States

Space Forum update; New Mexico liability legislation

Space Florida issued a press release Thursday summarizing a two-day “U.S. States and Federal Government Space Forum” it hosted in Orlando earlier this week. The release provides only top-level details about the closed-door event “to enhance working relationships” among various government agencies and companies. Attendees included Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll and Alaska Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (who is also chairman of the Aerospace States Association), as well as unnamed representatives from several federal agencies, state legislators and industry representatives from eight states, and representatives from launch services companies (although the categorization of SES, a major satellite operator, as a launch service company alongside SpaceX and ULA looks odd.) A more detailed summary of the meeting will be released within 90 days by the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, which facilitated the meeting; an “update” meeting is planned for April at the National Space Symposium in Colorado.

Legislation that would limit liability for commercial spaceflight providers in New Mexico was formally endorsed Thursday by a state senate committee, the Las Cruces Sun-News reported Friday. The bill would be similar to existing legislation in Florida, Texas, and Virginia that would protect companies from lawsuits stemming from accidents that resulted in the injury or death of spaceflight participants, with exceptions for those accidents caused by gross negligence. The legislation passed the finance committee of the New Mexico Senate on a 12-0 vote, and will be taken up by the full legislature in its next session in January. Similar legislation was introduced earlier this year but failed to pass.

16 comments to Space Forum update; New Mexico liability legislation

  • During the multi-state meeting in Orlando, one topic of interest among the states was Florida’s success in establishing space as a sector within the state’s department of transportation. It looks like next year another $15 million may be available from FDOT for spaceport infrastructure investments. In preparation, Space Florida is supporting legislation in Tallahassee that will formalize and expand the types of spaceport infrastructure that would be eligible for FDOT money. (Currently, FDOT uses airport definitions that limit the eligibility of some spaceport projects.)

  • Michael J. Listner (@ponder68)

    Is it necessary to limit the liability of one industry via a legislative act? The article suggested that participants in commercial space activities would already independently wealthy and that they would have to sign releases. My question is whether New Mexico’s laws on contractual release of liability via assumption of the risk or hold harmless agreements already offers the same benefits as the New Mexico law. If not, there could be an argument that the New Mexico law violates equal protection.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Ed –

    Wallops could use some good signage, and that should come under VDOT.

    Hi Mike –

    I think that the legislation is intended just to make it perfectly clear.

  • Daddy

    Just perfect… What better way to encourage garage rocket mechanics to fly rich loons into space than to tell them they don’t have to worry about getting sued? Did the commercial aviation industry every get legislation like that? I’m really asking… I don’t know, but I doubt it.

    Why is the rest of industry and business being so constrained by our government at the same time everyone has decided to cut the “bureaucratic red tape” from the riskiest industry on earth??? Does any of this make sense? Someone please educate me because I just don’t get it…

  • vulture4

    All these states are fighting over how aggressively they can use state tax dollars as an incentive to launch providers. However there are only so many jobs to go around, and with Congress cutting NASA funding for commercial crew, there will be fewer.

  • Daddy

    @Vulture,
    You are correct!!! The troubling truth out there is that New Mexico set the bar on whoring for the entertainment industry, in the form of dramatic tax incentives and regulatory breaks. As a result, they have captured a significant portion of that industry hosting production of several feature films each year and a number of continuing television productions. The other states are following suit, but there just isn’t that much impactful entertainment money out there. There is even less commercial space money out there and the consequences of failure are exponentially more dramatic. This is nuts!!!

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Dad –

    Its the rich loons money and if they want to spend it on a sub-orbital flight at their own risk that is their business. If the voters of New Mexico thinks that encouraging them in this is to the benefit of their economy, that is their decision.

    There are other reasons for the New Mexico launch facility, the Virginia launch facility, and the Alaska launch facility than private sector launches. Those launch needs are federal decisions. As long as the federal decisions on those needs are not influenced by the states, then what the states do to make those launches as easy and valuable as possible is up to them.

    When in Las Cruces be sure to enjoy the local sweet chile relish.

  • Daddy

    EP,
    The FAA couldn’t care less about the rich loons… That means no one does. So, it comes down to when the rich (and presumably famous) loons die, who will be blamed??? Probably NASA and the FAA. Which is a circumstance that will be unfair and unwarranted. And as for sweet chile relish, when in Cruces I’d rather have a chile con queso steak and Chilito’s, thank you very much….

  • “Daddy” (what a stupid pseudonym) wrote:

    What better way to encourage garage rocket mechanics to fly rich loons into space than to tell them they don’t have to worry about getting sued?

    The issue is not whether to encourage them (they already have plenty of motivation), but whether or not large public deep-pocket corporations like Boeing will be discouraged.

    Did the commercial aviation industry every get legislation like that? I’m really asking… I don’t know, but I doubt it.

    It was called the Warsaw Convention. Learn a little history instead of flaunting your ignorance.

    So, it comes down to when the rich (and presumably famous) loons die, who will be blamed??? Probably NASA and the FAA.

    Only ignoramuses would blame NASA, who has nothing to do with this.

    By the way, I don’t think you’re in a very good position to be calling other people loons.

  • Daddy

    Rand (I will try to keep this response just a little more respectful),
    Despite your insults, I appreciate the tip on the Warsaw Convention… I’ve learned something about history I was unaware of. You might call it “flaunting ignorance,” but I call it asking questions…

    There are plenty of space “ignoramuses” that vote, so I suspect my opinion is at the very least as valid as your’s, so we will just have to wait and see who would get the blame for a space tourism tragedy….

    You may think my pseudonym is stupid, but I my newborn daughter does not…

    And anyone who pays $200,000 for a 30 minute suborbital flight is indeed a “loon”….

  • Unless you newborn daughter reads this web site, you might want to find one that makes a little more sense. To some, it comes across as condescending (like people who call themselves “Someone Who Knows,” or “The Wise One,” etc.).

    And anyone who pays $200,000 for a 30 minute suborbital flight is indeed a “loon”….

    That is an opinion (and not a well-founded one), not a fact.

  • There’s a whopping difference between limiting liability (Warsaw Convention and later Montreal Convention) – essentially mandating a cap – and eliminating liability, which is what this legislation (and that of some other states) seeks to do except in cases of gross negligence – at least from a cursory read of the news reports.

    I’m not a fan of nuisance lawsuits by any means – think the legal system has become an ATM for too many folks – but like much ‘blanket’ legislation, this is a bad idea. As a provider if I’m forced to choose between expenditures focused on mission assurance vs. those necessary to fly (either from a business or engineering/mission validation sense) – and I know I’m protected by statute – it simply becomes too easy to let it slide – AT THE BEGINNING. That’s not about malevolence or being a greedy, money-grubbing company, it’s just about human nature under circumstances where significant financial pressures are in play as they usually are before revenues begin to flow.

    Over time of course poor controls will eat the lunch of the company(ies) involved; despite the point of view of lots of conspiracy theorists, commercial companies are not all about margin; as long as there are such things as markets (even gov’t diluted ones) the markets will drive commercial offerors toward safety.

    But the beginning is a fragile time, and while I have no doubt that the initiators of such legislation think they’re helping (particularly helping their states to compete) I am somewhat wary of this approach.

  • Daddy

    Mary,
    Thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree that there seems to be an unwarranted zeal associated with the commercial space bandwagon. I don’t understand who is calculating the business model unless there are people out there thinking all the money spent on the Shuttle and Constellation Programs is now going to shift entirely to the commercial sector. Congress has dashed that… And are there really all those space tourists out there in the New Mexico desert just waiting in line for their joy ride? Does eliminating any liability do anything to inspire more tourists???

  • I don’t understand who is calculating the business model unless there are people out there thinking all the money spent on the Shuttle and Constellation Programs is now going to shift entirely to the commercial sector.

    No one was ever thinking that.

    And are there really all those space tourists out there in the New Mexico desert just waiting in line for their joy ride?

    No one is waiting in the New Mexico desert. No one thinks there are.

    Does eliminating any liability do anything to inspire more tourists???

    No, and that’s not the purpose. And they’re not “eliminating any liability.”

    When are you going to ask a question that’s actually relevant to the topic?

  • Daddy

    Rand,
    From my perspective I think you are sticking your head in the sand. Your answers don’t seem to have much basis in fact. But they do have the weight of your inflated sense of all-knowing bravado. Didn’t the original 2010 Obama space plan have a significantly larger commercial crew budget, slashed down to a paltry sum? Isn’t Virgin Galactic selling early reservations for flights out of Spaceport America — a virtual joy ride line???

    It’s my experience that when people dismiss questions as irrelevant without responding or substantiating their opinion, there is something to the question that needs resolution.

  • From my perspective I think you are sticking your head in the sand.

    From my perspective, you are asking nonsensical questions.

    Your answers don’t seem to have much basis in fact.

    They only seem that way to people unfamiliar with the facts.

    Didn’t the original 2010 Obama space plan have a significantly larger commercial crew budget, slashed down to a paltry sum?

    I wouldn’t say a “paltry” sum — it’s less than requested, but still significant. But this question is a non-sequitur in the context of the discussion.

    Isn’t Virgin Galactic selling early reservations for flights out of Spaceport America — a virtual joy ride line???

    They are selling research flights. They just sold three to NASA. And yes, there are also hundreds signed up to go into space. But no one is “waiting out in the desert” for them.

Leave a Reply to Daddy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>