Burt Rutan has gotten his launch license for the SpaceShipOne. That was pretty fast, considering that last summer he was refusing to apply for one. The most reliable place to track this kind of stuff is over at the X-Prize blog, where they have links to other stories.

I wonder exactly what sort of license they were issued? The stories I'm finding say that they issued a license to "expand flight testing" (http://space.com/news/faa_spaceshipone_040407.html). Seems likely this is just a license for longer burn tests, but even so it is good to see that the FAA is on the ball in re RLVs. They have been preparing to license RLVs since early 2002, but two years doesnt seem like a horrible turnaround time for developing a method for licensing a major evolution in technology.

OK, so I should apparently read linked material before posting. The x-prize blog is the place to go for this. The license allows for "a series of sub-orbital flights spanning a one year period". This really seems too easy, which is why I still wonder whether this is the last needed license. From my understanding of the current Commercial Space Launch Act there isnt even specific authority delegated for licensing manned space launches yet (the current definitions talk in terms of licensing launches carrying particular "payloads", which does not include people). While the 2004 amendments that just passed the house contain the changes necessary for this sort of action, the FAA seems to be acting on its own to fill the gaps prior to them being enacted by Congress. Wow. What happened to bureaucracy being an impediment to space?

One hopes Congress will have the sense to follow where its regulatory agency is leading it.

Meanwhile, in another part of town :

http://centauri.larc.nasa.gov/LRO/
NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Acquisition Program.
"To maximize the data return for this mission, NASA intends to solicit and competitively select the measurement investigations for the payload that best meet the objectives of this mission. The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) has been designated by NASA to lead this mission and will provide both the Spacecraft and the Launch Services for the mission (these will not be competed). "

Guess which agency has got the entire thing ass backwards again.

Specific authority was never required to regulate manned launches--they always had it. The original Commercial Space Launch Act was silent on manned and unmanned, so the DoT always had the capability of doing so. This procedure is a result of a rule change that was instituted a couple years ago. The current legislation just makes it a little more explicit in the law.

What they didn't have then, and explicitly don't have now, is a mandate to concern themselves with passenger safety--the focus remains on harm to third parties.

Good point in re the overal licensing authority of the DoT, but there classically has been seen to be a grey area in regards the licensing of manned activites in outer space. I'm all for the imply the authority from silence in the law and and ask questions later approach in this situation, but it would be nice if the justification lined up nicely under judicial review. Do you know whether the grant for manned flight to the DoT is just for airspace, or if it includes outer space as well, or phrased generically in terms of transportation?

You are also right that they dont explicitly take into account the passengers safety, but is this a bad thing (for the short term)? While there is a need for a liability regime where the government isnt needed as an extra-insurer, do we really want the FAA to start applying its full scrutiny, and would it really be economical if launchers had to insure against loss of life (think loss of future income damages in relation to the clients who would be involved in early space tourism)? I'm all for revolutions at the FAA, but perhaps we shouldnt be rushing things in terms of shifting to an aviation approach on all elements (not sure you were implying this, I'm just sayin is all).

Thankfully, there is no such thing as licensing manned activities in outer space, though for now an AST launch license is the closest thing we have to it, because I suspect that once people start going into orbit part of the license application will involved describing what their activities will be. At some point we're going to have to amend the Outer Space Treaty to relieve nations of liability for anything their citizens do off planet, or the regulations will shut things down pretty quickly.

As for their not considering passengers when it comes to safety, that is a very good thing, and a thing that we've fought very hard to maintain. It is extremely premature to come up with a spacecraft certification regime, and any attempt to do so would shut down the industry before it starts.

Cant say I agree we should be thankful there is no licensing of manned activities in outer space. It would be nice to have it dealt with, rather than to be the people to have to do it, but thats the way it goes. ;)

Our "difference" is in terms of the definition of "outer space". I'm presuming that 100km is outer space, although there is no firm line. It seems from the granting of the launch license that the FAA is presuming this is an outer space activity as well (since launch licenses are only given for activities in outer space), but this is one reason why I'm so curious as to the specifics of license given. I wonder how, or whether, they have managed to avoid taking a position on the boundary between airspace and outerspace. Its an annoying legal issue, but one that is relevant for a whole lot of even more annoyingly practical legal reasons.

Agreed on all policy points. One potential problem with the 2004 launch amendments is that they would require an overhaul, one way or the other, of the liability system for launches. Only a potential problem, and not enough to make the amendments a bad idea, but worth keeping track of.

They don't have to define outer space. They've defined suborbital vehicles and trajectories (and altitude is not relevant), and that's the basis for the licensing procedure.

>>Our "difference" is in terms of the definition
>>of "outer space". I'm presuming that 100km is
>>outer space, although there is no firm line.

Nasa defenition of space starts at 80km (if people visit 80km > they are considered as astronauts)

Rand, I got no problem with that interpretation functionally (theoretically there are some nits for pick'n). Now to convince the courts and the investors...

Dhr, do you have a source for that number? The official US position to the UNCOPUOS is that there is currently no need for an official position on the line between airspace and outer space and that the rule will be determined on an ad hoc basis until some particular altitude or measure becomes the logical choice (i.e. until we feel it is in our interest to define it). I would be very interested to see if NASA is working with a "different" standard, or at least has set up a different standard for a limited scope of applications.

What NASA says is irrelevant to this entire discussion. NASA (thankfully) has no regulatory authority.

NASA doesnt have regulatory authority, but as an agent of the US government, its official definitions, if it has them, would be (somewhat weak) evidence of international practice for the purposes of showing customary international law and for determining customary usage in US courts. If various organs of the US government were working with different definitions, this would make it difficult to argue for any particular line as the boundary. Its an indirect relevance to business applications, but to legal types it is relevant. Unfortunately lots of risk averse economic types listen to us legal types. Not to say this should be encouraged, but it happens nevertheless and must be dealt with.

But NASA's definition is irrelevant to whether the FAA has licensing authority in so far as our domestic courts are concerned (but I'm still curious if Dhr has any source to share, I've never let irrelevance stop my speculations before).

Well, as I said, since altitude isn't relevant to AST's definition, it doesn't matter what NASA says, because there's no conflict. But if any agency were to determine the official US position, I would imagine that it's NIST, rather than NASA. NASA definitions are useful only for internal NASA purposes (e.g., procedures, contracts, etc.) and have no force in international negotiations. That would be up to Foggy Bottom. For example, I'm pretty sure that the cross-waiver liabilities for the ISS were negotiated by State, not NASA.

Bureaucratic wrangling has blocked several previous private space launch attempts. There have been jurisdictional disputes, environmental impact holdups, legal blocks because nobody would sign a piece of paper saying it was okay to go ahead – because of the jurisdictional disputes. Then, when companies would try to move out of the country, they get dinged for trying to export "missile technology."

At this point, this nonsense needs to be kept to a bare minimum. There had been talk of passenger safety requirements, regardless of what said passengers actually wanted. That would have increased costs so much it would have stopped the whole thing.

Licensing details, definitions (look up the definition of "exosphere" for an idea of how far up space COULD be), and so on will come about as the industry progresses. From the examples of the computer industry, predicting future needs is often impossible, and even if many people understand an issue (like spam) politicians are very good at creating useless or detrimental law.

Early planes were very dangerous. If we had over-defined or over-regulated the industry back in the Wright days, we would still be traveling in trains.