Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Congress

Congress

Posted by: Dr_Keith_H - Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:31 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 7 posts ] 
Congress 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post Congress   Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:31 am
So ... not a whole lot of discussion here about the demise of The Bill ...

Are there none among you who have an opinion, or even understanding, of what just happened and why it did?

For my part I look upon it as another symptom of a highly-regulated over-coddled society which, for example, no longer views death as an acceptible consequence of going to war.

DKH.

(oh ... damn ... where's my flame-suit?)

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:11 am
I for one don't have an opinion concerning this concrete bill yet. But it looks like typical behaviour and motives of bureaucrats have caused the only reasonable reaction of those who are subject to that bill.

The bureaucrats had changed the bill to a contents that wasn't acceptable - and they did so without any sense for the consequences. That really reminds me the behaviour of bureaucrats forecast theoretically by economic theory of politics etc.: they were struggling and working to be and to become important. And they acted like german agencies: making the subjects of the bill children of the government.

The hold is right and necessary as long as the bill isn't reduced to its original contents I think.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:33 pm
Posts: 30
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:34 am
The Bill im sure contains suitable and unsuitable demands for both parties. "Suitable" being those that we, as spacefarers (per se), want. The other hand the government is obviously trying to play a hand, they want control, which is obvious, but its not feasible for them to have it all.

Regulations should be considered but not indefinetly needed. As the article states it took decades for the airline industry to get completely off the ground, and should probably be expected for the privatized space industry. The thing is, we can change that, at least shorten time by at least reasoning with FAA (or air admins around the world).

In short regulation, at least considering this "bill" should be reviewed and accepted hesitantly, we don't know what the FAA has up its sleeve to try to slow down space tourism, and future space ventures. I just say, keep the ever watchful eye.... :shock:


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:45 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
The bureaucrats had changed the bill to a contents that wasn't acceptable - and they did so without any sense for the consequences.

I'm sorry Ekkehard, I'll have to call you out on this one. The ammendment to which many object focussed entirely on a "sense for the consequences". A lot of people who are boo-hooing seem to be objecting to be held to a saftey standard currently met by other transport technologies.

Now the question as to whether or not it is reasonable to expect sub-orbital transport to be made as safe as air-transport, is not really so difficult. Ostensibly the answer is, yes it should be (and in a perfect world it would be). But not everyone expects all of their expectations to be met, so few would be surprised that it isn't really possible. But what people expect is that it would be something for which we should strive.

The pendulum is swinging, friction is being applied, an equilibrium will be reached.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:08 am
Allright - I see your point.

Talking of the bureaucrats sense for the consequences I meant that they didn't think of the impacts and effects their doing will have on the teams and firms subject to their doing and of the reaction of these teams and firms.

From the experiences here in Germany I'm used to have suspicions concerning the doing of agencies, politicians and bureaucrats and to see that I have been right in 90% of my suspicions. Most of this 90% are cases like this bill.

Okay, the situation of Germany is special since a couple of years - and I'm not talking of the consequences of the reunion process - but the situaton is caused by bills that are going too far like this bill. And the politicians seem to go too far again now - a discussion is on concerning firms not supplying education facilities to get a profession...

The safety of the pilots and the passengers from my point of view doesn't need to be regulated governmental no way - each pilot can be trusted to be self-responsible and consciuos of dangers. Concerning the passengers it is sufficient that each passenger has to be explained the dangers etc. and to require that the passenger has to sign the explanation. This makes sure that the passenger gets the basis to decide wether to do a flight or not.

Additionaly a public information and explanation of the dangers etc. can be provided.

All this will cause market reactions, customer reactions and if the number of tickets sold is effected negatively the firms and teams are forced by their customers to increase the safety.

This is much better than the current contents of the bill as it has been reported by the article under www.xprizenews.org .



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (PoliticalEconomist)


Last edited by Ekkehard Augustin on Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:34 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Talking of the bureaucrats sense for the consequences I meant that they didn't think of the impacts and effects their doing will have on the teams and firms subject to their doing and of the reaction of these teams and firms.

Then the mistake was mine, sorry about that. Although if bills passed purely because special interest groups should and could get their way arbitrarily then ... well ... it really doesn't bear thinking about.

Should we start talking about the National Rifle Association now? I mean this only in the sense of a powerful special interest group which has recently got its own way in congress ... in the face of significant public objection no less.

Should Paul Allen be porking the barrel?

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:57 am
Posts: 82
Location: PA,USA
Post    Posted on: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:49 pm
The problem was someone placed a sentence in to the bill that would have put the safety of the crew and passengers on the same level as the airliners. That would have actually kill private space flight. It is best to hold off until the bill is fix. I don’t see passenger serves starting up for the next year or so. So this delay should not be a problem.

for more info http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201543/


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use