Slashdot Mirror
House Science Committee Approves Changes To Space Law
schwit1 writes: In a series of party line votes, the House Science Committee has approved a number of changes to the laws that govern the private commercial space industry. Almost all of the changes were advocated by the industry itself, so in general they move to ease the regulatory and liability burdens that have been hampering the industry since the 2004 revisions to space law. While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get free of strong federal regulation, these changes indicate that they can eventually get some of the worst regulations eased.
It would seem that the US is on a path of violating every international treaty it has ever made.
Lord of the Flies continues...
What a waste of space
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Any spacecraft operating in the atmosphere should be considered an aircraft, and therefore subject to existing aircraft regulations. So preventing the FAA from passing any new regulations might not stop them from regulating space travel.
I heard Obama also snuck in wording that will let him secretly declare Martian Law in Texas.
They extended the law which gives commercial companies $2.2 billion of free liability insurance, courtesy of the taxpayers.
"The same voting pattern followed on commercial launch indemnification, which expires at the end of 2016. The bill proposed a seven-year extension from the end of 2016 to 2023. The committee approved Knight’s amendment to extend the cost-sharing arrangement to the end of 2025. The Democrats wanted an extension to 2020.
Under law, companies are responsibility for damages from a launch up to $500 million. The federal government covers any damages from $500 million to $2.7 billion. Companies are responsible for any damages above that level."
FTA:
a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight
a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents
and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.
So, the industry would like to have low regulations, GOVERNMENT PROTECTION from liabilities and sole ownership of whatever they find
Hey, I am fine with industry standing on its own and living or dying by the free market, but since when was letting the government own your liabilities part of the free market vision?
This reeks of cronyism and people simply working to maximize their profits at the cost of the rest of us.
If you wanna mine an asteroid, then you have to pay for it if you drop it on my city
No corporate welfare for you
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Note the lack of attribution to the party that wishes to keep stifling advancements in commercial space endeavors. If the parties were switched around the party's name would be branded across the headline as being anti-science and anti-nasa and whatever else.
While at the same time, the house science committee cuts funding for NASA to continue important space-based biogeochemical research of earth systems:
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015/04/controversy-awaits-house-republicans-roll-out-long-awaited-bill-revamp-u-s-research
WHAT A GOOD THING.
Where does your link say that? I searched and couldn't find any reference to NASA.
biogeochemical research
libtard double-talk for climate science; using NASA for the warmist agenda
There you go. Daddy obummer keeping the world safe from business.
Sure, take your whiny ass off to some secret hideaway and die of starvation without the common man to live of off you elitist scumbag
Wherever You Go, There You Are
At one point we needed the government just to reach space.
That time has passed. What we need now is not one gatekeeper to bring us into space, but the gates to be flung open. NASA still has uses but the majority of space travel and research going forward should be done by the people outside the government, the people who from time immemorial have been always able to do something hard and dangerous and expensive and make it better and faster a cheaper and more accessible to everyone.
Do you want to visit space? I do. I know that would never happen just having NASA around, just as I know it will be feasible giving some of NASA's money to SpaceX and its ilk to refine and commoditize space travel.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In other words: it has tied its own hands for the next 10 years.
It is, to quote the article, to allow the industry to "build up experience" which can inform regulations. In other words ... do whatever you like but don't forget to keep a record if anything goes boom. To "inform regulation" ten years later you know.
Oh, and did you read that part about joint state-enterprise responsibility in case of accidents?
Nice one ... private companies can skimp on safety measures as much as they like (a great competitive advantage, that) and the taxpayer will foot (at least) half the bill if anything untoward happens. The other half of the bill will be vainly trying to penetrate the legal insulation provided by launch-companies.
In a series of party line votes, the House Science Committee has approved a number of changes to the laws that govern the private commercial space industry. Almost all of the changes were advocated by the [government], so in general they move to [improve] the regulatory and liability [common sense] that has been [enabling] the industry since the 2004 revisions to space law. While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get [more] of [awesome] federal regulation, these changes indicate that they can eventually get some of the [most awesomest] regulations [strengthened].
I also, can write a really [unbiased] summary.
Fucking dot slash.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
> a right granted by the power of the US government
I'm off topic, but government can protect rights or violate rights, it can't GRANT rights. That's a key part,of the definition of a right, vs a privilege or desire. (Therefore there is no RIGHT to have a corporation recognized by the state.)
Consider the right to free speech, the right to talk. That does not mean you're allowed to say whatever the government bureaucrats want you to say, or that you're allowed to agree with the majority. It means you have an inherent ability, as one human living with other humans, to say stuff that pisses other people off. If the politicians prevent you from saying you disagree with them, they have VIOLATED your right of free speech, they have done a wrong to you. As long as they continue to prevent you from talking, they are continuing to wrong you. That continuing violation shows that they did not previously revoke your rights; you still have them and the government is still violating them. The government bureaucrats can violate your rights but cannot remove your rights precisely because your rights didn't come from the politicians in the first place. If the government did GRANT you your rights, it would be fair that they could revoke those rights whenever they please.
Rather, you and the politicians both had the right to free speech. The states granted the federal politicians a license to regulate specific things, after the populace granted the state politicians certain powers. The people gave certain powers to the politicians, not the other way around.
That's why the Constitution says "the federal government may do the following things, and may not violate THE right of free speech in the process ". It's THE right of free speech, not A right of free speech, meaning it existed before the Constitution barred the government from violating it.
"While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get free of strong federal regulation,..."
Says who? Cuba is as good a site as cape Canaveral.
Hey, I am fine with industry standing on its own and living or dying by the free market, but since when was letting the government own your liabilities part of the free market vision?
They're just asking for the same deal the insurance industry, defense industry, agriculture, pharmaceutical and banking industries already enjoy. Who paid the tab for the last recession? That would be the government, as in we the people. Who paid to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina or Florida after the last set of hurricanes? It was partly the insurance industry, which threatened to claim bankruptcy if the government didn't pick up most of the tab. Who pays for bad weather that wipes out crops? And who pays when someone loses their job and can't make their mortgage payment? Who paid for broadband infrastructure and then gave it away to telecos to sell at a profit which then started to whine like bitches when it came time for upgrades?
I actually agree that the government shouldn't be on the hook for any of that, at least not indefinitely. The government might have to be the buck of last resort for the private space industry until the risks are understood and private insurance has a structure for coverage. But then there's an accident and the insurance companies threaten to file bankruptcy if they have to shoulder the full burden of the claim and most re-insurers are located offshore, so they're not worried about paying up to the limit of coverage and saying, C' ya!
If the government doesn't shoulder the burden of liability then the private space industry never gets off the ground. On the other hand, we the people deserve some payback if we're providing insurance.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. It has been ever thus. People keep voting for the right hand anyway, proving that we deserve this government.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you look at which parts of the New World speak Spanish and which parts speak Portuguese, it's quite clear that the Treaty *was* enforced.
Whenever government does something that big business doesn't absolutely hate, they're doing it wrong and it is almost certainly bad for the public.
All that is true, but you're forgetting something (and so is the Supreme Court).
A corporation is a creation of law. Corporations would not exist but for laws allowing them to. In fact, though they try real hard to not teach this, corporations not all that long ago had all kinds of common sense restrictions. They could only exist for a limited time and for a single purpose. They could be (and were) dissolved for behavior not in the public interest. They could not own other corporations.
The legal framework of the US, which was even more anti individual than it is now, was basically fine with this. Of course the robber barons weren't, and they resorted to the usual bribery and corruption to get those laws changed, and their successors and tax free heirs don't want you thinking about changing then back either so they fund huge propaganda machines to try to control what you think.
However, it is perfectly acceptable to say that individuals have inalienable rights and corporations can shut up and do as they're told at the same time. People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more. It is a totally logical position, albeit one they really don't want you considering.
Sat 5/16/15 7:22 am. Gee I wonder which party voted which way on the "party line vote". Guess that's not newsworthy....
So, the industry would like to have low regulations, GOVERNMENT PROTECTION from liabilities
The government is only liable for damages above $500,000,000.
But hey, lets not inject facts into your anti-corporation bullshit.
"His name was James Damore."
We finally have some adult leadership in Congress to get things done. Democrats know that a private commercial space industry means they lose control of more federal dollars they could have used to push their agenda.
Says the AC posting in English...
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
It just says the if someone can get to a non-terrestrial object the US government won't try to stop them from bringing something back, picking up some water, etc.
Do you really think that's a problem? It's not like the US is building a military base on the Moon
I see nothing in the constitution that grants law making powers for space. If I make it to the moon or Mars I will make my own constitution. The only way it can be removed is if someone else forces me with arms.
Funny how the left hand has been doing little more than taking (increasing taxes) isn't it? Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I get it: The Republicans in the House passed something to encourage manned spaceflight and this runs contrary to the 2004 Anti-Bush-reelection DNC talking point of "GOP = anti-science" which has worked so well, but that does not mean every unsubstantiated allegation thrown at the wall will stick.
There's NOTHING in the bill that violates any treaty, and you'd know that if you knew the content of the space treaties to which we are currently signatories, and if you had read what the House subcommittee passed.
Funny how the left hand has been doing little more than taking (increasing taxes) isn't it? Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
How's Oklahoma doing?
If the right actually acted like real right wingers, not trotskyite neocons, maybe what you say would have some credence. As an Goldwater conservative, I fear that the ingrained hatred y'all have been inculcated with has allowed the modern so-called conservatives to believe crazy shit, like people running the show wanting less power, and if only we can make most Americans as poor as possible, then they will be wealthy.
Which is all to say, after the end game scenario of elimination of pensions, social "entitlements, minimum wage, and regulations, who is going to buy their shit?
It's like a see saw. It doesn't work unless there is weight on both sides.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, we have international treaties that make each government liable for any rocket launched from its territory. This is necessary so that if one nation attacks another with a missile, the victim can properly retaliate without, for example, the USAF saying "WE did not do it!, it was Boeing that attacked you!". It's also necessary so that if the first stage of a rocket falls on a poor farmer in Africa, he does not have to lawyer-up and sue to find the mega-corp who built it and then sue the mega-corp etc - the government of the territory from which the launch occurred will automatically pay-up. The GOP proposal is a clarification of the details of how the US Government will deal with these liabilities internally with the launch vehicle providers. By treaty the government is 100% on-the-hook as far as the rest of the world is concerned, so this law which you accuse of being a crony bill actually REDUCES a crony element while adding legal clarity on liability that will make it easier for launch companies to deal with insurance companies, investors, etc. This effectively says: "Although by treaty the govt is liable and therefore the tendency of government is to not allow commercial/private operations, we're going to allow those new operators and make them liable for a portion of the costs of accidents, but cap that liability at a level that will not kill this new industry before it can even get going"
Second, The degree to which this still DOES effectively indemnify the providers is hardly new or unique: In areas where risks are high and government is already heavily-involved, but wants to encourage a transport industry to grow for the future, this stuff is common. Government has ALWAYS limited the liability of ship operators, while also assuming part of the risk by operating the US Navy and the US Coast Guard. Government has at times limited the liability of the railroads while using "eminent domain" to seize private property for the "rights of way" for the physical rail lines, exempting railroads from many safety and environmental laws (AMTRAK is government-subsidized with BILLIONS of dollars, capped to $200 million per crash, their toilets USED to flush right onto the train tracks, etc).
I guess you never noticed that ALL manned and unmanned spaceflight in the US was historically 100% subsidized by the US Government (except for commercial comm sats), that the US government historically 100% indemnified the launch providers, that the US Government provided ALL launch facilities, recovery operations, funded all the astronauts, etc. This is a HUGE step away from that. DOH!
Nah, it just happens that Spain and Portugal were very catholic countries and also happened to be the first colonizing powers. There were (and still are!) plenty of English, French and Dutch colonies strewn about the Americas. Not to mention those "small" colonies Canada and the United States... Explain why the national language of Belize is English or why (French) Guiana and (Dutch) Suriname exist, if this treaty was enforced?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Okie? Dunno, never lived there, how's Venezuela working for you?
Call me when entitlements stop taking an ever larger part of everyone's paycheck Chavista.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Okie? Dunno, never lived there, how's Venezuela working for you?
Call me when entitlements stop taking an ever larger part of everyone's paycheck Chavista.
Venezuala - that's some commie country. I'm not certain why you decided to go full potato on me.
Although I've seen your argument style before.
Perhaps you didn't read my last sentence? There needs to be a balance, Going all Neotrotskyite neocon like Oklahoma did causes failure. So does going all commie.
Balance, moderation, pragmatism. Things you probably consider evil in your push for unattainable ideological purity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Say what you will of Democrats, at least they run on the policies they will implement."
REALLY?!?!? Both Obama and Clinton ran for President in 2008 on an anti-gay-marriage position. After Obama got in office he "evolved" to be stridently pro-gay marriage. Obama ran for president claiming he was firmly opposed to an individual mandate in health insurance, but after elected he made it the core of "Obamacare". When Obama ran for President in 2008, he went to Florida and promised the workers at NASA he would speed-up the post-shuttle rocket program to "close the [post-shuttle] gap" in US manned spaceflight, but after elected his 2010 NASA budget proposal zeroed-out all American manned spaceflight except for paying Russia to take our people to/from ISS for a few years (congress, BOTH Reps and Dems, killed his proposal and FORCED him to not do this). The list of Obama flip-flops is VERY LONG.
"Republicans on the other hand run on a con job of "free market""
You don't understand very much, do you? This proposal moves the nation from 100% govt in this particular area, to "lots of government and some commercial". It's less-than-pure-Libertarian-or-Republican, but it's a big step in the direction of the marketplace. You'll have to forgive me for suspecting that you're just lashing-out at a GOP you hate; from your Democrat-Sycophant posting, I suspect you despise the free market - you probably SUPPORT government-run college loans (which ALWAYS provably drive UP the costs of college), government health care (which ALWAYS drives-up costs, drives DOWN efficiencies, and either leads to rationing or eats national budgets), government high-speed rail (which ALWAYS ends-up needing huge subsidies and legal protections from competition), and all the other socialist claptrap that sounds so good in a college classroom.
The Democrats have long desired national government control of the economy. They used the Depression as an excuse to try it, and in doing so converted "the Depression" into "the Great [as-in huge] Depression" and none of their policies ended it. They then used WWII (which DID end the Depression) as the big excuse to try it. Then they used the civil rights movement as an excuse. They tried using pollution and the environment as an excuse (even though governments have historically been FAR worse than corporations on pollution - socialists governments the WORST).
Finally, they hit on the idea of using Chicken Little's "The Sky is Falling!" and using the two most-trusted parts of the Federal Government to push it: The Military and NASA.
The military was ordered to work on biofuels (paying nearly $60.00 per gallon to fuel ships with the stuff, thereby getting LESS defense capability per tax dollar), and start claiming that the biggest threat to the nation was from climate change (never-mind the thousands of nuclear warheads on Earth, evil and/or insane dictators, rising waves of jihadists, and countries like Russia and China whose leaders are eager to gobble-up other countries).
They ordered NASA to re-direct a huge part of its budget into climate research (NOAA's job, not NASA's job - they are only charted to study the atmosphere to know how to fly through it) which cut into the manned spaceflight, deep space, and planetary science budgets. The reason Democrats are so desperate to keep NASA studying climate and not transfer it to NOAA where the SAME amount of money could easily be budgeted to do the SAME science, by the agency specifically-created to study the oceans atmosphere and climate is that it's a Democrat political strategy to wrap Anthropogenic Global Warming in the legitimacy of NASA. NASA was encouraged to pump-out political statement after political statement pushing the "global warming"/"climate change" issue so that Democrats could use this as propaganda in any argument. The idea was that any time a Republican or Libertarian pushed for smaller government, a Democrat would be able to push-back with "NASA says..." thereby getting an automatic "stamp of TRUTH" on their big government argument. There is no secret here; it was an open political strategy of the Obama administration. NASA is becoming so politically toxic that nearly every week they post stuff on their web site praising Obama as though they are a campaign arm of the DNC; it's like some 1930's German or Italian bureau always praising the Dear Leader.
Yes, because it's perfectly reasonable for a corporation that makes billion dollar mistakes to stay in business, isn't it?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Venezuela isn't communist, but then you'd have to pay attention in school or read more than is typical in the US to understand the difference between communism & socialism.
I've seen your style of posting/trolling too: Blame the other side for all the problems, attempt to place anyone who objects in the most extreme opposition then say something to attempt to appear moderate. In your case that appears to be blaming the right for everything, then calling me an Okie & then calling for pragmatism.
Back to the heart of the discussion: Claiming that the left is the only side that gives & the right only takes away is even dumber than claiming that Oklahoma politics is "neotrotkyist neocon". Do you want to climb down from that now?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Blame the other side for all the problems,
Oh fuck off troll, I was responding to another person doing what I did, just before me.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Typical. A leftie cannot even assume responsibility for his own actions when it is shown to be bunk & has to blame someone else.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight
Good! There is no commercial human spaceflight yet, not enough for the FAA to get involved and bog it down even more. IF Virgin Galactic actually takes passengers up, then that's when the FAA should get involved...it's just a waste of tax money for the FAA to do anything before hand. Look at the issues with the FAA and drones; their really doing a "great job!" But ten years is probably too long, this part needs to be reviewed every few years to keep track of when these flights start. Example, if VG proves they will have a passenger flight going up on XYZ date (proves, not just Branson doing marketing), they should HAVE to notify the FAA and do all due diligence possible before the launch. Looking at his recent crash, I'm not too optimistic for any of his previously announced scheduals lol
a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents
Even with this, no launch company will have the fiscal suicide of not having their own insurance...but the insurance system is very complicated. This all depends on what's being launched, from where, who's doing the actual launching...just keeping the "current method" until there are multiple, monthly launches. SpaceX might not even be launching / landing from within US territory (with his floating pads, which adds another level of complications.
and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.
Good for them, if a company takes the risks, puts up their own investor's money and manages to bring back valuable materials it SHOULD belong to them. If you want in on the potential rewards, you should go invest in some "asteroid mining company". There will be ZERO asteroids that are privately mined in the next nine years. Even if one is launched, it won't have any "finished project" to drop on your city in the next decade. With current engine tech it takes months to get to asteroids, if not years. A remote mining operation (and potential refining) will take time, then a very calculated trajectory back to Earth. Now, mining on the Moon...if the current treaties weren't in place we wouldn't even be talking about mining asteroids! A large nation-state might be able to get some type of mining operation done in the next ten years.
If humanity, as a species, wanted to mine the Moon with a combination of remotes and crew, that might be doable within ten years. Even then, I don't see unfinished materials being sent back. In-space fabrication will be able to do far more amazing stuff than we can do on the ground anyway.
The biggest threat to your city would be someone hacking an automated return mission, re-directing it to smash into a city.
You're not wrong. Not too much, anyway. :) I may not have made my point clear, though. This is what I'm talking about:
> People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more.
Because politicians can grant certain privileges to people and corporations, and can take thos privileges away, they are not rights. That's the difference between rights and privileges. By definition, rights are inherent, they can be violated but cannot be revoked. Privileges can be granted or revoked, rights can recognized, violated, or protected, but not granted. They pre-exist.
Corporations, therefore have no rights themselves. PEOPLE may have a right of association, which may mean that the people have a right to come together as Electronic Freedom Foundation Inc. to take cooperative (corporate) action. That's the right of people to work together toward a common cause. The EFF is merely a mechanism the people use to exercise their rights, it can have no rights of it's own.
The decision the court had to make was more difficult than many realize. If you and several like-minded individuals come together, do you lose your first amendment rights? Does a crowd of protesters no longer have rights because they joined a crowd? Do the members of the Occupy organization have a right to print pamphlets? Clearly you disagree with decision. You think that people don't have a right to form Occupy Inc for the purpose of making videos and posting them online. Some people disagree, and reasonable people can disagree on this question.
It seems to me that one side focuses on the logic and the other on the effect, alomg with their feelings about that effect. Some pay attention to exactly what question is being asked "does exercising the right of free association strip you of your right of free speech?" When you look only at the question, one answer is clear - people SHOULD be able to get together and make a video expressing their point of view. Others focus on "a group of people who disagree with me wanted to get together as a recognized group (corporation) and make a video that I don't agree with. This could effect an election in a way I don't like." If you focus on the fact that this organised group of people (corporation) disagrees with you, it's much easier to say they shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech together, as a group.
As to new law superseding old law, true, but wouldn't a change in law the way you mean open up the government to a wave of liability claims? If companies appealed to an ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) tribunal? For example the one provided by article 11 of NAFTA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... )
After all, the government did represent to industry that they would not face new regulations for the next 10 years. Going back on that promise clearly affects the profitability of the industry. Therefore damages may exist and a demand for compensation is well within the scope of existing law.
Of course I don't know how exactly the law works in this case, but intuitively I'd say that a company that was promised a regulation-free period would stand a decent chance to sue for damages if new legislation were enacted that proves restrictive or even inconvenient. And that could prove quite expensive.
Any thoughts?
Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
Yeah, the left votes for social programs, and the right votes to make sure the money comes from the people who need the help most. In this way, government works together to fuck us over. But if you had to cut off one of those hands in order to make the world a better place, which one would it be? It sure wouldn't be the one that puts all the world's burdens on the middle class.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Both have essential functions in modern society but that is no reason to spread simplifications to the point they become falsehoods. Saying that the left gives & the right takes away is a lie. The left takes from everyone & distributes the majority to their electorate & the right pushes to grow the economy by limiting taxes & governmental controls.
I don't need to imagine what would happen were the left to dominate overmuch, I currently live in France where both US major parties are seen as right wing. Your dream of cutting off one of the necessary hands is our reality. The resulting high taxes & governmental mismanagement are destroying the economy. What should be the most dynamic part of the economy (those under 30) are unemployed: 25% and growing, year by socialist year. When the number one objective of children in France is to become a civil servant and the objective of the more dynamic has become to emigrate the dynamic is self-fufilling and downward.
So please stop spreading your over-simplified bullshit, "cutting off one hand" does not lead to a better society and the left's redistribution of wealth has costs & needs to be controlled.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Why not a trillion dollar mistake? How about a quintillion dollar mistake?
Waving your hands is not a valid argument.
"His name was James Damore."