Slashdot Mirror

Here's a start.

Contact your local Flight Standards District Office for a Special Flight Permit.

Do not expect this process to be simple or fast. It will involve a lot of red tape and it will take a while (probably a few weeks unless you're EXTREMELY well-prepared for the fone call). However, it's better than having to explain to the FBI, local police, and FAA why you decided to launch a large balloon to a ridiculous altitude without their permission or knowledge.

p

A quick stroll through the ASRS database, searching on "RF Interference" or "EMI"

Report # 541518
DEPARTING SFO WE WERE ADVISED THAT ATC WAS NOT RECEIVING OUR TRANSPONDER. THE ATC FAIL LIGHT WAS ON AS WELL AS NUMEROUS TCASII FAULT MESSAGES. WE SWITCHED TO TRANSPONDER NO 2 AS PER THE OPERATING MANUAL AND ATC WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT. THE AIRPLANE HAD ONLY ONE MODE S TRANSPONDER SO WE HAD NO TCASII AT THIS POINT. THE FLT CONTINUED NORMALLY FOR ANOTHER HR OR SO WITH NO CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF THE NUMBER 1 TRANSPONDER AND TCASII. IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT I DISCOVERED THAT I HAD INADVERTENTLY LEFT MY PCS PHONE ON. AND THAT IT WAS IN SEARCH MODE. I TURNED IT OFF. IMMEDIATELY, ATC NO 1 AND TCAS WERE RESTORED TO FULL FUNCTIONALITY. NO FURTHER ANOMALIES WERE OBSERVED DURING THE FLT.

Report # 536654
NAV INTERFERENCE. OVER CHT, CLRED '10 DEGS R INTERCEPT LOC RWY 31L PLAN CIRCLE RWY 22L.' UPON TUNING LOC FREQ AND SETTING COURSE, IT APPEARED WE WERE ON THE LOC, ALTHOUGH VISUALLY WE APPEARED S OF COURSE. ATC ASKED IF WE HAD INTERCEPTED AND SAID WE WERE S OF COURSE. THE CDI THEN SWUNG FULL SCALE TO THE OTHER SIDE INDICATING WE WERE N OF COURSE. I TURNED TO CTR THE CDI AND WE SWITCHED TO TWR. MY CDI SWUNG R INDICATING WE WERE S OF COURSE. I NOTICED THE FO'S CDI WAS SWINGING THE SAME DIRECTION AS MINE, BUT MOVING ABOUT HALF AS FAR. WHEN WE SAW THE RWY, WE WERE N OF COURSE WITH CDI'S INDICATING WE WERE S OF COURSE. WE WERE HIGH AND WELL N OF COURSE WHEN TWR ASKED IF WE COULD GET DOWN FROM THERE. WE ASKED TO BE TURNED OUT TO RE-ENTER THE PATTERN. UPON TURNING OUTBOUND WE MADE A PA ASKING PEOPLE TO PLEASE MAKE SURE THEIR CELL PHONES AND OTHER EQUIP WERE TURNED OFF. THE CDI'S IMMEDIATELY BECAME STEADY AND WE COMPLETED A NORMAL ILS RWY 31C CIRCLE RWY 22L WITH NORMAL INDICATIONS AND THE FLT ATTENDANTS RPTED THAT A WOMAN IN THE FORWARD LOUNGE WAS TALKING ON HER CELL PHONE. AS SOON AS SHE TURNED HER PHONE OFF, OUR CDI INDICATED NORMALLY.

Report # 283948
CLBING THROUGH 13000 FT MSL, RADIO ALTIMETER INDICATED 900 FT. GPWS SOUNDED 'TOO LOW TERRAIN.' THIS WARNING CONTINUED FOR SEVERAL MINS. HAD FLT ATTENDANT CHK CABIN FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES. PAX WAS FOUND WITH CELLULAR PHONE 'ON' BUT NOT IN USE. PAX SHUT OFF CELLULAR PHONE AND PROB STOPPED. NO FURTHER PROBS DURING REST OF FLT OR RETURN LEG (ORD-LGA-ORD).

"...all aircraft operating in United States National Airspace, if capable, shall maintain a listening watch on VHF GUARD 121.5 or UHF 243.0."

What percentage of car owners are driving cars built in the early '80s?

comparing the shuttle fleet to consumer automobiles is disingenuous. A much more honest, but not perfect example is commercial aircraft. With proper maintenance, aircraft are kept flying for decades.

If you start hanging out around the Pentagon (just chose that as an example) and are taking photographs like mad [especially of the guards and the security features], don't you think someone will get a little suspicious?

As for using a small plane, try doing that over a major city where there's a no-fly zone, either temporary or permanent.

US street maps are pretty good for navigating, but they don't show much detail. What if you want to know if there is a parking lot close to where you want to visit? For instance, since I live in Massachusetts, I might want to go to a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. If I want to take my life into my own hands, I might drive into the city and want to park near Fenway. The street map probably won't show me where I can park ... but go to Google Maps, search for "Fenway Park, Boston, MA", then zoom in all the way on the satellite map and select point A. Now some of those places where lots of cars are parked may not be public parking lots, but it'll give me some places to check when I get to Fenway.

One feature that would be really cool for Google to add would be the ability to click on a point on the satellite map and, if that location is a business (to avoid privacy concerns), show the contact information (name, address, and phone number) for that business. They must have that info for local.google.com, so tying the two together would be very cool.

FAA Sets New Standards for Cockpit Doors
WASHINGTON - In response to President Bush's call to strengthen aircraft security, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today published new standards to protect cockpits from intrusion and small arms fire or fragmentation devices, such as grenades. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act authorizes the FAA to issue today's final rule that requires operators of more than 6,000 airplanes to install reinforced doors by April 9, 2003.

You don't need the El-Al style interogation, you just need the El-Al style cockpit door.

You need some of both.

This post is interesting, because NIMA/NGA (the mapping arm of the Department of Defense) has just announced plans to remove a huge number of its aeronautical charts from public access, as announced in a Federal Register (PDF) message November 18. The restrictions would take effect October 1, 2005. This has been heavily announced on the FAA's mapping website.

To quote: NGA aims to protect the sources and integrity of its data, honor its bilateral agreements restricting nongovernmental use, avoid competition with commercial interests, and allow NGA to focus on its primary customers and mission, supporting the Department of Defense.

This is bad! Those great TPC charts (sample from U. Tex. Perry-Castaneda Library) that make excellent roadmaps and topographic charts are specifically marked for restriction. These charts are also seen in a lot of military-styled movies and films as backdrops on walls.

We aren't talking about weapons targeting charts, which are already classified. We're talking about basic topographic maps with foreign detail. Based on my minor involvement in GIS it looks like the Pentagon may be jockeying to eventually outsource its map production to commercial firms. But regardless, this will be a loss.

This post is interesting, because NIMA/NGA (the mapping arm of the Department of Defense) has just announced plans to remove a huge number of its aeronautical charts from public access, as announced in a Federal Register (PDF) message November 18. The restrictions would take effect October 1, 2005. This has been heavily announced on the FAA's mapping website.

To quote: NGA aims to protect the sources and integrity of its data, honor its bilateral agreements restricting nongovernmental use, avoid competition with commercial interests, and allow NGA to focus on its primary customers and mission, supporting the Department of Defense.

This is bad! Those great TPC charts (sample from U. Tex. Perry-Castaneda Library) that make excellent roadmaps and topographic charts are specifically marked for restriction. These charts are also seen in a lot of military-styled movies and films as backdrops on walls.

We aren't talking about weapons targeting charts, which are already classified. We're talking about basic topographic maps with foreign detail. Based on my minor involvement in GIS it looks like the Pentagon may be jockeying to eventually outsource its map production to commercial firms. But regardless, this will be a loss.

The issue of lasers as a hazard to airborne navigation popped up as a pretty big issue in the laser display industry about a decade ago.

The issue from a pilot's point of view.

The SAE G-10T working group took the lead hammering it out; more here.

The resulting FAA regulation is Chapter 29 of FAA Order 7400.2E.

Also enjoy a brief video clip providing a pilot's eye view of a high-powered display laser illuminating a cockpit.

Can anyone think of an airport that has a GPS approach pattern but no ILS?

Hundreds, if not thousands. Large commerical airports have full ILS on most, if not all[1], of their runways and offer precision approaches[2] on them. Most also have Category II or III ILS approaches on some runways, for when visibility is very bad. (Cat IIIC approaches are the holy grail, Ceiling 0, Visibility 0, RVR 0 landings. There are very few Cat IIIC runways in the world right now. I digress.)

But ILS is expensive to maintain and monitor -- and you have to monitor it. A glideslope that isn't right kills people. So, most GA airports have at most one runway that offers full ILS, many don't have any ILS approaches at all.

GPS approaches, however, don't need hardware at the runways. You just publish a path, and install a reciever at the tower to alert you if something's wrong with GPS. Of course, GPS approaches are currently non-precision. The Local Area Augmentation System for GPS promises to change that. It does involve more equipment at the airport, but you don't need equipment at each runway, and monitoring is much simpler (set up a couple of LAAS GPS boxen about, and have them scream loudly if the report a position that differs from true by a certain amount.)

Many current GPS systems have WAAS -- this is built for aircraft enroute, not landing, so it can't be used for precision approaches. Scope out your local airports on AirNav and you'll see that many tiny airports have GPS approaches for all of their runways -- and an increasing number have only GPS approaches. Other approaches need more (and more expensive) hardware at the airport.

1) Runway 4R at ORD, for example, doesn't have a glideslope, only a localizer. ORD doesn't land planes on 4R for a variety of reasons, so installing and maintaining the full ILS isn't worth the cost. The localizer is there for back-course use, typically in missed ILS approaches on 22L.

2) Precision means you have glideslope information, thus, can land in IFR conditions. Non precision approaches are VFR only.

The airspace above FL600 is controlled class E airspace.

DOH...please don't tell me you're a pilot!?! Back to the books with you. Look at the drawing on this FAA website, and read section 3-2-6
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html

Actually, you can't build up to 5000 ft because you'd be entering controlled airspace...that would make us private pilots very unhappy. The the areas near airports are lower. Your real estate teacher obviously didn't understand the rules...just like you don't necessarily own mineral rights when you buy land (I've been listening to my mother who's been a real estate broker for 25 years). See the FAA's page at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html

Yes. FAR 91.113, "Right-of-way rules: Except water operations," subsection (d)(1): "(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft." Generally, the craft that is hardest to maneuver has the right-of-way.

I would strongly suggest that you visit the FAA website for commercial spaceflight before you go too far with the critcisms.

The FAA has "matured" due to issues dealing with aviation hucksters and con artists who try to come up with all kinds of new ways to build airplanes, as well as "fly-by-night" aviation schools that teach you how to fly with poor techniques and really are just there to scam you out of some more money. With FAA regulations you have an independent testing authority for pilot certification as well as a methodology for "approval" of equipment that flies through the sky.

Also, the AST has been bouncing around the Federal Government as an agency in search of a home. This position that they are in right now with the FAA is a much better fit than most other places I could think of. Would you rather they be a branch of the USAF? NASA? Neither of those alternatives seems appealing to me, and only NASA even remotely seems close.

What is funny is that the public goals of NASA when NASA was originally set up seem to be what the AST is actually accomplishing, or at least what the public perception of what NASA was supposed to do. NASA was supposed to be "The Space Agency", and offer a civilian role to spaceflight, as opposed to efforts of the Army or Air Force. A good question would be: What happened?

It will be a sad day when the AST has a larger budget and more personnel than NASA, although that will only happen if the commercial space industry really takes off and becomes the multi-trillion dollar industry it has the potential of becomming.

Maybe not inches away, but when you're flying at 37,000 feet (+/- your altimeter error) at 500 knots in airspace without radar control with 1000 feet between the plane above you and the plane below you, it's close enough.

This happens twice every day; once in the evening when all of the planes depart the US for Europe, and once in the morning when all the planes depart Europe for the US. It's called RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums), and the aircraft are almost always entirely computer controlled during this portion of flight. Linky

Most crashes involving heavier-than-air aircraft kill everyone aboard.

Actually if you look at the accident reports most crashes of heaver-than-air aircraft kill none onboard

Unfortunately there already is a "regulatory body" that administers spaceflight: The Administration for Space Transportation. If you look into their history, you will find that they have been bounced all over the federal government, but it looks like they are in the FAA for the long-haul. It is a better fit anyway.

NASA really needs to get back to the original missions of the NACA, and do more "Star Trek"-like misisons.... to boldly go where nobody has gone before. Spending the last 20 year in LEO just doesn't work and is wasting NASA's talents and resources. It is for going to exotic places that you need a PhD. Space construction should be done by roughnecks who have the temperment to build oil drilling platforms in the North Sea or Gulf of Mexico, not somebody who just defended his dissertation in Biology or Earth Science.

If NASA could transform itself back into a "Space _EXPLORATION_" agency, I don't have any problem with their current level of funding to be maintained or even increased. It is just that LEO is more than simply explored, it is getting civilian tourists, and Scaled Composites is just the beginning. If NASA wants to stay in the space transportation business, it should be sold off to the highest bidder and made a private corporation.

Actually, at this point even NASA launches are handled by private enterprise. You may want to read up about United Space Alliance. Commercial launches tend to be managed by the launch vehicle contractor, although the actual pad management and launch operations may be run by the Air Force in some cases (launches from the Cape or Vandenberg. However, companies like Sea Launch do the whole launch themselves without NASA or Air Force involvement.

The military launches really should be handled by the military.

The military does handle military launches. And everything else. The US Air Force' 45th Space Wing runs Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), which handles all (military, civil, and commercial) of the launches out of the Cape, aside from NASA manned launches (see here for more). The USAF also operates Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast, which handles launches into polar orbits.

As seen on Transterrestrial Musings, spacepolitics.com, and RLV News:

Just got this message Jeff Greason of XCOR Aerospace that the current legislation to assist the development of the suborbital spaceflight industry has been distorted by Senate staffers into something that will instead smother the industry in the cradle:

There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S.. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.

If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.

If your Senator is on the Commerce Committee, that's even better: http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

Personally, I'm in favor of having the AST in charge of the safety of the uninvolved public on the ground, as the bill was originally worded. However, I think that the last-minute changes to have the same agency regulate the safety of crew and passengers (and require the corresponding mountains of paperwork) would be an excellent way to kill off the budding US space tourism industry.

MSNBC has a more in-depth article on this.

As reported on several space-related news sites, including RLV News and Transterrestrial musings:

There is a last-minute move by some staffers in the Senate to heavily amend HR 3752. The amendments would completely change the charter of the office of commercial space transportation (AST), placing the safety of the crew and passengers on equal footing with the safety of the uninvolved public. Since that is well beyond present technology, it would effectively stop development of the industry in the U.S.. It is too late to fix the bill before the session adjourns, but not too late to stop it. If you or people you know have connections to any Senator, please ask them to put a "hold" on HR 3752. That prevents it from passing by unanimous consent. We may have less than 24 hours.

If the bill is "held" there may be opportunity to fix it in a post-election session -- but if not, we would still rather the bill die than pass with these poison-pill amendments.

The FAA is under the auspices of the US Department of the Interior, aren't they?

" Federal Aviation Administration"

"Bringing Safety to America's Skies", they say...

Actually, federal law prohibits you from operating many portable electronic devices onboard many flights. See the following Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs):
91.21
125.204
121.306
135.144

"...works against needing to leave (or enter) the cockpit"?!? I've tried several times and still can't grok that. What on earth do you mean? I'll say it again the other way around - the number of times that somebody NEEDS to get from cabin to flightdeck or vice versa vastly outnumbers the number of terrorist seizures. Because the number of terrorist incidents is tiny and the number of flights is enormous. How many people die of natural causes on flights every year?

You missed.

Unless the pilot is a doctor, there is no reason for him/her to leave the cockpit if a passenger is having a medical emergency. The ONLY reason a medical emergency should require access to the cockpit is if the pilot or co-pilot is having the medical emergency and requires assistance from a passenger or non-flight deck flight crew.

The pilot should fly the plane. period.

Source for my numbers is here and here.

Thanks for responding, even if it did take you two days to google up some unattributed figures

My "unattributed figures" are from "SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Civil Aviation Security, Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation (Washington, DC: 2001)"

You, on the other hand are at least honest that you are pulling numbers out of your ass -"I have no idea of the actual numbers" and "(again, I don't have exact numbers, but I'm confident I'm on pretty safe ground here)." I have never understood why being honest about being stupid was something to strive for, though.

Notice, too, that I said the idea does not seem like a good idea.

...while the plane is on the ground. In the air the FAA supports the FCC ban.

From this FAA web page:

The FCC currently prohibits the use and operation of cellular telephones while airborne. The FAA supports this airborne restriction because cell phones might interfere with critical aircraft systems. Currently, the FAA does not prohibit use of cellular telephones in aircraft while on the ground if the airline has determined that they won't interfere with the navigation or communication systems of the aircraft.

Actually, GPS sattelites contains 4 atomic clocks (scroll down to "internal components"). Also, the basic accurancy of a GPS is about 100 meters (just bellow the second image). You can achieve about 7 meters when using WAAS and even less when using a DGPS beacon like LAAS.

Actually, GPS sattelites contains 4 atomic clocks (scroll down to "internal components"). Also, the basic accurancy of a GPS is about 100 meters (just bellow the second image). You can achieve about 7 meters when using WAAS and even less when using a DGPS beacon like LAAS.

Actually, GPS sattelites contains 4 atomic clocks (scroll down to "internal components"). Also, the basic accurancy of a GPS is about 100 meters (just bellow the second image). You can achieve about 7 meters when using WAAS and even less when using a DGPS beacon like LAAS.

Actually, GPS sattelites contains 4 atomic clocks (scroll down to "internal components"). Also, the basic accurancy of a GPS is about 100 meters (just bellow the second image). You can achieve about 7 meters when using WAAS and even less when using a DGPS beacon like LAAS.

I think you mean FAA, not FCC.

Apparently some of you ACs don't know the definition of "ultralight."

While these $50,000-sans-engine homebuilt helicopter kits are cool, if I had that much money, I'd buy a used Robinson, which has the added benefit of being certified for commercial ops, possibly IFR, etc.

The FAA defines "ultralight" as a powered aircraft with an empty weight of 254 pounds or less, 5 gallons or less of fuel capacity, a maximum airspeed of 55 knots at full power in level flight, and a power-off stall speed of greater than 24 knots.

AC103-7 explains all of it. Check paragraph 12 for the definitions, which are based on 14 CFR Part 103 (aka FAR 103).

The Rotorway and Ace Helicopter kits are most definitely NOT ultralights.

p

I believe you're referring to airships.

Don't get caught saying the 'B' word to an airship pilot.

With the Space Shuttle still grounded, the new generation of American boosters still being developed, and demand for reliable launching rockets building up around the world ...

The Shuttle hasn't been in the satellite launching business since the aftermath of the Challenger disaster. The "new" generation of American boosters are variations of existing boosters so it's not like there's a supply vacuum (as it were) as the author suggests. As for demand for launchers ... I'm not going to take the author's word for it due to the cyclic nature of the launch industry.

The irony of the rocket's new popularity has not been lost on the veteran space engineers of Baikonur. [NASA] is now grounded despite annual approval of budgets of close to $20 billion.

Since the only role NASA has in the launch business is as a customer, claims of "irony" are ... well ... ironic.

There's been increasing regulation in the US in the area of model airplanes as well. The Dept. of Transportation and the FAA issued a notice N8700.25 in Oct. last year that regulated "Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles" (link here). Reading through this document a lot of model airplane hobbyists are becoming increasingly alarmed about goverment regulation of their (my) hobby. The notice specifically states that it does not affect model airplanes but then states that model airplanes are flown at an altitude of less than 400 feet - which, if you have been to any model airplane flying field is about 400 feet less than reality.

If model airplanes that fly above 400 feet (which a high percentage of them) are no longer considered model airplanes, but are now UAV's, then they may fall under new regulations.

There are plenty of threads on the RC websites where hobbyists are trying to figure out what to do to try to limit the impact of new regulations on their hobby. One good example is This one.

1. could 'white knight' have an ILS and be converted to a 'drone'.

2. given #1, could the 'BD5' be redesigned to do the same thing as 'space ship one'?

3. given #2, could a 300 pound payload be lobbed to either mars, or the moon?

4. given #3, could ion engines be used to stir, and land the payload on the moon?

right now, all i can think about are those dawn japanese transiter jokes of the late 60's.

and what's even funnier is that no ones' laughing now.

First of all, there is the Administration for Space Transportation, a branch of the FAA. It already exists, so you don't need to create it. It already exists.

Second, you forget about just how big America really is. With "international" areas beyond both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, just about anything necessary for spaceflight operations can be pretty much done within the borders of the U.S.A. until you are into orbit, and existing treaties already deal with what happens when accidents happen and stuff comes down on a country other than the country of origin, even if it is just the spacecraft accidently landing in say Hong Kong when you were trying for San Francisco.

Space tourism is going to be a bit of a tougher problem because until now all [astronauts,cosmonauts,takinauts] have been commissioned officers (or civilian government equivalent) who had formal diplomatic status if they ended up somewhere by mistake. A tourist, particularly one without a passport, might have considerably more problems if they don't land in the country of origin (at least for the spacecraft).

International law also governs most of LEO and up to Geosync orbit, and there are a large number of precedents regarding what goes on with that activity, including if you take a satellite out of orbit and bring it back to the Earth. What goes on beyond a Geosync orbit is not nearly so well defined, and only the Moon has any real treaty status. Because the U.S.A. has refused to sign the Outer Space Treaty, it does not have effect upon American companies, so that area of international law is totally undefined.

Will the TSA allow these fuel cells on airplanes? I wonder if they would be considered "flameable fuel". http://asi.faa.gov/these.asp

If NASA gets out of the launch services business then the implication is that it will sell off a large part of its launch service infrastructure.

NASA has been out of the "launch services business" for some time. The Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 requires NASA to purchase launches of satellites from the private sector expect in those cases where unique attributes of the payload require it to be launched by the shuttle. The only launch vehicle that NASA operates is the shuttle, and had already been forbidden from launching commercial payloads by an executive order in the aftermath of the Challenger accident.

At one time NASA (somehow) explicitly denied any private company from returning a payload to Earth.

NASA has no regulatory authority over commercial spaceflight. That responsibility lies with the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Dude. Kiss it.

I'm sure the Rover insurance plan is available, publically, somewhere ... and no, I'm not gonna hold your hand and find it. Prove that it isn't there, MrDougJohnsonBoy...

As a licensed pilot, I call bullshit. There's more to piloting an aircraft than actuating controls to get you from point A to B. There's a hell of a lot of decision-making that requires context (for just one example, see here for the idea, and here for why it doesn't work), not to mention the many and various regulations and procedures, or the ever-changing charts that are published every 8 weeks.

You might have a chance at getting a machine to pilot a plane if you limit yourself strictly to [go from A to B with no emergencies, no mechanical problems, perfect software, perfect navigational instrumentation and avionics, perfect weather, and nothing in the air between A and B (not limited to skydivers, lost pilots, and unscheduled Presidential flights)]. Oh, and to even get into the airspace of most decent sized airports you have to be in two-way radio contact, which means you have to understand (and possibly refuse) ATC commands. I won't even get into IFR...

As a licensed pilot, I call bullshit. There's more to piloting an aircraft than actuating controls to get you from point A to B. There's a hell of a lot of decision-making that requires context (for just one example, see here for the idea, and here for why it doesn't work), not to mention the many and various regulations and procedures, or the ever-changing charts that are published every 8 weeks.

You might have a chance at getting a machine to pilot a plane if you limit yourself strictly to [go from A to B with no emergencies, no mechanical problems, perfect software, perfect navigational instrumentation and avionics, perfect weather, and nothing in the air between A and B (not limited to skydivers, lost pilots, and unscheduled Presidential flights)]. Oh, and to even get into the airspace of most decent sized airports you have to be in two-way radio contact, which means you have to understand (and possibly refuse) ATC commands. I won't even get into IFR...

As a licensed pilot, I call bullshit. There's more to piloting an aircraft than actuating controls to get you from point A to B. There's a hell of a lot of decision-making that requires context (for just one example, see here for the idea, and here for why it doesn't work), not to mention the many and various regulations and procedures, or the ever-changing charts that are published every 8 weeks.

You might have a chance at getting a machine to pilot a plane if you limit yourself strictly to [go from A to B with no emergencies, no mechanical problems, perfect software, perfect navigational instrumentation and avionics, perfect weather, and nothing in the air between A and B (not limited to skydivers, lost pilots, and unscheduled Presidential flights)]. Oh, and to even get into the airspace of most decent sized airports you have to be in two-way radio contact, which means you have to understand (and possibly refuse) ATC commands. I won't even get into IFR...

As a licensed pilot, I call bullshit. There's more to piloting an aircraft than actuating controls to get you from point A to B. There's a hell of a lot of decision-making that requires context (for just one example, see here for the idea, and here for why it doesn't work), not to mention the many and various regulations and procedures, or the ever-changing charts that are published every 8 weeks.

You might have a chance at getting a machine to pilot a plane if you limit yourself strictly to [go from A to B with no emergencies, no mechanical problems, perfect software, perfect navigational instrumentation and avionics, perfect weather, and nothing in the air between A and B (not limited to skydivers, lost pilots, and unscheduled Presidential flights)]. Oh, and to even get into the airspace of most decent sized airports you have to be in two-way radio contact, which means you have to understand (and possibly refuse) ATC commands. I won't even get into IFR...

Do you have a source for that 60% number? I did a search, and the most current numbers I found were for 2002, when ESA had 41% of commercial space launches (down from 50% in 2001).

To be pedentic, ESA's market share for commercial launches is 0%, as the agency doesn't conduct commercial launches. Most likely the poster is referring to Arianespace, which operates the Ariane launch vehicle. ESA and Arianespace have a close relationship, which can create confusion like this, but the two are indeed separate entities.

As for statistics, in 2003 there were 17 commercial launches, according to FAA/AST (see page 8 of the PDF file). Europe had four of them (three Ariane 5 launches and the final Ariane 4 launch), while the US and Russia had five apiece. The remaining three commercial launches were conducted by Sea Launch, an international consortium; these are sometimes counted as US launches since Boeing is the lead company in Sea Launch, and the launches are licensed by the FAA.

Vega is a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) launcher. There isn't a commercial market for low earth orbit satellites.

There actually are markets for commercial LEO satellites, although they are neither as large as for GEO satellites nor as large as was forecast several years ago, during the era of Iridium, Teledesic, and the like. There is some demand for commercial remote sensing satellites, as well as for the replenishment/replacement of existing LEO communications satellites, such as Globalstar and ORBCOMM. In addition, some governments without launch capability procure launches from US, European, and Russian companies for their satellites.

Those curious to know more about the LEO (and GEO) commercial launch markets should review the 2004 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, published last month by the US Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation and its industry advisory group. This year's report forecasts a demand for over 100 commercial NGSO (non-geosynchronous orbit) satellites and over 50 commercial NGSO launches in the 2004-2013 period.

• The original poster called this the "first-ever private spaceport", but it's not clear this is true, depending on one's definition of private. It is certainly not the first commercial spaceport: FAA/AST has issued commercial spaceport licenses for years to facilities in Alaska (Kodiak), California (Vandenberg), Florida (Cape Canaveral), and Virginia (Wallops). Mojave, though, would be the first commercial inland licensed spaceport.
  
  
• XCOR Aerospace is not a competitor for the Ansari X Prize.
  
  
• Technically, Scaled does not need a spaceport license to perform its flights from Mojave. (Recall that Scaled already has a launch license from AST.) As far as the FAA is concerned, SpaceShipOne's launch "site" is the White Knight carrier aircraft, which takes off from Mojave under an experimental airworthiness certificate, as I recall. Thus Scaled does not need to wait for Mojave Airport to get a spaceport license.
  

• The original poster called this the "first-ever private spaceport", but it's not clear this is true, depending on one's definition of private. It is certainly not the first commercial spaceport: FAA/AST has issued commercial spaceport licenses for years to facilities in Alaska (Kodiak), California (Vandenberg), Florida (Cape Canaveral), and Virginia (Wallops). Mojave, though, would be the first commercial inland licensed spaceport.
  
  
• XCOR Aerospace is not a competitor for the Ansari X Prize.
  
  
• Technically, Scaled does not need a spaceport license to perform its flights from Mojave. (Recall that Scaled already has a launch license from AST.) As far as the FAA is concerned, SpaceShipOne's launch "site" is the White Knight carrier aircraft, which takes off from Mojave under an experimental airworthiness certificate, as I recall. Thus Scaled does not need to wait for Mojave Airport to get a spaceport license.
  

Serious answer: they probably had a number of small planes in the queue and your plane would have caused too much wake turbulence for them. They could hold you and let a bunch of small guys take off, or let you go and hold up a half dozen planes.

Actually, "Air Force 1" is only the call sign for when the President is aboard an Air Force aircraft.

He's frequently on "Marine 1", and could easily be on "Army 1" or "Navy 1."

Or even "Executive One" for a civilian aircraft. See the FAA regulation on the subject.

Not only that, they're cheaper (only ten bucks per year) than a vanity plate for a car.