Skip to main content

How a bad anti-rocketry law got passed

Editorial: "I think it is time to clear up some of the misconceptions regarding the creation and attempted passage of Senate Bill S724. Frankly, I'm not much for Monday morning quarter backing. However, a recent review of the postings on the Internet shows that a great deal of misinformation is being spread around. Some of the posters are gleefully posting wrong information to smear me and/or ARSA. Others are only working with fragmentary truth and filling in the gaps incorrectly. I think I can clear this up better than most as I had a front row seat in the creation and attempted passage of S724.

In late November 2002, I called Senator Enzi's office after learning about the Safe Explosives Act (SEA) embedded inside the Homeland Security Act (HSA). I briefed them on the situation. I quickly set up a web page with the new Safe Explosives Act (SEA) and posted what we were trying to accomplish. It was simple. The goal was to get rocketry in general out from under the SEA as quickly as possible and certainly before May 24, 2003. I had posted ideas and solicited ideas on exemption strategies. I received many emails from people with positive approaches.

Working with Senator Enzi, we decided on two basic approaches. The first was to go directly to the White House and seek an executive order to exempt rocketry from the SEA. This could be done quickly, but was decided against as the White House was preparing for the invasion of Iraq. The feeling was that our problem would fall through the cracks during the more important invasion planning.

The second option was the one we decided to go with. It was to stick an exemption for rocketry on a technical corrections bill for the HSA. Senator Lott, who was going to be the new Senate majority leader, had planned to introduce this bill early in the January 2003 session of the Senate. This was a bill that would be signed by President Bush and we could be buried in this thick document. The bill would be on a fast track and probably signed into law in February, 2003. The success of that plan required no one to really know about it. Bringing TRA or NAR into the picture would have put the plan at great risk, as the information was bound to leak out with more people in the loop."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Josh Nimoy @ ITP - BallDroppings

Josh Nimoy @ ITP - BallDroppings : "BallDroppings is an addicting and noisy play-toy. It can also be seen as an emergence game. My brother Marc takes this software seriously as an audio-visual performance instrument. Balls fall from the top of the screen and bounce off the lines you are drawing with the mouse. The balls make a percussive and melodic sound, whose pitch depends on how fast the ball is moving when it hits the line."

New York Post Online Edition

news : "December 29, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Startling new Army statistics show that strife-torn Baghdad - considered the most dangerous city in the world - now has a lower murder rate than New York. The newest numbers, released by the Army's 1st Infantry Division, reveal that over the past three months, murders and other crimes in Baghdad are decreasing dramatically and that in the month of October, there were fewer murders per capita there than the Big Apple, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The Bush administration and outside experts are touting these new figures as a sign that, eight months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, major progress is starting to be made in the oft-criticized effort by the United States and coalition partners to restore order and rebuild Iraq. 'If these numbers are accurate, they show that the systems we put in place four months ago to develop a police force based on the principles of a free and democratic society are starting to ...

USATODAY.com - NASA docks contractor $45.2 million for Columbia

USATODAY.com - NASA docks contractor $45.2 million for Columbia : NASA penalized the contractor that maintains and operates the space shuttle fleet $45.2 million for its role in the shuttle Columbia accident, according to a letter NASA released Thursday. The United Space Alliance, a partnership of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, had to forfeit the money even though NASA said the contractor did nothing specific to cause the accident. But a letter from a NASA official said the contractor was "an integral member" of the "team that reached flawed conclusions about the relative safety of Columbia and crew before and during the flight." The letter from NASA deputy associate administrator Michael Kostelnik was sent Jan. 7 to United Space Alliance president Michael McCulley, a former astronaut. The contract spells out performance bonuses based on safety, cost-effectiveness and other factors. For Oct. 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003, the alliance was eligible for $81.2 ...