House Science Committee Approves Changes To Space Law 103
schwit1 writes: In a series of party line votes, the House Science Committee has approved a number of changes to the laws that govern the private commercial space industry. Almost all of the changes were advocated by the industry itself, so in general they move to ease the regulatory and liability burdens that have been hampering the industry since the 2004 revisions to space law. While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get free of strong federal regulation, these changes indicate that they can eventually get some of the worst regulations eased.
Treaty Violations (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem that the US is on a path of violating every international treaty it has ever made.
Lord of the Flies continues...
Re:Treaty Violations (Score:4, Insightful)
Also by assigning property rights to off planet resources, its making a pretty big attempt to extend its soverign juristiction. Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
Re: (Score:1)
Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
The Americans. Just try to stop them. You better have a bigger bomb than they do....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in space they dont, in fact just about everybody other than the US have stable launch capability, russia, china, india, and europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, it's gonna be a real life Borderlands!
Re:Treaty of Tordesillas was effective (Score:1)
If you look at which parts of the New World speak Spanish and which parts speak Portuguese, it's quite clear that the Treaty *was* enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the AC posting in English...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also by assigning property rights to off planet resources, its making a pretty big attempt to extend its soverign juristiction. Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
Two thoughts...
1. The old "finders keepers" rule would seem to apply...
2. We have 11 aircraft carriers, about as many as every other nation combined...
If you don't like it, change #2...
BTW, I'm not saying it is "right", I'm saying what "is".
Re:Treaty Violations (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about the US owning anything; it is about private ownership of something. If a company does make it into space, say to some asteroid or something, and you're telling them what they can and can't do while they're there (like claim mineral rights and mine it), who is trying to own the universe then? The way I see it, if someone can make space exploration profitable, that's great! If you're going to piss & moan about someone making property claims & making money while advancing humanity then I think you're the one with the problem. I don't care how we get to space, as long as it happens. Squabbling over money and ownership does not advance humanity; getting out there does. If this whole thing ever becomes an actual issue, then it means something wonderful is happening.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
In order to grant rights to a private company, the state has to have sovereign right over the item that has the grant applied to it. If a US company finds a big rock full of palladium in the asteroids and stakes out a claim , applies to the US for a grant of that claim. There is nothing to stop a European, Russian, Chinese or Asian company doing the same thing on the same rock and completely ignore the US grant of the claim, as it has no sovereignty there.
Ohhhhhh and good luck getting one of those 11 aircr
Re: (Score:2)
Never actually met any of the Chinese aiming to supplant the USA, have you? Many in Africa who used to think like you have changed their tune now that they have...
Re: (Score:2)
the US doesn't need to enforce the right at the asteroid, or even in space. The nice part of all those other countries is they are right here on earth, well within reach of all those aircraft carriers. So unless one of those countries first moves most of it's assets off planet, those aircraft carriers matter.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as said company gives up all the benefits of being a corporation, a right granted by the power of the US government, then the US government will have no jurisdiction. Of course not being a corporation will make it very hard to operate, but who needs that damn government interference anyway.
pedantic: govt can protect or violate rights, not (Score:1)
> a right granted by the power of the US government
I'm off topic, but government can protect rights or violate rights, it can't GRANT rights. That's a key part,of the definition of a right, vs a privilege or desire. (Therefore there is no RIGHT to have a corporation recognized by the state.)
Consider the right to free speech, the right to talk. That does not mean you're allowed to say whatever the government bureaucrats want you to say, or that you're allowed to agree with the majority. It means you
agreed, except corporations have privileges, not (Score:2)
You're not wrong. Not too much, anyway. :) I may not have made my point clear, though. This is what I'm talking about:
> People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more.
Because politicians can grant certain privileges to people and corporations, and can take thos privileges away, they are not rights. That's the difference between rights and privileges. By definition, rights are inherent, they can be violated
Deeply irresponsible (Score:2)
In other words: it has tied its own hands for the next 10 years.
It is, to quote the article, to allow the industry to "build up experience" which can inform regulations. In other words ... do whatever you like but don't forget to keep a record if anything goes boom. To "inform regulation" te
Re: (Score:2)
New law always supersedes older law. So all it takes to remove that ten year limit is a law passed by a later Congress.
All this does is prevent regulatory agencies (the Executive Branch, in other words) from making new regulatio
I really wonder (Score:2)
As to new law superseding old law, true, but wouldn't a change in law the way you mean open up the government to a wave of liability claims? If companies appealed to an ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) tribunal? For example the one provided by article 11 of NAFTA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org] )
After all, the government did represent to industry that they would not face new regulations for the next 10 years. Going back on that promise clearly aff
Re: (Score:3)
Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
God did. That's why when a white, humanoid alien from another planet comes to earth it's perfectly natural that they're going to fight for truth, justice and the American way. God likes us best and the rest of you fereners can suck it. Ha-ha!
Assigning? (Score:2)
It just says the if someone can get to a non-terrestrial object the US government won't try to stop them from bringing something back, picking up some water, etc.
Do you really think that's a problem? It's not like the US is building a military base on the Moon
Re: (Score:1)
Those international treaties should be used for what they were intended for - wiping bottoms. The current UN space treaty is so stupid and poorly written that its simply a block to humanity having a future in space.
Nothing to see here (Score:1)
What a waste of space
FAA regulations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard dis (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
let him secretly declare Martian Law in Texas.
That makes sense.....it is a space bill after all.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"
Free Market Republicans at their Finest (Score:2, Informative)
They extended the law which gives commercial companies $2.2 billion of free liability insurance, courtesy of the taxpayers.
"The same voting pattern followed on commercial launch indemnification, which expires at the end of 2016. The bill proposed a seven-year extension from the end of 2016 to 2023. The committee approved Knight’s amendment to extend the cost-sharing arrangement to the end of 2025. The Democrats wanted an extension to 2020.
Under law, companies are responsibility for damages from a lau
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare is only good when it goes to Corporations???
I just got a vision of Ted Cruz as a Welfare Queen, hard to type while clawing my eyes out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare is only good when it goes to Corporations???
I just got a vision of Ted Cruz as a Welfare Queen, hard to type while clawing my eyes out
He's on Obamacare now. (actual truth)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This. Say what you will of Democrats, at least they run on the policies they will implement. Republicans on the other hand run on a con job of "free market" and "no deficits" which in reality means "corporate welfare up the wazoo" and "record deficits because of wars and tax cuts".
Re: (Score:2)
Like ending US involvement in the Middle East? Seems to me Obama ran on that. Seems to me we're still there (and ignores that even his attempts to get us out of there were on Bush's timetable...).
Re: (Score:2)
Like ending US involvement in the Middle East? Seems to me Obama ran on that.
Which any reasonable person would say he delivered on, considering that we had nearly a quarter of a million troops there and we are down to about 10K.
If you care about the facts that is. Otherwise keep on voting for those "fiscally responsible" republicans which took the Clinton surplus and converted it into a trillion dollar deficit, all in the name of "smaller government".
Re: (Score:2)
This. Say what you will of Democrats, at least they run on the policies they will implement. Republicans on the other hand run on a con job of "free market" and "no deficits" which in reality means "corporate welfare up the wazoo" and "record deficits because of wars and tax cuts".
As long as people will continue to buy that someone wants to run for positions that they say they want to strip the power from.
Never met a politician who wanted less power or control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. Say what you will of Democrats, at least they run on the policies they will implement.
Yea, that's why we have single-payer healthcare, no troops in the ME, and Bush's surveillance machine has been dismantled, right? All promises made by the current Democrat during his campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
So which party is it that wants the government to assume the risks and pay for the damages created by a de-regulated industry? I seem to remember going through this recently...
Re: (Score:2)
Either one.
Just depends on what industry we're discussing.
And cuts funding for NASA to research earth system (Score:3, Insightful)
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2015/04/controversy-awaits-house-republicans-roll-out-long-awaited-bill-revamp-u-s-research
WHAT A GOOD THING.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does your link say that? I searched and couldn't find any reference to NASA.
Yes it is a good thing (Score:2)
At one point we needed the government just to reach space.
That time has passed. What we need now is not one gatekeeper to bring us into space, but the gates to be flung open. NASA still has uses but the majority of space travel and research going forward should be done by the people outside the government, the people who from time immemorial have been always able to do something hard and dangerous and expensive and make it better and faster a cheaper and more accessible to everyone.
Do you want to visit sp
Re: (Score:2)
The left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away. It has been ever thus. People keep voting for the right hand anyway, proving that we deserve this government.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the left hand has been doing little more than taking (increasing taxes) isn't it? Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the left hand has been doing little more than taking (increasing taxes) isn't it? Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
How's Oklahoma doing?
If the right actually acted like real right wingers, not trotskyite neocons, maybe what you say would have some credence. As an Goldwater conservative, I fear that the ingrained hatred y'all have been inculcated with has allowed the modern so-called conservatives to believe crazy shit, like people running the show wanting less power, and if only we can make most Americans as poor as possible, then they will be wealthy.
Which is all to say, after the end game scenario of elimination o
Re: (Score:2)
Okie? Dunno, never lived there, how's Venezuela working for you?
Call me when entitlements stop taking an ever larger part of everyone's paycheck Chavista.
Re: (Score:2)
Okie? Dunno, never lived there, how's Venezuela working for you?
Call me when entitlements stop taking an ever larger part of everyone's paycheck Chavista.
Venezuala - that's some commie country. I'm not certain why you decided to go full potato on me.
Although I've seen your argument style before.
Perhaps you didn't read my last sentence? There needs to be a balance, Going all Neotrotskyite neocon like Oklahoma did causes failure. So does going all commie.
Balance, moderation, pragmatism. Things you probably consider evil in your push for unattainable ideological purity.
Re: (Score:2)
Venezuela isn't communist, but then you'd have to pay attention in school or read more than is typical in the US to understand the difference between communism & socialism.
I've seen your style of posting/trolling too: Blame the other side for all the problems, attempt to place anyone who objects in the most extreme opposition then say something to attempt to appear moderate. In your case that appears to be blaming the right for everything, then calling me an Okie & then calling for pragmatism.
Back t
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the other side for all the problems,
Oh fuck off troll, I was responding to another person doing what I did, just before me.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical. A leftie cannot even assume responsibility for his own actions when it is shown to be bunk & has to blame someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which, you need to ask yourself where the left hand's largesse is coming from. It isn't from their own pockets, that's for sure.
Yeah, the left votes for social programs, and the right votes to make sure the money comes from the people who need the help most. In this way, government works together to fuck us over. But if you had to cut off one of those hands in order to make the world a better place, which one would it be? It sure wouldn't be the one that puts all the world's burdens on the middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
Both have essential functions in modern society but that is no reason to spread simplifications to the point they become falsehoods. Saying that the left gives & the right takes away is a lie. The left takes from everyone & distributes the majority to their electorate & the right pushes to grow the economy by limiting taxes & governmental controls.
I don't need to imagine what would happen were the left to dominate overmuch, I currently live in France where both US major parties are seen as r
No bias here. (Score:2)
In a series of party line votes, the House Science Committee has approved a number of changes to the laws that govern the private commercial space industry. Almost all of the changes were advocated by the [government], so in general they move to [improve] the regulatory and liability [common sense] that has been [enabling] the industry since the 2004 revisions to space law. While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get [more] of [awesome] federal regulation, these changes indicate that they can eventually get some of the [most awesomest] regulations [strengthened].
I also, can write a really [unbiased] summary.
Fucking dot slash.
Depends. (Score:2)
"While it is very unlikely commercial space can ever get free of strong federal regulation,..."
Says who? Cuba is as good a site as cape Canaveral.
Re: (Score:1)
Overreaching powers (Score:1)
Re:Veto it (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight
a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents
and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.
So, the industry would like to have low regulations, GOVERNMENT PROTECTION from liabilities and sole ownership of whatever they find
Hey, I am fine with industry standing on its own and living or dying by the free market, but since when was letting the government own your liabilities part of the free market vision?
This reeks of cronyism and people simply working to maximize their profits at the cost of the rest of us.
If you wanna mine an asteroid, then you have to pay for it if you drop it on my city
No corporate welfare for you
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, take your whiny ass off to some secret hideaway and die of starvation without the common man to live of off you elitist scumbag
Re:Veto it (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I am fine with industry standing on its own and living or dying by the free market, but since when was letting the government own your liabilities part of the free market vision?
They're just asking for the same deal the insurance industry, defense industry, agriculture, pharmaceutical and banking industries already enjoy. Who paid the tab for the last recession? That would be the government, as in we the people. Who paid to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina or Florida after the last set of hurricanes? It was partly the insurance industry, which threatened to claim bankruptcy if the government didn't pick up most of the tab. Who pays for bad weather that wipes out crops? And who pays when someone loses their job and can't make their mortgage payment? Who paid for broadband infrastructure and then gave it away to telecos to sell at a profit which then started to whine like bitches when it came time for upgrades?
I actually agree that the government shouldn't be on the hook for any of that, at least not indefinitely. The government might have to be the buck of last resort for the private space industry until the risks are understood and private insurance has a structure for coverage. But then there's an accident and the insurance companies threaten to file bankruptcy if they have to shoulder the full burden of the claim and most re-insurers are located offshore, so they're not worried about paying up to the limit of coverage and saying, C' ya!
If the government doesn't shoulder the burden of liability then the private space industry never gets off the ground. On the other hand, we the people deserve some payback if we're providing insurance.
Re: (Score:1)
So, the industry would like to have low regulations, GOVERNMENT PROTECTION from liabilities
The government is only liable for damages above $500,000,000.
But hey, lets not inject facts into your anti-corporation bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because it's perfectly reasonable for a corporation that makes billion dollar mistakes to stay in business, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Waving your hands is not a valid argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Good! There is no commercial human spaceflight yet, not enough for the FAA to get involved and bog it down even more. IF Virgin Galactic actually takes passengers up, then that's when the FAA should get involved...it's just a waste of tax money for the FAA to do anything before hand. Look at the issues with the FAA and drones; their really doing a "great job!" But ten years is probably too long, this part needs to be re