Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
would probably be the underwriter of choice, not Geico. They have insured almost anything. For instance, some examples .
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Yes, they do.
This
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Some links:
- Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/DOT)
- Office of Space Commercialization (Department of Commerce)
There's also been a variety of Congressional acts supporting space commercialization and competiveness.No, Congress have them the authority late last year. If they are flying in US airspace, they can be regulated by the feds.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
This url gives some details of Rutan's problems:
t an.asp
h ju 42154.000/hju42154_0.htm
http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/
Heroes/BurtRu
"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/