(John Schilling) wrote in message ...

AST cannot be trusted this the power to restrict human access to
space
on "medical or other" grounds.

I do not think the regulations can be worded in such a manner as to deny
them, or AVR or anyone else, that power.

This is a key point people seem to be overlooking. There is nothing
that explicitly denies AST the power to create medical standards right
now, and I know for a fact that AST has already been thinking about
what those standards should be. This bill doesn't give AST any powers
they don't already believe they have right now. Allowing companies to
create their own medical standards, with AST approval, is probably
better than having AST create a one-size-fits-all standard. If you
don't like the current language, I invite you to suggest substitute
language. Please note that this is not moot court -- any language we
suggest must be politically acceptable to members of Congress. A
blanket declaration of laissez-faire principles would be a really hard
sell. Of course, if enough people are willing to help sell it, maybe
we could. For that reason, the opinions of people who are willing to
show up and work the Hill with us will count much more than those who
merely coach from the sidelines. (No offense intended to anyone, I'm
just trying to be pragmatic here. If we can't pass a bill, it doesn't
matter how perfect it was.)