Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I called my senators and urged a No vote.

Posted by Park Burrets at October 7, 2004 11:52 AM

I called my senators and urged a No vote.

Posted by Park Burrets at October 7, 2004 11:52 AM

Rand
Calm down. The bill doesn't become law with the Senate's approval, if different from the House's version, it would go to the conference committee. The committee could excise the nasty parts. I don't think the House members would roll over for an aide's gutting clause.

I don't know but if the Senate doesn't get around to it. The whole process would have to start over again. I would prefer the AIAA et al lobbying the conference committee than starting again.

Posted by Rod Kendrick at October 7, 2004 12:35 PM

There are reasons that we'd prefer that this language never reach conference. I'll elaborate more after the current crisis is passed. I'm also not sure that I want AIAA lobbying until I know what their position is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 7, 2004 12:38 PM

Jim Inhoffe would be a good person to contact, I'm sure he wouldn't want it to pass this way.

Posted by B.Brewer at October 7, 2004 12:44 PM

I've called both my senators and asked them to place a hold on the bill.

Posted by Joe Strout at October 7, 2004 12:58 PM

Christ, yet another reason why Reagan was right. Government is the problem, not the answer.

Posted by Mary Magdalene at October 7, 2004 01:01 PM

I sent an email to my Senators, Nickles and Inhofe, hopefully they will put a halt to this before any damage is done. They are strong supporters of space.

Posted by B.Brewer at October 7, 2004 01:21 PM

E-mail does not help. Phone calls, letters, telegrams, do. Staffers ignore e-mail.

Posted by Aleta at October 7, 2004 02:39 PM

The Washington state Senators, much as I dislike them, do respond to email. (Ok, they do have boilerplate responses - but they have several for separate issues.) Even different boilerplate for if you want a 'yes' vote or if you want a 'no' vote. Once you've gone through the trouble of figuring out what the email was about, counting them seems simple.

Posted by Al at October 7, 2004 02:43 PM

It may be that the proposed amendments were not meant to change the bill, but to kill it this session, in which case, it worked.

Posted by Redman at October 7, 2004 03:19 PM

Are we sure we want to delay this further? If it goes back to conference and house and Tim Delay can fix it.

it's a lot easier to fix it than to kill it and make a new bill.

Posted by Mark at October 7, 2004 03:37 PM

WHOSE STAFFERS?

"Congressional staffers" don't exist in a vacuum. There are accountable elected officials at the other end of this outrage, and I want to know who they are!

Posted by Whose Staffers? at October 7, 2004 03:59 PM

Why do you think that Tom DeLay would want to fix it? He's the congressman from Johnson Space Center. He doesn't care about this stuff.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 7, 2004 04:13 PM

I called my senators and urged them to put on hold on, or to vote against, this nasty piece of work.

Go for your fight, Yonder Senators of Oregon!

Posted by Dane at October 7, 2004 04:54 PM

Maybe the FAA has a hand in this: see http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/tourism_regulations_041007.html. I don't find this FAA site terribly reassuring either: http://ast.faa.gov. Hopefully I'm reading too much into the phrasing of the FAA's priorities.

As an American I want the USA to build the first public-access toll road into space, but spaceflight is important at the level of humanity, not just at the level of any single country. If the US falters, other nations will take the lead. I expect that many countries would be more than happy to have a commercial space carrier build facilities on their territory.

Posted by gs at October 7, 2004 05:39 PM

"Maybe the FAA has a hand in this:"

Right! It's the evil government! And NASA is probably involved in this plot somehow! They don't want normal people to go into space! They're out to get us all!

(heh, heh, heh)

Actually, it might help to do some reading on this. FAA has been pretty supportive of the whole movement. Peter Diamandis, for instance, has said nice things about the woman running the respective office at FAA.

Posted by at October 7, 2004 05:55 PM

Both of my senators are on the senate committee; both have had their staffers duly lectured by me today. One of them said "wait a minute... now your change your mind?" My reply: "No, the bill changed its mind!"

I'd be very curious to know whose staffer(s) are responsible for this. I have connections to senator Wyden's office which can be exploited, if a sharper lecturing is called for. Not that they seemed to be doing much good in getting the bill brought to the floor in the first place.

Posted by Nathan Koren at October 7, 2004 06:43 PM

Just wondering -- has anyone actually seen or read the bill? What does it say exactly?

Posted by at October 7, 2004 07:34 PM

> Why do you think that Tom DeLay would want to fix it? He's the congressman from Johnson Space
> Center. He doesn't care about this stuff.

Whether he does or doesn't care, he should.

Not only is Johnson Space Center in his district, so is the Gulf Coast Spaceport site.

Granted, the former has about a thousand times the political influence of the latter. But if he's looking ahead to the future (granted, an unusual behavior for politicians), it isn't always going to be like that.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 7, 2004 07:53 PM

MSNBC.com says that Rep. Rohrabacher, chair of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, 'has decided to hold back the bill' he introduced: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201543/ .

Posted by gs at October 7, 2004 08:05 PM

"Hopefully I'm reading too much into the phrasing of the FAA's priorities."

No, you got it right. FAA sees their top priority in space transportation as public safety. We say their public safety mission and their promotional mission are actually complementary: any new endeavor that jeopardizes public safety will not long endure. Further along in the article you cite, Jeff supports FAA's priorities.

By Ms. Blakey's comments here on Sunday, FAA is in full agreement with the House version of HR 3752. Assumed risk and informed consent are the only way to open the space frontier for the rest of us.

-R

Posted by Randall Clague at October 7, 2004 11:18 PM

I'd like to say I'm astounded. But frankly I'm not. I suspect this will end up driving the sub-orbital business out of the US.

It shouldn't too badly affect the business, such that it is, as the US market is not the only one, but I know Rand believes otherwise.

Posted by Daveon at October 8, 2004 01:38 AM

It will probably delay regular suborbital flight, but I think there is enough interest by enough different parties that more reasonable laws will come about.

Keep in mind that this is a process, and not everything is going to go wonderfully. I'm disappointed, but even the fact that this bill existed and was seriously considered is a major advance. The fantastic thing is that there are the beginnings of a true private manned space industry. It isn't just some gosh-wow discussion at a meeting of enthusiasts.

Still - amazing how the entire point of the bill was turned around. Sheesh.

Posted by VR at October 8, 2004 01:55 AM

It shouldn't too badly affect the business, such that it is, as the US market is not the only one, but I know Rand believes otherwise.

Yes, you "know" lots of things that I believe that I don't actually believe, and have never said. Once again you fantasize about my beliefs (I wish you'd find a more interesting fantasy life--one that doesn't involve me, Dave).

But I guess it's easier to argue with weird, fake beliefs than actual, well-founded ones.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 8, 2004 05:11 AM

Am I the only one out here who thinks it might be a better idea to gin up a little informal pressure group consisting of, say, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, Burt Rutan, Elon Musk, Robert Bigelow and John Carmack? Senators always take calls from living legends and guys with net worths in the 8-figures and up range. Anybody know the relevant e-mail addresses? Just a thought.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at October 8, 2004 06:28 AM

Yes, you "know" lots of things that I believe that I don't actually believe, and have never said...

So this isn't you?

From: Rand SimbergNewsgroups: sci.space.policyDate: 2004-07-23 12:00:08 PST

People with the money to do this don't want to travel halfway around the world to a country that has dodgy personal security. They don't need the risk, and they have better things to do with their time, particularly if they see future prospects for doing it here. Some will do so, but many are put off by it.

You say that not flying in the US will put "many off" - how is what I said here inaccurate given this statement by you?

What'ds remarkable is that rather than engage in discourse you fly off the handle at the slightest thing.

Posted by Daveon at October 8, 2004 07:41 AM

Of course that's me, David (out of context, of course--that was about weightless flights, not space tourism per se). Also of course, no one but you would, or ever has been able to torture logic in such a way as to interpret that to mean that I believe that there is no market outside the US for space tourism (or weightless flights, for that matter).

I'll explain once again, since you've decided to try to misrepresent my beliefs in this forum, as well as on Usenet. I'll type slowly this time, so perhaps even you will finally understand.

For people in the US, many would like to partake in various space tourism activities. Some subset of those are willing to travel overseas to do so. Others are not. Therefore, the US market for such activities offered domestically is larger (and in the case of weightless flights, probably much larger, based on customer feedback at places like Incredible Adventures), than the US market for such activities offshore. There is no claim, or belief, that no one is willing to travel to do so, or that there are no markets outside the US, despite your inability to comprehend simple English.

In addition, my statement has zero relevance to the huge markets of people in Europe, Japan and other places for such activities, which are also outside the US, contrary to your lunatic assertion.

Despite this, you (stupidly) claim, based on my statement, that I believe that there are no markets for space tourism outside the US. Such a claim can come only from someone utterly bereft of the faculties of logic and reason, or at least someone (for some undiscernable reason) pretending to that state.

And if you find that insulting, too bad. You come here and insult my intelligence and that of my readership by accusing me of holding ridiculous beliefs that I do, in fact, not hold, and then attempting to support the accusation with laughable and illogical nonsense. Reap what you sow.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 8, 2004 08:05 AM

>sigh

Despite this, you (stupidly) claim, based on my statement, that I believe that there are no markets for space tourism outside the US.

I didn't make that claim. If you'll point out where I did, then I'll happily say I'm wrong.

You repeat here, again, "typing slowly" - "Therefore, the US market for such activities offered domestically is larger (and in the case of weightless flights, probably much larger, based on customer feedback at places like Incredible Adventures), than the US market for such activities offshore. "

I am sure, 100% positive, certain etc... that this statement is true. Got that? I am *agreeing* with you on that statement?

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make and never has been, mostly because you continually, and this is the ironic part, misrepresent what I say in order to win cheap rhetorical stunts.

Posted by Daveon at October 8, 2004 08:28 AM

"Despite this, you (stupidly) claim, based on my statement, that I believe that there are no markets for space tourism outside the US."

I didn't make that claim. If you'll point out where I did, then I'll happily say I'm wrong.

You wrote:

It shouldn't too badly affect the business, such that it is, as the US market is not the only one, but I know Rand believes otherwise.

Let us parse this sentence.

You say the US market is not the only one. You say that you "know" that I believe otherwise.

Believing otherwise entails, logically, believing that the US market is the only one.

Therefore, you claim to know that I believe that the US market is the only one. Is there any logical distinction between believing that the US market is the only one, and that there are no markets outside the US? If so, explain it.

And for the benefit of my readers, use standard logic, please, not O'Neillian logic.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 8, 2004 08:38 AM

thus the sorry state of discourse in space politics...

Posted by at October 8, 2004 10:27 AM

Who are the Senate staffers that amended HR 3752? Did anyone meet with these people to explain why the amending was a bad idea? What is their reasoning for the amending?

Posted by Kurt at October 8, 2004 11:18 AM

In the space.com article cited yesterday, Associate Administrator Smith's tone might be a shade less expansive than Administrator Blakey's. Nevertheless it's reassuring that an industry insider like Randall Clague perceives the FAA's present role as a constructive one. The FAA site has fax numbers so, as an interested citizen not working in aerospace, I'll send Smith and Blakey thank-you faxes encouraging them to maintain their supportive postures.

Like Kurt, I haven't seen information about how the 'poison pill' got into the legislation. If it's an unintended consequence of wordsmithing by Senate staffers, that should be readily correctable. Deliberate sabotage of the legislation (on behalf of ??) would be more serious.

Posted by gs at October 8, 2004 12:32 PM

If it's an unintended consequence of wordsmithing by Senate staffers, that should be readily correctable.

Not if you can't convince them that the consequence will be undesirable. They may simply be clueless, and believe that this is necessary for public safety, and that they know better than the industry what's good for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 8, 2004 12:38 PM

Rand, until (hopefully) the specifics come to light, I have no basis for anything beyond a mild opinion.

Posted by gs at October 8, 2004 01:22 PM

The real story here is the coverup. Nobody knows whose "staffers" crashed the space bill, and whoever was behind it isn't jumping forward to claim credit.

Follow that trail to some real names and you'll find out who is trying to undermine commercial space travel in the U.S. More interesting still is why?

All we know now is that one or more members of Congress wanted it dead -- and don't want anyone else to know they killed it.

I suspect the trial lawyer lobby, who see a dangerous precedent for this kind of immunity: what if the success of the space industry led to Congressional grants of indemnity for real cash cows like OB-Gyn's?

But it's all speculation right now. How do you fight ghosts in the machine? As long as they have the power to remain anonymous, the "staffers" have won.

Posted by Which Staffers? at October 8, 2004 05:42 PM

There's no cover-up. Nobody is advertising, is all, for the very good reason that negotiations are still in progress.

I also don't share your belief that influential people are trying to undermine commercial space travel in the U.S. We may be facing some indifference, but we are not facing active hostility. Mostly, we are trying to work out honest differences of opinion in how best to promote the industry.

I should also take this opportunity to clarify my comment earlier in this thread. When I talk about FAA's top priority in space transportation being public safety, I'm talking about the uninvolved public, those who have nothing to do with the FAA-licensed activity. Passengers aboard space vehicles are not the uninvolved public.

-R

Posted by Randall Clague at October 9, 2004 08:02 PM

Post a comment