Suborbital Institute Congratulates Scaled Composites, Applauds FAA Action

Henry Spencer wrote:

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.)


I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet. The FAA has no
legal jurisdiction above that.

I think that NORAD would have "traffic control" above that, but
I don't believe it is legally binding. It would be a Very Good
Idea to follow their suggestions though.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"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.


I would be surprised if they did plan on anything like that.
Both Allen and Rutan seem to understand the concept of test vehicle.
I don't see either one using the first built vehicle in a production
environment. They'll roll their lessons learned into additional vehicles
before making the switch. When you get down to it, I suspect that
the $10 million from X-Prize would be about the cost of a second
vehicle, but that is down into the chump-change range for Allen.
A $50 million development is roughly the same as a $75 million one
and they can get better insurance rates with multiple vehicles and
sustained development path.

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


For follow-on vehicles certainly.


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.


Agreed.

In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
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.)

I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet. The FAA has no
legal jurisdiction above that.

I believe that altitude is an administrative choice, not a legal boundary.
The FAA launch-licensing process most certainly pays attention to things
that happen above there, ditto the reentry-licensing process. For space,
the FAA has authority over launches and reentries, regardless of altitude;
what it doesn't have authority over, at present, is orbital activities --
things that happen after the launch is definitely complete and before
anything hinting of reentry begins.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

I wrote:
I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet...

I believe that altitude is an administrative choice, not a legal boundary.

Also, my recollection is that it's 60kft, not 65, but I can't say I've
looked at the regulations lately.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:49:37 -0600, Charles Buckley
wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

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.)

I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet. The FAA has no
legal jurisdiction above that.

No, it's FL600, 60,000 ft. The FAA asserts no jurisdiction above
FL600, but there's a difference between not asserting and not having.

I think that NORAD would have "traffic control" above that, but
I don't believe it is legally binding. It would be a Very Good
Idea to follow their suggestions though.

No, NORAD doesn't. No one does. There aren't that many aircraft that
fly there, just U-2s these days, so there's no need for anyone to
bother. Back when we were flying there, until 1999, we used the
restricted areas to get from the ground to FL600 and then we just
advised the proper regional Center (part of the FAA ATC system) of our
position now and then.

Mary




--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:49:37 -0600, Charles Buckley
wrote:


Henry Spencer wrote:


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.)

I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet. The FAA has no
legal jurisdiction above that.


No, it's FL600, 60,000 ft. The FAA asserts no jurisdiction above
FL600, but there's a difference between not asserting and not having.


OK.


I think that NORAD would have "traffic control" above that, but
I don't believe it is legally binding. It would be a Very Good
Idea to follow their suggestions though.


No, NORAD doesn't. No one does. There aren't that many aircraft that
fly there, just U-2s these days, so there's no need for anyone to
bother. Back when we were flying there, until 1999, we used the
restricted areas to get from the ground to FL600 and then we just
advised the proper regional Center (part of the FAA ATC system) of our
position now and then.




I was thinking more of orbital. Norad maintains tracking of orbital
objects. If they say you're going to run into something, you might want
to move.

I as not clear on that part of the post.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
I wrote:
I seem to recall that the line is at 65,000 feet...

I believe that altitude is an administrative choice, not a legal boundary.

Also, my recollection is that it's 60kft, not 65, but I can't say I've
looked at the regulations lately.

Class A airspace extends from 18,000 ft above MSL
to flight level 600 (60,000 ft), including the air space
overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the
coast of the 48 contiguous States and Alaska and
designated international airsspace beyond 12 nautical
miles within areas of domestic radio navigational signal or
ATC radar coverage. Flights within Class A airspace require
ATC clearance; the pilot must have an instrument rating.
Class A airspace is the most restricted airspace.

I'm getting ready for my Biennial Flight Review; I have
renewed my second class medical without any restrictons.
Second class medicals seem to get extra scrutiny at my age.

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

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,

I believe that altitude is an administrative choice, not a legal boundary.
The FAA launch-licensing process most certainly pays attention to things
that happen above there, ditto the reentry-licensing process.

There's a distinction between "unregulated" and "uncontrolled." There
are many uncontrolled airports in the United States. That doesn't mean
that operations there aren't regulated by the FAA. It simply means
that takeoffs and landings are not controlled by the ATC system
because there's no control tower. Similarly, aircraft flying above
60,000 feet are not controlled by ATC because there aren't enough of
them to require ATC.

In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
But chances are their systems are far more buggy than that of patriot
missile batteries so they may not be able to do anything about not
shootingyou down.

The investors are going to want a bit better assurance than that before
they'll pay for your spaceship.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Sander Vesik wrote:
But chances are their systems are far more buggy than that of patriot
missile batteries so they may not be able to do anything about not
shootingyou down.

The investors are going to want a bit better assurance than that before
they'll pay for your spaceship.

Heh. I guess there was probably a one not too many in that sentence. Giving
the investors an assurance that NORAD has a functional and reliable way to
not fire at something that might appear to be a ballistic missile otherwise
would be a rather hard thing, and simply adding a 'friend or foe' system to
it may not improve things.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++