On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 16:44:38 CST, in a place far, far away, Jim
Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/ar...48.html#003148

The Fox news one is at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100181,00.html which is a good
place to start as it is written in a more readable style.

D'oh!

That's the link I meant to post. Thanks.

Well, at least until you start quoting from the law :-). (Seriously,
you do a pretty good job at legalese-to-english, there are just a few
sentences that I had to re-read to parse).

If I read it right, it closes off the experimental aircraft
possibility (I'm not clear on the status of that choice under current
law). And doesn't seem to particularly require or even encourage any
streamlining beyond the current process for a launch license.

Well, it sort of suggests it, but probably not strongly enough.

So this
bill looks like a good thing, but does it go far enough?

It probably doesn't go as far as some of us would like it to, but I
think that it goes as far as is politically feasible right now, and I
think that it goes far enough to loosen certain investors' purse
strings. At least one of them...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: