From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000 - 23:58:49 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 30, 2000 12:08 PM Adrian Tymes wingcat@pacbell.net
> > wrote:
> > > (This is why, if I ever do a space
> > > company, I will try to have a home-built launcher that I've actually
> > > flown *before* going out for funding. A development process that
> > > requires $millions before doing the first non-simulated test is not as
> > > likely to produce results as one that does not.)
>
> Uh huh. What country do you plan to fly this experimental launcher
> from?
USA. ^_^
> I think a lot of the up-front money in the US gets spent in
> getting the appropriate permissions and other waste paper to even fire
> up the system in a ground test much less take off.
You think wrong. Yes, it does take *some* money to approve a craft for
launch, but hardly $millions per test. For a non-launch ground test,
just get some property sufficiently far from vulnerable stuff (say, a
nice little corner of the desert - or, for low enough power tests, a
large enough garage or warehouse) and do the test there, and the gov't
doesn't care. Heck, one group once did a rocket engine test *in a
hotel conference room*; all they needed was permission from the hotel
staff and local fire marshal, not exorbitant fees. (They also needed
previously and properly tested equipment; this "test" was more of a
demo and PR stunt than an engineering test...except for the social
engineering, of course.)
Now, once you're testing launches, the fees do go up. But...say you're
testing a spaceplane: first tests are with it tethered to the ground,
then some free flight, then eventually (assuming you've got the
engineering right) you'll get approval for that craft model to fly.
You may spend $millions over the entire development cycle, but most
likely, less than $1 million of that will go directly to the
government (at least, if one excepts income and sales taxes, and all
other fees and similar that apply equally to all businesses regardless
of industry, not just aerospace).
And once you have a spaceplane that can legally take off and
land...well, filing a flight plan doesn't cost much. Neither do
airport usage fees. Your destination is orbital, and for that, the
only additional requirement is that you merely have to *tell* US Space
Command (I think that's the agency's name) your intended orbit and
activities, though it is strongly advised that you be willing to adjust
if you'd come too close to something else up there (avoidance of which
benefits you - as direct owner, if not pilot, of the craft which could
be destroyed by collision - much more than a large beauracracy which
could easily write off a few satellites if necessary). It's not like
they have legal authority to sell you authorization to exit US
airspace...and so long as you don't touch any other country's stuff
(*especially* their soil - no prob, if you're in orbit), normal "just
made an excursion to international areas and coming back home" laws
apply upon return.
There may be many US gov't disincentives to private space, but
excessive taxation and outright banning of private launches do not
count among them. (Regulation, at the current level, is not outright
banning since it is possible for a company with zero political
influence to do a launch.)
> I guess you could
> try launching from international waters but then you would have several
> countries after you AFAIK.
I haven't seen any major country try to shoot down Sea Launch's
rockets, or even gripe that strongly about them. Even if one grants
conspiracy theories about Boeing (SL's main backer) buying off the US
gov't, Russia and China are a bit less susceptible to bribes by US
corporations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:36 MST