I haven't had (or at least, made) the time to write up this past weekend's Space Access Conference, but Jeff Foust has, in part, over at The Space Review (an excellent site that I would suggest adding to your bookmarks--I've updated my space policy links to include it). He has a good description of the issues and discussion of regulating suborbital flight that came out of that meeting, in a panel that included both vehicle developers and the FAA-AST.

Summary: As I've been saying for a long time, initial space transports will not be certified, even for passengers, because to do so would result in a stillborn industry. And Burt Rutan may end up losing the X-Prize because he's not doing what's necessary in order to be able to legally fly by the end of next year, regardless of the technical readiness of his vehicle.

Rand -

I'm pretty sure the X Prize rules let you use ballast dummies for your two "passengers" in order to meet the criteria.

Best,
-Andrew

They do, but that has no relevance to the regulatory issues.

I wonder if Rutan's already thought of the possibility of not getting government approval in time. All the elements of his system are completely portable with the ground station built in a truck and both the test stand and the NO2 tank on wheels [picture]. A couple of days driving/flying and they're in Canada or Mexico who may be more accommodating. The U.S. government will be pretty embarrassed if the first private suborbital flight by a U.S. group has to take place in a foreign country.

Burt's an American. It doesn't matter what country he flies from--he's still under the jurisdiction of the FAA.

If he reregisters the vehicles in another country, he is under that country's jurisdiction. The FAA does not have the magic power to control any activity of any American in any airspace in any part of the world. It does have the power to control activity in US airspace, and can revoke the US registration of a vehicle which violates US rules no matter where it is operating when in violation of those rules.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me...what exactly is Scaled failing to do?

Sorry, Jeff M., but it in fact does. The Outer Space Treaty makes the US government responsible for the space activities of its citizens anywhere in the world, codified in the Commercial Space Launch Act. It's well established that an American cannot escape DOT regulation by going off shore.

Jeff D., Scaled is not engaging with AST to get a launch license. Burt seems to be claiming that he doesn't need one, and that he's going to fly as an experimental aircraft. I think he's wrong, and if he is, he's going to run out of time to get one, because it can't happen overnight.

Rand- That's truly unfortunate. I know Rutan seems to have a very dismissive attitude towards the government in general, and considering what he's trying to do much of it's justified, but I'd hate to see him shoot himself in the foot over this. I'm really very happy with the way the FAA seems to be responding to all of this- I was afraid that they would take a "the regulations we haven't don't allow this, please wait a decade while we write new ones" stance where in fact they seem to be actively working with the private launch industry to help make this happen. It would be a shame if they were turned into the bad guys over this.

OK, I'm confused. What on earth does the Commercial Space Launch Act have to do with someone who is flying a glider under FAA experimental aircraft rules?

When he flies it into space, he's covered by the CSLA.

"Sorry, Jeff M., but it in fact does. The Outer Space Treaty makes the US government responsible for the space activities of its citizens anywhere in the world, codified in the Commercial Space Launch Act. It's well established that an American cannot escape DOT regulation by going off shore."

Well, that helps explain why we haven't seen private space launches outside the US.

Ultimately, I'll bet the problem will be solved when somebody figures out how to get a permanent habitat up there. Then collect a bunch of paying passengers, launch the thing, and dare the Air Force to shoot it down. If they don't, the passengers just stay in orbit. If they do, there's some hope that the American public will refuse to stand for their own government putting a Berlin Wall in the sky, and take whatever action is necessary to correct the situation.

It's not really a problem, in the sense that the government is keeping us out of space. All one has to do (and it's a non-trivial thing, but certainly doable) is to get a launch license. Burt is simply refusing to play by the rules, from what I understand.