Is the regulatory burden discouraging?

Then survival on the moon must be a piece of cake...

Talk about a way to blow away the romance of Space Exploration! This is as heavy a deal-breaker as timing an insertion burn for Trans Lunar Injection. If you didn’t understand it before, now you know how NASA makes it look easy… they specialize, and across broad swaths of academia and then take months to prepare an environmental impact statement, while juggling multiple missions at multiple directorates with hundreds of thousands of employees and subcontractors.

And here you are with your small team of admittedly very special enthusiasts … where do you begin multitasking?

Do not be discouraged, is my first suggestion. You already know by now the Space is not a place where you can “wing it,” nor can you bluff your way past its impersonal, merciless gauntlet. One mistake, and you “cough up your lungs,” as Heinlein wrote.

If you think the Regulatory Environment is daunting, consider how it compares with the seething Cosmic Ray and Solar Particle Event landscape you want to conquer. Keeping the Natives happy ought to be a piece of cake, when you think about it. They might even be useful along the way… they might even help you finance your project, if they don’t lock you up and steal your shirt, trousers and blueprints.

My thoughts are these: This is what a human network is all about, and all the more reason to join forces and share data in a sea of relationships. Perhaps this is what IASE is all about, and investing your time in human capital had better become a priority for you.

So what was your name again?

Tags: law, space

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Schulz on April 18, 2008 at 9:43am: Thanks for starting a useful discussion, Joel! Space entrepreneurs need to get an early handle on the legal aspects of their endeavor, and recognize early on that they'll need to team up with a lawyer (or two) along the way. The various laws already on the books governing activities in (or touching) outer space shouldn't be seen as a "deal breaker" at all -- in many instances, the laws (though a pain in the butt to deal with) help to ensure that our unique activities play nicely with other established aspects of our society and, in fact, make our activities possible -- especially here in the U.S. (for example, how many "ballistic missiles" could be tested and launched from U.S. soil for private space use in the absence of something like the Commercial Space Launch Act that identifies such activities and separates them from military, paramilitary or even terrorist activities?).

Budding entrepreneurs should team up with a lawyer (preferably one who knows and understands the space industry landscape) and subject their plans to an early analysis of legal needs, including intellectual property protection, ITAR (if foreign imports or exports, or the use of foreign nationals are involved), liability protection, compliance with securities regulations, government contracting regulations, in addition to any space-specific legal or regulatory requirements (for example, obtaining experimental or operational launch licenses). Realistic cost projections for necessary legal services should be included in the financials of the business plan, and the entrepreneur should be prepared to discuss intelligently the "legal" line item with potential investors as financing negotiations warrant (investors are loathe to pay for padding for "professional services," but, at the same time, generally understand that certain business goals cannot be met without outside professional help, and will allow the inclusion of a "professional services" or "legal" line item in the budget provided that they understand exactly and concretely why the service is necessary to the viability of the business).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Hook on April 25, 2008 at 9:40am: Jim, you make many good points. What I've discovered since getting into the risk analysis and physical security side of civilian spaceflight operations--and specifically space tourism--is that many deceptively simple sentences in 14 CFR 4XX lead to a series of not-so-simple implied tasks. So in the interest of mitigating risk by ensuring regulatory compliance--in my case it's security compliance for clients--the space entrepreneur must be prepared to invest the intellectual capital into not only the spacecraft, but also the processes that lead up to a successful launch.

The methods and solutions to obtaining a launch license will be just as valuable as intellectual capital as the spacecraft blueprints early on in this new frontier of business. In fact I believe that from a counter-industrial espionage point of view, it is the protection of the processes and documents that satisfy all of these implied regulatory tasks that may make or break a NewSpace company. It's great to have a flyable spacecraft...but it earns you no money if you can't fly it.

It would be nice to think that everyone is a good and honest person; however, when it comes to emerging markets with huge profit potentials, history does not bear this out. When someone publishes the "Obtaining a Spaceflight Launch License for Dummies" book, the risk of loss for this type of intellectual property will diminish. But the need to comply with regulations will still be there.

Take a look at 14 CFR.460.53. This is a deceptively simple and short sub-paragraph dealing with security for spaceflight participants. In there is a short line about spaceflight participants being "prevented" from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew. This security requirement is levied on the operator. So this drives a design requirement in the construction of the spacecraft. Why? Because the marketing folks are selling SFPs on the idea of being able to unstrap from their chairs and float around the cabin during the micro-gravity portion of the flight. Okay...so did the spacecraft designers implement a method of preventing the flight crew from being "jeopardized" by a floating SFP--intentionally or otherwise? And I have to say that this is only a very small part of the total security picture. But it becomes quite important in terms of regulatory compliance, customer satisfaction, and being able to pay the bills at the end of the day.

So completing my orbit on this topic, I agree with Joel: space businesses must understand the federal regulatory burderns on the industry and be prepared to solve them. And I agree with you, Jim: there is a need to seek expert advice to identify vulnerabilities and mitigate risks to the venture. And as always, the Devil is in the details.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Craig Raupe on April 26, 2008 at 3:21am: It would be nice to think that everyone is a good and honest person; however, when it comes to emerging markets with huge profit potentials, history does not bear this out. When someone publishes the "Obtaining a Spaceflight Launch License for Dummies" book, the risk of loss for this type of intellectual property will diminish. But the need to comply with regulations will still be there.

By George, I think you Get it? (LOL)

No doubt, and how well you get it, too. As you obviously already "got it" before the horse left the gate. Excellently said. That Space Law for Dumbies wouldn't be a big seller anyway. But that Intellectual Property --- that may be a seller's market.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Myrick on May 5, 2008 at 7:52pm: I wouldn't say the requirements are discouraging, but guidance in getting through the maze of regulations, licenses, permits and such is what I came to this forum to find. The presentation on US laws governing space activities is great. I am part of a Google Lunar X Prize team. Our team, and probably some of the other teams will need guidance in this area. Our team is international, with members and member organizations in other countries, so we also need help with ITAR registration and compliance, hopefully before we start making costly mistakes! About that 'Space Law for Dummies', it might have a larger market than you think, I would like a copy please!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Craig Raupe on May 6, 2008 at 6:54am: Thanks, Kevin. And sorry to everyone for being a "no-show in court" for the past few days. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, we've our Primary Election Day today, and while I'm Firewalled away from campaign finance, I still have had to be plenty busy - some of it involving the very things that started this conversation - an object lesson I hope to share with the group soon.

It turns out we may very well have to factor in our Space Lawyer, training and flight weight, for the long haul, after all. I think I will elaborate on the Forum level with some more links straight-away.; ▶ Reply to This