X Prize 2

Gordon D. Pusch wrote:

Since most U.S. citizens probably will not consider US$ 10 million
to be worth emigrating to a country that has no extradition treaties
with the U.S. Gov't (such as Communist China, Libya, or Iran),

Well, teh solution to that part is becoming ex-US-citizens well in
advance of the flight. Again, doubtlessly not worth it but possible.

and since the U.S. Gov't would not allow the "ill-gotten" prize-money
to be transfered to such heinous regulation-violating "criminals,"
but would seize both it, the rest of their property, and the property of
their corporation under any one of several different asset forfeiture laws,
it is highly unlikely that any U.S. citizen will do as you suggest...

Solving this part would of course be harder.



-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Jim Logajan writes:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if they
can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country and get
something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval. The
US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere.

Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case a bit
of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen from
prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For example, it
should be possible to get around the problem simply by having the U.S.
citizen establish a business in a foreign country, which would then be the
legal entity that would design, build, and fly the rocket.

Some of the basic techniques used to establish tax havens seem likely
mechanisms.


The techniques used to establish tax havens only work when the government,
in this case the U.S. Federal Government, doesn't really care. And the
government only ever pretended to care about crooked businessmen or drug
dealers, so the tax havens worked.

When the drug dealers started getting in bed with the terrorists, the
Feds started caring and e.g. the Swiss started talking. Someone starts
conspicuously evading the standard legal regime while building something
that could be an ICBM's stunt double, Washington is going to care a
*whole lot* and the Swiss are going to go positively transparent.


Really, anybody who thinks "go offshore" is the trivial solution to the
launch regulation issue, needs to study the history of OTRAG. And anybody
with a "bureaucrats = evil" meme lodged between the mental lobes, needs to
get a sense of proportion. The FAA has the least evil bureaucrats of any
government agency anywhere. You want to trade them in for the whole ITAR
club, Homeland Security, *and* the kleptocratic cronies of some third-world
dictator? Good luck with that.


--
*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:

Really, anybody who thinks "go offshore" is the trivial solution to the
launch regulation issue, needs to study the history of OTRAG. And anybody
with a "bureaucrats = evil" meme lodged between the mental lobes, needs to
get a sense of proportion. The FAA has the least evil bureaucrats of any
government agency anywhere. You want to trade them in for the whole ITAR
club, Homeland Security, *and* the kleptocratic cronies of some third-world
dictator? Good luck with that.


Well, anybody who tries to off-shore a business involving something rocketshaped
will most definately be in the sights of the ITAR people, except possibly if
they tried to offshore it to Canada (and I'm not sure even then). And really,
its not just taking rocket parts or plans outside of US, if they get mad at you
they probably can have you spend a very long time in a federal jail for simply
having talked to somebody who is not US citizen about technical aspects of rockets.

Seriously.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Extradition and the reach of the FAA notwithstanding, thusfar, it
doesn't seem that the FAA has been much in the way:

http://www.space.com/news/faa_spaceshipone_040407.html

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Charles Buckley wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:

Nice thing about a world that has more than one nation, is that if
they can't get FAA clearance, they can always go to another country
and get something like it..

Unfortunately, if they're Americans, they still need FAA approval.
The US thinks it has jurisdiction over American citizens everywhere.


Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case
a bit of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen
from prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For
example, it should be possible to get around the problem simply by
having the U.S. citizen establish a business in a foreign country,
which would then be the legal entity that would design, build, and
fly the rocket.

Umm. No.

I believe U.S. citizens can buy stock in foreign aerospace firms. They can
be party to their establishment - all quite legally and without contacting
the FAA. If you believe differently, it would help if you cited appropriate
statute or case law.

Likewise, I believe a U.S. citizen does not need FAA approval to travel to
a foreign country and attempt to acquire a license to fly aircraft in that
land. Nor, as far as I know, are they prohibited by the FAA from being a
passenger in a plane, jet, or rocket flown from that land. If you believe
differently, it would help if you cited appropriate statute or case law.

Henry is correct. If the US believes that a US citizen, even an
ex-pat, is behind a corporation, they *will* go after that person.

I can't deny that the U.S. Federal government might attempt to "go after
them" - but the question isn't what they'd like to do - it is whether they
believe they have a legal (and political) leg to stand on - which I would
think would determine whether they'd "go after" someone. If you believe
that they *will* go after that person, perhaps you'd be kind enough to
share how you know this with such certainty?

When it comes to potential military tech, there is no shield. You
would be committing additional, many additional felonies going this
route.

I'll grant that a U.S. citizen is subject to export controls of munitions
or any equipment or information under export control. Since there is no
need to export any such material from the U.S. for a U.S. citizen to get a
rocket built in a foreign country, objections along those lines seem mute.
Perhaps you have some other statute or case law in mind?

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:
Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case a
bit of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen
from prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For
example, it should be possible to get around the problem simply by
having the U.S. citizen establish a business in a foreign country,
which would then be the legal entity that would design, build, and fly
the rocket.

Except that if it's US-owned, the US still has a handle on it. Oh, in
principle you can play some of the offshore-corporation games to hide
ownership -- although some of those don't work as well as they are
reputed to --

It seems to have worked for a while for as internationally visible a player
as Iraq:
http://www.exportcontrols.org/recruitment.html#offshore
(The section "Buying Partial or Complete Control of Established Companies"
is of closest relevance, though the article in general may be of interest,
though off topic, for some readers of this newsgroup.)

but then the real owner can't ever openly admit his
relationship to the company.

It is not necessary (or even finacially sound) for a single investor to own
the company. If I own 34% of 'Orbital Rides R Us, Ltd.' founded in
Freedonia with a Freedonian owning 33% and a Sylvanian owning 33%, I'm not
sure what the problem is - there is no single owner - or even majority
owner.

And the company had better not employ
any US citizens in senior positions, either.

I'm not following you - why not? What statute or established case law would
they be in violation of?

There *is* no legal shield that will let a US citizen thumb his nose
at the FAA for things like this. US citizens are required to get the
FAA's blessing, period. There is no magic exemption that can be
invoked.

Does a U.S. citizen (such as myself) need FAA blessing to acquire any
foreign pilots license while in that foreign country? Whether from a
hypothetical country like Freedonia or a real one like Australia? Would I
need FAA blessing to ride as a passenger of a aircraft or spacecraft? Or
FAA blessing to own all or part of a foreign aerospace company? I strongly
suspect there are no such laws or regulations, but you seem certain in your
statements, so I assume this means you have at close hand (or easily
researched) the laws, regulations, or case law that supports your
assertions. I look forward to seeing them.

The closest you can come is to have the *FAA* waive jurisdiction
(totally or partially) on the grounds that the local authorities seem
to be competent and on the job. But there is no fixed recipe which
guarantees achieving that; it's entirely the FAA's choice.

I see. You really do appear quite certain of these things. I had always
assumed that FAA jurisdiction was limited to regulating the airspace over
U.S. airspace and the licensing of pilots within the U.S., among its
primary activities. I wasn't aware that the FAA had *any* regulations on
partial (or whole) ownership or control of foreign companys operating
entirely offshore. I'll be interested to see any supporting material you
can dig up. If things are as you claim, then such laws would be a serious
concern.

By the way, I'm not arguing that U.S. laws don't already needlessly and
seriously constrain liberty, including the liberty to travel to space - I'm
quite certain that our liberties are already outrageously constrained. I'm
only arguing here on how far those constraints on liberty really extend.

And as I said before, the slightest hint of a deliberate attempt to
evade regulation is a red flag to the regulators.

"Well sir, that all depends on how you define 'deliberate'." ;-)

I believe there is a vast chasm between raising a red flag and being
successfully prosecuted.

(Len) wrote:
Then, instead of DoT sending the U.S. citizen to jail, the
Dept. of State would do the honors for violating technology
export laws.

What exists uniquely in the U.S. that the U.S. citizen would need to
export? (Other than themself?)

Sander Vesik wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Unlike physical laws, there are ways around human laws. In this case
a bit of legal research should turn up a way to shield a U.S. citizen
from prosecution or a need to get authorization from the FAA. For
example, it should be possible to get around the problem simply by
having the U.S. citizen establish a business in a foreign country,
which would then be the legal entity that would design, build, and
fly the rocket.

Nope. Even simple involvement of US capital is enough to have FAA
invovled.

Well, several people seem to have posted in general agreement with you.
But none produced any supporting material. If being tenacious on this
subject is what it takes to get people to dig said material up, then I
guess I'll have to be tenacious. So dig in and support your assertion
please! :-)

Some of the basic techniques used to establish tax havens seem likely
mechanisms.

Unlike space launch technology, tax avoidance is not on the US list of
"stamp out at all costs" strategic weaponry related technology.

Well! *That* explains the federal deficit! :-)

(John Schilling) wrote:
Really, anybody who thinks "go offshore" is the trivial solution to
the launch regulation issue, needs to study the history of OTRAG.

I do remember reading about them back in the 70's. The following jogged my
memory: http://www.jcrocket.com/otrag.shtml

As far as I can see, the FAA wasn't involved in their demise or went after
any of the U.S. investors.

Just to be clear - I don't think going offshore is trivial - I'm merely
arguing that there is no evidence that the jurisdictional reach of the FAA
is as great as several people are claiming and onerous U.S. laws could be
bypassed. In particular the prohibition of exportation of munitions is
completely voided once one goes entirely off shore.

And
anybody with a "bureaucrats = evil" meme lodged between the mental
lobes, needs to get a sense of proportion. The FAA has the least evil
bureaucrats of any government agency anywhere. You want to trade them
in for the whole ITAR club, Homeland Security, *and* the kleptocratic
cronies of some third-world dictator? Good luck with that.

U.S. pilots (and aerospace manufacturers) seem to have some clout with the
FAA which may account for them being "least evil".

Henry Spencer wrote:
In the long run, when these things get *common*, then it's going
to be necessary to have space traffic control, and police/military
forces are going to need the ability to shoot down such vehicles,
if only as the final guarantee that traffic-control orders will be
listened to. Trying to limit the spread of the technology might
postpone that day but won't prevent it.

What about the really long term, when we have relativistic starships?
By the time it's noticed that a ship is approaching earth at 90% the
speed of light, it's far too late to do anything about it. And when
it hits, it will devastate a continent.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.