Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Private Spaceflight Law Shot Down

Posted by michael on from the falling-down-on-new-jersey dept.

wiggles writes "MSNBC says that bill HR3752, which allows private, suborbital tourist flights, has died. We'll have to wait until next year for this one. According to the article, 'The bill would have put private-sector suborbital spaceflights on much firmer regulatory footing. It was approved overwhelmingly by the House back in March but languished in the Senate for months.'"

15 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Mexico by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I'm President Vicente Fox, I've got dollar signs in my eyes right now.

    Take a trip to Mazetlan, see the beautiful sights, enjoy some tequilla, and then fly into outer space as the highlight of your vacation!

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    1. Re:Mexico by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That reminds me of a funny (somewhat apocraphal) space-flight puking story.

      For one NASA flight, a frog was brought along on a mission for research testing, and as soon as they entered a zero-G environment, the frog not only puked, but actually inverted it's entire actual stomach outside of it's mouth, wiped the stomach walls clean with it's little front feet in a frenzied panic, and then shoved the stomache back down it's throat. After that, the it was fine.

      There have been many times, particularilly after drinking tequila, in which I wished I was capable of doing that.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  2. Won't happen, Pentagon won't allow it by revscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless the public gets all in an uproar about this, I don't see this as happening. It could potential interfere with the US military's superiority in this field, and what the Pentagon wants, it gets. They have far, far, FAR more money available in their PR budget than private entrepreneurs (either individually or collectively) ever will, and the result will most likely be determined accordingly.

    1. Re:Won't happen, Pentagon won't allow it by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless the public gets all in an uproar about this, I don't see this as happening. It could potential interfere with the US military's superiority in this field, and what the Pentagon wants, it gets. They have far, far, FAR more money available in their PR budget than private entrepreneurs (either individually or collectively) ever will, and the result will most likely be determined accordingly.

      Right, because we have a vast fleet of military spaceships, and it's not like anybody could ever put a commercial satelite into orbit from a French-owned island near the Equator. We are the only country in the world who goes into space, and we only do so for military reasons.

      Oh wait, I just remembered... None of that is true.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Won't happen, Pentagon won't allow it by revscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because we have a vast fleet of military spaceships, and it's not like anybody could ever put a commercial satelite into orbit from a French-owned island near the Equator.

      Of course none of that is true. But the Pentagon has the best means of accomplishing those things -- budgetary and expertise -- and they don't want any new kids on the block messing with their potential superiority. Further, they have repeatedly exhibited their hostility towards private space ventures, and with this administration's exclusive reliance upon Rumsfeld, I hold little to no hope that the good guys will come out on top.

    3. Re:Won't happen, Pentagon won't allow it by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      It could potential interfere with the US military's superiority in this field, and what the Pentagon wants, it gets.

      It has nothing to do with the Pentagon.

      Sen Inofe from Oklahoma held it up because the definition of a suborbital rocket ("`suborbital rocket' means a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight") could be read to mean that Rocketplane, a venture in his state, would fall under the FAA's regulatory power and probably kill it because the FAA would treat it as a commercial craft which would be too expensive. Rocketplane's design uses jet engines for most of the flight, with rockets only for the suborbital portion. A minor wording change could fix it, something like, "`suborbital rocket' means a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory for at least a portion of its flight whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of the suborbital phase of its flight" (my alterations in italics). Even something this small takes time to make the rounds, though.

      There are also concerns about requiring passengers, for now, to sign away all liability. The ventures want this -- they don't want to see their early multi-million dollar investments in what is clearly a young, risky, and dangerous venture crushed by one bad flight that results in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits. Opponents are concerned that this will allow them to take too many risks and cavalierly treat their customers as cash sources who don't have to be paid back later on, skimping on their safety. Both sides have valid points, and both sides want to reach a middle ground, which will almost certainly happen, but with all of the other things happening in the presidential election year, it just never got moved forward fast enough.

      It's still on the schedule, and will probably pass next year, if only to keep Virgin Galactic from including Virgin Atlantic flights out of the country with its ticket packages.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  3. Moving Forward by wbechard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would really like to see the private space industry open up. Hopefully the bill that does get passed isn't too restrictive for new private companies looking into the space industry. Governments should do what they can to promote private sector growth in the space industry, not stifle it. New startups in the space industry could spark a whole new economic boom, and if not an economic boom, at least the start of a new revolution. Call me optimistic, but these are simply my views.

  4. It does open a bidding war by CodeWanker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    among other countries. Brazil would love to add world's only commercial spaceport to its list of national trophies/tourist attractions. So would Malaysia. So would a ton of other countries. If we don't get this approved, we'll see a lot of tech and cash go elsewhere.

    --


    "Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
    1. Re:It does open a bidding war by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not being equatorial, the USA isn't even in an ideal location for spaceflight, and it's not even possible to put a space elevator here. It's time for the US to wake up to the idea that it's going to be bypassed when it comes to the commercialization of space if it doesn't develop some compelling reason for it to be included. (I say it, but I do live here myself... I'm talking about the government I guess.) That means we need to build more technology and expertise, and that means we need to get into space commercialization as rapidly as possible. Here's hoping that we come to our collective senses and make it happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. why do we need the US's permission? by sevinkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since when was space the 51st state? And if so, since when has there been a state that I can't go to as a citizen?

    If I was looking to make money off of this, I'd go to Canada or Mexico, start sending people out into space, and make millions while the whole thing gets fought out in court, generating millions of dollars worth of free advertising. I'd probably end up selling the company before a decision ever comes around, and go live in Costa Rica.

    What's the US gonna do, shoot down passenger space craft just because congress can't get a bill through? Talk about a PR nightmare!

    1. Re:why do we need the US's permission? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't need the US's permission to go to space. You need US permission to get there through US airspace.

  6. No tears yet by Shihar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My understand was that this bill was the beginings of regulating the private space industry. Personally, I see absolutely no loss if that is the case. I would rather leave the field upon and relativly unregulated other then getting a permit to go up until we have a better understanding as to how the industry is shaping up. Let the leaders take the risks and get out in front. If they want to throw their lives away, let that be their choice. The only time the government should step in, is to ensure that public safety is not in danger.

  7. On the other hand... by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 2, Informative
    Another useful space-related bill did get passed:
    The Senate last night passed, and sent to the President, a Science Committee bill (H.R. 5245) to extend the law under which the U.S. government insures companies that launch satellites for damages or deaths sustained by individuals who were not involved in the launch. The House had passed the bill in October by unanimous consent, and Senate approval was also by unanimous consent; the President is expected to sign it.

    The bill will extend the insurance, known as indemnification, for five years, until Dec. 31, 2009. The bill, introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), would also require a study by a non-governmental entity of whether indemnification could be ended without unduly harming U.S. companies, and, if so, how that should be done.

    The indemnification provisions in H.R. 5245 were originally part of a larger bill, H.R. 3752, to make additional changes to the Commercial Space Launch Act.

    Under current law, which H.R. 5245 would extend, satellite launchers must buy private insurance to cover injuries to third parties. The insurance must cover losses up to the "maximum probable loss" level determined by the government. The government then indemnifies the launcher for any additional losses up to about $1.5 billion per launch, meaning the government pledges to pay any claims for the private company that exceed the amount covered by private insurance.
  8. Re:This is nonsense by learn+fast · · Score: 4, Informative

    "There are no laws preventing commercial space flight."

    No, it's been regulated by the FAA since 1991. This bill would have just changed the regulations a bit. In any event this is still suborbital flight we're talking about.

  9. From a more recent article: by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    If any of you vote in Minnesota, you may want to call up Jim Oberstar (D-Minn) and voice your concerns...

    From here:

    The Republican leadership tried to push the bill through by suspending the chamber's rules through a voice vote, but Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn. -- who voiced firm opposition to the bill on safety grounds -- called for a yea-and-nay breakdown and noted that a quorum was not present. That stymied the GOP's procedural maneuver, and further action was postponed.

    The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., argued during the 40-minute debate that new legislation was needed to resolve the Federal Aviation Administration's role in regulating piloted suborbital space launches, and that the FAA would be able to step in if a spacecraft was found to be unsafe for the crew or passengers. Oberstar, on the other hand, believes that the bill is too lax in that regard, and that the FAA would have to stand by until someone is killed or gravely injured.

    Rohrabacher said failure to act could drive the infant suborbital space travel industry out of the country. "Don't strangle this industry and drive these entrepreneurs offshore," he pleaded.