This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Hearing On Space Commerce

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 25, 2019
Filed under ,
Hearing On Space Commerce

– Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson [statement]
“I want to commend our commercial space companies that are making such impressive progress. There’s not a week that goes by without reading about a significant milestone in a commercial program, the deployment of a new capability in space, or an innovative plan that is attracting commercial investment.”
– Rep. Kendra Horn [statement]
– Bhavya Lal, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute [statement]
– Carissa Christensen, Bryce Space and Technology [statement]
– Eric W. Stallmer, Commercial Spaceflight Federation [statement]
– Mike French, Aerospace Industries Association [statement]
– Laura Montgomery, Catholic University’s Columbus School [statement]

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

3 responses to “Hearing On Space Commerce”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    It is amazing how the folks today writing on the OST seem to be unaware of the literature from the 1960’s that clarifies and justifies the various provisions they seem confused by. Article VI for example was created to protect Comsat and Intellisat from having the content of what they broadcast censored by nation states outside their legal jurisdiction. This was covered in the 1967 Senate Hearings on Ratification. I guess if it’s not in a digital archive it doesn’t exist anymore.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I only read through the prepared statements, and the Outer Space Treaty was only discussed in the last one. Was that what you were referring to or was there something in the questions and answers? (I haven’t listened to that yet.) If it’s the prepared statement, I didn’t see anything inconsistent with what you wrote.

      In any case, your arguing for interpretation based on original intent. I assume you know that’s a strongly debated concept. In this case, we know some people gave the motivation you mentioned in the Senate hearings of 1967. But the actual language is not narrowly tailored to that goal. The senators who voted for ratification may felt it Article VI also had other applications, and voted for that reason. The other countries involved in negotiating the language may have felt that way. In fact, the Senators who spoke at the hearings you mentioned may have felt that way; that the language accomplished several things but they only wanted to push the one application that would get the most votes.

      Personally, I’m not against original intent, but it has limits. I’d accept any interpretation which does what you say Article VI was intended to do (demonstrably one of the intended goals) and was also consistent with the actual language of the treaty (allowing for the possibility that more was intended than was openly discussed.)

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, it was the last one. Yes, it was consistent but a much stronger case could have been made by referencing and quoting sources from the period the OST was written. Also they are confusing Real Property rights with Chattel Property rights. The OST prohibits the first for both private parties and national states, but allows the second for both, which is the basis of the Space Resource Act of 2015.