|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Some thoughts on regulation and certification
In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote: If the jettison of stages is contemplated, then it becomes an AST responsibility. So how do you handle the case (as you've proposed in various incarnations) where you've got an airplane-like thingy launching expendable stages? As he indicated two sentences later, he thinks any system which involves separating an unpiloted stage at some point puts you in AST territory, because the onus is then properly on you to establish that said stage's traditional-rocket-like failure modes will be acceptably safe. I say "unpiloted stage" because Mitch didn't actually address the possibility that all the stages might have pilots (in his sense of the word, implying continuous real authority over the stage's fate). That design approach is not common nowadays but remains credible. -- MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Some thoughts on regulation and certification
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:07:21 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 , Rand Simberg wrote: If the jettison of stages is contemplated, then it becomes an AST responsibility. So how do you handle the case (as you've proposed in various incarnations) where you've got an airplane-like thingy launching expendable stages? As he indicated two sentences later, he thinks any system which involves separating an unpiloted stage at some point puts you in AST territory, because the onus is then properly on you to establish that said stage's traditional-rocket-like failure modes will be acceptably safe. I say "unpiloted stage" because Mitch didn't actually address the possibility that all the stages might have pilots (in his sense of the word, implying continuous real authority over the stage's fate). That design approach is not common nowadays but remains credible. Then it makes me wonder how his criteria would apply to any real-world system currently being contemplated/funded. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Some thoughts on regulation and certification
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:07:21 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 , Rand Simberg wrote: If the jettison of stages is contemplated, then it becomes an AST responsibility. So how do you handle the case (as you've proposed in various incarnations) where you've got an airplane-like thingy launching expendable stages? As he indicated two sentences later, he thinks any system which involves separating an unpiloted stage at some point puts you in AST territory, because the onus is then properly on you to establish that said stage's traditional-rocket-like failure modes will be acceptably safe. I say "unpiloted stage" because Mitch didn't actually address the possibility that all the stages might have pilots (in his sense of the word, implying continuous real authority over the stage's fate). That design approach is not common nowadays but remains credible. Then that restricts his proposal for AVR to be the regulator of orbital systems to either piloted SSTO, or as you say, multi-stage with all stages piloted. I don't see either one occuring in the near term, but of course, the real issue is suborbital (and specifically, Burt, which is what I suspect prompted the post). But Mitch, are you also proposing that AVR should regulate wingless piloted suborbitals (e.g. Michele B, or Carmack's stuff)? I suppose you could throw them in the "powered lift" category, but I'm not sure that it was ever intended for rockets. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some thoughts on regulation and certification
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some thoughts on regulation and certification
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|