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."

16 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Wel... by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our legislation-passing White House overlords...oh...wait.

    1. Re:Wel... by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no right to interfere with what a person does on their private land

      It's more about regulating what happens above the private land rather than on the private land. How far above your land does your ownership extend?

      Besides, if you build a rocket and launch it from your private land and land on me as I sit (in private) in my washroom, it's too late to go to the courts!

      Eric
      Please, people: JavaScript is not Java
    2. Re:Wel... by mikeswi · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Space Traffic Control by frugle · · Score: 4, Funny

    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/
    1. Re:Space Traffic Control by dcw3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
  3. FAA's contribution to spaceflight... by lottameez · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. Wrong paradigm by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Wrong paradigm by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This, of course, is why most SF stories in space use a naval system when discussing the military. Star Trek does it that way, for example. And in most cases, when the ship is out of communication range then what the captain generally says is the law. Particularly in stories like Midshipman's Hope and its sequels.

      Eric
      Why Vioxx is the new Prozac for lawyers
    2. Re:Wrong paradigm by fenix+down · · Score: 4, Funny

      The first marriage will be a gay marriage. Then the Republicans on board will stage a mutiny, lock everybody else in the laundry room and then run the ship aground on a Direct TV satellite. Then we'll have legends about the Gay Republican Ghostship that hovers over Guatemala and swoops down to kidnap small children who don't do what their mothers tell them.

      Well, we will.

    3. Re:Wrong paradigm by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Informative
      • director of Star Trek II specifically introduced naval terminology and traditions

      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.
  5. passed at the last minute by hool5400 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  6. Let the market decide by Nine+Tenths+of+The+W · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  7. Battle over control of "celestial object" by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  8. Not Bad for a Change by trongey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. A STATEMENT TO NON-LAWYERS IN THE /. COMMUNITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. This bill is a good thing. Sort of. by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.