The U.S. Senate unanimously passed House Resolution 2262 last night, adopting an acronym undoubtedly earning the respect of NASA. The “SPACE Act of 2015,” more fully the “Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015,” is being hailed by the political left, right, and industry as a meaningful and positive piece of legislation. After likely passage in the House after its recess concludes on November 16th, President Obama will likely sign it into law. Ars Technica and Space.com both cover and critique the event.

While the full text of HR 2262 is available as a pdf, what does it mean to the average American? More importantly, what is the short version for an aspiring extra-planetary CEO?

At 46 pages this law is a respectable task, so here it goes:

Q: What does this law really do?

A: The short answer? Shuffle regulations and legal liabilities, extend a few deadlines, create some regulatory breathing room for industry. Oh, and it dodges a tiny hairy legal question (American) companies would have had to answer before shipping their first asteroidal ore home. This last part is slightly important.

Q: You said multi-billion dollar opportunity; where’s my money?

A: In a section of the law named “TITLE IV – SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION.” Also dubbed the “Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015,” creates Chapter 513 as a commercial addendum to existing legislation.

The law now permits U.S. citizens to extract “abiotic” resources including water and minerals to “possess, own, transport, use, and sell” it as long as it conforms with standing U.S. and international law. In fact, the law states that citizens have a federally protected right to do so, free from “harmful interference”! Section 403 deftly sidesteps the existing treaty outlawing national territorial claims in space. That’s one less court case between you and your favorite asteroid.

Notably, this leaves out comets, dwarf planets, plutinos, and derelict spacecraft. The sandbox just got a lot bigger for aerospace, but not by more than a few AU.

Q: Is anything being “deregulated” in any sense of the word?

A: Surprisingly, yes! Section 105 essentially asks the rest of the government to make licensing spacecraft less like the DMV with some congressional oversight. Section 113 expands this notion to include removing duplicate requirements by different government agencies to make aerospace operations easier.

Q: Will any new or continued regulations stemming from this law help me?

A: Probably. Section 110 raises the possibility that the federal government release a space junk and weather report on an as-needed basis to the American aerospace industry. Some national security limitations may apply.

Your aerospace company will continue to have an influence on what industry safety standards will become over the next several years. Section 111, fully titled “Consensus Standards and Extension of Certain Safety Regulation Requirements,” extends an avenue for industry to self-develop regulations in lieu of any handed down by Executive authority. Periodic reports and reviews (the essence of high school U.S. government class checks and balances) until 2023 allow industry to shape itself for the next 8 years.

Section 112 essentially expands the future private passenger manifest to “government” astronauts, including those of NASA and “international partners.” The price per seat simply has to be lower than the Russians’ demand and the profit is yours.

Section 114 continues funding the ISS until 2024, offering an additional 4 years for aerospace companies to sail into port at the world’s largest space laboratory. Here, the economic opportunity extends to scientific equipment and the people who operate them. Yay!

Section 302 makes the Department of Commerce an unusual bedfellow with the aerospace industry. In particular, the newly-rebranded Office of Space Commerce is tasked with representing U.S. space policy in foreign negotiations.

Q: What is still “up in the air”? (pun intended)

A: Section 108 is titled “Space Authority” because it asks for a combination of federal and commercial input for moving forward with a combination of regulatory, incentive, and treaty-congruent actions within 120 days. Expect an email from your friendly neighborhood government agency, Mr. Musk.

You may see the creation of a federal “space traffic control” over the next few years. Congress is pushing space travel towards something more like an embryonic aviation business; Section 109 outlines a plan lasting 15 months to design, game, and analyze “orbital traffic management” policies. Again, the law overtly tiptoes around standing treaties and DOD authority.

Section 111, as beneficial it may be, is purposely vague in the responsibilities it assigns to the federal government and how industry grows. This trend is shared by many other fine details in the SPACE Act, but Congress’ expressed and implied intent throughout the Act seems to lean more towards benevolent and less towards future helicopter parent.

Q: Which government bodies will affect me?

A: Quite a few, actually.

In the Executive branch: The Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of State, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Commerce, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the FAA mouthful known as the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), and of course NASA.

In the Legislative branch: Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

On the Judicial side: federal courts only. 50 less major jurisdictions to worry about!

Q: How much will I have to lawyer up?

A: It’s hard to say, but consider talking to one. The federal government is attempting to shift liability to aerospace companies through Section 102 (via company insurance), Sections 103 and 107 (via a series of waivers and the like, nothing special), and of course the Resource Utilization section by protecting only American astronautical mining.

At the same time, the federal government is shifting some things on to their plate via Section 106 (pushing space-related lawsuits exclusively to federal courts) and Section 115 (federal oversight and improvement of launch facility safety) with apparently good intent.

Q: Are there downsides?

A: Naturally, a couple. The chances of accidents harming crew, civilians, or even extraterrestrial life via unplanned interplanetary lithobraking are not fully understood or prevented by this new law. Does this merit a short leash on space commercialization? It’s tough to say.

Congress already recognized the potential security risks posed by private entities poking around in what was previously the Defense Department’s last bastion for relatively untouchable equipment. Orbital security is barely leaving the realm of science fiction, but it may develop the way FAA regulations had to catch up to drone aviation. Again, another difficult-to-quantify problem.

Q: Is this a net good thing for everyone?

A: Seems like it! For industry, hopeful (private) astronauts, and even taxpayers, the SPACE Act sets the stage for a more interesting future.