Comments on: HR 656: it’s dead, Jim

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Wed, 04 May 2005 14:19:00 +0000

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.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Wed, 04 May 2005 13:30:43 +0000

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.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Tue, 03 May 2005 14:35:58 +0000

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.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 03 May 2005 14:08:27 +0000

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.

By: Dan Schrimpsher: Space Pragmatism Blogger

Dan Schrimpsher: Space Pragmatism Blogger — Tue, 03 May 2005 04:56:48 +0000

Yeah, I wasn’t sure what you meant either. Good to clear it up. Stupid bill, never had a chance of passing.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Tue, 03 May 2005 03:19:50 +0000

What I said was that regulation is not a good fit for these suborbital flights. That means that I disagree with Oberstar.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 03 May 2005 02:54:45 +0000

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).

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Mon, 02 May 2005 18:49:43 +0000

Regulation was never a good fit for Evel Knievel either.