Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

deagleninja · 2005-02-19 13:57:07

Ok people, time to do your good deed for the day!
Rep. D-Jim Oberstar is spearheading an effort to require more FAA regulation in the private space industry. I dont need to tell most of you how important is it that we give this industry time to grow on its own. What we need to do right now is contact jim Oberstar and let him know that we appreciate his efforts to safeguard us, but that killing or forcing this new industry across seas will be much more damaging that a few accidents. Keep it nice and thoughful but make your views heard. We have to put some pressure on this guy before he builds up momentum and makes a cause out of this. Now Ive included several links on the breaking story as well as the info and sites to make an email to him. Please take 5 mins to do this, it will be the best 5 mins you spent. I've already done most of the work for ya.

http://wwwc.house.gov/oberstar/zipauth. … ipauth.htm

That link takes you to the site where you will need to enter your name (or fictional) as well as your zip code. Now you MUST enter the extra 4 digits of the zip code or you cant send him email. he only accepts letters from people in his district.

55710-8312
This is a full zip code for Britt, MN
Use it if you dont know how to find a different one. For those of you with good net skills I suggest you use a different zip code so it doesnt look like all the spacenuts of the nation have moved to Britt MN

http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome_addre … ...p=55710

Here's a link for the +4 digit zip code look up at the postal service. Just find an address and type it in, then it will give you the last 4 digits of a zip code

http://www.oberstar.house.gov/index.asp … ...2CF8AF}

This link will show you what cities are in Oberstar's district. Find a city then google search that city along with MN and someones address will pop up in the search results, then just enter that into the USPS site to get the last 4 digits of the zip code.

Please, if you do nothing else today just take 5 mins to write this man and discourage his coarse of action. He will think twice before taking this position if people in his district are against it. Notice how he doesnt even mention it on his home page, he thinks no one notices.

http://www.space-travel.com/news/touris … m-05h.html

And finally the link to the article where Oberstar makes his crusade loud and clear....

"For years," Oberstar complained, "both I and many of my colleagues on the aviation subcommittee have criticized the FAA for waiting until after a disaster to take safety actions, and have urged more proactive safety oversight."

During the hearings, Oberstar not only berated witnesses, but he also said he would introduce legislation to amend the space law.

"My bill would give the FAA the flexibility to create a regulatory structure governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle," he said, "to protect the health and safety of crews and spaceflight participants as is necessary, without having to wait for a catastrophic failure to occur."

The day after the hearings, the office at the FAA with authority to regulate commercial space travel opened a two-day conference in Washington to review the industry and the law.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-20 03:07:16

If, Rep. D-Jim Oberstar, wants to be that stupid then so be it. Private industry will go to other places and expand the private space industry without the USA, if they make it hard to go into space without alot of red tape.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-20 10:34:20

Hold on a minute, what specific regulation are we talking about? As it stands private spaceflight is in legal limbo and therefore current rules meant for other things are loosely applied. Any rocket launch is the responsibility of the government of the country from which it was launched, for example. The right type of regulation would allow the private industry to grow by clarifying what it can and can't do, treating in more like general aviation helps everyone. Let's find out exactly what Rep. Oberstar intends before we start burning him at the stake for killing private spaceflight.

deagleninja · 2005-02-20 10:54:25

Hi Cobra, long time no see.
The thing is, we know what he wants. He is saying that the FAA needs to regulate the type of spacecraft, the health of the passengers, and the launch facility. I don't have to much of an issue with the FAA regulating the launch facility, but if they start putting limits on what and who can fly, the entire industry will move overseas. If the FAA puts even the slightest resistance into the process, then there's no reason for it to remain in the US. We will be effectivly exporting a multibillion dollar industry to some lucky contry.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-20 11:06:00

If the FAA puts even the slightest resistance into the process, then there's no reason for it to remain in the US. We will be effectivly exporting a multibillion dollar industry to some lucky contry.

But we currently have resistance in the form of uncertainty and little or no legal framework. The right regulation can help a great deal. I want the specific points of Oberstar's proposal before condemning it out of hand. The specific bill may well be a horrible idea, but some regualtion is necessary for the industry to grow.

Unless we strip away all legal obstacles, any yahoo builds whatever he wants and operates it as they see fit regardless of incident, but we both know that isn't happening.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-20 22:04:07

Well, you haven't looked at the regulations lately!!!!

http://ast.faa.gov]Administrator of Commerical Space Transportation under the FAA

This provides the legal, safety and quality control framework for the commercial space industry within the United States.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-21 06:27:12

Well, you haven't looked at the regulations lately!!!!
Administrator of Commerical Space Transportation under the FAA

Ah, guidelines for suborbital flights. I guess that's it then.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-21 10:05:38

The safety dance

Late last year the nascent commercial suborbital spaceflight industry won a major victory on Capitol Hill when Congress passed—almost literally at the last minute—HR 5382, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) of 2004.

While critics like Oberstar remain unconvinced, such a rationale—which equates suborbital spaceflight to risky hobbies like skydiving and mountain climbing rather than commercial aviation—goes a long way towards explaining the industry’s preferences for regulation.

deagleninja · 2005-02-21 11:24:23

Who are the sheep and who are the shepards...
Some people need to think inside the box to be comfortable I suppose.

A) Give me a single example of how any regulation is going to help. Just one instance of limiting options that somehow increases them please.

B) These arent government run attempts people, but 'for-profit' endeavours. Does anyone really think that any industry is going to take chances and kill a paying passenger?

c) Between the flight of the Wright brothers and the first government regulation 20 years elapsed. In this situation you have pandering politicians seekinng to stifle the industry before even the first passenger flys.

This is NOT a good thing people. There's no logical way it could be.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-21 11:46:18

Deagle, allow me to clarify. I'm not saying I support Oberstar's proposal, I haven't read it and don't know the specifics of what it contains. It may well be an industry killing bill.

But that said, regulation is not in and of itself bad for an industry. Orbital spacecraft are very expensive, if there is a looming uncertainty as to the legal protections/obligations of operating them that itself is a huge barrier to the industry. What we need is good regualtion, regulation that lays out clearly what is and isn't legally sanctioned in a manner that encourages development. Otherwise we have a situation where if you build an orbit-capable launch vehicle you may be able to operate it, possibly without massive regulatory expense, if you can find customers for whom it is cheaper than using other methods.

We need a set of regulations that allow the industry to operate within a set of known parameters. We need a private space industry similar to commercial air travel, not a multi-billion dollar high-risk free for all that can be shut down by decree at any time with the smallest accident as an excuse.

deagleninja · 2005-02-21 12:12:52

But that said, regulation is not in and of itself bad for an industry.

Regulation can actually be useful, I agree. But ONLY when there is cooperation, such as regulating tools and equipment to be standardized. We are dealing with several different companies right now that have no wish to be regulated, and they will go overseas.

What we need is good regualtion, regulation that lays out clearly what is and isn't legally sanctioned in a manner that encourages development.

Well thats just the thing my fearless reptilian leader, right now EVERYTHING is legal. Right now companies have every possible freedom in designing their spacecraft. They can accept any paying passenger regardless of age. Regulation is what limits possibilities and makes things ILLEGAL to begin with.

Ok, heres a quick situation for you. Say the FAA requires an age limit or passengers to pass a health inspection. Doesnt sound too bad does it? But just how many wealthy people could pass a government health test or be young enough to fly in the FAA's eyes? Not too many. It would cripple the industry by slashing the amount of willing participants in half at least.

We need a set of regulations that allow the industry to operate within a set of known parameters. We need a private space industry similar to commercial air travel, not a multi-billion dollar high-risk free for all that can be shut down by decree at any time with the smallest accident as an excuse.

Ok, so NASA is a very regulated organization, so that must mean they are getting back to shuttle flights much faster than if they didn't have any.

Sorry, I just can't agree with you Cobra, history won't let me. NASA has wasted several billion dollars in repairs alone (not to mention their regular budget for the past two years 10B) trying desperately to adhere to regulations that honestly dont make the shuttles any safer to fly and that will be mothballed in less than 5 years anyway.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not totally against regulations, they are useful in large organizations. However, the sub-orbital industry is in its infancy, in fact not a single paying passenger has flown yet. All I'm saying is leave it alone for just 10 years, have passengers sign waivers, and give companies the time to figure out just what they will be flying. Its silly to try and regulate something that doesnt exist yet.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-21 12:23:25

Ok, heres a quick situation for you. Say the FAA requires an age limit or passengers to pass a health inspection. Doesnt sound too bad does it? But just how many wealthy people could pass a government health test or be young enough to fly in the FAA's eyes? Not too many. It would cripple the industry by slashing the amount of willing participants in half at least.

Now for another facet of that argument. For all the agonizing over who is healthy enough to fly, we still have a set of basic procedures for flying. What facilities are adequate for a certain class of aircraft, what channels you go through to file a flightplan and so on.

Jump ahead to the current state of regulation of spaceflight. These baseline knowns don't exist. You say it means everything is legal, but at the same time it makes everything potentially illegal with no recourse should that become the case. One mishap and the entire industry can be shut down.

If the government wants a free-for-all with everyone who can con a few investors launching whatever rocket they can cobble together I can live with it, but I don't want them operating anywhere near where I live and it won't lead to a stable industry.

Just amend the current FAA regs, otherwise the future of private spaceflight hangs by a slender thread

deagleninja · 2005-02-21 12:36:46

Again, we are assuming that buisness is stupid and it is far from stupid. Would Virgin Galactic fly a sub-orbital ship releasing toxic fumes over a populated area? No. That begs to be shut down and you dont invest $200M just to tempt fate.

As for crossing international boundries, this isnt even an option for sub-orbital craft. So lets worry about that bridge when we cross it.

My point is, you and I dont need the government looking over us while we sleep. These are smart buisness endeavours that arn't going to be anymore risky than they need to be. Give them time to actually design a spacecraft before you tell them what not to is all im saying.

idiom · 2005-02-21 18:49:14

I don't know about all that. How about creating an regulated 'unregulated' space for sub-orbital craft to operate in. Similar to regular airline groups but without craft regulations (ratings, certifications) and perhaps a rudimentary space-pilot rating that can be achieved on a simulator?

Build in the craft class rules but give them ten years before they come into effect.

A company is not going to die because it had to go to the effort of filing a flight-plan. Certifing a craft could kill it real easy though.

Alexander Sheppard · 2005-02-21 21:46:05

I just thought I'd comment on the ridiculous nature of someone's comment which said that who cares if the US has no private space industry because if so, space industry will just go elsewhere. Um, where? Russia? China? These countries are decades away from matching the US economically, and Russia's space program ASIAK is in decline. Losing the potential of US industry would be at best a serious blow.

Anyway, I tend to mostly go with Zubrin's argument that the US could have had all sorts of things years ago if they would mobilize their damn bureaucracy into action, instead of just sitting around handing out corporate welfare to contractors who ultimately accomplished next to nothing that was useful. It is possible that private industry could do it eventually but this is certainly the quickest option, if only anyone who had the muscle to make it happen cared enough to do so.

deagleninja · 2005-02-23 11:54:01

Dear Mr. .........:
>
> Thank you for your very thoughtful e-mail on
> commercial space flight.
> Like you, I support commercial space travel, but we
> must ensure that when
> American citizens venture into space, their travel
> is a safe as we can
> make it. We must protect space travel enthusiasts
> from the charlatans and
> fast buck artists who will undoubtedly be attracted
> to this new exciting
> industry.
>
> I am attaching my statement upon introducing H.R.
> 656, a measure that
> will enhance commercial space flight safety. I
> would welcome your
> comments on my bill.
>
> If you would like to receive periodic e-mail
> updates on this and other
> issues, please visit my website,
> http://www.house.gov/oberstar]www.house.gov/oberstar, and go to
> "subscribe." You can also find a complete copy of
> my bill at
> http://www.house.gov/transportation_dem … febill.pdf
>
> With best wishes.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> James L. Oberstar, M.C.
>
> JLO/br
> Introducing a Bill to Enhance the Safety of
> Commercial Space Flight
> __
> THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR
> OF MINNESOTA
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> FEBRUARY 9, 2005
>
> Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to
> enhance the safety of
> commercial passenger space flight by ensuring that
> the Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) has the authority it needs to
> protect the safety of
> passengers in this emerging commercial space
> industry.
>
> Mr. Speaker, I support commercial space exploration
> and the commercial
> space industry, but not at the expense of totally
> ignoring safety. The
> Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, P.L.
> 108-492, prohibits
> the Secretary of Transportation from issuing safety
> design and operating
> regulations or even minimal safety requirements for
> individual licenses
> for the next eight years unless there is a
> potentially catastrophic
> incident.
>
> The current statutory language amounts to, in
> essence, the codification of
> what has come to be known in aviation safety
> parlance as the "Tombstone
> Mentality." For years, both I and many of my
> colleagues on the Aviation
> Subcommittee have criticized the FAA for waiting
> until after a disaster to
> take safety actions, and have urged upon the FAA a
> more proactive safety
> oversight role.
>
> Supporters of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
> Act argued that
> safety regulation would discourage experimentation
> and innovation.
> However, the Act went well beyond these objectives
> and essentially tied
> FAA's hands by totally banning any safety
> requirements, except in
> post-accident circumstances where lives have already
> been lost. Under the
> Act, the FAA would be prevented from requiring even
> the simplest, least
> expensive enhancements to protect safety of
> passengers on these space
> flights.
>
> Mr. Speaker, my bill would amend the Commercial
> Space Launch Amendments
> Act to give the FAA the authority and flexibility to
> establish minimum
> safety regulations. This safety authority would not
> preclude innovation
> nor, contrary to the claims of supporters of the
> Act, would not require
> FAA to impose the same degree of regulation on the
> developing space travel
> industry that is imposed on the mature air
> transportation industry.
> Specifically, although this bill would require that
> FAA include, in each
> license it issues, minimum standards to protect the
> health and safety of
> crews and space flight participants, it would
> further require, in imposing
> these standards, FAA to take into account the
> "inherently risky nature of
> human space flight." My bill would give the FAA the
> flexibility to create
> a regulatory structure governing the design or
> operation of a launch
> vehicle to protect the health and safety of crews
> and space flight
> participants as is necessary, without having to wait
> for a catastrophic
> failure to occur.
>
> Mr. Speaker, safety regulation need not be
> incompatible with developing
> new technology. For example, although FAA has
> closely regulated aircraft
> manufacturing since the 1920's, this regulation has
> not prevented major
> technological progress, including the development of
> jet aircraft in the
> 1950's and all-composite general aviation aircraft
> in recent years.
>
> We can and should protect the safety of passengers
> on space flights in
> this new and emerging industry, without placing
> unreasonable limitations
> on the development of commercial passenger space
> travel. I urge my
> colleagues to join me in working to pass this
> important legislation.

Hey guys, just got an email back from Oberstar, thought I'd share it with you so we can all get a better idea of his plans.....

idiom · 2005-02-23 17:05:13

Dunno if anybody watches Dream jets on dicovery channel? In one episode the went through the regulatory process of getting approval for altering the interior of a Being 737. They had Binders four deep covering an entire boardroom table (and a big one at that) with diagrams of each bolt that had been altered, the flamability of materials used etc. This is for a private non-commercial aircraft that has already been certified.

Scary.

RobS · 2005-02-23 17:25:44

Regulations, if nothing else, will establish legal liability if something goes wrong. Without that, a private company could be sued out of existence by its passengers when a rocket blows up.

As for companies regulating themselves; well, maybe. Who says Virgin Galactic wouldn't release toxic products over a populated area? ho defnes what's toxic and how much is allowable? Without that, you can get sued.

We have fire codes for buildings because people don't build them safely by themselves. We have rules against animal cruelty because people otherwise will be cruel to animals. We have food safety laws because food wasn't safe.

Sometimes rules are most definitely needed.

-- RobS

deagleninja · 2005-02-25 15:06:28

Regulations, if nothing else, will establish legal liability if something goes wrong. Without that, a private company could be sued out of existence by its passengers when a rocket blows up.
As for companies regulating themselves; well, maybe. Who says Virgin Galactic wouldn't release toxic products over a populated area? ho defnes what's toxic and how much is allowable? Without that, you can get sued.
We have fire codes for buildings because people don't build them safely by themselves. We have rules against animal cruelty because people otherwise will be cruel to animals. We have food safety laws because food wasn't safe.
Sometimes rules are most definitely needed.

Robs, as it stands now the FAA is supposed to keep their hands off until a disaster happens. If one or two rich people die, so what? This is by no means a safe adventure. People should agree to waive their rights to sue in the effect of a serious problem. That takes care of that little problem without regulation.

Companies investing this kind of money in a risky manner would be stupid. Virgin Enterprises didn't get to be one of the largest corporations in the world by being stupid. To answer your question, the EPA usually defines what is toxic and already has a set of rules regarding chemical usuage, so we don't need more.

We have rules for what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home. We have rules requiring us all to waer seat belts so that insurance companies don't have to pay too much. We have rules requiring us to buy this same insurance from companies that make incredible profit margins.

Sometimes rules are put in place by lobbied politicians, not for ur greater good.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-02-19 13:57:07

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#2 2005-02-20 03:07:16

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#3 2005-02-20 10:34:20

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#4 2005-02-20 10:54:25

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#5 2005-02-20 11:06:00

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#6 2005-02-20 22:04:07

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#7 2005-02-21 06:27:12

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#8 2005-02-21 10:05:38

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#9 2005-02-21 11:24:23

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#10 2005-02-21 11:46:18

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#11 2005-02-21 12:12:52

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#12 2005-02-21 12:23:25

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#13 2005-02-21 12:36:46

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#14 2005-02-21 18:49:14

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#15 2005-02-21 21:46:05

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#16 2005-02-23 11:54:01

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#17 2005-02-23 17:05:13

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#18 2005-02-23 17:25:44

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

#19 2005-02-25 15:06:28

Re: Stop Oberstar Before He Kills Private Spaceflight - A call to action in a critical time...

Board footer