Another CEI colleague, Luke Pelican, has a blog post at Open Market about the current House proposal to halve FAA-AST’s budget request:
Given the current quagmire facing NASA, the rapid development seen in the private space sector, and the uncertainty regarding the FAA-AST’s future regulatory plans, this budgetary restriction may help narrow the agency’s focus to ensuring a streamlined licensing process for commercial operators, rather than placing greater emphasis on regulatory efforts that could hamper future commercial space developments.
If they are going to cut the office’s budget, that’s at least a strong argument for pulling back their regulatory reach. They need to include the moratorium in whatever comes out of conference.
There’s very little detail in that bill, but I strongly suspect the reduction will come primarily from the “facilitate and promote” side of the office rather than the regulatory side.
It almost certainly means the $5 million low-cost space access prize has been denied.
If there’s a shortfall they’ll just slow down the permit processing.
Slow it down enough and industry will eventually eliminate the need for permits. What part of smaller government do these people not understand?
The $5 million low-cost space access prize was never going to be spent because the scope and criteria were never defined.
Something to be said about wings on a suborbital reusable launch vehicle: no need for permits.
“Something to be said about wings on a suborbital reusable launch vehicle: no need for permits.”
Not so. If it’s thrust exceeds lift for a substantial part of powered flight, it requires either an experimental permit or a license.
“If they are going to cut the office’s budget, that’s at least a strong argument for pulling back their regulatory reach.”
Silly Rand, they’ll include extra mandates as they cut the budget. This is congress after all.
There seems to be little analysis here of what the FAA would do with that funding. I looked into this back in May. Maybe this will help inform the discussion:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/05/05/nield-lays-faa-commercial-space-budget-congress/
Does that sound like FAA wants to fund excessive government regulations to you?
As to the FAA’s estimates on permit and licensing workloads, I would point out that XCOR, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, Armadillo and Masten could all be flying suborbital in 2012 should all go well. Then there’s the COTS cargo flights by SpaceX and OSC. Next year could be the year when the plan comes together, Hannibal Smith style. Do we really want an underfunded FAA trying to ride herd over all that?
It’s really bad enough what’s been happening with the FAA now with the funding shortfalls and temporary furloughs. I don’t know why they are screwing around with something so key to the safety of our infrastructure. This may be more of the same.
Mfk, yes.. I’m saying you can test your vehicle without doing that. Obviously you can’t do the same with a vehicle that doesn’t have wings.
Maybe it is time to revisit my 2003 testimony:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10908
Another option would be to just self-fund the FAA AST by increasing the fees for permits to cover costs instead of using tax payer money to fund the process.
Let the regulators decide what to charge the “beneficiaries” for their mandatory monopoly “services.” Sure, that’ll work. What could possibly go wrong?
Builders pay for building permits, zoning variances, inspections, and other necessary paperwork. Same is true in many other industries. Why should New Space be the exception and get a free ride at taxpayer expense?
Necessary paperwork… as if they could keep it to only that which is necessary?
I launch my own rocket from my own land over international waters… exactly what right does the government have to say anything, anything at all, about it?
When did the company agree to the services they are required to pay a fee for?
The OST makes the government responsible for paying for any damage you do. That is why as a U.S. Citizen they regulate you if you launch a rocket. So taxpayers don’t have to pay for any accidents.
Now if you are not a U.S. Citizen and are not on land under USA control and not using U.S. technology you may do as you wish.
By what right can they bind a citizen by treaty? I do not consent.
Am I suddenly not liable for damages if the treaty didn’t exist?
Ken,
It’s something called the Constitution, you know the document the Tea Party says we should follow? When the Senate ratifies a treaty it become the law of land.
Ken,
And in terms of your second statement, if there was no OST you would be liable, but the U.S. taxpayers wouldn’t be as they are now. The function of the FAA AST is to protect U.S.taxpayers from your mistakes.