I don’t like the title of this piece. I don’t like the fact that I have to write it down. Still, I have to do it. For what? Because, based on their actions (not their words), it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a faction within our national government that does not want our private citizens to open the Upper Border of the ‘space.
The most recent example is that of the White House National Space Council:Framework for authorization and supervision of new space activities.” Ostensibly created to “create an agile framework that can respond to changing needs as we look to the future,” the December 2023 document is more of a leash than a catalyst for the creative economic expansion of the new space revolution currently underway.
Clearly born out of the US government’s response to international pressure to control what these crazy American disruptors might do in space, you only have to look at the title to tell. “Novel?” The document defines this term as referring to anything that is “not directly regulated by the current U.S. regulatory regime.” It may be true that the space activities of American citizens are considered “new” from the perspective of the global bureaucracy, while government space projects and programs are considered routine, a benchmark and a norm. However, it is a poor choice of words for our own government to adopt this language. Words have meaning, and right off the bat, calling the space equivalent of America’s diverse and dynamic private sector economy “new” is a bad sign.
The document admits that it was “developed in part and is being implemented to meet the nation’s international obligations as a state party to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies.” , opened for signature on January 27, 1967 (Outer Space Treaty). This motivation to respond to the Outer Space Treaty is understandable. But it is one thing to honor international obligations, another to create a Byzantine bureaucratic labyrinth that mimics those of the very states in which our innovative private sector continually outperforms.
The White House document appears to be designed to serve two main purposes: to appear busy in terms of satisfying both the need for a regulatory framework for the burgeoning US private space sector that appeases the international community, and catch up in controlling the ever-increasing number and types of citizen-led space initiatives.
Firstly, while adhering to the now ancient Outer Space Treatyour government should proactively create the maximum latitude for private space activities of all nations with the minimum of oversight – a pro-freedom stance that matches our national posture.
In the second, it goes beyond the limits by creating a network of inter-agency interactions that will in effect control the private sector in space by tying it up in the threads of various bureaucracies without clear accountability or ability for these private actors to understand or to appeal to the sources of these restrictions. This trap begins by placing responsibility for developing and enforcing regulations in the hands of the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation, giving them neither the power nor the leadership needed to create a streamlined system for approving plans and projects. This single action alone guarantees maximum confusion, expense and delay for anyone planning a new space project.
For all but the richest and most knowledgeable in Washington, this could well be a death sentence. Next comes language that suggests the administration will preemptively establish various interagency groups to provide information and coordinate opinions. Anyone who has ever worked in government agencies knows the axiom that no bureaucrat ever lost his job by saying “no.” This document not only doubles the number of high-level bureaucrats who can block an idea, it multiplies the possibilities of doing so by introducing a list of others who will inevitably – simply to justify their existence – create opinions and obstacles through which creators and businesses will have to jump. Worse still, at the end of the process, the attractive conclusions will be burdensome and the responsibilities in the event of a blockage will be virtually impossible to determine.
Congress recently took on the same challenge as the White House: finding a way for the nation’s Cold War space establishment to welcome and support its children – those space innovators, investors and entrepreneurs who rely on our proud legacy to expand the domain of freedom. people in space.
However, HR 6131, the Commercial Space Act of 2023, comes from an opposite polarity: It begins with trusting citizens rather than bureaucracy. Its language is peppered with phrases that make clear that the United States will support and enable the dreams and ambitions of our own people – while respecting international treaties and obligations. For example: “To the greatest extent possible, the President, acting through appropriate Federal agencies, will interpret and fulfill international obligations, including obligations under covered space treaties, to minimize regulations and limitations on the freedom of U.S. non-governmental entities to explore and use outer space.
This is what we need now: fulfilling our obligations while minimizing regulations – acceleration, not inhibition. To be clear, the private space sector is not seeking a Wild West in space. We need a well-designed regulatory framework within which to operate – but not an opaque box whose keys are held by a committee of intergovernmental committees.
The documentary battles for territory or lost in the cracks. The Congressional document is clear. One agency, the Department of Commerce, is responsible for managing the interactions while: “The Secretary may, as he or she deems necessary, consult with the heads of other relevant agencies to implement the requirements of this chapter…”
It is of course not surprising that the document coming from the executive branch is motivated by the desire to control rather than support the private space sector. This branch of government is home to NASA, the Department of Defense, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration, which consider space their territory. This is understandable, because they and their fellow government agencies around the world have essentially owned the space around Earth since the beginning.
Now here are all these crazy sci-fi dreamers with their crazy-eyed “new” ideas, building private rockets flying everywhere that are cheaper, cleaner and more efficient than government ones, with plans for the restoration of space stations. to companies and people doing who knows what, perhaps even to private astronauts who fly to the Moon and Mars before the government gets there to ensure that governments can get there safely.
Okay, maybe I’m a little cynical, but I’ve been familiar with this system for a while now. Although it may not appear in the carefully worded preambles and public relations statements of the agencies involved, our government maintains an inherent and deep distrust and fundamental confusion with the private space sector. In fact, it is clear to me that they are establishing the “framework” to control not only what happens in LEO, but also who does what on the Moon and especially on Mars. As someone known for championing US-led human expansion beyond Earth, just last year a senior NASA official told me we were ‘marginal’ . So, as is a government’s normal response to something it doesn’t understand, the result is to try to over-control it.
I invite you to read both documents if you have or plan to found, be part of, invest in, use, be a customer of or live in a free nation that benefits from the openness of what my mentor Gerard K. O’ Neill called the High Frontier. The differences are striking. In the White House document, citizen-led projects are inhibited, while the path forward for Congress is streamlined – even as security and sustainability are preserved. So call someone who can make a difference.
Unfortunately, on the Hill, HR 6131 and the White House framework are being fought over as if it were a partisan debate. It’s not. Far from there. And anyone on either side who tries to make one is doing everyone a disservice. There is too much at stake here to worry about territory, politics or bureaucratic processes.
Mired as it was in the morass of semantics and self-serving intransigence, Congress actually produced something workable. Let’s celebrate it. Like the proverbial clock, even Congress gets it right from time to time. Look, it’s not a question of right and left. It’s a question of how quickly America gets there.
The White House has a chance to take risks with the American people. Although I am troubled that the National Space Council – a group created under the Office of the Vice President, ostensibly to represent the interests of citizens and those of the space industry, has anything or to do with this – I know that many staff members at many agencies put a lot of time into this document. All their work is appreciated. They now have the opportunity to experience a learning moment. All they have to do is reverse their principle. Trust the voters. Trust people. The role of government in space, as here on Earth, is to meet the needs of the people rather than letting the people meet the needs of the government.
America needs a set of simple, easy-to-navigate guidelines and regulations to enable our citizens to maximize their creativity and innovative capabilities in support of the freedom project, lest nations that would like to enslave the solar system do not seize the heights and govern it for the next. a thousand years. And we need it now. It’s called HR .6131. Please read it. Then call your representative and tell them to pass the Commercial Space Act.
Rick Tumlinson founded the EarthLight Foundation and SpaceFund, a venture capital firm. He co-founded the Space Frontier Foundation, was a founding board member of XPrize, and hosts “The Space Revolution” on iRoc Space Radio, part of the iHeart Radio Network.
