Mike Melville wearing no pressure suit

I noticed from the interior, in-flight shots from Spaceship One that
the pilot was not wearing a full pressure suit. I was under the
impression that a full pressure suit is required by the FAA for all
occupants of an aircraft operating above 50,000 feet. ???

In article ,
Bill wrote:

I noticed from the interior, in-flight shots from Spaceship One that
the pilot was not wearing a full pressure suit. I was under the
impression that a full pressure suit is required by the FAA for all
occupants of an aircraft operating above 50,000 feet. ???

SS1 was initially (and may still be) operating under an experimental
aircraft certification; lots of stuff in the FAR's don't apply to
experimental aircraft.

Since then, the FAA has been working to establish much-less-restrictive
type certification requirements for suborbital spacecraft similar to SS1
which would allow them to operate without subjecting them to the
restrictive requirements of most civil aircraft (especially large,
passenger-carrying aircraft). I don't think that process is anywhere
near complete. However, they have at least come up with workable regs
for suborbital launches, even if they haven't finished the process for
the craft themselves.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
Bill writes:
I noticed from the interior, in-flight shots from Spaceship One that
the pilot was not wearing a full pressure suit. I was under the
impression that a full pressure suit is required by the FAA for all
occupants of an aircraft operating above 50,000 feet. ???

Not by the FAA. The USAF and USN, and probably most other AIr FOrces,
require it if flight is _planned_ to exceed 50,000'. Military
aircraft usually aren't pressurized to the same differential pressure
as an airliner - an F-4's pressurization system works at a 5.5 psi
differential pressure, for example, and that gives you a cabin
altitude of about 21,000' at 50,000'.

If pressure suits were required by the FAA, then every transatlantic Concorde
passenger would have had to wear one. - they generally cruise-climbed
to somewhere around 55,000'.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
I noticed from the interior, in-flight shots from Spaceship One that
the pilot was not wearing a full pressure suit. I was under the
impression that a full pressure suit is required by the FAA for all
occupants of an aircraft operating above 50,000 feet. ???

SS1 was initially (and may still be) operating under an experimental
aircraft certification; lots of stuff in the FAR's don't apply to
experimental aircraft.

SS1 is now a launch vehicle (a suborbital one), operating under launch-
vehicle licensing. Which, again, takes the FARs largely out of the
picture.

By the way, Concorde routinely operated above 50kft.

Since then, the FAA has been working to establish much-less-restrictive
type certification requirements for suborbital spacecraft similar to SS1
which would allow them to operate without subjecting them to the
restrictive requirements of most civil aircraft...

Note a distinction of terminology: certification is an *aircraft*
process. It simply doesn't apply to launch vehicles. Launch vehicles get
licensed, not certified. (Someday there will probably be certification
for launch vehicles too, but not soon. Today's certification process is
impossibly onerous for a new industry; it's almost impossible for even
innovative *aircraft* builders to get their designs through certification
now, as Burt Rutan could tell you -- it's not an accident that he dislikes
the FAA.)

The dividing line between an aircraft and a suborbital launch vehicle, by
the way, is rocket power with thrust exceeding aerodynamic lift for at
least 50% of powered flight. (And the dividing line between suborbital
and orbital is whether the "vacuum instantaneous impact point" -- where
the thing would hit if you suddenly zeroed out thrust, lift, and drag --
ever deliberately leaves the Earth's surface.)

(At Space Access 03, where the FAA first announced these definitions, some
cynic pointed out that it is probably possible to reach a free-return
lunar-flyby trajectory without the vacuum instantaneous impact point ever
leaving Earth. "And then you could need to make an emergency landing...")
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
I noticed from the interior, in-flight shots from Spaceship One that
the pilot was not wearing a full pressure suit. I was under the
impression that a full pressure suit is required by the FAA for all
occupants of an aircraft operating above 50,000 feet. ???

SS1 was initially (and may still be) operating under an experimental
aircraft certification; lots of stuff in the FAR's don't apply to
experimental aircraft.

SS1 is now a launch vehicle (a suborbital one), operating under launch-
vehicle licensing. Which, again, takes the FARs largely out of the
picture.

Thanks for that bit; I couldn't remember whether they were still
operating under their "experimental" designation or not. Under the
FAA's AST regulations it's pretty clearly a "Reusable Launch Vehicle."

By the way, Concorde routinely operated above 50kft.

Since then, the FAA has been working to establish much-less-restrictive
type certification requirements for suborbital spacecraft similar to SS1
which would allow them to operate without subjecting them to the
restrictive requirements of most civil aircraft...

Note a distinction of terminology: certification is an *aircraft*
process. It simply doesn't apply to launch vehicles. Launch vehicles get
licensed, not certified. (Someday there will probably be certification
for launch vehicles too, but not soon. Today's certification process is
impossibly onerous for a new industry; it's almost impossible for even
innovative *aircraft* builders to get their designs through certification
now, as Burt Rutan could tell you -- it's not an accident that he dislikes
the FAA.)

I'm sure that's no accident.

But he (and Paul Allen, and John Carmack and Elon Musk and anyone else
who's ever sunk a dime of personal money into developing a launch
vehicle, reusable or not) better get used to the idea of type
certification for launch vehicles. It *will* happen, sooner or later.
14 CFR 431.1 - 431.93 already contain fairly detailed requirements for a
vehicle to meet prior to issuance of a launch license (either kind -
mission-specific or operator license).

The dividing line between an aircraft and a suborbital launch vehicle, by
the way, is rocket power with thrust exceeding aerodynamic lift for at
least 50% of powered flight. (And the dividing line between suborbital
and orbital is whether the "vacuum instantaneous impact point" -- where
the thing would hit if you suddenly zeroed out thrust, lift, and drag --
ever deliberately leaves the Earth's surface.)

Do you have a cite? I'd like to take a look at those definitions. I
didn't see anything similar in a (quick) overview of AST's final rules.

The current final regulations for the AST define "launch vehicle" as "a
vehicle built to operate in, or place a payload in, outer space or a
suborbital rocket."

"Reusable launch vehicle" is defined as "a launch vehicle that is
designed to return to Earth substantially intact and therefore may be
launched more than one time or that contains vehicle stages that may be
recovered by a launch operator for future use in the operation of a
substantially similar launch vehicle."

"Launch vehicle" is "a vehicle built to operate in, or place a payload
in, outer space or a suborbital rocket."

Of course, being the government, "suborbital rocket" is not defined (at
least not in the same section).

_See_ 14 CFR 401.5

(If LaDonna is lurking, THAT'S how you give a citation, dear).


(At Space Access 03, where the FAA first announced these definitions, some
cynic pointed out that it is probably possible to reach a free-return
lunar-flyby trajectory without the vacuum instantaneous impact point ever
leaving Earth. "And then you could need to make an emergency landing...")

Heh. That's funny!

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

(Henry Spencer) writes:

[...] (And the dividing line between suborbital
and orbital is whether the "vacuum instantaneous impact point" -- where
the thing would hit if you suddenly zeroed out thrust, lift, and drag --
ever deliberately leaves the Earth's surface.)

(At Space Access 03, where the FAA first announced these definitions, some
cynic pointed out that it is probably possible to reach a free-return
lunar-flyby trajectory without the vacuum instantaneous impact point ever
leaving Earth. "And then you could need to make an emergency landing...")
--

Even more pedantically, many (most?) orbits around the sun, bounded
roughly by Venus and Mars, have a "vaccuum instantanous impact point"
on the Earth's surface. It's just a few million, or billion, years
in the future. You might be able to launch into one of these orbits
without your impact point leaving Earth.

Lou Scheffer

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:30:35 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Do you have a cite? I'd like to take a look at those definitions. I
didn't see anything similar in a (quick) overview of AST's final rules.

....You're asking *Henry* for a cite?? Hey, this ain't LaHenry, Herb!
Take his word for it or else! :-)


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

In article ,
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:30:35 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

Do you have a cite? I'd like to take a look at those definitions. I
didn't see anything similar in a (quick) overview of AST's final rules.

...You're asking *Henry* for a cite?? Hey, this ain't LaHenry, Herb!
Take his word for it or else! :-)


Here (in stark contrast to questioning "LaDonna"), it's a request for
information rather than a challenge. I trust Henry will perceive the
difference.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
The dividing line between an aircraft and a suborbital launch vehicle, by
the way, is rocket power with thrust exceeding aerodynamic lift for at
least 50% of powered flight...

Do you have a cite? I'd like to take a look at those definitions. I
didn't see anything similar in a (quick) overview of AST's final rules.
...Of course, being the government, "suborbital rocket" is not defined (at
least not in the same section).

That is exactly the definition you want, of course. :-)

Precisely where it shows up in the current documents, I'm not sure -- it's
been a while since I looked at them and this is a recent development. The
definition was unveiled at Space Access 03, but only quite recently did it
actually get cleared and blessed all the way through the FAA bureaucracy.
(George Nield, the #2 man in FAA-AST, announced that at Space Access 04;
he added that the same definition is in HR-3752.)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Louis Scheffer wrote:
...it is probably possible to reach a free-return
lunar-flyby trajectory without the vacuum instantaneous impact point ever
leaving Earth...

Even more pedantically, many (most?) orbits around the sun, bounded
roughly by Venus and Mars, have a "vaccuum instantanous impact point"
on the Earth's surface. It's just a few million, or billion, years
in the future...

Unfortunately, not so. Near misses are much more likely than direct hits,
and a few near misses can change the orbit greatly. Simulations say that
the most likely long-term fate for an object wandering around the inner
solar system is for its orbit to intersect the Sun, and the second most
likely is to be ejected from the solar system by a Jupiter encounter.
Hitting one of the inner planets is a distant third.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |