Space: Too Dangerous for Your Congressman
By Christopher MooreThe successful flight of Burt Rutan’s SpaceShipOne not only won the Ansari X-prize, but it also set off a flurry of activity in the fledgling space tourism industy. As I reported here, Richard Branson already has paying customers lined up to be the first space tourists hitching a ride on a non-governmental rocket.
That’s exciting news.
But as Alan Boyle reports on MSNBC, the government is “riding to the rescue” to save poor, innocent people from the dangers of space flight. God bless them for once again attempting to stifle a young (nearly non-existent) industry. Here’s how Boyle descibes a bill before Congress:
In its original as well as its amended form, the bill lays out the process for licensing suborbital space vehicles so that they could carry paying passengers — something that SpaceShipOne, for example, is not allowed to do. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation already issues suborbital launch licenses, but the new legislation would have put the FAA’s procedures on firmer footing.
The law also would have allowed customers to fly on those space vehicles, provided that they were fully informed about the risks and signed a consent form.
The House approved the original version by a 402-1 vote, but when it went over to the Senate side, it became caught up in negotiations — at first, over the definitions of space vehicle, then over the bill’s safety priorities.
In the amended version, the FAA is repeatedly charged with looking after the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants” as well as public health and safety. The original bill notes that “space transportation is inherently risky,” while the amended version adds this phrase: “but the industry should be held to the highest standards of safety when transporting humans.”
Let’s forget for a second that the single most dangerous activity one could participate in is driving to work. Nevermind for a short while that people “jump out of perfectly good airplanes” daily with very little government involvement. Don’t consider the thousands of people who hang from steep, tall rocks or those silly folks who get a kick out of swimming in deep, cold water.
People do dangerous, stupid stuff. But the government doesn’t even bother to hold theme parks to “the highest standards of safety.” When I got SCUBA certified, a private citizen representing a private organization taught me and certified me. I taught myself how to rock climb. I used to do it all the time, and I never asked or told the government what I ws doing. I do really stupid stuff in my garage all the time, and I’ve never had a government agent stop by. I’m still alive, too.
But this legislation is different. We’re talking about GOING INTO SPACE. So of course government must get involved, right? Here’s what Glenn Reynolds has to say about this:
Regulation of commercial space passengers should be based on ensuring the highest standards of safety for third parties — nobody consents, as part of everyday life, to the risk of having a rocket come down on top of him. But where passengers are concerned, it’s another story. We ought to let people consent to the risks, both the known risks and the “known and unknown unknowns” regarding problems we can’t really anticipate in detail.
Sure. I conceed that it would be a bad idea to allow just anyone to light up a huge rocket anywhere they please. I’d be a little miffed if I woke up to find my neighbor’s rocket sitting in my kitchen. I feel the same way about my neighbor’s kids, dogs, and bullets. That’s why there are laws against trespass, for fences, and against shooting at my windows.
But as Reynolds points out, people understand risk. And so long as they understand the risk, and don’t harm anyone else, let ‘em fly. I think my neighbor’s German Shepard is a big, dangerous dog. I wouldn’t own one. I’d be afraid it would eat my kids. But he knows and understands the risks and has a nice, tall fence.
What would the revised version of this congrssional bill do for space tourism? It would kill it. You can’t insure the “safety of crew and spaceflight participants.” This Space.com article suggests that the FAA understands the issue:
Our first concern will be the safety of the uninvolved public, making sure that as this grows and develops that we’re doing everything we can to protect the folks on the ground, to make sure that the people who go into space understand the risks,” she said. “It will be a risky business for many years to come, no doubt.
Why can’t the congress listen? I still have hope that I will one day leave Earth atmosphere. The market always seems to survive, even while being held beneath the fluffy pillow of government regulation. I’d rather it thrived. And that’s why I’m voting for this man on November 2. And if the media would pay him some notice, I’m sure many more would follow suit.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
