes bang over some city or populated area? And what is to stop them from taking off on the outskirts of populated areas to begin with? Sure they arn't now, but no regulations exist on the books to ensure that they don't.
This is the job of goverment, this above all else is what I want them to regulate. They are not going to put a wet blanket on this new emerging industry, but they are going to make sure that as we move forward it is in a safe and non-reckless fashion.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Anyone know if Virgin Galactic will actually be launching in the US? If not, how, exactly, can the US regulate this? Frankly, if the US does over-regulate all of this, it'll just drive those high-dollar flights to other countries. We should be making it *easier* (within reason) not harder to run such touristy flights from here.
Do not touch -Willie
Will a VISA be needed to be able to go there?
Or maybe a work allowing card?
*g*
...a regulatory vaccuum. Since it has now been proven that private enterprise can do more with less money and less time than the Imperial Federal Government it is time to step in a squash the fledgling private space market. After all, in order to professionalize, you must federalize! (Tom Daschle)
or to another country. Problem with shortsighted bumbling US bureaucrats solve. Net Assets by Carl Bussjaeger is a pretty good book on how far US bureaucracy can go in it's incompetence. After that you have space colonies and complete autonomy. Next Issue?
Oops, this is /.
From what I could tell, there were 2 main concerns:
1: Uninvolved people on the ground shouldn't have to be any more concerned about debris raining down on them that they are, today. ie- they STAY uninvolved.
2: Those who want to go up are fully informed of the risks. The operators can't hide information about their operational or maintenance records in order to make a sale.
If initial regulations stick to those 2 points, I don't think its unreasonable, at all. For the forseeable future, I simply CAN'T fly on one, and I also DON'T want it falling on me, my loved ones, or my property. If I ever can afford to fly, I want to know the risks.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Once they regulate it, they can tax it. Believe me...once they see the six-figure checks for the first flights going around, they'll want their cut.
The same things can be said about riding a horse. Where's the body of regulations on them?
Once upon a time we were free to take risks and responsible for the consequences. You did not need permission to ride a horse, though it might hurt you and others. Congress did not make criteria for who was fit enough to ride and it still does not. If you managed to hurt yourself, that was your problem. If, through negligence, you hurt someone else you paid the price. Accidents happened, but it is in everyone's interest to be free. Guidelines are nice. Regulations stifle.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004
4 09 20.html
l er tid=6512021
http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_0
Letter/e-mail campaign at:
http://capwiz.com/aiaa/mail/oneclick_compose/?a
Overregulation in the US will just ensure that the business moves elsewhere. I'm sure that if they feel safe enough to carry passengers, they will feel safe enough to operate from a good airport elsewhere.
Just don't go to St. Maarten unless you want to land your spaceship on the beach!
I vote against regulation of space tourism.
It doesn't really matter what the US Congress or FAA has to say about this. If they put reasonable regulations in place, that's great... everyone wins. If they put unreasonably restictive regulations on space tourism, the launch sites will simply move to a place with more friendly regulation. Maybe they'll end up flying out of Bolivia. So what?
Virgin Galactic is talking about flights that cost $200,000 per passenger. Each passenger is buying a three day excursion including training and whatnot. Most would-be tourists will have to spend a least a day getting to Mojave and back.
If they're looking at $200,000 and five days for the ride of a lifetime, the added time and expense of travelling to a country with a more reasonable regulatory environment is not very burdensome.
Hopefully this will be sufficient incentive for the FAA and Congress to impose only reasonable regulations.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Isn't that what navagational shields are for?
Just like it's quite valid to have the FAA to make sure we don't have drunk pilots flying a 747 into a high school, I think it's quite valid to put some regulations on any space vehicles a company wants to launch. It'd make people feel a bit safer if they know that some third party (in this case the government, which is reasonably trustworthy on these things) has made some sort of inspection of a rocket saying that unless something goes horribly wrong it won't be dropping a tail fin into your living room.
The article and gist of the original posting to Slashdot is that there are regulations (nominally safety ones, we'll see if that's the same in a few years) that the government is putting (and has already had) in place to ensure peoples' safety around these vehicles which will be dropping from 100km above the ground. I don't recall any mention of taxes.
Back to the FAA. Its rules may be a bit outdated, and it might be a big dinosaur of a bureacracy now, but it's there to make air travel safe. It's there so that when I'm shopping for airline tickets I don't have to wonder whether United Airlines has been maintaining its airliners correctly so it won't fall apart the next time a hard landing happens. Yes, the FAA taxes airports. But the money to run a national air traffic network and to hire and pay thousands of inspectors has to come from somewhere.
You keep your government conspiracy theories. I'd still rather have the safety regulations then not.
the Constitution of the United States of America:
(ie. "President" George W. Bush) in the name of craporate profit.
level of fitness necessary to withstand the forces and conditions of spaceflight
They don't want us to know that there really are no physical fitness requirements. NASA's screening process has just been an excuse to keep boy band members from joining the ranks of Neil Armstrong, and Sally Ride.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
While the typical hatred directed towards bureaucracies is often warrented, no one creates a bureaucracy for shits and giggles. Regulation is needed to keep commercial intrests honest.
Screwing over the citizens of a given country is the sole domain of the government of that country. New tech means that a new way to screw people over may have been created. So of course the Government is going to want to stay on top of it. They will figure out which agency should keep track of commercial space flight, and parcel it off to them. So you will not need to file a flight plan with 15 different agencies. Just one.
Would you prefer that the government kept its blinders on and did not update its laws to account for new tech?
I will concede, however, that bureaucrats usually do not serve their intended purpose as well as they ought to.
END COMMUNICATION
Thank goodness someone can resist the kneejerk libertarian cry against Government involvement. Of course it's good that someone regulates this.
Why?
To ensure basic passenger safety; to ensure that they can cover themselves with insurance; to ensure that the vehicles don't destroy the environment more than they should; to ensure that commisioned flights aren't turned into effective kamikaze weapons.
There are all kinds of considerations here that would either require the industry to establish a credible self-regulatory body, for a citizen's association to establish credible certification body, or for Government to step in and regulate it. Now how many industries regulate themselves honestly and scrupulously? How many consumer association bodies have the power to bring down corporate malpractice? The void has to be filled by Government.
It's not the nanny state, nor is it beurocratic cronyism. It's protecting the nation from a bloody-minded selfish few.
Of course, the state can be a bad regulator, as US institutions often are, but that's another matter.
in the old countries, woman's independence is killed
for honour
and women are killed for independence
in the new societies countries are fading
heritage is notation
sea change is the teat of growth
the new migration swelled west and west
towards the new world
until it broke on the western shore
and got stagnant
now west is up
and there is no one to colonize there
we need to survive
not meteors not warming
not an eschaton
but ourselves
a new culture is real hope
-the mission critical data-
and needs an offshore haven
let them test on tourists
and the freaks and geeks will follow
Some people live in a 2D life for so long they can't fathom the notion that there is an awsome amount of volume in space. Sure... Let them have a happy little regulation parade down the middle of Washington DC, but one day... one day-- People will be able to actually live extra-terrestrial lives, and governments as we know them today will no longer have any authority.
How can you enforce laws upon those you cannot possibly contain?
Sometimes this "when will the gubbmint get off our backs!" mentality just strikes me as being too dogmatic, not too mention simplistic. Besides, oversight like this can be a *good* thing for the companies involved. Establishing trusted, industry-wide standards for safety can go a long way towards legitimizing a new industry in the eyes of the public.
Yes, heaven forbid that these poor starving children actually go out and get a job.
Darwinism works - those who can survive do, and those who do not die and do not inhibit the rest of society from living a productive life by siphoning off our hard-earned money in the form of welfare.
Damn the regulations, I say! This aint some high-falootin' 1st world society here! This here's the wild west and we don't need none o' your damn regulations! So get's out o' my bidness, you stinkin' regulatin' guvmint! Yeah, take that Guvmint! You suck. You and your damn regulations! You know, the regulations that keep our highways in good working condition, the regulations that make sure our cars don't create a health hazard with their toxic exhaust, the regulations that require airlines to carefully document every maintenance action they take to make it easy to find the culprit when an aircraft goes down, regulations on the quality of our drinking water so that we don't get poisoned by some unscrupulous business, the regulations on our doctors to make sure they actually have a license to do doctor stuff, the regulations in our national parks to make sure Walmart doesn't build a superstore right in the middle of a grazing herd of buffalo, the regulations that require public companies to disclose their financial records for the public to scrutinize...
etc. etc. etc.
Christ almighty! There are some stupid ass people here that seem to think everything the government does is bad. For pete's sake, if you want to go live without government in your lives, go move to Afghanistan. Me, I'll take government regulation of private space flight over a free-for-all anyday.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
NEWSFLASH: Howard Dean isn't running for president anymore.
Yeah... I mean, heaven forbid we try and stop people from dumping boosters on people's houses, or launching people on 6G-accel rockets with a 90% chance of killing their passengers without telling them of the risks
Uhm... is it currently legal to drop boosters on people's houses? Won't existing laws cover that?
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
Yes, it was only a matter of time. And they, (the Federal Government) will also figure how to [appropriately] tax the business. With a huge Federal Deficit, and nothing going well for America these days, I am one of those who support a handsome tax on those willing to "dish" out huge sums of money for a few hours of thrill in space. A few tens-of-thousands of dollars in tax will not be bad. To make matters worse more US jobs are being outsorced to Africa in addition to Asia. Surely the situation will get worse before it gets better.
I think Dick Cheney should set the federal gold standard for space fitness.
Federal Law requires we post this sign: "Your heart must have ten or less wires or arterial graphs to ride this rocket."
Ok here comes the libertarian in a lot of people, at least according to the replies I've seen. Libertarianism will prevail--in the future. Whether it's a brain in a robot or a cyberthalamus, we won't need regulation after that point. The libertarian dream will come true. But for now, I don't want a booster rocket hitting me. If I need to do a neuroscience expermint in orbit, I want all the ship systems intact, and I want to be sure I'll be able to survive the trip.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Have they nothing better to do than to start passing laws on an industry that is litterally 10-20 years down the road from production?
What good has the government done in providing a safe track record on their own space adventures. God forbid a space craft explodes over U.S. air space and rains down debris across 4 states, someone please think of the children!
SpaceShipOne doesn't use booster rockets that detach and fall back to Earth.
SpaceShipOne is no different than a glider which is towed by another airplane, except that it goes higher.
The government is insane, just becasue they kill their own astronauts doesn't mean private industry will.
SpaceShipOne can be launched from any airport in the world, the government will drive this new industry to foreign countries like so many others! lol
Currently, if you are in International Waters, you are under the jurisdiction of the country your boat is registered in. I imagine that space will be much the same way, until we meet some Romulans who already own this region, then we'll be toast. But until then, I would guess it will be done much like the sea.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
Besides your over the top sarcasm, perhaps you'd understand how that government could easily hit Scaled with regulations from 15 different agencies, often with contradictory rules. The burden of such rules are difficult enough for many large airlines to deal with.
How would you like to be a start-up and have union labor forced on you? The FAA could do this to Scaled. Pilots, flight crew, airport personel, Baggage handlers, checkpoint inspectors, ground crews - all are union labor, all would be subject to seperate contract negotiations.
Every airline and airplane manufacturer has lobbyists to help defend them against the ever present tide of Washington and it's new laws. Scaled will probably need one at some point.
The 2 largest airlines in the US are borderline bankrupt at this time. The cost of operations, high fuel prices, and new security measures is too great to fully add to the price of tickets.
I imagine this is why Scaled is anxious to form a partnership with Virgin. Perhaps they can piggyback on Virgin's contracts to solve some of these problems.
Fine headaches for a bunch of guys who just want to go into space. Yeah, I don't want a fuel tank falling through my roof. I also see where a small company could choke under the burden of thousands of pages of regulation.
Look I don't want someone climbing into a plane and crashing it on my ass. When I'm a cyberthalamus in a neutron star, I'll take sight-seeing trips to the center of the sun. Won't need the FAA to protect me then at all. But for now, it has its place. Some balance is needed, but I don't see how it is limiting the progress of science towards the singularity--which is what really counts.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Well, if they moved to Baja California or somewhere else sufficiently isolated, I guess these regulations wouldn't matter, huh?
One of the amazing things about rockets is that they can travel from one place on earth to any other in about 30 minutes. Wouldn't it make more business sense to start a rocket travel system. Even after slowing down the descent for safety reasons you could still probably go from NY to Tokyo in an hour or two.
You never know if some miscreant would try to take a pair of nail clippers into orbit!
It's amazing that the overwhelming majority of the posts so far have been: the govt exists only to propagate itself, bureaucrats are determined to strangle a nascent industry that they fear they cannot control, and the govt merely wants to find a new way to increase tax revenues. Oh, and so Big Brother can impose a police state. What amazes me is that these claims are made as if they were revealed truth -- no supporting evidence whatsoever.
So, in the interest of being "fair and balanced," here are some aspects that need regulation and some *supporting rationale* for this:
1. Airspace hazards -- this should be obvious, but any airplane flying from ground level up to 100 km (and back) needs to avoid smacking into other airplanes. Not to mention the possibility of SS1 crashing into people or property on the ground. So they're doing it out in the Mohave now. Unless there is regulation, there is nothing to prevent them from offering flights over your favorite large city.
2. TFOA -- things falling off aircraft. People on the ground should not merely place their trust in some offshore LLC to be responsible in maintaining the aircraft.
3. Because it's a model that works better than self-regulation *in the long run*. A passenger cannot be epected to perform his own airplane inspection any more than he can perform his own enforcement of pollution laws or anti-trust laws or any other regulatory function.
One of the reasons the US is a better place to live (for most people) than Mexico is not because we have better laws, or better people, but because the laws are made by (representatives of) the people, and equally important, the laws are actually enforced. Although the regulatory agencies have permitted abuses to occur, in most cases it's because they rely on industries to "self report" errors and violations. Do you really think it would be better with no oversight whatsoever? If so, please tell me which country is closer to your definition of utopia.
You must be some sort of egg-council disinformationist!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Check for political polls. See how high the libertarians rate. As an ex-libertarian, I know the draw to geeks.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Every 100 years there is an event of exploration that sets the tone for the century. Lewis and Clark in 1803-1805 explored the West and set the tone for westward expansion during the 1800's. In 1903 Horatio Nelson made the first transcontinental trip by automobile and set the tone of travel by automobile during the 1900's. An now in 2004 with the fulfillment of the X prize, the tone is set for expansion into space. So don't lose heart! for placing impediments in front of such a swell is like trying to control a tsunami with a fishing net.
I like the idea of governments regulating and putting in laws for this, but whats the point if another country has no laws or regualtion??
So ok, lets say that if you launch in the USA, you get a big kick in the nuts for dropping a booster on US peons.
What if I launch in Mexico and also drop a booster on US peons.
Is it just stiff shit and becomes something for the diplomats to work out / war over???
It would be good to see the governments of the world coming to an agreement about what happens if something launched from their country bombs another country.... I'm sure they must have something similar in place for those damn rockets of war and the like.
.
Mr Franklin wasn't taking about your right to impinge on someone else's security. If a rocket fails, there's a decent chance that it will kill uninvolved people. This is a problem.
For a more contemporary example: If a solo pilot crashes his plane in the desert, it's not a tragedy. He knew the risks and accepted them.
If the same pilot crashes into a school, it's a different thing.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
"to ensure boosters or other launch vehicle parts don't land on the unsuspecting public)"
Really is burning tire rubber and laughing gas all that bad for people?
"assessing risk to passengers and level of fitness necessary to withstand the forces and conditions of spaceflight"
If Homer J Simpson can make it into space I don't see why I wouldn't be in good enough shape.
There are already lots of laws about space launches on the books. US citizens must already have permission from the government to even launch in other countries or outside the country.
The article talks about adding lots more to Title 49 including things like passenger comfort, etc.
http://ast.faa.gov/aboutast/701complete.htm
(2) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in section
70102(1)(A) or (B) of this title) to launch a launch vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry vehicle, outside the United States.
I wonder... how many employees of various government agencies there are, eager to regulate space tourism, but I bet they highly outnumber the space tourists. Especially since most of them actually departed from Russia.
In some not-too-distant future time, this will seem a little like the snake on its belly directing the flight of the eagle on its wings.
In the mean time, Congress will regulate space travel in a vain attempt to keep that future from coming about. They don't want to have a space industry get going without their control over it.
And there are those who will think safety before adventure, security before advancement. They'll say things have to be perfect, that no danger should ever exist, that no risks should be taken. "Why can't the government do something to keep these hotheads from taking risks?"
Let's just slither along on our bellies until we learn how to fly.
sigs, as if you care.
I foresee problems with regulating space travel that are similar to the problems the government has regulating and UNDERSTANDING online file-sharing.
Space flight is a new beast altogether, different by definition, so of course existing laws will have to be ammended, but that is only the beginning. Space 'travel' is such a new and fluid industry that it will take some time for the leaders of our country and other countries to hammer out sensible aggreements on use of air space, emergency visits to the space station, waste disposal...etc.
~j
Thank you Dave Raggett
We have such a guideline: any company that lets someone die because the risks are unneccessarily high will be sued into oblivion.
Companies could go about their business entirely unregulated by the government, and consumers can feel safe - secure in the knowledge that if anything horrible happens someone's gonna pay dearly for it.
Out of self-interest alone companies will make sure their stuff is safe.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
So, you don't think that requiring automobile drivers to pass a (very) basic skill and knowledge test (the passing of which a driver's license is proof) is a good idea? You reckon that anyone who wants to should be able to drive a car, whether they are able to do so safely or not? And the solution to their fuckups is to sue them?
Oh, wait! Even better! Anyone who wants to should be able to build any damn thing and drive it around on the road, no matter what kind of foul emissions it spews and no matter what kind of performance profile it's got.
Yeeeehaww! Fire up the lawnmower engine on the Radio Flyer, forget about putting brakes or turn signals on it, and screw the vehicle code - it's not a law, it's just a set of suggestions for other people.
And the traffic jams, the incidental damage, the injuries and deaths -- those are not really the problem of society, they're your fault specifically and it's up to the victims individually to track you down and get some kind of redress.
Bullshit.
I and a bunch of other voters have decided that our common good is served when we stop asshats from doing whatever fool thing pops into their putative minds. Regulation and enforcement are a good idea.
Oh, go on, check out my job.
...the opposite of PROgress..."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
We're talking about space flight here, people. My guess would be that if doing business in the USA becomes too expensive or annoying, Mexico are right there over the border, closer to the equator and with plenty of land for launch facilities.
If you're a space tourist, are you going to go to a place where the company has set up shop with the direct purpose of avoiding safety regulations? Sounds stupid to me, unless you really believe that 'free market==god' bullshit spewed around here.
God speaks to many people you see them walking all over new york.
allready covered by GST, in most states anyway.
It certainly would be here.
Frankly, it all comes down to how much of a pain in the ass (and an expense) those regulations are. Despite what the law or lying regulators say, Americans with the opportunity continue to cross the border to buy medicine at Canadian pharmacies, and they are not doing so because of a deathwish.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
No one wants government to step in, but this is necessary as it was for any other public transport.
Regulation sets laws that define behaviors that encourage business to invest (that is, with legislation, the likelihood of a suit is reduced and risks of collisions and other accidents are not considered experimental).
Taxes from such regulation pay for advancements in disaster management and homeland defense (FEMA isn't yet equipped to handle a toxic booster drop; the National Guard and major armed services would need to assist in such a disaster, if not being aware of authorized and unauthorized Mach-2 vehicles in a city airspace, for instance).
It would be best if any spaceflights (civil, business, or recreation) be handled in the one spot where such features are already in place and which would help in the overall flights--the Cape.
I just came from a visit to the Cape and stayed at Cocoa Beach. Their economy is not good there, depending highly on decreasing tourism. A new space boom--one that would be sustaining either through private recreation suborbital hops, larger corporation spaceplane pan-oceanic commutes, as well as government flights from the Big Boys at NASA and the Air Force flights would do a state and a country good.
I think we're looking at the next technological boon, and Scaled and Virgin are to be credited with spending the money and showing the results and potential.
Uh, regulation does not stop when a transport leaves borders. The vehicle itself rules by the laws of the country of origin for the most part as well as common international airflight laws. A little adaptation for space travel and we're good to go.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I may be hypothesizing, but I have very little doubt that there will be interference irrespective of any planning done to avoid impact to bystanders.
The general pattern has been to use "safety" as a red herring for a host of different restrictive legislation (all to the benefit of an entirely different group than the electorate these law makers are supposed to be serving).
I suppose we can hope that Congress will make laws that only restrict space flight on the basis of legitimate environmental and public safety concerns. I am more of a pessimist to think that will be the case, though.
"Among concerns are safety of uninvolved public (to ensure boosters or other launch vehicle parts don't land on the unsuspecting public)..."
Well, we'll just have to TELL them, and they won't be "unsuspecting".
I for one WELCOME an unsuspected shining booster overlord falling on my head! Better than seeing it spiraling down on me and causing my dying from a heart attack caused by useless fear with no fight and no flight.
If we want flight, we "have to fight".
Fight congress and support progress.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Actually, if you dig into the history of flight-
The Wrights patented their wing-warping steering and then tried to stifle competion through patent claims. Between 1903 and 1918 most innovation took place in Europe, far from the Wright Brothers' prying lawyers.
IIRC one of the innovations they tried to litigate as patent infringement was Curtis' ailerons, which were more adaptible than wing-warping for controlling larger and faster aircraft.
Hence the Europeans were flying monoplanes, triplanes, enclosed cockpits, multi-engine, machine guns and bombers. The US Army on it's (late 1917) entry into the war, had the "Jenny", which was basically a flying rail with a pair of open-air seats.
Gotta love those lawyers. Maybe the Wrights should have gotten into computers instead?
As a Mexican I find it is easier, faster, and sometimes cheaper to travel to Canada or Europe (even Eastern Europe), than it is to get into the USA, with their "unreasonably restictive regulations" for visas and airports. This alone could keep a lot of potential customers away: I beleive that some of the richest people in the world might find they are 'blacklisted' if they try to get a US visa. I will wait until one of the non-american teams makes it into space.
If you drop a booster on my house, I'll sue you into the stone age.
Sorry but you amateur rocket enthusiasts are going to have to be insured and held accountable like the big air carriers if you expect to carry passengers and play over populated areas.
i.e. "Hope you're not Arab"
No dirty Muslim terrorists in space, please. We'll just be reserving this new frontier for Republican WASPs with two kids and a monster SUV. You know, for national security.
speaking as someone who is part of the political wing of a space advocacy group, we are fighting for this legislation to be pushed through.
It provides legitimacy for this budding industry and give legal avenues for people to develop it. Think of it this way: Without any regulation saying where and how a group can launch into space, the government can just shut them down based on noise pollution, safety hazards, possession of dangerous materials, any number of things. By having prescribed rules, groups shooting for space can do so without worrying about operating within a legal vacuum (and later physical one).
There's also the safety stuff that others have commented on but that's been covered.
The Mars Society, AIAA and I think the NSS are all pulling for this so that should tell you something about how spacers view such regulation.
Blaze a trail to the New World
No, but those that cross the border to buy medicine at Mexican pharmacies likely do have a deathwish. In Canada, at least, the medicines are regulated to be produced accurately.
ok, so people here seem to think that 3rd parties are already taken care of - by suing them. first, i'd like some rules requiring them to take precautions. and in case they do have accidents, it would be nice if they had some money or insurance. so it would be a good idea to require that.
passenger safety would be nice. there are some precautions that should be required and there should be an honest assessment of what those precautions should be. safety and security are things that lend themselves to snake-oil claims.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
And of course all procedings, rulings, and anything else having to do with this legislation will probably be deemed classfied too. "Oh, we have to keep information about these laws out of the hands of terrorists. They could use it against us. Think of the children!" Of course.
I'm not aware of any government agency that has actually prevented passengers from being killed in aviation accidents. Airliners still crash, remember the Challenger launch, etc. So, how does your liberal, kneejerk cry "the government needs to protect us" help?
The libertarian position is that you (or your heirs) have a court system to turn to in the event you believe a business has defrauded you, or provided unsafe/substandard services/products, or even killed someone due to negligence. That goes for businesses damaging the environment, too.
If you were stupid enough to launch from Uncle Jimmy's Backyard Cosmodrome and bait shop, you deserve to become a Darwin Award nominee and your heirs deserve very worm they get when they sue.
j.
I see this more as a way for Congress and the FAA to get free flights for their "important" members and friends/contributors. Just another way for them to add even more perks to their job. Ok, most FAA folks (aside from the higher ups) are pretty decent, but you think any low level FAA person (like the person most competent to assess a trip into space) will be allowed to fly? Ha!
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Hmmm... While I'm cool with some agency overseeing the freefall of expended boosters and such, I think the monitoring of medical fitness and such is unnecessary... If people can't handle the rigors of space travel, maybe they should just be compressed to save space anyway?
Come to think of it, why not just load some folks into rockets and send 'em one way to start with? I've got a whole mess of end users that might work...
"No, Mrs. Johnson. You don't need to pack a *thing* for your trip!"
"Of course I'm wrong... That's how I get to 'right'." - Gil Grissom
That's because the accidents never happened and thus we never heard about them.
Reading that just sprained my brain. Don't ever do that again.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
Here is a hint: people going into space are pioneers. If they cared about safty they would stay home and play nerf ping-pong instead of launching themselvs into the deadly void of space atop a massive firework.
I say let the courageous among us take the plunge, and make the way safe for the rest of us. I am amazed that lawmakers might think they know better than the engineers how to design a rocket.
Just because the government is passing a "law for your own good" doesn't mean the law is good for you.
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
I mean at least they are taking space tourism seriously. Then again Our goverment also tried to use psychics as spies Seriously though your going to need some regulation you can't have every tom dick and harry throwing together red thunder in there back yard. You don't want crap falling out of the sky on your house or exploding near you.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
Nice Troll.
As a US citizen, you must follow FAA laws no matter what country you are in. All outsourcing to another country will do for you is possibly put you under two sets of regulations.
There are a couple other ways to look at this phenomenon.
First, it's not just the profits even. Imagine reputable company A (A1 Advanced Rocketry, say) that actually wants to build a safer rocket, and they're willing to go to the expense. Unfortunately, budget company B (Bobs-discount-spaceflight.com) leaves out the escape hatch feature and offers a ride for 25% less.
So most of the consumers ignore company A, in favor of the cheaper product from B. Now A has two choices: cut safety features or go out of business. Even the good companies are forced by the market to cut expensive safety features. Ergo, an outside force is needed to correct the market.
Second, an accident is something that's impossible to value in dollars, assuming it's the kind of thing that destroys your company. And businesses make decisions by the bottom line. So they're faced with a decision like "ten million dollars vs. a 10% chance that we go out of business entirely". And something vague like a 10% chance of a one-shot total-fail event is impossible to value in a cost-benefit analysis. Thus, it's really easy to let that percentage risk continually creep up, even for a reputable company. If letting the chance creep from 10% to 15% saves you another two million
(Incidentally, this is the same reason companies cheat on accounting, etc. "Increased profits vs. some percent chance the government catches us and we go to jail" isn't amenable to cost-benefit analysis, and so a business will nearly always come down on the side of "increased profits". This is why business regulation is much more effective and likely to be followed when it's enforced via financial incentive rather than by threat of imprisonment.)
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Now let's try to cool down a bit and have a look at the whole picture.
Someone noticed the X-Prize/Cup isn't about orbital flights. Of course it isn't -- which country would want private aerospace companies to develop "affordable" spacecrafts that can fly around the Earth and, God forbid, drop unpleasant packages from outer space in another nation's backyard? None. So here is what I think will happen next: First, an international law will be issued to extend national territories to a height of, say, 200 Km; any trespassing spacecraft will suffer "the severest consequences". Second, nations such as the U.S., Rusia, China, India, and potentially the EU will develop interceptor spacecraft/space platforms to defend their air... err.. outer space (now there's a huge market up for grabs). Commercial spaceflight will be limited to suborbital flights within one nation's sovereign outer space. Third, orbital commercial spaceflight will be actively discouraged; after all, it is in everyone's best interest to prevent rogue nations from acquiring "affordable" orbital spaceflight technology.
IMO, we might have to wait a while before we get to see Kubricks space hotel become reality.
Didn't the FAA have to clear Mojave as a space port before Scaled Composites could even have the first launch? So in fact they CAN'T offer flights over your favorite large city. They also had to have a flight path already mapped before takeoff. So there are already some procedures in place.
And laws are made by representatives, not the people. It is a common reason why representatives are voted out: because they do not make laws in accordance with the "will of the people".
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"
China, for instance, which has an interest in space.
The Economist Magazine has covered the issue of bribery in the past. I don't recall precisely their conclusions, but I doubt that they would endorse a bribocracy over a bureaucracy. If nothing else, economists tend to favor transparency in markets. Bribery is completely opaque, and it tends to favor the creation of monopolies simply because might makes right (the company that can dispense the most bribes can avoid regs, thus lowering its costs, increasing profits and leading to an ability to crush the competition).
The founding fathers, as imperfect as they were, understood that it is better to have a nation of laws than a nation of men. Men (human beings) are corruptible, but so long as you create some oversight, it becomes harder to get away with abuses. Note that I'm not in favor of excessive regs -- for example, the CAB was a ridiculous concoction (Civil Aviation Board? Anyway, it set airline fares and regulated airline routes and markets -- ridiculous).
However, I think you have raised an issue that bears discussion -- the relative merits of bribes vs honest bureaucrats.
I do think that there is "legalized bribery" in the making of laws (i.e. campaign contributions). I don't think that means that we should do away with regulatory agencies however.
If you were stupid enough to launch from Uncle Jimmy's Backyard Cosmodrome and bait shop, you deserve to become a Darwin Award nominee and your heirs deserve very worm they get when they sue.
And when that rocket lands in my bedroom while I'm sleeping how do I deserve that.
You have to have certain amounts of regulation esp in a capitalistic society, or else mistakes will constantly be repeated because it's cheaper to cut corners and pay out when a mistake happens than change your business practice. We know not everyone will follow regulations and certain regulations will only be made ex post facto but they still need to be there. I want the FAA making sure that proper maintenance schedules are followed so engines don't fall on my house, I want the FDA checking meat plants to make sure beef is properly handled. I want the state making sure that for the most part the car driving next to me at 70 an hour is moderately safe. I don't want big business deciding that eh it's cheaper to use four bolts instead of five.
I'm not aware of any government agency that has actually prevented passengers from being killed in aviation accidentsIt's because you don't hear about accidents that don't happen. You don't hear about misses that were almost mid air collisions, you don't hear about stress fracture found during routine inspections, you don't hear about cow 132242 that was pulled because it had some disease, you don't hear about Mr. Smiths car that failed inspection because his tired were as smooth as racing slicks.
The reason that it's news when something bad happens is because bad things that almost happen there were averted happen all the time. How many times have you avoid3ed an accident because a horn worked as it was supposed to? News is news because it's the exception it's out of the ordinary, planes don't ordinarily crash, shuttles don't ordinarily explodes, people don't ordinarily get food poisoning., thanks in large part to regulation.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
I used to agree with you. Then I read that...
1) From the WSJ: There are small meatpacking companies that want to have their beef tested for Mad Cow. There are private labs that want to provide this service. But it's illegal for both parties, because the USDA claims the exclusive right to test for Mad Cow. They say it's because only they can be trusted to do it right...even though there are well-established standard tests, and we trust private labs to do our medical tests. WSJ conclusion...the USDA is in the hip pocket of the large meatpacking corporations, which don't want to test their own beef due to expense and fear of what they might find.
Note the dynamic here: concentrate power in government, and powerful corporations can turn that government power to their own benefit. Look at the number of lobbyists in Washington, and ask yourself whether the government is limiting corporations, or increasing their power.
2) A 30-year study found that for every person saved by the FDA from lethal unexpected side effects, between 65 and 360 people died unnecessarily, due to the delay in the introduction of new lifesaving drugs.
As for the planes...insurance companies are already evaluating their customers' risks, and adjusting rates to fit. No reason they couldn't take on on the role of the FAA...companies that do well on maintenance will pay less for insurance, plus reduce the risk of a really bad public relations disaster. Also, note that you already rely on private regulation to avoid electrocution and fire...Underwriters Lab is a private firm, not a government agency.
(And don't forget that corporations were created by government in the first place...maybe we should do away with both...)
And that's just another reason I pay them after my safe return.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
or buy your own island from a cash-strapped island nation.
This is the way more traditional companies solve these problems. It could also help on other tax issues. Plus it might bring tourist money to the lucky country.
What you've got to stop are people building their new houses in the booster landing zone!
And then there the inevitable lawsuits from people who can't subdivide and develop their property because they're in the fallout area. They will want government (aka other people's money) for the loss in value of their property.
In fact, I'm surprised that NASA hasn't been sued into oblivion for polluting the world's oceans yet by the environmentally sensitive other countries.
Bye bye space travel!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
People who are serious about suborbital space tourism have no plans to build a spaceport and fly tourists from the U.S. It will take years for the U.S. government to approve such a program. In the meantime, other, less-regulated countries will build spaceports and launch tourists. U.S. regulations won't slow down the industry...it will just prevent the U.S. from being the leader.
Now it's going to be harder to meet Bleep Bleep and the other Pussycats in outer space.
Life is such a sweet insanity. The more you learn, the less you know.
Instead of for each country regulate for their own, I would like a more international aggrement. Because in this context, country-borders has no meening. Like for example:
I do not think US regulations will help here...
------- In the end there are no begining
Not quite. It's cheaper for once, twice maybe, but repeat offenders would end up with, say, that lawsuit a few years ago that awarded someone BILLIONS from GM. Of course gov't steps in and says "whoa there"...
How exactly is a regulation going to stop a rocket from hitting your bedroom again?
According to the most recent information, staffers in the Senate are trying to amend the bill so that it requires the same safety for people in the vehicle as on the ground. If that goes through, it kills space tourism in America dead. See this. If people want to stop this they are going to need to call their Senators quickly and oppose it.
Why do people think that they live in a vacume, your actions effect others around in drastic way, you can't go around willy nilly doing as you please.
How exactly is a regulation going to stop a rocket from hitting your bedroom again?
Maybe by saying you can't launch with in X miles of a residental area. Maybe by saying taht it has to pass some inspection so that control surfaces won't fall off mid flight, maybe by approving flight trajactores. Shall I go on?
So it's okay for the same accident to happen a few times, it's okay for people to die few times in the same accident, instead of them dieing once and haveing safegaurd to ensure that it won't happen again?
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
How would regulations intended to, say, ensure that a passenger can physically withstand X number of Gs at launch be applied where the max launch acceleration is 1G?
I can easily imagine new set of space environmental laws being used to interfere with the development of non-rocket space technology in the USA.
The Internet isn't rocket science, copyright isn't rocket science, but corporations in pursuit of their own interests against the public have worked with Congress to do their best to fuck up both areas. So what happens when the regulations cover an area that is rocket science?
Tech Public Policy stuff
So yes, I am not surpised that Scaled Composites wants regulation. Right now they are ahead of everyone else and will be so forever if they can get regulations to shut out the competition.
As far as boosters dropping on the public, that is a red-herring. The legal liability alone is going to keep these companies from dropping a booster on some residential subdivision. If a company did that, the regulatory fine would be irrelevent because they would be sued out of existance first. More likely, the regulations would act to limit their liability and increase irresponsibility (what? we are not at fault! We followed all the regulations!).
Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan... -gress.
Why not launch a rocket within X miles of my house? If they're stupid enough to try it, I am certainly within my rights to sue them before they even try.
Look at any major building project: People sue all the damn time. People sue Wal-mart to keep them out. Why would this be any different, or helped by a regulation?
If a space company is dumb enough to cause an accident over your house, sue them!
Obviously, regulations will happen in the US, because we can't live without 'em. But it's bullshit. Corporations shouldn't be able to shield their owners from liability (how can you run a company that does evil shit, and yet have no responsibility? That's amazing to me), and the government shouldn't be allowed to impose laws not passed by any legislative body (which is what a regulation is).
Don't we have already too many regulations? The buerocratic apparatus to deal with even more regulations is a pure waste of our tax money. We don't even have any space tourism yet and our congressmen waste their time and our money to discuss new regulations. Did anyone ask for creating those regulations at all? This is ridiculous!
And that's why they'll refuse to launch you!
When was the last time you went up to the ticket counter at an airport and said "I'll pay you when I get to my destination."?
"She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin
C'mon, we're not talking about everybody flying to work with rocket belts here... wouldn't existing regulations pretty much cover things until more than say 10 people a year can afford to fly?
(how can you run a company that does evil shit, and yet have no responsibility? That's amazing to me)
Because you might not know about the "evil shit". Once a company gets so big, it's impossible for any one person to personally know every little detail about everything that goes on. Instead you've got to rely on other people, and if these people don't tell you about the "evil shit", then how are you to be responsible?
Basically, the worst we have to fear is that Congress will make regulations so bad that space ports are merely relocated outside of the US.
Chances are they realize this and rather than force the industry out their control, they will make logical regulatory laws that might add some impediment but not enough to make people look elsewhere for launch platforms.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. After a total of one (1) certifiable "space tourist", they feel the need to regulate. Lemme guess. The FAA employees plan on striking if Congress doesn't pass a bill.
Right, disentangling your various objections...
People sue all the damn time.
So you think that a litigious culture is the solution? America has to be one of the most litigious countries in the world, and yet companies continue to get away with astonishing acts of incompetence and negligence.
Without law prohibiting actions that could endanger society or the environment, you'd surely have to wait until after a problem to sue based on criminal damage, manslaughter or some such charge? Would you be so keen on your litigious solution after half of your house has been demolished, killing your wife or housemate?
Surely a more rational approach would be to prohibit these kinds of practices, regulate to stop them from happening in the first place, and litigate where companies fail to comply? At least that's the model that is generally accepted in Europe, and we are making great strides towards weaving corporate responsibility into our laws so that we aren't left with consumer associations and individuals trying to sue for malpractice after disasters.
Corporations shouldn't be able to shield their owners from liability
No, they shouldn't. But that's an argument against the absurd legal protections that the US Govt affords corporations. It's a separate issue to regulation.
the government shouldn't be allowed to impose laws not passed by any legislative body (which is what a regulation is)
I don't know the full details of this round of legislation & regulatory documents, but you seem to be disputing the operation of government in just about every democracy (AFAIK). You are suggesting that a national legislative body ought to not only pass the legislation defining what is to be regulated, but that it should then pass the implementation of that legislation - the regulation - as well!
If executive bodies aren't invested with the ability to create and implement regulation based upon previous legislation, you'd either need an enormous and even more beurocratic legislative body to check over the regulation, or you'd not have regulation at all. Why not trust the legislative and judicial branches of power to check on the executive?
Of course, as I said in another post, the US system may be an exceptional case due to its inability to adapt to various factors including corporate influence. So then you're onto the issue of how the US system deals with those factors, not of regulation in general.
You could do more damage with a truck than you can with Spaceship one.
Assume that something fell off one of these things and caused significant damage. The injured people probably could win a suit for negligence for a substantial sum, which would more than likely put an end to the industry. Instead, if we have regulation, the injury is much less likely to occur, if it does occur, there are set damages and penalties, and the affected parties can still recover (and because of the regulation, others in the industry have less to fear, if they conform to the regulation.)
But they don't have less to fear, they have more to fear. The way regulations work, some clerk comes and inspects things and they carry the power to shut you down. Conforming to regulations don't let you off the hook for what you do and people should not look at things that way. Guidelines, without the clerk and without having to beg for permission work much better.
Why shouldn't I be able to have some say in whether or not you can hurl objects into space which might endanger my life?
Because they don't endanger you and you don't own the sky.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The flip side of this coin is that they don't want to chase away all the space tourist dollars to other countries. If you're going to spend $100K on a ticket then an extra $5K to fly to another country is nothing.
It would be sad if NASA has much say. They have perhaps the worst safety record of any space agency in terms of deaths/person launched.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
secure in the knowledge that if anything horrible happens someone's gonna pay dearly for it.
Who exactly pays? Not the corporation; a corporation is a "what", not a "who". The people in that company are shielded by the "corporate person". The corporation may be sued and fined, but the actual people who made the decisions and made the profit are safe.
And the companies usually aren't sued "into oblivion" either. Ford Pinto, the Firestone tire failures (which were actually Ford's specifications) caused deaths, but Ford is still around. Phillip Morris... need I say more? Which of their execs are in jail, or for that matter simply not really really rich anymore?
"Sue them into oblivion if something goes wrong" can be an effective deterrent. History has shown that it often is not, and when it is a deterrent it is only after some disaster happens and the industry decides to shape up.
Self-interest is exactly why companies spend more time marketing that their product is safe rather than actually making it so.
The enemies of Democracy are
I thought alien immigration is already regulated in the U.S.A....
There you are, staring at me again.
But now that we are on the subject why are you talking about luggage? Are you dumb enough to think that a passengers that bring explosives in their luggage in "Space Ship One" could accomplish something? That makes no sense It's a verry lame plan, find something better like a "super-villain" ala "James Bond" movies that can buy the technology for a couple of millions and then from is hidden volcano can cause havoc around the world by dropping chemical weapons on the cities of is choice.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Laws that make people pay for the bad things they do are much better than a permission system where you have to please some government clerk before you can do anything.
Did you ever stop to think that most government regulations are actually efforts by big dumb companies to limit competition so they don't have to work as hard? When you cluster everything up with regulations, the result is less safety and a public that's less well served.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The government should only touch space tourism if it presents a public danger. I have no problem with congress insisting that people don't drop rockets onto houses or spew radiation through the atmosphere. However, when it comes to the risks, congress should stay the hell away from the subject. If private individuals are willing to strap a rocket to their ass and pull the trigger, they should be able to so long as they are only (potentially) hurting themselves. People don't need protection from themselves. Why is congress trying to smack down our pioneers and explorers?
In society there are people who are willing push boundaries and take risks. We NEED these people. These are the people who are willing to push the limits of human expertise. These people drive innovation, some times at the cost of their lives. Congress's duty is not to weed these people out. Congress's only duty should be to ensure that the people who are not willing to risk their lives remain safe. If the explorers of our society are willing to strop a rocket to their ass with a 5% chance of exploding on the way up, that is their business.
What're they gonna do, send a space shuttle full of astronauts up to arrest you?
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR's and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why dont you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR's and RMS's feculent cocks and why dont you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Please don't miss the point on the amendments to this bill: by by requiring that the crew be made as safe as the passengers, the bill prevents the testing of any spacecraft. Passengers can't fly in a craft that has no safety record. How could a crew test a space craft that has no safety record? Obviously, they couldn't. See http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=& url=http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2004/10/0 7/uh-oh/
and
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004386.ht ml#004386
As reported on several space-related news sites, including RLV News and Transterrestrial musings:
There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S.. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.
If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.
'nuff said
-
"Oh, my god! They killed commercial spaceflight!"
"You bastards!
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
I was watching the Discover Channel special on SpaceShipOne and it seems to me that all this thing requires is a decent runway, a portable office in a trailer, and a few laptops to operate. If the FAA is thinking of over-regulating commercial spaceflight, I would suggest they simply move their operations to a less regulation overloaded country (or one where regulations can be overlooked for a small fee!). The only thing I can think of that is keeping current launches of commercial satellites under the direction of the FAA is that in order to put a satellite into orbit over the US it needs to be launched from the US.
.... Arizona, New Mexico.
And next time don't meddle with our own internal affairs to help a sececionist state (Tejas).
Then we will see where life is better.
Your country helped kill our nascent democracy almost 100 years ago, so please don't use us as an example of a place tha went wrong, you always provided a helping hand to make it so.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.