From: Doug Jones (random@qnet.com)
Date: Sun Dec 31 2000 - 17:09:45 MST
Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> > 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.)
I pushed the button for one of those ballroom demos- yes, it *was* a
demo, but that engine was quite well wrung out at the time, over 300
runs and 25 minutes of operation. We also routinely test LOX/alcohol
engines up to 400 lbs thrust in our parking lot, although we do try to
keep a fairly low profile. Flight test will be right here in Mojave,
too. It is possible to work within the system without too much pain.
> 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).
This is generally correct- we have regular contact with the AST office
at the FAA (heck, Jeff is chairman of the RLV industry working group
that's giving feedback to the FAA), and while _certification_ for flying
passengers will be tough, permission for non-revenue flight test will be
pretty straightforward. Helping to write the rules for the certification
process does make life a lot easier. (Rocket aircraft are launch
vehicles under AST, not subject to regular FARs. That's our story and
we're sticking to it :)
> 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.
Perzackly, and even simpler for a suborbital flight, particularly if it
returns to the originating airfield.
> 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.)
Having a good working relationship with the bureaucrats who would be in
deep hot water if you screw up badly, is a big plus. Working up through
the layers, being polite and cooperative at every step, works wonders.
Before we did that ballroom demo, we first invited the Mojave airport
fire department over to our hangar to see the engine run (they had a
blast, literally- the exhaust made a flag on their truck flutter). They
gave a glowing (no pun intended) recommendation to the Kern county fire
marshall, who in turn gave us a letter to take to the Scottsdale fire
marshall. We did a demo for them in their lunchroom, and they
cheerfully approved our waiver and sent one guy with a fire extinguisher
to watch the ballroom demo. The day after, for our second public demo,
they didn't even bother with that.
> > 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.
If you understand the bureaucrats' position, where approving _anything_
requires great courage (for they *will* be crucified in the press if a
licensee screws up) working with them isn't difficult.
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:37 MST