Slashdot Mirror
Private Spaceflight Law Passes Senate
Neil Halelamien writes "HR 5382, the commercial spaceflight bill which has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, has been passed by Congress at the last minute (almost literally). The bill had previously been stalled several times due to disagreements about how much the FAA should regulate crew and passenger safety. It's now headed to the White House to be signed into law. Under this legislation, the FAA's role until 2012 will be to protect the uninvolved public on the ground, and allow passengers to ride as long as they've been properly informed of the related dangers. Also, the FAA will be able to regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if they prove to be dangerous."
I, for one, welcome our legislation-passing White House overlords...oh...wait.
My Favourite Meme
Has anyone yet decided who is to oversee "air traffic control" once you pass out of the air and into space? Will each country be responsible for their own spacespace - and will a strike by the space trafic controllers of one particular country cause you to orbit in a holding pattern for 3 days?
http://www.frugle.co.uk/
Please put the tab into the buckle, and pull snug across your waist. Your seat may be used as a flotation device. No smoking in the lavatory.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Space is still uncontrolled without authorities now is your opportunity to fast build (preferably black) space pirateship and the raid the tourist ships :)
...ofcourse, this also opens up a way for terrorists to form a covert spacebase on the moon and launch attacks from there.
Will we see a short-term invasion of the US on Mare Crisium ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Space is much more analogous to our experience with ocean travel than air travel. You can stay in space until your supplies run out, not just while your fuel does. That means a lot more interaction between people, and more need for regulation of that interaction.
It always strikes me as a bit luddite when the surface-dwellers arrogate for themselves the right to govern those outside the atmosphere, or on another planet.
I expect one of the first court cases to result in the principle that a space Captain has all the rights of a maritime Captain.
I wonder when we'll see the first marriage performed by a Captain in space?
And I wonder how long before the first space battle over control of a "celestial object", or over something else?
Whatever happens, we'll probably have seen it before.
sigs, as if you care.
passed by Congress at the last minute (almost literally).
Passing a bill literally? Sounds painful.
Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
So if you've got a plane in orbit does that mean it would only fall under FAA control when its over the US or would it be from which country the plane originates?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Government regulation is un-American and inefficient. Let the market decide. Those companies whose flights don't end in smoking craters will get more business.
Er, on a serious note, isn't pollution of space a fairly important issue as well? Left alone, companies will just dump their crap up there, and in 20 years time every launch will run the risk of being hit by orbiting junk
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Now I can start offering moon flights aboard this giant cannon I've built in the back yard...
...oh, wait, my mistake.
What riders were attached to it? When was the last time we heard about any good legislation being passed that wasnt tied into some kind of stinking crap?
"OK, you crazy bastards wanna blow your own selves up, fine, just dont fall on us."
Comon, do you actually expect me to believe this is how this will work in the end?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
What a cosmic irony it would be if US were more concerned about pollution in space than on earth.
... I believe Article VI is the most appropriate reference ... which includes the words
"The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty."
So for US based companies, the US would be required to supervise (though they could do this by joining an international space flight control organisation).
There is wording in Article VI to cover international organisations as well.
"protect the uninvolved public on the ground." I can just see some crackheads getting involved with space flight and taking out some neighborhood in Timbuktu with their brand new "Crackpipe 2" spacecraft....
And that man is Richard Branson, the space cowboy...
Does this mean they can equip commercial space ships with the new laser cannons to blast the way through the space junk? Could be a new way to eliminate a rival. Whoops sorry about that but your ship sure looked like junk. Might be a cure for rush hour traffic on earth if it works in space. How many of you would love to have one mounted on your roof.
Now where is my Cloak of Invisibility
Our pile of bureaucrats are afraid of losing a shiny toy to some other country's bureaucrats. Governments that have to compete for something can - SURPRISE - do a much better job of not mucking it up too much. If Scaled Composite's design involved specialized launch facilities instead of a flat piece of concrete, you can bet this bill would've been really restrictive... Because the control freaks in congress would've had a better opportunity to control it.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
Also, the FAA will be able to regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if they prove to be dangerous.
uh, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests if this could be regulated *before* it's "proven" to be dangerous, ie an accident's occured?
launch these!
What hath Rutan brought?
Should spacecraft have to go under the spame standard as any other experimental aircraft? Should the standard be higher or lower. And should there be any regulation at all? If I were a spacecraft designer/manufacturer, and the US gov gave me too much of a headache, why wouldn't I pack my bags and go somewhere else? I'm sure there are plenty of third world countries that would love to become the capitol of intergalactic travel. Spaceport Nigeria, anyone? (Wait, I already got an email about the new spaceport in Nigeria, and if I send .........)
Wow between this and Freedom Fries I just want to cry with shame at our gubmint.
I guess you wont have to worry about noise, extremely toxic rocket fuels, and things falling onto your house and children.
Even funnier will be the idea of a battle over an orbital position. ie: nothing at all. This isn't quite as funny as it sounds, when you consider Lagrange points. The Lagrange points are mathematical fictions, but can be nifty places indeed for many purposes, possibly worth fighting over.
For the obligatory science fiction reference, read Poul Anderson's "Tales of the Flying Mountains," a series of short stories framed in the setting of the first interstellar flight. The officers are trying to build their history to help educate their young and prevent the culture loss that seems to plague just about every "generation ship" in fiction. One story is about some orbital shenanigans around the Trojan asteroids. To say any more would be a spoiler.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
This is on a related topic. I wrote to Time Magazine suggesting that the space scientist be Man of the Year. This is due to the impressive success of the Mars and Saturn probes, and the first private astronauts.
"Also, the FAA will be able to regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if they prove to be dangerous."
What part of going into space and the vehicles which carry us there is not dangerous?
So, you are saying they still get to regulate everything.
If this law works out the way it looks then Congress might have gotten it just about right. Protect the public from the nutballs, but let people make their own choices about risk/reward. That's how exploration should work.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
It is always a Good Thing when people get involved in the legislative and judicial processes. It's a Good Thing when they question a court's decision, or question a proposed resolution, etc.
But please, oh please oh please oh please, see what you're doing from the lawyer's perspective. If a lawyer with no training in electronics came up to you and ask you to "install Windows on his RAM", or something to that effect, you'd be laughing your ass off, might make a joke of it here on Slashdot, put it in your sig, and generally ridicule those with no knowledge whatsoever of computers.
On the other hand, lawyers go through an extra three years of school to get to where they are, and their backgrounds are diverse. Yes, there are in fact many many engineer-lawyers who know far more about either profession than people on here.
Now stop, and think for a moment, about what uninformed comments about our legislative or judicial system look like to a lawyer. You look just as dumb as a luser looks to you. Not that you probably give a rat's ass what the average lawyer thinks, but I want to believe that geeks WANT to learn, and legal knowledge is LEARNED, not bestowed upon birth. So please, everyone, take some effort to actually understand our legislative process before criticizing it, to understand our legal process before criticizing it.
I promise, if you take the time, you will find that the system works a whole lot better than people give it credit for.
Thank you.
using my portion of the sun!
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Xcott
I laughed and blew off what he said, but lo and behold, here comes the government just like dad predicted.
Sad.
"You look just as dumb as a luser looks to you."
If they are half as useless as the average GP, lawyers are just a bunch of arrogant morons whose knowledge of an arcane and often ignored set of ridiculous laws leads them incorrectly to believe that they are intelligent and knowledgeable. They are, in fact, the modern equivalent of the ancient religious experts who presumed to tell us ordinary folk what magical processes had to be engaged in before eating a cow. We "lusers" have one thing over you "legal beagles." We can change a lightbulb without running it past the legal department, and we are just about fed up with you guys who think you can't reduce humanity to a bunch of rule-following mindless midgets.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
One thing we can all agree on is the need to require adult citizens abide by the laws claiming jurisdiction over them. Fine. So how much "law" can every citizen be expected to learn by the time they are 18 years of age?
That should set the limit on the amount of "law" permitted at any given time. You want to pass a new law? Get rid of an old one.
It's called refactoring.
PS: Who knows, if it catches on even Microsoft might start doing it.
Seastead this.
Quote: According to English common law, your ownership of your law extends to the center of the Earth and upwards infinitely.
You are factually wrong.
That was the test used by the English common law (as well as in the U.S. because, with the exception of Louisiana, we adopted their common law). However, I know that test has since been abandoned as absurd.
The English case that I found was Bernstein v Skyviews & General.
Specifically, Bernstein said that a land-owner's rights extended to as high as they would reasonably and ordinarily use. You can find a little bit about the case from this Australian law school professor's page. (Scroll down the table a little ways.)
I know the corresponding U.S. case came to a similar conclusion, although I don't have the time this morning to find that case.
In regards to the article topic, these land-use tests would probably not give someone carte blanche to engage in private space flight over their property. After all, private space flight is not "reasonable and ordinary" (or whatever the exact legal phrase would be).
- Neil Wehneman
Note: See my sig for disclaimer.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
I don't know what the UKs stance on mineral rights is, but it's been exceedingly well established by porecedent here in North American that the mineral rights under your land do not belong to you.
An exploration company can get the rights to get what is under you land, wehter you like it or not. And the damage to the property is just part of life.
Similarly, the airspace doesn't belong to you.
In a lot of very practical ways, that interpretation has long since been over-ruled in favour of corporate expectations.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Done that, seen the paperwork..
Back in the 70's when Ultralight aircraft first hit the scene with powered hang gliders, the FAA pretty much did the same thing.
Those laws were fair and just for the classification of that type of aircraft. And look where those planes went! We got paraplanes, ultralights that look like real homebuilt planes, we got law enforcement ultralights, even cropdusters built on the cheap!
This is just a paper tiger that congress grinds out whenever a new invention really shows its potential.
I got my two tickets to The Ride, wanna come?
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
There's no way in hell I am taking responsibility for a man I didn't vote for!
I guess it's only a matter of time before we all pay our taxes to Washington, too ...
Hey, I'm the guy who submitted the story. I should've made this more explicit in my submission, but this bill is mostly a good thing, as it was required to open the door to launching paying passengers.
That said, I'm somewhat uncertain about the provisions for unrestrained FAA regulation after 8 years, and the regulation of certain aspects after they prove to be dangerous. That could potentially be misused to unfairly restrict the budding industry, but so far the FAA has been quite supportive of private spaceflight.
Anyways, I'd like to give kudos to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif) for proposing this bill (which was originally much less restrictive on private spaceflight) and keeping pressure on it. Frownie faces go to Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn) and a few other House Democrats for trying to kill off the bill, referring to it as having a "tombstone mentality" because it didn't have enough provisions for regulation, and being largely responsible for the 8-year compromise and the provision for regulation after an accident has occurred.
It's pretty frustrating for many computer illiterate folks to attempt to digest new technological ideas. The nerd/geek community is a real "boys club" if-you-will, in the sense that if you're not in the know it's hard to be accepted into tech savvy circles regardless whether you have an honest interest in learning, or not. We tend to be elitists and have a way of coveting our experience because it takes a special kind of person to be able to teach what they know without becomming irritated with their students incompetence.
Well, I don't think it's much different for a person well versed in legal arcana. These people work just as hard, if not harder to gain the knowledge required to master even one facet of the legal system, as a techie spends keeping abreast of the ever evolving, fast paced tech world.
Legislation is not mystic voodoo hoodoo for a simple reason...it's real. The laws and interpretations are official, they're as real as it gets when you're in a court room. Sure interpretation can vary quite a bit from person to person, but this stuff isn't pure fabrication. It's on the books.
So, that's my quick attempt at illustrating similarities in the two fields. Learned technologists and those steeped in legal knowledge both have some core things in common, like a lust for information, dedication, and intelligence. (stupid people don't survive long in these fields) Unfortunately it seems that in many folks these things can breed arrogance. Rather than believing that your proficiency in one field of learning grants you powers in ALL fields, why not refer to the old adage (I'll have to paraphrase): A wise man knows that there's a lot which he doesn't know. With that in mind smart folks from all backgrounds should be happy to learn from one another rather than bicker and criticize.
There's a lot I haven't said, but I think my point is expressed well enough for a thread that won't get much traffic. So, there you have it.
Every hour wounds. The last one kills.
all they did was take a look and see what the risks are to:
1) People not involved
2) People who are involved.
I do nt want a few tons of rocket crashing through my house.
and I think telling passengers the risk, and that they are not governed by the same stringent guidline the FAA uses for other craft is a good thing.
in short, People who want to do this, still can.
The 'Government' struck a good balance on this one.
Do you think the governemt should not look out for peoples safety?
do you think any yahoo should come along and shoot rockets into space right over your home?
and you were right, the government has not put a stop to it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If someone causes you damange you have a right to pursue them under existing criminal and civil law.
Look to court precedent if you're worried about how to applyl existing law in the complex real world.
Seastead this.
> Under this legislation, the FAA's role until
> 2012 will be to protect the uninvolved public
> on the ground, and allow passengers to ride as
> long as they've been properly informed of the
> related dangers. Also, the FAA will be able to
> regulate certain aspects of the vehicles if
> they prove to be dangerous."
Hey, wait! Come back! We just wanna regulate you! Come back down here! Ahhhh, shit!
When the last one leaves the dirtgrubbing overlordland, please turn out the lights.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Yes, all well and good, but you don't go to prison for not understanding what an IRQ is.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If that were the case, then I should be able to fly a giant balloon to 30,000 feet above my house and I most assuredly would be not.
This is my sig.
I just want to clarify something: Before this bill was passed, it was essentially illegal for private spaceflight companies to carry paying passengers. The passage of this bill allows for companies to do so, so long as they make sure that innocents on the ground won't be endangered, and that passengers are adequately warned.
Granted, I'm a little worried about some of the compromises which had to be thrown in, but the bill is better than nothing.
the air only goes so far up there