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
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.
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.
"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.
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
So which party is it that wants the government to assume the risks and pay for the damages created by a de-regulated industry? I seem to remember going through this recently...
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
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
Either one.
Just depends on what industry we're discussing.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
It doesn't sound like he hates the free market at all. What it sounds like he is saying is that the Republicans talk about free markets but engage in practices that provide nothing of the sort.
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."