Congress

HR 3752 vs. S 2772

In late July Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced S. 2772, the Space CHASE Act, in essence the Senate version of HR3752 with some changes in the wording to assuage the concerns of one suborbital vehicle company. However, Clark Lindsey reports on HobbySpace that the Senate doesn’t plan to consider S. 2772; instead, it will consider HR3752 and incorporate the changes in S. 2772 into it. Confused? Me too, but so long as the legislation gets passed and signed into law I won’t complain…

6 comments to HR 3752 vs. S 2772

  • Matthew Brown

    I don’t understand what the big deal with this bill is. I agree its a needed step but its a tiny one. And only opens the door for space tourism for sub orbital flights. 3 minutes of micro gravity doesn’t impress me.

    If someone wants to update a system developed under this system for a true obital flight, they will still have to go about the old way of doing things. IE NASA approval formalities they go through so they can kill competetion to the shuttle. Which they never will until the shuttle is officially grounded. Even then, depending what the shuttle replacement(CEV) really is for ferrying people to LOE. Even then my money is on the same congressional districts that help make the shuttle will be the ones making the CEV and all its componant systems.

    We are still at a chicken or egg thing, we either need to come up with a market for Acess to become cheaper, or we make acess cheaper so someone will create a market to maxamize the ROI of development of Access. Either way, we to to minumize the Governmental red tape in creating the access.

    3 minute tours of Microgravity can only be profitable so long before it loses its luster. And even in that brief time i only forseee the ultra rich partaking of it. I do not see the price of it coming down so that the middle class will take advantage of it and thats where the true tourism dollars flow from. And the most bang for their buck would be orbital flights at the minimum. At least thats how i feel whats worthy. For me, 100K is too much for a 3 minute microgravity ride, but I would try to figure out how to pay for a 200K 30 minutes in orbit flight. Which is 4 years of my income. But even then I’m a space nut.

    I really feel this bill is too little, too late.

    (Why do i write so much on just comments to these blogs?)

  • John Malkin

    This act will clearly gives the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (which is part of the FAA) the responsibility of regulating commercial human space flight. The License doesnít allow them to operate for profit or a launch/landing site. This act is open for future changes as stated in the sec. 2.1. I would expect as companies get to a point exceeding the bounds of this act, the CST will need to go back to congress for a new act.

    Itís not a big deal but itís important as more companies begin to develop private spacecraft launching from private space ports.

  • Jeff Foust

    Mr. Brown writes:

    “If someone wants to update a system developed under this system for a true obital flight, they will still have to go about the old way of doing things. IE NASA approval formalities…”

    NASA is not a regulatory agency: if someone wants to develop a commercial manned orbital vehicle, they do not need NASA’s approval, rather, they need a license from FAA/AST.

    As for the size of the market for commercial manned suborbital spaceflight, such discussions are beyond the scope of this weblog, but I think you’ll find there are a number of market studies that suggest there is significant demand for suborbital space tourism, as well as other markets vehicle operators could tap. Burt Rutan and others are also looking at second- and third-generation vehicles that could carry more passengers than existing X Prize-class vehicles, at a lower price per passenger.

    References:
    “Suborbital spaceflight: tourism vs. barnstorming”;
    “Suborbital spaceflight: a road to orbit or a dead end?”

  • Matthew Corey Brown

    I realize that NASA isn’t a reglutory agency, but that doesn’t stop them from impeding the FAA/AST from granting a liscense for vehicals that go above 100k feet. (or sub orbital post bill) Or by hassling thouse that must launch from their space ports.

    In other words if i wish to design, develop, and fly an orbitial vehical, not only do i have to get a liscense from the FAA, but i also have to get the cooperation from the DoD or NASA. Or goto a differet country and repatriate myself. Wouldn’t have made more sense to make the bill include orbital vehicals now instead on in 3-20 years down the road when we do not know the political climate?

    Though, I have the strongest hunch if orbital was included that it would not pass, as it takes control LEO way from NASA and the congressional districts that rely on the shuttle.

    As it is now, without Bush’s speach in Jan I do not think this would have passed the house. And if it does pass the Senate, the upgrade to full orbital status will not even be introduced unless the shuttle is grounded and the CEV is in major Cost overuns.

    I sure hope i’m wrong. I most likely am, cause if I had the political know how (and the pretty face), I’d run for congress myself (local first) hide or downplay my space views. Until I get to DC.

  • Edward Wright

    > I realize that NASA isn’t a reglutory agency, but that doesn’t stop them from impeding the FAA/AST
    > from granting a liscense for vehicals that go above 100k feet.

    No, the law stops them from doing that.

    > Or by hassling thouse that must launch from their space ports.

    Why would a private company want to launch from a NASA spaceport?

    > In other words if i wish to design, develop, and fly an orbitial vehical, not only do i have to get a liscense
    > from the FAA, but i also have to get the cooperation from the DoD or NASA.

    Only if you want DoD or NASA funding. There’s no legal requirement for DoD or NASA to be involved. (Although FAA will likely ask DoD about any military impact of your operation.)

    > Wouldn’t have made more sense to make the bill include orbital vehicals now instead on in 3-20 years

    Orbital vehicles have been addressed by other bills.

  • Matthew Corey Brown

    >Why would a private company want to launch from a NASA spaceport?

    Cause the only leagal way for a private company to go above 100k is to launch from a NASA or military spaceport. As you say the law prevents it, but this is the loophole. But NASA blocks the loophole themselves as they will fight anything seen as a threat to the Shuttle or a money/jobs equivalent replacement.

    Spaceship One and other Ansari-X prize entries, are not a threat because they are sub orbital only.

    As you say, the law prevents high altitude flights, but then say no leagal requirements to involve NASA or the DoD. If the law is preventing High altitude flights then why can Scaled composites fly spaceship one? I had thought they were using a military strip. (Besides Burt’s history of developing for the miltary, which can help to cut through red tape) I am sure I am missing something here.

    > Orbital vehicles have been addressed by other bills.

    Which bills this session? And which bills in previous sessions, I’d like to find out who voted nay on them.