Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Asteroid Ownership?
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:12:49 GMT

In article <3461f477.10755358@207.126.101.78>,
Tom Abbott <tabbott@intellex.com> wrote:
>>I think there needs to be a careful balance set up that encourages
>>not only the first and biggest risk takers, but somehow also keeps
>>things open for late-comers.
>>
>>Of course, I haven't the faintest idea how to do that.
>
>  Government regulation.

Not a complete solution, alas -- one of the most cost-effective things an
established company in a regulated industry can do is to buy control of
the regulators.

That process doesn't need to be obtrusive, either.  It suffices to quietly
convince the regulatory agency that only capable companies, with adequate
financial resources and technical competence, should be allowed in... with
the thresholds set high enough, and the assessment criteria conservative
enough, to exclude new start-ups.  We are perilously close to this
situation in a number of industries already, and most of it was done with
the highest of motives.  It doesn't take much pressure from the existing
companies to close a regulated industry completely to new entrants.  This
needn't be done by anything so crass as bribery; high-minded concern for
the public welfare, backed up by the accumulated expertise of the industry
(which comes from the established companies, of course) often suffices.

It's often hard to convince regulators that little fly-by-night startups
with hardly any money and wild impractical technical ideas should be
allowed to make irresponsible claims, drum up customer interest, fail to
meet the needs of the market, and then go bankrupt... which is the way it
happens for most of them.  The few survivors contribute most of the real
competition in the industry, but the process *looks* chaotic and harmful,
as witness the regular complaints about how airline deregulation is
hurting safety and endangering the travelling public.
--
If NT is the answer, you didn't                 |     Henry Spencer
understand the question.  -- Peter Blake        | henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space.science
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the moon...
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 05:37:22 GMT

In article <39F06314.55232236@together.net>,
John Beaderstadt  <beady@together.net> wrote:
>> Not quite.  I believe it is illegal for Americans to
>> launch anywhere in the world without government approval.
>
>Just guessing, here, but I think this to be a corrupted translation of the
>standard FAA regulations that govern US air space. Certainly, American
>jurisdiction does *not* apply to actions performed outside its borders, absent
>any treaties to the contrary...

The original posting is correct.  *You* may not think American
jurisdiction applies outside US borders, but the US government does not
agree with you.  It thinks that American citizens are subject to US law at
all times, *no matter where they are*.  (They might also be subject to
local laws, but that's their problem, not the US government's.)

So yes, the FAA has jurisdiction over launches conducted by US citizens
anywhere, or so it believes -- you ignore this at your peril.  It may
decide that the local authorities are competent to supervise you, and
waive jurisdiction, but that is the FAA's decision, not yours.  And you
can bet your booties that they *won't* waive jurisdiction if they think
you are going abroad solely to find gullible/bribeable authorities.

Of course, if you're willing to renounce your US citizenship, or live
permanently in exile, this is no longer an issue.  (Or not much of one,
anyway.)  Then you just have missile-technology export rules to worry
about, and if you thought the FAA was bad, try the State Department...

(At least one amateur space-launch group planned to launch from Canada,
under Canadian regulatory authorities.  The FAA waived jurisdiction
without much argument.  When they tried to get State Department permission
to export their hardware to Canada, though, they got nowhere, and they
eventually gave up.)

>> There are active proposals for private space activities.
>> Will they be allowed, assuming they raise the money?
>
>Sure, why not? Can you really see American corporations and labor unions quietly
>acquiescing to and cooperating with governmental restriction of free trade and
>commerce?

They already do.  For example, anybody can build commercial aircraft,
assuming he can convince the FAA that he is competent to do so and that
his designs are good ones... but said convincing is easy if he's Boeing,
and almost impossibly difficult if he's a startup, even if he is an
experienced aircraft builder and universally agreed to be highly competent.
(Burt Rutan gave up after wasting a lot of money trying.)

Remember that such restriction of free trade and commerce tends to work in
favor of the companies already *in* the particular business, and their
unions... who, oddly enough, are the ones with plenty of money and good
Washington contacts.
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.science
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Return to the moon...
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:43:24 GMT

In article <39f80db6.151155597@news.seanet.com>,
Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net> wrote:
>>assuming he can convince the FAA that he is competent to do so and that
>>his designs are good ones... but said convincing is easy if he's Boeing,
>>and almost impossibly difficult if he's a startup, even if he is an
>>experienced aircraft builder and universally agreed to be highly competent.
>>(Burt Rutan gave up after wasting a lot of money trying.)
>
>Henry how does this square with your oft repeated statements that
>there are many smaller businesses in the bizjet industry?

They're intermediate cases -- smaller, yes, but generally long-established
in the business, or foreign companies with more cooperative regulators.
That's the market Rutan was trying to break into.

(He might have been more successful if he hadn't insisted on a producing a
somewhat innovative design built in innovative ways, rather than building,
say, a Gulfstream clone with standard aerospace manufacturing practices at
standard aerospace costs.)
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hudson left Rotary
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 00:50:29 GMT

In article <eGO75.3857$4C4.85014@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
Edward Lyons <eddie.lyons@virgin.net> wrote:
>Whenever I hear this, I can't help but think of the parallels in the
>aircraft industry.
>
>Even taking talent into account, has aircraft development and production
>gotten any cheaper or quicker than in the past? Anything but!

That depends on whether you ask Lockheed Martin, or Burt Rutan.

Aircraft development and production *by traditional aircraft companies*
has steadily gotten costlier and slower.  That doesn't mean this is an
inevitable natural law.  It is the nature of big, long-established
companies to have great difficulty in doing things cheaply and quickly.
(Notice how the airliner builders are now rapidly losing the low end of
their market to business-jet companies.)

The biggest problem in the aviation industry right now is that the deck is
heavily stacked in favor of the traditional aircraft companies.  DoD does
not believe that aggressive newcomers can build military aircraft, seldom
invites them to bid on new contracts, and drowns bidders in reams of
paperwork.  (Rutan did build a couple of experimental military aircraft on
DoD contract, and had great difficulty dealing with the paperwork empire.)
On the civil side, the FAA does not believe that aggressive newcomers can
build safe aircraft, and makes it inordinately difficult for them to get
certification for their products.

>...going so far in the opposite direction, that either one of the two
>megacorporation teams that lose the competition for the USAF/USN/Royal Navy
>Joint Strike Fighter project probably would go out of business within a few
>years as a result. Thus, instead of a winner-takes-all result, the "winner"
>will be required to share production with the "loser" to ensure a
>"competitive" field for future American military aircraft competitions!

See what happens when you make it impossible for newcomers to break into
the field?  Inevitably, sooner or later, the old companies merge until
you're dealing with a monopoly supplier who's got you over a barrel.
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

From: "Jeff Greason" <jgreason@hughes.net>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: Beal in trouble...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:14:15 -0700

Jonathan Thornburg <jthorn@mach.thp.univie.ac.at> wrote in message
news:8rcvs6$rni$1@mach.thp.univie.ac.at...
> An interesting data point:  It cost somewhat over US$300 million
> (1985 dollars) to develop the Beechcraft Starship, an executive
> turboprop aircraft.  Very different sort of structure, much more
> stringent safety qualifications required (there are people on board,
> and this thing is a civilian passenger aircraft), ... but still an
> interesting data point on aerospace development costs.

Another interesting data point is the VisionAire Vantage.  The
demonstrator aircraft (fully functional but missing some features
and flown as an experimental aircraft), $2.5 million.  The company
is reputed to have spent more than $50 million since seeking
FAA certification of the aircraft, and they aren't there yet.  A
VERY large part of the costs of any existing aircraft are in
regulatory compliance.  The costs of regulatory compliance for
a launch vehicle are TBD.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"Limited funds are a blessing, not         Jeff Greason
a curse.  Nothing encourages creative      President & Eng. Mgr.
thinking in quite the same way." --L. Yau  XCOR Aerospace
   <www.xcor-aerospace.com>                <jgreason@hughes.net>