Advertisement
by Excidium Planetis » Sat Aug 13, 2022 3:15 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Kaschovia » Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:40 am
Excidium Planetis wrote:"I uh, I suppose that it's too late now, but I would, um... Like to point out, that as it stands, the first two active clauses are, to be frank... nonsense." Adelia remarks. "You, um, define commercial space flight as taking place outside of national borders but then say that n-n-nations are free to regulate, er, commercial space flight inside their borders. How can you have commercial space flight inside your borders if it is defined solely as activity outside your borders?
"F-furthermore, given that this, um, esteemed Assembly, has, I believe, recognized the rights of nomadic peoples within member nations, I th-think it's, um, exclusive to not apply um, basically any of this proposal to member nations which, due to their nomadic nature, lack borders, in the usual sense. Like my own nation."
1. Defines commercial spaceflight activity as any action taken by a private individual or company registered within their member nation to conduct space travel;
2. Confirms the right of member nations to regulate commercial spaceflight activity more stringently than this resolution or prohibit commercial spaceflight activity completely;
by Simone Republic » Wed Aug 24, 2022 1:02 am
by Kaschovia » Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:25 am
Simone Republic wrote:I am not 100% sure that I strongly like the resolution - it really doesn't affect other WA member states (and IASA already coordinates space traffic, at least in theory under GA#451), it feels more like a domestic resolution than a WA one. I am not particularly pro-Natsov but I feel that the pro Natsov nations would not be keen.
by Tinhampton » Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:43 am
by Kaschovia » Wed Aug 24, 2022 10:15 am
Tinhampton wrote:Opposed.
Dan Smith is the owner of Smith's Travel Agents, which sells people package holidays to Tinhampton's colonies in outer space. In selling these holidays to unsuspecting Tinhamptonians, Smith's Travel Agents is performing an action to conduct space travel, which constitutes commercial spaceflight activity, for which a license is required. Yet STA does not own any spacecraft. It does not have any launching pads for those (non-existent) spacecraft. And it cannot communicate "with their spacecraft in the event of an emergency" for the same reason Hays' Travel, TUI, and (arguably) Jet2holidays cannot communicate with the planes that their passengers have boarded. All of this makes STA ineligible to obtain a license, meaning that STA cannot sell package holidays and Mr Smith is out of business.
The World Assembly does not require companies conducting international flights that do not breach the atmosphere to obtain a license. There is no good reason whatsoever why it should require companies conducting flights that do to obtain one. (This is pretty much the same quabble I had with Safe Disposal of Nuclear Waste.)
by Tinhampton » Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:22 am
by Kaschovia » Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:39 am
Tinhampton wrote:To conduct something is to carry out - to do - something. If people who act to conduct space travel must be licensed, then an action which leads to space travel happening must be licensable. I am extremely iffy about the idea of licensing in the first place and would have rather the 3b requirements just have been expected of spaceflight organisers - but whatever.
by Tinhampton » Wed Aug 24, 2022 12:06 pm
by Kaschovia » Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:58 pm
Tinhampton wrote:The World Assembly does not require licenses for operators of flights that DO NOT enter space. In fact, it does not even offer member states that choose to implement a licensing regime any guidance whatsoever in determining what conditions such operators must meet. (And in the real world, people who take non-space flights are both far more numerous in number and more diverse in every aspect than people who take space flights.) Yet powered aircraft suddenly becomes that much more dangerous once they enter space that their operators should be licensed? Not buying it.
To add: GA#342 already reserves to member states "all authority regarding regulations pertaining to equipment or training in regards to the operation of civilian aircraft." If you need certification to prove you can operate an aircraft, that's a regulation pertaining to training. If you need to install a comms system on your plane in case it breaks down, that's a regulation pertaining to equipment.
by Tinhampton » Wed Aug 24, 2022 7:48 pm
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5 » Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:18 pm
Wallenburg wrote:If you get a Nobel Prize for the time machine because you wanted to win an argument on the Internet, try to remember the little people who started you on that way.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Our research and user feedback found different use cases of bullets, such as hunting, national defense, and murder. Typically, most bullets fired do not kill people. However, sometimes they do. We found that nearly 100% of users were not impacted by shooting one random user every 30 days, reducing the likelihood of a negative impact on the average user.
Comfed wrote:When I look around me at the state of real life politics, with culture war arguments over abortion and LGBT rights, and then I look at the WA and see the same debates about cannibalism, I have hope for the world.
by Kaschovia » Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:12 am
Tinhampton wrote:On further investigation, the WA doesn't require the operators of anything - including activities which are more dangerous than space flight - to be licensed. (No, GA#532's provisions in these regards are non-binding.)
Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.
by Tinhampton » Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:28 am
Kaschovia wrote:Tinhampton wrote:On further investigation, the WA doesn't require the operators of anything - including activities which are more dangerous than space flight - to be licensed. (No, GA#532's provisions in these regards are non-binding.)
Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.
I know what you are saying, but once again equating the two ignores the practical applications of my proposal, specifically to make it safer for passengers of private space ventures. The procedures of standard civilian aircraft completely pale in comparison to the technicalities, risks, and variables of launching and conducting spaceflights. It's like requiring the same safety measures for a holiday cruise ship as a deep-sea submarine; they present completely different challenges and risks, so to apply the same blanket safety protocols would be disastrously dangerous for the passengers.
by Kaschovia » Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:44 am
Tinhampton wrote:Kaschovia wrote:I know what you are saying, but once again equating the two ignores the practical applications of my proposal, specifically to make it safer for passengers of private space ventures. The procedures of standard civilian aircraft completely pale in comparison to the technicalities, risks, and variables of launching and conducting spaceflights. It's like requiring the same safety measures for a holiday cruise ship as a deep-sea submarine; they present completely different challenges and risks, so to apply the same blanket safety protocols would be disastrously dangerous for the passengers.
I am NOT saying that the World Assembly should enforce "the same blanket safety protocols" on all flights, no matter how high they fly. I am saying:Why is licensing a better solution than the automatic authorisation regime I describe in bullet point B, particularly when everybody who wants to run a CSF will have to comply with the same checks in both cases anyway? What objective benefits to CSF safety are conferred by licensing that are not conferred by B-style automatic authorisation?
- it is ridiculous for the WA to require that licenses be handed out for commercial space flights based on particular criteria, when
- the WA could instead permit member states to automatically authorise all CSFs that meet all of those criteria instead, while requiring them to forbid all CSFs that do not meet any of those criteria.
(I would also note that these regulations do not apply to space flights organised by governments, regardless of their purpose.)
by Tinhampton » Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:17 am
Kaschovia wrote:Tinhampton wrote:I am NOT saying that the World Assembly should enforce "the same blanket safety protocols" on all flights, no matter how high they fly. I am saying:Why is licensing a better solution than the automatic authorisation regime I describe in bullet point B, particularly when everybody who wants to run a CSF will have to comply with the same checks in both cases anyway? What objective benefits to CSF safety are conferred by licensing that are not conferred by B-style automatic authorisation?
- it is ridiculous for the WA to require that licenses be handed out for commercial space flights based on particular criteria, when
- the WA could instead permit member states to automatically authorise all CSFs that meet all of those criteria instead, while requiring them to forbid all CSFs that do not meet any of those criteria.
(I would also note that these regulations do not apply to space flights organised by governments, regardless of their purpose.)
Just because it could be done in a different way does not mean that requiring a license is ridiculous or a worse idea. In fact, establishing a commonplace and licensed measurement of safety adeptness across the board also allows individuals traveling between member nations to quickly discern safer commercial spaceflight providers over a more broad authorization regime. This resolution simply aims to make it more difficult for unchecked commercial spaceflights to be conducted without the necessary safety measures in place.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:41 am
Tinhampton wrote:Space travel that does not start out as air travel is magic - and most WA members do not have magic at their disposal.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement