Suborbital Homebuilts?

[Rand Simberg]

Unlike me, Andrew Case is probably too modest to toot his own horn,
but he has a nice piece over at The Space Review about the coming age
of suborbital barnstorming.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/30/2

--
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:

[MattWriter]

>The Space Review about the coming age
>of suborbital barnstorming.

I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning
his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained
surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if
anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort?


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

[Dick Morris]

Sounds like Bob Truax.

MattWriter wrote:
>
> >The Space Review about the coming age
> >of suborbital barnstorming.
>
> I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning
> his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained
> surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if
> anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort?
>
> Matt Bille
> )
> OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

[Andrew Case]

MattWriter > wrote:
>I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning
>his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained
>surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if
>anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort?

This was probably Bob Truax's VolksRocket. Details are from memory, but I
believe the plan involved surplus Atlas LR101 verniers, sea launch and
parachute recovery. One detail that sticks in my mind is a comment from
Truax that the pilot had a 90-95% chance of surviving the first
flight. Doesn't sound very appealing to me, but then again those were the
days when men were MEN.

Another vehicle concept I left out of the article (I'd completely
forgotten until John Bossard reminded me) was the Cerulean Freight
Forwarding Company's Kitten, which IIRC predated the X Prize. They are now
an official X Prize team, though their name has changed to Kittyhawk
Technologies.

.......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
|

[Dick Morris]

"VolksRocket" is my recollection also. I believe it used 4 of the Atlas
steering rockets (they're the small rocket engines on the side of the
booster near the tail). I have several of those myself, which I got
from a surplus dealer in North Hollywood - possibly where Truax got his.

Andrew Case wrote:
>
> MattWriter > wrote:
> >I remember reading in OMNI about20 years ago about a fellow who was fashioning
> >his own suborbital manned rocket, using largely pieces of hardware obtained
> >surplus from NASA or DoD. I can't recall any other details. I wonder if
> >anyone else recalls more about this, and what happened to the effort?
>
> This was probably Bob Truax's VolksRocket. Details are from memory, but I
> believe the plan involved surplus Atlas LR101 verniers, sea launch and
> parachute recovery. One detail that sticks in my mind is a comment from
> Truax that the pilot had a 90-95% chance of surviving the first
> flight. Doesn't sound very appealing to me, but then again those were the
> days when men were MEN.
>
> Another vehicle concept I left out of the article (I'd completely
> forgotten until John Bossard reminded me) was the Cerulean Freight
> Forwarding Company's Kitten, which IIRC predated the X Prize. They are now
> an official X Prize team, though their name has changed to Kittyhawk
> Technologies.
>
> ......Andrew
> --
> --
> Andrew Case |
> |

[Andrew Case]

Clark S. Lindsey > wrote:

>I would say that the closest to a real backyard manned rocket
>project is that of Brian Walker (aka Rocket Guy.)

I should have mentioned Walker in the article. I meant to but somehow it
slipped my mind. He certainly has the resources to pull it off, and he
takes advice from people more knowledgeable than he is. His vehicle has
undergone considerable evolution since the first version. Also he has the
money to pull it off, which is a big deal. I kind of wish he'd collaborate
with other people a bit more, perhaps more in the style of Armadillo, but
it's his money, his call. I'm hoping he succeeds.

.......Andrew



--
--
Andrew Case |
|

[Andrew Case]

Rand Simberg > wrote:
>Unlike me, Andrew Case is probably too modest to toot his own horn,
>but he has a nice piece over at The Space Review about the coming age
>of suborbital barnstorming.
>
>http://www.thespacereview.com/article/30/2

Thanks, Rand. I've also put a bunch of peripherally related links on
RocketForge <http://www.rocketforge.org/index.php>

.......Andrew

--
--
Andrew Case |
|

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Allen Meece" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate
> Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are
> favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this
extends
> to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. >>
> This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb
system
> cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it
man-rated by
> the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive
toward
> CATS. Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians
running
> around in space. Period.

Umm, compare that cost to the cost of any new aircraft and getting flight
certification. (I believe that's the proper designation for a passenger
craft.)

There's no FAA standard for "man-rated".


> ^
> //^\\
> ~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
> ~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

[Andrew Case]

Allen Meece > wrote:
>Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate
>Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are
>favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this extends
>to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. >>
> This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb system
>cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it man-rated by
>the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive toward
>CATS.

AST is favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, and they don't
have a procedure for "man rating." Rutan's comment refers to the expense
of running SS1 through the FAA process for type certifying *airplanes*,
which makes no sense for a suborbital spacecraft. Rutan is an airplane
builder, and he's treating SS1 as an airplane for regulatory purposes (at
least for now) - this works just fine in the development phase, where the
experimental aircraft rules apply. Once you want to put the vehicle into
revenue under the aircraft certification rules service, you have to jump
through a whole bunch of hoops that are completely inappropriate for a
developing industry. AST understands this, though the rest of the FAA has
yet to come around. If everything goes smoothly suborbitals will be
regulated as what they are: neither airplane nor orbital launcher. If
things go particularly badly, they will be regulated as if they were
aircraft, and the suborbital spaceflight industry will all but die.

From the standpoint of a homebuilder, it might be possible to work
entirely under the rules for experimental aircraft. That might seem like
the best approach, but I don't think it is. Homebuilders will fare best if
there is a vigorous industry flying suborbitals, both because of the
increased familiarity with suborbitals on the part of FAA and the public,
and because homebuilders can learn from the commercial operators. In
addition, the availability of equipment from commercial operators will
greatly simplify things for homebuilders: I talked in the piece about
flight control systems and engines as being the hardest parts of the
problem - both will be easier to get, cheaper, and more reliable if there
are comercial outfits using them. If a precedent is established that
suborbital spacecraft are regulated as if they were aircraft, the
resulting regulatory burden on the startups will kill most of them and
cripple the rest.

This whole issue is very much in flux right now. We'll know within 18
months how it's going to shake out. Ideally there will be a unique
regulatory category for suborbital spacecraft that acknowledges the unique
features of the vehicles. The worst case is if the regulations for
commercial aircraft are simply carried over without modification. Once the
first flights start things will move quite rapidly.

>Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians running
>around in space. Period.

Not even close to true. The government consists of a huge number of
individuals and interest groups, each with their own concerns and ideas
about what is best. The government does not have a uniform policy towards
civilian spaceflight. Right now there is unfortunately little that
outsiders can do except stay out of the way, AFAIK. The startups are
working on moving things along and uninformed attempts to push one way or
another may do more harm than good. There may be opportunities later on
for input from the public to influence the course of events in a positive
direction.

.......Andrew
--
--
Andrew Case |
|

[Sander Vesik]

Allen Meece > wrote:
> Andrew says, "Preliminary indications from the office of the FAA Associate
> Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) are that they are
> favorably disposed towards suborbital spaceflight, though whether this extends
> to homebuilt vehicles remains to be seen. >>
> This statement can be misleading. Rutan said the whole SS1 suborb system
> cost 10 million to build and would cost that much again to have it man-rated by
> the FAA. That's NOT being "favorably disposed." That's being prohibitive toward
> CATS. Face it, in general, the government does not a bunch of civilians running
> around in space. Period.

so launch from elsewhere?

> ^
> //^\\
> ~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
> ~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

[gmw]

government does not a bunch of civilians running around in space. Period.
so launch from elsewhere? Doesn't help. AIOLI, the same legal requirements
hold for US citizens launching
a spacecraft anywhere in the world.

Not a major problem. Place the legal ownership of the vehicle in the hands
of a non national or corporation charted outside the US. Conduct all
assembly and launch operations outside of US terror.

This does get pricy but since homebuilt are almost certainly going to be
million dollar plus items a few score thousands in legal fees need not be a
show stopper.

[Andrew Case]

gmw > wrote:
>government does not a bunch of civilians running around in space. Period.
>so launch from elsewhere? Doesn't help. AIOLI, the same legal requirements
>hold for US citizens launching
>a spacecraft anywhere in the world.
>
>Not a major problem. Place the legal ownership of the vehicle in the hands
>of a non national or corporation charted outside the US. Conduct all
>assembly and launch operations outside of US terror.

US export restrictions are binding on individuals as well as
corporations. If you as a private individual go to Mexico to do work that
is covered by the export restrictions, you risk imprisonment when you
return. Even if you give up your citizenship beforehand you risk
imprisonment if you return to the US (presumably as a tourist). These laws
simply do not have easy work-arounds.

.......Andrew


--
--
Andrew Case |
|