Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, Space

Regulating Inspiration Mars

25 Comments

Jeff Foust has a pretty comprehensive story on last week’s announcement, but Michael Listner and I are discussing the regulatory aspects in comments:

Under the Commercial Launch Act, a commercial or private operator must obtain an launch license and reentry license from the FAA. If the FAA decides not to grant either license this mission is going nowhere. Even though this is a non-commercial activity, the wording of the Act will still require a license.

Rand Simberg · 28 minutes ago
Yes, but what would be the basis of denying one?

@ponder68 · 10 minutes ago
During the review process, if the FAA reviews whether that the mission could be adverse to the United States’ national security or international interests. Also, the issue of safety could be an issue as well as environmental considerations is part of the review. An adverse finding any of these or a combination could result in denial of a license.

Rand Simberg · 4 minutes ago
Oh, I understand that. I meant on what rational basis? I can’t see the Pentagon objecting, and the notion that it would be an environmental issue is ludicrous. The only possible safety issue that I could see would be the entry. If there was an objection, I can imagine that the (Obama) State Department might say that it was hurting the feelings of other countries who weren’t as audacious as we are (note that this mission is actually within the budgets of many nations). But I’m not sure how the American people would react to such a position.

I’m going to add something to the book about this. Under current law, the only authority that the federal government would have over such a flight would be the ascent to orbit, where they would issue a launch license for the launch to deliver the hardware and crew to space. They have no jurisdiction over orbital activities, or beyond-LEO activities, other than their responsibilities under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. This will in fact put the limits of Article VI to the test of just how much supervision by a States Party is required for private actors. The FAA has no statutory authority to regulate the safety of the crew themselves (again, under current law). The only safety issue in which they will be involved is for the launch, and for the potential of damage to uninvolved third parties from the very hot entry.

Which raises a question for the mission planners — how do they plan to dispose of the non-capsule (that is, the expandable) portion of the mission? Do they separate shortly before entry, and let it burn? How much of it will make it to the ground? They can probably do a correction burn after (or perhaps during) the Mars flyby to tweak the final earth entry time and location, but I don’t know by how much.

Business, Political Commentary, Space

Regulating Commercial Spaceflight

13 Comments

Should the industry take a page from the book of maritime law, and self regulate?

Classification Societies originated in the 18th and 19th centuries at the initiative of English ship insurers. Their purpose is to serve the public interest and the needs of their clients by promoting the security of life, property and the natural environment.1 They are impartial organizations consisting of technical experts that have established a system of public safety based on private law contracts. They are often described as the unofficial “policemen” in the marine world. Classification Societies enter into contracts primarily with ship owners and shipyards, which enable them to determine and control whether a ship conforms to their rules. Although Classification Societies do have economic interests, these interests are not the primary reason for their existence. Because of this, they often take the form of non-profit corporations.2

Classification Societies set the standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of maritime vessels. They accomplish this through rules and standards formulated through a committee process. In developing these rules, a Classification Society’s staff relies upon prudent marine engineering principles, theoretical research, and experience.

This is something that the Commercial Spaceflight Federation should be considering.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Campaign Of Pain

3 Comments

It’s all about 2014:

For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.

To repeat what Rush Limbaugh said four years ago, I hope he fails.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Overcriminalization

3 Comments

To me, this is one of the most frightening things about the growth of Leviathan:

Statutory law in America has expanded to the point that government’s primary activity is no longer to protect, preserve and defend our lives, liberty and property, but rather to stalk and entrap normal American citizens doing everyday things.

After identifying three federal offenses in the U.S. Constitution — treason, piracy and counterfeiting — the federal government left most matters of law enforcement to the states. By the time President Obama took office in 2009, however, there were more than 4,500 federal criminal statutes on the books.

“Too many people in Washington seem to think that the more laws Congress enacts, the better the job performance of the policymakers,” Lynch notes. “That’s twisted.”

It is. It’s like the attitude at the State Department that their job is to get treaties ratified, good, bad or ugly.

We need quality laws, not quantities of terrible ones that criminalize us all.

Health, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Space, Technology and Society

How Delaying Commercial Crew Is Deadly

24 Comments

Jon Goff says that it could cost thousands of lives:

Just shaving 36 hours off of the availability date of commercial crew could potentially save more lives than would be lost in the worst case Commercial Crew crash. Even if expediting the process, dropping many of the NASA Human Rating requirements, dropping some of the abort tests, and sticking with Space Act Agreements instead of FAR Contracts really meant a massive decrease in actual safety (I don’t think it would) to say a 5% chance of losing a crew on a given flight, over the course of the ISS’s life you would have saved hundreds of times more US lives by taking that course than you would potentially risk in astronaut lives.

I’ll have to incorporate this thought into the book. I made the point, but not quantitatively, just that our approach is an indicator of how unimportant ISS research is, despite NASA lip service.

This is the problem that Bastiat described. Loss of crew is very publicly visible, while the people who die are anonymous and unknown to all except those closest to them, and their deaths aren’t understood to be a result of flawed government policy. This is the same problem that the FDA has, so it ends up inhibiting innovation, destroying jobs and killing people lest it be blamed for letting people die through underregulation.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary

The Green Dream

19 Comments

…is a nightmare for California’s middle class:

Unfortunately, California environmentalists are trying to turn much of the Central Valley’s farmland back into desert too. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, federal courts have ordered farmers to divert hundreds of billions of gallons of water away from crops and into the Sacramento River, where it is supposed to help revive the delta smelt.

The diverted water has not helped the smelt much, but it has turned hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland fallow and sent unemployment in some farming communities as high as 40 percent.

California could solve this problem by building more dams, thus adding water capacity. But the state hasn’t built a major new dam since 1979 and none is on the drawing board.

One reason is the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act, CEQA was intended to make infrastructure planning easier. As the accompanying chart shows, it is anything but an easy law to follow. Unlike most state environmental planning laws, CEQA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney’s fees from defendant infrastructure developers (whether they be state, city or private actors).

This has created an entire environmental lawsuit industry — a very profitable one that chills development. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, CEQA has become “a morass of uncertainty for project proponents and agencies alike.”

Local government smart-growth plans have made it next to impossible for developers to build single-family homes near job centers such as the Bay Area or Los Angeles. As a result, real estate prices along California’s coast are among the highest in the nation, forcing many middle-class families to downsize or move elsewhere.

But the moron voters keep reelecting these people.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

Hating The Bullies

Some thoughts from Jeremy Boreing, on the anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death. Hard to believe it’s been a year.

[Update late evening]

Iowahawk remembers Andrew as well:

Despite the differences in our extroversion (the mere idea of appearing on camera sends me diving under the furniture) I considered him a kindred spirit – another guy who loved his wife and kids, happy despite being sick of the bullshit. Although I can’t claim to have known him as well as others here at Breitbart, I cherished him a friend whose passing is still personally painful.

With all the tributes and venom being churned out today it’s obvious he still looms large in the political conversation, and it’s hard to think of another figure in media or activism who would be a trending topic a year after their death. I think the reason why is that he represented a new kind of cultural/social conservative. Maybe not in the conventional sense (it’s still fun to freak my liberal friends by noting Andrew’s status as a pro-gay marriage, pro-pot decriminalization Jewish activist for women and minorities who loved of 80s New Wave), but on the value of honesty. I’ve heard him referred to as a “reactionary.” I suppose he as a reactionary – in the literal sense – against an increasingly contrived, vapid, narrative-driven news culture, one that attacks and marginalizes any non-conforming message. He studied the bullies’ playbook, called them out, and bloodied their noses. Hard as it may be for these bloody-nosed bullies to believe, it had nothing to do with their ‘liberal’ politics. If there was a parallel universe with a dominant right wing media culture as dishonest and conformist and thuggish as the left wing one here, Andrew would’ve been more than happy to rocket there and punch them in the mouth, too. If that’s what a reactionary is, then sign me up for the t-shirt.

Me too.