Clark Lindsey has an extensive discussion going in comments. One point that came up is something I’ve been wondering about. Virgin has been talking about passengers in the White Knight 2, doing parabolas or other experiences. As Paul Breed points out, they won’t be able to do this unless they certify it as a commercial aircraft (I would assume under Part 127). I wonder if they’ve budgeted in time and funds for that certification, which could increase the cost of the program an order of magnitude or more.
8 thoughts on “More On Scaled/VG”
Comments are closed.
Paul Breed is quite right. The only reason WK2 can be used to haul the SS2 to separation altitude with passengers on board is that it’s essentially a first stage of a two-stage space launch system. Having AST be part of FAA has always been problematic, because you have two parts of FAA carrying out entirely different regulatory mandates stemming from two streams of legislation creating two quite dissimilar regulatory philosophies. Thank you, Al Gore and “reinventing government”. I suppose you might try carring passengers on WK2 if you launched a little microsat launcher during the flight — or even an air-launched sounding rocket. And that would be dicey.
Or, they could fly the WK2 for those flights in another country with different certification rules. But that has a different set of problems.
What rules would apply on a launch from international waters? Or perhaps an Arctic runway?
Jim
if there is a regulatory disconnect on AST thank
Jim Muncy for authoring the 2003 commercial space act
al
space launch is covered as the responsibility
of the country of origin. if WK2 goes out of japan,
it’s japans problem, if out of california, american law
applies
if there is a regulatory disconnect on AST thank
Jim Muncy for authoring the 2003 commercial space act
What are you babbling about now?
if WK2 goes out of japan,
it’s japans problem, if out of california, american law
applies
No. An American entity will be covered by American law regardless of where it launches from.
WK2 has another problem that limits its utility overseas. Being a designed as a launch platform (as well as being an aircraft with hard-points), its export is controlled under ITAR. It will be treated the same way as SS2 when it comes to the matter of export. I don’t know if anyone at Scaled or VG has yet considered this issue.
Also, while I have no special knowledge, I speculate WK2 *may* have been designed with ultimate certification in mind. This may be why it has taken fairly long to develop.
Jack Lee —
The regulatory divergence between AVR and AST stems from the 1984 CSLA, which specifically tried to avoid the regulatory system of the Federal Aviation Act. DOT set up the Office of Commercial Space Transportation directly under the Secretary to carry out its functions. FAA, one regulatory system; OCST, a quite different one, for different purposes and conditions. In 1993 Gore’s Reinventing Government project merged the two, causing a regulatory disconnect that has exited ever since, and buried space regulatory issues deep down inside the FAA. The 2003 legislation built on the 1984 legislation, as it would have to do, and it was just one in a series of amendments and restatements of the 1984, all of which were consistent with its underlying assumptions — as it would have to be.
Regarding foreign operations, an American entity has the choice of operating beyond American territory under AST regulation, or operating under another country’s system – -but in that case its “export” (anything beyond US territorial waters, including sea or air launch) has to get approved under (ha ha) ITAR.
If you launch under US regulation, from wherever, the USA is the “Launching State” under the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention definitions; if it licensed by a foreign state, that is the launching entity.
One of the sticky points that almost scuttled the enabling legislation was the following conundrum:
What separates a rocket like the Rocketplane vehicle and a regular business jet?
How do you write rules that allow experimental informed consent suborbital flights without also allowing some one to strap an estes rocket to their experimental aircraft and avoid all the costly aircraft certification requirements necessary to allow paying passengers?
The resulting rule is that if thrust exceeds lift for the rocket powered portion of the flight its under AST.
If not its under traditional FAA.
One might imagine that one could still use this to get around the rules by strapping a rocket with 1G thrust that burns for 1 second. You could probably meet the letter of the rules, but the other AST requirements like only flying over an uninhabited area etc… render the vehicle useless for transportation. Kind of makes the nit picking distinction moot.
If Branson has made promises that he can’t deliver on he won’t be the first entrepreneur who’s plans are significantly modified by interaction with the government. These sort of things can be as simple as the fire wall permit dispute delaying the building of the Rocket Racing hanger in Las Cruces.