Michael Kotrous and I submitted a comment to the FAA about their Remote ID proposals. While we agree with the need for a “digital license plate” for drones, we’re skeptical that requiring an Internet connection is necessary and that an interoperable, national drone traffic management system will work well.

The FAA deserves credit for rigorously estimating the costs of their requirements, which they set at around $450 million to $600 million over 10 years. These costs largely fall on drone operators and on drone manufacturers for network (say, LTE) subscriptions and equipment.

The FAA’s proposed requirements aren’t completely hashed out, but we raised two points of caution.

One, many many drone flights won’t stray from a pre-programmed route or leave private property. For instance, roof inspections, medical supply deliveries across a hospital campus, train track inspections, and crop spraying via drone all remain on private property. They all pose a de minimis safety concern to manned aircraft and requiring networking equipment and subscriptions seems excessive.

Two, we’re not keen on the FAA and NASA plans for an interoperable, national drone traffic management system. A simple wireless broadcast from a drone should be enough in most circumstances. The FAA proposal would require drone operators to contract with UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) who would be contractors of the FAA. Technical standards would come later. This convoluted system of making virtually all drone operations known to the FAA is likely run aground with technical complexity, technical stagnation, FAA-blessed oligopoly in USS or all of the above.

The FAA instead should consider allowing states, cities, and landowners to make rules for drone operations when operations are solely on their property. States are ready to step in. The North Dakota legislature, for instance, authorized $28 million a few months ago for a statewide drone management system. Other states will follow suit and a federated, geographically-separated drone management system could develop, if the FAA allows. That would reduce the need for complex, interoperable USS and national drone traffic management systems.

Further reading:

Refine the FAA’s Remote ID Rules to Ensure Aviation Safety and Public Confidence, comment to the FAA (March 2020), https://www.mercatus.org/publications/technology-and-innovation/refine-faa%E2%80%99s-remote-id-rules-ensure-aviation-safety-and

Auctioning Airspace, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology (October 2019), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3284704

Last Thursday I shared my thoughts in two short (<5 min) RussiaToday interviews on on President Obama's big speech about NASA and his long-overdue cancellation of NASA’s white elephant known as “Ares I” rocket. (See Jeff Foust’s analysis here and here.) I was sorry to see the Administration decide to preserve the Orion capsule as a lifeboat for the International Space Station, but as I indicate below, I can’t really blame them for feeling they had to “throw a bone” to the Congressional lions defending that program and the jobs it created (using tax dollars that killed far more jobs, of course—a classic “seen v. unseen” problem).

But as I note below, the far more important good news is that, if Obama gets his way, NASA would finally buy crew launch services to ISS and for future deep space missions from the private sector (expanding its limited COTS program) instead of building its own rockets and capsule for this purpose. This decision is easily single best thing the Administration has done thus far. They have a tough fight ahead with the few members of Congress who actually care about this—who just so happen to be the ones whose districts will face job cuts when dead-end, wasteful make-work programs are canceled. The irony here is just too thick: Many of the same kinds of folks who’ve been decrying Obama as a socialist (not unjustly, in my opinion) now attack him on nationalist grounds for trying to turn part of our ultra-socialist space program over to the private sector.

http://www.youtube.com/v/-0Da2fyzBus&hl=en_US&fs=1& Here’s another clip:

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

We’re hoping that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made some sort of mistake, because it’s hard to believe its latest findings about the paperwork burden generated by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory activity. In late January, the GAO released a report on “Information Collection and Management at the Federal Communications Commission” (GAO-10-249), which examined information collection, management, and reporting practices at the FCC. The GAO noted that the FCC gathers information through 413 collection instruments, which include things like: (1) required company filings, such as the ownership of television stations; (2) applications for FCC licenses; (3) consumer complaints; (4) company financial and accounting performance; and (5) a variety of other issues, such as an annual survey of cable operators.  (Note: This does not include filings and responses done pursuant to other FCC NOIs or NPRMs.)

Regardless, the FCC told the GAO that it receives nearly 385 million responses with an estimated 57 million burden hours associated with the 413 collection instruments. A “burden hour” is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act as “the time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or provide information to a federal agency.” And the FCC is generating 57 million of ‘em! Even though we are frequently critical of the agency, these numbers are still hard to fathom. Perhaps the GAO has made some sort of mistake here. But here’s what really concerns us if they haven’t made a mistake.

Assuming the GAO got these numbers right, just think of the deadweight economic loss associated with all this paperwork, and think of how it will grow in months and years to come! Can you imagine how much the numbers have likely grown so far this year, with the agency generating so many new public notices, notices of inquiry, requests for information, and more?  And just think what the paperwork burden will look like once the National Broadband Plan and Net neutrality regulations kick in!  Oh my… The agency has already promised lots more notices will flow out of the National Broadband Plan to implement various portions of it.

In terms of the deadweight loss, go back to the numbers Adam cited in his essay last week asking, “Will the FCC’s Nat’l Broadband Plan Be “Full Employment for Lawyers”? As noted there, lawyers were about the only group that did fairly well thanks the FCC’s over-zealous regulatory ways in the post-Telecom Act period. Greg Sidak of Georgetown University Law School found that the number of telecom lawyers–as measured by membership in the Federal Communications Bar Association–grew by a stunning 73% in the late 1990s. That was largely driven by a 37% hike in FCC spending and a tripling of the number of pages of regulations in the FCC Record in the post-Telecom Act period. Sidak argued, “If one assumes (very conservatively) that the average income of an American telecommunications lawyer is $100,000, then the current membership of the FCBA represents an annual expenditure on legal services of at least $340 million.” And we all know that those lawyers were making a heck of lot more than just $100K (and billed even more), so Sidak’s estimates were ultra-conservative: The deadweight loss of all this legal activity was much greater.

Indeed, a very conservative estimate of hourly rates for Washington communications lawyers would be $200/hour, but even at that rate, 57 million burden hours would equate to a total cost of $11.4 billion. In fact, when major Washington law firms use “blended rates” to bill out the time of senior partners, junior associates, and paralegals working in teams on things like regulatory filings, the figure is more like $350-400 (if not more)—which would equate to a deadweight cost of $20-23 billion every year.  To put that staggering number in perspective, leaks about the National Broadband Plan indicate that the FCC might be planning on spending about that much to subsidize broadband deployment over a decade.

Or, to use another comparison, NASA’s 2010 budget is a mere $18.69 billion.  That’s in the same ballpark as what, according to the GAO’s man-hour estimates, the FCC’s reporting requirements cost U.S. industry every year.  As Wernher von Braun famously said about the Apollo program, which he led: “We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming.”

So, “if we can put a man on the moon,” as they say, why can’t we do something about this paperwork burden so America’s communications, media, and high-tech providers can focus on actually providing better, faster, and cheaper service to consumers?

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin used to refer to commercial alternatives to NASA’s Ares rockets as “Paper Rockets,” but commercial vehicles like Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 1 are quite real and available today, while Ares 1 and 5 are grossly over-budget and way behind-schedule:

http://www.youtube.com/v/VqR7IDzA5Xo NASA should buy commercial space services whenever possible from NewSpace companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace. The Commercial Spaceflight Revolution is happening now!

My Romanian space lawyer (and improbably-named) friend Virgiliu Pop has made the front page of Space.com today in a great interview with leading space journalist Leonard David about his new book Who Owns the Moon?: Extraterrestrial Aspects of Land and Mineral Resources Ownership.  Virgil slams the “Common Heritage of Mankind” socialism behind the 1979 Moon Treaty, which was killed in the U.S. Senate by the free-market space movement, which later gave birth to the Space Frontier Foundation (which I chair).

Virgil once famously claimed ownership of the sun to demonstrate the absurdity of serious assertions made by a number of charlatans to ownership of lunar territory (Dennis Hope) or the entire Eros asteroid (Greg Nemitz).  Virgil’s point was “to show how ridiculous a property rights system in outer space would be if it were to be based solely on claim unsubstantiated by any actual possession.”

I’m looking forward to reading Virgil’s book–and to writing a proper review.  For now, I’ll just say that I think Virgil and I see eye-to-eye on three key premises (something of a rarity among space lawyers on the ultra-contentious issue of property rights):

1. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits nations from appropriating territory in space and also prohibits individuals from asserting any territorial claims (generally accepted) except to a narrowly-limited area under actual use (not accepted by all space lawyers).
2. The Outer Space Treaty, properly understood, does not bar claims to ownership of movable objects such as extracted resources or even (if they can be moved in a meaningful way) entire asteroids or comets.
3. Securing such property rights is essential to the economic development of space.

Here are a few choice excerpts from Virgil’s new book on the big picture of property rights in space:

Outer space needs to be spared the painful experience of the former Eastern Block. Despite the noble ideals of equity and care for the have-nots, the CHM paradigm has more faults than merits. A refutation of the Common Heritage principle does not mean, however, that the developing world will, or should, be left behind in the space era. China, India and Brazil are living proofs that a developing country can, through its own effort, join the spacefaring club. Instead of freeloading on the efforts of the older spacefarers, the have-nots should pool their meagre financial resources into a common space agency or into regional ones, and proceed at exploiting the riches of outer space for themselves. The rallying cry of Marxism – “Proletarians of all countries, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains” should evolve into “Countries of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but the chains of gravity”. The skies are open. “

…

The frontier paradigm has proven its worth on our planet, and it most likely will do so in the extraterrestrial realms. Homesteading is likely to transform the lunar desert in the same manner as it transformed the 19th Century United States. Space is indeed a new frontier calling for individualism rather than collectivism, and its challenges need to be addressed with a legal regime favourable to property rights. Such a regime is seen by many authors as not only useful, but also as the only means of opening the extraterrestrial realms to settlement, given the reluctance of most industrialists to invest money in an endeavour without having the security that they will enjoy the benefits. It may also occur that a minority of investors, with a bigger tolerance to risk, would adopt an anarcho-capitalist approach and “cross the Alleghenies” without backing from a sovereign State.

Given the abundance of extraterrestrial resources, it would be nonsensical to forbid their private appropriation. Securing property rights would be a small price to pay, and more beneficial to humankind, compared to the alternative of keeping the extraterrestrial realms undeveloped. The practical arguments against the Frontier paradigm may have merit, but the issues raised can be tackled. The ideological arguments, nonetheless, are emotional rather than rational.

Whereas the frontier paradigm is outlawed in the current incarnation of the international law of outer space, law is a dynamic phenomenon and it may evolve towards a regime supportive of property rights in outer space. A shift from the res publica approach may be in the cards, given the official support of the Aldridge commission for property rights. Until this shift happens, the non-appropriation principle remains nonetheless the lex lata in the extraterrestrial realms.

The Space Frontier Foundation issued this press release today, following our earlier call for NASA to fund its COTS-D program for demonstrating commercial human spaceflight capabilty.  

The Space Frontier Foundation today called on President-elect Barack Obama to use the innovation and drive of American entrepreneurs to “close the Gap” in U.S. human spaceflight after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010.

President-elect Obama has promised $2 billion in additional funding for NASA to address the Gap, when the U.S. will be dependent upon Russia’s Soyuz for crew access to the International Space Station.  But two of the options proposed – extending Space Shuttle operations or accelerating the Constellation program – wouldn’t reduce the current estimate of a five year gap by much.

“Space leaders are considering three or four options for reducing the Space Gap, but only one reflects the spirit of positive change that Senator Obama campaigned on,” said Foundation Chairman Berin Szoka.  “According to NASA’s own estimates, flying the Shuttle beyond 2010 will cost at least $2 billion  per year, so that only cuts the Gap by one year.  And $2 billion is a drop in the bucket for Constellation, at best helping to address shortfalls that the Congressional Budget Office just predicted will add another 18 months to the Gap.”

A third option is being considered by some at NASA, according to published reports:  Strip the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle of the capability to support Lunar exploration, making it simpler and lighter, and supposedly easier to complete sooner.

“This idea is crazy, because it will strand NASA in low Earth orbit, instead of exploring the solar system,” said Foundation co-founder Rick Tumlinson.  “The whole point of the Vision for Space Exploration was to send NASA’s Lewis & Clarks further out into the frontier, to the Moon, Mars, and near-Earth asteroids, while the private sector takes over Earth orbit.  Cutting Orion back gives us ‘Gemini on steroids’, which would be a change for the worse.”

“The only option that makes sense is to use President-elect Obama’s promised $2 billion to catalyze as many as five new commercial human spaceflight companies that will compete to close the Gap using the safest, most capable and affordable system they can develop,” said Will Watson, Foundation Executive Director.

“Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket by pouring even more money into the Shuttle, an old system that’s on its last legs, or a controversial new program that’s already behind schedule,” Watson said.  “If we’re serious about closing the Gap and about making humanity’s presence in space economically sustainable, we need real change in how we put humans in space.  Let’s use this $2 billion to stimulate multiple entrepreneurial systems that will not only slash costs, improve safety, and close the Gap, but also help create a whole new space industry with new jobs here in America.”

As TLF readers may know, I took over in July as Chairman of the Board of the Space Frontier Foundation.  As I explained in my recent interview on The Space Show, SFF has been the leading citizens’ advocacy group for space commercialization since 1988.  Dedicated to promoting Princeton physicist Gerard O’Neill‘s vision of space settlement, as described in his 1976 masterpiece The High Frontier, the Foundation has always argued that “space is a place, not a program.”

We sent out the following press release on October 28, calling for a major transformation of the U.S. government’s space program by which the U.S. government would buy commercial transportation to the International Space Station.  We’ll have more to say about this in the coming weeks.

Space Frontier Foundation Finds Funding Source for COTS-D

The Space Frontier Foundation today called upon Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain to invest the $2 billion in new funds they have promised to NASA for reducing the “Gap” in U.S. human spaceflight (after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010) to spur innovation and competition in America.

Foundation Chairman Berin Szoka said “It’s time that our national leaders give American entrepreneurs a shot at closing this gap. Let’s take the two billion dollars in the candidates’ plans and fund up to five winners of COTS-D.”

The NASA Authorization Act of 2008, recently signed into law by the President, directs NASA to “issue a notice of intent [by mid-April 2009] … to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with two or more commercial entities’ for transporting humans to the ISS”-the “Capability D” of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program (or COTS-D for short). But that directive is not yet funded.

Szoka continued, “Let’s have an American competition in space – to create good jobs, fuel innovation, and close the gap more quickly. With private funds matching government’s investment, we can dramatically leverage the $2 billion to produce breakthroughs in a new American industry – commercial orbital human spaceflight.”

By investing in several different approaches, the government will win no matter who wins this new race, and also benefit from the resulting price competition.

Many American companies, including Boeing, PlanetSpace, SpaceDev, SpaceX, and t/Space have each previously submitted credible COTS-D proposals to NASA. Each of these firms has reached the semi-finals of one of the previous NASA COTS competitions. Increasing funding for COTS by $2 billion would allow NASA to fund all five of these promising companies’ proposals with COTS agreements, and in so doing, build redundancy into the human spaceflight capability available to NASA and other customers.

“It’s popular in Washington to use ‘The Gap’ to cynically justify continued funding of an expensive jobs program,” concluded the Foundation’s co-founder, Bob Werb. “We’re using ‘The Gap’ to advocate a policy that will bridge a gap that matters much more: the chasm between a dying government Human spaceflight monopoly and an emerging, free and competitive marketplace that can open the space frontier to everyone.”

Astronaut Candidate, Johnson Space Center/International Space Station:

NASA, the world’s leader in space and aeronautics is always seeking outstanding scientists, engineers, and other talented professionals to carry forward the great discovery process that its mission demands. Creativity. Ambition. Teamwork. A sense of daring. And a probing mind. That’s what it takes to join NASA, one of the best places to work in the Federal Government. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a need for Astronaut Candidates to support the International Space Station (ISS) Program.

“Major Duties” are as follows:

Astronauts are involved in all aspects of assembly and on-orbit operations of the ISS. This includes extravehicular activities (EVA), robotics operations using the remote manipulator system, experiment operations, and onboard maintenance tasks. Astronauts are required to have a detailed knowledge of the ISS systems, as well as detailed knowledge of the operational characteristics, mission requirements and objectives, and supporting systems and equipment for each experiment on their assigned missions. Long-duration missions aboard the ISS generally last from 3 to 6 months. Training for long duration missions is very arduous and takes approximately 2 to 3 years. This training requires extensive travel, including long periods away in other countries training with our international partners. Travel to and from the ISS will be by Space Shuttle until its retirement in 2010. Following the Shuttle retirement, all trips to and from the ISS will be aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle. Consequently, astronauts must meet the Soyuz size requirements, as indicated below. Additional information about the position can be found at www.nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts.

Apart from the 2/124 chance of dying in a horrible fireball, having to deal with NASA’s rigid bureaucracy of “PowerPoint Pioneers,” and living (while planet-bound) in Houston, the main drawback of the position seems to be that would-be astronauts must apply through NASA’s byzantine STARS (“Staffing and Recruitment System”) system.  Like every government agency job site I’ve ever seen, STARS requires tedious resume recreation in order to produce a rigidly-simplistic-but-standardized document in Courier font that looks like something from the typewriter era (though no job site could possibly be as user-unfriendly as FCCJobs).

If Obama really wants to attract talent into the civil service, why not let people apply with a simple link to their LinkedIn profile or some such thing?