A few weeks ago, I expressed a concern about Burt Rutan's X-Prize attempt, in which I wrote:

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.

Now, from Aerospace Daily:

Rutan, founder of Scaled Composites, said the vehicles really are commercial aircraft and not subject to the stricter regulatory regime of space vehicles, such as booster rockets and the space shuttle.

The FAA office has asked Rutan to defend the safety characteristics of the White Knight launch vehicle and the Space Ship One, he said, a request he has refused. The FAA?s inquiries are not likely to postpone Rutan?s planned flight test schedule, he said, but added, ?it?s possible they will.?

If negotiations fail, Rutan said, he will move outside the FAA?s jurisdiction by obtaining a U.S. Air Force contract. The FAA?s regulatory authority does not
extend to military vehicles.

Rutan ruled out the possibility of moving his program outside of the U.S. to avoid the FAA?s spaceflight regulations. ?I?m geared to do my program at Mojave,? a commercial airport in California where the Scaled Composites program is based, he said.

Advantage, Transterrestrial!

Though I'm saddened to see my prediction come true.

Of course, if this quote is accurate, Burt doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know what he means by "booster rockets," but the Shuttle is not subject to any regulatory regime--it's run by NASA. And the regime actually isn't stricter--it's just different (and it's utterly unfamiliar to him). In many ways, it's less strict, at least for commercial use, because it doesn't require vehicle certification (an issue with whose problems no one is more familiar than Burt).

What he's trying to do is avoid having to get a launch license, and because he's already decided not to get one, it's probably already too late for him to do so, or will be soon, because it's not a process that can occur overnight.

The email correspondent who sent me this information, and is following these issues closely, characterized Burt as a "bull in a china shop."

He's going to set off an intra-agency dispute at the FAA, and then widen it to one between the FAA and the Air Force, if he insists on going that route. If I were the X-Prize committee, I'd be thinking really hard about slapping this down before it turns into a nasty mess, with terrible regulatory precedents.

[Update at 3:11 PM PDT]

I should add that moving off shore wouldn't help him either, unless he renounces his citizenship as well. The US position is that it is regulatorily responsible for launch activities of US entities, regardless of their location on the planet, because of liability provisions of the Outer Space Treaty (yet another reason to get out of it).

[Friday morning update]

Just to clarify questions asked in the comments section, the EZ-Rocket can fly on an experimental aircraft certificate--it doesn't go in, or even near, space. Here are the current FAA definitions (only recently announced) of suborbital vehicles and trajectories, which will require a launch license of some type.

Suborbital rocket: a rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight.

Suborbital trajectory: the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the Earth.

Note that altitude is not a factor in the definition.

And I've linked it before, but Jeff Foust has a good overview of the current regulatory situation for suborbital here. This is pending any changes in legislation that may appear this year.

Mr. Rutan may have been given some leeway by the FAA pre-February 1st. Since then, they are reeling in any loopholes in their launch guidelines. Launch vehicles are subject to path analysis review. That is, they need an analysis done that speculates the possibilities/percentage of what damage a malicious flight would do. The guiding number is what is the percentage of innocent people will this thing rain down on and injure. Amazingly, thank God, Columbia didn?t land on anyone (that we know of). In fact, it is an interesting issue here. I am willing to let the government fund to take the risk, an astronaut take the risk, but I?m not sure I?d be willing to push the envelope if it means a part of the vehicle could land on one of my kids playing in the park. Without getting the proper FAA license, it seems difficult that any submitted analysis by Mr. Rutan will be heard.

There are actually specific guidelines in the launch licensing procedure (that Burt is trying to circumvent) that require exactly that kind of analysis.

Hm. If Burt is a bull in a china shop, what then should we make of this from NasaWatch: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9531 ?

Is his potentially disruptive behavior the sort of thing that would make this bill into a "we gotta regulate the hell out of this budding industry before those guys get outta control!" effort, or will it actually address in some positive way the regulatory hurdles Burt seems to be tilting against?

I was going to blog about that later, but the idea is the latter. However, we're working with Dana Rohrabacher to get something more proactive than "let's study it for six months" in the House version.

Great! What a relief.

OK, whats the regulatory status of XCOR EZ-Rocket ? Do they have to obtain a launch licence for each takeoff ?

Not for now, as long as they stay in the atmosphere (which is all the EZ-Rocket can do), they do what Burt wants to do--fly it as an experimental aircraft. The hope (and expectation) is that the issue of licensing for a class of flights, rather than individual ones will be resolved by the time they have a vehicle that actually goes into space.

"goes into space" .. so its okay to fly as experimental craft as long the rocket flies under 100Km boundary ?
The easiest fix: let X-prize change the rules to 99km :P

No, that's not the definition. Just where the boundary lies is still being finalized, but it's not any particular altitude. I've updated the post with the definition.

Have to say that I'm a little disturbed at the "change the X-prize rules to circumvent the regulations" attitude. I really don't think the FAA are the bad guys here, and that kind of cavalier attitude on the part of people who are indeed flinging metal through the atmosphere at high velocities- the idea that every possible rule needs to be circumvented, no matter what it is- is precisely what's going to get some restrictive law passed to kill off the nascent suborbital launch industry.

Is private manned space inherently dangerous, other than to the people onboard? No. Can it be so? Yes, if the flight is planned incorrectly, which means (to me) that working with the government to come up with some workable rules to minimize those concerns is the way to go, rather than copping an attitude and letting them slap on some rules that will shut down the industry.

That, more than anything, is what bothers me about Rutan's stand. It would be a shame if he lost the X-prize, but it would be even more of a shame if this puts the idea in some Congresscritter's head that all spaceship builders are dangerous mavericks that need to be muzzled rather than responsible people who can, by and large, police themselves.

Comments?

It just that public likes mavericks. And public could ultimately have a more serious word to say here than some random congresscritters. (Its a matter of proper marketing )

That, more than anything, is what bothers me about Rutan's stand. It would be a shame if he lost the X-prize, but it would be even more of a shame if this puts the idea in some Congresscritter's head that all spaceship builders are dangerous mavericks that need to be muzzled rather than responsible people who can, by and large, police themselves.

You mean like Senator Kohl of Wisconsin?

Have to say that I'm a little disturbed at the "change the X-prize rules to circumvent the regulations" attitude. I really don't think the FAA are the bad guys here, and that kind of cavalier attitude on the part of people who are indeed flinging metal through the atmosphere at high velocities- the idea that every possible rule needs to be circumvented, no matter what it is- is precisely what's going to get some restrictive law passed to kill off the nascent suborbital launch industry.

Do the rules imposed by the FAA actually work? In particular, what is the value of having path analysis here? How subjective is that? Ie, the launcher claims that their rocket won't hit anything (even in a number of failure modes), and the FAA subjectively decides whether to grant the launch license. Only the insurer really cares.

If the US ends up in the ideal situation that it manages thousands of rocket launches a year, will each launch require a path analysis submitted to the FAA and vetted by some FAA analyst? This seems relevant particularly since airplanes don't require path analysis and large jets cause as much damage as the larger rockets when they hit something.

I assume this is the same FAA that can't seem to put a workable nationwide ATC system in place for 20 years? One that also managed to ignore (until last year) the completely out of touch mid-70s rules on ultralights and kitplanes? While simultaneously burying genav manufacturers in red tape? This is probably the same FAA that took 10 years to realize that *gasp* maybe the GPS system _is_ accurate enough for precision approach and landing, ignoring the completely idiotic assertion that it is inadequate for inflight navigation. Holding the FAA up as a shining example of an agency that fosters innovation and allows development of new technology is not a good idea. If the FAA were to certify a new medical procedure for checking a sore throat they would probably decide to start with a colonoscopy and work up from there. Yes, I did imply that they seem to be supremely able to examine the insides of their own rectums. Beech Starship. Look it up.

This sounds like the whining of people who want jobs as bureaucrats or lawyers. Is it any wonder that kids aren't interested in careers in science? Maybe part of it is all the "But... you can't DO that!" I've been hearing for the last ten years. If you think it can't be done, get out of the way of people who will do it, or resign yourself to the fact that someone on another continent is going to do it.

SS1 flew, it's going to win the X-prize, and if Congress (giving the FAA laws to legitimize its kingdom) stops, or even slows, progress, the next Moon landings will be made by Chinese. Not necessarily a bad thing for the human race, but the only reason Americans won't do it is that we tied our hands behind our backs and turned away.