A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Permission To Fly



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 03, 10:55 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Permission To Fly

....is the title of my latest Fox News column, in which I analyze and
endorse the legislation introduced last week to clarify launch
regulation for suborbital flights and passengers:

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

--
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:

  #2  
Old October 16th 03, 11:44 PM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Permission To Fly

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.

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

  #3  
Old October 17th 03, 12:13 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Permission To Fly

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:

  #5  
Old October 17th 03, 08:45 PM
Bill Bogen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Permission To Fly

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
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...


But does it imply that Burt Rutan will need to get a launch license
for each and every flight of SpaceShipOne, at great time and expense?

  #6  
Old October 22nd 03, 11:41 AM
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Permission To Fly

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:45:32 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Bill Bogen) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


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...


But does it imply that Burt Rutan will need to get a launch license
for each and every flight of SpaceShipOne, at great time and expense?


No, I believe that the first one is the hardest, but also that they
are trying to come up with a way to license a class of launches,
rather than have to do that.


To me it seems one of the biggest problems with Dennis Tito's flight was
the fact that NASA was left out of the approval process. Dennis Tito went
to the Russian, payed their price, they accepted him as a passenger and
flew him. Free Enterprise, Capitalism.

NASA among others raised a big stink over the whole matter.

"We're not ready for space tourism, it's at least 20 years away."

"Well, then, we're not going to give you any ISS safety training here in
Houston."

"Oh, Come on guys, we didn't mean you Cosmonauts, just that tourist guy.
Please, please, lets start the training."

"Looky here, Looky here, the tourist guy isn't safe to fly, he hasn't been
trained on how to use the safety equipment. He's not safe."

"What, your still going, even though you're untrained and unsafe. Well,
then, you can't come in our modules."

"And, Your gonna have to pay, pay for all the extra stuff we had to do to
try to stop you from going."

"Yeah pay, your gonna have to pay. Don't touch anything, you break it, it
yours, then your really gonna have to pay, because it priceless right now"

"ISS this is Houston: Ah, looks like the tourist guy is coming anyway. Ah,
could you guys make sure he doesn't feel welcome. And, Ah, don't give him a
hug he leaves."

Government beaurocrats don't like to be ignored. By codifying the training
requirements of passengers, it looks more like a fix to stop tourism for
the next 20 years or so. Allowing the Russians to gain a much greater lead
in the area, as they won't have the restriction. Other than what was
negotiated between Dennis Tito's flight and Mark Shuttleworth's flight.

The next step after suborbital tourism, is orbital. Having a place to go is
a huge plus over just going round and round in a tiny ascent/decent
vehicle. ISS would be a nice place to visit, until there is enough business
in the industry to require a separate station dedicated to the things
tourist would want. Large windows, a room with a view, large gym, swimming
pool, good food, and a walk on the outside.

SpaceShipOne, is a similar situation. Burt Rutan, picked the easiest and
least expensive route to get into the testing phase of his vehicle. Lots of
secrecy, then some meeting with beaurocrats and a public announcement.
Certified Glider.

One door closes, and another opens, but what's it look like inside?

Is the hurdle higher or lower for the next person?

Is the government nurturing or hindering a vast fledgling industry that has
yet to fly it's first passenger here in the land of the free and home of
the brave?

Craig Fink

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.