Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Passes Bill Allowing Space Tours
Yahoo News ^ | 12/9/04 | ERICA WERNER

Posted on 12/09/2004 6:03:29 AM PST by Brett66

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Outer space could become the final frontier of tourism under legislation passed Wednesday by the Senate to regulate commercial human spaceflight.

The bill, approved by voice vote in the final minutes of the 108th Congress, would authorize the Federal Aviation Administration to issue permits allowing private spacecraft operators to blast paying passengers into space.

The agency would also regulate the young industry, which was invigorated by the successful flights of a privately financed manned rocket over California's Mojave Desert in October.

While laws exist to regulate private-sector space endeavors such as satellite launches, there is no legal jurisdiction for regulating commercial human spaceflight. Even without one, entrepreneurs have announced plans to offer private space flights within several years, and wealthy thrill-seekers are plunking down deposits.

The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher , R-Calif., passed the House last month and will now go to the president for his signature.

"This is a great victory for the future of America's space efforts," Rohrabacher said. "The people who will invest the type of big dollars necessary to make this a major new step in mankind's ascent into space have been waiting for the government to lay down the regulatory regime and set the rules of the game, and this is the first major step towards doing that."

Senate passage came only after the bill stalled several times because of disagreements over how much safety protections to offer potential space tourists and crew.

The final version allows the Federal Aviation Administration to begin issuing regulations to protect the safety of passengers and crew only eight years after the bill becomes law. Before then, the agency may restrict design features or operating practices only if they've resulted in a serious or fatal injury to passengers or crew, or caused an unsafe unplanned event.

Rohrabacher and industry lobbyists contended that space tourists must fly at their own risk, and that more stringent safety regulations would stifle innovation. Some Democrats had pushed for tougher safety regulations.

The bill requires passengers to be informed of the risks involved, and the Federal Aviation Administration may issue regulations to protect the non-flying public's health and property and the country's national security and foreign policy interests.

___

The bill is H.R. 5382.


TOPICS: Government; Technical
KEYWORDS: commercial; hr5382; legislation; private; rutan; space; spaceshipone; tourism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 12/09/2004 6:03:29 AM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; anymouse; RadioAstronomer; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; Centurion2000; ..

Ping.


2 posted on 12/09/2004 6:04:12 AM PST by Brett66 (W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1 W1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
While laws exist to regulate private-sector space endeavors such as satellite launches, there is no legal jurisdiction for regulating commercial human spaceflight.

AN interesting concept. How is it that the government has the right to regulate satellite launches? And how long do you think it will be before the arrogant denizens of Foggy Bottom presume their right to control who has access to space?

Apparently, there is no new resource discovered that doesn't fall under their auspice.

3 posted on 12/09/2004 6:09:45 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
How is it that the government has the right to regulate satellite launches?

Because in signing the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, it accepted responsibility for all launches emanating from the United States. It has to regulate the activity in order to maintain that responsibility. And even in the absence of that treaty, public safety dictates that it be regulated. That's like asking what right the government has to regulate aircraft.

4 posted on 12/09/2004 6:32:02 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
even in the absence of that treaty, public safety dictates that it be regulated.

Huh? How is a satellite launch a threat to public safety?

That's like asking what right the government has to regulate aircraft.

What right does the government have to regulate aircraft?

5 posted on 12/09/2004 7:03:14 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
uh? How is a satellite launch a threat to public safety?

Rockets can blow up, or fall on children, and other living things. Or are you unfamiliar with rocketry?

What right does the government have to regulate aircraft?

[Backing away slowly...]

Ask the FAA. They do it 24/7.

6 posted on 12/09/2004 7:12:56 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
Rockets can blow up, or fall on children, and other living things. Or are you unfamiliar with rocketry?

So can automobiles. Or any ballistic projectile. This has much less to do with rocketry than with government presumption.

[Backing away slowly...] Ask the FAA. They do it 24/7.

That they do it does not mean they SHOULD or have a RIGHT to do it.

Apprently you are of the school that believes that what is is right, and that the government has the right to regulate whatever it decides it has the right to regulate.

I'm more inclined to question that presumption.

7 posted on 12/09/2004 7:54:39 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
So can automobiles. Or any ballistic projectile.

Do you delude yourself that those things are unregulated? And do you think that it's possible for an exploding car, or an inert ballistic projectile, to do anywhere near the damage of an exploding or falling launch vehicle?

If you want to live in a fantasy world in which there should be zero government regulation of any form of transportation, fine, but out here in the real world, where it's going to continue to do so, the case for regulating launch systems is greater than that for any other form of transportation.

8 posted on 12/09/2004 8:37:49 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
the case for regulating launch systems is greater than that for any other form of transportation.

Oh yeah, it's a great way to stifle progress and creativity. I mean, gee, NASA is such an excellent government-run operation; they're tip-top. Thank God we now have government in space! Phew! I was worried there for a second that we might have inexpensive and readily available commercial space flight in the next 10 years. Well thank God that government got involved!

9 posted on 12/09/2004 8:42:47 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

You're right. The FAA has no legitimate reason to exist.


10 posted on 12/09/2004 8:43:29 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
NASA is such an excellent government-run operation...

What does NASA have to do with it? NASA is not involved in launch regulation.

11 posted on 12/09/2004 9:06:34 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
One of the first things Burt Rutan and the SpaceShip One team had to do was get permission from the government to conduct their tests. Robert Goddard didn't need permission. The Wright brothers didn't need permission. And Wernher von Braun sure didn't need permission to launch V2's.

But thanks to a bureaucracy unmatched in history, one of the few forward thinkers of modern aviation has to go to some desk pilot hat in hand and ask permission to push back the frontiers of ignorance.

I feel safer already. And by the way, your "real world" sucks.

12 posted on 12/09/2004 9:10:55 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum

No, it's not, but it is government meddling in something that it doesn't belong, and bad results coming from it.

The entire point of SpaceShipOne was to show that private industry, without government interference, could achieve space flight relatively cheaply and efficiently.

But Congress, God forbid, can't let anyone know that people can be successful without the government, has to come in and regulate something that it has absolutely NO business regulating. Congress looks at all of this as a turf war. They don't want people undermining the government, so they regulate it. Then they can get on tv in their re-election campaigns and spew a bunch of crap about how they are protecting the people from those evil corporations that want nothing more than to put paying customers on death traps and launch them into outerspace simply to blow them up into a neat and spectacular fireball. Because, after all, it's so good for business to kill your customers.


13 posted on 12/09/2004 9:13:52 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
How is a satellite launch a threat to public safety?

ROTFHWL

Actually, putting this under the FAA is a big step forward. Before now, space launch has been considered to be on the same level as ordinance testing in terms of safety. That is one of the huge legacy issues with launchers. They evolved from artillery rockets and most people in the industry just tend to think of them as larger versions of military ordinance.

To start treating launchers as a transportation system is a whole new paradigm that is long overdue.

14 posted on 12/09/2004 9:16:38 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
And by the way, your "real world" sucks.

It may, in many ways, but that doesn't change that fact that it's where we (at least some of us) have to live.

15 posted on 12/09/2004 9:22:44 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Congress, God forbid, can't let anyone know that people can be successful without the government, has to come in and regulate something that it has absolutely NO business regulating.

You don't get it. The FAA has always regulated commercial launch, ever since there was such a thing, and the government is obligated by the Outer Space Treaty to do so. What Congress did was to provide better guidance to the Department of Transportation as to how to regulate with respect to passenger vehicles, something that the industry has been asking for, because the current uncertainty made it very difficult to raise investment. This was a bill that was requested by the industry.

Congress looks at all of this as a turf war. They don't want people undermining the government, so they regulate it.

Congress didn't care about this. They came up with this legislation due to heavy lobbying by companies such as XCOR Aerospace. This is a huge victory for those of us who have been fighting to develop a space tourism industry.

Then they can get on tv in their re-election campaigns and spew a bunch of crap about how they are protecting the people from those evil corporations that want nothing more than to put paying customers on death traps

This has nothing to do with paying customers. The law was written to explicitly exclude regulations in that regard, other than requiring that the launch company develop a passenger training regime as part of the launch license. The regulations are to protect the safety of uninvolved third parties, not customers (something that has always been required). You have no idea what you're talking about.

16 posted on 12/09/2004 9:31:28 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
"This is a great victory for the future of America's space efforts," Rohrabacher said. "The people who will invest the type of big dollars necessary to make this a major new step in mankind's ascent into space have been waiting for the government to lay down the regulatory regime and set the rules of the game

BS. The expression of interest does not carry with it an understanding of the real situation.

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty requires signatory countries to regulate space business based within their territory. The regulation is merely bending to the requirements of the Treaty.

However, the Treaty also makes private claims to space resources impossible and by a crystal clear chain of reason this makes development of space resources impossible.

Withdraw from the Treaty, then we will entertain the idea that Rohrabacher is not just talking through his hat.

17 posted on 12/09/2004 10:11:01 AM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

space policy ping


18 posted on 12/09/2004 11:42:17 AM PST by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
To start treating launchers as a transportation system is a whole new paradigm that is long overdue

And exactly what added value does the FAA bring to the table?

19 posted on 12/09/2004 12:01:25 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
that doesn't change that fact that it's where we (at least some of us) have to live.

Ah yes. The mating call of the morally indifferent. "It is, therefore it is right."

20 posted on 12/09/2004 12:02:44 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
And exactly what added value does the FAA bring to the table?

It adds a ton of respectibility to something that has always been considered to be hardly more than a big, messy bomb.

One of the big hurdles to commercial spaceflight the idea that it is not accomplished by a transportation system, but rather by a more or less controlled explosion.

Getting to the point of being regulated by the FAA is a huge step in loosening the regulations, and has been a long time coming. It is a huge step forward that had to wait, among other things, for a republican government to happen.

21 posted on 12/09/2004 12:09:35 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
It adds a ton of respectibility to something that has always been considered to be hardly more than a big, messy bomb.

How can you use the terms "respectibility" [sic] and "government" in the same thesis? Nothing the government has EVER done has been efficient or "respectable," at least not in the commercial sense of the word.

One of the big hurdles to commercial spaceflight the idea that it is not accomplished by a transportation system, but rather by a more or less controlled explosion.

Who has this notion? If a rocket is a "controlled explosion," then jet flight isn't much better. TO many people, it is even more mysterious than rockets. And in any case, how does the FAA change any of that perception? It isn't as though their involvement means that rocket flight is now somehow safer or has advanced in technology. It just means that the bureaucrats now have control over who plays the game.

22 posted on 12/09/2004 12:16:17 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brett66

Ahmmmm......what is the fee for one of the permits?


Overheard in the cloakroom....
"Let's not let the internet slip up on us again. We will preemptively regulate and tax this thing from before the beginning."


23 posted on 12/09/2004 12:16:26 PM PST by bert (Don't Panic.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
How can you use the terms "respectibility" [sic] and "government" in the same thesis?

Do you want to learn something, are just looking for another dead horse to beat?

Do you really think the rest of Free Republic is ignorant of the nature of government and just needs you to straighten us out?

It just means that the bureaucrats now have control over who plays the game.

Check your assumptions. The bureaucrats have always had control over the game. The difference now is that the bureaucrats have to go on record as to when they will say yes. Before this, the answer was simply, "No, and don't bother asking."

24 posted on 12/09/2004 12:26:27 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The mating call of the morally indifferent.

No, the (non)mating call of the practical.

I want to get off the planet. The government isn't going to go away soon. We are going to continue to be regulated, and to think otherwise is to consign yourself to your own little cloud cuckooland (and not one that's in space). We are working on making the existing regulations more rational and less uncertain. This bill is a big step in that direction, which is why most of the space tourism entrepreneurs not only supported it, but instigated it. If you're lucky, they'll let you buy a ticket anyway, regardless of your political cluelessness.

25 posted on 12/09/2004 12:42:59 PM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Brett66; xrp; gdc314; sionnsar; anymouse; RadioAstronomer; NonZeroSum; jimkress; ...
I hope they included some lawsuit protection...


26 posted on 12/09/2004 7:02:09 PM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Do you really think the rest of Free Republic is ignorant of the nature of government and just needs you to straighten us out?

Far from it. I just think YOU are ignorant of the nature of government, and it is beyond my humble capacity to enlighten one of such limited vision.

The bureaucrats have always had control over the game. The difference now is that the bureaucrats have to go on record as to when they will say yes. Before this, the answer was simply, "No, and don't bother asking."

Who was saying "No" before? Since no one was "in charge," there was no one to SAY no. And I'M the one who needs to "check my assumptions"???

Look, you apparently are comfortable with Big Daddy Government regulating every facet of your life. Good for you. You can sleep comfortably in your coccoon, secure in the myth that Uncle Sam is looking out for you.

Just remember that the power to license is the power to destroy (with apologies to Edmund Burke).

27 posted on 12/09/2004 8:45:36 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
No, the (non)mating call of the practical.

Ah. "Practical." Another adjective for "accommodationist," "compromiser," "appeaser."

I want to get off the planet.

Don't let ME stop you.

The government isn't going to go away soon.

Or EVER with people like you in the citizenry.

We are going to continue to be regulated, and to think otherwise is to consign yourself to your own little cloud cuckooland (and not one that's in space).

And to reconcile yourself to that so-called inevitability is to strike a bargain with the enemy.

We are working on making the existing regulations more rational and less uncertain.

Maybe you could help the guards sharpen the blade on the guillotine.

If you're lucky, they'll let you buy a ticket anyway, regardless of your political cluelessness.

If you're lucky, the bureaucrats will not tax your dream out of existence.

28 posted on 12/09/2004 8:51:08 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Who was saying "No" before? Since no one was "in charge," there was no one to SAY no. And I'M the one who needs to "check my assumptions"???

Why do you insist no one was saying no? Do you not believe the sun came up last Wednesday because you weren't around to see it?

Your libertarian agitprop is simply noise in an otherwise good thread. You don't know the history of commercial space, you don't know the legalities, all you know is the one song that government is always bad and you sing it for every occasion.

This place is full of conservatives and libertarians whose credentials and intellectual prowess are so far out of your league that you barely qualify as a troll here.

Go find someplace else to spew your ignorance.

29 posted on 12/10/2004 6:02:27 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brett66

What if some pioneering individual had the wherewithal to actually orbit the earth a few times in a vehicle he built in his garage?

Upon his return, would he have been arrested?

For what?


30 posted on 12/10/2004 6:05:57 AM PST by Pete'sWife (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Why do you insist no one was saying no?

No one in authority could have been saying no because THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY!!! By your very own words, you dimwit!!

Do you not believe the sun came up last Wednesday because you weren't around to see it?

Actually, I do, because I was. You, on the other hand, believe it came up at 3 in the morning because some government agency told you so.

Your libertarian agitprop is simply noise in an otherwise good thread.

Your blind faith in government stirs me to nausea.

You don't know the history of commercial space, you don't know the legalities,

You don't know what I know.

... all you know is the one song that government is always bad and you sing it for every occasion.

Uh huh. And how do you know that? You on the other hand seem to believe that government can do no wrong, and has the right to regulate every facet of our existence. So sorry if I disagree.

This place is full of conservatives and libertarians whose credentials and intellectual prowess are so far out of your league

Surely you don't consider yourself in that league ...

that you barely qualify as a troll here.

Yeah, I just stopped by from DU to stampede your sacred cows. Idiot.

Go find someplace else to spew your ignorance.

Nah, I think I'll stick around to see you in the throes of apoplexy.

31 posted on 12/10/2004 7:06:24 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pete'sWife
What if some pioneering individual had the wherewithal to actually orbit the earth a few times in a vehicle he built in his garage?

Upon his return, would he have been arrested?

If he was an American, perhaps. I'm not sure what the penalties are for launching without a license. There would almost certainly be a fine, if he failed to get one.

32 posted on 12/10/2004 7:20:28 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
No one in authority could have been saying no because THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY!!! By your very own words

Wrong. Post my own words that said there was no authority. I dare you. And call off the personal insults.

33 posted on 12/10/2004 7:35:45 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
To start treating launchers as a transportation system is a whole new paradigm that is long overdue.

Your very own words. If this development is "a whole new paradigm" and that paradigm entails governmental regulation, then how could the old paradigm have entailed governmental regulation?

If the old paradigm DID entail regulation, by whom? And under what constitutional authority? You see, just because the government assumes (with support from such bovines as yourself) that it has the right to regulate every form of commerce, that regulation is not necessarily defensible constitutionally. Sometimes -- often -- it is wise to demand some justification for the expansion of bureaucratic power. That's all I'm doing.

And I'll call off the personal insults when you retract your "intellectual prowess" and "spewing ignorance" slurs.

34 posted on 12/10/2004 9:24:17 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
That they do it does not mean they SHOULD or have a RIGHT to do it.

That points out one of the really big problems these days. The Comprehensive Theory of the State has not been developed. There have been a handfull of partial attempts dating back to the 18th cent., but we still have no scolarly, philosophically correct, thorough and complete Theory. It is something that needs doing, and until it is done we are capable of doing no more than flinging incomprehensible slogans at each other.

35 posted on 12/10/2004 9:25:31 AM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The Comprehensive Theory of the State has not been developed.

Though it's straying somewhat from the subject of this thread, I would support the classical Burkeian definition of the State as a body whose sole justification is its ability to do better for the People certain things they cannot or will not do themselves. The simple fact that government intervention occasionally evolves to the public benefit is not adequate justification for that intervention. The benefit must be consistent, demonstrable, and parsimonious in its demands on individual liberties.

36 posted on 12/10/2004 9:35:04 AM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Your very own words. If this development is "a whole new paradigm" and that paradigm entails governmental regulation, then how could the old paradigm have entailed governmental regulation?

When did you stop beating your wife?

For crying out loud, your ignorance on this subject is complete, and yet you feel qualified to hand out personal insults? You can't even launch a model rocket over a certain size without government approval, and you think launchers capable were free and clear of government regulation before this?

The government has been issuing launch licenses for as long as private companies have been in the business, but you assume that must not have been the case and heap abuse on anyone who isn't as ignorant as you are.

37 posted on 12/10/2004 9:47:05 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Sure, but the Modern State has arrived everywhere on earth and it is all that and more. At the same time it has arrived with all power and that includes the power of unchecked evil and the sole right to administer justice. There is no comprehensive Theory of the State; all attempts to define the State, including Rousseau, Burke, and Hegel, are only bare beginnings. Are we in any position to limit the power of the State when just as many others are using the power of the State to further their own nefarious goals? It's here, and we are just beginning to see it at work. Is this how we are going to move toward our destiny in outer space?


38 posted on 12/10/2004 9:48:31 AM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Your very own words. If this development is "a whole new paradigm" and that paradigm entails governmental regulation, then how could the old paradigm have entailed governmental regulation?

There's a broken syllogism here. No one said that the new paradigm only entailed government regulation. It entails thinking differently about how to regulate. The old paradigm entailed government regulation as well, just a more worse kind.

If the old paradigm DID entail regulation, by whom? And under what constitutional authority?

This has been explained to you several times, but I'll type it more slowly this time so that perhaps even you will understand. It has been regulated by the Department of Transportation since 1984. It was done because the United States signed a treaty, ratified by the Senate per the Constitution obligating us to be responsible for all launch activities originating in the United States. In order to satisfy that obligation, it was necessary to establish a regulatory authority. This was done in 1984 via the Commercial Space Transportation Launch Act.

39 posted on 12/10/2004 10:24:42 AM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
This was done in 1984 via the Commercial Space Transportation Launch Act.

Sorry, that's the Commercial Space Launch Act. A law pushed by Ronald Reagan, by the way.

40 posted on 12/10/2004 1:21:28 PM PST by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
n the United States model rocketry is regulated by the following agencies and organizations:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Rocket engines are classified for shipping and transport. [my emphasis]

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Model rocket engines complying with certain requirements have been exempted from classification as a banned hazardous substance. Engines and/or their packaging have specific labeling and instruction requirements.

Federal Aviation Agency

Has exempted model rockets weighing 16 oz. (453 g) with engine(s) or using less than 4 oz. (113 g) of propellant from regulation.

National Fire Protection Association

Developed and adopted ANSI/NFPA 1122 Code for Model Rocketry setting standards for the safety of the activity of model rocketry.

I can see where the FAA requires notification of the use of any motor exceeding 1 pound at liftoff, and "permission" for launches whose liftoff weight exceeds 3.3 pounds. I can also see that FAA regulations concern primarily launch site safety, airspace integrity, insurance, and safe disposition of launch vehicles, including any jettisoned during the flight.

I can also see that the regulations, as I had expected, are draconian formalities of dubious use and value, and that they exist largely to create an illusion of safety. I don't know the history of these regulations, but I doubt they've been around since Goddard's day. Thank goodness, or he would probably have become a dentist.

As to the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (a department of the DOT), it has regulatory authority under the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 [1984 ... how appropriate!]. According to the FAA:

Before the Department's Office of Commercial Space Transportation can issue a launch license, it must review an applicant s proposed operations. In order to secure approval for its safety operations, an applicant must demonstrate that it can marshall the resources needed to prepare and launch a launch vehicle safely. These resources can be assembled in a number of ways: A company can choose to conduct all safety operations itself; it may rely on government-provided property and services to support its safety operations; or it may choose to perform safety operations through some arrangement whereby private and government resources are combined. In any case, the company must demonstrate that all aspects of its proposed launch activities will be conducted safely.

Once again, the paternalist notion that supervision by some regulatory arm of the government ensures the public safety.

The suggestion that the Commercial Space Transportation Act is constitutionally valid because it complies with Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty presupposes that an international treaty can obligate a signatory to an act that is illegal or constitutionally unsupported within the signatory's country. Again, I state my reservation that the regulation of space falls under explicit constitutional provisions. Perhaps you learned men can point out what Article creates that regulatory authority. That such regulation has existed longer than I had suspected in no way validates it, except through custom and use.

While I confess my ignorance on the details of this subject, I stand staunchly by my principle, that government is best which governs least. And that this burgeoning activity is not inherently served by government intervention any more than more traditional commerce is. Since that, not the specifics of regulatory history, is the bone of contention here, I suggest we confine our "discussion" to the relative merits of the regulations themselves.

That is, if there is any point in continuing this conversation.

41 posted on 12/10/2004 1:29:27 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
all attempts to define the State ...are only bare beginnings.

How would you advance those definitions? What do you see missing from previous attempts to define the State?

Are we in any position to limit the power of the State when just as many others are using the power of the State to further their own nefarious goals?

I believe We the People are ALWAYS in a position to limit the power of the State. The State has no power except what we give it. When people willingly rush to concede their liberties to the State, sometimes those liberties are hard to recover. Historically, it requires bloodshed. That's why power should be yielded up grudgingly, if at all. And that's why regulations such as these are to be feared.

Is this how we are going to move toward our destiny in outer space?

I hope not. But it will take men of vision and far more diplomacy than I have to negotiate around the bureaucrats who would strangle innovation in its cradle.

42 posted on 12/10/2004 1:37:55 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
The words of the President's Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond appear more and more often. strangle innovation in its cradle. The Bush's 2000 campaign said the President would look into private property rights in space. Still waiting.
43 posted on 12/10/2004 1:46:59 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Well, I guess the good news is that we'll all be "safe."


44 posted on 12/10/2004 1:50:47 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NonZeroSum
What right does the government have to regulate aircraft?

[Backing away slowly...] Ask the FAA. They do it 24/7.

Sure they do. But I'm asking YOU. Where do they get the right?

45 posted on 12/10/2004 1:52:37 PM PST by Spirochete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
How would you advance those definitions?

Dunno. Reading whatever is available in philosophy circles. That is where it must be done, and that is where it seems to have gotten bogged down. The modern state seems to have taken total power and all we see is a helpless waving of arms. We are lucky to have chosen a decent man as President because it would be very easy for a man with bad intent to turn the State on the people. The Spanish Anarchists had a moment in the sun but the State returned shortly with a vengeance--so much for the power of the people. At this time it appears the State, all the modern States that cover the earth like a bucket of paint, are disposed to keep the people out of space, and denying private property rights by neglect is the most powerful way to do it.

46 posted on 12/10/2004 1:56:58 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Yeah, we'll be 'safe'. Safe from our destiny in space.


47 posted on 12/10/2004 1:58:50 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Huh? How is a satellite launch a threat to public safety?

If you're going to launch 100,000 pounds of explosive fuel over my head I think I am gonna take exception to that UNLESS someone else has already checked you out.

Failing that, you better try launches over water.

48 posted on 12/10/2004 1:59:24 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Truth, Justice and the Texan Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The modern state seems to have taken total power

The modern state has been GIVEN total power. Just look at this thread! There are people so complacent about their liberty that they take it as axiomatic that the government has not only a right but an obligation to regulate something they don't even own! And my sanity is impugned when I dare to differ.

And this is coming on a CONSERVATIVE site. Imagine the school-of-fish mentality that prevails on the fringes of the Left.

49 posted on 12/10/2004 2:13:20 PM PST by IronJack (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

In any case the modern State has total power. Were we complacent or just out of ideas, who knows, but the State never stood down from wartime footing once Korea started. One thing for sure, the State seems to want to keep development of outer space, and the Deep Sea for that matter, to itself. Property rights seems to be a sticking point, the State just won't move from its present dominant position, and it knows know quite well that no individual can challenge the State for long. We don't even know what the State IS or where it came from. There is plenty of study of where the primitive states came from and come from, but not the modern State. It's a new thing and we don't have the philosophy. All these idea-based states from the past seem to be merging into this new thing.


50 posted on 12/10/2004 2:28:14 PM PST by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson