Comments on: HR 3752: a concern over definitions

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Tue, 25 May 2004 12:56:39 +0000

I second the Motion for No More Delays. All say I in favor of the Motion, all those opposed, go away IMO. Less rhetoric on funding, more detailed plans of what is needed and lets get going already.

By: Darel Preble

Darel Preble — Tue, 25 May 2004 00:44:28 +0000

There must be resolution between the differing Senate and House versions anyway. The Senate version offers longer indemnity. This is a wrinkle that could be ironed out in that conference. There will be corrections and additions in the years to come anyway.
We need to clear the space transportation path for these intrepid pioneers ASAP and this is a good legislative vehicle for the purpose. NO MORE DELAY.

By: Charles Pooley

Charles Pooley — Fri, 21 May 2004 21:45:44 +0000

I second LaValley’s as it is the most liberal, most encouraging of development. I would want escape velocity to be included, as that also does not establish an orbit. LEO is half way to anywhere. It’s only half way…

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Fri, 21 May 2004 20:55:09 +0000

Altitude doesn’t figure into the existing or proposed regulations: SpaceShipOne has flown two powered missions under its existing license even though the vehicle has yet to reach an altitude that exceeds any widely-used definition of space (usually between 80 and 100 km.)

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Fri, 21 May 2004 16:07:33 +0000

I think the defining mark is after launch from any given site if it does not complete a single revolution around our beautiful planet then it is suborbital. How high it can go is meaningless.