For nervous fliers, having a cocktail or two to ease nerves on a flight isn’t unheard of. But apparently the United Kingdom has recently seen a dramatic uptick in the number of drunk passengers arrested for acting inappropriately in the air. The number of passengers arrested for being drunk or disorderly on flights or in airports has increased by 50 percent over the past year. And it’s causing a big problem for members of the cabin crew–roughly half have reported having to deal with a disruptive passenger over the same time period.

A BBC investigation surveyed 18 of the 20 UK police forces that serve major airports. They report arresting 387 passengers over the past year, up from 255 the year before that. Many cabin crew members reported that they were subjected to physical abuse from disorderly passengers. A woman who used to work in a Virgin cabin crew, Ally Murphy, told the BBC reporters about her experience, saying: “People just see us as barmaids in the sky.” She described being assaulted by passengers, stating:

I was pulled into an upper-class bed by a passenger who was feeling particularly lucky I guess. They would touch your breasts, or they’d touch your bum or your legs, or I mean I’ve had hands going up my skirt before.

It’s rage inducing, and you shouldn’t have to deal with that.

I guess I never reported it to the police because sadly, and this is completely wrong and only really occurring to me now, you kind of just accept it as part of the job. And it shouldn’t be.

Drunken fliers can potentially endanger their fellow passengers; Murphy also described a passenger trying to open an emergency door.

But in the U.S., incidents of unruly passengers actually seem to be decreasing. According to the FAA there’s been a steady decline in incidents voluntarily reported by airlines over the past few years–there were 147 in 2014, 105 in 2015, and 97 in 2016. So far, 22 incidents have been reported in 2017. But, those numbers, as well as the incidents reported in the UK, need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are surely drunk passengers who don’t alert suspicion, as well as “unruly” passengers who haven’t imbibed at all. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that some Americans like having a few on flights as well. A recent Vice op-ed authored by an anonymous flight attendant reported seeing plenty of drunk passengers, including those who experienced negative interactions between alcohol and calming drugs.

So, wherever you’re flying, don’t be a drunken jerk. It can be dangerous for you, other passengers, and the cabin crew.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Police See Big Increase in Drunk Flier Arrests appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, JD.com, China’s version of Amazon, got its business off the ground–literally. The company launched a fleet of delivery drones that have been bringing packages to buyers within minutes. In one province, the company just received government approval to use drone delivery for packages weighing more than a ton, according to Vox. This form of delivery has been especially effective for JD.com in delivering packages to rural areas. The drones are fully automated and follow set paths. Rather than delivering straight to the customer’s door, they drop orders at a specific site in rural villages, where locally-based contractors then deliver the packages.

Faster delivery that reaches more people–it seems like a logical step for American companies. So why aren’t delivery drones flooding our skies? Read on to find out.

What’s Stopping the Drones?

The idea of drone delivery isn’t a new concept to American business leaders. Back in 2013, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos discussed the possibility of drone delivery in a “60 Minutes” interview. Much of his segment is already dated–Bezos talked about the very beginnings of developing original television programming for Amazon Studios–however, he said drone delivery was only a few years away. American customers are still waiting on the first air delivery and Prime Air’s website does not yet list an official launch date for the service to be available to buyers.

“We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision,” the website reads. “We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.”

The biggest barrier is government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration has historically been hazy on drone policy. The department has come under fire for not establishing clear privacy or safety laws for drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

In 2015, the FAA required drone users to register in a federal database. Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned that regulation, ruling that it did not have legal standing over those flying drones for recreational, not commercial, purposes.

With regard to commercial drone usage, the FAA’s guidelines, set last June, do not permit aerial package delivery. According to the regulations, drones used for commercial purposes must remain in the line of sight of the pilot. Tech companies and others interested in commercial drone usage are lobbying the FAA to change those regulations. Amazon itself has several lobbyists working on this goal.

Going Global

To get around these federal roadblocks, Amazon has moved across the pond to test its delivery. Last summer, the company gained approval from the U.K. to test drones in the country’s airspace. Just a few months later, in a private trial, the company made its first drone delivery–an Amazon FireStick and a package of popcorn–to a customer in Cambridge.

In New Zealand, Domino’s is experimenting with drone delivery pizzas. And an American startup based in California is using the vehicles to transport medical supplies to Rwanda. Earlier this month, Amazon announced the creation of a drone testing center in Paris, which will work with the centers in the U.S., U.K., Austria, and Israel.

The delay in drone use in the U.S. is frustrating–to consumers, companies, and drone-use advocates. Timothy Carone, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and expert on automation (he co-authored the book “Future Automation–Changes to Lives and Businesses”), told Wired in December that it is “unfortunate, almost tragic” that Amazon is piloting drone delivery in the U.K., rather than in the U.S.

“The FAA, like most government agencies, works on times scales that are increasingly slower than the evolution of new businesses and technologies,” Carone said. “Soon it will make decisions on technologies that are already outdated.”

Since then, Prime Air has only made one delivery on U.S. soil–at an invite-only tech conference in March–and the delivery was pre-approved by the FAA. The convenience store 7-Eleven has had mild success in delivering packages via drone, but all of its trials have been within the pilot’s line of site, to customers within a mile of the Reno, Nevada store.

Other Concerns

Beyond the regulatory barriers, there are a multitude of other concerns and problems that Amazon and other companies will have to address before drone delivery becomes commonplace in the U.S.

Air safety and environmental concerns are top priority. To ensure that drones can coexist peacefully with other aircrafts, avoid crashing into tall buildings and construction cranes, and aren’t hazardous to birds, trees, or bodies of water, companies that wish to use drones will have to work closely with air traffic control, even developing new systems. Amazon has said that data from its trials in the U.K. are helping to develop and improve air traffic control systems that deal with drones in both the U.S., through NASA, and in the U.K. And there is, of course, the very real fear that drone deliveries will wipe out thousands of driving and packaging jobs.

On top of these challenges, leadership at Prime Air has seen some turnover. The co-founder of the project, Daniel Buchmueller, quietly left Amazon at the end of last year, at what seems to be a pivotal time in the company’s pursuit of aerial delivery.

What’s Next For Drone Policy?

President Donald Trump’s actions on drones have largely dealt with warfare. In a controversial decision in March, Trump handed authority to launch drone strikes to the CIA. Under President Barack Obama, only the military had the power to launch strikes, making the operations more transparent since the Pentagon has to report on all airstrikes.

The new presidential administration has had little to say on commercial and recreational drone usage. But last week, the White House backed proposed legislation that would allow the government to track and destroy drones flying over U.S. soil that it deems a security threat. This is a security and privacy issue–the administration is concerned about the ability of terrorists to use drones to carry weapons or conduct surveillance.

The draft document warns that government activities, like wildland firefighting, search and rescue operations, and border control, could be threatened by the commercial availability of unmanned aircraft systems. According to the document, drones are difficult to detect and monitor, but the technology available to do so may not be currently legal for such purposes.

“Some of the most promising technical countermeasures for detecting and mitigating [unmanned aircraft systems] may be construed to be illegal under certain laws that were passed when UAS were unforeseen,” the document reads. “These laws include statutes governing electronic communications, access to protected computers, and interference with civil aircraft.”

It is unclear how legislation like this, should it pass, would affect the ability of companies like Amazon to use drones for delivery.

“An Emerging Technology”

Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary, spoke briefly on drones for commercial use during her confirmation hearings. She has not proposed any changes to policy as of yet, but emphasized the importance of safety regulations in any drone laws.

“Safety will continue to be the primary objective,” Chao said. “Regulatory decisions should be rooted in analysis derived from sound science and data.”

“Farewell Reception Honoring Hudson Distinguished Fellow and Secretary of Transportation-designate Elaine L. Chao” Courtesy of Hudson Institute: License (CC BY 2.0)

Chao also acknowledged that the government’s “failure to pace with emerging technologies” is causing U.S. transport to fall behind other countries.

“It’s an emerging technology, there are those who see the benefits of commercializing them for various uses, it’s transforming the way we work, the way we do commerce,” she said. “There are also those who are very concerned about privacy issues, security issues, and again for going forward with an emerging technology as important as this with such vast implications for our future, I think we need to talk about it, we need to have again a national consensus for where we’re going.”

Conclusion

With JD.com’s success with drone delivery, and Amazon’s fourth international development center opening soon, everyone from consumers to CEOs are anxiously awaiting improvements to federal policy that will make drone delivery a reality for Americans. Some say the key lies in redefining drones so that they are not considered aircrafts and subject to the same regulations as jetliners.

Even without delivery, the presence of drones themselves is only going to become more prominent as the months go on. The FAA estimated earlier this year that the number of drones used for recreational purposes will increase from 1.1 million in 2016 to more than 3.5 million over the next five years. For commercial drones, the fleet could grow from 42,000 in 2016 to as many as 1.6 million by the end of 2021, depending on how quickly regulations catch up.

With numbers like that, it’s understandable that American consumers are getting antsy waiting for drone-dropped packages to appear on their doorsteps.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Are the Drones?: How Red Tape is Slowing Down Drone Delivery appeared first on Law Street.

After a month of reports of exploding, smoking, or burning cellphones, the Samsung galaxy Note 7 will now be banned on all U.S. flights, starting Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation released a statement on Friday afternoon saying the new rules will take effect on Saturday. This is sure to be inconvenient for passengers with already scheduled flights who rely on Samsung. But after almost 100 cases of overheating and fires, it’s better to be on the safe side.

“We recognize that banning these phones from airlines will inconvenience some passengers, but the safety of all those aboard an aircraft must take priority,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Starting Saturday, passengers won’t be allowed to bring their Note 7s aboard an airplane even if they are shut off. Trying to do so may lead to confiscation of the phone and fines for the passenger. If anyone would be foolish enough to try and pack the phone in the checked luggage to get around it, they would risk creating an accident and could face criminal charges. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is now considered a forbidden hazardous material under federal law.

FAA banning #Samsung #GalaxyNote7 from all flights https://t.co/WqLA1vl0W3 pic.twitter.com/RRFV0XwXQ4

— #Q13FOX (@Q13FOX) October 14, 2016

This news comes after two separate recalls of the Note 7 phones, the first one on September 15 and the second one on Thursday, which included the replacement phones that people could exchange their original ones for. The problem with the first edition was that the lithium ion battery cells were packed so tightly into a pouch that they barely fit inside the phone, leading to pinching of the batteries. This could easily break the thin plastic that separates the positive and negative sides of the battery, which could lead to a short circuit. This in its turn would heat up the flammable liquid inside enough to make the battery explode, and the replacements had similar issues.

The whole affair is estimated to cost the company $5.3 billion in lost profits. At least 13 people have reported being burned by their phones, there have been 96 reports of overheated batteries, and there are 47 registered cases of property damage. On October 5, a smoking phone led to the evacuation of a Southwest Airlines flight. Luckily that plane was still by the gate and no one was hurt. And with the new FAA rules, there will hopefully be no issues with fires caused by phones on airplanes.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA: Samsung Note 7s are Now Banned on U.S. Flights appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government just gave a Florida-based company permission to travel beyond the Earth’s orbit and land on the moon, making it the first company to be cleared for a private space mission. Moon Express announced on  its website Wednesday that it received the green light to send a robotic spacecraft to the moon in 2017, potentially ushering in a new era of commercial space exploration and discovery.

The approval for the Moon mission came from a collection of government agencies including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the White House, the State Department, and NASA, after the company submitted an application for the mission to the FAA on April 8.

Moon Express is currently in competition for the Google Lunar XPrize, which promises to award a $20 million grand prize to the first team to successfully land a privately funded rover on the moon, travel 500 meters, and transmit back high definition video and images.

The space startup, with a home base in Cape Canaveral, was co-founded in 2010 by billionaire entrepreneur Dr. Bob Richards, Naveen Jain, and serial entrepreneur and computer scientist Dr. Barney Pell. Aside from hopefully establishing commercial space travel, the trio also wants to help solve the nation’s energy crisis with help from the moon. In the video below, Naveen explains Moon Express’ plans to eventually harvest valuable natural resources like Helium-3 and water from the Moon, to then transport back to Earth.

“The Moon Express 2017 mission approval is a landmark decision by the U.S. government and a pathfinder for private sector commercial missions beyond the Earth’s orbit,” said co-founder & CEO, Bob Richards in the company’s media kit. “We are now free to set sail as explorers to Earth’s eighth continent, the Moon, seeking new knowledge and resources to expand Earth’s economic sphere for the benefit of all humanity.”

According to Reuters, the company said that the spacecraft will carry a number of science experiments and some commercial cargo on its one-way trip to the lunar surface, including cremated human remains, and will beam back pictures and video to Earth. The mission will last two weeks and will use a suitcase-sized lander provided by Rocket Lab, another private aerospace company its in contract, which has yet to launch a rocket into orbit.

Unfortunately, this is not a precedent-setting case. While the U.S. government has approved Moon Express for one landing, it will continue to address future requests on a case-by-case basis until space laws can be passed that govern the practice.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Private Company Just Got the OK to Travel to Moon appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street included SCOTUS ruling that evidence obtained illegally can be used in court, new FAA rules for commercial drones, and RantCrush’s top stories from June 23. ICYMI, check out the top stories below.

1. Utah v. Strieff: SCOTUS Narrows Fourth Amendment Protections

A verdict in Utah v. Strieff was handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday, weighing in on how the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal searches. In a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court, concluding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used in court. Read the full article here.

2. FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules. Read the full article here.

3. RantCrush Top 5: June 23, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The Transportation Security Administration agents recently failed 67 out of 70 total tests, missing 95 percent of the of mock explosives and weapons that were smuggled into airports by undercover Homeland Security Red Teams, ABC News Reported.

Since the administration’s last review in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security spent $540 million on checked baggage screening and $11 million to train Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. Despite these expenditures, ABC news notes that the TSA has “failed to make any noticeable improvements in that time.” Professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart further reviewed homeland security expenditures using a cost-benefit analysis. They conclude, based on the costs of security and the financial damages of potential attacks, American spending has not produced the necessary results.

The failed airport security tests come at the worst possible time for the TSA. In the past couple months, we have witnessed multiple breaches in airport security. In April, a teenager snuck into a wheel well on an airplane leaving from the West Coast and flew all the way to Hawaii. In late May, a man was able to bypass airport security at LAX, only to be subdued by a TSA officer with a taser as he reached gate 66.

Last August, a woman was able to board a plane in San Jose without a ticket. The woman made it all the way to her destination before being arrested by police, who later determined that the she suffered from a mental illness.

After news of the recent Red Team tests emerged, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said,

Changes will be made in response to the identification of the vulnerable aspects by these tests.

According to the ABC News report, one undercover agent was actually stopped after setting off the alarm at the magnetometer, but after a pat down, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives taped to the undercover agent’s back.

The question now becomes, what new security measures will be enacted by the TSA, and will these new measures be any more effective?  The TSA recently started testing electronic devices traveling to and from overseas cities at many U.S. airports with direct international flights. The new rule will require passengers to power on their devices when arriving at security checkpoints for overseas flights. If the device will not power on, it will not be allowed past airport security checkpoints.

Many passengers feel this does not adequately address all the security concerns as it is only being implemented in select airports and does not address the problem of passengers smuggling bombs and weapons on their bodies, which TSA agents failed to detect in the mock testing. In 2014, the TSA  confiscated 2,212 firearms at 24 airports after screening nearly 653 million passengers, a 22 percent increase from 2013 where only 1,813 firearms were confiscated.

With external security threats remaining high according to terrorism experts, it is imperative to keep internal security at its best. Homeland Security has used Red Teams for the last 13 years to detect security flaws; however, the changes never seem to address the problems accurately. NBC News notes that since 2002, TSA agents failed similar Red Team tests on several occasions, indicating that there are many existing security flaws yet to be addressed.

NBC recently learned that 270 TSA security badges went missing at the San Diego International Airport over the last two years. These missing badges would allow non-Homeland Security personnel to gain access to restricted locations within the airport. As of March 2015, the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta saw more than 1,400 badges go missing over a similar time period.

How are we supposed to trust TSA agents with our lives when they can not be trusted with their own badges? Unless the TSA is able to completely restructure the airport security system, it is unlikely that new changes will make a large enough difference to deal with existing security threats.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the TSA Really Keep You Safe? appeared first on Law Street.

3D printers have revolutionized a multitude of industries. Although they have been around for the last 30 years, people know very little about them. The first few rounds of 3D printers have been crazy expensive, isolating them from the general consumer market. Although there have been buzz-worthy exceptions, the printers have traditionally been out of reach for the general public. But for those with access, like those in the military and medical fields, 3D printing is allowing wonders. As of last year, a new wave of 3D printing seems to have taken off. Less technically advanced versions have hit the everyday market. You can now find them in your average hardware store. The future of this innovation seems limitless. 3D printers could be a household item in the not-too-distant future. With that in mind, institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are already discussing regulations. Read on to learn more about 3D printing and what’s in store for the innovative technology.

 What is 3D Printing?

A 3D printer creates compact, three-dimensional products compared to the average printer that produces an image on paper with ink. The materials used for 3D printing are endless, but include plastic, wax, resin, paper, gold, and titanium. The printer jets are directed by computer-assisted design software to “create an object by spraying or squeezing one thin layer of material at a time onto the platform, then melding them into place with a precisely directed laser.” The culmination of layers eventually form the desired object.

First you must create a virtual design of the intended object. This is done in a Computer Aided Design File using a 3D modeling program. You can also use a 3D scanner in order to make a 3D digital copy of an already existing object before entering it into a 3D modeling program. The software then cuts the final model from the digital file into “hundreds or thousands of horizontal layers” and prints the object “layer by layer,” to ultimately produce a three-dimensional object.

Unlike typical manufacturing processes, 3D printing is an additive process, not a subtractive one. Typically, material is cut away from a larger whole to produce a desired object. The layer-by-layer process of 3D printing is “highly efficient because there is virtually no wastage.” As a bonus, the resulting product can be more minutely detailed and up to 60 percent lighter in weight than a traditionally manufactured product.

Common 3D Printing Methods

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)

In this method, the 3D printer lays “high power particles of plastic, metal, ceramic or glass powders” into a specific 3D form. The chosen materials placed in the printer are fused layer by layer on top of a powder bed. After the creation of each layer, “the powder bed is lowered one layer thickness.” The process repeats for each new layer until the desired object is created. The unused powder base remains as a support structure and extra can be used for another printing project.

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)

Any home 3D printer would most likely use FDM. In this process, the printer, “extrude[s] a stream of heated or melted thermoplastic material” in the additive layer-by-layer process. Thermoplastic material becomes pliable or moldable at a specific temperature and solidifies again once cooled. As the material leaves the printer through an extrusion nozzle, the material should immediately harden and take the desired shape.

Practical Application

The U.S. Army and 3D-Printed Food

To create 3D-printed food, ingredients are placed in the printer’s cartridge and dispensed in the additive layer-by-layer process to create specific foods. The U.S. Army is looking to develop 3D technology that ultimately creates food that can sustain a warfare environment.

Supplying durable and nutritious food for soldiers in combat is difficult, especially long term. 3D printers offer a possible ingenious solution–3D technology can print food specific to a soldier’s dietary needs. First, a solider would undergo an initial scan that sends nutritional information back to the computer software. If a solider is experiencing a certain vitamin deficiency, for example, a 3D printer can then dispense food that nourishes that individual’s needs.

According to Lauren Oleksyk, a leading food technologist at the Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, “some companies are actually considering 3D printing meat or meat alternatives based on plant products that contain the protein found in meat.” As of today, 3D-printed food is only created in powder or liquid forms. Further research will determine if the creation of printed solid food is possible. Military experts and 3D scientists predict soldiers will be eating printed food by 2025.

Medical 3D Developments: Prosthetic Hands

State-of-the-art prosthetic devices are extremely expensive, costing thousands of dollars. 3D printing offers a cheaper alternative. One in one thousand babies are born each year with missing fingers and others lose them due to injuries. Many parents find investing in a costly prosthetic replacement for a growing child impractical as it will need to be soon replaced with another. With 3D technology, the materials used for a prosthetic hand, for example, can cost as little as $20-$50. There are also various volunteer organizations available that share machines and software plans with others in need.

3D prosthetic hands are often made to look fun and colorful for children. They can be made with fluorescent or glow-in-the-dark colors. The Cyborg Beast model “looks like a limb from a Transformer,” while the Raptor Hand and Talon Hand models, “hint at comic-book superpowers.”

The above video shows a 3D-printed prosthetic hand that can open and close by flexing the wrist. This pulls on cables called tendons. Each piece is printed individually and assembled afterward. The printing process is about 20 hours, while assembly takes about two or three hours. Ivan Owen, one of the 3D-printed hands inventors, claimed “it is not much harder than putting together a complex Lego kit.”

The easy accessibility due to volunteers and openly shared machines and software and low cost make 3D prosthetic replacements a true medical wonder. Prosthetic hands are just one of the ways in which 3D technology is changing the face of prosthetics.

Regulations

Regulations must be put into effect for safety, especially as 3D technology enters the medical arena. The FDA states that it regulates 3D devices in essentially the same way it regulates non-3D devices, although there are added questions in the review process. Medical manufacturing companies can conventionally distribute medical devices in a few sizes. With 3D printing, these same products can be inexpensively tailored to the individual. Oxford Performance Materials, a Connecticut-based biomedical firm, printed a cranial prosthetic that replaced 75 percent of a man’s skull. All this innovation, however, must be checked. FDA medical engineer James Coburn explains, “We typically ask manufacturers to put safeguards on their products so you can’t go beyond the design space, so that when you’re patient-matching a device to someone, it will tell you when you have exceeded that limit and won’t let you push beyond it.” This also protects individuals with 3D printers from printing a dangerous device.

3D-printed products in the aviation field are also monitored. They must be fire-resistant and reliable. The Federal Aviation Association (FAA) looks for 3D products that meet or exceed the characteristics of their non-3D counterparts. For example, Custom Control Concepts, a company that “builds tailored interiors for high-end luxury jets,” finds it difficult to win FAA approval. The company uses Ultam (one of the only FAA-approved 3D plastics) and uses an FAA approved on-site testing laboratory. As another example, GE Aviation “uses in-process monitoring” to make sure that the pieces match standards and “puts every third part through a scanner and X-ray it.”

This GE Aviation video demonstrates the making of a 3D jet engine and shows a safety test in progress.

There is also the fear that 3D printing can be used to create weapons. On May 5, 2013 the first 3D gun, called the Liberator, was printed by Defense Distributed, an American organization lead by a “25-year-old Texas law student and committed libertarian named Cody Wilson.” In 2014, Congressman Steve Israel (R-NY) introduced legislation that would fully ban 3D guns. Although it was not successful, he plans to reintroduce legislation that would once again ban 3D guns and all completely plastic firearms. Israel argued:

My legislation is about making sure that we have laws in place to ensure that criminals and terrorists can’t produce guns that can easily be made undetectable. Security checkpoints will do little good if criminals can produce plastic firearms and bring those firearms through metal detectors into secure areas like airports or courthouses.

It is yet to be seen whether this legislation will make it through.

 Conclusion

We have only just seen the beginning of 3D printing. It could enter our everyday lives in force within the next couple of years. Regulations and perfecting various products have slowed the general trend, but the kinks and safety approvals will eventually work themselves out. Researchers and scientists are dedicated to perfecting this new art. The benefits seem utterly limitless. It seems right to invest time, money, and effort into any machine that can give patients new limbs or keep U.S. soldiers healthy, but it’s important to make sure that it’s all done as safely as possible.

Resources

3D Printing: What is 3D Printing?

National Geographic: What, Exactly, is a 3D Printer?

3D Printing for Beginners: A Comprehensive Introduction to 3D Printing Technology

Fed Scoop: How the FDA Regulates 3D devices

Financial Times: Regulatory Concerns Hold Back 3D Printing on Safety

Forbes: US Army Looks to 3D Print Food For Soldiers

Live Science: What is Stereolithography?

The New York Times: Hand of a Superhero

NPR: Army Eyes 3D Printed Food For Soldiers

Popular Mechanics: Should We Be Afraid of the 3D Printed Gun?

Wired: Bill to Ban Undetectable 3D Printed Guns is Coming Back

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Regulating the Innovative World of 3D Printing appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now…on hold until further notice. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed drone regulations that will make Amazon’s future drone service (dubbed “Amazon Prime Air”) nearly impossible to implement. Unfamiliar with the online retailer’s plan to send packages via unmanned drone? Take at look at this video with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos featured on CBS This Morning.

The concept of drone ethics has become a hot-button issue both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, the off-Broadway play “Grounded,” starring Anne Hathaway, has brought issues regarding remote drone pilots into the spotlight.

Drone regulation remains a highly divisive issue. There is no question that drones have the potential to be used as weapons of war  as well as tools for efficient aid delivery.

Let’s highlight some clear benefits to delivery by drone in the United States. If small aircraft are being used, that means having fewer delivery trucks on the road, less fuel being consumed, and faster delivery times. Companies like Amazon and Google are urging the FAA to revise its irksome rules that impede the use of drone technology rather than accommodate it.

For example, under FAA rules all drone operators must fly aircraft “only within their line of sight.” While this rule might make sense for a recreational drone user, it does not necessarily make sense for a commercial drone that could be programmed to follow a GPS path to an exact location.

Speaking of recreational drone users–if you or anyone you know owns a drone, you could get into big trouble if you do not abide by the FAA’s policies regarding small, unarmed aircraft systems.

Seems like a lot of rules for a device that could be bought online for under a hundred bucks. In fact, on most sites there are no age restrictions to purchase drones. Are kids or teenagers going to know that flying drones above 400 feet is illegal? Are they even going to abide by the FAA’s rules even if they do know? Hopefully they don’t try to fly drones in harsh weather. Or fly too close to seagulls. Or interfere with local air traffic. (Suddenly smart phones don’t seem so dangerous anymore.)

The FAA has created conservative rules regarding drone use, and it is going to take its time evaluating comments from the public and private sectors while it revises those rules. Roughly speaking, it will take 18 to 24 months for the FAA to review everything and speak with Amazon regarding proposed policy changes.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Forward to Amazon Deliveries Via Drone? FAA Says Not So Fast appeared first on Law Street.

On July 20, 1969, man set foot on the moon for the first time in what Neil Armstrong famously called “one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” After these first dusty steps, people pondered what giant leaps might be next, dreaming about lunar colonies, outer space tourism, and most recently, space mining.

Read More: Thanks to New Discovery Your Seat on Mars One is Looking Good

Recent unmanned moon expeditions detected a bounty of 1.6 billion tons of water ice and other rare earth elements (REE) lingering beneath the moon’s surface. Combine this enticing bounty with speedily developing technologies that make space travel more accessible and you’ve got a budding space mining industry. Space exploration technology has become infinitely cheaper, better, and smaller than it was back in 1969, pushing what was once only possible for national governments into the hands of private companies gearing up to tap into outer space resources

But one little hitch might hold them back. The only acknowledged international regulation on space travel, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, left space property rights ambiguous. Companies and nations seem free to embark on all manner of expeditions, but the treaty doesn’t mention if they legally own any resources they pick up on the way. With hefty investments behind their ventures, space-faring companies demand assurance that they’ll be able to profit from the resources they might collect.

Will an old agreement keep businesses from capturing the teeming resources space has to offer?

Businesses With Extra-Terrestrial Aspirations

Lunar mining? Piece of cake. Tapping into outer space resources has officially graduated from being a remote possibility to a reality. Already many commercial companies are wooing investors and toiling over in-depth plans, all gearing up to get a piece of the space pie.

• The Shackleton Energy Company (SEC) plans to build the first space fueling station. Remember that 1.6 billion tons of water ice just waiting on the moon? When converted to liquid form, the hydrogen and oxygen in this ice creates a powerful chemical propellent–the most powerful we know of. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen already power most space shuttle engines. SEC plans to mine the moon’s ice and set up a fuel station in Earth’s orbit. Fueling from this location instead of Earth could decrease costs by a factor of up to 20 to one.

• Moon Express developed a revolutionary vehicle, the MX-1 lunar lander, powered by sunlight and fueled by hydrogen peroxide. It will send the craft on speculating missions to investigate resources that might be mined. This company plans to perfect the safety and efficiency of lunar landings, making the moon as accessible as an eighth continent.
• Planetary Resources fixed its eye on asteroids, the most abundant sources of water that can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuel. The company uses an algorithm to find asteroids and determine which ones might be resource rich.
• The Google Lunar X Competition offers incentives for discoveries that make getting to the moon easier and cheaper. Teams hoping to snag the $30 million grand prize have to land a robot on the moon, move it around, and send back HD Mooncasts for earth-dwellers. The competition is well under way and will wrap up in December 2016. Teams have already innovated promising robots, including this animated prototype rover named Uni from Team AngelicvM featured in the short video below.

Despite dazzling technology and high hopes, unclear space property laws pose major risks for commercial companies. Space travel costs have decreased relative to 1960s costs, but it’s still not cheap. Certainly not cheap enough that companies will launch rockets without solid assurance that they’ll own whatever resources they find on their missions. As you can see, these companies listed above, as well as many others, are ready to go. Let’s see what’s holding them back.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 stands as the only cooperative international agreement governing space travel. The treaty clearly forbids countries from declaring sovereignty over celestial bodies in Article II:

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Mining isn’t specifically mentioned, but then again mining the moon was an outlandish possibility in 1967. The provision stood to bar nations from lassoing the moon, so to speak. Now as we look to extract resources from these common areas, many desire explicit, legal guarantees that they may do so–both for financial reassurance and to avoid conflict with other nations and companies wrestling over the same resources. Established property rights would provide the certainty necessary to encourage cultivating outer space for abundant natural resources.

Read More: FAA Allowing Companies to Call Dibs on the Moon

One company, Bigelow Aerospace, pushes adamantly for clarification on real property rights in space. In an internal report issued to NASA, Robert Bigelow, founder and president of the company, summarizes its desires well:

Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail. Companies and their financial backers must know that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor relative to activities conducted on the Moon or other celestial bodies, and own the property that they have surveyed, developed, and are realistically able to utilize.

Who bears the burden of deciding the fate of Bigelow Aerospace and other hopeful companies? Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 specifies that governments bear responsibility for the activities of their nation and subjects in outer space, including the decision to authorize activities. Many U.S. government entities have a say in space happenings, but it’s the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST) and its advisory committee, the U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), that bears the burden of responding to recent requests to clarify commercial space laws.

During the most recent FAA-AST meeting in September 2014, Ken Hodgkins, Director of the Office of Space and Advanced Technology, acknowledged the number of private companies planning commercial ventures and how their activities question the legal frameworks around space exploration. He stressed balancing investment incentives with U.S. foreign policy obligations. Hodgkins stated concerns about proposed commercial activity falling in line with the Outer Space Treaty and encouraged further dialogue between private companies and U.S. agencies. He does not believe attempts at changing the treaty would result in faster resolution of the questions and assured meeting attendees that they are working with foreign nations to discuss the provisions in question.

Past Space Property Challenges

Very few cases have tested the limits of the Outer Space Treaty, so its enforceable interpretations remain unclear. However, a few incidents might influence the direction of space property rights decisions.

In one space property court case, Nemitz v. United States, a San Francisco district court ruled against a man’s claim of ownership on the asteroid 433, also known as Eros. Nemitz had filed a claim of ownership on the asteroid through a now-unpublished online database known as the Archimedes Institute. When NASA landed on his asteroid in 2001, Nemitz attempted to charge them parking fees. When they rejected him, he took his claim to court, where judges also dismissed his claim, stating that his assertion of ownership had no ground in law.

In a more powerful non-court precedent, moon materials from the Apollo landings in the 1960s have already been traded and sold. NASA traded lunar samples with the Soviet Union in exchange for their samples from robotic moon missions. Private individuals in Russia have even sold samples. These transactions imply outerspace materials can be owned, traded, and sold, giving hope to mining hopefuls.

New Space Legislation

Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced H.R.1508 on March 15, 2015,

To promote the development of a United States commercial space resource exploration and utilization industry and to increase the exploration and utilization of resources in outer space

A more in-depth summary is not yet available, but you can be certain the measure will tackle legal barriers barring exploration of space resources. The bill now stands with the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Last month  the House passed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2015, a near repeat of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2014, which died in the Senate. The act authorizes NASA activities like space exploration, research, and education. While the bill doesn’t expressly cover commercial enterprise and space property rights, the sentiment of encouraging space-related innovation will serve commercial interests well.

Where no man has gone before…

As we speak, dreams of space colonies, moon mining, and even landing on Mars come closer to reality. This pulls legal questions and concerns to the surface, but only because we plan to go where no man has gone before. Establishing procedures will take time, cooperation, and patience, but it will be worth it to tackle our final frontier.

Resources

Primary

Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R.810 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R. 1508 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: United Nations Treaties and Principles On Outer Space

Additional

Institute of Physics: Mining the Moon Becomes a Serious Prospect

Space.com: Mining the Moon? Space Property Rights Still Unclear

Washington Post: Looking for an Exotic Vacation? Here’s Why Moon Travel May Be Only 20 Years Away

Space.com: Moon Mining Idea Digs Up Lunar Legal Issues

Space Future: Real Property Rights in Outer Space

Wired: Space Law: Is Asteroid Mining Legal?

NASA Space Flight: Moon Property Rights Would Help Create Lunar Industry

Space Policy Online: Legislative Checklist 114h Congress: Major Space Related Legislation

Moon Express: Missions

Planetary Resources: NASA and Planetary Resources, Inc. Announce Results of the Asteroid Data Hunter Challenge

Space Foundation: U.S. Government Space Programs

SF Gate: Final Frontier For Lawyers — Property Rights in Space/Land Claims, Commercial Schemes and Dreams Have Legal Eagles Hovering

Space Policy online: House Passes 2015 NASA Authorization Bill

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Owns the Moon? Space Property Rights Are Nearing appeared first on Law Street.

Commercial aviation received a long-awaited triumph Sunday when the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) released draft rules for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) that could mark the beginning of a commercial drone trend for businesses. According to The Washington Post, once these rules undergo public review and are finalized, the FAA estimates more than 7,000 businesses will obtain drone permits within three years.

These new UAS rules would make it relatively easy for businesses to acquire drone piloting licenses. After paying about $200 in fees, operators would simply have to pass a written proficiency test, and be vetted by the TSA to receive a license–no flight demonstrations necessary.

However these new FAA rules have some limitations that aren’t entirely business friendly. Operators must be at least 17-years-old and are required to remain within eyesight of their drones at all times. Drones can also only be flown during daylight hours under 100 mph and below an altitude of 500 feet. These restrictions would make long distance flights impossible, squashing “drone delivery” plans for Domino’s Pizza “Domicopter,” newspaper distributors, and Amazon’s plan to deliver goods by drone.

Amazon’s Prime Air promised to reinvent modern delivery systems, with designs to “safely get packages into customers’ hands in 30 minutes or less using small unmanned aerial vehicles.” An example of how the futuristic delivery system would work can be seen in the video below.

In July, Amazon execs pleading with the FAA for more regulatory support after hampered outdoor testing efforts, threatening to take their system overseas if not given a solution. This seems to have had no effect on the FAA decision making. Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president for global policy, told USA Today that these current rules wouldn’t allow Prime Air to operate in the United States, but it’s not likely to stop Amazon from working towards a time when it can operate. Misner stated:

The FAA needs to begin and expeditiously complete the formal process to address the needs of our business, and ultimately our customers. We are committed to realizing our vision for Prime Air and are prepared to deploy where we have the regulatory support we need.

These regulations only apply to drones weighing 55 pounds or less. The FAA is still drafting plans for larger drones that are expected to take several more years before being sorted out. The small hobby drones that have become exceedingly popular in the U.S. aren’t subject to the rulings either. Under a law passed by Congress in 2012, the FAA is largely prohibited from regulating them as long as they do not interfere with air traffic.

Don’t expect to see  one of these buzzing billboards anytime soon though; businesses likely won’t be able to begin adopting them until at least early 2017. As for Amazon, Prime Air may not be a complete lost cause in the states. Commercial drone regulations are likely to loosen as they become more commonplace.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Drone Rules Will Slow Amazon’s Prime Air Plans appeared first on Law Street.

In 2012, then-Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich talked about a colony on the moon. On the campaign trail in Florida, he stated, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.” Many of us, myself included, mocked him relentlessly for this proposal. Well today, I think I may need to offer Mr. Gingrich somewhat of an apology, because apparently, he wasn’t actually that far off. The United States government has taken a very early and tentative step toward creating commercial development of the moon.

Recently, Reuters released information it received from a letter from the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to Bigelow Aerospace, a company that has worked with the International Space Station and has intentions of creating living stations on the moon. According to the letter, the FAA stated that they could:

Leverage the FAA’s existing launch licensing authority to encourage private sector investments in space systems by ensuring that commercial activities can be conducted on a non-interference basis.

I know that sounds kind of like mumbo-jumbo, but essentially what it means is that a company like Bigelow could set up its proposed moon habitats, and it would be the only company with a license in that particular space (yes, pun very intended.) As Bigelow itself explained:

It just means that somebody else isn’t licensed to land on top of you or land on top of where exploration and prospecting activities are going on, which may be quite a distance from the lunar station.

This move has, of course, launched concerns about the global ramifications of the FAA’s actions, given that the United States doesn’t have a unilateral claim to the moon. There was a 1967 United Nations Treaty that governs international affairs in relation to the moon that the FAA, and the rest of the U.S. government, will have to take into consideration.

So, besides it being obviously super cool, why would Bigelow Aerospace (and presumably, other companies) want to send people to the moon? How do you make money off that? Well, Bigelow is going to start by working on a space habitat at the ISS, and then continue its work on “orbital outposts.”

Orbital outposts are basically like giant spaceships on which humans would be able to comfortably live. (For late 90s Disney fans, think “Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century.”) Bigelow has already started working on these–it launched its first space module in 2006 called Genesis I. Bigelow wants to extend access to these space modules and orbital outposts to paying customers, including governments, researchers, and tourists. Finally, Bigelow would move toward establishing a series of bases on the moon, ideally by 2025.

It’s a pretty cool idea–but I don’t think it’s anything to get too excited about just yet. While the FAA’s move is certainly a surprising step forward, I don’t think we’re going to be taking a quick Spring Break jaunt to the Moon anytime soon. That being said, the FAA’s move to carve out space for companies on the Moon is almost amusingly classically American, and shows that the U.S. government does see potential for lucrative ventures beyond our terrestrial boundaries. Newt Gingrich, for one, is probably pretty excited.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Allowing Companies to Call Dibs on the Moon appeared first on Law Street.