The "No" Party
Congress thought they'd better get busy regulating space. I thought this was an Onion-type satire at first glance, but it is clearly serious. The last paragraph is worth the price of admission alone:
Out-of-this-world vacations moved a step closer to reality Thursday with House passage of legislation setting guidelines for the future space tourism industry.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, said that while he first thought the legislation was"a little flighty," he came to realize that"this is about a lot more than joy rides in space. This is about the future of the U.S. aerospace industry."
Laws already exist to regulate private sector space endeavors such as satellite launches, but there is no legal jurisdiction for regulating commercial human spaceflight.
The House bill, which passed 402-1, gives regulatory authority over human flight to the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
To make it easier for companies to test new types of reusable suborbital rockets, the bill gives the office the authority to issue experimental permits that can be obtained more quickly and with less bureaucracy than licenses.
It also requires the Office of Commercial Space Transportation to come up with regulations for crew pertaining to training and medical conditions. Space tourists would have to be informed of the risks involved in their travel.
The bill also extends for three years an existing law under which commercial space launch companies are required to carry liability insurance, capped at $500 million, with assurances that the government will compensate for losses above that.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the Science Committee's space panel and sponsor of the bill, said encouraging private entrepreneurs to develop new space travel technology would have spinoffs for the Pentagon."Our great space entrepreneurs," he said,"are going to be developing aerospace technologies that can be put into our national security."
The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration. The one dissenting vote was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
comments powered by Disqus
- Frontline does Trump & Clinton
- This New York Times ‘Hitler’ book review sure reads like a thinly veiled Trump comparison
- Chicago Tribune editorial: The government should release secret grand jury testimony about its 1942 scoop: "Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
- US owes blacks reparations over slavery: UN experts
- Mali Islamist jailed for nine years for Timbuktu shrine attacks
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools
- Annette Gordon-Reed tells historians the controversy over Harvard law school's shield is different from the fight over the Confederate flag
- Historian EP Thompson denounced Communist party chiefs, files show
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017