Suborbital Institute Congratulates Scaled Composites, Applauds FAA Action

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:53:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Robert
Kitzmueller made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

Burt has stated that there are no plans to use the vehicle for
commercial applications.

Well, Scaled Composites getting a license, any license at all, is
certainly a big step. But the real big question looming ahead is:
Will anybody be allowed to offer regular commercial services?

Yes, that is the intent of the new FAA licensing rules.

Henry Spencer wrote:

I wrote:
So this license is all they need for comercial flights involving paying
passengers, right?

Not necessarily, there may be restrictions on it. My guess would be that
it's just for test flights, but I haven't seen details yet.

The FAA announcement doesn't say "test" but it does say that it is for a
sequence of flights "spanning a one-year period".

I read this too, but only today.

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

This isn't certification, the process that is applied to aircraft. That's
good, in that the current certification process is extremely onerous and
these vehicles quite probably *can't* be certified, so licensing is the
only option. But there is a downside: certification, once accomplished,
is pretty much blanket permission to use that aircraft type for that type
of service. Whereas licensing can and does come with strings attached,
e.g. time limits. (Traditional launch licensing often requires a separate
license for *each flight*.)

Well, Scaled Composites getting a license, any license at all, is
certainly a big step. But the real big question looming ahead is:
Will anybody be allowed to offer regular commercial services?


Robert Kitzmueller

In article ,
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

Scaled has clearly stated that they have no intention of any paying
passenger flights.

Well, Scaled Composites getting a license, any license at all, is
certainly a big step. But the real big question looming ahead is:
Will anybody be allowed to offer regular commercial services?

Eventually, I'm sure. But probably not for this vehicle.

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

h (Rand Simberg) writes:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:53:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Robert
Kitzmueller made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

Burt has stated that there are no plans to use the vehicle for
commercial applications.

What has Paul Allen said on that subject?


Well, Scaled Composites getting a license, any license at all, is
certainly a big step. But the real big question looming ahead is:
Will anybody be allowed to offer regular commercial services?

Yes, that is the intent of the new FAA licensing rules.

And the FAA comes through. Kudos all around; remember a *lot*
of people worked to make this happen, on both the technical
and regulatory sides.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 9 Apr 2004 12:31:36 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(John Schilling) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Burt has stated that there are no plans to use the vehicle for
commercial applications.

What has Paul Allen said on that subject?

As far as I know, he's been silent. There may be a commercial
follow-on vehicle, but Burt was pretty clear that this one wasn't, and
Paul has said nothing to my knowledge to contradict him, which I
assume he would if that weren't the case.

My sense is that they view this as a prize winner and research
vehicle, results of which will be put into a larger, more commercially
interesting one.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

As far as I know, he's been silent. There may be a commercial
follow-on vehicle, but Burt was pretty clear that this one wasn't, and
Paul has said nothing to my knowledge to contradict him, which I
assume he would if that weren't the case.

FWIW Paul Allen isn't in the habit of talking about his plans and
current operations, and doesn't tip his hand about what's coming next.
Based on how he runs his other interests, I suspect SS1 conforms to
his normal mode; let the hirelings run the show while he stays in the
shadows.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Len) wrote in message m...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 17:21:42 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Robert Kitzmueller wrote:
So this license is all they need for comercial flights involving paying
passengers, right?

Not necessarily, there may be restrictions on it. My guess would be that
it's just for test flights, but I haven't seen details yet.

That's a good point. They probably got a license to fly without
passengers, because that would be easier, and they wouldn't have to
include the qualification/training protocols in the application.

It's still an important milestone. Technicalities of minor
relavence--like an environmental impact statement for something
that is not likely to have much environmental impact--did not
result in the kind of delay that I had feared. Environmental
impact statements for a new location could take one or two
years. So: my hat is off to FAA.

Funny how one notices spelling errors right after posting
--not that it's all that relevant.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:53:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Robert
Kitzmueller made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

Burt has stated that there are no plans to use the vehicle for
commercial applications.

I can see not using it for passenger flights. But I'd be surprised if he or
at least Paul Allen don't consider turning it into a smallsat launcher of
some sort.

Seems like the price point it could achieve would be tempting to
universities and the like.



Well, Scaled Composites getting a license, any license at all, is
certainly a big step. But the real big question looming ahead is:
Will anybody be allowed to offer regular commercial services?

Yes, that is the intent of the new FAA licensing rules.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:57:49 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:53:47 +0200, in a place far, far away, Robert
Kitzmueller made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

One year is enough for thorough testing, and also for the X-prize,
but they will not have much time for paying passenger flights (if at
all).

Burt has stated that there are no plans to use the vehicle for
commercial applications.

I can see not using it for passenger flights. But I'd be surprised if he or
at least Paul Allen don't consider turning it into a smallsat launcher of
some sort.

Not me. Maybe a nanosat launcher, but not a smallsat. It really
doesn't have adequate performance for a launch vehicle, even as a
lower stage.

In article ,
Joann Evans wrote:
Yes, a license (and complying with it in terms of passenger
qualification and training) is all that's required

If this had been an orbit-capable vehicle, would these same rules
also apply?

At present, yes. Of course, the licensing process would have been a bit
more complicated if it was actually *going* to orbit -- for one thing,
that means you need to license the reentry as well as the ascent. (What
happens in between, interestingly enough, is currently nobody's business
but your own.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |