On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:20:06 -0800, Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ban all dihydrogen monoxide ... also the related compound >> hydrogen hydroxide. > >The sad thing is, they're in a mindset where someone could propose this >as a joke, and they'd jump all over it, taking it seriously. Someone pulled this on the Green Party, and got them to officially condemn DHMO. Amazing. (The Green Party badly needs scientific expertise, but they won't get it as long as they hate technology. They seem not to understand this. Humans - go figure) >Dragging this back on topic: given this mindset of theirs, what are the >implications for regulatory affairs? In particular, I'm wondering if >this is sufficient justification for limiting disclosure to the >government? If they don't need to know, they don't get to know, lest >they get scared and ban what we're doing out of reflex. I feel there's >something wrong with that approach, but I can't quite put my finger on >what it is. Eh??? You need to be REAL careful with that approach. ERPS is committed to complying with all applicable laws, regulations, rules, etc. The usual process is to familiarize ourselves with the applicable regulations, find someone who is already working under those regs, and work under their aegis. We've done this with AVA, LUNAR, TCC, SARG, and PRS, and it works very well. It will probably continue to work well in the future. As far as limiting disclosure, that sounds rather like withholding information. That's not productive, as we have learned from previous experience. We have achieved most of our success when we have collaborated with other groups and discussed our activities openly. I don't expect regulatory affairs to be any different. AST, for example, does not merely encourage pre-application consultation; they require it. They encourage starting it as early as possible. This is not to say we do what one of Gary Hudson's partners did, and go to Washington asking dumb questions. "He went around saying, 'I want to launch a privately owned rocket into orbit. Who regulates me?' To no one's great surprise, 19 separate agencies, bureaus, and administrations said, 'We do.'" We do the research ourselves, affiliate with the appropriate organizations, and apply for permits and licenses as necessary. We give Uncle Sam and Cousin Gray (why is the Governor named after an alien?) all the information they ask for - even if they can't point to a specific regulation as justification for asking for it - because they are the experts on the regulations. They can tell us things like, "Oh, you don't want to do that that way, because then you'd need to comply with x and get permission from y. Try z instead." NRA has taken a very sensible approach to regulation. Concealed carry is an example. When it became clear that concealed carry was going to be regulated no matter what NRA did, they drafted some reasonable regulations themselves, and took most of the wind out of their opponents' sails. I propose a similar approach for ERPS. If we work *with* the government, we're much less likely to be told flat no, you can't do that. -R -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The only time an aircraft has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire." -Sir Charles Kingsford Smith _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
