Suborbital bill hijacked

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
From RLV-News:<br /><i><br /><br /> There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.<br /><br /> If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.<br /></i><br /><br /><br />Now that's just insane. Who are these people and why are they doing this? Do they want to make themselves feel important or what? Grrr...<br />Anyway, if this bill passes I hope that Rutan and Branson set up shop in Australia or somewhere in Africa, anywhere but the United States. That will teach these incompetent megalomaniacs in congress a lesson.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
NO! Why are they doing this? Right after Rutan has won the X-Prize? WHY??
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
The only explanation I can think of is that they don't know what they're doing, that they're just completely ignorant of the consequences of their actions.
 
S

summoner

Guest
Theree's two things going on here that are huge problems in our government itself. 1st is the unrealistic "concern" for the general public. The government doesn't think that anyone is capable of making their own decisions, so they must do it for them. So they make the bill to make a rocket as safe for the passengers as it is for the public. We all know that that is completely unrealistic. But it happens all the time, think about how many ships the US has registered in it's name. They all go to third world countries who don't have as high of standards as many of the "developed" nations. It by no means the ships are less safe, just that they don't have to go to extremes to follow the guidlines of an overzealous government that must have it's fingers into everything. Virgin would go to some remote island nation and launch their rockets just as safe as they would here, only without undue regulations. Remember that if these things aren't safe, then no one will fly anyway, shutting down the business. The market will will make or break this venture, not govt.<br /><br />Secondly, without looking at the whole bill, I'd guess that there is quite a bit of pork attached. Meaning senator a will sign the bill if they get a new bridge for a park in outer kalamazoo. The part in this bill that adds more govt regulation to safe passengers is probably a victum of this pork. Iow, some senator demanded that it be included in order to get his/her support. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
In Mexico everything is legal!<br />It’s the Mexican way.<br /><br />But seriously it might be a little more difficult then picking up shop and moving. I wouldn’t be surprised if the engines and perhaps other technology being used by Rutan is considered too sensitive to “trade” with other countries. There are roadblocks that can be thrown up to keep Scaled Composites domestic.<br />
 
S

spacester

Guest
Golly!<br /><br />I thought the Republicans were not only in control of both the White House and Capitol Hill, but were the champions of space flight!<br /><br />But gosh, it sounds like another switcheroo at the last minute! Who'd a thunk it?<br /><br />I'm sure dubya will come riding to the rescue . . . <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Unless . . . .<br /><br />You don't suppose . . . <br /><br />Could it be . . . <br /><br />It was all an election year ploy!<br /><br />Nah, if there's anybody you can trust, it's a Texas Oil-Man Politician, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Don't be silly. We don't know if the amendments were made by democrats or republicans. <br /><br />The Vision for Space Exploration will support the commercial space industry by involving companies like SpaceX and t/space/Scaled Composites. Why do you criticize Bush for coming forward and giving NASA a clear goal? Granted, the initiative has its flaws but it's a lot better than what we've had before (OSP, ISS).
 
S

spacester

Guest
<font color="yellow">Why do you criticize Bush for coming forward and giving NASA a clear goal?</font><br /><br />Because he doesn't mean it. He is sincerity-challenged.<br /><br />He got elected by saying things people wanted to hear but that he had no intention of following through on. I saw through it then, I see though it now and can only hope enough people pay attention to the men behind the curtain. <br /><br />If the unthinkable happens and dubya is re-elected I will get no satisifaction when you find out it was all a ploy and he is no longer the champion of space you suppose he is and I tell you<br /><br />I TOLD YOU SO.<br /><br />Plus, this legislation is not nearly as critical as you suppose it to be. Private space flight will happen with or without help from DC.<br /><br />I forget, what was your rationalization again for why it took this champion of space three years to propose anything resembling progress? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
"Because he doesn't mean it. He is sincerity-challenged."<br /><br />That's your opinion, nothing more. <br /><br /><br />"Plus, this legislation is not nearly as critical as you suppose it to be."<br /><br />Oh, really? Then why is everyone in the alt.space-community so concerned about this? The original message I posted here came from Jeff Greason, head of XCor.<br /><br /><br />"I forget, what was your rationalization again for why it took this champion of space three years to propose anything resembling progress?"<br /><br />What was your rationalization again for why Bill Clinton never proposed anything with regard to space but instead proposed to cut NASA's budget year after year? The democrats are a pathetic bunch when it comes to space. That's too bad because I actually like some of their policies.<br />And I don't care how long it took Bush to come up with a vision, what counts is that he did it at all. And I further don't care if he is actually interested in space (I think he is to some degree), what matters are results. If you have been following the news you should have noticed that there is a major reorganization underway at NASA, that there is now a program involving prizes (Centennial Challenges), that the top NASA people have completely changed their tone when it comes to private spaceflight,... You get the idea.
 
S

spacester

Guest
It is more than my opinion. I deal with observations and facts. Those who have watched him closely know that I am stating a fact. Those that believe it is nothing more than opinion simply have not been paying attention.<br /><br />Sure, this legislation would be a good thing if passed. But it's an election year and nothing gets done in an election year except posturing. This is another fact based on observation. Knowing this fact, I never had much energy for worrying about this bill one way or another. If the gop lets this come to the floor again next year - which I doubt - I will be vocal in my support, as it will be in a year in which someything can actually get done. <br /><br />Um, what does Clinton have to do with anything? Did I say anything about slick willy? Do you hold the completely illogical opinion that when one says something about a politician, one is automatically saying the opposite of the opposition? It's foolish and childish to think that way. slick willy was no friend of space flight and I've never said otherwise.<br /><br />Progress at NASA is inevitable; their absurd approach is simply not sustainable. I contend that a better leader would have allowed the alleged progress to occur much sooner.<br /><br />All I've asked for from NASA for years now is to lead, follow or get out of the way. They just might possibly be getting out of the way a bit. I give credit for that to no one except Father Time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
<font size="10">Political threads belong in Free Space</font>.
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
"I deal with observations and facts."<br /><br />So do I. From what I have read (especially the excerpts from Sietzen's and Cowing's book "New Moon Rising") I'm convinced that Bush is interested in what NASA is doing. Actually the vision was to include only a return to the moon before Bush made it clear that he thought Mars should be a long-term goal. Of course he is no space enthusiast like us but that would be too much to ask.<br /><br /><br />"Progress at NASA is inevitable; their absurd approach is simply not sustainable. I contend that a better leader would have allowed the alleged progress to occur much sooner.<br /><br />All I've asked for from NASA for years now is to lead, follow or get out of the way. They just might possibly be getting out of the way a bit. I give credit for that to no one except Father Time."<br /><br />I strongly disagree. The changes at NASA are a direct result of the VSE. Progress is never inevitable (although that would be nice). The reason things are changing at NASA is that Bush has given NASA a new mission and that the agency has a very competent administrator for the first time in I don't know how many years.<br /><br />We should be glad that things are going so well this year and stop making superfluous attacks against a president who has actually done something for NASA. Would you have liked it better if he hadn't done anything? Then he would have been credible in your view, I guess...<br />I'm sure that if Bush is reelected we'll see all these new projects go forward, with Kerry I have a bad feeling.
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
<font color="yellow">placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public.</font><br /><br />I think this just means Virgin Galactic has to take precautions to make sure that Space Ship Two doesn’t come down on someone’s house. If the trip starts way out in the desert then this really shouldn’t be a problem. In fact it almost sounds like a reasonable amendment.<br />
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
You don't understand. Having the same level of safety for the crew/passengers as for the uninvolved public is technically impossible since there is almost no risk at all to the uninvolved public as you pointed out. It means that only suborbital spacecraft that are as save as today's airliners will be considered save enough by the FAA's regulators.
 
S

spacester

Guest
hey najaB, howzit going? Could you speak up, I couldn't quite hear you. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Ah that's better, I see what you're saying now. <br /><br />I disagree. <br /><br />Certainly if someone else starts a political thread in this forum, I do not abrogate my right to respond assertively.<br /><br />But beyond that, you may know that one of my axioms is that a primary contributing factor in the slow pace of progress in space is the inability of space keeners to treat the problem in a broad context.<br /><br />Thus, ergo and therefore <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> it is my belief that political topics which have a direct bearing on possible future Missions and Launches certainly belong in this forum.<br /><br />I'm sorry. Well, not really, but I try to be nice, ya know?<br /><br />At any rate, it's too bad it bothers you so much.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
That message was sent to RLV news by Jeff Greason of Xcor Aerospace. I wonder if he was just gripping about the added liability clauses in the amendment. And was trying to make it sound a lot worse then he knows it is. I looked through it and I couldn’t find what he was referring too. I certainly don’t see any show stoppers in there. Then again I couldn’t make much sense of what I was reading.
 
R

robotical

Guest
The point is that they would already be keeping a standard for protecting uninvolved people; however, with this amendment they would be raising the safety of the passengers and crew to the same level. The problem is that this is virtually impossible and would make development so costly that no one would want to invest in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

robotical

Guest
Some new information:<br /><br /><i>"There's a poison pill in it," Jeff Greason, president of XCOR Aerospace in Mojave, Calif., told MSNBC.com.<br /><br />Because of the outcry, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the California Republican who chairs the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and introduced the original bill, has decided to hold back the bill, said David Goldston, chief of staff for the House Science Committee.</i><br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201543/<br /><br />This would be very good, as long as they don't completely kill it. If it can be held until next year, a new congress will take office and hopefully be less likely to keep this amendment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

halman

Guest
newsartist,<br /><br />Apparently, the changes to the bill were made during negotiations to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. As such, they may not be posted on the committee's website because the committe had passed the bill.<br /><br />I would like to think that interest in the space program on the part of the elected leadership is a result of the loss of high technology jobs in the United States. There are few areas which demand the highest levels of technology, and most of them are defense oriented. Because that type of work is generally classified, it presents little potential for spin-off applications for the present. Without an increase in spending on aerospace, we are very likely to see furthur contraction in the aerospace industry, which will affect our defensive capabilty. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
I don't have a problem with "big picture" politics. I have a problem with "Bush sucks" "No Kerry sucks" threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts