On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:32:10 -0800, Adrian Tymes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Even if AST found you in violation, and FAA issued an injunction > > forbidding you to fly, the cops (likely sheriff's deputies, though > > they could be Federal marshals, or even TSA officers) would not > > impound your vehicle. They'd just lock up your mission control > > trailer and post a guard on it. > >I sincerely hope you're right. But I have had experience with police >getting overenthusiastic and vastly overstepping their legal authority >in the past, and signs are that the current heads of the federal police >are encouraging such activities by example. Such that they might try to >do the arrest even if NASA's head himself objects (to the arrest, not to >us), if there is even the slightest sign or confusion that some aspect >of NASA (or NASA's contractors) might be inconvenienced. I'm having a hard time making sense of what you're saying. There are a couple possibilities on the worst case end of the "we're going to shut you down" spectrum. One is that FAA issues an injunction and calls the county mounties to go stop those damn upstarts from launching. Senior county mounty tells us, "I got an injunction here says you can't launch. I'm no rocket scientist, but I'll know a launch if I see one. If I do, y'all are in a heap of trouble. OK? Good. So tell me how you cancel a launch, and then walk me through it as you do it. This is pretty cool. Then I'll have to ask you all to leave. Who did you folks piss off?" Another possibility would have Federal marshals doing the same thing, and for the same reason. If you were a senior law enforcement officer, used to dealing with traditional law enforcement issues, and you got a call from some Federal agency telling you to go enforce a launch injunction against a rocket company, wouldn't you find that kind of unusual? Sure you would. So would you send Deppity Dawg and his cousin Cooter out to the flight line to stop the launch? Of course not. You'd probably go yourself. Whoever you sent, he'd know he was in a weird situation, so he'd be real careful. Anyone who was competent to actually do something with your equipment, and had the authority to do it, would be an engineer employed by, or under contract to, AST. Basically, the rule is, the more technical the field, the more educated the enforcement officials, and the less likely they are to do anything rash. The people we'll be dealing with may have badges, but they probably won't carry guns. We're talking about guys like the fire marshal. For line cops - who do carry guns - in a technical injunction enforcement situation, they wouldn't go into felony stop mode unless someone didn't comply with their orders (and probably not even then, but we are talking worst case). And if anyone in an organization for which I am the Regulatory Affairs Officer fails to comply with an order from a guy with a badge and a gun, it won't be the cop he'll have to worry about. It'll be me. First I'll fire him, then I'll drag him from the building, then I'll come back, apologize profusely to the cop, and comply with the order. If you're at an ERPS activity, and a law enforcement officer tells you to do something, DO IT. Don't argue with the nice man: Do What He Tells You. We'll argue about our rights after the guys with the guns leave. The actual likely worst case, if NASA or some other 9 million pound gorilla decides to shut us down, is a phone call from our AST contact during license application processing. "Hey, remember last week, we talked about your frammistat encoder, and I thought NASA wouldn't like it because it doesn't meet 1127-1? Well, they just came back with a negative recommendation. They actually put it in writing. They really don't like you guys. Anyway, I've got a meeting with the boss and the lawyers tomorrow morning, and I'll see what I can do. I think you've made case for your frammistat encoder being exempt, and your procedures cover your lack of test data for it, but the NASA guys are sure it'll fail. We'll see what the boss thinks, and I'll give you a call tomorrow and let you know how it went. Either way, we should have an answer for you in the next couple of months." >Okay, then, deliver to somewhere over 200 km behind the ISS in its >orbit, far enough away to avoid this. Getting from there to the ISS >wouldn't be hard in theory, and those who matter would likely understand >that permission was the only thing preventing it from being tested in >practice. I'm less sure about that... >The important thing is to demonstrate on-orbit delivery with >a given reference point. Maybe even have a mock, unmanned, ISS effigy >delivered to said coordinates, then rendevous with that. (ISS effigy >just for the visual impact.) ...but this is an absolute truth. We, and anyone else who wants to rendezvous with ISS, will be required to prove by actual demonstration that we can make a rendezvous and safe docking with a station without spraying their pretty little space station with evil toxic exhaust gasses, before they'll let us play in their yard. -R -- Every complex, difficult problem has a simple, easy solution - which is wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
