FAA Grants Sub-Orbital License to SpaceShipOne

abucior writes "The FAA announced today that Scaled Composites has been granted a launch licence for a series of sub-orbital flights over a one-year period for Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne. Is X Prize finally entering the end-game? Space.com has more information on the move."

eek

[iosmart]

<I>While the highest criteria to issue a
license is public safety, applicants
must undergo an extensive pre-
application process, demonstrate
adequate financial responsibility to
cover any potential losses, and meet
strict environmental requirements.</I>

this might put a lot of people outta the runnings

License Requirements

[mauthbaux]

I was kinda wondering; what are the requirements for a launch licence for a series of sub-orbital flights over a one-year period? Other than the obvious: being able to get it up that high, and promising not to mess with anything on the way there and back.

Lloyd's of London

[Chmcginn]

would probably be the underwriter of choice, not Geico. They have insured almost anything. For instance, some examples [bankrate.com].

Re:Vanity plates?

[voidptr]

Yes [faa.gov], they do.

Re:Come on

[Coryoth]

I heard this story on NPR driving home just a few hours ago. They headlined it as "bringing space flight into the reach of ordinary Americans". Come on... considering raw costs alone, it'll be decades before 'ordinary Americans' can afford this kind of luxury travel.

You might be surprised. One of the main points of the X-Prize is not that it is done by private companies instead of the government, but rather that the craft be highly reusable. You can only change 10% of the non fuel mass of the craft between the 2 launches required to claim the X-Prize, and those 2 launches have to have a quick turnaround time (matter of weeks).

Basically that means once you've built a winning X-Prize craft, the only real relaunch costs are fuel. Compare that to the massive cost of each shuttle launch (between 3 and 5 hundred million dollars per launch), and you're talking about reduing launch costs by a factor of 100 or more.

If they can pull that off, I suspect they can quickly get plenty of funding to push the technology further and make it more efficient. I really do believe basic space travel could be affordable by ordinary Americans (expensive, yes, but affordable) inside of a decade - 2 at the most.

Don't underestimate what a leap an efficiency the X-Prize represents.

Jedidiah.

Re:Throwing stuff into space ... legally.

[DerekLyons]

Six years ago, we had estimated that launching a satellite required permits, lawyers and insurance in excess of twice the cost of the launch vehicle. The gov't is truly being kind to Mr. Rutan.

No, the goverment is changing the rules slightly to allow for easier acess to licensing for smaller organizations. The X-prize and lobbying work is slowly but surely starting to change and level the playing field.

Some links:

• Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation [faa.gov] (FAA/DOT)
• Office of Space Commercialization [technology.gov] (Department of Commerce)

There's also been a variety of Congressional acts supporting space commercialization and competiveness.

Re:Crock of Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly: 1. Almost but not quite: The coat nearly fits.

Near: 1. To, at, or within a short distance or interval in space or time.

YHL. HAND.

Re:eek

[Anonymous Coward]

not necessarily - friends of mine got one for a CATs prize launch a few years back (the first one ever for a non-govt launch site.

The paperwork sucks - and you have to calculate how many people you will kill (statistically) and show yopur reasoning - I think in their case it was 0.00000001 people - that's what you have to get insurance on ....

license for 312,000 ft?

[kevlar]

My understanding is that anything above 60,000 ft the FAA doesn't care about (nor should they even be bothered with).

I wonder how much money they dished out for a license that they never needed in the first place...

Re:FAA authority

[Sergeant Beavis]

No, Congress have them the authority late last year. If they are flying in US airspace, they can be regulated by the feds.

Re:Burt Rutan

[Anonymous Coward]

This url gives some details of Rutan's problems:

http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
Heroes/BurtRut an.asp

"In 1972, he founded Rutan Aircraft Factory, which sold plans and kits for Rutan-designed aircraft. His science-fiction-like aircraft designs were considered "risky" by established aircraft manufacturers, who made sure that the regulators of the Federal Aviation Administration were aware of their "concerns."

He successfully sold a number of different unique designs. Then, frustrated by the litigious regulatory environment and absurd liability claims which had put many private aircraft manufacturers out of business, Rutan chose to leave the homebuilt industry and do larger-scale designs for companies. His new firm, founded in 1982, was Scaled Composites.

One of Rutan's new contracts called for him to build a business jet for Beechcraft. Though the performance of the Beech Starship far excelled anything yet seen in business jets, Rutan came under fire from regulators. FAA regulations have focused on conventional designs, and are mind-deadeningly specific: an aluminum spar here, a certain number of rivets there. The Starship, on the other hand, was an all-composite aircraft that used neither rivets nor spars. Non-regulation. Rutan tried to explain this to regulators, but without luck. So the Starship was freighted with conventional design features that hampered its performance, making it little better than conventional aircraft.

This url shows some of the governments efforts to fix the problem. A lot of people think all the suing is killing the economy. This link is from 1997 and I'm not sure if these hearings have actually had any effect.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/h ju 42154.000/hju42154_0.htm

Range Safety

[Detritus]

A critical part of any effort to launch rockets is range safety. This ensures that the rocket either follows a safe trajectory or the flight is terminated (boom). Part of getting a license is convincing the government that your launch operations are not going to be a hazard to your fellow human beings. The more powerful the rocket, the more danger it poses to other people.

Re:Throwing stuff into space ... legally.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

If you're an American, it doesn't actually matter. The US government claims jurisdiction over you; wherever you launch from; and that means the FAA (unless you are part of a government department.)

The underlying reason is, is that under international law the country that you are a citizen of is responsible for any damage you do; irrespective of your launch site.

Lawsuits, was: Re:Burt Rutan

[lenski]

The lawsuit problem is slowly becoming less problematic. The new problem is "security". After 9/11/2001, general aviatioon simply got more difficult to get past government authorities. But general aviation is still present: A co-worker of mine flies a homebuilt aircraft. It's a fabulous hobby, but like anyone whose life is on the line, he takes safety way seriously. (paraphrasing his commentary) Airplanes, even the "little ones" in general aviation, balance many variables. Get one or a few wrong, and you become a Darwin award winner. That's an important reason designs tend to be 50+ years old: They are proven.

Burt Rutan is an amazing engineer surrounded by amazing engineers, and is that rare person who has a demonstrated ability to think outside the box successfully.

Re:Come on

[DerekLyons]

Yeah, but the Shuttle is a crappy design. The ceramic tiles are widely recognised to be a big mistake.

Not by professionals in the field. For re-useables the only other option is metallic TPS, which is not without significant problems.

I think the X-prize vehicles are about 1/3 of the way to orbit. Not in terms of delta-v; but in terms of sheer mind share. It opens people's eyes to the fact that this rocketry stuff really isn't that hard; that the underlying costs are potentially pretty low, and that businesses really can sensibly tackle it, not just governments.

Well, when you are going to orbit, delta-V matters, as do many other things. Between the X-prize and orbit are a lot of significant technical and operational problems. The X-prize proves little about the expense of orbital flight because it doesn't adress any of the real problems, for the same reason it proves little about the cost of orbital flight.

The X-Prize provides hope, but thats a long from reality.

Re:eek

[weglian]

The insurance requirement is set by determining the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL). AST (the office of the FAA that licenses the launch) determines what the worst accident that has a 1 in 10,000,000 probability is, and sets the insurance requirement based on that accident. It is capped by Congress at $500M. Most are in the $100M - $250M range. The less likely you are to kill anyone (not associated with the launch - it doesn't include your own people), the less iunsurance you need.

Re:License Requirements

[weglian]

There are many requirements, but it boils down to a few big parts: You must be able to complete the launch through landing with a risk to the uninvolved public (you can kill yourself) of less than or equal to 30 in a million. You must have financial responsibility (e.g. insurance) in an amount set by the FAA (AST - Commercial Space Transportation) based on the worst accident with a 1 in 10 million chance of occurring (capped at $500M) You must undergo an environmental review since the license is a "Major Federal Action" and therefore subject to NEPA. This takes a long time and costs a lot of money. For an RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle), you must use a "System Safety Process" to ensure safety. And you have to convince AST that it is sufficient. Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELVs) typically have to be able to blow up the vehicle if it goes off course, but vehilces with pilots don't really want to do that for some reason...

Re:Actually, yes.

[tm2b]

Well, that's technically impossible. Homesteading is a specific activity, I.E. taking land granted by the goverment and earning the right to buy the land (or to be granted it outright) by proving and developing the land.

Actually, no. You're right only about one sense of the word. In the more general english sense [see definition 1 of homestead [m-w.com] and the transitive definition of homesteading [m-w.com]], it also refers to any sort of permanent settling of a home.

Did you think that they invented the word homestead when they started granting land? No, it came from the older english meaning.

I wish there were a (-1, Illiterate) moderation option.