Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca) has just introduced a bill to clarify language in Federal law relating to commercial human spaceflight.
I must admit there is much about this which truly grates on me as a libertarian. But the realist/entrepreneur side of me recognizes Dana is doing us a good turn. He is easing existing law to make life easier for X-Prize entrants.
Under current law, every launch requires a license. Under the Rohrabacher bill, a single permit appears to cover all flights until the vehicle is ready for commercial operations. Ideally, I would like a single permit to cover all normal commercial operations as well. It seems silly to have vehicles which can take off and fly a suborbital job on a half-day notice and yet require months of effort for the approval to do so. I do not think commercial aviation would have accomplished very much under such a regime. Perhaps we can talk Dana into doing something about this problem when it arises in a year or two.
The other interesting point is his treatment of liability limitation. He has continued the existing law in this area but has laid out a path for removing the government from this loop entirely. My libertarian side would say “get rid of it now”, but my spacer side recognizes the complexity of the insurance issues for the infant field. In a litigous society like the USA, human spaceflight would be uninsurable without this fiat ceiling… despite the fact that a SpaceShipOne or similar craft could do very little damage in the worst of cases. The details of the liability situation would require discussion of FAA regulations which are far too complex for me to reduce to a few bloglines. Let it suffice for me to say US X-Prize entrants are quite happy to have such limitation right now… and I am quite happy to see it phased out as insurance companies become more familiar with the Insurable Risks involved.
I do not have time for a really detailed study of this law. I do know from personal contacts (an ex-staffer for one) Dana Rohrabacher is very familiar with the issues and is pro-commercial space. I have also heard he started off on the libertarian side of the fence but went Republican and drifted a bit out of our quadrant. Still, he is about as good as they come outside of Ron Paul.
The issue is now open to discussion amongst the exceedingly knowledgeable space entrepreneur wing of the Samizdata commentariat.
Rohrabacher’s previous bill The Zero Tax Zero G was not taken seriously and he obviously has been working to improve things. I detect the hand of a new group called The Suborbital Institute which includes some of the comapnies that are going for the X Prize. They are serious entrepreneurs who are looking beyond the $10 million X Prize and towards creating a whole new industry.
Ken Calvert (R CA) has another bill called Calvert Ortiz that provides Tax Credits for RLV development. Actually the two bills are complementary. Since the Big Companies can take the R & D Tax credit on their profits why not let the investors in the little guys take tax credits on their investments.
Of course for libertarians screwing with the tax code is a no no . A flat tax would be much better of course, but as long as the US tax code still is, what Jimmy Carter called a disgrace (Of course he did nothing about it.) they might as well try and use it for something useful
Good Luck
As far as liabilities go, I’d like to do whatever is the least expensive for the tax payers. As far as I’m concerned anyone who takes a space flight is assuming a known risk, even if the risk is due to human error. They shouldn’t expect it to be very safe at all and should not be allowed to sue if things go wrong.
I’d like to see a flat fee for burial expenses and that’s about it. But, the US trial lawyers will find a way to make money and sue, I’m sure.
If the civilians could be made temporary members of the US Air Force starting with training and up through to a couple of months after the mission is over… I wonder how much of a liability that would be? Would it be more of a protection against law suits? If so, I’d do it.
Its not the pilots and passengers that are the problem. The problem is on the ground. A vehicle that breaks up on re-entry is going to splatter debris all over an incredibly large chunk of real estate, and some of the debris may be hazzardous material in and of itself. So you can see how all those property owners and residents underneath the debris track would be more than willing to sue into bankrupcy anyone who has an accident on return.
If this liability is not limited, then space flight is uninsurable, and will never get off the ground. While you do have a point that crew of such vehicles, and their passengers are taking their lives into their own hands, they are the least concern with regards to the liability issue.
“…discussion amongst the exceedingly knowledgeable space entrepreneur wing…”
Not to mention the cynical old git wing, of which I am – afaik – the founding and only member.
Can someone just remind me why this is referred to as “Commercial” space flight, when the only reason it is happening is a proposed humungous donation (“prize”) of state money obtained from the productive sector by force-backed coercion?
Sorry to rain on the parade.
Ben, this is where the FAA regulations come in. On this issue they are quite reasonable. You run a model which shows the debris footprint for ascent, re-entry, etc. You calculate a maximum reasonable damage on the ground. Once you are licensed for that mission, your liability is capped by that number; you are required to take private insurance to that level; if damage should exceed that level, the government guarantees anything over it.
The likelihood of the government being required to pay out is exceedingly low, but since there is little actuarial history to go on (although sadly Columbia added an important data point), insurance companies would charge far higher premiums to cover the uncertainty of the risk they are taking on.
These suborbital craft pose almost no danger to civilians. They are small, light and upon re-entry have nearly empty fuel tanks. They do not use any varient of hydrazine (UDMH, MMH, etc) and Nitric Acid for RCS and as far as I know do not use any really toxic items. The small size of these companies precludes getting involved in the expense of the safety precautions necessary for handling these things.
I doubt a worst case re-entry event of any of these designs would be much more damaging in worst case than a light twin in a nose dive. But I’m not an insurance underwriter grappling with a lack of actuarial tables either.
The prize is wholly private money (http://www.xprize.org/). The second bill that Taylor mentioned above is just the classical attempt of a Congresscritter to get his name added to something that is about to succeed at a time when the risk is low so that he can take credit for private sector efforts. It sounds an awful lot like the Presidential Science Advisor in the movie “Contact” to me.
Secondly, the prize is not enough to drive these people, it’s only a symbol. The winner will have spent more than that probably. Most of them are doing it because they want to, they can, and this is what their entire lives are about. It reminds me of one of our old sayings in the L5 Society: “I’m going if I have to walk”.
There is an intent to open up a suborbital tourist industry as well. Some of these initial vehicles will only ever carry a few people before they are superseded. Once the thing has been done, it becomes “real” to the investment world and there wil be other entrants.
To top it off, all of the front runners have funding behind them sufficient to keep going. If, as I strongly believe, Rutan succeeds in the next month or so, I’d bet he starts on a second craft using the lessons learned… given the secrecy with which he works I would not find it at all surprising if a followon craft is already in the works.
This is just the start. These are the Wright flyers of our day and I think we are going to finally see a rate of development equivalent to that of 1903-1910.
The key is to smash the “space is expensive, only governments can do space” meme, and I expect Burt Rutan will soon have the first go at it with his sledge and pickaxe.
Question for Taylor: By Calvert-Ortiz did you mean Calvert-Orteig? The first means nothing in particular, the second is a blatent attempt of a politician to put himself in front of and take credit for someone else’s parade.
Why is this called “Commercial” space flight when in fact it is financed by a “prize” paid for out of coercively-extracted taxes?
Andrew: see above. I have no idea where you got such an incorrect impression. You must be watching the BBC too much.
Calvert Ortiz has been around for the last three years or more, it’s no last minute attempt to glom onto the X Prize . Ken Calvert from southern Cali and has a lot of engineers who are doing RLV research in his district. He is also a small businessman who has some experience with the travails of entrepreneurship.
Solomon Ortiz is a Dem from Texas, who has a reputation as one of the nicest members of the House. Getting him as co sponsor was a smart move.
The suborbital industry has a lot more potential than just tourists , remote sensing and ultra fast package delivery are just two possibilities.
Good Luck
Thanks for the additional information. I was uncertain whether that was the name of the Bill or an attempt to associate his name with the same roots as the X-Prize people (ie the Orteig Prize).
I agree that mail contracts will be a valuable industry, as will suborbital passenger service (and suborbital military delivery applications), but joy rides will come first and will feed the first few years of the true space age.
Would liability concerns be addressed by launching from the East Coast and landing on the West Coast?
Such things may matter eventually as they do effect the worst likely damage, but at the moment are not very important because all vehicles are suborbital and take of and return to the same area. The lateral travel distance is not very large in any vehicles for which I have any information.