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."
This would be governed by the Outer Space Treaty, I'd think.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Why is this moderated as troll? I think this is serious and funny at the same time. Of course the "World police" (as Bush named Americans) would consider this as a future threat (notice: with the generalisation "would consider this" I mean the US government and alphabetical agencies).
... 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.
Well, we only control the airspace up to FL60 (a.k.a. 60,000 feet). To get there, you'd either need to launch with FAA control (you have to be under instrument flight rules in Class A airspace (18-60k ft)), or from some other country, and never be under 60001 ft.
I don't know about international treaties regarding the area about FL60. I know that NORAD track all the space junk (as well as watching out for incoming missiles).
For the person (way above) who complained that this is just guberment stomping on individuals rights to do what they want on their property...1.) You don't own the airspace above your land. 2.) Wouldn't it be fun to own the land at the end of a runway, and launch missiles straight up without any coordination with ATC (air traffic control)???...but hey when you kill several hundred jumbo jet passengers, you can say they were flying over your airspace...DOH!
Just another day in Paradise
How far above your land does your ownership extend?
According to English common law, your ownership of your law extends to the center of the Earth and upwards infinitely.
What?
Only at FL60 and below.
y /airspace/DI79.htm
Ref: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionar
Just another day in Paradise
The rank structure, beginning in the original series, was always that of a navy or marine corps rather than an army or air force.
Captain Kirk was always treated as sovereign, within regulations. He regularly waxed poetic about life on the high seas.
sigs, as if you care.
Only because no civil aviation flies above that level at the moment. As soon as they do, new sectors will be created above FL60; though for the time being one sector across each FIR, between FL60 and 100km (sorry about mixing units of measurement) would be enough.
Radar isn't going to help ATC at that level, but is is on the way out in favor of mode S transponder based systems anyway
I don't know about international treaties regarding the area about FL60Neither do the FAA, really. As soon as people start flying above that altitude in potentially dangerous (to others) aircraft the FAA will want to have some say in the matter
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I couldn't find the exact height during a short google, but according to American law, the US government owns everything between (either 1,000 or 2,000) feet to just below low Earth orbit.
That allows for skyscrapers to be built, allows for government control of aircraft above those skyscrapers and gives us the "legal" ability to orbit spy satellites over other nations without "officially" breaching their airspace.
That last one pretty much was settled between the USA and USSR when we started orbiting satellites over one another.
I don't know how far up an individual's property rights go, but I believe it is right below the lower limit of what the government claims for itself.
Only on
Your vertical property ends where you've stopped building vertically. If you expand vertically, then you extend your property vertically. However, this expansion is limited by zoning regulations.
See Fla. v. Riley, 488 US 445 (1988) for a case where a man's marijuana greenhouse was spotted by a police helicopter hovering at 500 ft. This was not considered illegal search (particularly because the idiot marijuana grower left the top of his greenhouse open.
There were no"riders" attached to the bill.
This bill actually just ammended or altered Section 70101 of title 49, United States Code.
That section, I believe, came from the Commercial Space Act of 1998.
It's pretty straightforward stuff. No money is attached to it as far as I can tell, but I recall seeing something in it which requires the FAA to partner with a private industry organization to study feasibility or somesuch thing.
But they probably won't go to Scaled Composites. They'll probably engage a consulting firm like Mitre or something.
Read any good sonnets lately?
While Nicholas Meyer may have come up with that independantly, the naval paradigm for spacecraft in SF pre-dates Wrath of Khan by at least decades. For instance, Robert Heinlein used it quite a bit, which is not surprising given his naval background. Jerry Pournelle has also used that approach in much of his fiction, again decades prior to Wrath.
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
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.