Things were a little too frenzied in the past few days to actually spend much time analyzing the legislation, but now that the shouting is over, Nathan Horsley has an analysis of the legal effects of the launch legislation passed by the House this weekend. I agree with it, and share his concern that the compromise language inserted in the bill may cause the good people at FAA-AST to be more (and possibly too) concerned about passenger safety, to the detriment of a fledgling industry.

As Nathan says:

Well, shouldn’t they do something to protect the passengers? I have to answer a resounding no. The reason for this answer is that paying customers in the space tourism industry are not the same as passengers in the traditional sense of transportation by air. Instead, it is more appropriate to think of these persons as adventure tourists or reverse skydivers. Suborbital tourists are not paying to be transported from one point to another. In fact, they generally will end up just where they started. Instead, suborbital tourists are paying to be allowed along for the ride. Subrbital space tourism is the ultimate roller coaster ride, not a service designed to transport passengers. While we all want this to develop into a passenger service in the traditional functional sense, for now they are paying for the heart-pounding thrill of the ride and to see the awe inspiring view. Just as is not appropriate to mandate safety for persons who go swimming with sharks or climbing Mount Everest, it is not appropriate to mandate safety for private space flight participants.

I'm also concerned about the time frame of eight years until the hammer drops with full regulation. I'm concerned that it's not long enough to get the industry going. However, it's something that can always be extended, if Congress can be persuaded to, so it at least buys some time to try to figure things out.

The bottom line is that, as Nathan says, this is mostly PR, but right now PR is very important, and one of the many pillars needed to raise critical investment right now. But as he also points out, it pobably won't be the end of the world if the Senate doesn't follow through in December. Just having the debate was useful, to the FAA, to the industry, and to Congress, and if it doesn't make it, this year, we stand on the shoulders of the effort to get something even better next year.

[Update at 9 AM EST]

Clark Lindsey makes another good point:

If it doesn't pass this year, then the commercial space legislation is dead and the whole process must start from square one in the new Congress. However, the FAA and AST may take HR3752/HR5382 as the general intent of Congress, especially with the two large votes in the House in favor of them.

Rand,

As one of the people who helped negotiate all of that nasty compromise language, I hear you. Believe me, I hear you.

Note, however, two House Democrats' sudden horror that safety regulation might be limited in any way.

One of the lessons of the past 1.5 years is that we have to get rocket licensing out of an agency responsible for common carrier transportation.

- Jim

One of the lessons of the past 1.5 years is that we have to get rocket licensing out of an agency responsible for common carrier transportation.

Well, it's not like some people (ahem...) haven't been saying that for years (in fact, ever since the Clinton administration decided to put it in that agency...).

That doesn't require legislation. Is there any chance that we can get Mineta (or please, please, his replacement, whoever that is) to fix the problem?