As you may recall, a few months ago there was a frisson of concern about HR 656, a bill introduced by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), ranking minority member of the House Transportation Committee, that would amend the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) with additional safety provisions. Most of the entrepreneurial suborbital community opposed those provisions, concerned about adding too many regulations too soon in the development of this industry. The bill’s prospects never looked too strong, since it was referred to the House Science Committee, whose members include some of the major supporters of the CSLAA. Tim Hughes, majority staff counsel for the House Science Committee, confirmed that during a talk Friday at Space Access ’05 in Phoenix. “I don’t believe we’re planning to take any action on that bill,” he said.
Regulation was never a good fit for Evel Knievel either.
What’s your point, Greg? There is regulation–it’s just not the kind of nannying that Oberstar (or apparently, you) want (and which would kill the industry in the cradle).
What I said was that regulation is not a good fit for these suborbital flights. That means that I disagree with Oberstar.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure what you meant either. Good to clear it up. Stupid bill, never had a chance of passing.
That’s not what you said, Greg. I take issue with your apparent view that the nascent suborbital industry is the equivalent of Evil Knievel. The early days of aviation is a much more appropriate analogy.
It isn’t my whole point, but it is a direct, literal part of my comment. Oberstar is wrong because there is no point in applying safety standards to a handful of suborbital Evel Knievels. There are not enough of them to warrant Congressional attention, and they are willing to wait for years for the Big Leap, so why deprive of them of their life goals? If one of them will be incinerated or smashed to bits one day, it might be a useful warning to the others.
If the suborbital buzz really were like the early days of aviation, then Oberstar would be much closer to correct. After all, in the early days of aviation, the Wright Brothers did everything they could to prevent other Americans from building airplanes. (Hence the French origin of technical terms like “aileron” and “fuselage”.) Rational government intervention, including safety standards, ended the Wrights’ counterproductive game.
Rational government intervention, including safety standards, ended the Wrights’ counterproductive game.
That’s an interesting rewriting of history. Safety standards didn’t evolve until well after the Wrights had been marginalized.
Okay, I shouldn’t quite say safety standards for all aviation; rather I meant safety concerns. Only a few years after the Wrights’ famous contract with the Army Signal Corps, the Army banned flight testing in Wright Flyers because they were too dangerous. This did marginalize the Wrights; it wasn’t after.
The larger point is that the American private sector failed to develop aviation in the early years. The Wright brothers were a curse, through their overzealous pursuit of intellectual property rights. They were one reason that as early as 1910, European airplanes were better.