It would be nice if they did. That would be a lot easier to deal with than their real problem, which is propulsion.

As Jeff explains, there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of spaceflight regulation in the US, both here and across the pond. As I noted on Twitter:

Let's be very clear: The FAA has NO STATUTORY BASIS 2 withhold a license from VG with regard to passenger safety. No test flights required.

— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014

The purpose of VG's test flights is to satisfy THEMSELVES that the vehicle is safe for their customers. The FAA DOES NOT care, legally.

— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014

To emphasize, you could have 1% chance of survival, and the FAA will STILL ISSUE THE LICENSE, as long as you've been made aware of that.

— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014

This, from Jeff’s article, is a good summation of the license situation, despite the recent misleading stories about it:

The emphasis on a lack of a commercial launch license, then, is something of a red herring. Virgin doesn’t need a launch license now to continue its testing regime, isn’t late now in receiving one, and given current law, there’s no reason to believe the Virgin won’t receive one before it plans to begin commercial flights, so long as as it can demonstrate the vehicle’s safety to the uninvolved public.

Yes.

[Afternoon update]

Jeff Foust also has a summary of the London Times article that’s behind their paywall, with some corrections.

[Update a couple minutes later]

If the reporting is true, and they really are finally running away from the hybrid, and particularly the rubber hybrid, as fast as possible, I wonder what the implications of this are for Sierra Nevada? Will they continue to promote hybrids, and will they still use one in Dream Chaser assuming it flies in three years? I’d bail on it myself and just buy something from XCOR, but they have a lot of PR invested in the technology, thanks to Jim Benson.