Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Science Technology

XCOR Launch Application Complete 91

Posted by timothy from the lots-of-d-engines dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XCOR Launch Application Complete More

XCOR Launch Application Complete

Comments Filter:

  • Trip (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ActionPlant ( 721843 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:00AM (#7451245) Homepage
    When do tickets go on sale?

    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,

  • cool.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by laurent420 ( 711504 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:04AM (#7451258)
    say hi to zefram cochrane for me ;>

  • UFP==FAA? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lone_marauder ( 642787 )
    ...Federal Aviation Administration's Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
    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)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:11AM (#7451287) Journal
      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?

      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)

        by Zachary Kessin ( 1372 ) <zkessin@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:37AM (#7451371) Homepage Journal
        Also, all ships and aircraft are registered in a specific country. If this ship is owned by a US company it will I assume be flying with a US (N---) tail number. That puts the FAA into play. If they were say a Canadian company the Canadian CAA would have to certify it.

        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:5, Insightful)

      by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:20AM (#7451309)
      Well....The division of the FAA in charge of licensing private space launches is AST, or Associate Administrator of Space Transportation. AST was origintally an independent government agency created by the 1984 commercial space act. It's job was to make the process of obtaining a launch license far easier by making it the one stop shop for all licensing needs. Previously you had to deal with many seperate government agencies to obtain all the nessesary permits for a launch. The 1984 Commercial Space Act says that OST (Office of Space Transportation) had the exclusive authority to issue or deny launch licenses and that they be a clearing house for all other agencies.

      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 :)..the job of the agency is only to protect the uninvolved public. In addition to protecting the American public, the United States has signed an international treaty which makes it partly responsible for the 'maximum probable loss'worldwide in the event of a disaster that kills people on the ground. This is mostly referring to large vertical launches, i.e. Boeing satellite launches out of Vandenberg, but can also apply to smaller vehicles as well.

      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 )
    • It doesn't matter. Because everything has to pass through FAA controled airspace, on the way up, the FAA effectively controls everything. You may not control the kitchen, but if you control the kitchen doorway, you decide who eats.
    • As long as you're using rockets and not transporter beams or beanstalks, you have to fly through the air to get to orbit. That's the FAA's baliwick.

      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
      • As long as you're using rockets and not transporter beams or beanstalks, you have to fly through the air to get to orbit.

        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
    • The FAA office that licenses launches, AST (much shorter than Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation)only licenses launches and reentries. Once you are up there, you are not under their jurisdiction.

      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
  • ...and catch up to these guys.

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:12AM (#7451289) Homepage Journal
    XCOR doesn't like X-Prize so they got the FAAAA for CST to AOK their design? So AST is stuck with XCOR or Congress with a 180?

    Clear as mud.

  • I guarantee none of this will be covered by MEDIA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zymano ( 581466 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:21AM (#7451313)
    The only coverage I ever saw of the X-prize was on National Geographic of all places.
  • I for one welcome our new XCOR overlords.

    Sorry, I had to do it.
  • In other news, several test subjects have been volunteered by the technology industry, including a few SCO executives and a certain "Cary Sherman" from the RIAA...

  • Tried many times (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rupan ( 723469 )
    it seems to me that this has been tried so many times before. I really hope this works, and if it does it may bring affordable spaceflight to the masses within a few decades. but I'm not holding my breath.

    • Re:Tried many times (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @03:12AM (#7451485) Journal

      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.

    • I was just referring to the number of companies that I have seen over the years try to get to space and then just fall off the radar... I don't hear anything about them. I wish I could remember the name, there was this one space plane program I saw on TV years ago that never seems to have panned out. I'm glad somebody finally got somewhere with this. We'll see where it heads.

  • Early Stages (Score:2, Informative)

    by thrull1 ( 568534 )
    After looking at the X-Prize site, it doesnt seem that these guys are even official contenders for the X-Prize. Also, by "sufficiently complete", they mean that the application for a launch contains most of the necessary info, not that their design or some such is sufficient.

    • Re:Early Stages (Score:5, Informative)

      by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:50AM (#7451417)
      Two things:

      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

      • Sorry, that was my bad. The name of the page at spacedaily.com was x-prize03c.html. I recognised the name XCOR (although obviously just from the general suborbital field, not the X-Prize teams) and assumed. I should have checked more closely. Goes to show how much attention the eds are paying.

        Timothy, wake up :)
      • Since when has Slashdot had anything to do with journalism?
      • Why not go for the X-Prize anyways? The $$$ couldn't hurt, but the publicity would be priceless.
        • I can see a few good reasons. The $$$ aren't going to pay the cost of the vehicle, it's getting very late to enter a team, and it's a crowded field. Further, there's a good market for unmanned vehicles now and you have far less risk of killing someone.

  • Launch what? X Prize team for sure? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gogo Dodo ( 129808 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @02:55AM (#7451429)
    Looking over the X Prize teams list [xprize.org], I don't see XCOR listed. On the XCOR Xerus page [xcor.com], it says that their design is "in the preliminary design phase".

    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.

    • Looking at their webpage i would guess that they got the licence for a test vehicle, so not the full scale model:
      XCOR Aerospace has submitted a launch license application for an intermediate technology demonstration vehicle.
      Interesting tidbit: they list Dick Rutan [dickrutan.com] as their test pilot, who happens to be a brother of Burt [scaled.com].
    • XCOR isn't shooting for the X-prize, so there's nothing to bet about here. They seem to be following a longer-term strategy, aiming at markets with far greater value than the X-prize purse. That is probably why XCOR has been much more serious than the X-Prize teams about getting their regulatory ducks in line.

      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

  • From their faq page (Score:4, Informative)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @03:08AM (#7451471) Journal
    Does it make a lot of noise?
    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)

      by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @03:51AM (#7451571)
      Yes, at 10 meters an EZ-Rocket engine test (the thing being referred to in your quote) almost requires headphones and earmuffs. And by golly if that's not the same sort of sound levels that come out of an F-4 phantom on full afterburners or a 747 taking off, except you're never that close to them. If you are you're insulated inside the plane.

      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

      • This morning, due to all the attention, our chief engineer noticed that 138 dB is actually a typo, it's 128 dB. And we do know where it goes off the scale, it's right at that 10 meter mark.

        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
    • 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...

      Assuming of course that they have stuck their ears right up to the back of the rocket. :)

      • i dunno about you guys but 10 meters isn't exactly a short distance... I would suspect for some things, data taking and what not, coming within 33 feet is actually expected.

        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)

          by PhantomHarlock ( 189617 ) on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @05:31AM (#7451811)
          I believe our current eastimates for the EPA and various environmental impact reports are based on many different metering levels taken in different situations from varying distances, both from the test stand and on our flying rocket powered airplane, the EZ-Rocket [xcor.com].

          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

          • Just wanted to commend you, and the rest of the folks at XCOR for the work you're doing in making as much information available to the rest of the world as you have, and to thank you for hanging out here disseminating information.

            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
    • I used to (tele)sell sliding and folding walls. (You know the partitions). The maximum reductions we did were 100db, however in practice the limiting factor was the ceiling and surrounding walls.

      So you could probably get that 140db reduction with a good wall between you and the rocket.

  • Way to go guys (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Wednesday November 12, 2003 @05:03AM (#7451741) Journal
    What XCOR is doing is very interesting, and I wish them every success. I was there for the unveiling of their rocket technology in Mojave, CA. when they flew the rockets (actually for the second time) on a Long-Ez. You can see my writeup of it here [dylansmith.net] (at the risk of a slight Slashdotting).
  • XCOR is developing a commercial suborbital "space tourism" vehicle callex Xerus.

    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.
  • The Xcor faq answers a lot of questions but skips the most important one. How much will it cost to develop the Xerus?
  • Can anyone point me to a link that helps explain the difficulties in creating an "airplane" that travels into space? I've honestly tried to find a concise explanation of the issues, but have come up short. Thanks in advance.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Close