Slashdot Mirror
Private Spaceflight Law Revived
Lord Byron II writes "In an update to this earlier Slashdot story, after the defeat of HR3752, California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. MSNBC has more information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff and from Google News."
In an update to this earlier Slashdot story, after the defeat of HR3752, California representative Dana Rohrabacher reintroduced the legislation as HR5382. This new bill has just passed the crucial role call vote necessary to maintain it during the "lame-duck" session. More information on this bill that will enable the private spaceflight industry to (both literally and figuratively) takeoff is available from this MSNBC article and from Google News.
There is already an international treaty in place that basicly says that things that are launched into "space" are the responsibility of the country where the launching party is based (i.e. if an american organization launches from australia, its still an american launch)
I assume that this treaty (or some other treaty) would apply in this case and give the americans juristiction over any spacecraft launched by american organizations.
HR 3752, which provided important regulatory support for a new commercial space flight industry, has widely been reported dead in the last day or two, and it almost was. It has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives as HR 5382, it was debated today, and it should be up for a vote by the full House sometime in tonight's extended session - possibly as early as 8 pm EST, possibly well into the small hours of tomorrow morning.
For more info on the history and content of HR 3752, see http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau105.htm. HR 5382 is the latest hard-fought compromise version of HR 3752 that everyone interested had finally agreed on. The current problem is largely a matter of a few who hadn't been following the issue closely not understanding why certain features of the bill are necessary for the healthy birth of the new industry. A letter from the head of the House Science Committee summarizing the issues follows:
Dear Colleague:
A few minutes ago you received a letter from congressman Oberstar about H.R. 5382 which will be before the house shortly. Mr. Oberstar's objection to the bill is well intentioned but reflects fundamental misunderstandings about the bill. Here are some facts:
The house passed earlier this year by a vote of 402 to 1 and earlier version of this bill (HR 3752) that gave the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) less regulatory authority over commercial human space flights than does the bill before us today.
The Science Committee which has primary jurisdiction over this bill which was given the sole initial referral had several hearings on the bill and has talked about it frequently with the press, engendering more public discussion.
This bill concerns the commercial space flight industry, an industry that is now of interest only to entrepreneurs and daredevils and should not be regulated as if it were a commercial airline acting as common carrier, which is basically what Mr. Oberstar is advocating.
The bill does give FAA unlimited authority to regulate these new rockets to ensure that they do not harm anyone on the ground and to ensure that the industry is learning from any failures. The bill also gives FAA additional authority after 8 years by which time the industry should be less experimental.
The Oberstar approach would be the equivalent of not letting the Wright Brothers test their ideas without first convincing federal officials that nothing could go wrong.
Without this Bill the FAA will continue to license private space flights without adequate authority to protect either the safety of the public or the finances of the government.
Please support HR 5382, just as you voted for the initial version in March. Today's bill is an equivalent of a conference report as it reflects bipartisan negotiations with the Senate.
Sincerely,
SHERWOOD BOEHLERT
Space Access Society's sole purpose is to promote radical reductions in the cost of reaching space. You may redistribute this Update in any medium you choose, as long as you do it unedited in its entirety. You may reproduce sections of this Update beyond obvious "fair use" quotes if you credit the source and include a pointer to our website.
Space Access Society http://www.space-access.org - space.access@space-access.org
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
This page has a transcript of the House debate on the bill. Some interesting parts (bolding is mine):
...
[Boehlert, R-NY]This bill tries to strike a delicate balance between the need to give
a new industry a chance to develop brand-new technology and the desire
to provide enough regulation to protect the industry's customers.
We think we have struck that balance and here is why. First, the bill
gives the Federal Aviation Administration clear authority for the first
time to regulate the commercial human space flight industry.
Second, the bill gives the FAA unlimited authority to regulate the
industry and its rockets to make sure they do no harm to third parties,
that is, people on the ground or in the air who are in no way involved
with the flight.
Third, the bill sets a clear timetable for when FAA will have
unlimited authority to regulate the industry and its rockets to make
sure they do no harm to the people on board.
But here is what the bill does not do. It does not allow the FAA
right now to guess whether some new untested rocket technology will do
harm to the people onboard. Why? Because this industry is at the stage
when it is the preserve of visionaries and daredevils and adventurers.
These are people who will fly at their own risk to try out new
technologies. These are people who do not expect and should not expect
to be protected by the government. Such protection would only stifle
innovation.
So instead of allowing FAA guesswork for the next several years, the
bill requires that anyone participating in launch, whether it is crew
or passenger, must be notified of all risk of flight and must be told
explicitly that the government has not certified the vehicle as safe
for crew or passengers. And the FAA can come in and prohibit rocket
designs and operational procedures that have already been shown to
fail.
Now, obviously, this Wild West or barnstorming or infant industry
state of affairs cannot obtain forever, if the commercial space flight
industry is to become more than an expensive and risky novelty. Safety
must increase, and gradually the industry will start to look more like
a common carrier. And that is why the bill allows FAA after 8 years to
regulate commercial space flight in pretty much the same way it
regulates the airline industry. But it seems to me kind of silly to
regulate Burt Rutan's vehicle, which has flown three times, as if it
was a Boeing 747. If we regulate it that way, then his craft will never
evolve into the equivalent of a 747.
[DeFazio, D-OR] We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently
seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do
want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this
legislation.
I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to
paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the
serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here
in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the
industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems
to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days
the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the
industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and
through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the
industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted
it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident
that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be
paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and
safety.
But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone
mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing
to say, here is someone who invente