3 ms·

DeSantis Signs Bill Shielding Musk’s SpaceX From ‘Spaceflight Entity Liability’

41 points by nickthegreek 3y ago

clouddrover 3y ago
They've been scratching each other's backs for a while: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/politics/elon-musk-ron-desantis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/politics/elon-musk-ron-de...
etchalon 3y ago
Glad to see we're back to being OK with corporate cronyism.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  [flagged]
galleywest200 3y ago
Ah, so this was the political favor in exchange for the large platform for the announcement. > The law exempts “spaceflight entity from liability for injury to or death of a crew resulting from spaceflight activities under certain circumstances.” The measure also requires “a spaceflight entity to have a crew sign a specified warning statement.” Maybe NASA should consider other locations if their astronauts have to sign this.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Would NASA follow this? They launch humans from a military base
  - galleywest200 3y ago
    I am not sure, actually. I will have to read further. I do know that SpaceX has contracts to send people up soon, and this law says its applies to public and private entities.
- tootie 3y ago
  Not that Musk has ever been liberal, but this could explain his very explicit turn to the right. They offered him a better deal. He benefitted from a lot of government support for EVs and now that it's in the bag, he can move on. DeSantis made some highly equivocal statement about the "politicization of weather" in response to a question on climate while adding that he supported private investment to reduce emissions. That's some top tier fence-sitting that acknowledges his party's indifference to climate change and his indebtedness to an EV manufacturer.
- tppiotrowski 3y ago
  Is it a political favor of the governor if the Florida legislature drafted and passed it? Vote: Senate 39-0; House 107-5
zrtlp 3y ago
[flagged]
Finnucane 3y ago
[insert Captain Renault meme here]
AmericanOP 3y ago
Imagine the outrage if Twitter’s CEO hosted Hillary’s campaign announcement. Too bad for tesla investors musk has software derangement syndrome: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/massive-trove-of-tesla-files-contains-thousands-of-safety-complaints/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/massive-trove-of-tesla-... https://www.platformer.news/p/inside-twitters-failed-space-launch https://www.platformer.news/p/inside-twitters-failed-space-l... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731.amp
- belter 3y ago
  Musk seems to be courting controversy. A strategy he appears to be doubling down on this week. He admited this week, that despite a reduction in workforce by 8000, his company has yet to achieve profitability or even positive cash flow. His only viable option, it would seem, is to align his trajectory with that of high-profile influencers....
  - millzlane 3y ago
    I remember when Elon/Tesla was a bad guy in circles that were far right of center. He seems to be turning his image around with all of this free speech talk.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      I would be more impressed with Free Speech action.
- TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  Outrage from who exactly? The issue has always been preferences of one political party (democrats) over another. Please tell me who would be outraged from the right if Biden used twitter spaces.
chkaloon 3y ago
"SpaceX aircrafts" ?
kibwen 3y ago
"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." ~ George Carlin https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...
paulgb 3y ago
Here's the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/... I'm no fan of DeSantis but it seems pretty reasonable? As I read it, it basically says that participants in space flight can waive away their ability to sue for injury or death. Seems like basically saying that the same sort of waiver you would sign for skydiving will be legally effectual for commercial space tourism. The article mentions damage caused by a launch last month, but I don't see anything in the bill that would reduce SpaceX's liability for that sort of damage.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That part is understandable, what's odd is how can 'spaceflight entities' be granted immunity from being sued by others? I don't understand the legal logic that underpins this, since only sovereign states, sub-sovereigns, and the UN, have this kind of blanket immunity.
  - paulgb 3y ago
    My understanding is that states are generally in charge of their own tort law. Federal law comes into play when multiple states are involved (interstate commerce), or when a state law is thought to be unconstitutional.
tppiotrowski 3y ago
"The bill defines the term “crew” to have the same meaning as the federal definition, which defines the term as any employee of a licensee or transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. The bill revises the definition of the term" Am I reading this right that it potentially also includes the ground crew or any employee that contributes to a launch? Does this include the people building a rocket? [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2023/html/3007 https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2023/html/...
areoform 3y ago
I am the author of the essay, 'Explosions Are Great, Actually.' https://1517.substack.com/p/explosions-are-great-actually https://1517.substack.com/p/explosions-are-great-actually My essay argues that the starship test flight and it's destruction were great signs of an attitude that we should embrace. But in the middle I point out, > But getting the golden mixture of sanity, knowledge, and craziness right is critically important. It is the same as rocket fuel, the wrong mixture mixed in the wrong proportions will blow up in your face. It is critically important that craziness is *never* mixed with stupidity, or you end up in the desert running away from carelessly handled UDMH and NTO. I say all this to point out; this could be broadly good but it could cross the border into stupidity depending on how the lawyers stretch/define it. You can read the full text of the bill here, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/... Here's the good, it explicitly allows someone cognizant of the risks of being an astronaut to risk their lives knowingly in the participation of spaceflight. Here's the bad, there are three cases where the company is liable, based on the bill's final text, 49 1. Commits an act or omission that constitutes gross 50 negligence or willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the 51 participant or crew, which and act or omission proximately 52 causes injury, damage, or death to the participant or crew; 53 2. Has actual knowledge of 54 an extraordinarily a dangerous condition that is not inherent in 55 [deleted] 56 spaceflight activities and the danger proximately causes injury, 57 damage, or death to the participant or crew; or 58 3. Intentionally injures the participant or crew. First observation, under this definition, NASA would have been liable for the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, which is a good thing. But my second observation is that it narrows the definition of liability and what constitutes negligence. Under the very obvious caveat that I am not a lawyer, the inclusion of, say, Solid Rocket Boosters into a spacecraft's design despite ample warnings that doing so would be incredibly dangerous isn't something an entity would be liable for even if those same SRBs (hypothetically) cause LoC (Loss of Crew) during a chilly morning; provided of course that they hadn't been warned in a conference call the day/night before. At least based on my reading. It seems that a lot hinges on the words proximately. And depending on how it is interpreted, in my extremely not-a-lawyer opinion, it may remove too much liability away from a private space company. There should be limits to the liability placed, but there's a delicate balancing act here and I'm unsure how far down the side of the space company this comes down on. For example, if there is a Company X that builds a Space Transport System with Solid Rocket Boosters that does not have an abort mode and they push that out into production... If they are not the proximate cause of a disaster that occurs (it's a freak accident of some kind that triggers disintegration) BUT the lack of an abort mode is what causes the actual LoC, would they be held liable? I think that they should be. The necessity for abort modes has been apparent since Day 0 of spaceflight and lacking such an essential operational feature is indefensible. On LoC, those who made that decision to forego an abort feature should be held liable in this case. Expanding the example, if there is an abort mode, and due to a combination of extremely rare circumstances (subcontractor malfeasance), it fails to function during an emergency, then the spaceflight company (in my eyes) should ideally not be held liable for LoC. This law could be either extremely reasonable and allow willing people (such as myself) to take these risks, or push us down a very dark path depending on how it unfolds.
somenameforme 3y ago
You can read an analysis of the bill here [1], and the bill itself here [2]. This applies to all space launches from Florida and has nothing to do (directly) with SpaceX. The bill itself is extremely short. It passed the Florida House 107-5, and the Senate 39-0. It prevents suing launch companies for liabilities in cases where there's no reasonable claim that the company itself was clearly at fault. It does not prevent lawsuits in cases of gross negligence, disregard for safety, knowledge of unsafe conditions, and so on. And these new protections are only valid if a participant signs a waiver acknowledging/agreeing to such. [1] - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/Analyses/2023s01318.rc.PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/Analyses/202... [2] - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/ByCategory/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/ByCategory/?...

41 points by nickthegreek 3y ago

They've been scratching each other's backs for a while: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/politics/elon-musk-ron-desantis/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/24/politics/elon-musk-ron-de...

etchalon 3y ago

Glad to see we're back to being OK with corporate cronyism.

bigbillheck 3y ago
[flagged]

galleywest200 3y ago

Ah, so this was the political favor in exchange for the large platform for the announcement. > The law exempts “spaceflight entity from liability for injury to or death of a crew resulting from spaceflight activities under certain circumstances.” The measure also requires “a spaceflight entity to have a crew sign a specified warning statement.” Maybe NASA should consider other locations if their astronauts have to sign this.

photonbeam 3y ago
Would NASA follow this? They launch humans from a military base
- galleywest200 3y ago
  I am not sure, actually. I will have to read further. I do know that SpaceX has contracts to send people up soon, and this law says its applies to public and private entities.
tootie 3y ago
Not that Musk has ever been liberal, but this could explain his very explicit turn to the right. They offered him a better deal. He benefitted from a lot of government support for EVs and now that it's in the bag, he can move on. DeSantis made some highly equivocal statement about the "politicization of weather" in response to a question on climate while adding that he supported private investment to reduce emissions. That's some top tier fence-sitting that acknowledges his party's indifference to climate change and his indebtedness to an EV manufacturer.
tppiotrowski 3y ago
Is it a political favor of the governor if the Florida legislature drafted and passed it? Vote: Senate 39-0; House 107-5

zrtlp 3y ago

[flagged]

Finnucane 3y ago

[insert Captain Renault meme here]

AmericanOP 3y ago

Imagine the outrage if Twitter’s CEO hosted Hillary’s campaign announcement. Too bad for tesla investors musk has software derangement syndrome: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/massive-trove-of-tesla-files-contains-thousands-of-safety-complaints/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/massive-trove-of-tesla-... https://www.platformer.news/p/inside-twitters-failed-space-launch https://www.platformer.news/p/inside-twitters-failed-space-l... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731.amp

belter 3y ago
Musk seems to be courting controversy. A strategy he appears to be doubling down on this week. He admited this week, that despite a reduction in workforce by 8000, his company has yet to achieve profitability or even positive cash flow. His only viable option, it would seem, is to align his trajectory with that of high-profile influencers....
- millzlane 3y ago
  I remember when Elon/Tesla was a bad guy in circles that were far right of center. He seems to be turning his image around with all of this free speech talk.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    I would be more impressed with Free Speech action.
TheCaptain4815 3y ago
Outrage from who exactly? The issue has always been preferences of one political party (democrats) over another. Please tell me who would be outraged from the right if Biden used twitter spaces.

chkaloon 3y ago

"SpaceX aircrafts" ?

kibwen 3y ago

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." ~ George Carlin https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason-there-s-a-reason https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/964648-but-there-s-a-reason...

paulgb 3y ago

Here's the bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/... I'm no fan of DeSantis but it seems pretty reasonable? As I read it, it basically says that participants in space flight can waive away their ability to sue for injury or death. Seems like basically saying that the same sort of waiver you would sign for skydiving will be legally effectual for commercial space tourism. The article mentions damage caused by a launch last month, but I don't see anything in the bill that would reduce SpaceX's liability for that sort of damage.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
That part is understandable, what's odd is how can 'spaceflight entities' be granted immunity from being sued by others? I don't understand the legal logic that underpins this, since only sovereign states, sub-sovereigns, and the UN, have this kind of blanket immunity.
- paulgb 3y ago
  My understanding is that states are generally in charge of their own tort law. Federal law comes into play when multiple states are involved (interstate commerce), or when a state law is thought to be unconstitutional.

tppiotrowski 3y ago

"The bill defines the term “crew” to have the same meaning as the federal definition, which defines the term as any employee of a licensee or transferee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or transferee, who performs activities in the course of that employment directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. The bill revises the definition of the term" Am I reading this right that it potentially also includes the ground crew or any employee that contributes to a launch? Does this include the people building a rocket? [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2023/html/3007 https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2023/html/...

areoform 3y ago

I am the author of the essay, 'Explosions Are Great, Actually.' https://1517.substack.com/p/explosions-are-great-actually https://1517.substack.com/p/explosions-are-great-actually My essay argues that the starship test flight and it's destruction were great signs of an attitude that we should embrace. But in the middle I point out, > But getting the golden mixture of sanity, knowledge, and craziness right is critically important. It is the same as rocket fuel, the wrong mixture mixed in the wrong proportions will blow up in your face. It is critically important that craziness is *never* mixed with stupidity, or you end up in the desert running away from carelessly handled UDMH and NTO. I say all this to point out; this could be broadly good but it could cross the border into stupidity depending on how the lawyers stretch/define it. You can read the full text of the bill here, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/BillText/er/... Here's the good, it explicitly allows someone cognizant of the risks of being an astronaut to risk their lives knowingly in the participation of spaceflight. Here's the bad, there are three cases where the company is liable, based on the bill's final text, 49 1. Commits an act or omission that constitutes gross 50 negligence or willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the 51 participant or crew, which and act or omission proximately 52 causes injury, damage, or death to the participant or crew; 53 2. Has actual knowledge of 54 an extraordinarily a dangerous condition that is not inherent in 55 [deleted] 56 spaceflight activities and the danger proximately causes injury, 57 damage, or death to the participant or crew; or 58 3. Intentionally injures the participant or crew. First observation, under this definition, NASA would have been liable for the loss of both Challenger and Columbia, which is a good thing. But my second observation is that it narrows the definition of liability and what constitutes negligence. Under the very obvious caveat that I am not a lawyer, the inclusion of, say, Solid Rocket Boosters into a spacecraft's design despite ample warnings that doing so would be incredibly dangerous isn't something an entity would be liable for even if those same SRBs (hypothetically) cause LoC (Loss of Crew) during a chilly morning; provided of course that they hadn't been warned in a conference call the day/night before. At least based on my reading. It seems that a lot hinges on the words proximately. And depending on how it is interpreted, in my extremely not-a-lawyer opinion, it may remove too much liability away from a private space company. There should be limits to the liability placed, but there's a delicate balancing act here and I'm unsure how far down the side of the space company this comes down on. For example, if there is a Company X that builds a Space Transport System with Solid Rocket Boosters that does not have an abort mode and they push that out into production... If they are not the proximate cause of a disaster that occurs (it's a freak accident of some kind that triggers disintegration) BUT the lack of an abort mode is what causes the actual LoC, would they be held liable? I think that they should be. The necessity for abort modes has been apparent since Day 0 of spaceflight and lacking such an essential operational feature is indefensible. On LoC, those who made that decision to forego an abort feature should be held liable in this case. Expanding the example, if there is an abort mode, and due to a combination of extremely rare circumstances (subcontractor malfeasance), it fails to function during an emergency, then the spaceflight company (in my eyes) should ideally not be held liable for LoC. This law could be either extremely reasonable and allow willing people (such as myself) to take these risks, or push us down a very dark path depending on how it unfolds.

somenameforme 3y ago

You can read an analysis of the bill here [1], and the bill itself here [2]. This applies to all space launches from Florida and has nothing to do (directly) with SpaceX. The bill itself is extremely short. It passed the Florida House 107-5, and the Senate 39-0. It prevents suing launch companies for liabilities in cases where there's no reasonable claim that the company itself was clearly at fault. It does not prevent lawsuits in cases of gross negligence, disregard for safety, knowledge of unsafe conditions, and so on. And these new protections are only valid if a participant signs a waiver acknowledging/agreeing to such. [1] - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/Analyses/2023s01318.rc.PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/Analyses/202... [2] - https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/ByCategory/?Tab=BillText https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1318/ByCategory/?...