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
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing