No need to amend, it's the same, the required funding is a factor to determine how reasonable an investment is. For both parties.

It is then up to the taxpayer to define whether the path of performing astronomy research in orbit of earth to preserve a for-profit business-model is more reasonable than defining regulation which allows such research to be performed on earth for a fraction of the cost (but may require for-profit companies to further invest in R&D to comply or re-evaluate their business model).

It's that simple. Astronomy won't be able to provide immediate ROI or a sales-plan of increased revenue to offset the cost-increase when researching in orbit. So if that's the only criteria, then such research is a futile activity and will be stopped.

▲

jacquesm 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Even this assumes the rest of the world agrees to what is essentially a US centric thing.

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, but hear me out: What is "US-centric" here? Astronomy research?, Radio spectrum?, LOE?, Starlink operations? All of this is global. In the end it'll be about geopolitics, although it should be a field that urgently requires global governance and consensus. Next time it could be interference between Starlink vs. a Chinese for-profit. It would be good if there's a commonly agreed way of handling such matters in place...

▲

generalizations 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If astronomy is not able to cope with additional regulation without additional funding, then for-profit companies should not be expected to do so either. It's that simple.

> Astronomy won't be able to provide immediate ROI or a sales-plan of increased revenue to offset the cost-increase when researching in orbit.

That's too bad. I was under the impression that "You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set."

▲

rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If astronomy is not able to cope with additional regulation without additional funding, then for-profit companies should not be expected to do so either. It's that simple

So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field.

And for-profit companies who later join to compete with them? They should, because it's not "additional"? Or also not, to ensure a competitive market?

So basically no regulation of any kind shall happen, because companies should not be expected to cope with new regulation if it incurs additional effort for them.

Congrats.

	▲	throw10920 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field. That is not what they said. That's an extremely bad-faith statement that's not even a "misinterpretation", because that implies that there is a valid interpretation, and there isn't - you just made up something completely different and claimed that they said it. You're really not helping your argument here if you have to resort to lying about other peoples' words in order to try to defend your positions.
	▲	generalizations 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field. Interesting that was your takeaway, when all I actually said was "no double standards pls". (i.e., hold astronomy and for-profits to the same standard, insofar that they have to just 'deal with it' when new regulation shows up - or not.)