Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 06:56:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
990 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> You're entitled to your viewpoint, even if expressed not very politely, but I
> have a different view.
S'funny...I've often thought much the same thing about you. BTW, did you ever
track down your answer on using the (R) symbol when typing "The LEGO Company"?
> As for your second para, do some research into how NASA, the FAA, and the
> OCST have held things back.
Lessee, from what I've read, the OCST was formed as part of a bipartisan effort
to actively promote commercialization of space travel through the CLSA.
Initially it shared jurisdiction with a bunch of other agencies, but that was
mostly streamlined by giving them primary jurisdiction (the remaining influence
possessed by various states and other agencies continues to hinder progress more
than anything the OCST did). Then the Clinton Administration bundled the OCST
(now the AST) up with the FAA (despite the fact that essentially the same setup
had been attempted and failed miserably two years prior to the inception of the
OCST as a stand-alone agency), which was not only unprepared to deal with it,
but also not very enthusastic about it's new role as parent to the OCST (on the
plus side, this merger is what made privatized RLVs legally able to land in the
US). Congress, in the meantime, relieved the FAA of any authority to promote
commercial aviation, and their lack of clear definitions on key aspects of
spaceflight ("suborbital trajectory" and "suborbital rocket", in particular)
pretty much hindered the FAA's ability to do much of anything with their new
jurisdiction through the AST. That and the fact that they're wholy unsuited to
the type of regulation that a budding industry like this needs (but remember,
the FAA didn't _choose_ to annex the OCST). Even so, they've licensed over 100
ELV flights since 1989.
On the other side of the coin, the UN has decreed that the launch state (in the
is case the US) is wholly liable for any damage incurred by space-born objects,
which basically means that if a commercial entity totally mucks things up, Joe
Taxpayer could end up footing the bill for damage caused by falling debris.
NEPA also results in hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures just to
qualify for a launch license (SpaceX had to count sea lions near their launch
site because of this), while experimental aircraft are allowed exemptions
unavailable to experimental spacecraft.
As for blaming NASA in any way...why should they be expected to bootstrap a
commercial space program? That makes as much sense as the US Army providing
arms and training to private militias. And there are probably about as many
laws providing the authority to do so. Besides, they're no longer actively
trying to compete with commercial space-flight like they were before the
Challenger explosion, and indeed Reagan's NSP essentially prohibited them from
competing with commercial space ventures in 1988.
From what I see, it's pretty much all in the lap of Federico Pena from the
Clinton Administration (and by extension Norman Mineta for not fixing Pena's
blunder) and Congress.
> It's not lack of desire or lack of vision in the commercial sector that's
> the problem, it's overregulation and oversubsidization.
Maybe to a certain extent, but you're not looking high enough. Rules are meant
to be changed, but the people with the authority to change the ones relevent to
this situation are not part of any of the three organizations that you quoted.
Mutability of laws was actually one of the biggest perceived hurdles, since
there was no way to guarantee that a new launch system wouldn't suddenly become
illegal to operate before the R&D phase was completed, much less before it was
able to recoup its development costs.
Still, part of free enterprise is the willingness to jump any hurdles that may
be in your way. If some of them happen to be governmental rather than
developmental, that's what lobbying is for. You can't expect the federal
government to have anticipated your need well enough in advance to have done all
of the work for you before you even walk through their door.
> NASA has taken deliberate steps to make it as hard as possible for commercial
> space, and further, has done things, like destroy tooling,
They have a right to protect their proprietary government-funded designs. Might
as well ask if you can have your own F-15 made for commercial use (it's not so
much what the answer would be, but how it's phrased that would interest me).
Besides, it's not like any commercial enterprise would be able to fund the
construction, service, and launching of a privatized Space Shuttle fleet, and
pre-STS NASA designs for ELVs are obsolete.
> mandate the Shuttle for all cargo,
Again, why should NASA be expected to play pony for the tourist industry? The
Space Shuttle is prohibitively expensive to launch, so all hands-free satellites
have been downgraded to much more economic ELV flights to _save_money_ (and even
then the launches cost more than most Universities can afford). Only when the
satellite requires post-launch tinkering or Space Shuttle system capabilities,
or involves national security/foreign policy issues do they hoist it with a
Space Shuttle or pull up alongside, and the only seats available for commercial
ventures are for the payload specialists needed to do the tinkering. Besides,
until the Space Shuttle was declared off-limits for basic hands-free satellite
launches, there was no pressing need for privatized spaceflight, so there was no
real call for it. It's like teaching birds how to fly. As long as they have
enough room and food available in the nest, they'll stay in the nest.
Currently, their only direct impact on the privatization of spaceflight is that
there are currently a limited number of companies that have the benefit of ELV
designs that were NASA-subsidized during R&D, and any new competitors in that
market would need to keep both their development costs and their operating costs
low enough to at least match pricing with the current options, while still being
able to recoup the initial investment in a timely manner.
> They were doing it before you were born
Just how young do you think I am?
> That said, they're STILL my favorite government agency.
Mine's the US Post Office. They're one of only two federal organizations that
bring in enough outside revenue to fully fund every aspect of their
operation...and the other one is the IRS.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) You're entitled to your viewpoint, even if expressed not very politely, but I have a different view. As for your second para, do some research into how NASA, the FAA, and the OCST have held things back. It's not lack of desire or lack of (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
