Talk to Congress about Commercial Human Spaceflight

(GCHudson) writes:

Ed asks for support of H. R. 3245, and while I would normally not wish to
challenge anyone seeking to help open the space frontier, I have serious doubts
about the wisdom and timeliness of this particular piece of legislation. The
argument for and against AST is too long to go into here, and I will shortly
address it in another public print forum, but setting that aside (suffice to
say that I think AVR is a better choice) I would like to draw attention to the
following proposed provisions of the Act:


`(c) COMPLIANCE WITH SPACEFLIGHT PARTICIPANT REQUIREMENTS- The holder
of a license under this chapter may launch or reenter a spaceflight
participant only if--

`(1) the spaceflight participant has received training and met medical
or other standards specified in the license;

`(2) the spaceflight participant is informed of the safety record of
the launch or reentry vehicle type; and

`(3) the launch or reentry vehicle is marked in a manner specified by
the Secretary of Transportation which identifies it as a launch or
reentry vehicle rather than an aircraft.'


I submit that this is nothing more than the "Space Precautionary Act"
mentioned by Heinlein in his short story 'Requiem.'


Would it be unfair of me to note that the SPA of "Requiem" certainly
permitted and perhaps fostered a commercial environment that included
everything from suborbital barnstorming to cities on the moon, that
what sticking points the SPA might have offered were generally well
lubricated by an established smuggling community, and that the main
obstacle to DD's trip was not the government but the board of directors
of his own corporation?

Bring it on.


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. Which is not to say that the
wording of the regulations is wholly unimportant, but far more important
is the character of the regulator.

AST is new, and flexible, and apparently willing to work with us. No
matter how the regulations are worded, I think I prefer them to AVR,
or to almost anyone else I can imagine.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

(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.)