data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/45312/45312586e56896ecddfaf6fac7501192c5412537" alt="Space Space"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bd261/bd2616c826dd66246179674c603c69fda9c145b9" alt="United States United States"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a6f85/a6f851c8783074640b3793f84df3eb59585db49c" alt="Technology Technology"
XCOR Launch Application Complete 91
Kulic writes "SpaceDaily.com is reporting that XCOR, a competitor for the X-Prize has had their launch application deemed 'sufficiently complete' by the Federal Aviation Administration's Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. This significant regulatory milestone means that AST has committed itself either to issue a launch license to XCOR within 180 days or notify Congress that it failed to do so."
Trip (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so maybe we can't just buy our way into space YET, but this certainly seems to help get us that much closer. Maybe I won't need the engineering degree and military career after all.
Damon,
Re:Trip (Score:5, Informative)
Link to their website. [spaceadventures.com] :) More Q&A about XCOR suborbital stuff on our site: here. [xcor.com]
Re:Thanks PhantomHarlock (Score:1)
Re:Thanks PhantomHarlock (Score:5, Interesting)
cool.. (Score:4, Funny)
Here, here! (Score:2)
Re:Here, here! (Score:1)
Re:D'oh! (Attention Moderators...) (Score:1)
Re:cool.. (Score:1)
UFP==FAA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that's what I call a job title. But are we setting a dangerous precedent here with regard to FAA authority? Do they have full authority of all known space farther than 6370km from Earth's core?
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think the FAA is trying to regulate outer space. If they were, then the recent Chinese mission [metafilter.com] would have had to be licensed by the FAA.
Fat chance.
But, you have to get from here to there, and if you are doing that in the atmospheric space that is immediately over the USA, you need to talk to the FAA.
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the pictures of Space Ship 1 you will see that it has a US tail number (N328KF). So it too has an (experimental) certification from the FAA.
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:3, Informative)
Transport Canada [tc.gc.ca], a federal government branch, is in charge of regulating Canada's airspace and air travel. However, you weren't entirely off-track: the CAA is a common acronym for many countries' Civil Aviation Authority, including Britain [caa.co.uk], New Zealand [caa.govt.nz], and South Africa [caa.co.za].
Us Canadians, we just have to be different, eh?
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
During the Clinton administration, OST was folded into the FAA as a department, where it became AST.
Recently, some confusion arose as to whether these new suborbital vehicles, which go to space but are shaped like airplanes and take off and land like airplanes, would be the jurisdiction of AST (the space folks) or AVR (the regular airplane folks at the FAA). A bill has just been introduced in the Senate to clarify the legislation set out in 1984 to include suborbital vehicles. This is discussed in our previous press release here: http://www.xcor.com/CST-2003.html
FAA does not have authority over 'all known space' (hi Larry
Healthy regulation that promotes the industry is a GoodThing(tm) and part of AST/OST's mandate is to promote the industry. We are all helping to write the new regulations and make them safe and sane for both industry and the uninvolved public. Most people don't remember but the FAA got started when the maturing airline industry begged to be regulated so that the fly by night folks wouldn't taint the safety record of the reliable majority and thus scare off travellers. The only issue with the airline regulations is that they are very technology specific, and these new space planes use cutting edge composites and completely new engines that the FAA's airplane division is not equipped to handle, but the AST department is. Talk to your Senate leaders and endorse the HR 3245 bill, which clarifies AST's jurisdiction over these vehicles. ( http://www.xcor.com/HR-3245.html )
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:1)
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:1)
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:1)
That's beside the point (Score:3, Interesting)
The FAA had its roots in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, a year before Lindberg's transatlantic flight. The Air Commerce Act created a series of agencies whose whole point was promoting safe air commerce. Emphasis on commerce. 45 years after the act was passed, you could fly just about anywhere in the world on a jet. That's what I call success, and this is line
Re:That's beside the point (Score:2)
Of course! The answer has been here the whole time! Instead of waiting for the eventual development of cheaply manufacturable extremely long carbon nanotubes to build a space elevator, we can just rely on centuries-old technology: beanstalks. The initial investment is low: just one old cow. Plus the benefits are astounding: cheap access to space, and a golden-egg-laying goose if
Re:UFP==FAA? (Score:1)
Also there is another option to the choices of issuing a license and telling Congress they didn't meet the deadline. They can also issue a denial of a license. They have 180 days to make a license determination. That does not mean it has to be favorable to the applicant.
By the way, XCO
Carmack better hurry (Score:1)
So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
Clear as mud.
I guarantee none of this will be covered by MEDIA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I guarantee none of this will be covered by MED (Score:3, Informative)
--Mike
Re:I guarantee none of this will be covered by MED (Score:3, Interesting)
If it _isn't_ a competitor for the X-Prize as you say, shouldn't you be shouting this out and clarifying this article and that news site?
Re:I guarantee none of this will be covered by MED (Score:2)
Hmmm...haven't dealt with Journalism Majors much, have you?
Re:I guarantee none of this will be covered by MED (Score:2)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Obligatory... (Score:1, Funny)
Sorry, I had to do it.
Re:Obligatory... (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Tried many times (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tried many times (Score:5, Interesting)
Tried before? Uhm... you you care to back that statement up, preferable with links? Because, even thought some germans during the last big war messed with rocketproppeled planes, those wasn't meant to go anywhere near space, and the various winged programs (DynaSoar, Shuttle, Buran to name a few) that has been either close to flight or actually has flown have all been large, costly goverment programs.
AFAIK civilians has always dreamed of "cobbling together a rocketship in the backyard" and head up into space, but it's only the last few years that the technology needed has reached a pricepoint where it is possible for anyone but a goverment to afford to develop and build a manned spaceship (or even a suborbital one). Papaerprojects has floated around since before the dawn of the spaceage, but no one went into space on those. It looks like the X-prize and XCOR are the first programs that results in actuall hardware beeing built.
On the other hand, if you want a real affordable, private launch, you could try cobbling together a huge suger [aol.com] or sorbitol [aol.com] rocket, put a chair on it and see if you can't get hold of something like the MOOSE [astronautix.com]. Off course, you would need a suit too, but as the early suits [astronautix.com] where souped up versions of a standard flightsuit, a visit to the nearest military surplus store will solve that.
So there you have it... an simple, affordable launchsystem. Wonder why no one has done that... oh, safety. Right.
Re:Tried many times (Score:1)
Early Stages (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Early Stages (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we are not an X-Prize contender. That part of the submission is incorrect. (it's the most common journalistic mistake, we forgive /.)
To clarify...when AST receives a launch license application it deems is "sufficiently complete" it just means that they are now on a 180 day clock to either deny or grant the license. If they deny the license, they have to report to congress and tell them why it was denied. Along the way, they may request from us (XCOR) any kind of new information they might need as well.
So yes, your comment is correct. The license is not granted, but the application is in the 'sufficiently complete' mode. The newsworthy significance of this is that it's the very first sufficiently complete application for a winged suborbital vehicle, of which he hope there will be many more of in the not too distant future. :) -m
Re:Early Stages (Score:1)
Timothy, wake up
Re:Early Stages (Score:1)
Re:Early Stages (Score:1)
Re:Early Stages (Score:1)
Launch what? X Prize team for sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
So they have a license to launch something they haven't built or even finished designing? I think my money is still on Burt Rutan.
Re:Launch what? X Prize team for sure? (Score:2)
Interesting tidbit: they list Dick Rutan [dickrutan.com] as their test pilot, who happens to be a brother of Burt [scaled.com].
They're aiming for a bigger prize (Score:1)
Regarding capability, Rutan hasn't built a rocket plane that's taken off and landed multiple times under its own rocket power. XCOR has, a couple years ago. Admittedly, they did it by modifying a Ruta
Re:America is back on top (Score:1)
As if the first post is not the REAL troll...
Re:America is back on top (Score:1)
And all along, I thought it was about putting people into space on a budget...
That's a good thing whoever does it.
Re:America is back on top (Score:1)
Did you even LOOK at the X-prize site?
Did you count how many teams there are from each country?
Now - while one of the front contenders happens to be American: Scaled Composites [scaled.com], there are some teams that are making good progress that aren't (gasp!) Americans! Perish the thought!
Heck - there are even Canadian teams that have performed successful final engine design tests, and picked final flight crews: Canadian Arrow [canadianarrow.com].
From their faq page (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Our sound level meter goes off the scale of 138 dBA at 10 meters. However, during test flights people on the ground have noted that it is quieter than many jet aircraft they have heard.
oh... really? have these people on the ground checked their hearing after long-term exposure to whatever noise that's abusing their ears???
the BEST earmuffs do a -29dB cut, and that means even wearing that, the grount crew can expect over 109dB (since we don't know how much, it's off the scale right?) exposure...
even wearing earplugs AND a earmuff, you still are pushing ~ >79dB - and earplug + muff doesn't actually give you -60dB.
besides... the ratings are only at certain frequencies; some -29dB muffs are as ineffective as -16dB only for lower frequencies.
Re:From their faq page (Score:5, Informative)
When the EZ-Rocket is actually in flight, the noise from the ground isn't any different from a fighter jet. And inside the cockpit, our test pilot Dick Rutan says that the engine isn't any louder than a jet with the canopy closed and the earphones on.
The key thing to remember is that the engines that will go on the suborbital vehicle are larger and have much lower noise frequency components. The XR4K5 [xcor.com] 1800 lb-thrust engine has a low rumble well within the safety margins of just wearing headphones. It has a really beautiful sound when it runs. The 400 lb-thrust EZ-Rocket engine, which is the one that the sound levels refer to, sounds more like full spectrum white noise.
the loudest noise from a rocket engine can be heard when you are standing approximately 45 degrees from the thrust vector (45 from straight behind) and the quietest point is directly in front of it. (in the cockpit)
One of the many advantages of using liquid fuel engines is far less vibration and audable noise variation when compared to a solid fuel engine. Ever read about a NASA astronaut's experiences during the solid fuel burn on a shuttle launch? O.K. for heavy lifters but perhaps not for space tourists. :)
As a side note, I am always amazed at concertgoers for not wearing hearing protection for something that sounds almost as loud as a rocket engine.
--Mike
Re:From their faq page (updates) (Score:3, Informative)
And for runs longer than 10 seconds, both headphones and earplugs are required if you are that close. And there are indeed many good reasons to be that close when it runs. We've had thousands of runs with not a single explosion, but we're not stupid - there is a transparent blast shield made out of several layers of
Re:From their faq page (Score:2)
Assuming of course that they have stuck their ears right up to the back of the rocket.
Re:From their faq page (Score:1)
anyway... not that you'd probably do it frequently - however since they don't have a clue WHAT exactly the sound level is, I'd think it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a real measurement and establish some safety parameters - OSHA would be like collectively fainting if this was an work-environment that an employer subjecting their employee
Re:From their faq page (Score:5, Informative)
Sound levels are indeed very important, not only for employee occupational hazard levels but for sound levels reaching out in to the town of Mojave and the rest of the airport. We like to be good neighbors. We also had to provide estimated sound levels as part of the Mojave Civilian Flight test Center [mojaveairport.com]'s application to become the nation's first inland space port. [califcity.com]
Fortunately, we're within restricted airspace near Edwards Air Force Base where you are allowed to go supersonic and make sonic booms, one of the few places in America where you can do this. The people who live here are used to the occasional BANG! BANG! in the morning as the boys and girls in the fighter jets paint circles into the skies overhead. The rocket taking off is nowhere near the level or type of sound generated by the sonic booms (good booms make your wall art crooked) and our own booms are minimalized on the ground by the fact that the aircraft is at a 70 degree climb angle.
We've been able to come up with a pretty accurate graph of noise falloff. Once we begin testing the next generation of engines on the next generation of flying vehicle we'll have an even better idea of what to expect for the full suborbital flight profile.
--Mike M., XCOR
Re:From their faq page (Score:1)
It's refreshing to see someone take the time to correct and clarify the opinionating and theorizing that's normal for the Slashdot community's commentary on articles. My own as well as other's.
-H
Re:From their faq page (Score:2)
So you could probably get that 140db reduction with a good wall between you and the rocket.
Way to go guys (Score:3, Interesting)
Too many X's? (Score:2)
Yes, there are a couple of X's in the previous sentence but X-prize is not one of them. XCOR is not running for the X-prize. The Xerus mission profile is, however, similar to that of the X-Prize.
How much for a Xerus? (Score:2)
Point me in the right direction... (Score:1)